CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Historical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesIndigenous Cultures and HistoryArchaeology and ancient environmental studies

Venison Trade and Interaction between English Colonists and Native Americans in Virginia's Potomac River Valley

Open access
Hatch, D. Brad·2012·Northeast Historical Archaeology
DOI 10.22191/neha/vol41/iss1/3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Trade played a crucial role in the relationships that formed between European colonists and Native Americans during the early colonial period. In the 17th-century Potomac River valley the interactions between Native Americans and Europeans laid the foundations for the emergence of a truly creolized society. Much of the research on these relationships has focused on Maryland contexts and post-1660 contexts on Virginia’s Northern Neck. This paper examines the influence of Native Americans on the early settlement of Virginia’s Potomac Valley using the Hallowes site (44MW6) as an example. Skeletal-portion and age-distribution analyses of the deer remains at the site and a rich historical context are used to indicate trading relationships that existed between the residents of the site and local Native Americans. Through this trade, and the interaction it facilitated, people like John Hallowes participated in the increasingly complex intercultural relationships that defined the early Chesapeake.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22191/neha/vol41/iss1/3

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 62 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

  • Study design and conductcitation

    The identification of Morgan Jones-type ceramic and its use for dating features is tenuous, especially for this early period.

    “However, the identification of this ceramic type and its use to date features is tenuous at best, particularly during this early period”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McMillan, Hatch, and Heath [2014] source
  • Findingown data

    Site photographs indicate that most, if not all, features were excavated by trowel.

    “Indeed, it appears from site photographs that most, if not all, features were excavated by trowel.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The lack of artifacts in bastion fill that definitively postdate 1666, especially North Devon gravel-tempered ceramic, supports the assertion that the bastions were removed around 1666.

    “The lack of artifacts in the bastion fill that definitively postdate 1666 appears to support this assertion, particularly the lack of North Devon gravel-tempered ceramic, which is present in postmold contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    The Hallowes site dwelling was constructed in 1647 by John Hallowes.

    “the reanalysis has shown that the dwelling was constructed in 1647 by John Hallowes”
    • Also stated in: § Venison Trade and Interaction between English Colonists and Native Americans in Virginia's Potomac River Valley · hedged
      “These historical references, taken in concert with the archaeological evidence, seem to indicate that John Hallowes constructed the dwelling at the site around 1647 when he moved from Maryland to Virginia.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hatch, McMillan, and Heath 2013

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

  • Findingown data

    A post-1660 TPQ for the uppermost layer of Feature 17 is supported by a single fragment of Rhenish stoneware with manganese decoration.

    “However, a post-1660 TPQ is supported by a single fragment of Rhenish stoneware with manganese decoration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • May combine two claims. 50
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

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

    Findingown data

    Feature 17 is a large rectangular pit about 9.5 by 13 ft located approximately 10 ft north of the dwelling.

    “Located approximately 10 ft.north of the dwelling was Feature 17, a large rectangular pit feature measuring approximately 9.5 × 13 ft.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The middle layer of Feature 17 contained the largest amount of artifacts on the site, especially faunal remains, and was assigned a TPQ of ca.1640s due to a Bookbinder-style pipe stem.

    “The middle layer contained the largest amount of artifacts on the site, particularly faunal remains, and was assigned a TPQ of ca.1640s due to the presence of a Bookbinder-style pipe stem”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luckenbach and Kiser 2006: 165

      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.

    Findingown data

    The largest amount of Native American ceramics came from the uppermost layer of Feature 17, possibly indicating an early date.

    “It should also be noted that the largest amount of Native American ceramics came from this context, possibly indicating an early date.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The bastion fills do not provide a distinct construction date, but both bastions cut structural postholes, indicating they were built after the building was completed.

    “The fill for these features does not offer a distinct construction date, but the fact that both bastions cut structural postholes indicates that they were put up after the building was completed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The uppermost layer of Feature 17 was assigned a TPQ of the 1660s based on Morgan Jones-type ceramic, though that ceramic's dating use is questionable.

