[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
00 OD 00 LA.) C) 0 X [PALED l< -4 EARLY = =r --i [ARCHA C-) Ca- CD C) ;Q I. C:, C-) IIDDL tn (D [AIRCHA C+ -0 C-) C+ J--j 2 n C+ :3 (D 73 )--. :4 (D M CD CL 'o ;a ul .:5 1 , 0) C3 F- (A 0 rt 0) 3:: 1 LA LO . r- X-- = -. (D Co co 00 -1 0 0. 10- Ln M AR C:) 0 -h C+- > 0) CD 0. J-h Z (A -Z -1 0 (-- 0) (/) C:) r+ C-1 0) a: C+ 0) m m [WE AL Y :3 OOOL C+ MIDD 0 :3 (D In rri WOOD 0 rri AYE [L-0ODL C-) V) ca rri Ch ,A PRELIMINARY CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW OF THE PREHISTORY OF MARYLAND'S LOWER EASTERN SHORE BASED UPON A SURVEY OF SELECTED ARTIFACT COLLECTIONS FROM THE AREA BY: RICHARD B. HUGHES DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY SALISBURY STATE COLLEGE SALISBURY, MARYLAND Property of CSC Library 1) - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Prepared For: "@'234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, -SC 29405-24 13 The Maryland Historical.Trust and The Ti.dewater Administration Maryland Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resources Division Annapolis, Maryland 1980 T A B L E 0 F C 0 N T E N T S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . vii ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ix LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . xi LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii, INTRODUCTION: SURVEY AIMS AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER 1: PREVIOUS RESEARCH . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CHAPTER II: ARTIFACT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . 10 LITHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Retouched: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 'bapoed Stone ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Ground Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 17 Non-Retouched: . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 19 CERAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CHAPTER III:. CHRONOLOGY . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... 26 PALEOINDIAN PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... 32 Corner-Notched Tradition: . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Bifurcate Tradition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Middle Archaic I Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Middle Archaic II Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Middle Archaic III-Phase . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 36 LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Late Archaic I Phase: ... . . . . . . . 36 Late Archaic 11 Phase; . . . . . . . 37 Late Archaic III Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Late Archaic IV Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Late Archaic V Phase; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Late Archaic VI Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Marcey Creek.Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Dames Quarter Phase: 40 MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 Wolfe Neck Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Selby Bay Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Hell Island Phase:., I.. . . . . ... . . . . . . . 47 LATE WOODLAND PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Little Round Bay Phase: .. . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Sullivan Cove Phase: . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 51 Potomac Creek Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 POST-CONTACT PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 53 CHAPTER IV: MODERN MACRO-ENVIRONMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . 55 RIVERS AND COAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . 58. CLIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 61 SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 62 VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 CHAPTER V: MODERN MICRO-EN VIRONKENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 68 POORLY-DRAINED WOODLAND'AND SWAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 WELL-DRAINED WOODLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 TRANSITIONAL AREAS . . . . . . . . 76 TIDAL MARSH AND ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENTS . . . . . . . . . . 77 SALT WATER BAYS AND OCEAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 PERMANENT FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 NON-FOOD RESOURCE AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 80 Lithics: . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 CHAPTER VI: PALEO-ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 PALEOCLIMATIC SEQUENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE . . . . . . 84 SEA LEVEL RISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 CHAPTER VII: SYNTHESIS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 PALEOIND.IAN PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corner-Notched Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . Bifurcate Tradition . . . . . 117 MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Middle Archaic I Phase: . . . . . . . . . . 130 Middle Archaic II Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Middle Archaic III Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Late Archaic I Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Late Archaic II Phase: . . . . . . 146 Late Archaic III Phase; . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Late Archaic IV Phase: . . . . . . 151 IV Late Archaic V Phase: .. . . ... . . . . .@158 Late Archaic VI Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . 164 Marcey Creek Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Dames Quarter Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167 MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIO D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Wolfe Neck Phase; , 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 175 Selby Bay Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Hell Island Phase; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 LATE WOODLAND PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Little-Round Bay Phase: . . . . . . . . . . . . Sullivan Cove Phase; . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 201 Potomac Creek Phase: . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 201 POST-CONTACT PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 213 CHAPTER VII; CRITICAL AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 PARSONSBURG SANDS FORMATION . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 220 ATLANTIC COASTAL AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 MOUND AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER IX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 231 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241-256 TABLE-5- TABLE I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 TABLE II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 TABLE III R . . . . ... . ... . . 259' TABLE IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 TABLE V . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . 261 v APPENDICES APPENDIX I .............................................. 1 212 APPENDIX II .............................................. 1 8 APPENDIX III ............................................. vi JAMES B. COULTER LOUIS N. PHIPPS. JR. SECRETARY DEPUTY SECRETARY STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION (301) 269-2784 TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 October 14, 1982 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER To The Reader: Attached, please find a copy of a new report, A Cultural and Environmental Overview of the Prehistory of Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore, which was produced as apart of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program student internship program. This research, conducted by Richard Hughes in the summer of 1980 under the supervision of the Maryland Historical Trust, represents a synthesis of known information on the archeology of Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore. The work of early archeological research pioneers as well as the invaluable data provided by the activities of numerous avocational archeologists has been used to create a firm foundation of knowledge upon which future research in the region can be built. This study, as presented here, is still in preliminary draft form, with final additions and revisions yet to be made. It is felt, however, that the information provided by this work is of such significance for an area which has in the past received scant attention to archeological resources, that the information should be distributed to interested parties at this state of preparation. Due to the current document's preliminary nature, comments and suggestions are solicited so that they may be incorporated into the final document. Please send comments to: Wayne Clark, State Administration of Archaeology Md. Historical Trust 21 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Sincerely, SJT:CZ:gvs Dr. Sarah J Taylor, Attachment Director Coastal Resources Division TTY FOR DEAF- BALTIMORE 269-2609. WASHINGTON METRO 565-0450 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: It has been my great pleasure to have had the opportunity to work these past months on the preparation of this research report; a report which I hope will at least represent a first step toward gaining a better, understanding of the fascinating prehistory of Maryland's lower Eastern Shore. The funding of the Summer intern' Archaeological Program by the Tidewater Administration, Coastal Zone Management Unit of the Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland, represents a deep commitment to preserve and understand the only evidence whichremains of how man lived on Maryland's Eastern Shore for all but 350 of at least the last 12,000 years. The help of Mr. Wayne Clark of the Maryland Historical Trust in arranging and administering this funding is deeply appreciated. Mr., Clark's guidance and advice during all stage of this research has been absolutely invaluable. Dr. K.-Peter La.de of Salisbury State College and the Lower Delmarva Regional Center for Archaeology has also givenmost freely and unselfishly of both his extensive knowledge of the prehistory of the area and, far above and beyond the call of duty, countless hours from his busy schedule. Without the help and advice provided by Dr. Thomas E. Davidson of the Lower Eastern Shore Regional Preservation Office at Salisbury State College this report would not have been possible and I wish to thank him for this and for the many hours he shared with me studying collections during the hottest summer in one hundred years, vii My very warmest thanks go to the many people who shared both their collections and their amazingly wide-ranging knowledge of the study area with me. This report is truly the result of their generous contri- butions. I cannot possibly name all who helped me this summer, but I would particularly like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Robert Filmer, Mr..and Mrs. Willis Messick, Mr. Bill Wilson, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hirst, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Fehrer, Dr. Robert McFarlin, Mr. Chuck Fithian, Mr. Robert Delano, Mr. and Mrs. Brice Pusey, Mrs. Royce Beauchamp and Mr. Mi chael Vaeth. Barbara Mason's hel p wi th the many 1 i ttl e detai 1 si s especially appreciated. The high level of dedication and consciencious- ness which these people exhibit makes the term amateur archaeologist total-ly inappropriate. I also wish to express my most sincere appreciation to the.faculty and staff of Salisbury State College for their provision of working space and supplies, as well as all the very generously given advice and aid in matters that at times seemed beyond my comprehension. Finall y, many thanks to Laurie Cameron Steponaitis who preceeded me in this type of study, providingme with avealth of -research on which to*draw and most of all with the model on which this study is based. viii ABSTRACT: Maryland's lower Eastern Shore counties of Wicomico, Somerset and Worcester. at present represent a rather unique archaeological phenomen- on. These counties include an area which is known to have been intensive- ly occupied from Paleoindian times (circa 12,000 B.P.) to the present, yet it is also an area which has remained largely rural and unspoiled by development. Unfortunately, this situation is now rapidly changing. The Atlantic coastal area has become the resort of numerous large urban areas within easy commuting distance, the city of Salisbury is e Ixper- iencing a building boom which shows no sign of easing and the completion of the Norfolk Harbor-Tunnel has turned the Delmarva Peninsula into a major north-south throughway with the concomitant growth of all-towns along this route. This report is an attempt to face these land develop- ment stresses by providing a framework upon which-future systematic ar- chaeological surveys can build. The report is the, result of a thorough examination of the available published literature. and the study of a number of major artifact collections from the area. The perspective ofthis re- port is based upon a view of the study area as it relates to theDelmarva Peninsula, the Chesapeake Bay region as a whole, and to the Middle Atlantic. region of the Eastern United States. Topics covered include; a review of previous research; the develop- ment of a preliminary chronological sequence; a review of the modern macro-environmental and micro-environmental setting and its probable ix changes through time; a synthesis of the data as it pertains to artifact inventories, settlement patterns and economic behavior; and finally the integration of this data todefine a number of archaeologically critical areas where parti.cularly high levels of cultural resources are and should be found. k LIST OF FIGURES: FIGURE* TITLE PAGE 1 The Chesapeake Bay Region 2 2 The Study area 4 3 Archaic Period Chronology and Point Typology 29 4 Woodland Period-Chronology and Ceramic Typology 31 5 Distribution of Saline to Freshwater Zones 57 6 Areas of Good or Poor Drainage 69 7 Distribution of Wetland Types 71 8 Lithic Resource Areas 82 9 Summary of Paleo-Environmental Model 91 10 Map of Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Region circa 7000 B.P. 93 11 Distr_ibUtibni of Total Pa-ld6ihdiah Pdribd Sit6s 12 Count of Point Types - Paleoindian Period 102 13 Distribution of Paleoindian Sites Clovis Phase 104 14 Distribution of Paleoindian Sites Middle Paleo- indian Phase 105 15 Distribution of Paleoindian Sites Dalton/ Hardaway Phase 106 16 Count of Raw Material Use Clovis Phase 108 17 Count of Raw Material Use - Middle Paleoindian Phase 109 18 Count of Raw Material Use - Dalton/Hardaway Phase 110 19 Distributiori of Total Early Archaic Period Sites 112 20 Count of Point Types Early Archaic Period 113 xi FIGURE TITLE PAGE 21 Count of Raw Material Use - Early Archaic 1 115 22 Count of Raw Material Use - Early Archaic IT '116 23 Distribution of Early Archaic I Sites 118 24 Distribution of Early Archaic IT Sites 119 25 Count of Raw Material Use - Early Archaic 111 121 26 Count of Ra w Material Use - Early Archaic IV 122 27 Count of Raw Material Use - Early Archaic V 123 ,@:28 Distribution of Early Archaic III Sites 124 29 Distribution of Early Archaic IV Sites 125 30 Distribution of.Early Archaic V Sites 126 31 Distribution of Total Middle Archaic Period Sites 128 32 Count of Point Types - Middle Archaic Period 129 33 Count of Raw Material Use - Middle Archaic 1 131 34 Distribution of Middle Archaic I Sites 132 35 Count of Raw Material Use - Middle Archaic IT .134 36 Distribution of Middle Archaic-II Sites 135 37 Count of Raw Material Use Middle Archaic 111 137 38 Distribution of Middle Archaic III Sites 138 39 Distribution of Total Late Archaic Sites 140 40 Count of Poift Types - Late Archaic Period 1 42 41 Count of Raw Material Use - Late Archaic 1 144 42 Distribution of Late Archaic 1, Sites 145 43 Count of Raw Material Use - Late Archaic IT 148 44 Distribution of Late Archaic IT Sites 150 45 Count of Raw Material Use Late Archaic 111 182 xii FIGURE TITLE PAGE 46 Distribution of Late Archaic III Sites 153 47, Distribution of Steatite Vessel Fragments 155 48 Count of Raw Material Use - Late Archaic IV 156 49 Distribution of Late Archaic IV Sites 157 50 Count of Raw Material Use - Late Archaic V 159 51 Distribution of Late Archaic V Sites 160 52 Distribution of Late Archaic VI Sites 162 53 'Count of Raw Material Use Late Archaic VI 163 54 Distribution of Total Early Woodland Sites 165 55@ Count of Point Types - Early Woodland Period 166 56 Distribution of Projectile Point Types Associated with Dames'.Quarter Ceramics 168 57 Distribution of Dames Quarter Phase Sites 169 58 Count of Raw Material Use - Dames Quarter Phase 59 Distribution of Total Middle Woodland Period Sites 173 6.0 Count of Point Types Middle Woodland Period 174 61 Count of Raw Material Use - Wolfe Neck Phase 176 62 Distribution of Wolfe Neck Phase Sites 1 77 63 Distribution of Points Associated with Wolfe Neck Ceramics 179 64 Distribution of Points Associated with Coulbourn Ceramics 1.81 65 Count of Raw Material Use - Selby Bay Phase 183 66 Distribution of Selby Bay Phase Sites 184 67 Distribution of Points Associated with Mockley Ceramics 68 Distribution of Hell Island Phase Sites 187 xiii FIGURE' TITLE PAGE 69 Count of Raw Material Use Hell Island Phase 188.- 70 Distribution of Points Associated with Hell Island Ceramics 190 71 Distribution of Total Late Woodland Period Sites 192 72 Count of Point Types Late Woodland Period 193 73- Count of Raw Material Use - Little Round Bay Phase 195 74 Distribution of Little Round Bay Phase Site 196 75 Distribution of Townsend Herringbone Ceramics .198 76 Distribution of Rappahannock Incised (complex Motif) Ceramics 199 77 Distribution of Points Associated with Townsend Incised Series Ceramics 200 78 Count of Raw Material Use - Sullivan Cove Phase 20 2 79 Distribution of Rappahannock Incised (horizontal) Ceramics 203 80 Distribution of Townsend Corded Horizontal Ceramics 204 .81 Distribution of.Sullivan Ware Ceramics 206 82 Distribution of Sullivan Cove Phase Sites 207 83 Distribution of Points Associated with Townsend Corded Series Ceramics 208 84 Distribution of Potomac Creek Phase Sites 210 85 Distribution of Potomac Creek, Ceramics 211 86 Distribution of Points Associated with Potomac Creek Ceramics .212 87 Distribution of Mayoane Ware 88 Distribution of Points Associated with Mayoane Ceramics 215 89 Count of Raw Material Use - Potomac Creek Phase 90 Shoreline Erosion Since 1850 (Atlantic Coastal Zone) 225 xiv FIGURE TITLE PAGE 91@ Shoreline Erosion*Since 1850 (Atlantic Coastal Zone) 226 92 Shoreline Erosion Since. 1850 (Atlantic Coastal Zone) 227 93 Count of Point Types All Periods 236 94 Line Plot of Point Type Frequency Through Time 237 95- Point Count by Time Period 288 96 Site Count by Time Period 239 97. Line Plot of Site and Point Frequency through Time 240 xv LIST OF TABLES: TABLE TITLE PAGE Sites Represented in the Hirst Collection @258 II Sites Represented in the Filmer Collection 259 III Sites Represented in the Messick Collection 260 IV Sites'Represented in the Vaeth Collection 261 V Sites Represented in the Dinwiddie, Omwake, Pusey, 26 2 Moore, Delano, Beauchamp, Fehrer, Goldsborough and Maryland Geological Survey Collections xvi LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE I Site Descriptions and Artifact.Counts II Preliminary Results of L6ndsat, Low and Htgh Level Aerial Reconnaissance Tests III PhotograpM of Selected Point Types found in the Study Area xvii INTRODUCTION: SURVEY AIMS AND METHODOLOGY Beginning in June, 1980, and continuing through the summer, a study was conducted of existing archaeological artifact collections from Wicomico, Worcester and Somerset counties on Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore. The project was funded by the Summer Intern Program of the Tidewater Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Re- sources, Coastal Resources Division, and was administered by the Mary@ land Historical Trust. The lowest three counties of the Eastern Shore of Maryland lie within the Delmarva peninsula which is part of the larger Chesapeake and Atlantic coastal region (Figure 1). The study area is bounded on the north by the Nanticoke River and the state of Delaware, to the west by the Chesapeake Bay, to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the@ south by the Virginia counties of the Delmarva peninsula (see Fig- ure 2). The three counties were selected for study based upon three,imp- ortant factors: First, the physiography of the region forms a well defined natural unit which encompasses the three main landforms of the Eastern Shore coastal plain: the beach or coastline; the tidal marsh; and the main- land or coastal plain proper. It was felt that the three counties formed a natural transect which would include all of the possible en- S=UEHAN:qA RiVE R NEW JERSEY MARYLAND OELAWARE SAY cl 4 IDELAWARE Ui The, Study C-. Area T 0 40 KM 00 N 0 VIRGINIA Figure 1: The Chesapeake Bay Region -2- vironmental zones in which human adaptation would have taken place on the lower Eastern Shore. The documenting of the known cultural resourc- es of this area in an informed manner, which is the primary purpose of this report, represents a first step towards fulfilling a systematical- ly applied program of multi-disciplinary research aimed at understan& ing the prehistory and history of the lower Delmarva Peninsula, and in turn of the entire Chesapeake and Atlantic region. Second, the management and preservation of the cultural resources of the area is becoming more imperative every year as a once largely isolated and undeveloped agricultural area comes under increasing de-, velopmental'pressure from surrounding urban areas as a result of its own natural and environmental resources. The Atlantic coastal area has undergone astounding deve1opment, especially around.0cean City as it provides the closest coastal resort beaches to the Washington D.C. area. The city of Salisbury in the central coastal plain has grown dramatically in the last,decade and has prospects of even further ex- pansion as-it.comes to serve as the central industrial and business center of the Eastern Shore. The possibility of oil exploitation off of the Atlantic coast could provide impetus for an especially rapid de- velopment in many parts of the study area. Last, the establishment Of the Lower Delmarva Regional Preservation Center of the Maryland Historical Trust in Salisbury offers the oppor- tunity to combinethe work of cultural resource management and preser- vation with that of ongoing archaeological research programs in the lower counties. The Center offers excellent fac ilities for