Return to Potomac Creek (44ST2):
Archaeology at a Late Prehistoric
Native American Village

Supported by:
Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Archaeologists from the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research revisited the Potomac Creek site in 1996-7 with support from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources . This archaeological investigation was intended to recover significant new information from a portion of the late prehistoric, Native-American village known as the Potomac Creek Site. The work included excavation, mapping, and laboratory analysis. A final report was completed in 1999.

The study was prompted by plans for construction, and Mr. Buddy Oden, the landowner, generously allowed the work to proceed. This 34-x-18.5-m area was first investigated in May 1996 by Cultural Resources, Inc. (CRI). The CRI work revealed a portion of the site investigated first between 1955 and 1940 by Judge William J. Graham and T. Dale Stewart of the Smithsonian Institution. Five palisade lines, eight narrow trenches, a midden-filled ditch, two possible hearths, trash-filled pits, and numerous scattered posts were identified. Filled excavation units from the earlier work were also identified. The project area coincides with the northwestern section of the enclosed village.

More recent scholarship identifies this site (44ST2) as ancestral to nearby 44STl, which was occupied during the historic period. Both sites are viewed as the principal Patawomeke sites where the local weroance (chief) resided. They are also manifestations of the intrusive Potomac Creek culture that appears on the lower Potomac by the fifteenth century. As early as 1608, Captain John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to trade for corn here, and it was also at this location that Pocahontas was captured and taken to Jamestown.

What This Work Has Helped Us Understand

1. Village Chronology: Eight radiocarbon dates on carbonized wood from different features have established that the site was occupied between AD 1300 and 1550. The latest dates tell us that this particular village was not inhabited during the post-contact period, and that the neighboring village site had replaced it by then.


2. Village Development and Function: The fortified nature of this village indicates that it was a principal place of residence. At the very least, it is distinguished from ordinary settlements by the fortifications. Based on this project we propose a refined model of village development, consisting of three different stages (see schematic plan).

Stage I: Uncomfortable Immigrants (ca. AD 1300-1400)

This stage corresponds to the initial occupation, we propose, by the immigrant group. Radiocarbon dates indicate arrival around AD 1300. Protection for the residents was clearly a concern at this time, and is one that likely reflects residual concerns from their homeland as well as uncertain relations with local groups. The frequency of fortified sites increases markedly to the north at about the same time and is taken as a sign of widespread conflict and disruptions. It was during this stage that the site most likely served as a nucleated and defended community for the newly arrived group. Burial of the dead may have occurred mostly outside of the palisaded area at this time.

The sister site of Moyaone (18PR8) may have been settled at about the same time as 44ST2. A roughly similar sequence of stages can be discerned from the site plan (Stephenson et al. 1963). The outermost system is the only one to include an interior ditch/borrow pits, as is the case at Potomac Creek. Bastions are not evident in the Moyaone plan, but excavation procedures and limits might have left them undocumented.

A pair of well-populated villages could have sustained a reproducible population. Using crude estimates, applied to Owasco/Iroquoian villages, of approximately 20 m²/person (Snow 1994:30), the maximum number that could comfortably reside within the full interior of 44ST2 (i.e., during Phase 1) is roughly 250-300 persons. These same calculations give a maximum population for Moyaone of 300-320 (approximately 6,100 m²). This can roughly translate into an initial "founding population" of over 500, divided between at least two nucleated, fortified villages.

Probably the earliest enclosures associated with this stage at 44ST2 are the outermost palisade lines, represented in the project area by the Feature 11 palisade trench, the line of driven posts adjacent to the Feature 11 trench, and possibly the Feature 9 palisade trench. Judging from Stewart's site plan, these features extend more or less continuously around the entire perimeter. Bastions are clearly more numerous along this outer perimeter and may occur only in association with it. Feature 21 in the project area is an example of a bastion footprint formed by a narrow trench. No less than six and possibly seven whole or partial bastion plans are evident in Stewart's plan. All of them appear at the north, west, and east sides of the site. Whether these towers were considered unnecessary along the sheer bluff to the south is not clear since excavation on that segment is minimal.