    “The uppermost layer was assigned a TPQ of 1660s based upon the presence of Morgan Jones-type ceramic, though, as previously mentioned, the use of this ceramic to establish dates is questionable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Feature 63 contained a large number of artifacts, especially faunal remains, and was second only to Feature 17 in number of faunal remains on the site.

    “Feature 63 contained a large number of artifacts, particularly faunal remains (it is second only to Feature 17 in terms of the number of faunal remains on the site).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Feature 17 yielded 1,508 bone and tooth pieces from at least six species; cattle, pig, and deer were most common.

    “Feature 17 contained 1,508 bone and tooth fragments representing at least six distinct species (appendix 1: tab.2).Of these fragments, 1,260 (84%) were identified at least to family.The most abundant species identified in this feature were cattle, pig, and deer”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A single deer head piece, a petrous process, came from a brick disturbance in Feature 17, so its context is questionable and probably unrepresentative.

    “Indeed, the only head fragment present, a petrous process, was excavated from the brick disturbance in Feature 17, making its context somewhat dubious and likely not representative of the rest of the assemblage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Deer teeth were not found at Hallowes, even though teeth are often better preserved and easier to identify than other bones.

    “It is also important to note that deer teeth were not found at the Hallowes site.This lack of teeth is especially intriguing considering that teeth are often much better preserved than other bones and are quite easy to identify (Reitz and Wing 1999: 117-118).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reitz and Wing 1999: 117-118

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Venison and fish accounted for 19% and 8% of total feature biomass, respectively, and were the main wild meat sources.

    “The preponderance of wild meat on the site came from venison and fish, which accounted for 19% and 8% of the total feature biomass, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The brick disturbance in Feature 17 contained few artifacts, but a TPQ of ca.1640s was assigned based on a Bookbinder-style pipe stem.

    “The brick disturbance contained few artifacts, but a TPQ of ca.1640s was assigned based upon the presence of a Bookbinder-style pipe stem”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luckenbach and Kiser 2006: 165

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Twenty-two pipestem and -bowl fragments made and decorated in Native American style were recovered from the pre-1666 features, indicating sustained interaction and trade with local Native American groups.

    “Lastly, 22 pipestem and -bowl fragments made and decorated in Native American style were recovered from the pre-1666 features, again indicating sustained interaction and trade with local Native American groups”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The bastion features had five bones (6%) with butchery marks and one bone (1%) with heat alteration through calcining.

    “Five of the bones in this assemblage (6%) showed evidence of butchery, with cut and chop marks, while only one bone (1%) showed evidence of heat alteration through calcining.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Feature 17 yielded 21 bone fragments with cut and chop marks, no carnivore gnawing, and only one instance of rodent gnawing.

    “This feature assemblage yielded 21 bone fragments with evidence of butchery in the form of cut and chop marks.This assemblage showed no evidence of carnivore gnawing and only one instance of rodent gnawing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Feature 63 yielded 855 bone and tooth pieces from at least nine species; cattle, pig, and sheepshead were most common.

    “Feature 63 contained 855 bone and tooth fragments representing at least nine species (appendix 1: tab.3).Of these 855 fragments, 442 (52%) were identified at least to family.The most abundant species in this feature were cattle, pig, and sheepshead”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All pre-1666 features contained Native American ceramics dating to the contact period, represented by Potomac Creek or Moyaone wares, both of which were found in Feature 17.

    “All of these features contained Native American ceramics dating to the contact period, represented by Potomac Creek or Moyaone wares, both of which were found in Feature 17.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the deer assemblage, denser bones did not out-survive less dense ones, so less dense bones should not be missing disproportionately from the skeletal-part study.

    “it appears that denser elements have not survived at disproportionately higher rates than less dense elements in the deer bone assemblage, meaning that less dense bones should not be underrepresented in t h e following skeletal-portion analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Feature 63 contained 28 fragments (3%) with butchery marks and no carnivore or rodent gnawing.

