CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Historical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesIndigenous Cultures and HistoryArchaeology and ancient environmental studies

The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations

Open access
Gallivan, Martin·2011·Journal of Archaeological Research
DOI 10.1007/s10814-010-9048-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes two decades of archaeological research on Native societies in the Chesapeake, arguing that the field has moved from cultural ecology and materialism toward historically contingent, interaction-centered interpretations. It covers Woodland through early colonial periods and highlights growing collaboration with descendant communities.

Key findings

  • Recent work documents population movements, persistent places, cycles of social ranking, and ceremonial centers. At Potomac Creek, 250–300 immigrants built a compact, double-palisaded settlement in the 14th century AD; by the 15th century it became a Tidewater culture with collective ossuaries, and a later nearby village was home to a weroance.
  • Middle Woodland evidence includes the spread of shell-tempered Mockley ceramics around AD 200, possible Algonquian population movements, Delmarva Adena exchange from 500 BC to AD 1, and Abbott zoned-incised pottery at Maycock’s Point and Abbott Farm that was made from local clays despite identical decorative motifs. Fiedel’s linguistic work suggests a unified Proto-Algonquian community as late as the Middle Woodland.
  • Late Woodland developments after AD 1200 include palisaded settlements, social conflict, and varied mortuary practices; maize appears only sporadically around AD 1100 and was often tied to seasonal aggregation and ritual. Werowocomoco was occupied from the 13th century through contact, with interior concentric ditches built AD 1300–1500 and a large structure associated with Wahunsenacawh.
  • Early colonial studies show Fort-period Jamestown deposits (1607–1623) were roughly half Native American pottery, with bilateral exchange later becoming unidirectional; copper influx after 1609 undermined native authority structures. Drought coincided with the Roanoke failure and Jamestown’s “starving time,” and descendant communities have become more involved, with Virginia having eleven state-recognized tribes, Maryland at least twelve descendant communities, and more than 100 individuals reburied in Virginia.

Methods

  • Narrative review and synthesis of Chesapeake archaeology from the past two decades, selectively focusing on Woodland through contact-period studies and drawing on regional summaries and Council of Virginia Archaeologists period reviews.
  • Uses published excavations, CRM reports, ethnohistorical, linguistic, geoarchaeological, and paleoecological studies; no new primary data collection is described.
  • Organized by Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, early colonial period, and descendant communities/indigenous archaeology.

Limitations

  • The author states the review is selective and depends on prior summaries, and acknowledges that remaining omissions and errors are his own.
  • The text notes that much innovative CRM work is difficult to access, with limited availability of unpublished reports in the Chesapeake, and that lack of federal recognition for local tribes constrains consultation under NAGPRA and the National Historic Preservation Act.
  • Evident from the text: as a review, interpretations are synthesized rather than independently tested, and several debates—such as migration models, glottochronology, and cultural affiliation of the Hand site—remain unresolved.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10814-010-9048-4

Cites

223 of 223 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 115 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingcitation

    Excavations at the Island Field site identified several hundred burials dating from AD 410 to 1180.

    “Beginning in 1968, excavations at the Island Field site near the Delaware Bay identified several hundred burials dating from AD 410 to 1180 (Custer et al. 1990, p. 200).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Custer et al. 1990
  • Findingcitation

    The Island Field site exhibited traits associated with the Kipp Island phase of the Point Peninsula complex (AD 500-800), including ceramics, grave good assemblages, and mortuary patterns.

    “The site also exhibited traits associated with the Kipp Island phase of the Point Peninsula complex (AD 500-800), including ceramics, grave good assemblages, and mortuary patterns (Ritchie 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ritchie 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingcitation

    The mortuary complex at the Island Field site appeared at a time of other discontinuities in ceramics, settlement, and exchange patterns in Delaware.

    “The mortuary complex at the Island Field site appeared at a time of other discontinuities in ceramics, settlement, and exchange patterns in Delaware”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Custer et al. 1990
  • Findingnone given

    Stone tool technologies, pottery styles, and mortuary practices frequently crossed social and linguistic boundaries in the Chesapeake during the contact period.

    “Stone tool technologies, pottery styles, and mortuary practices frequently crossed social and linguistic boundaries within the Chesapeake during the contact period”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    A feature at the Ramp 3 site in Washington, DC, contained materials also associated with the Kipp Island tradition.

    “Knepper and colleagues (2006, pp. 204-206) identified a feature at the Ramp 3 site in Washington, DC, containing an antler comb, antler disks, perforated shark teeth, groundstone pendants, a stone phallic effigy, a wooden bead, and charred textile fragments, materials also associated with the Kipp Island tradition”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Knepper et al. 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. 47
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Virginia has eleven state-recognized tribes, and these groups have become involved with several archaeological projects.

    “Virginia has eleven state-recognized tribes (Moretti-Langholtz 1998;Rountree 1990), and these groups have become involved with several archaeological projects (e.g., Atkins 2009b; Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2007;Hantman 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Moretti-Langholtz 1998

      The citation to Moretti-Langholtz is attached to the number of state-recognized tribes, not to the separate archaeological-project claim. The paper says recognition of the Monacan brought Virginia’s total to eight in 1988 (Additional information; page unavailable), but our copy does not substantiate the cited figure of eleven. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Rountree 1990

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Atkins 2009b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Grit-tempered Varina and Prince George ceramics have a long history in the James-York area, most often on interior sites that lack midden deposits.

    “Grit-tempered Varina and Prince George ceramics have a long history in the area, most often on interior sites that lack midden deposits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Blanton and Pullins 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Settlements dating after AD 1300 record a sharp population increase and a shift to dispersed communities comprising small, distinct enclaves.

    “Settlements dating after AD 1300 record a sharp population increase and a shift to dispersed communities comprising small, distinct enclaves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Blanton et al. 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Research on the James-York Peninsula has offered evidence that hunter-foragers from distinct traditions coexisted and interacted, perhaps for several centuries, beginning at the time of postulated population movements.

