Jamestown Archaeological Perspectives

There are several archaeological perspectives that can help explain the “Jamestown experience” between 1607 and 1700. The archaeological explanatory approaches: processual, post-processual, Marxism, and indigenous traditions, can all be applied to archaeological data to explain the experience between Colonial Settlers and Native populations in the Chesapeake Bay area. Processual archaeology uses a positivist approach when dealing with archaeological data, post-processual rejects a positivist approach and attempts to understand cultures in their own terms to explain forms and processes of change, Marxist archaeology is concerned with the struggle between classes and how these negotiations are seen as ritual, ideology, and institutions, and indigenous traditions argue that a more inclusive archaeology is necessary, one that encourages partnerships with Indigenous groups in the interpretation of their own past. In their article “Reconstructing Early 17th Century Estuarine Drought Conditions From Jamestown Oysters”, Harding et al. employ the processual explanatory approach to explain food and fresh water shortages in the first years of the Jamestown colony. Concerned only with the natural environment and ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay area, Harding et al. gathered their data from wells dug and used by the colonists from 1606 to 1612. The research dictates, from tree ring analysis and saline levels found in oyster shells, the colony encountered a severe regional drought upon arriving at Jamestown and for several years after. Harding et al. fail to take into account the socio/political factors associated with the new colonists and Native populations of the area. Harding et al. also fail to take into account the colonist’s unfamiliarity with the region as a possible reason for the lack of water and food. Dennis B. Blanton’s article “Drought as a Factor in the Jamestown Colony, 1607-1612” takes the post-processual approach to explaining not only the ecological effects, but social and ideological contexts that also effected the early years of the Jamestown settlement. Blanton uses scientific data and first hand colonial accounts to corroborate drought conditions, water availability, food shortages, intercultural hostilities, and mortality between 1606 and 1612. By using both scientific data and historical documentation, Blanton is able to correlate the data with first-hand accounts of what the Colonists were experiencing were experiencing at Jamestown.
Seth Mallios & Shane Emmett use the Marxist approach in their article “Demand, supply, and Elasticity in the Copper Trade at Early Jamestown” to explain the shift in power and decline of the value of copper in the Chesapeake Bay area, following colonial contact with Native populations. Mallios and Emmett discuss the historical value of copper and the public displays of copper to demonstrate status in pre-colonial Native populations. Mallios and Emmett theorize that Native populations were in fierce competition for access to copper and the overabundance of copper following the arrival of Colonists in Virginia. Mallios and Emmett conclude the inundation of copper into Native populations, decreased the ability of Elites to maintain control over the populace, and thus allowing for Colonists to survive and eventually thrive in the Chesapeake Bay. In his article “Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology”, Kent G. Lightfoot argues that pluralism should play a role in cultural contact studies and archaeology. Lightfoot points out that “Unfortunately, most colonial accounts were written from the perspective of affluent European men who documented little about the lifeways of lower class laborers and their relations with local native men, women, and children” (Lightfoot, 201). Lightfoot argues that Indigenous traditions are often ignored and states that including multi-ethnic populations in research can help broaden the scope with which archaeologists see the past. Jeffrey L. Hantman’s article “Between Powhatan and Quirank: Reconstructing Monacan Culture and History in the Context of Jamestown” introduces the Native perspective of the Powhatan and the Monacan, who were adversaries prior to colonial contact. Hantman theorizes that by looking at prior political/social contexts of Native populations can explain why Jamestown was able to survive. By using different archaeological perspectives when interpreting data collected from Jamestown, different insights are gained in reference to the “Jamestown experience”. Processual archaeology allows for the scientific data to speak for itself. Post-processual archaeology approaches Jamestown not only with scientific data, but incorporates the social/economical context of Jamestown. The Marxist approach integrates supply and demand into the mix to provide alternate theories regarding copper trade between Native populations and Colonists. The Indigenous perspective brings in the often neglected and ignored Native experience that was an integral part of the “Jamestown experience”. By applying different archaeological approaches, the “Jamestown experience” of Colonists and Native populations can be better understood and studied.