Skip to main content.
Earth and Environmental Sciences Home > Rappahannock Watershed Information > Research Projects > Using Paleo-Indian Sites to Study Rappahannock River Course

An Investigation into the Orientation of the Rappahannock River Below the Fall Line Using Local Archaeological Sites

(And the Problems in Performing Such an Investigation)

Rachel Hopkins, Junior Economics and Environmental Science Major

Kate Webster, Junior Environmental Science Major

Findings

Analysis

Conclusions

Bibliography

Our Findings

As stated earlier, it is extremely difficult to compile relevant information on the location of archaeological sites and even more difficult to make a conclusion about the location of the Rappahannock River based

Figure 1: Sites along the Rappahannock River

on these sites (Figure 1). Because almost all of the information collected pertains to native American Indian sites from the early 17th century, we categorize our findings into different tribes from the 17th based on location along the Rappahannock River. We set out to describe those tribes located closest to the Chesapeake Bay and then those farther up the Rappahannock River closer to the Fall line.

The first several settlements, those of the Cuttatawomen, Rappahannock, Pissaseck, and Nandtanghtacund, are located on the Lower Rappahannock River (below the Fall line) and are categorized as Algonquian Indian territory.

The Cuttatawomen

According to John Smith's map of 17th century Indian sites along the Rappahannock River, known as the "1624 Map" even though Smith completed it in 1607, the Cuttatawomen settled in two locations along the river. Based on the 1624 map, one of their settlements was the closest settlement to the Chesapeake Bay of all 17th century settlements. Other sources or findings indicate that this Cuttatawomen settlement was near the mouth of the Rappahannock River and its junction with the Corotoman River in Lancaster County (McCary 4).

David Bushnell does not discuss the site along the Corotoman River but does describe, in detail, another major settlement of the Cuttatawomen at the junction of Lamb Creek and the Rappahannock River (Bushnell 60) (See FIGURE 1). According to Bushnell, this site is well-preserved because it lays on ground 20 feet above the Rappahannock River and has not been destroyed, buried, or washed away by floods. Despite much of the damage that have been done by cultivation on the land which the Cuttatawomen settlement is located, shards of pottery and arrows heads have been discovered at this location. While Bushnell does indicate that these artifacts "are believed to be ware that belonged to an early period of occupancy, preceding that of the historic villages in 1608," we could not find any information that indicated a specific period or date that the Cuttatawomen may have created these artifacts (59).

The Rappahannocks (or "Toppahanocks")

Historian Frank G. Speck gives the most detailed account of these 17th century native Americans and the settlements on which they lived. In his book, The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia , Speck states that, according to John Smith, the " Toppahanock" tribe had a settlement above the Cuttatawomen on the north side of the river. Speck also states that the Rappahannocks' settlement was directly across from the Nandtanghtacunds, who's settled on the south side of the river. In looking at Smith's 1624 map, it seems that the Nandtanghtacund settlement was also on the North side of the river directly above the Rappahannock settlement (See Figure 2) and this is the order we will approach the settlements.

Bushnell states that the Rappahannock Indian settlement was in Richmond County from the Totuskey Creek to above Cat Point Creek, otherwise known as Rappahannock Creek. While we could find the Totuskey Creek on river maps, we were unable to locate Cat Point Creek on any Rappahannock River maps. In total, the Rappahannocks had 34 known settlements- only 5 villages and 2 chief towns resided on the south bank of the Rappahannock River. The north bank was probably more advantageous because the river bend served as a physical barrier between them and the Powhatan Indians (Speck 36).

According to some sources, the Rappahannock Indians are the oldest indigenous people of Virginia. Despite this assertion, definite evidence of the time period that this tribe inhabited the Rappahannock River valley is rare. Some information is available which states that surface artifacts, which give indication of a large settlement, were found at the mouth of Little Carter Creek near the principle village at Cat Point Creek (McCary 6). Without being able to locate Cat Point Creek, this information is of little help to our investigation into the changes in orientation of the Rappahannock River.