    “Research on the James-York Peninsula has offered evidence that beginning at the time of these postulated population movements, hunter-foragers from distinct traditions coexisted and interacted, perhaps for as long as several centuries (Blanton and Pullins 2004, pp. 89-91).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Blanton and Pullins 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    While either Mockley or grit-tempered pottery dominated each assemblage, ceramics from both wares co-occur in feature deposits.

    “While either Mockley ceramics or grit-tempered pottery dominated each assemblage, ceramics from both wares co-occur in feature deposits (Blanton and Pullins 2004, p. 78).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Blanton and Pullins 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Shell-tempered Mockley ceramics appear after AD 200 and generally occur at midden sites in estuarine locations.

    “Shell-tempered Mockley ceramics appear after AD 200 and generally occur at midden sites in estuarine locations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Blanton and Pullins 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The role of cultigens varied widely in the Delaware, Potomac, and Susquehanna valleys, as did community patterns including dispersed hamlets, palisaded villages, and nucleated towns.

    “The role of cultigens varied widely in this area, as did community patterns that included dispersed hamlets, palisaded villages, and nucleated towns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stewart 1993

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Bioarchaeological evidence of Chesapeake pandemics before colonial settlement has not been identified, and systematic research in adjacent areas indicates that widespread disease and death either followed direct contact or was largely absent.

    “Bioarchaeological evidence of Chesapeake pandemics preceding colonial settlement has not been identified, and systematic research in adjacent areas indicates that widespread disease and death either followed direct contact (Ward and Davis 1991) or was largely absent (Gagnon 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ward and Davis 1991
    • cites Gagnon 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Until recently, precontact archaeology in the Chesapeake was seen as a parochial backwater, and researchers there were reluctant to engage the discipline's epistemological debates.

    “Until fairly recently, the precontact archaeology of the Chesapeake has been characterized as a parochial backwater where researchers have been reticent to join the discipline's epistemological debates”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mouer 1997 source
    • cites Waselkov 1997 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Research into what artifact styles, cultural boundaries, and ceremonial centers meant socially has raised the prospect that precontact Chesapeake archaeology could ground a long-term Native history spanning the contact/precolonial divide.

    “Efforts to understand the social significance of artifact styles, cultural boundaries, and ceremonial centers have opened the possibility of a new era in which precontact Chesapeake archaeology could become the basis for a long-term history of native societies that crosses the contact/precolonial divide in a seamless way”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hodder 1987
    • cites Nassaney and Johnson 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Present-day American Indians are recovering their histories in ways that contest archaeological practice and widen views of the Chesapeake past.

    “Contemporary American Indians are also reclaiming their pasts in ways that challenge archaeological practices and further broaden perspectives on the Chesapeake past.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Some leaders of the newer historically oriented Chesapeake archaeology had earlier supported systemic cultural models, neo-evolutionary typologies, and adaptationist accounts.

    “Several leaders of the more historically oriented archaeology beginning to emerge in the Chesapeake had, in previous years, been advocates of systemic models of culture, neo-evolutionary typologies, and adaptationist explanations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Although the best such efforts provided useful frameworks for material culture, settlement patterns, and subsistence, these approaches constrained interpretation in the region's archaeology.

    “Although the best examples of such efforts have provided effective frameworks for material culture, settlement patterns, and subsistence regimes, it is also clear that these approaches have placed interpretive constraints on the region's archaeology.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The prominent role of avocationalists in studying Native sites led to extensive excavation and to archaeology sometimes less attuned to developments in other North American regions.

    “The prominent role played by avocationalists in the study of native sites, particularly in Virginia (MacCord 1990) but also in Maryland (Curry 1999), has resulted in extensive excavation along with archaeology that is at times less attuned to developments influencing other North American regions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites MacCord 1990

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Curry 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The Potomac Creek research is a prominent example of recent Chesapeake archaeology and highlights themes that have grown more important in the region over the last two decades.

    “As a prominent example of recent Chesapeake archaeology, the Potomac Creek research highlights themes that have become more important in the region during the last two decades”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Potomac Creek case is a prominent example whose themes represent broader recent Chesapeake archaeology.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the Chesapeake, the Middle Woodland stands out as a time when estuarine resources were used more heavily and shell-tempered pottery spread regionally; these changes may stem from incoming populations, indigenous groups adopting new practices, or both.

    “The Middle Woodland, then, emerges as the period when a shift to increased reliance on estuarine resources coincided with the regional spread of shell-tempered pottery, developments that may have resulted from the arrival of new populations and/or the adoption of new adaptations by indigenous communities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Archaeological evidence can reliably indicate social networks, ceremonial practices, and population movements.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Much archaeology in the region aimed to describe diagnostic artifacts and to understand adaptive changes to environmental settings.

    “Much of the archaeology conducted in the region has aimed at describing diagnostic artifacts and at understanding adaptive changes to environmental settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Maycock's Point ceramics seem to point not to focused exchange but to feasting practices moving across the region, and perhaps to Middle Woodland population movement as well.

    “Rather than focused exchange, the ceramics at Maycock's Point apparently highlight the regional movement of feasting practices and, possibly, of Middle Woodland populations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Archaeological evidence can reliably indicate social networks, ceremonial practices, and population movements.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In Fiedel's scenario, people moved into the Middle Atlantic and Chesapeake during the Middle Woodland.

    “Under this scenario, population movement into the Middle Atlantic region and the Chesapeake occurred during the Middle Woodland.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fiedel 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Related words for town, chief, ceremonial attendant, and fellow clan member appear across Algonquian languages, suggesting traditional social organization included big villages, totemic clans, ranked lineages, and chiefs by inheritance.

    “Protowords for town, chief, ceremonial attendant, and fellow clan member also occur across different Algonquian languages, implying that traditional social structures included large villages, totemic clans, ranked lineages, and hereditary chiefs (Fiedel 1994).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fiedel 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    House and cemetery building, along with repeated use of favored spots as shown by artifact piles, signals that persistent places grew more important and that people-landscape relations shifted.