the appli- cation of a program involving systematic fieldwork, laboratory research -3- DE'@AWARE 0 KM 10 St. Martins Rive C, Nassawa@ngo 0 Creek C, Dividing CreL-kq_,. Aw 0 U) 0 4p Q Big An ne ess Riv r Y-OU, 41 P and.a multi-disciplinary approach to the cultural resources of the area. This report will hopefully serve to establish a base of data upon which future research may draw and upon which some preliminary manage- ment decisions may be made. In order to do this, this report will concentrate upon the construct- ion of a preliminary artifact classification system, the presentation of a spatio-temporal distr ibution of artifacts and sites, and the identi- fication of critical areas for the fulfillment.of management and research .goals in the region. The methodology which was applied to answering the aims of this report was basically a three step questioning process. The initial procedure was to discover just what was in the arti- fact collections by examining them firsthand. The artifacts were comp- ared to known types from surrounding areas as far afield as New York and as close as Delaware (for example, see Ritchie 1961, Coe 1964,, Artusy 1977) in order to establish some sort of baseline for compari- son. This was done with the full knowledge that such comparisons can never provide conclusive associations for artifacts which may resemble similarly appearing material from sites often many states away, but until carefully controlled excavation of selected sites provides a better framework for reference, analogies will have to be drawn to' known artifact typologies and chronologies. The second step was to carefully analyze where the artifacts in the collections were being picked up. This was done in order to ascer- tain if any dominant trends would emerge for the different time periods in relation to environment, resources or other factors,., Last, based largely upon answers to the first two questions, an attempt was made to make some statements about where we may logically ..expect further sites during the various time periods to be located in areas where no sites are currently known. This was done based upon en- vironmental knowledge, location of resource areas and distribution of known sites. Additionally, some very preliminary test research was applied to the question of site location prediction by the application of aerial photographic data and Landsat orbiting earth resources sate- !lite data. It is hoped that these research methods may be applicable to areas outside of the lower Eastern Shore as well as to the current research area. -6- CHAPTER I: PREVIOUS RESEARCH Considering the rich and varied archaeological data base which exists on the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, it is perhaps surprising that the region is notable for an al most total lack of early systematic professional research. The earliest reference to a prehistoric archaeolooical site occurs on a map published in the Geological Survey Annual Report of 1835 by .the geologist J. T. Ducatel. His map indentifies the location of shell middens in Somerset County at Long Point near Dames Quarter and on the Manokin River near Revelle's Neck. He also locates shell middens just above the study area in.Dorchester county at Horn Point near Cambridge and in the vicinity of Hurlock. Henry C. Mercer (1897) discussed the digging of an Indian ossuary in nearby Dorchester county in the.year 1897 and W. H. Holmes makes pas- sing mention of the region around the turn of the century, but by and large professional archaeological investigation remained at the level described by D. S. Davidson in 1934 when he stated that the area was an archaeological terra incognita (1934). In all of the early published works on the area the cultural chron- ology remained confused and very poorly defined at best and a concern With constructing such a chronology has to a large extent continued to be a prime factor in work performed thoughout the entire Delmarva region.' The construction of a broad cultural synthesis based upon a better understanding of the Woodland period has marked the work of most later profess.ional archaeologists working in the region (Griffith 1977, 1980; Thomas 1974 ; Wise 1975). By far the greatest amount of work done in the study area unt'll very recently has been by,local amateurs and para-professionals. Extensive collections based on material derived from exposed land surfaces and eroding shorelines have been assembled. Some articl-es have been publish- ed on this material (Messick 1967; Cresthull 1971; Brown 1979), but most of the material has remained unstudied. Certain problems arise in dealing with such collections which can make working with them difficult. Sample bias is present in the differential selection of projectile points and ground stone items over other classes of prehistoric material. Poor recording of artifact provenience also can make such collections of little research value. Secrecy about exact site location by dubious collectors can act to impede useful study of collections., Even.the most thorough and cooperative collectors never overcome the problems associated with.shallow, multi-component sites which have been surface collected in an unsystematic fashion. This seems to be the most common type of site occurring within the study area. Since the enactment of cultural resource management legisTation, contract archaeological work has been increasingly performed within the study area (for example see: Bastian 1971, Cbnrad 1976,Curry 1978, Epperson 1980, Gardner 1976, Israel 1978,.McNamara 1977 & 1977a, McNett 1978, Thomas 1976 & 1977). The majority of these reports are on file at the Office of Archaeology, Maryland Geological Survey in Baltimore. Th e contract work which has been done in the area gives a clearer piq& L'ure of environmental and cultural development in small selected areas, but of necessity such work is restricted in focus and does not deal in great depth with the overall prehistory of the region. Work which has been done on a larger scale regional basis has p,ri- marily taken place in Delaware under the auspices of the Delaware Di- vision of Archaeology (Thomas 1974, Lewis 1971, Wise 1975). One larger scale overview directed to management purposes has been presented deal- ing with the Eastern Shore of Maryland (Wilke & Thompson 1974). Work at Catholic University and in Delaware has produced some attempts to construct and test models of settlement and subsistence patterns on the Delmarva Peninsula (Gardner 1978 & 1979, Thomas et al. 1975 This type of work particularly within Maryland, has suffered from a lack of sufficient data. Hopefully this problem will be reme- died as more work is conducted in the future. -9- CHAPTER 11: ARTIFACT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Since the earliest days of archaeological study, archaeologists have classified their cultural material into categories. The reason for doing this is that categories serve to condense the sometimes over- whelming mass of material information into a more useful and workable form. Additionally, the categories allow the archaeologist to more easily see the variability present in the assemblage he is examining and it also,provides.a means of at least attempting to compare arti- facts in a meaningful manner from diverse locations. One can create categories of artifacts based upon numerous lines of inquiry. For example, withlithic material the cate'gories can be de- vised according to technique of manufacture, function, or morphology. Ceramics and other materials present slightly di fferent but similar problems. All of these have been used to construct classificatory systems, but the basic one which has been and still continues to.be preeminently used for lithic material is classification based upon morphology or the form of the finished artifact. For ceramics, certain other variables such as method of decoration have been used in construct- ion of classificatory systems. When a classiftc ation system was being devised for this study cer- tain special characteristics of the collections had to be kept in mind. The major influence to be accounted for was the preferential selection _10- by collectors of projectile points and secondarily ceramics from the surface of sites. This factor means that the archaeologist is not seeing the total range of artifacts from the site nor is. he getting a true picture of the frequency with which artifacts are occuring in the tota I artifact population. A second important consideratfo-nis the fact that the.majority of collected sites are shallow, multi-component scatters in which it is all but impossible to separate-out non-tempor- ally diagnostic artifacts by component. Without clear stratigraphic context, a flake or a broken projectile point tip could just as easily date to Paeloindian times as to the Late Woodland. The end result of these two cons'iderations is that any classification system used would have to primarily deal with projectile points and secondarily, at least for the Woodland period, with ceramics. Bias in collection had largely eliminated most other material and the nature of the sites involved made much of what may have been picked up in addition to points and ceramics useless. These factors also dictate what questions one can best ask of such material. For instance, trying to assess the differ- ent functions carried out within or between sites would be useless as the collected material would only represent a small part of the total activities carried out at a, site. The only real questions which could meaningfully be addressed based on the available collections had to deal with site distribution through time. In order to best do this, rather gross categories of artifacts were constructed which focused primarily upon temporally diagnostic material. This study has steered clear of making any functional assessments for use in devising categor- ies. This is based upon this author's and other's (for example, Odell 1977, Ahler 1970, Keeley 1977) experimental research into the damage that accrues to stone tools through utilization and the application of th'i-s knowledge to prehistoric stone tool assemblages. The evidence of these studies is very clear that while in some assemblages at certain times some morphological groups do indeed,fit the function denoted to them by their type names, others most certainly do not fit. Often one type will have been used for a.function (or functions) very different from what its name.would imply. The morphological group projectile points is a classic example. These "points" when,examined were often' ,used for other purposes entirely such as cutting, boring or scraping.,: With this in mind, this report will- conceive of morphological and functional types as separate entities for the purpose of data record- ing and analysis. If desired, further work could be done along these lines at a later time when more systematic survey or excavation has been done. LITHICS In order to address the primary question of site distribution through time, a basic lithic material classification was constructed which divided the material into two basic classes, of chipped stone and ground stone. A major dichotomy was made for the chipped stone assembl- age based on whether a piece was retouched or non-retouched. Retouch was defined as any secondary,modification (i.e. removals) of stone, for whatever purpose, that can be demonstrated to have been of prehist- oric human origin. This includes both thinning an.d edge retouch modi- -12- ficati6n.@,-Noh-reto'uched is any piece which does not meet theabove criteria. Ground stone to be considered as belonging in a type category must show. features such-as grinding, pecking, battering, polish or any other, evi.dence of prehistoric human modification. Raw material used in manufacture was also considered for all lith- ic' artifacts'. Raw material selection varied over time so this can be, an important factor in indicating the dating of a particular artifact. The basic descriptive system which was employed on the chipped stone.artifacts was based upon the work of Errett Callahan (1979) on biface.reduction. This is a very up-to-date and workable system which presents a series of reduction stages in the construction of a chipped stone artifa.c t. Five stage s are presented from obtaining the raw mater- ial to final production.of a shaped piece. This interest in biface technological reduction stages is necessary as practically all Qhipped stone artifacts and projectile points in particular fit into the re- duction sequence somewhere and any variability noted can have important cultural i-mplications. A basic guide to the reduction sequence can be found in Callahan (1979) on pages 10 and 11. The most important chipped stone class for the purposes ofthi.s report is projectile points. These are defined as all finished bifaces and unifaces with symmetrical edges converging to a point. All basal elements showing hafting modification were also included but finished tips were not. The category of projectile points was further subdivid- ed into types based upon morphological features.. The chronological -13- assignment'of these projectile point types will be discussed in the next section. Further division of the chipped stone category included items thought to possess the most likelihood for having temporal implications and for being the most likely to have been collected. These include: Scrapers - any steeply retouched unifacial or bifacial tool where the edge and not a projection (i.e. drill) is the area of retouch. These are rarely bifacial and the side opposite the steep retouch is usually flat. Drills a tool with a pronounced, roughly parallel-sided, pro- jecti.on the length of which is at least one third of the total length of.the piece. This projection is bi- facially retouched and rhomboid to circular.in cross- section. A hafting element may be present and may serve as a basis for further typological subdivision. Celt a general,term which includes axes, gouges, hoes, adzes and any other morphological type that is bifacially shaped and possesses a transverse cutting edge on one end. The cross-section may be round, lenticular, ovoid, plano-convex or rectangular. This category is especial- ly useful for fragments of larger tools that can be de- termined to belong in one of the above stated categories, but-that lack the features necessary for inclusion in any particular one. The subtypes of celts are defined thus: _14- Axe a bifacially worked piece that possesses a defined cutting edge on one of the ends. This cutting edge is symmetrically placed with regard to the cross section, and both surfaces that lead to the bit are convex and bevelled to about the same degree. Axes that possess a notch or groove chipped or pecked into the,side(s) constitute a subtype called '1grooved axes." Adze a bifacially worked piece that may occur in a variety of forms (e.g. lenticular, rect- angular,. trapezoidal). Its principal char- acteristics occur on the-bit, which is straight or slightly curved and asymmetri- cally beveled (though the piece is bifacial- ly worked). The sides and butt end may be crushed and abraded in the manufacturing process. Gouge a bifacially retouched celt on which the transverse edge possesses a pronounced curvature. The surfaces leading to the bit usually show asymetrical beveling like an adze, but the curvature of the edge is more extreme. Burin a flake, blade or blocky piece at least one corner of which has been produced by a blow struck-transversely -15- to the edge or surface that serves as the striking plat- form. The resulting burin point is often dihedral, but can also be trihedral. The burin spall that is detach- ed may have a series of flake scars down its dorsal ridge, but only if the tool manufacturer decided to use "stop retouch" to terminate the spall at some point. necessary to removal Terminal retouch though,, is not of the burin spall. The surface that served as the striking platform for the burin removal must be relative- ly flat, formed by a natural surface, scar negative, broken edge, or intentional retouch. Graver broad and flat projections from the edge of a tool blank. Usually worked unifacially, the working portion of the tool is made by crushing and flaking away part of the original edge on either side of the central area between two and five millimeters wide. This projection.must actually reach outward from the piece in such a way that it is a dominant part of the object, as opposed to an area left between two depressions in a notched piece which could never have adequately served a graving function. Blades flakes where the edges are roughly parallel. There is at least one dorsal ridge and the length is at Teast twice the width. Siface - all bifacially retouched tools not included in one of the above categories. -16- Uni face all unifacially retouched tools not included in one of the above categories.* Ground stone categories included: Pipes a smoking apparatus or sucking tube made of stone or .fired clay. May be intricately carved or decorated. Celt a hard stone tool shaped by grinding and pecking. Both axes and adzes fall into this category and are disting- uished by the form of the bit. Any item,for which a working edge is not obvious was called a celt. Sub- type- definitions: Axe a symmetrically bitted form. It need not be grooved, although three-quarter and fully-grooved types were recognized.. Adze Ground stone adzes'have one flat face and an opposinq convex face. The bit is asym- metrically beveled. Gouge an edged groundstone with a bit which is scooped out in cross-section. Pestle generally oblong, rounded stone forms usually pos,sessing a flat bottom. Pestles are usually pecked to one of The question of whether a tool type is bifacially or unifacially re- touched was determined by examining the working edge of the tool-@ If the edge is bifacially worked, then it was considered a biface. If the edge was unifacially worked, then it was considered a uniface. This means that it is possible to have two areas of unifacial retouch on oppo- site sides of the same tool and the item was considered as a unifacial tool. Only if Oifacial retouch occurred simultaneously along one edge was the tool called 6 biface. -17- three shapes: conical pestles, bell-shaped pestles and, cylindrical pestles. Bannerstone - a class of ground and often highly polished stone shapes with long, parallel sided drilled hafting hole. The hafting hole runs parallel to the axis of symmetry. Many geometric forms are seen: biconvex, bilobed, butter- fly, bicrescent, etc. Other forms, especially elbow or L-shaped forms have a single projection from an other- wise cyli,ndrical or rectangular segment throughwhich is bored the hafting hole. Gorget - a class of thin rectangular to oval to geometric.forms with one, and usually two or occasionally more holes drilled along the m.idline of the longer dimension. Mano a class of selected, flat stones exhibiting planar wear patterns. They possess at least one flat to convex face exhibiting these patterns. These include unifacial, bifacial, pitted and, bipitted forms. Metate - large hardstone, sandstone or other stone slabs which have broad, shallow, usually concave abraded surfaces. TypesAnclude slab, dish, channel, basin. Bowl generally a steatite. Should be bowl-shaped and should lack peck marks in the bottom indicating use as a mortar. Mortar specialized pulverization-catch basin tool which is the passive agent in combination with a pestle. Bead any small,'drilled or naturally perforated, item from tubular to irregular lumps. Abrader a tool possessing a groove, striations or face that is smoothe r and/or more polished than other faces'of the artifact. Any item which did not fit in one of the listed classes given above fo r either chipped stone or ground stone yet showing retouch was listed separately and described. N6h-Retouched: Non-retouched material included all pieces which showed no visible evidence of @econdary modification. The terms debris, debitage and waste were avoided at this stage of analysis. These terms connote pre- historic intent in situations in which intent has not been demonstrated. We have all seen unretouched.flakes with undoubted-traces of use on them, so what are they to be called - "utilized waste"? This would be.a con- tradictory use at best. Often flakes with no visible traces of use as-a tool are later seen to have indeed been used as such when viewed under a microscope by a trained observer, so until a thorough microwear anal- - ysis is performed on what little unretouched material was present, this study avoided the use of these terms. CERAMICS Ceramic material was classified based upon types identified by other studies for the Middle Atlantic region (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963, McNett and Gardner 1975, Wright 1973, Artusy 1.977 and Griffith _19- 19.7,7,.1980). Attributes of tempering material, paste9 surface treat- ment, thickness and technology were used to classify sherds. The char- acteristics used to identify expected and found ceramic types are listed below. Chronological data will be given in the next section. Ware Plain a hand-molded ware with a flat base and undecorated smoothed exterior. Temper is either crushed quartz, sand or limestone (Wise 1975). Very uncommon on the Delmarva peninsula. Marcey Creek Plain- a hand molded ware with a flat.bot tom often showing mat impressions. Wall thickness from 7 - 14 millimeters (Wise 1975, Artusy 1977, Evans 1955). Crushed steatite (soapstone) temper which gives a characteristic soapy texture and feel. Shapes similar to earlier carved steatite vessels. Distributed from Virginia to Upper Delaware (Stephenson & Ferguson 1963). Selden Island- coiled construction and conoidal in shape unlike earl- ier molded wares (Wise 1975, Artusy 1977). Steatite tempered cord impressing.. Distributed in coastal and piedmont Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and up the Sus- quehanna River into Pennsylvania. Dames Quarter Black Stone- a flat bottomed ware with a coiled, base. Exterior sur- -20- face is generally smooth, but cord and fabric impressed marking is known. It is thick and heavily tempered with crushed black stone (hornblende?). As presently known, the ware is a localized type in Somerset County, Maryland, with scattered occurrences in southern Delaware and up as far north as Dover (Wise 1975, Artusy 1977). Wolfe Neck Ware- two types are defined, Wolfe Neck Cord-Marked and Wolfe- Neck Net-Impressed. Constructed by coiling probably associated paddle-and-anvil technique. Temper is crush- ed quartz with wall thickness ranging from 6 - 14 milli- meters. Shape is conoidal with direct rims and smooth rounded lips. Wolfe Neck Ware is similar to many ware types found throughout the Mid-Atlantic including both the piedmont and coastal areas. Its own distribution area includes the Eastern Shore of Maryland into Dela- ware as far north as the piedmont (Giffith and Artusy 1977, Lewis 1972). Coul bourn Ware- two types are defined, Coulbourn Cord-Marked and Coul- bourn Net-Impressed. Interior surface treatment ranges from scraped through smooth over scraped to completely smooth. Approximately one-third of the Net-Impressed variety displays interior net impressions. Thickness ranges from 7 - 14 millimeters. Paddle-and-anvil tech- nique on coiling is indicated. No obvious temper is -21- present other than pieces of fired clay or crushed cer- amic sherds. Shape is conoidal with a direct rim. Lips are round and smooth or flattened with either cord or net impressions. The ware is spatially distributed in much the same area as Wolfe Neck Ware with a mention of Clay Sherd Tempered Plain being the only other clay tempered ware known in the Middle Atlantic (Evans 1 955: 75, Griffith and Artusy 1977). Mockley Ware- two types are defined, Mockley Cord!.