At this and later phases, the palisade lines are believed to have occurred in sets to form a more imposing barrier and to create complex entryways. The exact number and configuration of the palisade lines is not clear except in well-documented segments. Overlapping trench and driven-post lines in this outer perimeter are the most confusing. There are no less than six palisades of different types near the outer perimeter, beyond the ditch feature. At least two of these (Feature 11 and the adjacent driven-post line) and possibly a third (Feature 9) are viewed as units of the same enclosure system. Ethnohistorical accounts have been helpful in establishing that complex fortification systems were constructed by area natives. Examples are as follows:

Their Fortifications consist only of a Palisado of about ten or twelve foot high, and when they would make themselves very safe they treble the pale [emphasis added]. They often encompass the whole town...[Beverley 1947:149].

They conducted us to their pallizadoed town, mantelled with the barkes of trees, with Scaffolds like mounts, brested about with Barks very formally [Smith 1986b].

Multiple palisade lines are also well known at contemporary sites to the north and west.

The site area was at its maximum at this time, with an outside diameter of about 85 m and an interior space of about 5,675 m². These dimensions compare favorably with other fortified sites known to enclose an entire community.

Reconstruction or replacement of the first enclosure probably occurred in about the same location. In the project area, remodeling may be represented by the Feature 10 and 27 palisade trenches and the driven-post palisade immediately adjacent to Feature 10. Bastions may not be a part of these later barriers at all, but, if they are, they are less numerous. In this interpretation, the site would still have served as a nucleated community.

Construction of the encircling ditch was begun and probably finished in this stage. Feature 15 is a large, elongated basin that intruded upon the earlier Feature 9 palisade trench. A broken line of such pits or basins arranged in a circle around the settlement are documented at other sites of the period. Examples include the Winslow and Fisher Montgomery Focus sites (Slattery and Woodward 1992), and the Moyaone (Stephenson et al. 1963) site. Feature 15 may be a vestige of this kind of feature. The placement of the ditch relative to palisades is made clear through comparisons with other sites where it clearly was interior, such as the related site of Moyaone (18PR8). As noted, these are among the sites where this kind of feature appears more as an encircling line of pits rather than a continuous ditch. (Whether this represents the effect of plow truncation after which only deeper sections are preserved is uncertain.) It is interesting to note that the ditch feature at Moyaone is also associated with the outermost group of barriers. The function of the ditch is believed to have been originally as a borrow pit for soil banked against the interior palisade wall for support, after which it became a convenient dump for refuse. Similar features are also reported for Owasco sites in New York.

The culmination of this stage was completion of the ditch or, more properly, maximum reinforcement of the interior palisade with an earthen embankment. The Feature 8 line of driven posts is possibly the innermost barrier of this system. After this phase the site began to gradually contract in size.

Stage II: A Flourishing Tidewater Culture (ca. AD 1400-1560)

This stage represents the period during which the former immigrant population comfortably established itself in the tidewater reaches of the Potomac drainage and asserted its influence in the region. The size of the enclosed space decreased, and the defensive character of the enclosure system was minimal. Through this stage, there is increasing evidence that the site assumed an increasingly specialized function and did not serve as the residence for most of the population.

The outermost features marking this stage are palisade trench Features 5-7. The driven-post palisade line designated Feature 8 might represent the outermost barrier in this system. This inward shift of the enclosures left the ditch outside of the site proper, where it still could have served for refuse disposal. The lack of bastions and ditch/embankment reinforcement probably signal a distinct relaxation of defensive concerns. At this time the maximum diameter of the enclosed space decreased to 74 m, or an overall interior space of 4,300 m².