    “The construction of houses and cemeteries and the reuse of favored locations reflected in artifact accumulations also point to the growing importance of ''persistent places'' (Littleton and Allen 2007;Schlanger 1992) and related changes in the relationship between people and landscape.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Littleton and Allen 2007 source
    • cites Schlanger 1992 source
    • Rests on an assumption: Archaeological evidence can reliably indicate social networks, ceremonial practices, and population movements.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Fiedel drew on glottochronology and reconstructed vocabulary to contend that a single Proto-Algonquian speech community lasted into the Middle Woodland.

    “has used glottochronology and protolexicon reconstruction to make the case that ''a unified Proto-Algonquian linguistic community existed as late as the Middle Woodland period.''”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fiedel 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Fiedel 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Chemical trace analysis shows that the Abbott zoned-incised ceramics at Maycock's Point and at Abbott Farm were made separately from local clays, even though their decorative designs match.

    “Trace element analysis of Abbott zonedincised pottery from Maycock's Point and Abbott Farm indicates that the two assemblages were produced independently from local clays, despite the presence of identical decorative motifs (Steadman 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Steadman 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Differences in pottery production techniques may correspond to available tempering agents, though other indications relate the pattern to two distinct social traditions that came into contact c.AD 200.

    “Such differences in pottery production techniques may simply correspond to the tempering agents available to hunterforager groups in different parts of a settlement round, though there are other indications that the pattern relates to two distinct social traditions that came into contact c.AD 200.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Fiedel finds evidence that Proto-Algonquians first developed in southern Ontario and then expanded outward from 500 BC to AD 900.

    “Fiedel (1999, p. 199) sees evidence for the initial development of Proto-Algonquians in southern Ontario and their outward movement between 500 BC and AD 900.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fiedel 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Rice argues persuasively that the precontact transition to horticulture resulted in demographic patterns among native societies that influenced early colonial settlement and subsequent agrarian and urban development.

    “Rice (2009, p. 255) argues persuasively that the precontact transition to horticulture resulted in demographic patterns among native societies that influenced the early history of colonial settlement and subsequent patterns of agrarian and urban development.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rice 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Vessel-shape analysis backs the conclusion that Abbott zoned-incised pots at Maycock's Point served as serving vessels, differing in size and form from the Mockley ceramics that make up most of the assemblage.

    “Analysis of vessel morphology supports the inference that Abbott zoned-incised vessels from Maycock's Point were serving vessels with sizes and shapes distinct from the Mockley ceramics that dominate the assemblage (Duncan and Gallivan 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Duncan and Gallivan 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Migration is emerging as a viable alternative to gradualist explanations of culture change in the Eastern Woodlands.

    “migration is emerging as a ''viable alternative'' to explanations rooted in ''gradualist assumptions'' about culture change in the region (Snow 1995, p. 59).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Snow 1995 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The spread of shell tempering across the Chesapeake may result from adaptive advantages inherent in that production method.

    “The spread of shell tempering across the Chesapeake may, in fact, result from adaptive advantages inherent in this production method.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Delmarva Adena may have involved sporadic ritualized exchange between select Chesapeake groups and Ohio Valley groups, or migration into the area of lineages tied to Adena ceremonialism.

    “Delmarva Adena may have entailed sporadic, ritualized exchange between select Chesapeake groups and those in the Ohio Valley (Custer 1989a, p. 262) or, perhaps, the migration into the area of lineages with ties to Adena ceremonialism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Custer 1989a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: Archaeological evidence can reliably indicate social networks, ceremonial practices, and population movements.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Learning networks during late precontact centuries may have been shaped by increased sedentism and resulting social boundaries rather than by population movements.

    “Complicating such evidence though is the possibility that learning networks during late precontact centuries were shaped by increased sedentism and resulting social boundaries rather than by population movements (Klein 2003b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Klein 2003b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    More recent research has added to and challenged earlier studies by emphasizing regional diversity, social conflict, the symbolic and political force of ritual, and movement of people and material across the landscape.

    “More recent research has added to and, at times, challenged these studies by emphasizing regional diversity, social conflict, the symbolic and political force of ritual, and the movement of people and material across the landscape.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Still other researchers draw on historical anthropology and emphasize that culture is a historical product and that history is culturally ordered.

    “Still others draw from developments in historical anthropology, emphasizing that culture is a historical product and that history is culturally ordered (e.g., Sahlins 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sahlins 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Fort-period features contain copper, glass beads, and wild fauna, and roughly half of the pottery from Fort-period deposits is Native American.

    “Fort-period features contain copper, glass beads, and wild fauna.Roughly half of the pottery from Fort-period deposits is Native American.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mallios and Straube 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The inundation of copper in the Chesapeake after Wahunsenacawh's 1609 departure from Werowocomoco undermined native authority structures and contributed to contact-period social havoc.

    “The inundation of copper in the Chesapeake following Wahunsenacawh's 1609 departure from Werowocomoco undermined these authority structures and contributed to contact-period social havoc (Blanton and Hudgins 2005;Hudgins 2004;Potter 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Blanton and Hudgins 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hudgins 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Potter 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Paspahegh settlement lay five miles from Jamestown, was under Powhatan's influence, interacted intensively with colonists, and had European copper artifacts in burial contexts.

    “Located five miles from Jamestown, the settlement features the material record of a group under Powhatan's influence living in close proximity to Jamestown.The native community interacted intensively with the colonists, as reflected in the written accounts and in the presence of European copper artifacts in burial contexts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luccketti 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Place-making at Werowocomoco likely contributed to the development of social ranking in the Chesapeake after AD 1300 and to the 16th-century origins of the Powhatan chiefdom.

    “The process of place-making at Werowocomoco likely played a role in the development of social ranking in the Chesapeake after AD 1300 and in the 16th-century origins of the Powhatan chiefdom.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Native disease is documented during the 17th century after intensive colonial interaction, whereas Native American references to precolonial diseases are equivocal.

