Archaeological Indicators of Native American Influences on English Life in the Colonial Chesapeake

by Edward E. Chaney

Paper Presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology in York, England.

Abstract

All too often, archaeological studies of the Contact Period, as it occurred in the Chesapeake Bay region, have focused on the European impact on Native American life. The opposite side of this interaction—the effects Indians had on colonial life—has been downplayed. Indian-made artifacts found on colonial sites are often seen as little more than indicators of “trade.” However, a closer examination of the evidence suggests that the Native impact on English settlers was more profound. Using data from the NEH-funded Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture Project, Indian artifacts from a number of Chesapeake sites are being studied. This paper shows that pipes, pottery, beads, and other components of Indian material culture played an important and functional role in early colonial life. Indian materials eventually took on antiquarian significance as well. As a comparison to this study of colonial sites, the same data categories are then applied to two 17th-century Native American sites included as part of the NEH project, in order to measure the influence of European material culture on Indian life.

Archaeologists working on Indian sites dating to the Contact Period in English colonial North America have long noted the presence of European artifacts, the mechanisms by which they got there, and their role in Native American society. However, with a few exceptions, the opposite is not true; the significance of Indian-made artifacts found on 17th and 18th century European sites has generated little comment. This makes for an interesting paradox. Surely, if European culture and material goods had a profound affect on Native American life, then Indians and their manufactured items must too have had a not insubstantial impact on the newly arrived settlers. Indeed, ethnohistorians, and some archaeologists, have long used a term to describe the interaction between Indians and Europeans (and Africans), and the affect this interaction had on all involved: creolization. However, for perhaps a majority of archaeologists, Contact Period studies largely emphasize the “mutual discovery, conflict, accommodation, military and political subjugation of Indian people, and modern Indian struggles to preserve their cultural heritage” (Grumet 1995:11).

Although American historical archaeologists in recent years have increasingly expanded their research beyond the sites of European settlers, it is still true that much of what we know about Indian influences on these colonists comes from the work of historians. As they have pointed out, “relations with Native Americans remained at the center of colonial society and policy from the first days of settlement” (Pencak 2001:334). The Native American influences may have been quite profound: the very definition of “English” identity that evolved in the 16th and 17th centuries was in part a response to their first sustained interactions with cultural “Others,” particularly Africans and Native Americans. The English found models for ideal behavior in Indian lifeways and practices, such as moderation in eating and drinking, and their “simplified” cultures were seen as having virtues which the English had lost as they joined an increasingly cosmopolitan world (Vaughan and Vaughan 1997; Kupperman 2000). And just as English identity was altered by colonial encounters with cultural others, so too was a new “American” identity forged in the creolization process. Some have even suggested that one of the foundations of American “uniqueness”—the U.S Constitution—owes a debt to the ideals of the Iroquois Confederacy (Callaway 1997:187-188).

Of course, the creolization processes that led to a new American identity did not just exist in the realm of ideas. As we all learned in grade school, through the story of Squanto teaching the Pilgrims how to plant corn with fish heads, superior Native American tools and techniques were quickly adopted by European settlers. Indian fishing and hunting methods, along with agricultural practices, crops, and food preparation skills, soon became part of colonial household repertoires. The use of certain Indian material items, such as canoes and moccasins, was widespread. Trade brought various Native American exchange items, like shell beads, into the colonial economy, and a New World plant—tobacco—was long the leading currency in the colonial Chesapeake.

Documentary evidence suggests some of the mechanisms by which Indian material culture entered colonial households. Trade, of course, was an important means of bringing Indian objects to settlers. Indians working as employees, servants, or slaves of the English would have been another source of Native American goods. For example, settlers often employed Indians as hunters. Indian men and women also traveled from plantation to plantation, manufacturing canoes. Indian and English men served in joint military expeditions, where they quartered together. Indians who attended governmental meetings would be lodged with colonists for several days, at public expense, and those who traveled alone for other purposes often sought overnight accommodations with settlers, and would reciprocate when Europeans passed near their homes (Merrell 1979:558-559). Interactions at the household level took place often enough that the Maryland Assembly had to pass a law in 1654 which, at least temporarily, forbade settlers from “entertaining” Indians in their homes, except for those who arrived under “publique Treaty” (Archives of Maryland I:348). There were other, less common, routes for Native American goods to enter colonial households. One was through theft (Archives of Maryland IV:166, 209, 269). This could include even grave robbing, as occurred on the Maryland Eastern Shore in 1686 when Englishmen allegedly stole skins and shell beads from a recently deceased Indian leader (Marye 1936:41). And perhaps most interestingly, there was prostitution: in 1644, an English woman was accused of sleeping with an Indian in exchange for shell beads (Archives of Maryland IV:258). All of these mechanisms, and no doubt many more, could have brought Native American goods into English households.