-Marked and Mockley4 Net-Impressed. Tempered with crushed shell, either oyster or -ribbed mussel. Interior surfaces either smoothed or scraped. Thickness ranges from 7 - 11 mill- imeters. Constructed by coiling with paddle-and-anvil technique to a conoidal shape with a direct rim. Lips are rounded and smooth or flattened and impressed. Dist- ributed in all areas around the Chesapeake Bay with heaviest concentrations on the Delmarva Peninsula, in the James River area and south of Baltimore (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963, Griffith and Artusy 1977). Hell Island Ware- two types are defined, Hell Island Cord-Marked and Hell Island Fabric-Impressed. Interior surfaces are smooth with thickness ranging from 6 9 millimeters. Temper is finely crushed quartz with mica-inclusions often pres- ent. Fewer coil breaks than earlier wares probably rep- _22- resent improved techniques of coiled and paddle mal.leat- ed manufacturing. Shape is conoidal with direct rims, and flat, corded or fabric-impressed lips. Distributed in Delaware and Maryland's Eastern Shore. Related types occur from New York to Virginia. (Wright 1960, Thomas 1966, Artusy 1977) Townsend Series Ware- divided into two series, the earlier Townsend. Incised Series including.Rappahannock Fabric Impressed, Rappa- hannock Incised, Townsend Incised and Townsend Herring- bone; and the later Townsend Corded Series including Rappahannock Fabric Impressed (occurs 1"n both series groups), Rappahannock Incised (horizontal motif) and Townsend Corded Horizontal. The ware is crushed shell temper with decorated exteriors and smooth interiors. Thickness ranges from 5 - 10 millimeters. Construction is by coiling to a conoidal shape with direct rim.and normally a rounded, smooth lip. The Incised Series distribution includes Delaware from Dover south, through- out the Delmarva.Peninsula, into the Western Shore of Maryland and south to the James River in Virginia. The Corded Series distribution has a more southern distribu- tion in Delaware where it seldom occurs above southern Sussex county. It does not occur in the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland but is rare on the Western Shore. The cord impressed designs are very similar to those.found -23- on Potomac Creek Cord-Impressed Ware to the west (Blak- er 1963, Artusy 1977, Griffith 1980). Sullivan Ware- this is a thin-walled shell tempered ware whose disting- uishing'characteristic is a significantly browner paste containing smaller and fewer shell particles than Towns- end Ware. It has conical bases and partially smoothed cord markings. The paste is extremely compact compared to Townsend Ware and the cord-marking is finer (Wright 1973, Peck 1979). It is.associated with the Townsend Corded Series. Potomac Creek Ware- two types.are found, Potomac Creek Plain and Potomac Creek Cord-Marked Smooth interior surface. Thin walled with crushed quartz or coarse sand temper. Character- istically very well fired and hard. Coil construction with paddle malleated shaping. Lips are rounded; flat- tened or wedge shaped and rims are usually flared. Generally globular shaped bodies. (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963). Two phases of Potomac Cree k Ware have tentatively been identified which show certain di.st- inguishing physical characteristics. The earliest phase Potomac Creek Ware has a clayey paste and often a thickened lip or applique strip at,or below the rim. The later phase Potomac Creek Ware has a rounded or flat lip and is very similar to the "classic" Potomac Creek -24- Ware'described by Schmitt (1965). Mayoane Ware- three types are recognized, Mayoane Plain Ware, Mayoane Cord Impressed and Mayoane Incised. Constructed by coiling technique with paddle malleated or smoothed sur- faces. Temper is with extremely fine-grained micaceous sand often mixed with coarser sand oroccasionally crush-, ed quartz. The distinguishing.characteristic of the ware is its gritty, soft, slightly friable texture. Vessels are small to medium small with globular bodies, rounded bases, and flaring, straight or slightly inverted rims (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963). Colono-Indian Ware- an aboriginal ceramic. ware exhibiting native technology used in manufacture, but utilizing European inspired vessel forms (Noel-Hume 1962). -25- CHAPTER II: CHRONOLOGY The nature of the artifacts preferentially selected by collectors,, namely projectile points and ceramics, make them potentially the most useful, of all materials for determining the time at which a site.w'as occupied. I use the term "potentially" here because a very major prob- lem currently exists in asking chronological questions of our material on the Delmarva Peninsula. This problem is the fact that no typologic- al system based upon adequate samples from known stratigraphical contexts currently exists for the study area. This means that in order to have a typology to refer to one must borrow from pre-existing typol.ogical, systems from other areas. This is shaky business at best as what occur- ed projectile point wise in West Virginia during the Late Archaic is certainly no guarantee that the same thing was happening in central Del- marva at the same time. This problem makes any chronology which one may devise a very questionable affair and this in turn makes the for- mation of things such as ecological models for the various periods very questionable. The typological categories themselves are often very unclear Cthis is using the term "typology" to indicate a system consisting of "types" that are made up of two or more attributes (Rouse 1960, Redman 1973:67)]. For example, the Middle Archaic Morrow Mountain I (Coe 1964), the Late Archaic Piscataway (Stephenson 1963), and the Middle Woodland Rossville _26- (Ritchie 1961) all have characteristics which are very similar and size ranges which overlap. The side-notched points which include such seeming look-alikes as the Brewerton, Vernon and Selby Bay Side-Notched were in- divisible to Kinsey (1972). This typological muddle could be enumerated for several other point types, but the problem is already clear. The solution to this chronological problem lies imfuture carefully controll- ed systematic surveys and excavations. The value of a sequence derived from controlled demonstrable contexts is undoubted, but until this comes to pass a preliminary chr onology based upon primary existing sources wi)l serve to provide a preliminary ordering of the known data. There can be no doubt that future work in the region will.modify this chron- ology, but for the present such a chronology can serve to at least list What material is present-in the study area,so that it can be compared to the Middle Atlantic region as a whole. For the Paleoindian and Archaic periods I have relied heavily on the chronology developed by Steponaitis (1980) for the Patuxent River .drainage on the Western Shore of Maryland. This study in turn was based upon a synthesis of projectile point chronologies derived from a wide area of the Middle Atlantic region. The work of Coe (1964) in North Carolina; Broyles in West Virginia (1971); the further refinement of Broyles work by Chapman (1975, 1976); Ritchie in New York (1961) and Kinsey in the Upper Delaware VAlley of Pennsylvania (1972) were all drawn upon to form a chronology for the Chesapeake region. For the Woodland period, our chronology is somewhat more secure due to the excellent work in Delaware by Wise (1975), Artusy (1976) -27- and Griffith (1977, 1980) on the ceramics of the Delmarva Peninsula. A bit further afield, work by Wright (1973) on the Western Shore; McNett and Gardner (1975) in the Piedmoint and Coastal Plain areas; Gardner (1974) in the Shenandoah Valley and Clark (1976) in the Piedmont west of Baltimore was drawn upon for chronology development. Some changes to Steponaitis' chronology were necessary and felt to be justifiable for the Woodland period based upon the ceramic studies done in southern Del- aware by Artusy (1976) and Griffith and Artusy (1977). A summary of the chronology used in this study is presented in Figures 3 and 4. As a',thorough discussion of the chronology used in this study is presented in.Steponaitis' (1980) report, only a brief review of the chronological periods will be presented here with particular emphasis on the later Woodland periods where changes have been instituted. For further dis- cussion of chronology, the reader is referred to Steponaitis (1980:42- 60). The prehistory of the Eastern United States is divided into three broad cultural and chronological periods, the Paleoindian, the Archaic and the Woodland. The dates of these periods vary, but the broad based subsistence and settlement patterns appear to be very similar through- out the entire region. PALEOINDIAN PERIOD This period is dated from approximately 13,000 B.C. to 7500 B.C. The Paleoindian period occured during the time of the last glacial and -28- ARCHAIC PERIOD CHRONOLOGY AND DIAGNOSTIC POINT TYPOLOGY PHASE TRADITION DIAGNOSTIC POINT B.C./A.D. 500 Marcey Creek Fishtail '000 Cafe_AFc5a'1c-VT Orient & Dry,Brook 1500 Late Archaic V Broadspear Perkiomen, Su squehanna Late Archaic IV Clagett,Savannah River, 2000 Late Archaic III Holmes Koens-Crispin 2500 Late Archaic II Piedmont/ Vernon 3000 Laurentian Brewerton SN,CN,EN,ET 3500 Late Archaic I Piscataway 4000 Otter Creek Middle Archaic III Guilford Lanceolate 4500 Middle.Archaic II Morrow Mountain I & II 5000 5500 Middle Archaic I Stanly .6000 Early Archaic V Kanawha Early Archaic'IV Bifurcate Le Croy 6500 Early Archaic III St. Albans Early Archaic II Kirk CN & Stemmed 7000 Early Archaic I Corner-Notched Palmer 7500 8000 Dalton - Hardaway Dalton Middle Paleoindian Hardaway Middle Paleo 8500 9000 Clovis Clovis 9500 Figure 3 -29- the beginning of the postglacial period. The environmental factors at work during this time must have had a profound influence upon the life- ways of Pa,,leoindian groups. About the only remaining evidence of this period is inthe form of lith ic tools, most especially projectile points. Gardner's work at the paleoindian Thunderbird site in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia has resulted in a proposal that the Paleoindian period can be divided into three phases: Fluted, Corner-Notched and Side-Notched The Corner- Notched and Side-Notched phases have normally been, assigned to the sucIceeding Archaic period (post 7500 B.C.) but Gardner considers a sim- ilarity in lithic assemblages and manufacturing technology plus an assum-' ed continued emphasis on hunting to justify their inclusion in the Paleo- indian period. However, as Steponaitis (1980:43) points out, certain environmental changes, shifts in settlement pattern and population size and minor additions to the tool kit seem to argue for a separation of the Paleoindian period from the Corner-Notched and Side-Notched phases. The argument of a hunting based economy continuing throughout all three phases is even harder to prove, especially for an area as environmentally different from the Shenandoah Valley as the Delmarva peninsula. This is supported by evidence from the Shawnee-Minisink site (McNett et al. 1977: 284) on the Delaware River where a more broad based economy is indicated by hawthorne pits and fish bones in association with a hearth dated to, 8640*300B.C. With this in mind, for the purposes of this report the Corner-Notched and Side-Notched Phases will be assigned to the Early Archaic period. _30- WOODLAND PERIOD CHRONOLOGY AND CERAMIC TYPOLOGY LOWER EASTERN SHORE of MARYLAND PATUXENT RIVER (WESTERN SHORE) LU 1200 BC Uj LU < tn 1100 Marcey Creek Ware >-< LU Uj 1000 CC LU Marcey Creek Ware Uj < = V) Uj, 900 Selden Island Ware 2: 01 < V) a- 800 Dames Quarter Ware Uj 700 Accokeek Ware 600 Wolfe Neck Ware 500 N& Lj Uj 400 @Coulbourn Ware Uj _1z Uj V1 Ln < 300 Smallwood & Ln) = j Cc 0- 200 Popes Creek Uj 100 Ware Uj BC-AD U_ C) _j 0 100 Mockley Ware CD :9 __j Uj _j V) 200 Mockley Ware V) a- co U.J V) 300 < 400 _j C1. Uj V) 500 600 Hell Island Ware < 700 >_ LU < co V) < 800 Ln LU Townsend Incised Series W V) < -RFI 900 _j = _jQ_ -RI complex Uj 1000 Townsend Incised SeriesJ- Jownsend Herringbone 1100 -RFI* Uj LU --I Uj -RI(complex) __j M Uj V) 1200 F- = V) < -Townsend Herringbone =>-Cc Townsend Corded Series C>Cr= C) < = _j = co a- 1300 Townsend Corded Serjea -RFI -RFI* 1400 #Potomac W1 -RI horiz. 'Potomac .(n,1 @K -TCH -RI(horizontall Creek LU >< Creek Uj *Sullivan Ware 1500 -TCH I & 0-1 Q_ Ware *Sullivan Ware , M: _j >. 1600 Mayoane C) Uji CD W V) C) ::- < 1700 C> == zle LU C-) C1. Uj Uj LU C-) _j C-) _j L/I CD F_ CD -31- Figure 4 Ga.rdner.does,,distinguish three sub-phases within the Paleoindlan phase: the Clovi,s, Middle-Paleo and Dalto,n-Hardaway. These are recog- nized in this report and indeed are present in the study area. The Clovis phase is marked by the "classic" eastern Clovis point. This point is a lanceolate biface with partial edge grinding, lateral pressure retouch and fluting scars (Gardner 19,74:14). A Clovis point from the Shawnee-Minisink site was from a level where three of four radiocarbon dates 9100�1000 B.C. (W-3391), 864MOO B.C. and 8800�600: B;C. agree well with the chronology of this report. The second Middle-Paleo phase is distinguished by a fluted point which is "smaller, thinner and more markedly fluted" than the Clovis (Gardner 1974:15). This point occurs stratigraphically above the Clo- vis at the Thunderbird site and probably dates from around 9000 to 8500 B. @C The final phase is the Dalton-Hardaway. These points are r IOughly triangular in-outline with a deeply concave base with adjoining promin- ent "ears." Fluting is still present, but in reduced form.. Gardner 0974) estimates a date of 8000 to 7000 B.C. for these points which fits well with other published radiocarbon dates for them from otherareas of the United States. EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD The Early Archaic period dates from approximately 7500 to 6000 B.C'. -32- The period is divided into five phases of two broad traditions for the purposes of this study. Corner-Notched Tradition: The Early Archaic I@phase is denoted by the Palmer point.. This point is a small (average length=3.5 centimeters), serrated,, corner-notched point with a ground base. A radiocarbon date of 7250t 300 B.C. (W-3006) from between the Palmer and later Kirk levels at the Fifty Site in Virginia (Gardner 1974) suggests a dating prior to that time. The Early Archaic II phase is marked by the Kirk Corner-Notched point. This point closely resembles the Palmer point, but exhibits no basal grinding and is generally about double the size (average length= 7 10 centimeters) of the Palmer, although a smaller variety is known (Broyles (1971). These points occur stratigraphically below a stemmed variety of the Kirk point at the St. Albans site in West Virginia, but for the purposes of this report both points will be considered a single time unit dated to approximately 7000 to 6800 B.C. although the Kirk stemmed point i's considered a poor temporal marker. Bifurcate Tradition: This tradition succeeds the corner-notched tradition in the Early Archaic and is subdivided into three phases. -33- The earliest of these is the Early Archaic III phase marked by. the St. Albans point. This point is a small triangular side-notched point with a bifurcated base (Broyles 1971:73-75). This phase is probably dated between 6800 and 6600 B.C. The Early Archaic IV phase is marked by the LeCroy point. This point is small (average length=2.7 centimeters) and thin with pronounced shoulders and a bifurcated base (Broyles 1971:69). A radiocarbon date, of 6300tlOO B.C. at the St. Albans site in West Virginia agrees well with an assigned time. range of 6600 to 6300 B.C. The last phase of the Early Archaic, the Early Archaic V, is marked by the Kanawha point. The Kan-aWlTa is a small (average length=3.5 centi- meters), triangular point with pronounced shoulders and a shallowly notched base. At the St. Albans site this phase is dated to 6210tlOO B.C. (Broyles 1971). A time range of from 6300 to 6000 B.C. is assigned here. MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD The Middle Archaic period will be assigned to the time period from 6000 to 4000 B.C. for the purposes of this study. The period is div- ided into three phases. The primary reference source for this period is Coe's work at the Doershuck site (1964) in North Carolina. _34- Middle Archaic I: This phase is marked by the Stanly point, a broad, triangular point with a narrow stem and a shallowly.notched base. Its average length is 5.5 centimeters (Coe 1964). A resemblance to the Kirk Stemmed point is noted by Coe (1964:112) and it is possible that the Stanly point repre- sents the same tradition. In North Carolina the first evidence of groundstone artifacts,appears in this phase (Coe.1964). This phase is assigned dates between 6000 and 5000 B.C. Middle Archaic II: The Morrow Mountain points types I and II mark this phase. The first variant, the Morrow Mounta in I point, is characterized as a small (average length=4.5 centimeters triangular point with a short pointed stem while the Morrow Mountain II point has a long (average length=6.0 centimeters), narrow blade with a long tapered stem (Coe 1964:37). These are very common points in the studyarea. Radiocarbon dates ex- ist for these points from a number of locations, the nearest of which is from the Icehouse Bottom site in Tennessee with.a date of 5045+-245 B.C. (Chapman (1976). A terminal date is indicated by the 4300t190 B.C. date from Russell Cave in Alabama (Griffin 1974). An overall time range, of from 5000 to 4200 B.C. will be assigned. -35- Middle Archaic III: The final phase of the Middle Archaic period is marked by the Guil- ford Lanceolate point. This point is long (average length=9.0 centimeters) and slender with a straight, rounded or concave base (Coe 1964). No radiocarbon-dates exist for this point, but dating of a later complex indicates that the temporal range of this phase is between 4200 and 4000 B.C. LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD The Late Archaic.period is assigned the time period from 4000 to 1000 B.C., The period-will be divided into six phases. The material culture of@this phase appears to increase in diversity and outside in- fluences may be at work (Thomas 1976). Late Archaic I;, This phase is characterized by the Piscataway point, a small (average length=5.0 centimeters), leaf-shaped projectile with a contract- .ing stem (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963:16). The point is dated by McNett and Gardner (1975) to between 4000 and 3000 B.C. The point is associated with.the Piedmont tradition (see Chapter VII) which arises to the south and west of the Delmarva peninsula. A second point, the Otter Creek Side-Notched, is also dated to this phase (Ritchie 1961:40). This point is long (average leng-'CIh=8.O centimeters) with characteristic- -36- ally squared tangs. It is associated with the northernLaurentian tradition (see Chapter VII) but is not consi-dered to be a good temporal marker as it has been found in Middle Archaic contexts. A third point, the Lamoka, is dated to this period by Ritchie (1961). It.is a small, narrow, thick point with a poorly defined base. Late Archaic II: A number of dif ferent points associated with varying traditions. also mark this phase. The Piedmont tradition Vernon point whichis typologically similar to Coe's Halifax point (Coe 1964) is a short (average length=4.0 centimeters), thick, stubby point with pronounced shoulders.