    “Native disease is indeed documented during the 17th century, following intensive colonial interaction (Rice 2009, pp. 131-134), whereas Native American references to precolonial diseases are equivocal (Rountree 1989, pp. 141-142).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rice 2009 source
    • cites Rountree 1989

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other researchers stress a narrative sequence of events around early European settlement in order to recover native histories that English perspectives overshadow.

    “Others emphasize a narrative flow of events surrounding early European settlement in an effort to extricate the histories of native communities that are overshadowed by English perspectives (e.g., Axtell 2001;Kupperman 2007;Rice 2007;Rountree 1990).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Axtell 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kupperman 2007 source
    • cites Rice 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Chesapeake contact-period studies usually begin from documentary sources, but they read the narratives and maps in quite different ways.

    “Chesapeake contact-period studies typically draw on these documentary sources as a point of departure, though the narratives and maps are read in rather distinct ways.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Barker suggested that protohistoric depopulation triggered by European-introduced epidemics was a factor in the emergence of the Powhatan political economy.

    “Barker (1992) has even suggested that protohistoric depopulation triggered by Europeanintroduced epidemics was a factor in the emergence of the Powhatan political economy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barker 1992 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These approaches begin from the premise that Native American actions in the early colonial era conformed to deeply rooted cultural structures and that linguistic, religious, and ideological layers must be considered in assessing early encounters.

    “These approaches start with the premise that Native American actions during the early colonial era accorded with deeply rooted cultural structures (Williamson 1992, pp. 368-369) and that several layers of interpretation, including linguistic, religious, and ideological, need to be considered when assessing early encounters (Haefeli 2007, p. 409;Kupperman 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Williamson 1992 source
    • cites Haefeli 2007 source
    • cites Kupperman 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some researchers reconstruct an ethnographic present at the eve of contact that captures native social structures.

    “Some researchers reconstruct an ethnographic present on the eve of contact that encapsulates the social structures of native societies (e.g. , Feest 1990;Rountree 1989;Rountree and Turner 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Feest 1990
    • cites Rountree 1989

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Rountree and Turner 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Tree-ring research indicates that year-to-year climatic variation has long characterized the Chesapeake, a fluctuation that required native societies to develop social means of alleviating resource shortfalls.

    “The tree-ring research also indicates that year-to-year climatalogical variation has long characterized the Chesapeake, fluctuation that required native societies to develop social means of alleviating resource shortfalls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stahle et al. 1998 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An ethno-ethnohistory identified culturally informed strategies by both the Powhatans and the English, suggesting that each sought to civilize the other.

    “Another study, an ''ethno-ethnohistory,'' identifies culturally informed strategies on the part of both the Powhatans and the English, suggesting that both sought to ''civilize'' the other (Gleach 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gleach 1997

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The tree-ring record suggests that extreme drought was a factor in the Roanoke Colony's failure and in Jamestown's early struggles.

    “This record suggests that extreme drought was a factor in the Roanoke Colony's failure and in Jamestown's early struggles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stahle et al. 1998 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Werowocomoco was the Powhatan political center and the scene of early colonial encounters.

    “Werowocomoco was the Powhatan political center and the scene of early colonial encounters.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gallivan et al. 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A recent study demonstrated that ritual and cosmology shaped the structures of Powhatan leadership among Virginia Algonquians.

    “For example, a recent study probes the relationship between priestly authority and chiefly power among Virginia Algonquians, demonstrating ways that ritual and cosmology framed the structures of Powhatan leadership (Williamson 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Williamson 2003

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Werowocomoco settlement had two distinct zones: a residential area along the river and an interior area marked by concentric ditches built from AD 1300 to 1500.

    “The settlement included two distinct zones: a residential area lining the river and an interior area marked by concentric ditches constructed from AD 1300 to 1500.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gallivan et al. 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    The expanded involvement of descendant communities in Chesapeake archaeology will reconnect the Native American past, present, and future in ways that begin to challenge accepted narratives of American history.

    “The expanded involvement of descendant communities in Chesapeake archaeology will, I suggest, reconnect the Native American past, present, and future in ways that begin to challenge accepted narratives of American history (Gallivan et al. in press).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gallivan et al. in press

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Recent scholarship on the contact period includes ethnohistorical reassessments that offer alternatives to a static ethnographic present and to narratives casting American Indians primarily as victims.

    “Despite the challenges of seeing beyond Jamestown, recent scholarship on the contact period has included ethnohistorical reassessments that offer alternatives to a static ethnographic present and to narratives that cast American Indians primarily as victims.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Shackel commends Custer for critically assessing his own work while noting that archaeological practice in other North American regions has already incorporated Custer's basic priorities and found that collaboration can be mutually beneficial for native communities and archaeologists.

    “More to the point, Shackel (2005) commends Custer for his willingness to critically assess his own work while noting that archaeological practice in other North American regions has already incorporated Custer's basic priorities and found that collaboration can be mutually beneficial for native communities and archaeologists.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shackel 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Custer called for changes in archaeological practice that respond to descendant communities and to ethical imperatives regarding the Native American past, with three priorities: fostering dialogue between archaeologists and Indians, allowing native priorities to shape research agendas, and incorporating a stronger preservation ethic to protect unthreatened sites.

    “Custer (2005) subsequently called for changes in archaeological practice that respond to descendant communities and to ethical imperatives regarding the Native American past.Central to his message are three priorities: fostering dialogue between archaeologists and Indians, allowing native priorities to shape research agendas, and incorporating a stronger preservation ethic to protect unthreatened”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Custer 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Contact-period archaeology has demonstrated that native strategies in the face of the colonial encounter were closely connected to the cultural structures of the precontact world and were more varied than European documentary sources allow.