In the 17th century, Indian goods at Chesapeake colonial households had a largely functional purpose, as suggested by contemporary documents. For example, eight “Indian bowles” were listed in the 1688 probate inventory of one Maryland settler (Inventories 9:481-485). These vessels were stored in his milk house, along with other “earthen potts,” presumably of European manufacture. No Indian wares were listed in the other buildings on the plantation. This suggests that, when present, Indian ceramics were not considered curiosities for display, but were used in food preparation or storage. In fact, early English writers praised the strength and versatility of Native American pottery, which could be used over an open fire (Kupperman 2000:164), and in Tidewater Virginia, Indian-made colonoware ceramics continued to be used throughout the 18th century (Noel Hume 1962; Henry 1992). Indian clay tobacco pipes, while largely absent from the documentary record (as are their European counterparts), also clearly found ready acceptance by colonial settlers. And lengths of shell beads, which were an integral part of Chesapeake exchange systems, are sometimes found in the probate inventories of early settlers. After the mid-17th century, references to shell beads become rare, but do still occasionally occur. As late as 1682, shell beads were exchanged as part of a peace treaty between New York Indians and the Maryland and Virginia governments (Archives of Maryland LXV:41; XVII:212). Indian-made baskets, mats, and canoes also appear in early probate inventories.

Although Indian material culture became less common in probate inventories during the course of the 17th century, it is evident that their use was not mere frontier expediency, to be abandoned as European goods became more available. For example, during the 1676 Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia, a Pamunkey Indian village was attacked and looted of “Indian matts, Basketts, matchcotes, parcells of Wampampeag and Roanoke...in Baggs, skins, Furrs, Pieces of Lynneen, Broad cloth, and divers sorts of English goods” (quoted in Oberg 1999:205). The English would not have taken these Indian goods unless they had some value to them. That same year, the Virginia Assembly passed an act which decreed that settlers were to only use corn to pay Indians for “fish, canooes, bowles, mattes or basketts” (quoted in Henry 1992:20). Ten years later, a traveler in Virginia noted that Indian women made pottery and pipes, and that the English paid for these pots with the amount of corn the vessels could hold (ibid.). Clearly, the English were still using a wide range of Indian-made goods during the latter part of the 17th century.

However, by the 18th century, many of the Indian goods appearing in the homes of European settlers were taking on a new role—that of curio. In Europe, these goods had long been treated as novelties and collector items. For example, in 1638, Lord Baltimore, then living in England, asked Maryland Governor Leonard Calvert to send him enough Indian mats to cover the floor of a room (Hall 1967:158). In the Charter of Maryland, Lord Baltimore was required to present to the King of England two Indian arrows as annual tribute. Indian clothing, pouches, and belts decorated with shell beads were often found in European collections. And in 1686, a Virginian sent to a friend in England “an Indian habit for your boy, the best I could procure amongst our neighbor Indians” (Feest 1989:622). These clothes were probably going to be used by a child playing “dress-up.” But in the 17th-century Chesapeake, there is little evidence for such collector behavior. No doubt the practical reality of colonial life precluded people from spending too much time on “hobbies.” But by the 18th century, this had begun to change. A clear example of the evolving role of Indian goods in colonial society can be seen in an incident described by Peter Kalm in 1748. He saw an Indian pot in the collection of the naturalist John Bartram, along with sherds of Native American ceramic and steatite vessels. Bartram had purchased this pot, which had been dug up from a “place where the Indians formerly lived.” To Bartram, the pot and sherds obviously had scientific significance. But interestingly, the man who first dug up the pot saw a more functional value in it, and used it to store grease (Kalm 1987[1770]:172-173).