The building designated Structure 1 is suggested to date from early in this stage. If so, it would have been placed very near the inner palisade, at the perimeter of the enclosed space. Ossuary II on Stewart's (1992) site plan lies just southeast of this structure and may also date to this phase, but whether it intruded upon the later palisade (Feature 2), or vice-versa, is not clear. If it does not, then it is likely that burials continued to be placed outside the palisades.

Features 3 and 4 palisade trenches and the Feature 2 driven-post line comprise a second portion of this system. More than likely by this time, a significant portion of the community population was residing in a dispersed settlement outside of the enclosed area at 44ST2.

Other structures probably associated with this stage (or prior Phase 4) are shown on Stewart's plan. The most obvious is south of the project area on the west side of the site. As Schmitt (1965) and Stewart noted, it appears to be incorporated in what is referred to here as the Feature 2 palisade line. Also, pit Feature 12 is interpreted as associated with this phase of construction. Recall, too, that it is the pit feature returning the latest radiocarbon date (ca. AD 1560).

Other features associated with this stage lie toward the center of the site and were not encountered within the project area discussed here. Stewart's (1992) plan, however, provides sufficient information to consider them in this discussion. These are a palisade trench, and possibly also by the Feature 2 line. (The apparent intrusion of the inner palisade into the western post building described under Phase 5 is evidence of its later date.) These inner enclosures define the smallest space. The maximum diameter of the inner trench is 33 m, defining an interior space of about 855 m².

Stewart's (1992) plan depicts a post building located at the precise center of the site, that is believed to be the principal building associated with this stage. Ossuaries III and V immediately adjacent to this structure are also interpreted as part of this period of use.

This stage represents the culmination of the trend toward specialized function and, concomitantly, decreasing site area. The central structure is a possible mortuary building or chiefly residence. The inclusion of ossuaries within this space underscores the specialized function of the area. (These ossuaries contained no European items and, thus, appear to be prehistoric interments.) It is probably no coincidence that ossuaries are shown only within the innermost enclosure system at Moyaone, as well. Beverley's (1947[1705]) comments offer some sense of these kinds of enclosed spaces:

They often encompass their whole town; but for the most part only their King's Houses, and as many others as they judge sufficient to harbor all their people, when an enemy comes against them. They never fail to secure with their Palisado, all their religioius reliques and remains of their Princes.

This level of site specialization may be one of the more obvious indicators of achievement of chiefdom-level organization in eastern Virginia.

Stage III: Maturity and Change (ca. AD 1560-1650)

The outset of this stage was marked by abandonment of 44ST2 in favor of a location on the point nearby to the southwest, known now as 44ST1. Specialized use of the ancestral site continued through the early historic period.

Use of 44ST2 at this time was no longer for general or specialized habitation. Instead, it was used for ossuary burial. Ossuaries I and IV date from this time, as indicated by an abundance of traded European goods with the burials.

To summarize, the Potomac Creek experience may not be far different in its development from what might be expected of immigrant, colonizing groups elsewhere. This is also meant to include even the early experience of the English in the New World. An initial period of highly nucleated settlement in a defensive posture, followed by a period of expansion and stability, and closing with abandonment of formerly significant sites and even disintegration or assimilation are common to both. The archaeological detection of migration and the influences it has on dominant and subordinate societies can be a deceptively complex process, and has only recently reemerged as a credible consideration among archaeologists. It is, however, an area ripe for study, and the Potomac Creek case is probably one of the better candidates to investigate.

• Native Interactions: Most archaeologists acknowledge that the Potomac Creek culture is intrusive into the Tidewater region. We favor a migration-based explanation, as do others, but suggest a more distant place of origin, namely the proto-Iroquoian Owasco cultures of the upper Susquehanna River in New York and Pennsylvania, as Schmitt implied. Parallels in the Potomac Creek and Owasco records exemplify the strength of the connection. More than once, students of Potomac Creek archaeology have noted that similarities between Potomac Creek and Owasco ceramics are stronger than any others, meaning stronger than Shepard types of the Montgomery complex (Schmitt 1965). Decorative treatment is most comparable, as cord and cord-wrapped impression are common to both. In neither case are thickened/folded rims typical or common, as they are in Montgomery assemblages.
  