- Brewerton Corner-Notched; Brewerton Eared-Notched, Brewer- ton Eared-Triangles and Brewerton Side-Notched points are also assigned to this phase. They are all associated with the northern Laurentian tradition, but no other Laurentian material as defined by Ritchie (1969) seems to occur on the lower Eastern Shore. Based on radiocarbon dates from surrounding areas, a time range of between 3000 to 2000 B.C. is assigned to this phase. Late Archaic III: The Holmes point marks this phase. This long (average length=4.5 centimeters) and narrow point is one of a number of similarly shaped converging stemmed points (McNett and Gardner 1975); Handsman and McNett 1974), The Holmes point closely resembles the Bare Island Point (Ritchie -37- 19,61) and the Lackawaxen Stemmed point (Kinsey 1972). Based,on, dates for these two typologically similar points, this phase,.is assigned a time range of between 2200 and 1900 B.C. Late Archaic IV: This phase marks the beginning of a tradition known as the Broad- spear, which is defined by broad blade-like points and the presence of steatite vessels. The two marker points@ of the Late Archaic IV are the Savannah River and the Koens-Crispin. The Savannah River point is a very large (average length=10 centimeters), heavy, triangular point with a broad, square stem (Coe 1964:44). The Koens-Crispin point is a variant of the Savannah River which differs in having a contracting or trape- zoidal stem'(Kinsey 1972:423). The Koens-Crispin resembles Ritchie's (1961) Snook Kill point. Based on radiocarbon dates from North Caro- lina and Pennsylvania, a-date range of 1900 to,1700 B.C. is assigned. Late Archaic V. This phase represents a continuation of the Broadspear tradition. The phase is marked by two points, the Perkiomen and the Susquehanna Broadspears. The Perkiomen is a broad, flat, generally asymmetrical point with a narrow stem and an average length of 7.5 centimeters (Kinsey 1972). The.second, and possibly later point, is the Susque- hanna. This point is.of variable length (anywhere from.2.5 centimeters to 20,centimeters), with angular ears, gro,und stem edges and prominent -38- side notches (Kinsey 1972:427). Steatite bowls also mark this phase and have been found associated with broadspear points in Maryland at the Marcey Creek site,(Manson 1948:223-227). The tempoW range of the Late Archaic V phase spans from 1700 to 1500 B.C. based on radiocarbon dates from surrounding states. Late Archaic VI: The last phase of the Late Archaic period is associated with the Fishtail tradition and is marked by two point types; the Orient Fishtail and the Dry Brook Fishtail. These two points are very similar in having a notched base with narrow side-notches, but the Dry Brook point is marked by more angular shoulders than the otherwise similar Orient point (Kinsey 1972) Steatite bowls are again associated. The Orient point has been radiocarbon dated to 128Otl2O B.'C. at the Zimmerman site in Pennsylvania while the'Dry Brook has a radiocarbon date of ll70tl2O B.C. at Brodhead-Heller site also in Pennsylvania (Ibid 432-433). It should be noted that these two points have also been found in Early Woodland contexts by Manson (1948) and Stephenson and Ferguson (1963) where they seem torepresent a continuation of the Fishtail cultural tradition. EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD The classic marker of the Early Woodland period in particular, and the Woodland Period in general is the appearance ofceramics., The Early Woodland period is dated on the Delmarva peninsula from approximately -39- 1200 B.C. to 700 B.C. with two phases occuring:,the Marcey Creek phase and the Dames Quarter phase. Marcey Creek Phase: The Marcey Creek phase is marked by the presence of Marcey Creek ,Ware and the Orient/Dry Brook points (Manson 1948). It can be seen that the Marcey Creek phase see ms to represent a continuation of the earlier Late Archaic Fishtail tradition, but with the addition of steatite temp- ered ceramics. On the Delmarva peninsula a reasonable date range for this phase would be from 1200 to 900 B.C. with a radiocarbon date of 950t95 B.C. at the Monocacy site fitting these dates well (McNett and Gardner 1971). A second type of ceramics, Selden Island, also marks this phase. This ware is also steatite tempered and exhibits coiled construction unlike Marcey Creek ware and cord impressing is present. The probable temporal range of 1000 to 700 B.C. (Artusy 1976:2) shows it to arise slightly later than Marcey Creek, but to temporally overlap both it and Dames Quarter Ware. Dames Quarter Phase: This phase is marked by the presence of Dames Quarter ware, a dist- inctive and very regionalized blackstone tempered ceramic (Wise 1975). Very large amounts of,this ware occur in Somerset county in particular. Its use of crushed hard stone'for temper seems to hint at the later use of such tempering material in the next phase. No radiocarbon dates -40- exist but its assignment to within the general range of 1000 to 700 B.C. in Delaware (Artusy 1976) places it clearly within the Early Woodland. MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD The Middle Woodland period is dated from 700 B.C. to 1000 A.D. for the purposes of this study. The period is divided into three phases for the study area: the Wolfe Neck Phase, the Selby Bay Phase and the Hell Island Phase. Wolfe Neck Phase: This phase is marked primarily by the presence of Wolfe Neck Ware (Lewis 1972) or Coulbourn Ware (Griffith and Artusy 1977), Wolfe Neck ware is especially common in the study area and in southern Delaware with lesser amounts occuring into th .e northern Piedmont area of Dela- ware. It is notably similar to such Western Shore and Piedmont types as Accokeek Ware (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963) and Popes Creeklet Obid). Coulbourn Ware is another localized ware type with much the same spatial distribution as Wolfe Neck ware. Radiocarbon dates for Wolfe Neck ware from the Wolfe Neck site in southern Delaware date it to 505t6O B.C. (Artusy 1976). Another date from the,Dill Farm site in western Kent County, Delaware places it at 500t85 B.C. (ibid). CoulboUrn ware is radiocarbon dated at the Wolfe Neck site in Delaware at 375t6O B.C. (ibid). -41- The Calvert point, a small (average length=3.6 centimeters), square stemmed point (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963) is similar to Kinsey's (1972)-Lagoon point which has been dated by Ritchie (1969) to between 520 and 100B.C. Assuming the two points are temporally relat- ed, this would place the Calvert within this phase. Two other point types are dated to occur within this phase: the Rossville and the Potts point. The Rossville is a thick, lozenge-shaped point of medium length (average length=5.0 centimeters) (Ritchie 1961:46). Radiocarbon dates associated with this point from New Jersey and New York (Ritchie 1969) correlate well with dates from the Potomac River region (Handsman and McNett 1974) to Place this point within the range of this phase., The Potts point is a medium size (average length=4.0 centimeters), tri angu- lar shaped point with small notches at the base corners which create a short stem (McCary 1953). The sides are usually convex in outline. No radiocarbon dates exist, but the point is dated to ca. 1 A.D. in Virginia and thus is probably associated with the final stage of Wolfe Neck Phase. A unique aspect of this time period is the influx of exotic traits which are seemingly related to the Adena culture,of the Midwest. This aspect of Delmarva prehistory is known only from partially excavated burial sites, all of which but one in Anne Arundel County, occur on the Eastern Shore, This archaeological complex, known.as the Delmarva Adena, tchie and Dragoo has been the source of much discussion (for example Rit, 1959, Dragoo 1964, Thomas 1969) since it was first discovered and all this discussion will not be repeated here, The very restricted nature -42- of the sites which have been excavated really provide very little in- formation about non-ceremonial aspects of Delmarva Adena culture. The non,-mortuary related material culture which should be associated with this archaeological complex is somewhat open to speculation, but the material from the Nassawango Site in Worcester County, Maryland, within the study area seems to suggest an association with Rossville-like projectile points and a crushed quartz tempered ceramics which sounds very much like Wolfe Neck Ware. Radiocarbon dates from Nassawa ngo of 240t7O B.C.1 495tlOO B.C., and 305tlOO B.C. seem to further tie the Delmarva Adena Complex to Wolfe Neck Phase. Additional radiocarbon dates from the Wolfe Neck Site of 375t65 B.C. and 505�60 B.C.; the St. Jones Site of 380�80 B.C. and the Dill Farm Site of 380�85 B.C. and 500t85 B.C. (all in Delaware) also correlate well (Thomas 1977a). The better known ceremonial ooods such as large blades of exotic stone, side or corner-notched blades with,convex bases and sides, Ohio fireclay blocked-end pipes, copper, hematite, slate gorgets. and shell ornaments are suggested by Thomas (1969) to be the result of a trade network rath- er than an actual expansion of Ohio Valley groups into the Delmarva pen- insula. In sum, the Wolfe Neck Phase can be said to date from about 700 B.C. to A.D. 110 when the.later Selby Bay phase begins. The placing of this phase within the Middle Woodland Period is largely based upon change in ceramic technology and style as defined by Artusy (1976) in southern Delaware. Kinsey (1974) sees little change at all between the Early and Middle Woodland Periods,he speaks of a "cultural continuum," :and un- -43- fortunately the lithic material is of little help here as itcould easi- ly be confused with Late Archaic material. Sdlpy Bay Phase: The term Selby Bay Phase is used here in the sense of the classic definition of the phase (Mayr 1972; Wright 1973). The reasons for this use will be detailed later, but it is acknowledged that later excavation within the study areacould very well alter the definition of this time period. The phase has traditionally been defined by the presence of Mockley Cord-Marked,.Mockley Net-Impressed and Mockley Plain ceramics and Selby Bay points or knives (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963:103-109,, Wright 1973). The presence of-imported lithic material such as rhyolite, pIurple argillite and green, yellow or brown jasper; elliptical two-holed gorgets, and three-quarter grooved axes are also supposed to mark.this period (Wright 1973:21, Mayr 1972). Problems with the application of this definition to.the Delmarva peninsula have been pointed out by Thomas et al. (1974),when they stated there seemed to be no association between Mockley ceramics and Selby Bay projectile points on the Delmarva peninsula. They instead defined a "Carey Phase where Mockley ceramics were associated with side-.notched projectile points similar to those which they felt were associated with the Delmarva-Adena complex. Further confusion arises though when other instances are discussed where Mockley ceramics do occur with Selby Bay points in Delaware (Thomas 1974). A period known as the "Oxford Complex" _44- is defined in Delaware as following the "Carey Phase" (Thomas et al. 1974 Thi s coupl ex i ncl udes Sel by Bay stemmed and 1 anceol ate poi nts, flexpanding stemmed points" which 11grade into Fox Creek (Selby Bay) stem- med" and pentagonal points which "appear to be similar to Fox Creek (Selby Bay) stemmed variety" (Thomas et al. 1974). This is a very confusing description at best and the lithic assemblage of the "Oxford Complex" is really not distinguishable from it. The "Oxford Complex" is also said to be associated with what is presumably Hell Island ware. In order to test some of the statements given above, counts were done on the material which was seen for this study so that it could be seen which point types were most assotfated with Mockley Ware. It is @admitted that the data generated by this study suffers from many theoret- ical and practical shortcomings, such as the effects of collector 6ias, but it was felt that some assocfati.ons may be revealed that would aid in defining the mid-Mid dle Woodland, at least for the study area. These counts showed that for almost 30% of the sites examined for this study Mockley Ware was associated with Selby Bay points. This-was the highest percentage of association with Mockley Ware for any point type. The association of Hell Island Ware and Selby Bay points as defined for the "Oxford Complex" of Delaware did not occur at any of the sites within the study area (association=O%). The next highest percentage of association between Mockley Ware and a point type was for its association with Perk- iomen points. Mockley Ware and Perkiomen points were associatedzt 23.5% of the sites, but if the number of sites where Mockley Ware is associated with Perkoment points and Selby Bay points jointly are subtracted from -45- the 23.5% Mockley-Perkiomen site association figure, then only 11.7% of the site's show an.association without the joint presence of Selby' Bay points. These figures would seem to argue for applying the more traditional definition of the Selby Bay Phase where an association'of Mockley Ware and Selby Bay points is one of the defining characterist- ics to the study area. The further criterion of the presence of exotic raw materials is not so easily tested as sites with Selby Bay components defined by either diagnostic lithics or ceramics may also have non-diag- nostic lithic material present (such as drills, scrapers, etc.) or they mayhave no lithic material present at all. However, when a count is done of all Selby Bay Phase sites with lithics present (N=23) and compar- ed to the presence or absence of diagnostic.exotic lithic materials,then some indications are further given that the classic definition of the Selby Bay Phase may be applicable within the study area. Rhyolite is present at 48% of the sites; argillite is present at 56.5% of the sites and at least one of the characteristic jaspers is present at 60.8% of the sites. These figures must not be depended on too heavily as most, of the twenty three sites are multi-component in nature, but they con- versely do not contradict the application of the classic definition of the Selby Bay Phase. Based upon this data, this study will utilize the classic definition of the Selby Bay Phase (Mayr 1972). It will be considered to date from A.D. 110 to A.D. 485 based upon Artusy's (1976) dating of Mockley Ware. These dates coincide closely with the dates given in Delaware for the "Carey Phase" (A.D. 100 to A.D. 400). Radiocarbon dates associated with -46- this phase include from A.D. 200t9O from the Carey Farm site in Dela- ware (Wise 1974) to A.D. 815t95 at the Loyola Retreat site in Maryland (Handsman and McNett 1974). It should be noted that the latest date would seemingly not apply in the study area as another phase intrudes on this later period with the study area. This phase will be discussed next. Hell Island Phase: This phase is defined based upon a change in ceramic and point type traditions from the preceeding Selby Bay Phase. The markers of the Hell Island-Phase are Hell Island Cord-Marked and Hell Island Fabric-Impressed Ceramics (Wright 1960:14-15) and Jacks Reef Pentagonal and Corner-Notch- ed points (Ritchie 1961:26-28), as well as Levanna Triangular (Ritchie 1961:30) points'if-these are directly associated with Hell Island Ware. For the purposes of this study, Levanna Triangular points were seldom used to denote the Hell Island phase as it was impossible to tell if they were associated with later Late Woodland components on the major- ity of sites which were multi-component and included both Middle Wood- land and Late Woodland material. The Hell Island Phase seems to relate to the ill-defined "Oxford Complex"(Thomas et al. 1974) and the ceremonial center defined "Webb Phase" (Thomas and Warren 1975). Thomas et al. (1974) discuss "pentag- onal points" in relation to the Oxford Complex but they describe,these pentagonal points as similar to the Selby Bay Lanceolate Variety. It would seem that they could also be considered similar to theJacks -47- Reef points as well. The ceramics of the Oxford Complex are described as "quartz-tempered ware resembling Albermarle pottery" (ibid). From this description onemust assume that these ceramics are the same as Ar,tusy's Hell Island Ware (1976). This same type of ceramics was exca- vated at the Island Field site in Delaware (Thomas and Warren 1970) in association with the "Webb Phase" which is defined by the exotic items associated with burials at the site. These exotic items seem to rep- resent a return of influence from the Ohio Valley region, most likely through a trading network. Hell Island Ware has a somewhat more northern center of distribution than Mockley Ware in Delaware and it has been suggested that the presence of Hell Island Ware could be the result of either an intrusion from the north or influence em inating from that direction. Similar ceramic types occur as far north as New York (Ritchie 1949:110), but no further south than Virginia (Evans 1955:41-43). The Selby Bay Phase and the Hell Isl- and Phase may be partly contemporaneous. Two radiocarbon dates exist for Hell Island Ware, one of A.D. 645t 55 and another of A.D. 740t9O, both from, Delaware. Thus, for this study, the Hell Island phase will be assigned to the period A.D. 500 900. LATE WOODLAND PERIOD The Late Woodland Period dates from A.D. 1000 until the contact period at approximately A D. 1600. The period will be divided into -48- two phases: the Little Round Bay Phase and the Sullivan Cove Phase with a cultural complex, the Potomac Creek Complex, falling within the last p h a s e. The original division of the Late Woodland Period into two phases was s'uggested by Wright (1973) based upon his work in the Severn Drain- age area of the Western Shore. Wright's ordering of the phases was not based upon stratigraphic evidence, but rather upon a study of decorative attributes and surface treatments of ceramics.with data from the Potomac Valley and southern Delaware. Wright's initial chronological sequence was later shown to be reversed and over-simplified (Griffith 1980; Clark 1976). Griffith's (1980) work in Delaware has shown the proper sequence to be Little Round Bay Phase (A.D. 1000 to 1300) associated with incised Townsend Ware ceramics first, fol.lowed by Sullivan Cove Phase (A.D. 1300 to Contact) associated with corded design Townsend Ware and isolated Potomac Creek Ware. It must be noted that Griffith did not use these same names for the phases butthe precedent set by Wright .(1973), Clark (1976) and Steponaitis (1980) in using the terms will be continued here. The phases defined for this study seem to relate to the Slaughter Creek Phase (Thomas 1974:17) defined for Delaware. Another complex, the Mil- ford Neck Complex (Wise 1971) defined for Delaware.is said to be similar to the Townsend Ware associated sites in all ways except it lacks shell- tempered ceramics and has crushed quartz temper ceramics instead. It is likely that this crushed quartz tempered ware.is the same as Hell Island Ware and for the purposes of this report no distinction could be drawn. -49- Little Round.Bay Phase: The ceramics-which.mark this phase have been extensively studied .by.Griffith (1980) and itis upon his definitions that the Little Round Bay phase is defined. These ceramics are relatively thin-walled, shell- tempered and can be identified by complex incised motifs, Blaker (1963: 17-18) defined a.Rappahannock Incised group with incising directly Wow the vessel lip; and.a TownsendAncised group with incising a short.dist- ance below the lip. Griffith, however, shows no-temporal significance can be attached to these variations and furthermore, Griffith states that both of Blaker's groups can include complex incised designs or more simple incised horizontal bands, sometimes over short vertical lines. Griffith identifies the simple horizontal motif as the more recent in time (Griffith 1980:32). Following Steponaitis' precedent (1980:56) 1 will adopt theconvention of using suffixes to subdivide the group into Rappahannock Incised (complex motif) and Rappahannock Incis- ed (horizontal motif). The complex motif group is associated with the Little Round Bay Phase along with Rappahannock Fabric-Impressed ceramics Olaker 1963:16-17) and Townsend Herringbone ceramics (ibid) with cord- impressed bands over incised zig-zags. The diagnostic projectile point type assoctated with the Little Round Bay phase is the triangular Levanna point (Kinsey 1972). This point is assoctated with.Townsend series ceramics at the Mispillion site in Delaware (Thomas and Warren 1970). Problems do arise in the tempor- al ordering of triangular points. Ritchie claims a temporal sequence in New York running from large, equilateral points in the earliest -50- stages of the Late Woodland to-smaller isosceles-shaped points in the later period (Ritchie 1969:277-278). Again, there is a problem in applying this to the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland until these points are excavated in good stratigraphic context, but for now the distinction will be maintained. Note also that the Levanna seems to make its earl- iest appearance in the Middle Woodland Hell Island Phase where it is associated with Jacks Reef points. Ritchie (1969) claims that the Levan- na I'achieved ascendancy" over the Jacks Reef point at the close of the, M "ddle Woodland. i Overall, the Little Round Bay Phase will be assigned to the tempor- al range.of A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1300. Sullivan Cove Phase: The Sullivan Cove Phase is primarily marked by the presence of Rappahannock Incised (horizontal motif) ceramics and Townsend Corded Horizontal ceramics (Blaker 1963: 18-19). These ceramic types best typify.the seeming "wholesale acceptance of the decorative techniques of the Potomac Creek complex" (Griffith 1980:36.) to the west. These decorative techniques were based upon cord and pseudo-cord marking rather than incised markings. Griffith states that this change in dec- orative technique is due to the influence of the Potomac Creek Complex to the west and northwest of the study area. Also, pseudo-cord mark- ing (cord-wrapped dowel) is said to pre-date direct cord im pressions. Sullivan Ware is also assigned to this phase. This ceramic is thin-walled and lightly shell tempered with a distinguishing browner paste than Townsend ceramics and with fewer shell particles (Wright 1973:22-23). Corded and incised decorations are present and are, remi- niscent of Townsend Ware decoration (Peck 1979.). A radiocarbon date of A.D. 1385 t55 from Waveland Farm in Maryland (Peck 1979) places Sullivan ware in associati'on with Rappahannock Incised (horizontal motif) and Townsend Corded Horizontal. The presence of Rappahannock Fabric-Impressed ceramics in this phase @as,well as the earlier Little Round Bay Phase makes this ceramic type a poor temporal marker. It has been found in dated contexts ranging from A.D. 1045 to A.D. 1360 (Griffith 1980:30). The diagnostic projectile point type associated with this phase is most probably the Madison point. This is a small to medium length (aver- age length=3.2 centimeters) point, usually isoceles in shape (Ritchie 1961:33-34). The temporal placement of this point suffers from the samelproblems mentioned for the Levanna point, but dating by Ritchie (1961) to A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1700 and itssimilarity to Coe's Uwharrie point dated to ca. A.D. 1400 (Coe 1964) seems to place it within this phase. Thus, the Sullivan Cove Phase will be assigned a temporal range of from A.D. 1300 to Contact. 