The archaeological record of the colonial Chesapeake supports what the documents are telling us: that Indian-made objects were present in 17th and 18th-century households. This is shown in the following analysis of the sites included in the NEH-funded “Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture Project,” along with selected other sites from the region.

It must first be acknowledged that most of the NEH project sites contained prehistoric Native American artifacts. This is not surprising, given that a good habitation area in the 17th century was generally a good place to live or work prehistorically. The c.1620-1635 Jordan’s Journey Site is a good example of this. The buildings at Jordan’s Journey were constructed on top of a Protohistoric or Early Historic Weyanoke Indian village. Nine Native American houses were uncovered there. This occupation obviously produced extensive pre-colonial artifact middens. However, by focusing on Indian artifacts in primary colonial deposits, the excavators were able to tease out evidence that the English residents of Jordan’s Journey did rely on Native Americans for some food and household objects, as well as—interestingly enough—rocks from the western Piedmont that Indians apparently provided to settlers prospecting for ore deposits (Mouer et al. 1992). This focus on primary colonial deposits is essential in studying the use of Indian-made material culture at most sites.

It must also be noted that Indian-made artifacts that plausibly could have been used by settlers form a very small percentage of the objects at English colonial sites, generally less than one percent. Obviously, many of the interactions and exchanges between Indians and Europeans resulted in the colonists receiving perishable goods like baskets, mats, food, and furs, things which don’t usually leave an obvious archaeological signature. However, although the numbers are small, Indian-made items are present at a majority of the sites included in this project, indicating that many 17th century settlers experienced some form of direct or indirect contact with Native Americans.

Shell beads are generally rare on colonial sites, and only two NEH-project sites produced any. At the c. 1658-1690 Patuxent Point Site in Maryland, two beads were recovered from two pit features. At the c. 1630-1650 Sandys Site in Virginia, one bead was found. There are several possible explanations for this scarcity. One is a function of their value, since other forms of currency, like metal coinage, are also uncommon on early sites. The fragility and oftentimes small size of the beads, along with the excavation methods typically used on colonial sites, may have affected their recovery as well. At the 17th-century, Indian-occupied Posey Site in Maryland, dozens of tiny shell beads were recovered from plowzone samples water-screened through window mesh. Only a couple were recovered from the bulk of the plowzone, which was screened through ¼ inch mesh only. Fine-screening of plowzone is not standard practice in the Chesapeake, so it is not surprising that shell beads are rarely reported.

Pottery of Indian manufacture is somewhat more common on 17th-century sites. At Jordan’s Journey, more than half of the Native American ceramics recovered were protohistoric Gaston and Roanoke wares. Most of these were no doubt associated with the Weyanoke Indian village. However, some were found in contexts that suggested possible European use. For example, in one small cellar, which was apparently quickly filled in after abandonment in the 1620s, 21 protohistoric sherds were recovered, including five rim fragments from a single vessel. In another feature, a sawpit, protohistoric sherds made up 58% of the Indian ceramic assemblage in the lower layers, which consisted of surface soils that had slumped into the pit. This percentage was exactly the same as that found on the site as a whole. However, in the pit’s upper layers, which represented deliberate trash disposal by the site’s English inhabitants, 68% of the Indian ceramics were protohistoric. Although the difference between the sawpit’s upper and lower layers was only 10%, this was enough to suggest to the excavators that at least some of the Indian pottery in the pit came from colonial use. At the Rich Neck Site in Virginia, occupied from c. 1640 until the late 1600s, over 400 sherds of Indian-made colonoware were recovered, many of which were from European-style vessels. (Colonoware was also found at the c. 1630-1650 Reverend Buck Site in Virginia, but most appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean origin). At the c. 1651-1685 Compton Site in Maryland, large, mendable sherds of a Potomac Creek cord-impressed vessel were recovered from a pit. Wood ash, daub, and domestic refuse in the pit indicated it was filled when a nearby hearth was cleaned. The size of the sherds and their lack of wear suggest they were used in the 17th century, rather than being redeposited prehistoric material (Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1989). Thirty fragments of a Potomac Creek cord-marked vessel with a European-style rim were recovered from Maryland’s c. 1690-1711 King’s Reach Site, in association with a structure believed to have functioned as a quarter. The vessel was probably used by the servants occupying the quarter (Pogue 1997).