The Pissasecks

While John Smith's 1624 map shows two different Pissaseck sites along the Rappahannock River, many sources only discuss one Pissaseck site. While we do recognize that Smith's findings are accurate and two sites do exist, we will discuss our findings as if one site exists. According to Smith's scale on his 1624 map, the first Pissaseck site, a smaller settlement, was about 10 "myles" away from the Rappahannocks' settlement. The more extensive site and probably the one discussed by most of our sources, lies about 10 "myles" up from the first Pissaseck site. Both sites are on the North bank of the river.

The Pissaseck settlement lies within what are now Westmoreland, King George, and Richmond Counties directly above Leedstown (See Figure 1). While there are no records of the population of the settlement, McCary argues that, based on the amount of artifacts found at this site, one can conclude that the population was large and the settlement extensive (7). According to Bushnell, the settlement lies on a high level area directly adjacent to the river on an area labeled Drakes Marsh. This high bluff still exist today.

Because this site lies above the flood plain, it has not been damage from floods and still contains large amounts of pottery shards either on the end of the bluff or only a few feet back from the edge (Bushnell 152). One shard of pottery found at the larger Pissaseck site has an imprint of a coiled basket. This shard is similar to pottery found along the coast of the Carolinas and in westward Mississippi (Bushnell 153). While Bushnell does indicate that this shard is "believed to be the oldest type of earthware occurring in the Tidewater Virginia" he does not indicate the period to which this pottery belongs. Archaeologists have also discovered many quartz blades and arrows, which they believe to belong to many different periods as a result of occupation and reoccupation of the Pissaseck site.

The Nandtanghtacund

On his 1624 map, John Smith indicates that the next major settlement along the Rappahannock River is that of the Nandtanghtacunds. This tribe, comprised of approximately 575 individuals, settled on the south bank of what is presently known as Port Tobago or Port Tobacco Bay (McCary5). According to John Smith's map, the Nandtanghtacund settlement is a little over 15 "myles" from the first Cuttatawomen site and about 20 "myles" from the second site closer to the fall line. While one might be weary of putting faith in a map that was published in 1624, in his book, Virginia Before Jamestown , Bushnell argues:

The map of Virginia, prepared by Capt. John Smith and which appears in all issues of his 'Generall Historie,' is one of the most remarkable pieces of cartography known. The drainage is shown with great accuracy and such precision that the sites of many may now be definitely determined. (127)

Similar to the Cuttatawomen, the Nandtanghtacund left many artifacts along the Rappahannock River. Most of these artifacts were discovered along the eastern shore of Port Tobago Bay and are scattered up to the western bank of a parallel body of water known as the Green Bay (See Figure 3). The most important aspect of this settlement is that "all does not belong to the same period of occupancy; some specimens are thought to be far older than others" (Bushnell 42). Despite this one comment on the age of the artifacts found at the Nandtanghtacund site, once again, Bushnell does not indicate the specific periods of any of the "older" artifacts and just indicates whether the artifacts are from the 17th century. In no other sources are the date or period of these different artifacts found at the Nandtanghtacund site mentioned.

The Kerahocak, Papiscone, Assuweska, and Socebeck Sites

Except for John Smith and David Bushnell, we could not find any other sources that discussed the Kerahocak, Papiscone, Assuweska, or Socebeck settlements. Since Bushnell depends on John Smith works and his 1624 Map for most of his information on the location of these sites, we find ourselves depending solely on John Smith's findings. Also, we are unsure as to what category of Native Americans these sites belong since they are between Algonquian and Siouan territory.

Based on Smith's map, the Kerahocaks settled only about 5 "myles" from the second Pissaseck site and directly across Port Tobago Bay from the Nandtanghtacunds. This area is also known as Greenlaw's Wharf (See Figure 3). The artifacts found as this site were a few feet below the surface (Bushnell 35). While one conclusion is that river deposits covered the site, Bushnell concludes that these artifacts were purposely buried underground by the Kerahocaks during a burial ritual. Besides this small amount of information on the Kerahocaks, we could find nothing further on the site or the Kerahocaks.