    “Contact-period archaeology has demonstrated that native strategies in the face of the colonial encounter were closely connected to the cultural structures of the precontact world and were more varied than European documentary sources allow.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The mixed results of consultative and collaborative archaeology in the Chesapeake continue to raise difficult questions with broad relevance beyond the region, and collaborative archaeology there has followed various pathways, perhaps because of the absence of federally recognized tribes.

    “The mixed results of consultative and collaborative archaeology in the Chesapeake, though, continue to raise vexing questions with broad relevance beyond the region.Can archaeologists retain the independence necessary to pursue a range of questions about the native past even as we begin to share authority over the research and interpretation process with contemporary native communities?How can”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Studies that frame Jamestown as an icon of American history constrain understanding of the site by obscuring European motivations and experiences while rendering the Native American presence nearly invisible.

    “Studies that frame Jamestown as an icon of American history also constrain understanding of the site by obscuring European motivations and experiences while rendering the Native American presence all but invisible (Horning 2006a, p. 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Horning 2006a source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Other native sites from the colonial era lack European materials altogether, highlighting the range of social strategies adopted by Native Americans.

    “Other native sites from the colonial era lack European materials altogether (e.g., Stewart 1999), highlighting the range of social strategies adopted by Native Americans.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stewart 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Maryland has at least 12 native descendant communities, none officially recognized as an indigenous tribe, and efforts to establish consultation frameworks there have had mixed results.

    “Maryland has at least 12 native descendant communities, none officially recognized as an indigenous tribe, and efforts to establish frameworks for consultation have had mixed results (Hughes and Henry 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hughes and Henry 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    The King William Reservoir project, the largest CRM effort in coastal Virginia, required consultation with three Native American tribes and direct participation by Virginia Indians, but in practice consultation and native participation were fraught with miscommunication, confusion, and frustration; the project was predicated on political marginalization and exclusion of the public and was ended in

    “The King William Reservoir project, the largest CRM effort in coastal Virginia, was structured by a memorandum of agreement that required consultation with three Native American tribes and direct participation by Virginia Indians (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2007).In practice, though, consultation and native participation were fraught with miscommunication, confusion, and frustration (Atkins 2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2007 source
    • cites Atkins 2009b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Flannery 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recent passage or revision of legislation in Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware has provided consultation structures outside the federal framework and more effective protections for native burials.

    “Recent passage or revision of legislation in Virginia (Jameson 2003, pp. 32-33), Maryland (Hughes and Henry 2006, p. 113), and Delaware (Blume 2006, p. 200) has provided consultation structures outside the federal framework and more effective protections for native burials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jameson 2003

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hughes and Henry 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Blume 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Klein and Sanford observed that the snapshot of Virginia Indians in John Smith's map and writings has dominated anthropological reconstructions of the Native American world in the Chesapeake.

    “As Klein and Sanford (2004, p. 72) have observed, ''The snapshot of Virginia Indians presented in the map and writings of John Smith have dominated anthropological reconstructions of the Native American world'' in the Chesapeake.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Klein and Sanford 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Concerted efforts by native communities have resulted in repatriation and reburial of archaeologically excavated remains in Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware beginning in the 1980s, and more than 100 individuals have been reburied in Virginia in cooperation with several state-recognized tribes.

    “Concerted efforts by native communities have resulted in repatriation and reburial of archaeologically excavated remains in Virginia (Rountree and Turner 2002, pp. 227-229), Maryland (Hughes and Henry 2006, p. 113), and Delaware (Custer et al. 1990), beginning in the 1980s.During the past decade the remains of more than 100 individuals have been reburied in Virginia in cooperation with several”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Rountree and Turner 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hughes and Henry 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Custer et al. 1990

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    A potential problem with the emphasis on creolization is its tendency to mask the violence, conflict, and power differences of the colonial Chesapeake behind a focus on blended material culture, unifying practices, and ethnogenesis.

    “A potential problem inherent in this emphasis on creolization, though, is its tendency to mask the violence, conflict, and differences of power inherent in the colonial Chesapeake behind a focus on blended material culture, unifying practices, and the ethnogenesis of new peoples (Horning 2006b, p. 199).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Horning 2006b source
63 of 63

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Potomac Creek case is a prominent example whose themes represent broader recent Chesapeake archaeology.

    “As a prominent example of recent Chesapeake archaeology, the Potomac Creek research highlights themes that have become more important in the region during the last two decades”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Archaeological evidence can reliably indicate social networks, ceremonial practices, and population movements.

    “The archaeological record beginning c. 1200 BC points to the salience of cultural traditions and social networks within a ''Chesapeake'' region”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The vast majority of archaeology in the Chesapeake is and will be conducted in cultural resource management.

    “This is encouraging given that the vast majority of archaeology in the Chesapeake is and will be conducted in this setting.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The results of much cultural resource management work can be difficult to access.

    “It also is of some concern given that the results of much of this work can be difficult to access.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The same journal volume is assigned to 1998 and 2003

    Minor

    The references list volume 19 of the Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology for a 1998 article and for a 2003 article. The paper's other 1998 references to that journal instead give volume 14.

  • A duplicate reference gives conflicting page ranges

    Minor

    Two entries give the same author, year, title, journal, and volume for "Custer's journey," but assign it different page ranges.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 226 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 104