  
  
  Sample of ceramics from the Potomac Creek Site (a - Late Woodland micaceous sand-tempered, cord-marked, cord- wrapped-dowel-impressed, horizontal motif; b - Potomac Creek cord-wrapped-dowel-impressed, diagonals top right; c - Late Woodland micaceous sand-tempered, cord-marked, cord-impressed, horizontal motif; d - Potomac Creek cord-impressed, horizontal motif; e - Potomac Creek cord-impressed, complex design; f - Potomac Creek cord-wrapped-dowel-impressed, complex design; g - Potomac Creek cord-wrapped-dowel-impressed, simple design; h - Potomac Creek cord-wrapped-dowel-impressed, punctate, complex combination; i - Potomac Creek Plain, incised)
  
  Features of village plan/architecture are also consistent. Notable is the tendency for both to have palisaded villages by the late thirteenth century, while palisades tend not to become prominent elsewhere in Virginia until later. The Owasco record is marked by evidence of conflict and population movement at precisely the time Potomac Creek Culture appears along the Potomac (Snow 1994). A shared feature of the village enclosure systems is encircling ditches and earthen rings. The ditches at Potomac Creek sites are all that remains of these features, but it is not difficult to imagine a raised ring of earthen spoil that had been banked against the interior of adjacent palisades. Also, to have two or even three concurrent palisade lines is typical of late Owasco sites (Snow 1994a:36), but other than the Potomac Creek villages, the pattern is not at all typical in Virginia. Subsistence patterns at Potomac Creek sites are distinctive, too, given the greater degree tropical cultigens figure into Potomac Creek diet. The neighboring, more indigenous groups on the lower Potomac were not intensive horticulturalists.
  
  The strength of these connections argues strongly for careful scrutiny of this possible origin for Potomac Creek, but what is a reasonable catalyst for the migration? Environmental shifts at this time may partially account for the timing of a move. The close to Owasco in New York and the appearance of Potomac Creek in Virginia coincide with the onset of the Little Ice Age at the end of the thirteenth century. Worldwide, including North America, glacial advances and ice cap expansion occurred from AD 1300 to 1700, and the effect on growing seasons and crop yields was devastating in some areas. Archaeologists in the northeastern United States regard this event as a root catalyst for cultural change, including conflict and population movements (Snow 1994). As the climate became significantly cooler, the growing season would naturally have shortened, and horticultural economies of Owasco and other northeastern groups would have been severely affected, especially viewed against the warmer than normal conditions of the preceding Medieval Optimum or Neo-Atlantic episode (AD 750-1300). One response to the resultant stress would be out-migration, and movement southward is logical if sustaining a horticultural base was important. Economic stress and resultant competition at a time like this can easily spawn conflict, and an abundance of fortified communities that appears at this time in the northern Mid-Atlantic tells such a tale. Migration is also one option for reducing the threat of conflict.


• Diet and Economy: What prehistoric people ate and how they made a living are always of general interest. A key goal was to gauge the contribution of corn and other tropical cultigens to the late prehistoric/protohistoric diet. Over most of the Coastal Plain, their remains are in short supply, in spite of frequent mention of corn, beans, and squash in historical records. Our excavations revealed a relatively strong reliance on maize and other crops as compared with other Coastal Plain groups in the prehistoric period, although overall the dietary contribution must still be regarded as rather modest. These plant foods augmented the traditional staples of native plants and animals. We can suggest that the apparent origin of the Potomac Creek population north or west of the lower Potomac basin is also the source of a stronger horticultural subsistence pattern.

NOTE

A complete report of the Center's research at the Potomac Creek Site is available as the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' Research Report Series No. 10.

References

For More Information Contact

Joe B. Jones, William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research

Phone: 757-221-1581

Email: jbjone@wm.edu