Xerox University Microfilms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a . definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75- 21,812 LEWIS, Kenneth E., Jr., 1945- THE JAMESTOWN FRONTIER: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF COLONIZATION. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Anthropology, archaeology Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48io6 0 1975 KENNETH E. LEWIS, JR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE JAMESTOWN FRONTIER; AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF COLONIZATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY KENNETH E. LEWIS, JR. Norman, Oklahoma 1975 THE JAMESTOWN FRONTIER: AN'ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF COLONIZATION APPROVED BY ---- CAct-t^ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author owes a debt of gratitude to the following individuals, without whose help the completion of this dissertation would not have been possible. First, he wishes to express his appreciation to the members of his committee. Dr. Richard A. Pailes, Dr. Robert E. Bell, Dr. Joseph Whitecotton, Dr. Stephen I. Thompson, and Dr. Charles R. Wicke, for their assistance and encouragement during the completion of this study. Thanks are also owed to several persons directly involved with the archaeological and historical aspects of the Jamestown frontier. They in clude Ivor Noël Hume, Director of Archaeology at Colonial Williamsburg; William M. Kelso, Archaeologist for the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission; and of the National Park Service staff at the Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia, thanks are owed to James N. Haskett, Chief Park Historian, Yorktown; Charles E. Hatch, Jr., Research His torian, Yorktown; and J. Paul Hudson, Museum Curator, Jamestown. ii IIJL Acknowledgements are also due several individuals at the University of Oklahoma, especially to David Ross of the Stovall Museum of Science and History and Mary Ann Holmes and Marsha Hill of the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey for the aid in the production of the figures. William S. Cooter of the Department of History provided thoughtful criticism throughout the preparation of this dissertation, Sharon McDonough of the Department of Anthropology helped to co ordinate many parts of this study in the assembly of the final report. Patricia Birchall proofed, typed, and edited the oft-changed and often illegible manuscript. Finally, the author wishes to thank his wife, Carolyn, who proofed the original manuscript and offered innumerable suggestions which helped clarify the arguments therein. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements ....................................... ü List of F i g u r e s ....................................... v List of Tables ....................................... vii CHAPTER I. Introduction ................................... 1 II. The Frontier Model and Its Development .... 14 III. Systems Theory, Culture Change, and the Frontier Model .............................. 47 IV. England and Virginia; The Preconditions of the Frontier Model .......................... 61 V. The English in Virginia: The Characteristics of the Frontier Model ........... ..... 186 VI. The Archaeological Situation at Jamestown: Recognition of the Frontier Model ......... 196 VII. The Documentary Situation at Jamestown: The Confirmation of the Archaeological Conclusions ................................. 348 VIII. Summary and Conclusions........................ 419 Appendix A: Nearest Neighbor Analysis of Settlement P a t t e r n s ................................. 429 Appendix B: Mean Ceramic Dates and Pipestem Dates for Structures at J a m e s t o w n ............. 431 Appendix C: Percentage of Occurrence of Subsistence Artifacts in Jamestown Structures and Other Structures Where They Occur in Relation to Other Metal Artifacts .... 441 Appendix D: Deviation of Chi Square Value for the Relationship Between Site Locations and the Extent of Agricultural Subsistence . 442 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 444 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. The regions of Britain: the Midlands and Southwest 67 2. The climate of Britain 70 3. Nucleated village with surrounding open fields, Germany 79 4. Enclosed fields and dispersed farms, Wales 85 5. Centers of the English wool-textile industry, ca. 1500 109 6. Settlement patterns in the Midlands and the Southwest 121 7. The Virginia Coastal Plain: general topographic features 139 8. Jamestown Island: general physiographic features 142 9. Jamestown Island vegetation 144 10 Floral zones of coastal Virginia 148 11. Distribution of Powhatan settlements in 1607 171 12. The Jaquelin-Ambler house on the site of Jamestown, 1710-1895 198 13. Locations of archaeological investigations at Jamestown 208 14. Locations of archaeological sites in the James-York River area 205 15. Settlement pattern of the English Midlands with 2 km. catchment areas indicated 222 16. Settlement pattern of coastal Virginia with 2 km. catchment areas indicated 224 17. Settlement model for coastal Virginia 227 18. Map of settlement at Jamestown, 1650-1690 234 19. Plans of seventeenth century English farm types 240 20. Map of settlement at Jamestown, post 1700 245 21. Location of industrial areas at Jamestown, 1607-1690 262 22. Plan of structures at Green Spring 264 23. Plan of the glasshouse complex 269 24. The church tower at Jamestown 293 25. Locations of churches and cemeteries in coastal Virginia 295 26. Conjectural reconstruction of Jamestown, 1650-1690 302 27. Location of high status residences and public buildings at Jamestown, 1620-1690 306 28. Comparison of seventeenth century colonial house plans in North America 319 29. Comparisons of settlement patterns at Williamsburg, 1690-1750 326 30. Archaeological excavations along the Great Road 332 vx 31. English settlements in coastal Virginia in 1622 374 32. Expansion of English settlement to the York River after 1630 375 33. Virginia in 1676 376 34. Locations of Jamestown structures dated by ceramic and pipestem hole analyses 437 35. Graphic representation of ceramic and pipestem hole dates 438 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Climate Data for Eastern Virginia 146 2. Occurrence of Ceramics in Coastal Virginia by Type and Site 343 3. Frequencies of Ceramics at Jamestown 344 4. Mean Dates for Structures at Jamestown Based Upon Ceramic and Pipestem Hole Analyses 436 V I 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In his provocative analysis of American archaeology three decades ago Walter Taylor made clear the affiliation of archaeology to the larger science of anthropology; When the archaeologist collects his data, con structs his cultural contexts, cuid on the basis of these contexts proceeds to make a compara tive study of the nature and workings of cul ture in its formal, functional and/or developmental aspects, then he is doing cultural anthropology eind can be considered an anthro pologist who works in archaeological materials (Taylor 1967:41). This role, the study of functional and developmental aspects of culture, was recognized also by other emthropologists who perceived that "its conclusions with regard to process have become part of the common knowledge of all anthropologists working with the phenomena of culture change" (Linton 1945: 10) . Traditionally, archaeology has been associated with the temporal aspect of culture because of its ability to view the remains of human societies over long periods of time. It is able to observe cheuiges which often cannot be seen in the short duration of most ethnographic investiga tions. In this light archaeology has been chiefly concerned with three principal aims :