  1. Atkins, A. L. (2009b). Collaborative archaeology and Virginia Indian perspectives. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, MD.
  2. Barber, M. B., and Madden, M. J. (2006). The Maycock’s Point (44PG40) beach collection: The implications of controlled survey in a disturbed context or time and tide wait for no man. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 61: 61–81.
  3. Barfield, E. B., and Barber, M. B. (1992). Archeological and ethnographic evidence of subsistence in Virginia during the Late Woodland period. In Reinhart, T. R. (ed.), Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond, pp. 225–248.
  4. Blanton, D. B. (1992). Middle Woodland settlement systems in Virginia. In Reinhart, T. R., and Hodges, M. E. (eds.), Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Archeologial Society of Virginia, Richmond, pp. 65–96.
  5. Blanton, D. B. (2002). Dismal Swamp prehistory as represented at the Magnolia site, Suffolk, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 57: 38–48.
  6. Blanton, D. B. (2003). Late Archaic in Virginia: An updated overview. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 58: 177–205.
  7. Blanton, D. B., and Hudgins, C. C. (2005). Archaeological evidence for native prestige commodity devaluation: Analysis of copper artifacts from 44YO687 and 44YO693. In Blanton, D. B. (ed.), Archaeological evaluation of eight prehistoric-Native American sites at Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, Virginia. Report submitted to the Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, VA, pp. I1–I14.
  8. Blanton, D. B., Pullins, S. C., and Deitrick, V. L. (1999). The Potomac Creek Site (44ST2) Revisited, Research Report Series No. 10, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
  9. Blick, J. P. (2000). The Quiyoughcohannock ossuary ritual and the Huron feast of the dead: A case for cultural diffusion? Proceedings of the Sixth Internet World Congress for Biomedical Sciences, Ciudad Real, Spain.
  10. Carbone, V. A. (1976). Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.
  11. Cross, D. (1956). Archaeology of New Jersey, Volume 2: The Abbott Farm, Archaeological Society of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Museum, Trenton.
  12. Curry, D. C. (1999). Feast of the Dead: Aboriginal Ossuaries in Maryland, Maryland Historic Trust, Crownsville.
  13. Custer, J. F. (1987b). Late Woodland ceramics and social boundaries in southeastern Pennsylvania and the northern Delmarva Peninsula. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15: 13–27.
  14. Custer, J. F. (1994b). Stability, Storage and Culture Change in Prehistoric Delaware: The Woodland I Period (3000 BC-AD 1000), Center for Archaeological Research, University of Delaware, Newark.
  15. Davidson, T. E. (2004). The colonoware question and the Indian bowl trade in colonial Somerset County, Maryland. In Blanton, D. B., and King, J. A. (eds.), Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 244–265.
  16. Dent R. J. (2005) The Winslow site: Household and community archeology in the middle Potomac Valley. Maryland Archeology 41(12): 1–51.
  17. Dent, R. J., and Jirikowic, C. A. (2001). Accokeek Creek: Chronology, the Potomac Creek complex, and Piscataway origins. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 17: 39–58.
  18. Dietler, M., and Hayden, B. (2001). Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
  19. Duncan, J. F., and Gallivan, M. D. (2006). Competitive cycling in Middle Woodland Tidewater Virginia: The view from Maycock’s Point. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Virginia Beach, VA.
  20. Egloff, K. T. (1989). Native American Sites in the Fall Line Transition Study Area, Research Report Series No. 5, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
  21. Egloff, K. T., and Potter, S. R. (1982). Indian ceramics from coastal plain Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10: 95–117.
  22. Fiedel, S. J. (1994). Some inferences concerning proto-Algonquian economy and society. Northeast Anthropology 48: 1–9.
  23. Fiedel, S. J. (1999). Algonquians and Iroquoians: Taxonomy, chronology, and archaeological implications. In Williamson, R. F., and Watts, C. M. (eds.), Taming the Taxonomy: Toward a New Understanding of Great Lakes Archaeology, Eastend Books, Toronto, pp. 193–204.
  24. Fleming, S., and Swann, C. (1994). Technical analysis of copper-base artifacts. In Luccketti, N. M. (ed.), Paspahegh archaeology: Data recovery investigations of site 44JC308 at the Governor’s Land at Two Rivers, James City County, Virginia. Report submitted to the Governor’s Land Associates, Williamsburg, VA, pp. 244–257.
  25. Gagnon, C. M. (2004). Stability in a time of change: Contact period health in the lower Susquehanna Valley Archaeology of Eastern North America 32: 101–121.
  26. Gallivan, M. D. (1997). Spatial analysis of John Smith’s map of Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 13: 145–160.
  27. Gallivan M. D. (2009). The Chickahominy River survey: Native settlement in Tidewater Virginia, AD 200 - 1600. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 25: 73–83.
  28. Gallivan, M. D., and McKnight, J. W. (2008). Emerging patterns in Chesapeake ethnobotany. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, MD.
  29. Gallivan, M. D., Harpole, T., Brown, D. A., Moretti-Langholtz, D., and Turner, E.R., III (2005). The Werowocomoco Research Project: Background and 2003 Archaeological Field Season Results, Research Report Series No. 1, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
  30. Gallivan, M. D., Woodard, B., and Shephard, C. J. (2008). Chesapeake frontiers and Algonquian community construction before and after contact. Paper presented at the Archaeology of Frontiers in the Southeast Conference, Columbia, SC.
  31. Gallivan, M. D., Blakey, M. F., Mahoney, S. S., Shephard, C. J., Mahoney, M. A., Fitzgerald, J. A., Hayden, A. K., McKnight, J. W., Golenishcheva-Coonan, N., Ogborne, J. H., Heinsman, B. E., Volbrecht, C. M., Heinsman, S. E., and Burke, P. B. (2009). The Chickahominy River Survey: Native Communities in Tidewater Virginia, AD 200–1600, Archaeological Research Report Series No. 2, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
  32. Gardner, W. M. (1982). Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An overview. In Moeller, R. (ed.), Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, CT, pp. 53–86.
  33. Goddard, I. (1978). Eastern Algonquian languages. In Trigger, B. G. (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 70–77.
  34. Gregory, L. B. (1983). Zoned pottery from the Hatch site (44PG51), Prince George County, Virginia. The Chesopiean 21: 2–8.
  35. Haile, E. W. (ed.) (1998). Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade, 1607–1617, RoundHouse, Champlain, VA.
  36. Hantman, J. L. (1993). Relations between Powhatan and the piedmont Monacans. In Rountree, H. C. (ed.), Powhatan Foreign Relations, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 94–111.
  37. Hantman, J. L. (2004). Monacan meditation: Regional and individual archaeologies in the contemporary politics of Indian identity. In Shackel, P., and Chambers, E. (eds.), Places in Mind: Archaeology and Communities, Routledge, New York, pp. 19–34.