52 Potomac Creek Phase: The rare occurence of Potomac Creek Cord-Impressed Ware in the central Delmarva peninsula appears to be related to the acceptance of corded decorative techniques into the Townsend repertoire. Griffith further sees a zone across central Delaware which represents a "buffer" between Potomac Creek cultural groups to the north and Townsend cultural groups to the south. Occurences of Potomac Creek ce'ramics within the study area probably represent trading between the two cultural groups. Mayoane Ware is also associated with the Potomac Creek Phase although its exact temporal placement is uncertain (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963: 125 The diagnostic projectile point of this phase is most probably the small, thin triangular Potomac point (Stephenson and FergusoIn 1963). POST-CONTACT PERIOD Theexpansion of Europeans into the Delmarva peninsula by at least 1650 quickly brought'about a total disruption of existing abo riginal groups. In 1642 both the Wicomico and Nanticoke groups of the Eastern Shore were declared enemies of the Europeans and this combined with pressure from the Susquehannocks finally resulted in deportation of these groupsto Barbados in 1669 (Feast 1978). By 1743 the last treaty,between the Europeans and remaining native groups was concluded and shortly there- after the last of the remaining native groups of the Eastern Shore volun- -53- tarily removed themselves from Maryland to Pennsylvania. A ware thought to represent post-contact changes to Potomac Creek ware, Camden Ware, has been identified by MacCord (1969:12-18) with the Indian Point Phase of the Potomac Creek Complex. Noel-Hume (1962) identifies a ware assoctated with the post-contact Townsend complex, Colono-Indian Ware, which reflects historic period changes induced on these cultural groups. Further.discussion of the Post-Contact Period@will follow in a later report by Dr. Thomas E. Davidson. -54- CHAPTER IV: MODERN MACRO-ENVIRONMENT The environment that exists today on Maryland's lower Eastern Shore is the result of multiple factors all of which interact to produce the setting in which man's activities take place. These environmental faci- ors include such things as the presence of large,bodies of water, geology and topography, soils, climate, flora and fauna. All of these are dy- namic factors which can vary from year to year'or even day to day and it i's certain that dramatic changes have taken place during the span of time in which man is known tohave existed on the Delmarva peninsula. The study area of this report includes the Maryland counties, of Wicomico, Worcester and Somerset. These counties lie in the south-centr- al region of the Delmarva peninsula, bounded on the west by the Chesapeake Bay and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The total land area of the counties, including Smith, Deal,, James, South Marsh and other Ba .y islands is approximately 1195 square miles. The entire area lies within the Coastal Plain Province. RIVERS AND COAST Surface waters on the Delmarva peninsula drain either west to the Chesapeake Bay or east to the Atlantic Ocean. Almost all surface water is contained in rivers as there are no large, natural lakes. Large areas -55- of swamps'and marsh do exist, but the majority of 'these coniain@brackish water. The major rivers which form the drainage system of the study area include the Nanticoke, Wicomico, Manoki.n, Big Annemessex, Pocomoke and St Martin rivers (Figure 2). In addition, numerous coastal creeks such as Marumsco Creek and Little Monie Creek also drain some areas. All of the streams and rivers of the drainage system can be characterized as "fairly established" (Hall 1970)@with typically meandering, sluggish courses which are generally tidal in their lower reaches. The Pocomoke river is tidal throughout the entirety of its run through Somerset County and into Worcester County (Mathews and Hall 1966). The coastal creeks are also tidal thoughout most of their lengths. The effect of this tidal inundation is the formation of extensive estuarine habitats or zones where saline ocean and bay water mix with fresh water runoff being parried by the drainage systems. This salinity gradient can vary from a high in the saline zone of 0.9 to 1.6% salt content, through a brackish zone of 0.7 to 0.8% salt content, to an interface zone of 0.6% salt content until tidal effects are no longer of any influence and the water is fresh. The extent and placement of these zones for each drain- age system will be influenced by factors such as stream width and depth, course followed, amount of rainfall and time of year. The extent of brackishwater is shown for the Pocomoke, Wicomico and Nanticoke rivers in Figure 5. The Atlantic Ocean coastal region presents a different set of hydro- logical factors as no major river system serves to drain this area. -56- 0 KM 10 BRACKISH SALINE INTE C BRACKISH- SALINE Ln CD =1 C) L/) CD 2- -1 FRESH m ;30 dmm@ Ln INTERF E -i C) 71Z m -@o -n ;30 C) C-) V) m r ;U C) Z: C) BRACKISH n -n :K m SALINE 0" Lf) c CD rn Instead, the large coastal lagoon areas of the Chincoteague, Sinepuxent and Assawoman Bays serve as the drainage area of numerous coastal streams, the largest@of which is the St. Martin's River. These coastal streams are shortj sluggishand tidal in nature wi.h brackish water occurring in almost their@entire length. Extensive areas of tidal marsh also.occur along.the coastal zone. GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ....'d@The lower Eastern Shore of Maryland is part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain which runs from Long Island, New York southward to the Gulf of Mex-. ico. Movements of the earth's crust along the Atlantic continen tal mar- gin have produced a seaward slope on the crystalline-rock@baseme,nt sur- face. Areas to the northwest of the Piedmont-Coastal Zone interface area were uplifted and underwent erosion. Areas southeast of this interface were depressed and became regions of deposition (Cushing et al. 1973). Sediments which were eroded from the northwestern areas were shifted and deposited in the.coastal plain region. These deposits are a series of wedge-shaped sheets of unconsolidated sediments largely made up of clay, sand, silt, gravel and occasionally shell deposits. These deposits range in thickness from zero at the Fall Line interface to over 8500 below Ocean City (Hall 1973). Surface deposits which date from pre-Wisconsin to Holocene are made up of undifferentiated grey to buff sand and gravel, grey to brown silt and clay, occasional boulders and rarely shells. Sur- ficial deposits of fluvial sands and-marsh muds occur along the,Nanticoke and Wicomico rivers. Well sorted and stabilized dune sands occur in 58- eastern Wicomico County. Shell bearing estuarine clays and silts are along.the Pocomoke River. Recent beach zone sands are found to make up'the Assateague Islands (Cleaves et al. 1968). Subsurface deposits of pre- Wisconsin buff to reddish-brown sand and gravel,are locally incised into Miocene sediments in the Salisbury area. Estuarine to marine white to grey sands and grey to blue clays of pre-Wisconsin age occur in Worcester County. Underlying sediments include the Calvert Formation of Miocene age; the Nanjemoy Formation of Paleocene-Eocene age; the Matawan and Magothy Formations, and the Potomac Group of Cretaceous age; and.undiff-' erentiated Mesozoic age rocks overlying a basement of undffferentiated crystalline rocks (Cleaves et al. 1968.) The topography of the lower Eastern Shore is typical of the Atlant- ic.Coastal Plain in general with mostly low, eroded terrain, where ele- vation differences are not dramatic. In spite of this initial appear- ance, features such as terraces, stream channels, drowned valleys, Caro- lina bays, remnant sand dunes, swamps and marshes do exist (Hall 1973). These topographic features are made up of recent Pleistocene age deposits of either the Talbot or Wicomico Formations. The,Talbot Formation is .the younger of the two formations and borders the Chesapeake Bay:and Atlantic Ocean. The upland areas of the Talbot Formation rise from tide level so gradually that large areas ofmarshland sometimes form. In Somerset County, west of Princess Anne, the outer edge of the penin- sula has a slope of 1.75 feet to the mile, while an upland swamp on the divide between the Pocomoke and Manokin rivers is drained by a stream with a fall of three feet to the mile. In the Atlantic Coastal area of -59- ..Worcester County, slopes of 25 feet to the mile occur. Where-streams cross the Talbot Formation bluffs or steep banks occur with heiqhts of up to 15 feet. The su rfaces upland of these banks are generally level. Th. e greatest elevations of the Talbot Formation is where it meets the Wicomico Formation--here heights are between 25 and 35 feet (Shreve 1910). The Wicomico Formation only occurs inland, extending from northern Worcester County through much of central and eastern Wicomico County. The formation is-now so eroded as to be completely drained by the streams which traverse it leaving no swampy areas (ibid). Wicomico County exhibits a variety of physiographic areas. Tidal marshes near sea level -occur along the Nanticoke and Wicomico rivers. The eastern and much of the central and southwestern areas of the county are largely level to gently rolling, but swales and ridges are present in some areas. Some of these swales contain areas of poor drainage, known as Carolina Bays, which may have been attractive areas for early man as game would come here for water. Much of the county lies only a few feet above water level and marshes again arise. The highest part of the county is'in the Northwest and central areas. Sand dunes occur all over the county at elevations of 10 to 85 feet (Hall 1970). These dunes will be discussed later as they seem to have been very attractive to early man. Worcester County shows three major physiographic regions: the Coastal beaches, the Tidal marshes and the mainland (Hall 1.973). The coastal beaches are mainly barrier islands ranging from a few hundred feet to a -60- mile in width. They run the entire length of the eastern county. The tidal marshes lie mainly along the mainland, with some occuring in the southern and western parts of the county and on the bay side of the coastal beaches. The mainland is similar to Wicomico County with level to gently.rolling areas which grade into marshland in some places. Carolina Bays are again present in swales contain-ing basins. The high- est point in the county is 57 feet above sea level Dunes again occur,. over much of the county made up of Parsonsburg sands (ibid). Somerset County is level to gently sloping with slopes under 2 percent, but some as high as 15 percent. The steepest slopes occur along the Wicomico and Manokin Rivers in the form of bluff-like escarp- ments. Most of the slope is toward the West, but part of the county slopes to the south. The highest point in the county is 46 feet above sea level in the northeastern part of the county (Mathews and Hall 1966). CLIMATE The climate of the lower Eastern Shore is a humid continental cli- mate which is modified by proximity to large bodies of water (Hall 1973). The Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay affect the air masses movind over them so that in the winter cold air masses are warmed with resulting heavy precipitation while 'in the summer the winds are cooled by the wat- er so that temperatures near the coast especially are lowered. The lack of terrain relief produces no variation in climate. -61- @The average annual temperature in inland regions is 56.7 degrees while in coastal areas temperatures,are similar but the average maximum temperature is three degrees lower and the average minimum temperature is 3.5 degrees higher. The growing season usually,is about 183 days long, lasting from the last week of April until the last week of October. The annual precipitation averages around 45 inches per year with the times of heaviest precipitation most likely in the warmer part of the year. Drought can occur at any time of year, but is most likely during, the summer months. Winds can be quite strong and sand blowing can damage plant growth at its early stages (Hall 1970, 1973; Mathews and Hall 1966). SOILS The soils of the study area fall into two very gross categories: soils with evident soil horizons and soils with little or no horizon differentiation. The latter of these two categories results from the presence of young, recently (in terms of geological time) deposited alluvial soils and from soils which are chiefly composed of sand.-The soi.1s which show horizons are formed by one or more processes. These processes include accumulation of organic matter, leaching of carbonates and salts, chemical weathering of parent materials into silicate clay mi nerals, translocation of silicate clay minerals and probably silt from one horizon to another, and chemical changes such as oxidation reduction, -62- hydration and the transfer of iron (Hall 1973). These soil formation processes result in the formation of distinct- ive soil types which can be categorized according to their properties. The Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,-has applied a classification system consisti.ng of ten broad categories to the soils of the study area, of these ten categories, four occur within the study area. These four soil groups are the Entisols, Inceptisols, Spodosols, and the Ultisols (Mathews and Hall 1966). The Entisols are soils which @have changed little from their original parent material. Within the study area, the Entisols are of a sandy type which range from moderately wet to quite dry due to their drainage characteristics. The sand ridges ordunes which occur throughout, the study area fall within this group and are excessively well drained. The Inceptisols are soils in which soil horizons have started to form. Within the study area these soils are wet most of the time due to poor drainage. The Spodosols are soils that have horizons in which organic colloids.and/or iron and alum- inum compounds have accumulated;,or they have thin horizons cemented by iron overlying a very poor drainage layer. These soils are very poorly to poorly drained in nature.' The Ultisols are soils which are very well developed. These are the most common soils within the study area. They range from well drained to very poorly drained in nature. For a more detailed discussion of soils on the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland; the reader is referred to the soil surveys which have been performed by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service for each county: Wicomico County (Hall 1970), Worcester County (Hall 1973), and Somerset -63- County (Mathews and Hall 1966). VEGETATION When European settlers first began extensive exploitation of the study area by 1650, a dense forest of mainly hardwoods existed (Mathews and Hall 1966). Oaks dominated in most places with yellow-poplar, sweetgum, blackgum, holly, hickory, maple, dogwood and the pines: lob-, lolly, Plond pine and Virginia pine also being present. There were prob- ;ab ly few pure stands of pine as one sees today present before the land9 was,extensively cleared and regrowth occurred. The modern presence of pines as the-dominant tree type results from the fact that hardwood trees use large amounts of calcium-and other bases for growth. These bases are returned to the soil when leaves drop and decompose, so a self-sustaining cycle can occur. However, the soils of the study area are actdic in nature and when the cover of hardwoods is removed no bases reenter the soil at all. The result is that acid tolerant species such as pines recolonize the.cleared areas and since pine needles restore soil fertility very little'when decomposed, the hardwoods have a hard time in reentering the area. The modern forest cover varies according to whether it occurs on upland or lowland and what the soil drainage characteristics are Up- land forests of drained or sloping areas contain Lobloily pine predom- inantly with Virginia pine or deciduous trees sometimes mixed in. On poorly drained uplands.sweetgum, willow oak, pine oak, and sour gum -64- are mixed with the dominant white oaks. Upland swamp forest varies according to whether the soils are sandy or clayey. Swamps on sandy soils,are prevailingly coniferous or broad-leaved if older, On clayey .swamp lands deciduous species dominate with scrub pine absent. Pine th,ough has greatly increased in the uplands due to clearing (Braun 1950). Lowland forest makeup is also based upon the amount of water pres- ent. Two principal types occur: hardwood and cypress swamp forests. The lowland hardwood forests contain a mixture of Loblolly pine and sometimes southernwhite cedar. Sweetgum is abundant with red maple, willow oak, pin oak and siourgum associated. In well drained areas tuliptree and beech also occur. The cypress swamp or river swamp (Shreve 1910) occur on landsJust upstream'from the limit of brackish water in the tidal streams. The Pocomoke River Swamp appears to be a northernpart of the Dismal Swamp to the south in Virginia and North Carolina. Bald cypress dominates with swamp black gum and red maple present. White cedar occurs near upland swamp borders with a trans- ition to water oak, willow oak, cow oak, white oak, tuliptree, river birch and beech in the upland forests (Braun 1950). The understory growth or ground cover of the study area varies from dense in the poorly [email protected] swamp areas to'the less dense areas of well drained woodland. Overall, the flora of the study area forms a complex mosaic based upon multiple factors forming diverse micro- environmental zones. These micro-environmental zones will be disicussed in greater detail in the@-next chapter. -65- FAUNA The animal life of the lower Eastern Shore is known to have been abundant at the time of European contact. Captain John Smith in his The General History of Virginia, New England and the Sumer Isles., Vol- L ume I refers to an abundance of animals such as deers, squirrels, badger, flying squirrels, oppossum, hares, bears, beaver, otters, foxes, martins, polecats, dogs, weasels, minks and dozens of species of birds and fish (Smith ca. 1606),when.he details his voyage to Virginia which included what is now the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. Three main-groupings of terrestrial wildlife are today present within the study area. The first of these is open-land wildlife which includes rabbits, some deer, quail and other upland birds.. The amount of open-land would have been much less prior to extensive land clearance by-European settlers. The second grouping is woodland wildlife which includes deer, squirrel, wild turkey and many other animals and birds. This habitat grouping would have been the most common during prehistor- ic times.. The third group is wetland wildlife including raccoons, musk- rat, rails, ducks, geese and an extensive array of other waterfowl (Mathews and Hall 1966). The fauna within the study area again responds to the diverse micro- environments which exist within these three counties of the Eastern Shore. A wide diversity of wildlife was, and still is, availablefor, exploitation during all times of the year. An abundance of fish and shellfish, for which the area is famous, also provided vast exploitable -66- stores.of food @esources. All of these will be discussed in greater depth in the following chapter. -67- CHAPTER V: MODERN MICRO-ENVIRONMENTS: This chapter will attempt to outline some of the resources which are presently available in'the many and diverse micro-environmental habitats of the lower Eastern Shore. This will be done in order@to gain some idea about what food and raw material resources were avail- able to early historic and post-8000 B.P. prehistoric populations. To apply data from modern micro-environments back to pre-8000 B.P. is a difficult task. Factors of climatic change and sea level.rise have caused many environmental changes. Some factors would possibly apply to:earlier times in areas inland from any sea level use effects and in the coastal. areas some extrapolation may be possible by projecting coast- line areas back in time as has been done elsewhere (Kraft 1971, 1977). The fact that micro-environmental zones are closely related to river drainage systems could also be used in trying to infer backwards to earlier periods. Based largely upon the work of Thomas et al.,(1975) in Delaware, a six category division of micro-environments was constructed for.the study area. These micro-environmental divisions are based upon soils, drainage characteristics,vegetation and predicted fauna. The categor- ies are: 1. Poorly drained woodland and swamp, 2. Well drained woodlands 3. Transitional areas 4. Tidal marsh and estuarine environments 5. Salt water bays and oceans, and 6. Permanent Freshwater. See Fig- ures 6 and 7 for a summary of the major environmental zones of the study -68- 0 Km 10 cn Wet I an,ds Well drained Land area. These categories will be described here in order to provide an outline of some of the available food and non-food resources which are found within the study area. However, it must be emphasized that this treatment in no way claims to provide a complete listing of all available resources, nor does it seek to say which of these resources were actually used by human groups in the area. Human culture and behavior is too complex to be fitted into neat and totally logical patterns of "maximum exploitation of the most efficient resources." Human beings reflect cul- tur,al prejudices; for example, there may be a tremendous supply of highly n4ritious edible, and easily secured grubs available.to eat,*but we as 20th century Americans don't eat them. We must be careful in making subsistence statements until more is known of the resources being exploit- ed by past human groups. This can be accomplished through such means as careful excavation, flotation sampling and associated environmental and subsistence base reconstruction. Until such time we can really say very little about what the subsistence and settlement patterns of these people were. Thomas et al. (1975) took the first steps in this direction; in the future we need to follow their example on the lower Eastern Shore. POORLY DRAINED WOODLAND AND SWAMP These areas show poor to extremely poor drainage as defined by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (Hall 1970, 1973; Mathews and Hall 1966). Before steps were taken to drain many of these areas, water would have been standing either on or just below the surface throughout the -70- LLJ =3 co (n 4-J V) = S- 0 S- 4-) Ln (o LLI ro (A WP V- M: M: LLJ >1 4-3 s- ca s- cm (o cc LL- (n It 11 11 > to .0 E U.1 C tio to 4-3 Ln = s- (A S..: 4-) co to (a (Am 0 M: LLJ It + + Figure 7 DISTRIBUTION OF WETLAND TYPES, year. The U.S.D.A. soil types within this unit include: Bayboro, Elkton Series, Leon Series, Mixed Alluvial Sand, Fallsington Series, Johnston, Othello, Plummer, Pocomoke Series, Swamps, Muck, Rutledgp, St.. Johns, and-Portsmouth. Vegetation would consist of water-tolerant species. All vege- tation within the study area is influenced by the fact that two distinct soils are present. These are the heavy Elkton-clay soils and the sandy or sandy loam soils (Shreve 1910). The texture and drainage character- istics of these soils influence the type of vegetation which will be found. In the poorly drained clay soil areas tree species include loblolly pine'and deciduous trees such as sweet gum, white oak, sour gum, Willow oak, red maple and swamp oak. Holly and cow oak occasionally occur. Shrubs are richer here than in any other forest habitat on the Eastern Shore. They include azalea, sweet pepperbush, high blueberry, fetter bush, black haw, magnolia (virginiana), winterberry, dogwood, and alder. The dense shade from trees and shrubs makes the forest floor in these areas very poor in herbaceous growth. The only common species.are the sedges. Scattered beds of peat moss occur. In swampy areas with sandy loam soils, two basic swamp types exist: the deciduous swamp and the pine swamp (Shreve 1910). These two are basically alike but proportions of species vary. Loblolly dominates the pine swamps while 10 to 40 percent of the remaining trees are deciduous species such as willow oak, white oak, sweet gum, red maple, water oak, cow oak, black gum, magnolia, holly and dogwood. In the deciduous swamp -72- the latter group of trees represents 50 to 80 pereent of the stand. The floors of deciduous swamp areas have a dense stand of shrubs. Among these are wax myrtle, poison sumac, and strawberry tree. In the pine swamps shrub stands are