Dear Daniel,

Great questions, and unfortunately we are woefully lacking in information on
the material culture protohistoric\contact period here in the Chesapeake
(specifically the James and York River areas). There have been a handful of
sites that have been investigated, generally only in a CRM type environment
(small areas stripped, test units, etc.) yielding tantalizing clues and
creating a lively debate on the viability of the ethno historic records.

As a brief (and generalized) summary of material culture in reaction to your
questions, ceramics are shell-tempered, simple-stamped conical jars.
Projectile points recovered indicate a preference for cryptocrysatlline
materials, however, quartzite and quartz are often found in assemblages as
well.  The points are small, and in some cases (mostly the
cryptocrystalline) appear to have been reduced from small pebbles using
bipolar reduction.  As for trade goods, we have found a fair amount of all
the types you mention and there is a fair amount of ethnohistoric info
suggesting a healthy trade or flow of goods from Jamestown to sites such as
Werowocomoco.

The caveat here is that we have yet to comprehensively study a
protohistoric\contact period village.  These sites were likely dispersed
villages containing complex structures of family, religious, economic, and
ethnic zones.  The potential information that Werowocomoco has to offer in
these areas is astounding, and many folks are very excited about that site.