  38. Hantman, J. L. (in press). Long-term history, positionality, contingency, hybridity: Does rethinking indigenous history reframe the Jamestown Colony? In Scheiber, L., and Mitchell, M. (eds.), Across the Great Divide, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
  39. Hantman, J. L., and Dunham, G. H. (1993). The enlightened archaeologist. Archaeology 46(3): 44–49.
  40. Hantman, J. L., and Gold, D. L. (2002). The Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: Ranking and dynamic political stability. In Anderson, D. G., and Mainfort, R. C. (eds.), The Woodland Southeast, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 270–291.
  41. Hantman, J. L., Wood, K., and Shields, D. (2000). Writing collaborative history: How the Monacan Nation and archaeologists worked together to enrich our understanding of Virginia’s native peoples. Archaeology 53(5): 56–59.
  42. Hodges, M. E. (1993). The archaeology of Native American life in Virginia in the context of European contact: Review of past research. In Reinhart, T., and Pogue, D. J. (eds.), The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond, pp. 1–66.
  43. Hodges, M. E. (1998). Native American Settlement at Great Neck: Report on VDHR Archaeological Investigations of Woodland Components at Site 44VB7, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 1981–1987, Research Report Series No. 9, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
  44. Hodges, M. E. (2004). Late Woodland period research in Virginia: Recent trends and contributions. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 59: 1–13.
  45. Hudgins, C. C. (2004). Old World industries and New World hope: The Industrial role of copper at Jamestown. Journal of the Jamestown Rediscovery Center 2 (http://www.preservationvirginia.org/rediscovery/pdf/hudginshigh.pdf).
  46. Hughes, R. B., and Henry, D. L. (2006). Forging new partnerships: Archaeologists and the native people of Maryland. In Kerber, J. E. (ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 112–128.
  47. Jirikowic, C. A. (1995). The Hughes Village Site: A Late Woodland Community in the Potomac Piedmont, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC.
  48. Johnson, W. C., and Speedy, D. S. (1992). Cultural continuity and change in the Middle and Late Woodland periods in the upper James estuary, Prince George County, Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 8: 91–107.
  49. Kavanagh, M. (1982). Archaeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region, Frederick and Caroline Counties, Maryland, Division of Archeology, Maryland Geological Survey, Baltimore.
  50. King, J. A., and Chaney, E. E. (2004). Did the Chesapeake English have a contact period? In Blanton, D. B., and King, J. A. (eds.), Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 193–221.
  51. Klein, M. (1994). An Absolute Seriation Approach to Ceramic Chronology in the Roanoke, Potomac and James River Valleys, Virginia and Maryland, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
  52. Klein, M. J. (1997). The transition from soapstone bowls to Marcey Creek ceramics in the Middle Atlantic region: Vessel technology, ethnographic data, and regional exchange. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25: 143–158.
  53. Klein, M. J. (2003a). The past decade of research on the Early Woodland period in Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 58: 207–231.
  54. Klein, M. J. (2003b). Ceramics, style, and society in the Potomac Valley of Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 19: 25–35.
  55. Klein, M. J., and Sanford, D. W. (2004). Analytical scale and archaeological perspectives on the contact era in the Northern Neck of Virginia. In Blanton, D. B., and King, J. A. (eds.), Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 47–73.
  56. Lapham, H. (2004). “Their complement of deer-skins and furs”: Changing patterns of white-tailed deer exploitation in the seventeenth-century southern Chesapeake and Virginia hinterlands. In Blanton, D. B., and King, J. A. (eds.), Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 172–192.
  57. Levine, N. (2006). Animals and domesticated landscapes: A case study of human-animal relationships in the Middle and Late Woodland coastal plain of Virginia. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
  58. Little, B. J. (1995). National Capital Area Archaeological Overview and Survey Plan, Occasional Report No. 13, Regional Archaeological Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.
  59. Luckenbach, A. H., Clark, W. E., and Levy, R. S. (1987). Rethinking cultural stability in eastern North American prehistory: Linguistic evidence from Eastern Algonquian. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 3: 1–33.
  60. MacCord, H. A. (1990). The Archeological Society of Virginia: A Forty-year History, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
  61. Mallios, S. W., and Straube, B. (2000). 1999 Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia, Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Richmond.
  62. Mann, C. C. (2007). America, found and lost. National Geographic 211(5): 32–67.
  63. McAvoy, J. M., and McAvoy, L. D. (1997). Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, Research Report Series No. 8, Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, VA.
  64. McKnight, J. W., and Gallivan, M. D. (2007). The Virginia archeobotanical database project: A preliminary synthesis of Chesapeake ethnobotany. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 62: 181–189.
  65. McLearen, D. C. (1991). Phase III Archaeological Investigations of the “522 Bridge Site” (4WR329) Warren County, Virginia, Archaeological Research Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
  66. McLearen, D. C., and Mouer, L. D. (1989). Middle Woodland typology and chronology in the lower James River valley, Virginia. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Rehoboth Beach, DE.
  67. McWeeney, L., and Kellogg, D. C. (2001). Early and Middle Holocene climate changes and settlement patterns along the eastern coast of North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 29: 187–212.
  68. Means, B. K., and Klein, M. (2003). Theory and Middle Atlantic archaeology: Collected papers. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 19: 1.
  69. Messner, T. C. (2008). Woodland Period People and Plant Interactions: New Insights from Starch Grain Analysis, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
  70. Miller, H. M. (2001). Living along the “great shellfish bay”: The relationship between prehistoric peoples and the Chesapeake. In Curtin, P. D., Brush, G. S., and Fisher, G. W. (eds.), Discovering the Chesapeake: The History of an Ecosystem, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 109–126.
  71. Moore, L. H. (1993). Piscataway, Doeg, and the Potomac Creek complex. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 9: 117–138.
  72. Mouer, L. D. (1983). A review of the archaeology and ethnohistory of the Monacans. In Wittkofski, J. M., and Browning, L. E. (eds.), Piedmont Archaeology: Recent Research and Results, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond, pp. 21–39.