Only a couple of miles above the Kerahocaks and directly across the river from the upper tip of Port Tobago Bay are two settlements: the Papiscone and Assuweska. At these sites, which were probably located on the raised land at the mouth (Papiscone) and right bank (Assuweska) of Chingoteague Creek, archaeologists found traces of settlements for about 1/4 miles along this narrow strip of land (Bushnell 53) (See Figure 1). Along these settlements, archaeologists have uncovered many small clay pipes in which the tribes probably placed rolled up leaves and stems. Shards of net-imprinted pottery similar to those found at the Pissaseck site were also discovered.

Despite these findings, there remain several uncertainties about the Papiscone and Assuweska sites. First, archaeologists are unsure of the exact location of the two sites. Second, "as the area has been cultivated for many years, the pottery has been reduced to bits, and few entire arrow points or objects of any sort are able to be discovered" (Bushnell 53). Third, similar to many of the other sites along the Rappahannock, this site had occupation and reoccupation over many centuries and, as a result, archaeologists have a difficult time defining the area of the site at different periods and distinguishing artifacts from different periods.

Only one mile above Lamb Creek on the left bank of the Rappahannock close to the second site of the Cuttatawomen settlements, is the Socebeck site. Based on the artifacts found, Bushnell states that this site "gives the impression of being very old" (62). The most fascinating finds at this site are two quartzite axes. One ax appears weathered to some degree and the second ax appears unaltered from what is thought to be its original state. Because they have different degrees of weathering, archaeologists believe that the two axes are from different periods. Furthermore, because quartzite is extremely resistant to weathering, archaeologists suspect that the first ax is "of great age" (63). Again, Bushnell, who is our only source of information on the Socebeck site, does not indicate the exact period to which the first ax belongs.

Millbank Creek and the Folsom Point

While Millbank Creek lies before Lamb Creek in terms of distance from the mouth of the Rappahannock River, we decided to discuss it last because it is the most important site along the Rappahannock. At the mouth of Millbank Creek, which lies on the North bank of the Rappahannock about 6 miles from Port Tobago Bay and only 5 miles from Chingoteague Creek, archaeologists discovered another ancient settlement. While they found similar pieces of pottery and arrows at Millbank Creek as they did at Lamb Creek and Port Tobago Bay, archaeologists discovered something unique at Millbank Creek, which distinguishes this site from every other Rappahannock site. This is the Folsom point (See Figure 4). This arrow-shaped implement was found in a field leading down to a marshy area which lines Millbank Creek. While archaeologists did discover another similar stone piece in the same field, no other artifact in all of the Rappahannock sites resembles the Folsom point.

In Bushnell's "Conclusions Suggested By Certain Specimens," he states that this artifact closely resembled artifacts found in northern Colorado. The age of the northern Colorado Folsoms have been estimated at 8,000 to 10,000 years (64). However, the Millbank Creek Folsom was not found in "an undisturbed, stratified deposit" (64) and, as a result, archaeologist cannot be sure of the exact age of the Millbank Creek Folsom. In 1937, Bushnell stated that in order to be positive about the age of the first native American settlements along the Rappahannock River, at least one artifact would need to be found undisturbed and lodged in a rock deposit. Then an archaeologist could determine the age of the rock and the period in which the deposit engulfed the artifact. Over 60 years after Bushnell's statement, there are still no findings of undisturbed artifacts, especially any from the Paleo-Indian or Archaic periods.

back to top

Analysis of Findings

Based on the our findings of the location of Native American sites and their approximate age, we are unable to accurately determine the changes in orientation of the Rappahannock River through different historic periods. Among the major problems we encountered in attempting to plot the changes in orientation of the river, are: 1) rising of sea level, 2) flooding, 3) erosion, 4) occupation and reoccupation on sites, 5) tribe mobility (pre-17th century), 6) cultivation of sites, 7) dating problems, 8) uncertainties in location. In our analysis, we will first discuss the physical factors limiting our research and then discuss behaviors of the Native Americans and present-day Americans that hinders our ability to accurately pinpoint settlement areas. Lastly, we will discuss the problems that archaeologist face in dating and locating sites and therefore, the problems we faced in finding specific dates and locations of sites along the river.