much more open. The herbacious vegetation is almost*as poor in deciduous swamps as for clay soil swamps. A carpet of peat moss is normally present. The pine swamps have a much more di- verse stand of herbacous plants with at least twenty-four species pres- ent (Shreve 1910). These sandy loam swamps occur exclusively in, Wico- mico and Worcester counties. River swamps are characterized by stands of Bald Cypress. These, swamps occur along the Pocomoke River, Dividing Creek, Nassawango Creek, in a few upland swampy areas and along the Wicomico River. The cypress is associated with black and sweet gum, red maple, tupelo, green ash, magnolia, hornbeans, swamp poplar, water oak, white cedar, holly, lob- lolly pine and white oak. Undergrowth is thick and rich in species. Herbacious vegetation is very poor. The general nature of poorly drained and swampy areas provides abundant cover and browse for wildlife. Browse oriented species partic- ularly favor these environments, especially in summer and winter. Wild- life includes turtles and snakes which are good sources of nutrition. High populations of deer, Eastern.cottontail, rabbit, gray squirrel, wild turkey, muskrat (around swamp areas) and beaver are present (U.S. D.A. 1964).. Seasonal high abundance of floral resources is present in these areas.for seeds (mid-summer to mid-fall) including such species as wild -73- rice, sunflowerIs, common reed, giant fox-tail grass, golden club and smartweed; greens (spring to early summer) including goosefoot, green- briar, poke and skunk cabbage; fruits (early summer to mid-fall) including persAmmon, paw paw, wild black cherry, strawberry, huckle- berry, blackberry and pl?ach plum; and roots (year-round) including cat- tail, Jerusalem artichoke, arrow arum and arrow head (Thomas et al. 1975). Fairly high populations of ducks occur in these areas, but little or no geese are present. WELL DRAINED WOODLANDS These are-as exhibit good to extremely g9od drainage as defined by the Soil Conservation Service (Hall 1970, 1973). One problem with these areas can be excess drainage.on some soil types such as the Lakeland soils. The soil types within this unit inclvde: Evesboro Series-, Matapeake Serfes, Sassafras Series, Downer Series, Galestown Series, Fort Mott Series, Steep.Sandy Land, Lakeland and Norfolk. As with the poorly drained soils the main factor in determining sbil distinctions is the difference between clay soils and sand or sandy loam soils. The clay soil areas of good drainage are marked by the presence of Loblolly Pine as the predominant tree. Some areas.of central Worcester County do have scrub pine in higher numbers than elsewhere. This dom- inance of pine is probably a reflection of historic land clearance, but the study area has probably always reflected a difference from the more northern areas of the Delmarva peni.nsula where hickory, chestnut and -74- chestnut oak predominate. The most common deciduous spkies'are sweet gum and white oak. Near shore areas sweet gum-is present. Other com- mon species include willow oak, spanish oak, sour gum, persimmon, dog- wood, black haw, sassafras and hazelnut (Shreve 1910, Tatnall 1946). ,The shrubs vary in intensity according to whether there is a pre- dominance of deciduous-or coniferous trees. Where pines predominate the shrubs are very scattered, whereas where deciduous trees predomin- iate (as may have been the case prehistorically) the shrubs are more num- @erous. Where pine dominates shrubs include such species as wax myrtle, .bayberry and groundsel tree. In other areas the shrubs include huckle- berry, deerberry, high blueberry, and chokeberry (Tatnall 1946). Herbaceous vegetation is poor in both species and numbers (Shreve 1910). Grasses and sedges are the most common species with panic grass and partridge pea as examples. Where sandy loa m soils predominate the coniferous trees often form pure stands under modern conditions. Even in mixed stands the conifers still predominate with loblolly pine and scrub pine being the represent- ative species (Shreve 1910). The most common deciduous trees are'span- ish oak, white oak, black oak, post oak, willow oak, sweet gum, pig-nut, sassafras and dogwood. Less frequent are sour gum, red maple, holly, red cedar, persimmon and scarlet oak. Shrub ve getation is variable in its presence but exceeds the levels found on the clay soils. The most common shrubs include: chokeberry, azalea, poison sumac, sweet pepperbush, ink berry and hercules club -75- (Tatnall 1946). Herbaceous vegetation is generally rich. and widely available. It includes bart, mill, wild indigo and pinweed (Tatnall 1946). Of particular importance in the well-drained areas is the high pro'@- duction of nuts (mast). They are available from numerous trees from early to mid-fall. This availability attracts large numbers of mast oriented animals.' Fruits from shrubs in particular are found in medium abundance, but not to the same degree as in poorly drained areas (Thomas et al. 19-75). Seeds, greens and roots are not frequent in these areas. Wildlife populations show low populations of rabbit, no muskrat, geese:or ducks or beaver. High populations of squirrel, bear and turkey are present. Deer are present in medium sized populations. Raccoon, fox, elk, grouse and woodcock also occur (Thomas et al. 1975). TRANSITIONAL AREAS These are defined as areas which do not have the year-around standing water of the poorly drained woodlands and swamps, but do not, have sufficiently good soil drainage to be as dry as the well drained woodlands. The soil types which the U.S.D.A. has identified for this type of area include: Keyport Series, Klej Series, Dragston Series, Woodstown Series, Mattapex and Mattawan. -76- The forest cover has-oak as the dominant species1with sweet gum, red maple, and pine (Shreve 1910, Braun 1950). Shrub and herbaceous vegetation is best described as a cross be- tween those species found in well drained and poorly drained habitats. These two habitat types can include transitions froni marsh to well drained woodland, or from poorly drained woodland to well drained wood- land. High animal food production and cover for'nesting is character- istic. The increased sun li .ght available at the edges of environmental zones produces maximum production of cover and browse. Medium size populations of rabbit, squirrel, deer, and turkey are present. Where tidal marsh is present, then high populations of muscrat are found. Medium levels of ducks occur around poorly drained woodland and tidal marsh transitions. Mink and Weasel are very common.in transition areas between marsh and poorly drained woodland (Thomas et al. 1,975). TIDAL MARSH AND ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENTS Tidal marshes occur along low coastal areas and the tidal zones of streams and their estuaries. These areas really merge into the salt water bays and oceans environmental group as well, but the available resources of the latter are somewhat different and will be discussed separately. The transition between salt and fresh water environments is in reality.yery subtle and hard to delineate clearly but can be separat- ed somewhat using the system presented by Metzgar (1973). These div- isions include coastal shallow fresh marsh, coastal deep fresh marsh and coastal open fresh marsh. -77- Coastal shallow fresh marsh is found closest to the shore and along tidal rivers, sounds and estuaries. Soil is always waterlogged as a result of tidal inundation. Vegetatioi? includes cattail, reed, big cordgrass, arrow-arum, pickerel weed, golden club, three square, panic.grass, rose mallow, millet,, swamp rose, rice cut-grass, water parsnip, waterhemp, saltmeadow, cordgrass, saltmarsh cordgrass, myrtle, hightide bush and groundsel bush (ibid). Wildlife is heavily attracted to these areas for feeding. 'Medium populations of rabbit, mink and weasel occur. Deer, oppossum and fox are poorly represented but present. Muskrat and raccoon are present in high number year-round. Waterfowl such as ducks, geese and swans are heavily dependent on these areas for food. Most of the common birds of the eastern United States visit the wetlands at one time or another (Metzgar 1973). Grasses, reeds, and shrubs are important producers of seeds and roots. Coastal deep fresh marsh occurs along tidal tributaries and meanders leading to bays, sounds and other estuarial areas of the Chesapeake Bay (Metzgar 1973). Soil is always covered by water at mean high tide. Vegetation includes wildrice, wild celery, smartweed, water-lily, arrow- arumi golden club, cattail, coontail, tearthumb and pondweed among others. These areas are also important food producing zones. Coastal open fresh water areas inlcude shallow, but variable depth places of open water which occur along fresh tidal rivers and sounds. Vegetation can be absent, but may also include pondweed, muskgrass, and widgeon grass. All important waterfowl feeds in this area. Border areas -78- have cattail, saltmeadow, cordgrass, reed, saltmarsh cordgrass, myrtle, hightide bush, groundsel and three square (ibid). Waterfowl heavily use these areas for feeding. All estuarine areas support large populations of fish and shellfish. Oysters are found at the mouths of tidal rivers including the Nanticoke, Wicomico and Pocomoke as well as in Tangier Sound, and Pocomoke Sound (Lippson 1973). Hard clams and brackish water clams are extensively available in the waters of the study area, especially in Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds (ibid). Mussels and whelks are also available. The crab is a true estuarine species which occurs in all'areas of nearly fresh water to full ocean strength salinity (ibid). No fres,h water fish li.ve in the estuarine areas except anadromous types such as gar, herring, white perch, sturgeon, striped bass and shad. Eels are pres@ ent in all areas from the fresh water rivers to all areas of the Chesa- peake Bay (ibid). SALT WATER BAYS AND OCEAN As mentioned previously, this micro-environmental type overlaps with tidal marsh and estuarine environments. Its primary difference is the availability of deep water food resources. These include such fauna as sharks, sea turtle, sea trout, drum and rock fish. The coastal salt water bays, including Assawoman, Sinepuxent and Chincoteague, extend the area of shellfish availability (Thomas et al. 1975, Lippson 1973). -79- PERMANENT FRESH WATER ENVIRONMENTS These micro-environmental areas include the upper reaches of major stream channels which have water present in varying amount all year round. These areas, disappear as the fresh water moves downstream where it is mIxed with the. brackish tidal waters. The so-called Carolina Bays which ar.e roughly circular areas of extremely poor drainage may also contain stIanding fresh water for much ofthe year (Johnson 1942). These areas are often surrounded by such U.S.D.A. soil' types as Pocomoke Series, Johnston, Fallsington Series and Swamp, which, as dis- cussed before, provide a rich growth of water-tolerant plant species. The fresh drinking water of these areas would have been attractive to both man and animal alike. Animals such as beaver, otter, mink and muskrat are all found in sizeable populations in these areas. Fresh- water fish and turtles are also present. Yellow perch and catfish are p.resent in large numbers (Lippson 1973). NON-FOOD RESOURCE AREAS The relationship of man to his.,environment is not based solely on the availability of food resources.: Human.culture ts elaborately complex in*its interactions with the environment. The results of this interaction often reveal themselves in the manufacture of items used in all aspects of human existence. The presence and distribution of the raw materials ,used in manufacturing useful (and sometimes not so obviously useful) items can be very helpful in predicting'human behavior., For this@reason -80- some very preliminary research was performed during this study towards locating, in particular, lithic resource areas.' Other resources such as clays, wood, reeds and grasses are also important, but their general availability within the study area does not make them as.useful as lithic resource areas for the study of man-environment relations. Lithics: The only source of lithic material on the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland is found in deposits of.Pleistocene silts, gravels and cobbles which rest unconformably on older rocks of the Delmarva peninsula. These deposits were thought to be transported by large blocks of ice being carried away from the melting glaciers above the study area by glacial meltwater. As these blocks of ice melted, they released large amounts of lithic material which had been frozen within them, Enough of these stones are of sufficient size to be useable for stone tool manufacture Some stones as large as two feet in diameter were observed by the auth- or in a cobble bed in Somerset County.). The usable lithic resource areas which have been located in sit- uations where they are exposed on or close to the surface or in stream beds include (see Figure 8): 1. Area at the mouth of the Nanticoke River (exposed in tidal flats). 2. Area west of Princess Anne, Somerset County. 3. Area south of Princess Anne, along King's Creek. 4. Area south of Federalsburg in Dorchester County- -81- XK aq. Figure 8 LITHIC RESOURCE AREAS IDENTIFIED DURING STUDY. (Does not include 3 areas in Dorchester County) 5. A band running north-south beginning west of Cam- bridge, Dorchester County (just north of the study aIrea). 6. Area south of Snow Hill, Worcester County. 7. Area south of Pocomoke City, Worcester County. 8. Area east of Berlin, Worcester County., 9. Area south of Back Creek on Fairmont Neck, Somerset County- It is felt that all of these deposits would have been exploitable in, prehistoric as well as early historic times. Furthermore artifact finds are closely associated with some of these sources and many of the artifacts studied for this report appear to be made from very similar if not identical'raw materials. A program of physical tests for trace elements within the various lithic source materials and recovered arti- facts could aid in answering whether.or not these sources were supply- ing much of the raw material for the inhabitants of the study area dur- ing the various time periods in question. -83- CHAPTER VI: PALEO-ENVIRONMENT Studies of present-day environments on the lower Delmarva penin- sula are extremely useful in providing a basis for reconstructing cul- tur.al adaptation during the last 3000 years. However, problems arise in.applying this environmental information to times earlier than 3000, ye,ars'ago. The reasons for this difficulty lie in post-Pleistocene @climatic changes which have affected the geographic distribution of micro-environmental zones primarily through the process of sea,level rise. Plant and animal resource assemblages have also changed in rel- sponse -to these factors, thus causing alterations, through time in available food and-raw material resources. The process of post-Plei- stocene sea,level rise had perhaps the most far-reaching effect on the resources available to man during the past 12,000 years. Sea level rise will be discussed after briefly outlining the paleoclimatic changes which occurred following the end of the Pleistocene and the effects these changes had on plant and animal life@. tPALEOCLIMATIC SEQUENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE The climatic'shifts which have,occurred since the end of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago had great effects upon the environment and the human groups who lived within them. In order to understand these changes in climate, a number of techniques have been used includ- -84- ing studies of pollen, soil, geomorphology and botanical remains. No analyses have yet been completed within the study area dealing with these climatic changes for all periods, but by utilizing the results of research performed in surrounding,areas an analogy can be drawn between the paleoclimatic episodes of these areas-and Maryland's lower Eastern Shore. The studies which provide us with applicable research data have been performed in the Coastal Plain of southeast Virginia (Whitehead 1965, 1972, 1973) the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (Harrison et al. 1965), southeastern North.Carolina (Frey 1953, Whitehead 1963, 1964, 1965, 1973), New Jerse (Serkin and Stuckenrath 1975), at Bloods- y worth Island in the Chesapeake Bay (Demarest, N.D.) and for the Full and Post-Glacial episodes in the Central Delmarva Peninsula (Serkin et al. 1977). Problems arise, however, in applyi ng the climatic and vegetational sequences from these areas to the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. First, while a general climatic developmental model may be character- istic of the Middle Atlantic region as a whole, micro-environmental factors at work such as soil texture, drainage characteristics, lati-. tude And altitude can have important effects on the plant and animal life of any one area. These factors must be kept in mind when trying to develop and draw conclusions from a sequence of paleoclimatic change. The latest evidence reported for the Middle Atlantic region indi- cates that climatic change following the last ice age occurred in' the form of a series of relatively stable episodes which were broken by rapid climatic shifts (Bryson 1970). Work by Carbone (1976) has gener- -85- ated a general sequence of these episodes for the Middle Atlantic region. This discussion will utilize Carbone's episode sequence as a basis with which to compare evidence from the areas,listed abo.ve... The vegetational sequences presented must be seen as representing only a generaloutline of the areas involved as great diversity within different micro-environmental zones must have been present during at least some of the episodes. The Full Glacial episode, dated 10,70O.B.C. and earlier, represents a c6ld-to-cool and wet climate in the Middle Atlantic region (Carbone 1976:104). In southeastern Virginia an open spruce, pine forest with some fir-present and high level s of non-arboreal pollen (NAP) was changing to a more closed forest by around 13,000 B.C. (Whitehead. 1972). Further south in North Carolina, a pine-rich boreal episode is being replaced by a more "northern hardwood" forest with rising oak percent- Ages (Frey.1953)'by 10,000 B.C. To the north in unglaciated areas of New Jersey, pine predomi-nates with a secondary presence of birch and spruce giving way to the Late Glacial forests where temperate decid- uous species arise such as oak (Carbone 1976:38). Conditions wi,thin.the study area probably closely resemble those of both North Carolina and New Jersey with pthe dominating the assemblage and spruce being present in sizeable amounts during the Full Glacial episode. This taiga and tundra association seems to have persisted until ca. 12,500 B.C. on the Delmarva peninsula. Spruce was present along the Pocomoke River as late As 7,000 B.C.. showing'that a cold climate persisted in the area well into Late Glacial times (Serkin et al. 1977). Fauna from this period may be infered for the study area by the presence of sloth, -86- mastodon, mammoth, caribou, moose, bison and musk ox at Saltsville, Virginia dated to 11,460:t420 B.C. (Ray et al. 1967). At the New Paris Sinkhole #4 in Pennsylvania similar faunal remains are dated as late as 9300tlOOO B.C. (Guilday et al. 1964). The Late Glacial episode, dated from 10,700 B.C. to 8500 B.C. for the Middle Atlantic region exhibited slightly warmer conditions than in the Full Glacial (Carbone 1976:105-106). In southeastern Virginia a ;continuation of spruce and pine is indicated, but a drop in non-arbor-@ @eal pollen argues'for4a denser forest environment with increases in birch and alder (Harrison et al. 1965). In North Carolina, the pine rich episode gives way to a more northern hardwood association with oak, beech and hemlock reaching maximum levels. This seems to occur some- what earlier in North Carolina than in Virginia, probably reflecting the more southern location (Whitehead 1965). In New Jersey, the:domin- ance of pine with spruce and oak associated, suggests a Late Glacial oscillation where oak and other deciduous.species are present, but then disappear as spruce, pine and fir species dominate. The study area seems to show a constancy of species present with variations in the amount of hemlock (also noted in New Jersey) probably being the result of pollen blowing in from the west and the south (Carbone 1976: 44). In total, the nature of the Late Glacial episode seems episodic to the south, but relatively more stable in the region of the middle Delmarva peninsula with a very gradual increase in deciduous species occurring. The glacial fauna seems to have also gradually disappeared to.be replaced by those animals which are characteristic of the present day temperate environment. Data from the New Paris Sinkhole in Penn- -87- sylvania shows the replacement of glacial fauna to be complete by 7200 B. C. (Guilday 1967). The pre-Boreal episode, dated from 8500 B.C. to 7200 B.C. in the Middle Atlantic, had a cooler drier climate (Carbone 1976). Evidence from southeastern Virginia indicates a "northern hardwood" association with beech, hemlock, birch and oak,characteristic (Whitehead 1972, Harrison et al. 1965). North Carolina pollen cores indicate a dom- inance of oak and hickory with pine percentages low (Whitehead 1965). In New Jersey pollen studies indicate a pine dominance with birch.secon- dary. The study area in the central Delmarva region probably represents a blending of the more southern forests and the northern areas in the form of an oak dominance with hickory present as in North Carolina, but with pine and birch also being represented.as in New Jersey. The pres- ence of cypress in the study area probably indicated increased ground moisture in some areas due to a rising water table. The Boreal episode, dated in the Middle Atlantic region from 7000 B.C. to 4500 B.C., indicates a continued pattern of cool, dry climate (Carbone 1976). In southeastern Virginia the northern hardwood forest continued with an increase in sweet gum and the grasses and sedges (Whitehead 1972). In North Carolina the dominance of oak and hickory gave way to pine domination wi-th oak being secondary (Whitehead 1965). The New Jersey data indicates a similar pine-oak domination with oak having replaced hickory as the secondary dominant species (Sirkin et al. 1977). The study area probably closely parallels the developments in North Carolina and New Jersey, with a pine and oak association much -88- 11 ke the present -day situation arising@. The,Atlantic episode, from 4500 B.C. to3000 B.C., is@character- ized by a warm, moist episode which is followed by warmer, drier con- d -ions (Car-bone 1976). In s utheastern Virginia the northern' hard it 0 wood forest with sweet gum association gave way in the latter' part of theAtlantic episode to an oak, hickory forest with a rise in the pres- ence of pine (Whitehead 1972). In North Carolina oak, hickory, black gum and somewhat later cypress dominate (Whitehead 1965). Both New Jersey and the study area probably had developed a vegetational cover'. Very similar to present day.. .The s.ub.