    “The assemblage contained 28 fragments (3%) that showed evidence of butchery in the form of chop or cut marks, and no specimens showed evidence of carnivore or rodent gnawing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The bastion features contained 85 bone and tooth fragments representing five species, with pig, deer, and cattle most abundant.

    “The bastion features contained a total of 85 bone and tooth fragments representing five distinct species (appendix 1: tab.4).Of these, 51 fragments (60%) were identified to the family level, with the most abundant species being pig, deer, and cattle.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Deer aged roughly 20-30 months made up just 7% of specimens, and none were juveniles under 20 months.

    “only 7% of the specimens were from deer between approximately 20 and 30 months, and, significantly, there were no juvenile specimens under 20 months present in the collection based on the lack of unfused elements in the early fusing category.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The skeletal-part study found more fore- and hindquarter deer parts than expected, axial parts at or above expectation, and far fewer foot and head parts.

    “Based upon the skeletal-part frequency analysis for deer in the pre-1666 features discussed above, deer forequarter and hindquarter portions were significantly more prevalent than expected, axial portions were equal to or higher than expected, while foot and, particularly, head portions were drastically underrepresented (figs.14 and 15).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Pre-1666 features yielded several Native American-style pipe-bowl pieces; three resemble work of the Nomini Maker.

    “Lastly, several pipe-bowl fragments made and decorated in the Native American style were recovered from the pre-1666 features.Three of these fragments are stylistically similar to those made by the Nomini Maker, a local Native American pipe maker from the mid-17th century”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Luckenbach and Kiser 2006: 171-173

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

    • cites McMillan 2012

      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).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The author acknowledges bias inherent in hand-picking artifacts during excavation compared with systematically screening soil.

    “I fully acknowledge, however, the bias inherent in hand-picking artifacts during excavation as compared to systematically screening soil.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    European expansion on the Northern Neck, aided by these interactions, completely dispossessed and displaced thousands of Native Americans in the area through violent and coercive means by the end of the 17th century.

    “European expansion on the Northern Neck, which was aided by these interactions, served to completely dispossess and displace thousands of Native Americans in the area through violent and coercive means by the end of the 17th century”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Sprinkle 1985

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

    • cites Potter 1993: 174-223

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is likely that tenants changed the landscape to suit their needs and may have removed the bastions during renovation.

    “It is likely that the tenants changed the landscape to suit their needs and may have removed the bastions as a part of this renovation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Even seemingly innocuous interactions between European settlers and Native Americans almost always had potential for violent consequences because of culturally charged meanings.

    “Ultimately, what may seem like relatively innocuous interactions between European settlers and their native neighbors almost always contained the potential for violent consequences due to their culturally charged meanings”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mallios 2006

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Hallowes likely had already established his home at the site before the 1651 patent because Virginia patents could take years to be granted.

    “Despite the patent date, it is likely that Hallowes had already established his home at this site, since patents could often take years to be granted officially due to the bureaucratic and corrupt nature of the process in Virginia”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Morgan 1975: 172-173, 405-406

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    By 1650 Hallowes was a county commissioner for Northumberland County, which included the site until 1653, and was known as John Hallowes of Nomini, placing him in the Nomini Bay area though not necessarily on Nomini Bay itself.

    “By 1650 he was a county commissioner for Northumberland County, which included the site until 1653, and began to be known as John Hallowes of Nomini, pinpointing his location in the Nomini Bay area of Virginia, though not necessarily on Nomini Bay itself”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Library of Virginia 1650-1652: 49

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

    • cites Library of Virginia 1653-1659: 15

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    None of the soil on the Hallowes site was screened, and most of the plowzone was removed without sampling.

    “It should be reiterated that none of the soil on the site was screened and that most of the plowzone was removed without sampling.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Native Americans in the Potomac region supplied English settlers in southern Maryland and Virginia's Northern Neck with land, place names, marriage partners, food, and economic opportunities.

    “Native Americans in the Potomac provided land, place names, marriage partners, food, and economic opportunities to the English settlers who lived in southern Maryland and on Virginia's Northern Neck”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Potter 1976

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

    • cites Fausz 1988: 63-74

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

    • cites Potter 1993

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The lack of North Devon gravel-tempered ceramic in the bastion fill and the presence of fence lines that created blind spots indicate the bastions were not present for the entire site occupation.

