Page 148 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

146
population was experiencing increased pressure from Iroquoian groups from the north. The native leader Powhatan at Werowocomoco on the York River recounted to Smith that the Massawomeck, a possible Iroquoian group, were responsible for the then recent deaths of some 1,000 Piscataway, and that they were at war with both the Piscat- away and the Patawomeck.15 This trend continued into the decades preceding the settlement of the Maryland colony. Virginia trader Henry Fleet, who had been held captive by the Anacostans from 1623 until 1627 also relayed that the Mas- sawomecks had massacred 1,000 Piscataway.16 During this time the Patawomeck were allied with the Virginia colonists at Jamestown. In 1623 a group of Virginia colonists had also attacked the Piscataway “putt[ing] many to the swoorde” despite Smith’s earlier amicable encounters with them.17
To make matters even more complicated, Virginia trader William Claiborne, operating out of the Chesapeake Bay in what is now Maryland, had established a trading relationship with an- other Iroquoian group, the Susquehannock. The Susquehannock sought to increase their influence in the region and their trading relationship with Englishmen such as Claiborne brought them into direct conflict with the Piscataway and other na- tive groups on the lower western shore.18 Need- less to say, the Piscataway were experiencing pres- sure on multiple fronts by the time the Maryland English arrived in 1634.
In 1634 the Piscataway tayac, Wannas, re- ceived the Maryland colonists with great suspi- cion. Leonard Calvert asked the tayac for permis- sion to settle, getting a tepid response that “he would not bid him goe, neither would he bid him stay, but that he might use his owne discretion.”19 This has been interpreted as being a strategic move on the part of the Piscataway who could not afford another enemy in addition to the Pa- tawomeck, Massawomecks, and Susquehannocks. The 1623 attack by the Virginia English made the Piscataway all the more careful when dealing with this new group of Englishmen.20
The Maryland English and their relation- ships with the Piscataway and related groups have been characterized as being relatively peaceful. However, the Maryland English were not nec- essarily welcomed with open arms, nor were the native inhabitants viewed as equals to their invad- ers. The Charter of Maryland justified and spelled out the English view of European supremacy in
no uncertain terms, describing the region as a “Country hitherto uncultivated...[and] partly oc- cupied by Savages, having no knowledge of the Divine Being.” This reflects the understanding among the English invaders that uncultivated land equaled wasted land and that the native peo- ple were in effect savage, uncivilized, non-Chris- tian people that were in the way. This mindset set the stage for how the Maryland English dictated their demands and pushed for their own expan- sion in the region, while (often forcibly) pushing out the native population.
Jesuit missionaries, seeking to Christianize who they saw as “savages,” recount in letters the fraught relationship between the native popu- lation and the English invaders. A 1638 Jesuit Letter, for example, reported that
“...the rulers of this colony have not yet allowed us to dwell among the savages, both on account of the prevailing sicknesses, and also because of the hostile acts which the barbarians commit against the English, they having slain a man from this colony, who was staying among them for the sake of trading, and having also entered into a con- spiracy against our whole nation.”21
That same year the Maryland Assem- bly passed a law requiring colonists to obtain a license to trade with the Indians both to prevent price inflation of Indian corn and goods and to prevent mistrusted individuals from conspiring with Natives against the Calvert family’s rule of the colony.22
Native Village Sites Before Contact
A number of the sites encountered by Smith in the Potomac and Patuxent have possibly been located and studied archaeologically. These in- clude (but are not limited to) Secowocomoco and Moyaone in the Potomac and Opanient and Mattapanient in the Patuxent. Secowocomo and Moyaone were depicted on Smith’s map as being “King’s Howses” while Opanient and Mattapa- nient were described as “Ordinary Howses.” Each site provides a unique window into settlement activity prior to contact and possible interactions throughout the landscape. The sites discussed in depth are depicted on the map in figure 6.
Secowocomoco
The Secowocomoco site (18ST51) is located in St. Mary’s County on a property known by the historic period name of Lower Brambly, at the