  73. Mudar, K. M., Jones, E. B., and Verano, J. W. (1998). Cultural identity and mortuary behavior: An examination of the Hand site cemetery (44SN22), Southampton County, Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26: 133–162.
  74. Noël Hume, I. (1962). An Indian ware of the colonial period. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 17: 2–14.
  75. Opperman, A. F. (1992). Middle Woodland subsistence at Maycock’s Point (44PG40), Prince George County, Virginia. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
  76. Petraglia, M. D., and Cunningham, K. (2006). Native American archaeology in the Delmarva: New meanings and an expanded approach to Delaware archaeology. In Kerber, J. E. (ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 213–229.
  77. Petraglia, M. D., Bupp, S. L., Fitzell, S. P., and Cunningham, K. W. (2002). Hickory Bluff: Changing Perceptions of Delmarva Archaeology, Archaeology Series No. 175, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover.
  78. Phelps, D. S. (1983). Archaeology of the North Carolina coast and coastal plain: Problems and hypotheses. In Mathis, M. A., and Crow, J. J. (eds.), The Prehistory of North Carolina, North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, pp. 1–51.
  79. Porter, B. J. (2006). The Camden and Posey archaeological sites: A question of Native American identity in the late 17th century Chesapeake. In King, J. A. (ed.), A comparative archaeological study of colonial Chesapeake culture, final report. Report submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC, pp. 68–72.
  80. Potter, S. R. (1982). An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement Patterns, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
  81. Potter, S. R. (2002). Power and politics in ancient Washington. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Virginia Beach, VA.
  82. Potter, S. R. (2009). Rethinking Captain John Smith’s map of Virginia. The Portolan 75: 9–16.
  83. Reinhart, T. R., and Hodges, M. E. (eds.) (1991). Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Special Publication No. 23, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
  84. Reinhart, T. R., and Hodges, M. E. (eds.) (1992). Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Special Publication No. 29, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
  85. Sassaman, K. E. (2005). Structure and practice in the Archaic Southeast. In Pauketat, T. R., and Loren, D. D. (eds.), North American Archaeology, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 79–107.
  86. Shaffer, G. D. (2005). Nanticoke Indian burial practices: Challenges for archaeological interpretation. Archaeology of Eastern North America 33: 141–162.
  87. Shaffer, G. D. (2008). Decorated soapstone vessels discovered along the lower Susquehanna River. Archaeology of Eastern North America 36: 1–24.
  88. Shephard, C. J. (2008). Places of power: The community and regional development of native Tidewater palisades post AD 1200. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
  89. Siebert, F. T. (1967). The original home of the proto-Algonquian people. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 214, Anthropology Series 78: 13–45.
  90. Steadman, L. (2008). Uncovering the origins of Abbott zoned incised pottery in coastal plain Virginia: An LA-ICP-MS study. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 24: 79–86.
  91. Stewart, R. M. (1992). Observations on the Middle Woodland period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic regional perspective. In Reinhart, T. R., and Hodges, M. E. (eds.), Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Archeologial Society of Virginia, Richmond, pp. 1–38.
  92. Stewart, R. M. (1995). The status of Woodland prehistory in the Middle Atlantic region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 23: 177–206.
  93. Stewart, R. M. (1998a). Thoughts on the origins of ceramic use and variation. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 14: 1–12.
  94. Stewart, R. M. (1998b). Unraveling the mystery of zoned decorated pottery: Implications for Middle Woodland society in the Middle Atlantic region. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 14: 161–182.
  95. Stewart, R. M. (1999). The Indian town of Playwicki. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 15: 35–53.
  96. Stewart, R. M. (2000). The intent of the law: A success story? Clemson Island studies and compliance archaeology. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 16: 35–43.
  97. Turner, E. R., III (1976). An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Study of the Evolution of Rank Societies in the Virginia Coastal Plain, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
  98. Turner, E. R., III (1978). An intertribal deer exploitation buffer zone for the Virginia coastal plain-piedmont regions. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 32: 42–48.
  99. Turner, E. R., III (1982). A reexamination of Powhatan territorial boundaries and population, ca. AD 1607. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 37: 45–64.
  100. Turner, E. R., III (1986). Difficulties in the archaeological identification of chiefdoms as seen in the Virginia coastal plain during the Late Woodland and early historic periods. In Custer, J. F. (ed.), Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, University of Delaware Press, Newark, pp. 19–28.
  101. Turner, E. R., III (1992). The Virginia coastal plain during the Late Woodland period. In Reinhart, T. R., and Hodges, M. E. (eds.), Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond, pp. 97–136.
  102. Turner, E. R., III (1993). Native American protohistoric interactions in the Powhatan core area. In Rountree, H. (ed.), Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500 - 1722, University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, pp. 76–93.
  103. Turner, E. R., III (2004). Virginia Native Americans during the contact period: A summary of archaeological research over the past decade. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 59: 14–24.
  104. Turner, E. R., III, and Opperman, A. F. (1993). Archaeological manifestations of the Virginia Company period: A summary of surviving Powhatan and English settlements in Tidewater Virginia, circa 1607-1624. In Reinhart, T. R., and Pogue, D. J. (eds.), The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond, pp. 67–104.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gallivan, M.
Affiliations
William & Mary (US)
Corresponding author
Gallivan, Martin
ORCID
Gallivan, Martin
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-12-15
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
281-325
ISSN
  • 1059-0161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7756
DOI
10.1007/s10814-010-9048-4
OpenAlex
W2027118651
Semantic Scholar
4424f232d97f2f67c337ecc8fba8c3789a1b1897
Cited by
20
References
226
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Archaeological Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
McKnight Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
Keywords
Native American societies, Chesapeake, Woodland period, human mobility, social ranking, colonial contact, Native American agencies, historical contingency, social interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review