    “Based upon the lack of North Devon gravel-tempered ceramic in the fill and the presence of fence lines that would have created blind spots in the defenses, it appears that the bastions were not present for the entire site occupation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Relying on feature contexts provides some chronological control over the sample and some consistency in recovery technique.

    “Relying on feature contexts allows us to maintain some chronological control over the sample but also provides some degree of consistency in recovery technique.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    John Hallowes was listed as a trader with Native Americans while in Maryland and was reprimanded in Maryland and Virginia for supplying Native Americans with guns.

    “Additionally, he was listed as a trader with Native Americans while in Maryland and was reprimanded in both Maryland and Virginia for supplying Native Americans with guns”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Archives of Maryland 1887: 186, 259

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

    • cites Library of Virginia 1653-1659: 15

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The TPQs for Feature 17's layers indicate it was constructed around the same time as the dwelling, 1647, and probably completely filled after ca.1666 when tenants began to occupy the site.

    “The TPQs for these layers within Feature 17 indicate that it was constructed around the same time as the dwelling, 1647, and probably completely filled after ca.1666, when tenants began to occupy the site.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Trade-based contacts helped preserve friendly ties with nearby Native groups in a relatively unsettled area, while giving tobacco plantations protein and possibly information about local Native communities.

    “These interactions, facilitated by trade, served to maintain close relationships with native neighbors in a comparatively unsettled region, simultaneo u s l y a l l o w i n g tobacco plantations to receive important sources of protein and c o n c e i v a b l y s t a y informed about the local native populations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The lack of head fragments and low foot representation, coupled with high axial, hindquarter, and forequarter portions, likely indicate a preference for meatier venison cuts, offsite butchery, or both.

    “The lack of head fragments and low representation of foot fragments in the assemblage, coupled with the higher frequency of axial, hindquarter, and forequarter portions, likely indicate a preference for meatier cuts of venison, the butchery of animals offsite, or a combination of both (discussed below).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Native Americans needed deer brains for tanning hides.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Shifts in Native American hunting strategies and the influx of European goods from increased trade significantly affected power structures within Native American societies.

    “These shifts in hunting strategies and the influx of European goods that resulted from increased trade had significant effects on the power structures within Native American societies (Lapham 2005: 138-150).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lapham 2005: 138-150

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Deer bones were likely collected with the same frequency as cattle and pig bones, so analyses relying on deer elements are not more biased than for cattle or pigs.

    “However, given that deer bones are relatively large and readily identifiable, they were, in all likelihood, collected with the same frequency as bones from large domestics like cattle and pigs.Therefore, the following analyses that rely on deer elements should not be any more or less biased than they would be for cattle or pigs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Although several Native American ceramic fragments may have been redeposited from earlier occupations, as indicated by Middle Woodland Mockley ware also present, the use of some of these ceramics by occupants at the Hallowes site cannot be ruled out.

    “While several of these fragments may have been redeposited from earlier occupations, evidenced by the fact that Middle Woodland ware types such as Mockley were also present, the use of some of these ceramics by occupants at the Hallowes site cannot be ruled out.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Deer played a large role in Native American economies in the Chesapeake region during the early colonial period, particularly in the deerskin trade.

    “Deer played a large role in Native American economies in the Chesapeake region during the early colonial period, particularly in terms of the deerskin trade”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lapham 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).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The age ranges for the fusion groups are only estimates, and actual ages may be slightly older or younger than indicated.

    “The age ranges in months for these groups are only estimates, and as a result of the nature of epiphyseal fusion, it should be realized that the ages are relative, and the actual age for a specimen may be slightly older or younger than indicated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Deer meat, in addition to deer hides, was traded between Native Americans and colonists and may have played a more common role.

    “Deer hides, however, were not the only deer-based product traded between Native Americans and colonists; deer meat also played a significant, and perhaps more common, role.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    During the early settlement of the Potomac Valley, interaction and trade with Native Americans was common and included fur trading, land purchases, war, and marriage.