-Boreal episode from 3000 B.C. to 1000 B.C., was character- ized by warm, dry temperatures continuing with highest average tempera- tures occurring around 2300 B.C. in the Middle Atlantic as a'. whole @(Car- bone 1976:192). In southeastern Virginia this episode is marked by an increase,in cypress and gum species, probably reflecting the increase in, 11swamp forest" conditions with the Dismal Swamp area where the pollen samples were taken (Whitehead 1965). A similar rise in cypress and gum species undoubtedly occurred within the study area as what is how the Pocomoke River Swamp arose. In North Carolina a gradual increase in the presence of pine occurs (Whitehead 1972). The study area probably re- flected a stabilizing environment with present day pine-oak assemblages expanding and river swamps becoming established as extensions'of-the Dismal"Swamp areas to the southwest (Whitehead .1972). The sub Atlantic episode, in effect, extended from ca. 1000 B.C. until European contact. (Several short term 'climatic episodes did occur which would have had little effect.) The sub-Atlantic is characterized by a mild, wet climate in the Middle Atlantic region (Carbone 1976:192). In southeastern Virginia an increase in cypress and gum continues within the Dismal Swamp, but pollen evidence from Wachapreague Inlet on the Atlantic Coast indicates a present-day oak-pine-hickory association (Carbone 1976:54). In North Carolina pine dominates the vegetational assemblage unlike in southeastern Virginia (Whitehead 1965). This is probably a result of adaphic conditions associated with the sandy soils of the area. This same pine dominance is noted in the study area and most likely the sandy soils of the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland are likewise responsible for this phenomenon. It must be kept in mind that the sequence presented above is only a very general presentation of the dominant species of each climatic episode. Secondary species and the full diversity of vegetational growth cannot be determined at this time and thus the nature of the complete prehistoric resource base,cannot be, known. The diversity of the micro- environmental mosaic seen within the study area at present was also likely to be present during many of the earlier climatic episodes. This limits the ability to predict resource distribution and availability for the different time periods. Hopefully, further work on a micro- environmental level within the study area will aid in providing this in- formation. Figure 9 provides.a summary of the environmental episodes discussed above. _90- Central Sea Level Rise- olso e Climate pelmarva 1. Carolina 141ew Jersev SE 'Virainia Atlantic Chesa. Bay AO 500 pine BC - AD oak,pine, sub mild hickory 500 Atl:ntic wet (cypress. gum) i000 1500 2000 sub warm, Boreal dry 2500 ypress oak,hickor Ic yl -7.0 m_ 0 rn 3000 10rontium & ITerns. 3500 warm, Iblack gum Pine inc. i dry Atlantic warm, -15.0 4000 moist ------- 4500 r Isweet gum, -14.0'm 5000 ISimilar to 1pine, 1pine, i -- - - - - - - ,grasses I r ;present ? oak loak 5500 isedges Boreal cool, 6000 1 dry 6500 oak Northern loak, hic@ory 'Hardwood" @-22.7m 7000 -1hickory, i 4@_ I pine lbeech, 7500 birch,cyp- lbirc; ihemlock, ress,pine 'birch, oak I 81000 pre cool, 3 500 Boreal dry oak 9000 beech, hemlock 9500 Late cold, (less than Glacial wet in Va.) -25.5 .0000 pine,alderj 10500 spruce hemlock, pine, spruce, 11000 birch,Northl I-ern shrubsj pine Low NAP & herbs spruce, 11500 pine rich, oak _3U.U -M ull cold, spruce 1,200 0 Glacial wet Boreal 12500 13000 spruce, pine, fir L Sigh NAP 0 pine Park sprucepine Tundra 25000 Figure 9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE _91- SEA LEVEL RISE The geography of the Atlantic coastal plain, which includes most of the Demarva Peninsula and the Chesapeake Bay, is the result of a changing geologic history that has included the rise and fall of sea levels beyond present limits at least ten times during the Quarternary Period (previous 1.5 million years). This sea level rise and fall re- sulted from the growth and shrinking of the earth's:polar ice caps dur- ing the successive Ice Ages. During Ice Ages vast amounts of the free water on the earth s s urf ace were 1 ocked up i n the f o,rm of i ce and snow. As this frozen water never melted after formation, the amount of liquid water decreased and sea levels fell. The height of the last Ice Age, the Wisconsin, occurred approximately 14,000 to 18,000 years ago (Kraft and John 1978). During this time sea level was aro und 130 meters below its present level (Edwards,and Merril 1977:3). As temperatures rose and the ice began to melt by about 10,000 B.C.., sea level began@to rise an d the shore line transgress inland at an initially fairly rapid rate (ibid:2). Many opinions exist as to the rate of.sea level rise, butits agreed by all researchers that the two processes of eustatic rise and tectonic subsidence combine to produce a relative rate of shoreline inundation for any particular area of the Middle Atlantic coastal zone. See Figure 10 for a summary of Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic coastal changes since 7000 B.P. The rate of inundation seems to have been rapid at first with a decrease in sea level rise coming about during later times. This de- -92- Maryland 'Pe Dela a Bay IDelaware Maryland Qlj@ C h J, e 4,9 Atlantic coastline Virginia S circa 7000 B.P. CQ a p Va e a k e B a y V/ 0 KM 10 -0 KM 10 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER DRAINAGE CIRCA 7000 B.P. CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ATLANTIC OCEAN REGION TODAY (After Wilke and Thompson 1977) WITH ATLANTIC SHORELINE CIRCA 7000 B.P. SUPERIMPOSED (After Wilke & Thompson 1977) creasing rate of sea level rise is documented all along the Middle Atlantic coast. In-Connecticut Bloom and Stuiver (1963,334) state: From 7000 to 3000 years ago subme_rgence was at the rate of 0.6 foot per century; during the last 3000 years the rate has been only half at great. In New Jersey Stuiver and Daddario (1963:951) observe: All areas show a rapid submergence until 2000 to 3000 years ago and-a much reduced rate from that time until the present. Just above the study area on the Delaware coastal plain, Kraft (1971: 2131 noted this: Initially, sea level advanced rapidly across the coast- al plain from 300 to 350 feet below the present, at rates greater than several feet of sea level.rise per century. From approximately 8000 B.P., relative sea level rose at a continuing rate of about 1 foot per century. From 3700 years before present, relative sea level rise has been at a rate of slightly under .5 feet per century based on evidence from the Dela- ware coastal area. -While the rate of sea level rise has obviously varied along the Atlantic coast, probably a result of tectonic differences, it is clear that a rapid inundat-ion occurred initially followed by a slower rate of rise from around 3000 years ago continuing until the present. This process of sea level rise and the changes which accompany it have far-reaching implications for the study of the [email protected] human populations on the Delmarva Peninsula. The coastal and riverine environments of both the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay sides of the peninsula would be affected by the s-hifts in bordering environmental zones. Accompanying changes of cl.imate would affect the vegetation and animal life available for ex- ploitation. JI _94- In order to better understand the possible implications of sea level rise on the study area, research conducted in Delaware by Kraft (1978) and by Demarest et al. (n.p.) on Bloodsworth Island in the Chesa- peake Bay will be used as examples of the possible paleogeographic settings to which early human populations had to adapt through time. The Cape Henlopen occupancy sites in Delaware occur at the conflu- ence of a major estuary, the Delaware Bay, and the Atlantic coast (Kraft 1978:55).- This setting may reflect similar coastal settings of the study area where rapid migration,and reformation of coastal environments occur- red. Between 14,000 and ca. 9000 B.C. the Atlantic seacoast was 100 to 150 kilometers east of its present location (Edwards and Merrill 1977:' 33). Pollen and vegetational studies from cores drilled in these areas indicate that fairly level plains, lakes and lagoons supported spruce, pine and fir trees among other vegetation (ibid:34). Paleo-fauna is known to have included mammoth, ground sloth, caribou and walrus (ibid:9). This is the time when paleoindian period hunter-gatherers would have presumably inhabited this area, although no actual cultural materials have ever been recovered in direct association with fossil remains. Presumably the rivers and streams emptying into the Atlantic, lakes and lagoons, and the estuarine areas accompanying themalso offered rich re- sources of fish, shellfish and marine mammals. By ca. 5500 B.C. (Early- Middle Archaic*period) at Cape Henlopen tidal salt marsh fringed a coastline which was still to the east of the prese,nt day shore.@ By ca. 2000 B.C. (Late Archaic Period) the shoreline was still to the east and a series of coastal lagoons lay along a relatively straight low-lying cliff-beach, These lagoons would have been a rich, source of shellfish. -95- By 400 B.C. (Middle Woodland Period) a number of shellmiddens are pres- ent at Cape Henlopen indicating exploitation of a coastal environment which included narrow necks of land forming coastal ba-rri.er and sand dune areas with tidal marshes behind them (Kraft 1978:57)., This type of development with capes, oceans, bays and adjacent coastal lagoons and salt marshes'cbntinued up until present day. A lagoon barrier shoreline fringed by broad'coastal marshes and at times invaded by estuaries.of drowned rivers and streams was constantly transgressing in an eastward direction and forcing early populations to adapt to this shore migration along the entire Atlantic coastline (ibid:59). A common geological feature of the study area is sand ridge or, hill formations pres.umably dating to the last glacial episode (see dis- cussion later under critical areas). These ridges seem to have a high number of occupancy sites present on them, at least in certain areas, and are of interest especially where they occur in relation to a drowned surrounding topography. The site of Island Field in Delaware presents such a ridge or hill in a situation where it is surrounded by tidal salt marsh adjacent to a shallow broad estuary (Kraft 1.978:52). The setting of the Island Field site may be analogous to numerous sites and areas within the study area and will be looked at with this in mind. Kraft's (1978) paleogeographic reconstructions show the site to be located in an upland area next to the freshwater Murderkill River and adjacent to the tidal confluence of the St. Jones and Murderkill Rivers with assoc- iat6d tidal marsh areas around 8000 B.C. (Paleoindian Period). By ca. 4500 B.C. the earliest occupancy of the site occurred when the tidal estuary area where the two rivers came together lay approximately one -96- kilometer to the northeast. Both this estuary and the rivers exhibited strong tidal influences with marsh lining their banks. The present Delawa re Bay was still a good distance away from the site. By 1000 B.C. the site was within two kilometers of the Delaware Bay with extens- ive tidal marsh areas and fresh water swampy depressions nearby. By ..Mi.ddle to Late Woodland times, ca. 1000 B.C., the site was on a small peninsula of dry land, surrounded by tidal marsh and freshwater swampy depressions, and within one kilometer of the Delaware Bay. Kraft (1978:55) sees the Island Field site as being attractive@because it was initially located inland from the Delaware Bay, but in an area of,t good transportation along the tidal.Murderkill River. A lack of Late Woodland period shell middens is cited as a possible reflection of this locatim. The paleogeographical development of the Chesapeake Bay area of the Eastern Shore can be traced to some extent by recent work done on Bloods- worth Island in Dorchester County just above the study area (Demarest ,et al. in press). Bloodsworth Island lies in Tangier Sound about five miles from the mainland. The water separating it from the Delmarva Peninsula is at most fifty feet deep. Most of the island is presently covered by salt marsh. Prior to 3000 years ago, the island would have been part of the drainage divide between the Nanticoke River and the Chesapeake Bay, although it would have been much narrower at this time Obid:l). The Chesapeake Bay itself was formed by rising sea level in- undating the pre-Holocene Susquehanna River drainage basin. Associated sub-estuaries such as the Pocomoke, Wicomico and Nanticoke Rivers would have experienced similar sequences of development as outlined by Step- -97- ona,itis (1980:18-19) for the Patuxent River drainage valley ex isted in pre-Holocene times. Around 4000 B.C. when sea level waslabout minus 15 meters in the Bay, the area was mostly dry land (Demarest et al. :4).By ca. 1000 B.C. the rivers were deeper, but not wider due to the steep river valley walls. Fringing marshes were present in upstream areas where tidal effect was probably present already. During the next 2000 years sea level rise slowed considerably, but still rose about 3 to 4 meters. Dry land still predominated until ca. 500 years.ago, but with slowed sea level rise fringing marsh areas with saline plant assemblages were probably abundant. As the flatter,. more level upland areas were flood- ed during the last 1000 years before present, these salt marsh areas grew to cover great expanses and the island itself arose and was flood- ed until today little dry land remains (ibid:6). The overall implications of this continuing process of sea level rise forarchaeological research lies in the fact that the earliest period sites (Paleoind ian and Archaic Periods) would now be submerged in most instances. Use of marine and estuarine resources is indicated as early as the Middle Archaic on the Delmarva Peninsula (Wilke:and Thompson 1977). Therefore, the subsistence and settlement patterns of these earliest periods will be difficult if not impossible to under- stand with the evidence at hand and the danger 'of a land-oriented bias must be avoided. Figure 9 summarizes sea level position during the different time periods. _98- CHAPTER VII: SYNTHESIS Utilizing the chronology which was developed in Chapter III as a framework, the information gathered from analyzing the various collections can now be discussed in regard to the distribution of artifact and site types as they relate to environmental-setting and temporal variation. This information will be used to define critical areas where particular- ly high densities of cultural material from multiple time periods exist. These "critical areas" are seen as being the potentially most useful re- gions for study and interpretation of the prehistory and early history .of Maryland's l.ower Eastern Shore andultimately the entire Delmarva Pen- insula. The data utilized in this chapter is compiled in Appendix and II. Appendix I lists for each site collection examined the following information: 1. site location; 2. site description; 3. site maps (if available or visited); 4. site inventory number (if available); 5. collector or owner name ad address and; 6. components identified. Appendix II includes a preliminary discussion of data gathered from aerial photographs and from the Landsat earth resources satellite. This data is used to aid in defining critical areas where collector interview data is lacking or scarce. _99- PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD All occurrences of Paleoindian components within the study area relate to isolated finds of fluted projectile points. No actual com- plete sites dating to.this period are known on the lower Eastern Shore, although such sites do occur within the Middle Atlantic region. Almost undoubtedly, this scarcity of Paleoindian sites within the lower Del- mar va Peninsula is a result of the process of sea level rise discussed earlier. This process was underway by at least 12,000 B.C. with the re- sult that any sites located next to either riverine or coastal environ- ments are now submerged. The traditional subsistence mo-del for the Paleoindian Period, has seen these people as big game hunters, primarily of extinct pleistocene megafauna such as mammoth and mastodon, but also of smaller animals such as caribou and deer (Gardner 1979:4). The environment during early Paleo- indian times seems to have been a mosaic of mixed vegetation which includ- ed parkland and more open mixed coniferous forest (Carbone 1976). Pleist- ocene megafauna is known to have been present as close as Virginia and Pennsylvania (Ray et al. 1967; Guilday et al. 1964), but Paleoindian artifacts havenever been found in the Middle Atlantic region in.un- disputed direct association with extinct mammalian bones. Thus, environ- mental evidence does seem to agree with a primary hunting-focus during the Paleoindian Period. _100- Q) 0 Cl- aj a) C: IV 4-) 0 -0 Q as Q- z Figure 11 PALEOINDIAN TOTAL SITES PALEOINDIAN POINTS 10 CD 7 c 0 U N T Cl 3 2 LTYPE Figure 12 -102- Further evidence supporting a primary hunting orientation seems to lie in the artifact assemblages from known Paleoindian sites. These assemblages include such tools as scrapers, gravers, dril,ls, knives, hammerstones, bifaces and wedges (Gardner 1974, Coe 1964, Kinsey 1972). These are'the type of artifact which would most probably be used in pro- cessing hunted animals by cutting the meat from the carcass, preparing hides and fashioning implements from bones. Gardner (1974) proposes)some possible settlement patterns associat- ed with the Paleoindian Period based on work in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. He sees three kinds of basic site types: the quarry-related sites; base camps; and outlying hunting camps. Gardner feels that prox- imity to lithic raw material sources and freshwater are the two primary factors at work in base camp location. He also mentions closeness to animal migration routes or."overlook" areas as being of possible import- ance in upland locations Obid: 43). The application of the above model to the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland should be done with caution. First, the environmental evidence from the study area (see Chapter VI) shows that by the end of the Paleo- indian Period (ca. 7500 B.C.) the mixed coniferous forest/parkland mo- saic was giving way to a more closed "northern hardwood" association of birch, oak and hickory. The Plei'stocene megafauna would have been re- placed by a fauna similar to that found today as the open grassland areas were replaced by forest or lost to sea level inundation. This evidence would tend to support an earlier orientation toward hunting the large Pleistocene fauna with alater shift (by ca. 8500 B.C.) toward a more -103- -:M -1. Figure 13 PALEOINDIAN CLOVIS PHASE -io4- Figure 14 PALEOINDIAN. MIDDLE PALEO Zq Figure 15 PALEOINDIAN ::DALTON.- HARDAWAY PHASE diffuse economy where both plant and marine/riverine resources were gathered in addition to the hunting of large and small land animals. Data from the Shawnee-Minisunk site in the Upper Delaware Valley shows the, presence of hawthorne pits and fish bones from a hearth by 8640t3OO B.C. .(McNett et al. 1977:284). This seemingly supports the view that a more diverse hunting and gathering economy existed in some areas by at least the Middle Paleoindian phase. The location of sites during the Paleoindian Period appears to re- .flect apreference for location in areas with numerous small ponds or sin k holes known as Carolina Bays on the Delmarva Peninsula (Thomas 1976). Large poorly drained areas thought to be post.