Terra cotta pipes are the most common type of Indian-made artifact found on colonial sites. Terra cotta pipes come in a variety of forms, and their origin has been the subject of much debate. It is likely that Europeans, Africans, and Indians all played a role in their manufacture, but it can be suggested with some reliability that molded pipes in European forms were made by colonists, while handmade pipes with traditional Native American decorative motifs were made by Indians.

The terra cotta pipe assemblages at the NEH-project sites show great variability. For example, at CG-8, the c. 1625-1650 Virginia home of poor tenants, and at the Old Chapel Field Site, occupied by worldly Jesuits in Maryland between c.1637-1660, terra cotta made up more than half the pipe assemblages. But at CG-8, these pipes were mostly molded, while at Old Chapel Field they were mostly handmade. Given that the Jesuits were heavily involved in trade and missionary activities with Indians, this is not surprising. At the c. 1650-1690 Burle’s Site in Maryland, 16% of the pipes were terra cotta, mostly molded. The presence of a nearby English pipemaker accounts for part of this assemblage, but a few Indian-made pipes with running deer decorative motifs were found at Burle’s as well. At the roughly contemporary Patuxent Point site, terra cotta formed nearly 13 percent of the pipe assemblage, with 43 percent identified as handmade and having Native American decorative motifs. At other project sites, the proportion of terra cotta pipes is far smaller, and in some cases they are absent all together.

The abundance or absence of Indian-made artifacts on 17th-century sites does not appear to correlate closely with the status or wealth of their inhabitants, or to vary predictably through time. Rather, these objects seem to have an idiosyncratic pattern of distribution, one that probably reflects—in part—the level of contact between the European residents of a site and local Indians, as determined by geography and any social or political barriers (such as periods of warfare) that might have existed during the site’s occupation. For example, Indian artifacts are quite rare at the project sites from Anne Arundel County, Maryland, but since the Native population had largely left this area by the beginning of the 17th-century, that absence is not too surprising.

By the 18th century, functional Indian-made artifacts are largely gone from colonial sites, except in parts of Virginia where colonoware pottery was still in production. The Indian artifacts found on these later sites appear to be the by-product of curiosity and collector activity, something not evident at the 17th-century sites, with the possible exception of the c. 1658-1686 Chaney’s Hills Site in Maryland, where a celt was recovered. A celt was also recovered at Maryland’s 18th-century Bennett’s Point Site, and several greenstone axes were found in 18th-century contexts at the Homewood's Site in Maryland. Stone axes have also been reported from an 18th-century cellar in St. Mary’s City (Silas Hurry 2003, personal communication), and a celt and bannerstone were found in 18th-century contexts at the Ashcomb’s Quarter Site in Maryland (Catts et al. 1999). Perhaps most notably, a gorget, a pestle, a well-made rhyolite biface, and an abrading stone were found in a mid-18th-century trash pit at the Smith’s St. Leonard Site in Maryland. These artifacts had marine organism deposits on them that indicated that they had been collected on a nearby beach. By this time period, the Chesapeake-region Indians who had made these objects had themselves been reduced to little more than curiosities, at least in the minds of their European neighbors.

I would like to end this paper on a personal note. Years ago, Julie King and I worked on a post-1650 Indian-occupied site. It had previously been excavated by archaeologists trained in prehistory, and their simplistic identification of European artifacts on the site led them to believe that it was older than it really was. By contrast, the sites included in this current NEH-funded project were largely excavated by historical archaeologists, and with only a few exceptions—notably Jordans Journey—the Indian artifacts found there have been identified simplistically. Often Indian pottery has not been identified as to ware type, or the pipes distinguished between molded and handmade. While it is true that Indian-made objects form just a small percentage of the artifacts on most colonial sites, the near invisibility of Indians in the historical archaeology of the Chesapeake may be more a reflection of archaeological skill than the role of Indians in colonial society.