    “During the early years of settlement in the Potomac Valley, interaction and trade with Native Americans was a common occurrence and ranged from fur trading, to land purchases, to war, and to marriage”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Merrell 1979: 555-557 source
    • cites Fausz 1988: 63-74

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

    • cites Potter and Waselkov 1994

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Fusion is less precise than tooth eruption and wear, spans several months, and can be influenced by many factors.

    “The fusion of elements is not as specific as tooth eruption and wear, and often occurs within a time range of a few months and can be affected by various factors (Reitz and Wing 1999: 75).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reitz and Wing 1999: 75

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because Feature 17's orientation does not respect the dwelling's orientation, it is unlikely that the pit was a dependency associated with the house or was constructed after the house was finished.

    “Given that the orientation of this pit does not respect the orientation of the dwelling, it is unlikely that the pit was any kind of dependency associated with the house or even constructed after the house was finished.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationown data

    Large fragments of Potomac Creek and Moyaone ceramics in pre-1666 features appear to be primary deposition and were likely used and traded for by the site residents.

    “Particularly important are the large fragments, such as a Potomac Creek vessel base excavated from Feature 17 and a large colonoware vessel recovered from Feature 63, that appear to be the result of primary deposition and, thus, were likely used and traded for by the residents of the site (figs.9 and 10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The number of aged deer specimens from Hallowes is smaller than the samples Lapham used.

    “the sample size for deer specimens at Hallowes that were able to be aged is admittedly smaller than the samples used by Lapham”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The age distribution of deer at the Hallowes site helps explain the absence of cranial portions and supports the claim that Native Americans harvested and traded the deer found there.

    “The age distribution data for deer at the site offer an explanation for this question in addition to contributing to the assertion that Native Americans harvested and traded the deer recovered from the site.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Venison obtained from Native American hunters would have supplied welcome calories and dietary variety at the Hallowes site, reducing the monotony of a beef-dominated meat diet.

    “venison acquired from Native American hunters would have been a welcome source of calories for people engaged in the strenuous work associated with tobacco planting as well as a welcome source of dietary diversity at the site, easing the monotony of a meat diet dominated by beef.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Native Americans traded the meatier deer portions to Europeans at the Hallowes site and kept the head and skins.

    “trading the meatier portions to the Europeans at the Hallowes site, and then keeping the head and skins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Harvesting subadult or mature deer gave local Native Americans larger meat amounts for the Hallowes people and larger deerskins preferred in the deerskin trade.

    “By harvesting subadult or mature deer, the local Native Americans not only provided larger amounts of meat to the people at Hallowes, but also acquired larger deerskins, which were preferred in the deerskin trade (Lapham 2005: 9).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lapham 2005: 9

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The faunal evidence indicates that venison was processed offsite, with some butchery steps taking place away from the homelot, and that Hallowes residents consumed and discarded high-utility deer portions.

    “The faunal evidence does seem to indicate that venison was processed offsite with certain steps in the butchery process taking place away from the homelot and that the residents of the Hallowes site consumed and discarded high-utility portions of deer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The occupants of the Hallowes site wanted venison mainly for consumption.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Before the close of the 17th century, interactions such as those at the Hallowes site led to European population expansion on the Northern Neck and the displacement or death of thousands of Native Americans who had lived alongside their colonial neighbors.

    “Before the close of the 17th century, interactions, such as those at the Hallowes site, would lead to the expansion of the European population on the Northern Neck and the displacement or death of thousands of Native Americans that once lived alongside their colonial neighbors (Sprinkle 1985).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sprinkle 1985

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The venison trade interactions at the Hallowes site appeared mild but were greatly shaped by regional context, including low European population, political affiliations, cultural ideas about exchange, and identity.

    “Although the interactions associated with the venison trade at the Hallowes site appear mild on their surface, they were greatly influenced by the context of the region, including the low European population of Virginia's Potomac Valley, political affiliations, cultural ideas about exchange, and identity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Despite Hallowes's seemingly nonviolent interaction with natives at his Virginia home, he had participated in military actions against the Susquehannocks in Maryland a few years earlier.