Physical Factors

Natural forces have played a role in affecting the data available from Indian sites. Despite the construction of settlements upon higher elevations, the Native Americans could still not escape the damaging effects of wind and rain. These damages were increased during storm events. Due to nature's effects, the Rappahannock River has been degrading at a rate of approximately 1.0 - 2.9 meters annually. This erosion has resulted in many of the artifacts pushed many meters, and perhaps father, downstream.

Since 1607 the shoreline of the Rappahannock has experienced erosion of an average of 1 foot per year (Egloff and Woodward 61)). No remains to date have been found embedded in the subsurface or surrounding rock layers which geologists credit to erosion as well as the region's geology. This natural occurrence creates problems in assessing the dates of specific sites and therefore in assessing the changes in orientation of the river since site location and age are primarily estimated by discovered artifacts.

Since 10,000 years ago the sea level has risen approximately 300 feet (Egloff and Woodward 12). This change of sea level has caused drastic alterations to the shoreline of the Rappahannock River. Near the mouth of the river water now encroaches on and submerges land that was once suspected to be home to Native American tribes. This has lead to many of the sites being waterlogged and many beneath the river still remain undiscovered today. The current shores of the Rappahannock were at one point far from the River, but today are a vital part of the floodplain.

In 1937 this region experienced a flood that caused mass destruction to the river system and surrounding lands. The flood resulted in a significant lowering of the banks due to erosive forces and therefore many artifacts were displaced to new locations along the river. Also, this flood created deep gullies and altered the course of many tributaries. In one instance this erosion lead to the uncovering of a site that existed approximately two miles below the surface. However, more often than not, the eroded sediment was deposited on existing sites, sealing them even deeper within the earth.

Behavioral Factors

The Native Americans of the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods are historically known as foragers and hunters . This behavioral pattern causes great difficulty when trying to assess settlement locations. Native Americans could have simply left remains en route as they passed from one camp to the next even though we may assume that these remains always indicate a stationary settlement. Due to this mobile behavior little can be concluded about the orientation of the Rappahannock River based on findings of Paleo-Indian and Archaic artifacts.

Indians of the Woodland period became less nomadic. Settlements became more permanent and better established. It is for this reason that the majority of remains and settlement found are believed to be from the Woodland period, although very little testing has been done to prove these claims. Indians of this period had a pattern of building nearby freshwater streams and on a higher elevation of the landscape.

Many of the sites that have been identified provide evidence of multiple periods of occupancy. It is hard to determine whether this occupation was from one tribe or from multiple tribes. Trade also lead to accumulations of varying goods that cause the periods of occupancy to be confused farther. Accurately detailing the history of a given location proves to be impossible, based on the scattered records and insufficient data available combined with these aforementioned problems with migrating and multiple occupancy.

In addition to difficulties raised by the behavior of the Native Americans, modern practices have created an even greater difficulty in identifying locations and our ability to date the remains. The majority of the land that was historically the flood plain and remains un-submerged is most likely under cultivation today. Cultivation of this land has resulted in anywhere from 5' to 2'' of soil loss since 1607. Along with the loss of valuable soil and remains, the repeated plowing of these lands has destroyed the majority of useful artifacts and has left archeologists with nothing more than fragments and shards. Therefore the majority of what is discovered is of little use either because it is too small to study and from which to make conclusions or it has been displaced from plowing and agricultural practices.

Additional Difficulties in the Investigation

The investigation into the location of Native American tribes proved to be much more difficult than estimated. This struggle was a direct result of many issues. One of our biggest problems was obtaining information. The majority of the records on the indigenous groups were destroyed during the Civil War when the city courthouse was destroyed. Unfortunately, at that time, the courthouse was the primary home of such investigative research. Once those records were lost, the collection of data had to start over and very few people had detailed information on ancient Indian sites. Little research was published on the Native Americans of the Rappahannock and even less was available on the Indians that existed before the Woodland period. Of the data available, very little of it is thorough and the accuracy is questionable except for the work of John Smith, who cartologists commend for its remarkable accuracy.