References

Archives of Maryland: 1883 Archives of Maryland, Vol. I-LXXII. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore.
Barse, William P.: 1985 A Preliminary Archeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland. Report prepared for the Department of the Navy, Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities Command.
Beverley, Robert: 1968 [1705] The History and Present State of Virginia. Edited by Louis B. Wright. Dominion Books, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Callaway, Colin G.: 1997 New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Catts, Wade P., Stuart Fiedel, Douglas C. Kellogg, Charles Cheek, Katherine Dinnel, and Kathryn Wood: 1999 Phase III Data Recovery Investigations at 18CV362, Ashcomb’s Quarter (Historic Component) and Awapantop (Prehistoric Component), Solomons Naval Recreation Center, Solomons, Calvert County, Maryland. Prepared for Calvert Soil Conservation District.
Chaney, Edward E.: 2001 Phase I Archaeological Investigations Near Mattapany, Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Report prepared for Natural Resources Branch, Naval Air Station, Patuxent River.
Chaney, Edward E. and Julia A. King: n.d. “A Fair House of Brick and Timber”: Archaeological Excavations at Mattapany-Sewall (18ST390) Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Draft report on file, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland.
Cissna, Paul Byron: 1986 The Piscataway Indians of Southern Maryland: An Ethnohistory from Pre-European Contact to the Present. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, American University.
Davidson, Thomas E.: n.d. The Colonoware Question and the Indian Bowl Trade in Colonial Somerset County, Maryland.
Deagan, Kathleen: 1983 Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community. Academic Press, New York.
Deetz, James: 1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864.
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Emerson, Matthew: 1988 Decorated Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Chesapeake. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Fagan, Brian M.: 2001 In the Beginning: An Introduction to Archaeology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Fausz, J. Frederick: 1977 The Powhatan Uprising of 1622: A Historical Study of Ethnocentrism and Cultural Conflict. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Feest, Christian F.: 1978 Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15: Northeast. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.; 1989 Indians and Europe? Editor’s Postscript. In Indians and Europe: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays, edited by Christian F. Feest, pp. 609-628. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.; 1995 The Collecting of American Indian Artifacts in Europe, 1493-1750. In America in European Consciousness, 1493-1750, edited by Karen Ordahl Kupperman, pp. 324-360. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Frick, George F., James L. Reveal, C. Rose Broome, and Melvin L. Brown: 1987 Botanical Explorations and Discoveries in Colonial Maryland, 1688-1753. Huntia 7:5-59.
Galke, Laura J. and Michael W. Kell: 2000 Phase I Archaeological Resources Inventory of the Harper’s Creek Area, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Papers No. 10. Report prepared for Natural and Cultural Resources Branch, Naval Air Station Patuxent River.
Gibb, James G.: 1996 The Archaeology of Wealth: Consumer Behavior in English America. Plenum Press, New York.
Gibb, James G. and Julia A. King: 1991 Gender, Activity Areas, and Homelots in the 17th-Century Chesapeake Region. Historical Archaeology 25(4):109-131.
Gleach, Frederic: 1997 Powhatan’s World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures. The University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Grumet, Robert: 1995 Historic Contact: Indian People and Colonists in Today’s Northeastern United States in the Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Hall, Kim F.: 1995 Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Hall, Clayton C.: 1967 Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684. Barnes and Noble, New York.
Harrington, J. C.: 1951 Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 5(4):2-3.
Henry, Susan L.: 1979 Terra-Cotta Tobacco Pipes in 17th-century Maryland and Virginia: a Preliminary Study. Historical Archaeology 13:14-37.; 1992 Physical, Spatial, and Temporal Dimensions of Colono Ware in the Chesapeake, 1600-1800. Volumes in Historical Archaeology XXIII. The South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Horn, James: 1988 “The Bare Necessities:” Standards of Living in England and the Chesapeake, 1650-1700. Historical Archaeology 22(2):74-91.
Hornum, Michael B., Andrew D. Madsen, Christian Davenport, John Clarke, Kathleen Child, and Martha Williams: 2000 Archaeological Investigations at Site 18ST704, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Report prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates for TAMS Consultants, Inc. Arlington, Virginia.
Inventories: n.d. Nathaniel Ashcomb Inventory. Prerogative Court Inventories and Accounts 1674-1718, liber 9, folio 481-485. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis.
Kalm, Peter: 1987 [1770] Peter Kalm’s Travels in North America: The English Version of 1770. Dover Publications, New York.