    “despite Hallowes's seemingly nonviolent interaction with natives at his home in Virginia, he had participated in military actions against the Susquehannocks in Maryland just a few years earlier, illustrating that the types of interactions between Europeans and natives in the early Chesapeake could vary widely even for the same person (Archives of Maryland 1885: 119-120; Riordan 2004: 113).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Archives of Maryland 1885: 119-120

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

    • cites Riordan 2004: 113

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The age sample is very small, making its results suggestive rather than conclusive.

    “Finally, it should be recognized that the sample used for this age distribution is quite small, and its results should be seen as suggestive rather than conclusive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    A bone awl from Feature 17 might have been left by residents and probably signals trade with Native Americans; it at least shows Native American influence on local material culture.

    “A bone awl (fig.10) recovered from Feature 17 may have been deposited by the site inhabitants and is likely indicative of trade with Native Americans.At the very least this artifact reflects Native American influence on the material culture at the site.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
57 of 57

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Trade was the main mode of interaction between English and Native Americans during the early settlement period.

    “Trade was the primary form of interaction between the groups during this period.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Trading relationships between English settlers of the Potomac Valley and local Native Americans produced sustained regular contact that changed both cultures.

    “Trading relationships between the English settlers of the Potomac Valley and the native inhabitants of the region brought these two groups into sustained and regular contact that affected both cultures.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    These increasingly intimate relationships were crucial to the colonial endeavor in the early Chesapeake.

    “These increasingly intimate relationships, fostered through economic and cultural exchanges, were crucial to the colonial endeavor in the early Chesapeake.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Interactions between European settlers and Native Americans often were more complex than peace or violence, existing along a continuum and heavily dependent on context.

    “The interactions between European settlers and Native Americans, however, often were more complex than peace or violence, existing along a continuum between these two extremes and heavily dependent on the context of the encounter.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The occupants of the Hallowes site wanted venison mainly for consumption.

    “Assuming that the occupants of the site were interested in venison mainly for consumption”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Native Americans needed deer brains for tanning hides.

    “since the Native Americans required the brains for the hide-tanning process.”
6 of 6

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.

  • Age interpretation claims an absence of fused middle-group bones

    Minor

    The age-distribution discussion bases its 7% claim on a stated lack of fused specimens in the middle group. Table 10 instead lists 12 fused specimens in that group, or 29% of the analyzed specimens.

  • The site's identification code changes

    Minor

    The paper identifies the Hallowes site as 44MW6 in the main text but as 44WM6 in the figure caption and references.