When the source does identify the basic location of Native American sites, many times the description of the site locations are not thorough enough to identify the location precisely. While records identify settlements along the banks at various mouths of the tributaries, this information is not sufficient in determining where those banks were at the time of recording versus where they exist presently.
back to top

Conclusions

Based on the amount of evidence available, we cannot conclude our original assumption that the Rappahannock River has changed its orientation since the Paleo-Indian period. Because of the factors and problems that we discussed in our analysis, especially the rising of sea level and the burying of ancient sites (with sediment deposits and dating problems), exposed Paleo-Indian and Archaic sites are difficult, if not impossible, to find along the Rappahannock River. Sites that archaeologist do uncover are almost impossible to date accurately. Our research has led us to believe that Paleo-Indian and Archaic settlements did exist along the Rappahannock but are simply buried beneath the floor of the Chesapeake Bay and the Rappahannock River. As a result, we can not make a well-supported conclusion about the orientation of the Rappahannock and how it has changed since ancient times based solely on Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and even Early Woodland artifacts. The only conclusion that does arise from the assumption that ancient sites are buried by sediment deposits is that the Rappahannock River has increased in width since approximately 10,000 years ago.

We did find much available and pertinent information on Late Woodland sites along the Rappahannock River, especially those belonging to the 17th century Native Americans. John Smith's explorations of the region and his "1624" map of Virginia has greatly aided us in this portion of our research. From this map and those archaeological sites that have been uncovered along the Rappahannock below the falls, we were able to determine the location of Indian sites from around 1607 in relation to the location of those same sites, today. Based on this analysis, we discovered that the 1600s Native Americans sites remain relatively in the same location and distance from the river today, as they did almost 400 years ago. As a result, we can safely conclude that based on 17th century sites, in the last 400 years, the orientation of the Rappahannock River as remained relatively unchanged.

Bibliography

Bibliography of the Virginia Indians. Virginia: Archeological Society of VA, 1976.

Bushnell, David I. Jr. Indian Sites Below the Falls of the Rappahannock, Virginia. Washington: Smithsonia Institution, 1937.

Bushnell, David I. Jr., Virginia Before Jamewston. Washington: Smithsonian Institution., 1940.

Bushnell, David I. Jr. The Manahoac Tribes in Virginia. Washington: Smithonian Institution, 1935

Dent, Richard J. Jr., Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions and New Directions. New York: Plenium Press, 1995.

Egloff, Keith and Deborah Woodward. First People: The Early Indians of Virginia. Richmond: VA Department of historic Resources, 1992.

Keeping the Spirt Alive. Virginia: The Council on Indian., 1990.

McCary, Ben L. Indians in the Seventeenth-Century Virginia. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1957.

Native American Virginians: Resource Guide. Virginia: Commission for Human Relations and Civil Rights, 1992.

Reinhart, Theodore R., and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, eds. Early and Middle Aechaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Virginia: Dietz Press, 1939.

Siegel, Peter E. Wade P. Catts, and Margarita Jerabek Wuellner. "Phase II Archeological Evaluations of Nine Sites in the Proposed Hunting Run Reservoir Area, Spotsylvania County, Virginia." Alexandria, 1995.

Speck, Frank. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. New York: Heve Foundation, 1925.

Speck, Frank. Rappahannock Taking Devices: Traps, Hunting and Fishing. Philadelphia: College Offset Press, 1946.

Virginia Unpublished Archaeological Reports. Reports. Virginia: VA Dept. of Historic Resources, 1989.

Wittkofski, J. Mark., and Theodore r. Reinhart, eds. Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Syntheses. Virginia: Dietz Press, 1989.

Zoller, Mary. Virginia Council on Indians. Personal Interview, April, 1998

back to top