King, Julia A.: 1990 An Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the van Sweringen Site, St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of American Civilization, University of Pennsylvania.
King, Julia A. and Douglas H. Ubelaker: 1996 Living and Dying on the 17th Century Patuxent Frontier. Maryland Historical Trust Press, Crownsville.
Kupperman, Karen Ordahl: 2000 Indians and English: Facing Off in Early America. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc.: 1989 The Compton Site. Report prepared for CRJ Associates, Inc., Camp Springs, Maryland.
Lurie, Nancy: 1959 Indian Cultural Adjustment. In Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History, edited by James Morton Smith, pp. 33-60. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Marye, William B.: 1936 Former Indian Sites in Maryland, as Located by Early Colonial Records. American Antiquity I:40-46.
Maryland Historical Society: 1889 The Calvert Papers, No. 1. Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication 28, Baltimore.
Merrell, James H.: 1979 Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway. William and Mary Quarterly (Third Series) 36:548-570.
Miller, Henry M.: 1986 Discovering Maryland’s First City. St. Maries Citty Occasional Papers Number 2. St. Mary’s City, Maryland.; 1991 Tobacco Pipes from Pope’s Fort, St. Mary’s City, Maryland: An English Civil War Site on the American Frontier. In The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay, edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, pp. 73-88. BAR International Series 566, Oxford.
Mouer, L. Daniel: 1991 Rebecca’s Children: A Critique of Old and New Myths Concerning Indians in Virginia’s History and Archaeology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond.; 1993 Chesapeake Creoles: The Creation of Folk Culture in Colonial Virginia. In The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, edited by Dennis J. Pogue and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 105-106. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
Mouer, L. Daniel, Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Stephen R. Potter, Susan L. Henry Renaud, Ivor Noel Hume, Dennis J. Pogue, Martha W. McCartney, and Thomas E. Davidson: 1999 Colonoware Pottery, Chesapeake Pipes, and “Uncritical Assumptions.” In “I, Too, Am America:” Archaeological Studies of African-American Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 83-115. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Neiman, Fraser D. and Julia A. King: 1999 Who Smoked Chesapeake Pipes? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah. Ms. on file, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland.
Noël Hume, Ivor: 1962 An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 17(1):2-12.; 1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Oberg, Michael Leroy: 1999 Dominion and Civility: English Imperialism and Native America, 1585-1685. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Orser, Charles E., Jr.: 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. Plenum Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts.
Pencak, William: 2001 Perspectives on Britain’s First Ethnically Diverse Empire. Ethnohistory 48(1-2):323-336.
Pogue Dennis, J.: 1987 Seventeenth-Century Proprietary Rule and Rebellion: Archaeology at Charles Calvert’s Mattapany-Sewall. Maryland Archeology 23(1):1-37.; 1988 Archaeological Investigations at the “Melon Field” Site (18CV169), St. Leonard, Maryland. Ms. on file, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland.; 1991 Clay Tobacco Pipes from Four 17th Century Domestic Sites in the Lower Patuxent River Valley of Maryland. In The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe: XII. Chesapeake Bay, edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, pp. 3-26. Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies No. 14, BAR International Series 566, Oxford, England.; 1997 Culture Change Along the Tobacco Coast: 1670-1720. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, D.C.
Potter, Stephen R.: 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Porter, Amy L.: 1997 Shell and Glass Beads from the Posey Site (18CH281), Charles County, Maryland. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland. Ms. on file, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard.
Rountree, Helen C. and Thomas E. Davidson: 1997 Eastern Shore Indians of Virginia and Maryland. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Semmes, Raphael: 1937 Captains and Mariners of Early Maryland. Arno Press, New York.
Stearns, Richard E.: 1951 An Indian Site Survey of the Patuxent River, Maryland. Maryland Naturalist 21:3-20.; 1965 Indian Village Sites of the Patuxent River. Journal of the Archeological Society of Maryland 1(2):40-49.
Tate, Thad W.: 1979 The Chesapeake and its Modern Historians. In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, edited by Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, pp. 3-50. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Vaughan, Alden T. and Virginia Mason Vaughan: 1997 Before Othello: Elizabethan Representations of Sub-Saharan Africans. William and Mary Quarterly (Third Series) 54(1):19-44.
Washburn, Wilcomb: 1957 The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.