  • The larger bastion is assigned to two different corners

    Minor

    The dimensions identify the northeast bastion as the larger one, but the following explanation calls it the northwest bastion.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Chaplin, Raymond E. 1971 T h e S t u d y o f A n i m a l B o n e s f ro m Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press, New York.
  2. Clark, Wayne E., and Helen Rountree 1993 The Powhatans and the Maryland Mainland. In Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722, ed. by Helen C. Rountree, 112- 135. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
  3. Curry, Dennis C. 1999 Feast of the Dead: Aboriginal Ossuaries in Maryland. Archaeological Society of Maryland and the Maryland Historical Trust Press, Crownsville.
  4. Dennis B. Blanton and Julia A. King, 244- 264. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
  5. James Clegg, Rochdale, UK. 1891 Judicial and Testamentary Business of the Provincial Court 1649/50-1657. Vol. 10 of Archives of Maryland, ed. by William Hand Browne. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore. Archives of Maryland Online <http://www.aomol.net/html/index. html>. Accessed 25 December 2013. 1898 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland 1681- 1685/6. Vol. 17 of Archives of Maryland, ed. by William Hand Browne. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore. Archives of Maryland Online <http://www.aomol. net/html/index.html>. Accessed 25 December 2013.
  6. Binford, Lewis R., and Jack B. Bertram 1977 Bone Frequencies and Attritional Processes. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, ed. by L. R. Binford, 77-153. Academic Press, New York.
  7. Dennis B. Blanton and Julia A. King, 193- 221. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
  8. Klein, Michael J., and Douglas W. Sanford 2004 Analytical Scale and Archaeological Perspectives on the Contact Era in the Northern Neck of Virginia. In Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid- Atlantic Region, ed. by Dennis B. Blanton and Julia A. King, 47-73. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
  9. Greenfield, Haskel J. 1988 Bone Consumption by Pigs in a C o n t e m p o r a r y S e r b i a n Vi l l a g e : Implications for the Interpretation of Prehistoric Faunal Assemblages. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(4): 473-479.
  10. Hanson, Lee, Jr. 1968 Kaolin Pipestems-Boring in on a Fallacy. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 4(1): 2-15.
  11. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1988 An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745. In Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed.
  12. by Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, 176-199. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
  13. Morey, Darcy F., and Walter E. Klippel 1991 Canid Scavenging and Deer Bone Survivorship at an Archaic Period Site in Tennessee. Archaeozoologia 4(1): 11-28.
  14. Luckenbach, Al, and Shawn Sharpe 2007 A Seriation Analysis of "Trade" and "Belly Bowl" Tobacco Pipe Forms from ca. 1655 to ca. 1725. Maryland Archeology 43(1): 28-33.
  15. Lyman, R. Lee 1984 B o n e D e n s i t y a n d D i f f e r e n t i a l Survivorship of Fossil Classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3(4): 259-299. University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  16. McMillan, Lauren 2012 "His Pipe Smoak'd Out with Aweful Grace": John Hallowes, Tobacco Pipes, and the Atlantic World. Paper presented at the 45th Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Baltimore.
  17. McMillan, Lauren, and Barbara J. Heath 2013 Preliminary Interpretations from Recent Investigations of the Coan Hall (44NB11) Archaeological Site. Paper presented at the 2013 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Virginia Beach, VA.
  18. McMillan, Lauren, and D. Brad Hatch 2012 The "Unjust and Wicked Designes of Invading this Province by the Way of Chicacoan and Appamattucks." Paper pre- sented at the 2012 Middle Atlantic Archaeology Conference, Virginia Beach, VA.
  19. Rountree, Helen C., and E. Randolph Turner III 2002 Before and after Jamestown: Virginia's P o w h a t a n s a n T h e i P re d e c e s s o r s . University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
  20. Sprinkle, John H. 1985 A Prelude to Rebellion: Indian-White Relations on Virginia's Northern Neck, 1660-1676. Northern Neck of Virginia Historical Magazine 35(1): 3,990-4,004.
  21. Potter, Stephen R. 1976 An Ethnohistorical Examination of Indian Groups in Northumberland County, Virginia: 1608-1719. Master 's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
  22. Potter, Stephen R., and Gregory A. Waselkov 1994 Whereby We Shall Enjoy Their Cultivated Places. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, ed. by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, 23-33. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
  23. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Dan Cordier 1983 Use of Allometry in Zooarchaeological Analysis. In Animals in Archaeology. Vol. 2, Shell Middens, Fishes and Birds, ed. by C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock, 237-252.
  24. B r i t i s h A r c h a e o l o i a l R e p o r t s International Series, No. 183. Oxford.
  25. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Related

Authors
Hatch, D. B.
Affiliations
Buffalo State University (US)
Corresponding author
Hatch, D. Brad
Venue
Northeast Historical Archaeology
Publisher
Binghamton University
Published
2012
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
18-49
ISSN
0048-0738 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.22191/neha/vol41/iss1/3
OpenAlex
W933866384
Semantic Scholar
e1102bcb2d1447d712ffa9a22a034c6ae40d5b9f
Cited by
0
References
32
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Northeast Historical Archaeology (publishedVersion)
  • The Open Repository - Binghamton (Binghamton University) (submittedVersion)
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
English colonists, Native Americans, skeletal analysis, age distribution, intercultural relations, colonial Virginia, Chesapeake, early settlement

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