-Pleistocene lakes or marshes also seem to have been preferred (ibid). The location of cobble beds of usable lithic raw material in numerous areas of the Delmarva Peninsula do not seem to be primary site location areas as Gardner's model would predict. PaTeoindian point finds within the study area occur associated with stream and river drainage channels (see Figures 11, 13, 14 & 15), but factors such as collecting bias and inundation of lowland areas make assessment of site location criteria difficult. For points which.could be examined, chert was the most common raw material used, with one point being fashioned from,quartzite and another from rhyolite (this was a Hardaway point where raw material assessment was difficult). See Figures 16, 17 and 18. Overall, it seems likely that by the Middle Paleoindian phase a more diverse economy including both hunting and gathering had arisen within the study area as a result of environmental and other factors. -107- PALEO-CLOVIS le 7 c 0 u N T, 4 3 2 ui uj Cr Ck@ C) uj ui RAW MATERIAL FIGURE 16 PALEO-MIDDLE is c 0 u 5 .N T 4 3 2 uj ui ui CD, CD RAW MATERIAL FIGURE 17 -109- cq co dD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE r QUARTZ CHERT ARGILLITE co OTHER The primary subsistence emphasis was likely still on hunting, but ex- ploitation of a more diverse resource base was likely to have also been occurring to a substantial degree. EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD The Early Archaic Period, lasting from approximately 7500 until 6000 B.C., occurs at a time of environmental change when the Eastern Shore expression of the northern hardwood forest was being supplanted by a forested environment similar to today. A predominance of oak and pine with areas of swamp forest including such species as cypress and gum was coming to be the primary forest association. Species of P.1eistocene fauna would have disappeared with a faunal assemblage very similar to today's being present. The Atlantic shoreline lay at least 8 to 10 kilometers to the west of its present location as.a result of sea levels being approximately 22 meters below its current level. Inundation of the Chesapeake Bay was occurring with associated flooding of the lower reaches of the major river drainage systems taking place. The possible effects of these changes will be discussed below as they relate to the dual traditions of the Early Archaic. Corner-Notched Tradition: This tradition includes the Early Archaic I Phase (7500-7000 B.C.) and the Early Archaic II Phase (7000-6800 B.C.). The artifactual marker of this stage is a technological change from fluting as a means of haft- 41. t-l Figure 19 EARLY ARCHAIC TOTAL SITES 00 aD w .16 c* PALMER CN KIRK CN KIRK STEMMED ST ALBANS r LE CROY -4 rn KANAWHA CD ing to corner-notching. Edges of these projectile points also often show serration. the Palmer points of the Early Archaicl phase are much more common in collections than the later Kirk points of the Early Archaic II phase. A predominant use of local cryptocrystalline chert'raw material marks both the earlier and later phases with non-local argillite being utilized for.fashioning a Palmer point in one instance. This use of raw materials does not agree with evidence from the Patuxent River drainage on the Western Shroe where non-local rhyolite was extensive,ly used during the later phase manufacture of Kirk points (Steponaitis 1980:68). This evi-dence seems to suggest that while some contact was occurring with other areas as seen by the use of argillite in one instance, the favor- edIraw material'-source was the local cobble beds of the region (See Figures 21 and 22). Gardner suggests that the change reflected in the switch to corner- notched projectile points is the result of a new hunting strategy which was needed due to behavioral differences between the parkland adapted Ple.istocene fauna and the modern fauna of the deciduous forest. This model does not see a cultural adaptation based on seasonal exploitation of varied resources arising until later, instead prefering to see this tradition as a continuation of Paleoindian subsistence patterns. Vegetational evidence secured by flotation of the Rose Island site in Tennessee indicates that hickory (most common), acorn, butternut.and honey-locust were being exploited as sources of plant food by,at least the late Early Archaic (Chapman 1975). Evidence for a diet based at (A 46 cn CD ab RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER aD ul 0 -4 ob to aD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ lip m CHERT ARGILLITE rn NJ OTHER least partially on foraging is further backed up by the presence of nut remains and hoes in the Kirk levels at the St. Albans site in West Virginia (Broyles 1971). Steponaitis (1980:69) correctly points out that many tools associated with hunting and butchering tasks could just as easily have been used in the processing of plant foods. Lithic use-wear studies could/aid in answering this question. The Dill Farm Site in Kent County, Delaware is a large Archaic site spanning the entire Early Archaic. It is situated on a well-drained ridge adjoining a sluggish stream with extensive fresh water swamps nearby. This highly productive environmental setting seems'to be mirrored within the study area (see Figures 23 and 24) where sites of both phases are associated with either river or stream drainage areas where well-drain- ed sand ridges occur near poorly-drained woods or swamps. This environ- ment is likely to be similar to what would have been present during the Early Archaic although many sites would have since:been lost due to sea level rise. The very productive Chance Site in Somerset County is a good example of such environmental placement. Thus, it seems likely that a diverse hunting and gathering economy was well established by the .beginning of the-Early Archaic Period in which all of the resources of a rich and varied environmental setting were being exploited. Bifurcate Tradition: The Early Archaic Phases III, IV and V are marked by the presence of St. Albans, LeCroy and Kanawha bifurcated base points respectively. -117- Figure 23 EARLY ARCHAIC I jf Jo Figure 24.: EARLY ARCHAIC II This tradition dates from approximately 6800 to 6000 B'.C. and is widely distributed throughout the eastern United States. The favored lithic raw.material during this tradition remained thelocally available cherts, presumably from exposed cobble sources (see Figures 25, 26 & 27), a single occurrence of an argillite St. Albans point indicates possible contact with other areas, but it is far from conclusive. Cresthull (1971) also indicates use of quartz and ,quarzite for bifurcated points at the Chance site, but again these are locally present in the cobble beds. This pattern of raw material use is different than that noted to the west by Steponaitis (1980:73) in the Patuxent drainage and Clark (1977:100) in the Gwynns Falls Valley. In both of those areas rhyolite was extensively used along with quartz, chert making up a much smaller percentage of used raw material. Patterns of distribution (see Figures 28, 29 and 30) within the phases of the bifurcate tradition show some similarities with data from the Western Shore. The distribution of the three later phases are sim- ilar to that of the earlier Early Archaic II phase, just as noted for the Patuxent drainage (Steponaitis 1980:73). LeCroy points of the Early Archaic IV phase are likewise the most numerous within the study area with the St. Albans point being the second most common point type as-noted by Stepopaitis (ibid) for the opposite side of the Bay. Steponaitis (ibid) also notes a low recovery rate for Kanawha points and speculates that population density is the cause of this phenomenon. As the sam.e low recovery- is noted here, the probability is,increased that factors in population density may be responsible. A shift away -120- C C) 0 cn 0) im 40 aD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ m CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER C: a 0 RHYOLITE QUARTZITE m QUARTZ ;o CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER 0) RHYOLITE QUARTZITE m QUARTZ t lip -4 m f- CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER Figure 28 : EARLY ARCHAIC I.II -124- ,Im. Figure 29 EARLY ARCHAIC IV -125- - Figure 30 :,. EARLY ARCHAIC,V -1 ?r@- from the Atlantic coastal drainage area occurs in the study area during the late Early Archaic IV and V phases, but sites along the Bay-side of the peninsula and in inland drainage areas still persist. This spread of sites in all areas, from Atlantic to inland to Bay, would seem to agree with the commonly,accepted view of the late Early Archaic sub- sistence strategy revolving around the scheduled use of seasonally available resources (Gardner 1978). This subsistence strategy appears to have arisen early on the Coastal Plain as noted for the earlier phases and also speculated for the Western Shore by Steponaitis (1980:73). MIDDLE ARCHAIC The Middle Archaic Period (6000 to 4000 B.C.) saw a shift in the environment from the cool,dry period of the Boreal episode to the warTn wet period of the early Atlantic episode (ca. 450O.B.C.) This climatic change caused a final shift from the northern hardwood type of forest to the type of forest present todayon the middle Delmarva Peninsula where oaks and pines predominate in all areas except the poorly-drained river swamps. Inundation of the Atlantic and Bay shorelines continued along with increased flooding of river drainage areas. This flooding of rivers may have given rise to exploitable estuarine resources, but as the mouths of the rivers as they existed during the Middle Archaic would now be under water, no evidence exists to support this contention. Much speculation has occurred as to whether swamps arose along inland portions of rivers at this time (Gardner 1978). This is not clear for the study area at this time. Swamps may have been present in the Early -127- . .4'zI: Figure 31 MIDDLE ARCHAIC TOTAL SITES w cn Cb to CD co N In cc STANLY MORROW MOUNTAIN I MORROW MOUNTAIN II GUILFORD m rl 0 1-4 CA Archaic and little real change in site location is noted. Some good dates from swamp area cores would go a long way towards clarifying this problem. Middle Archaic 1: This phase, distinguished by the Stanly projectile point, is rel- ati vely poorly represented wi thi n the study area al though i t does occur in'moderate numbers unlike its total absence in the Patuxent drainage (Steponaitis 1980:75). A minimal representation of this point through- out the Northeast has been noted by Kinsey (1972), Ritchie (1969) and others. This was thought to be the result of depopulation due to the low productivity of the closed boreal forest, but this view has been challenged. A point very similar to the Stanly has been reported from New Hampshire (Dincauze 1976) associated with a tool kit very similar to that excavated by Coe (1964) at the.Doershuck Site. This evidence makes it likely that a failure to recognize the Stanly point among similar earlier and later forms may be responsible for its seeming scarcity. Certainly no dramatic environmental changes are noted within the study area at this time (6000-5000 B.C.). One very interesting oc- currence noted within the study area at this time is a clear rise in the use of non-local materials (see figure 33). Rhyolite and argillite represent 40% of the utilized raw material which is a clear increase in the use of non-local materials although locally available cherts and quartzite are. still the predominantly used materials. This evidence of contact with outside areas Would appear to agree with the previously 130- ft to aD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ m -4 m m CHERT 0 ARGILLITE OTHER 7- Figure 34 MIDDLE ARCHAIC I noted appearance of,an extensive Stanly-Neville cultural tradition run- ning from the Southeast to the Northeast. Coe (1964) also notes the appearance of ground stone tools at this time. A continued lack of sites in the Atlantic drainage area as noted in the preceding Early Archaic V phase is seen, but this may simply reflect the inundations of any sites in this area due to sea level rise. See Figure 34. ;Middle Archaic II: The Middle, Archaic II phase (5000-4200 B.C.) is distinguished by Morrow Mountain I and Morrow Mountain 11 projectile points. These two classes of points taken together are by far the most numerous point types within the study area, particularly Morrow Mountain II type. A continued use of non-local materials is noted (see Figure 35), but use of locally available quartzite predominates, being used 40% of the time. Coe (1964) notes a particular concentration of Morrow Mountain II points in the Middle Atlantic region as a whole and this area agrees well with such a picture. Similar points are known from New Hampshire (Dincauze 1976) to North Carolina (Coe: 1964) indicating a continuation of a shared cultural pattern as in the previous phase. Ground stone tools include atlatl weights and fully-grooved axes at this time (Dincauze 1976:121). Cresthull (1972) notes similar groundstone weights from the Eastern Shore during this phase, but poor provenience on these artifacts make their dating unclear. -133@ -4=c:oo (.0 0) co ch RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ m 70 0 CHERT ARGILLITE Un OTHER Figure 36 : MIDDLE ARCHAIC 11 -135' A clear rise in the numbee of sites during this period may indicate an increase in population, although any statement of this sort based upon non-systematically collected data is pure speculation at best. Gardner (1978) postulates a major focus on inland swamps with transitory camps on second and third order streams. Dincauze (1976) suggests, exploitation of andromous fish at the Neville site, but whether this was occurring here is unknown. Sites within the study area are a.gain locat- ed in all areas, from the Atlantic across to the Bay islands. They do seem to be associated with swamp areas,.such as along the lower Pocomoke River, as well as with what were probably lower order streams along the Atlantic drainage area. See Figure 36. This exploitation of all environ- mental zones probably indicates a generalized foraging economy during this phase. Middle Archaic III: The Guilford Lanceolate point marks this final phase in the Middle Archaic period. The number of Guilford points in the study area decreas- es dramatically compared to the previous Morrow Mountain I and II types. This is the opposite of the trend noted on the Western Shore by Steponaitis (1980:77). Coe (1964:123) notes that Guilford phase material is rare to the north and east of'the Piedmont. This appears to agree with data from the study area. Lithic preferences during this phase see a continued presence of non-local materials (33.'3%) but a continued reliance on local cherts and quartzite predominates (see Figure 37). _136- (o RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ ;o -4 0 r- CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER Figure 38 MIDDLE ARCHAIC III The number of Middle Archaic rrr:phase sites also decreases from the previous phase, with a lack of Bay-side sites being noted. The explan- ation for this absence is unclear, but an emphasis on lower order streams and swamps seems to be indicated. See Figure 38. LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD ,The climate of the Late Archaic Period (4000-1200 B.C.) was.warm. and dry with theperiod around 2300 B.C. having the highest mean temp-: eratures. Vegetation in the study area was similar to today, being an oak,-pine forest withlareas of swamp and marsh vegetation. Sea level rise continued to inundate the shorelines of the Atlantic and Chesa- peake Bay drainages until sea level stood at approximately seven meters below current level on the Atlantic side and eleven meters lower on the slightly slower rising Chesapeake Bay side of the peninsula by around 3000 B.C. The estuarine zones of river drainages would be extensive by this time, providing oysters and other food resources. Anadromous fish were also present by this phase and would have been seasonally available. It appears that two traditions were present during the early part of the Late Archaic period. In Delaware, work by Thomas (1976) led him to see "two partially contemporaneous" traditions present; the Piedmont Tradition with affinities to the south and east, and the Laurentian Tradition with connections to areas north of the Delmarva Peninsula. The exact tradition to which each point type of the early Late Archaic belongs is not always clear. _139- S3M IVIOi DIM& 31VI 6E ajn6Lj - Oka, -0@ z 7t 'i. LATE ARCHAIC TOTAL SITES Points associated with the Piedmont tradition seem to have devel- oped out of the same complex represented by Morrow Mountain and Guilford points (Kinsey 1972, McNett and Gardner 1975). Local raw materials pre- dominate and the projectile points tend to be long and narrow. The most likely projectile points to be associated with this tradition are the Piscataway, Vernon, Lamoka and Holmes. The Laurentian Tradition was defined by Ritchie (1969) based on material from the upper St. Lawrence drainage. His total definition does.not have wide applicability, but the Brewerton and Otter Creek points he describes are found widely in the eastern United States. Within the study area, both traditions seem to be mo.derate ly well represented. The Piedmont tradition Piscataway point is the most numer- ours single point type of the Late Archaic but-all types of Brewerton points are even more numerous when taken as a whole. Conversely, Otter Creek points are relatively rare within the study area, possibl y arguing against a strong Laurentian influence. Site distribution during the early Late Archaic shows no real variation between phases indicating t he ex- ploitation of similar environments by all human groups in the area. Interregional exchange between the two traditions, as suggested by Step- onaitis (1980:82), also seems a possible explanation forthe presence of artifacts from both traditions. Projectile points belonging to both traditions occur at the same site suggesting either the same people were Using the two different tradition points, or the same sites were used by both groups of people, presumably.at slightly different times. The fact that all material comes from surface collections makes any -141- b. 46 tn cr) CD .1h. .00 cn (0 0) w CD i PISCATAWAY OTTER CREEK VERNON BREWERTON SN BREWERTON CN BREWERTON EN BREWERTON ET m -4 LAMOKA m HOLMES CLAGETT SAVANNAH RIVER KOENS-CRISPIN PERKIOMEN Su SQUEHANNA m CD ORIENT FISHTAIL *Can also be Early Woodland 16 DRY BROOK FISHTAIL *Can also be Early Woodland possible temporal distinctions between the two traditJons hard to de- termine and a true answer to what the relation between these two tra- ditions is on the Eastern Shore must await further work. During the later part of the Late Archaic Period (here covering Late Archaic phases IV, V and VI) two other tr'adition,s are noted in the study area. These two traditions, the Broadspear Tradition and the'Fishtail Tradition, do not occur simultaneously as with the traditions noted in the early Late Archaic Period. The Broadspear Tradition appar- ently developed out of the earlier Piedmont Tradition and the Fishtail Tradition in turn appears to develop from the Broadspear Tradition. Both of these traditions will be discussed'in fuller detail later. Late Archaic I: The first phase of the Late Archaic (4000-3000 B,C.) is marked by the Piedmont tradition Piscataway point. The point has morphological similarity to the earlier Guilford point and may have developed from the Guilford-Morrow Mountain complex. Stephenson (1963) defined the Piscat- away point.and noted that it was predominantly made from quartz and quartzite. This choice of raw material is not followed within the study area where the majority of Piscataway points are made from local cherts (47%),with quartz and quartzite being the secondary choices (23.5% and 16% respectively) and argillite or rhyollite occuring for 13% of noted examples (see Figure 41). As in the Middle Woodland period, an increased diversity of raw materials is noted, but a clear preference -143- LATE ARCHAIC I 20 14 12 c u f la N .T t7. ct uj C> 2 cl-l Of w uj CY CD RAW MATERIAL FIGURE 41 A A 40 Figure 42 LATE ARCHAIC I for the use of local cobble materials remains evident. The distribution of Late Archaic I sites (see Figure 42) shows an increase in the number of sites from the Middle Archaic III phase as well as a renewed presence on the Bay side of the peninsula. Sites are again noted in a diverse variety of environmental zones, from the Atlantic drainage area adjacent to low order streams, inland along swamps, creeks and rivers, and along the Chesapeake Bay drainage areas. The s i te 1 ocati ons noted i n the study area agree wel I wi th data from iDelaware where sites of the early Late Archaic @re noted to be scattered throughout the state in many micro-environments, most commonly in areas of high hunting potential (Thomas 1974). It would seem, based on site density, that upland portions of streams and inland swamp areas were the main. focus during this period with a secondary emphasis on the larger river drainage and coastal areas. Central base camps may have been near the inland swamp areas such as Dividing Creek with seasonal camps near the shore areas. The beginnings of the later riverine empha- sis may thus be present this early in the Late Archaic. Late Archaic II: The Late Archaic II phase (3000-2200 B.C.) is distinguished by the Laurentian tradition Brewerton Side-Notched, Corner-Notched, Ear- Notched and Eared-Triangle points; the L.amoka point which Ritchie (19617) defined in New York; and the Vernon Side-Notched point which is likely associated with the Piedmont tradition. -146- The raw material used during this phase (see Figure 43) shows certain differences from the Late Archaic I phase, particularly the use of quartz and quartzite which.declines. Chert is still the main raw material used (51%), with all Vernonpoints being fashioned from this material. The use of quartz and quartzite declines,from a 39.5% total in the preceeding phase to only 12.5%. during the Late Archaic II. This decline is matched by a rise in the use of rhyollite and.argillite from 13% to 27.5%. This increase in the use of non-local rhyollite and argillite may be a reflection of the strong.Laurentian influences which seem to be at work during this phase as reflected by the high number of Brewerton-type points seen in collections. Unlike the Western Shore where Steponaitis(1980:83) notes fewer Brewerton than Vernon points, the former type far-outnumber the Vernon points on the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. Steponaitis Obid) also.notes that Brewerton points are often manufactured from "nonlocal" cherts in the Patuxent drainage. This raises the question of how one determines what is a local lithic material and what is a non-local lithic material? In an area such as Maryland's lower Eastern Shore, very little is known about the lithic materials present. All deposits are not known (as@shown by the number of sources found during this study which were unknown to geologists the author spoke with) and what these deposits contain is an even bigner question mark. For-example, samples of chert nodules collected from a cobble deposit west of Princess Anne in Somerset County showed an amaz- ing variety of colors and textures with color ranging from red to light brown to black. As these cobble deposits were transported here by Plei- stocene and post-Pleistocene events, virtually any area to the North could -147- 0 0) RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ -4 CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER have provided raw materials for transport to.the lower.,.Eastern Shore. This makes determinations of local versus non-local nature very tricky indeed and only the presence of argillite or rhyollite artifacts can be seen, to indicate non-local raw material origin with any degree of confidence. Perhaps even these materials may be found to be present in the cobble deposits upon further-study. The distribution of Late Archaic II phase sites (see Figure 44) is very similar to the preceeding phase with sites favoring inland swamp and lower order stream locations on well-drained ridges. The overall number of artifacts and sites show a slight increase over the preceeding phase, an occurrence which is unlike the Patuxent drainage where a de- crease is noted (Steponaitis 1980:85). The reasons for this are unclear. The subsistence-settlement pattern of this phase probably involved continued seasonal exploitation of multiple environments. Wilke and Thompson (1977) noted a series of Late Archaic sites in Kent County on the upper Eastern Shore which represented the exploitation of both coast- al and inland environments. This same subsistence strategy was likely followed on the lower Eastern Shore. Wilke and Thompson (ibid) also in- dicate that shellfish gathering was occurring by this time period in Kent County. Late Archaic III: The marker of this phase is the Holmes point with dates fron.2200- 1900 B.C. being the likely time span, The Holmes point is probably a -149- 'Figure 44 LATE ARCHAICH -150..; representative of the Piedmont tradition, being made predominantly of local chert (47%) and quartzite (41%) (see Figure 45) with a morpholog- ical form very reminiscent of earlier Morrow Mountain and Guilford tra- ditions. The distribution of Late Archaic III sites seems to show a shift away from the coastal areas, but it is not clear if this is a result of sea level rise inundating sites or possible collector bias; or if a true shift in population, or a decreasing use of the area as a whole and the coasts in particular was occurring (see Figure 46). The numbers of actual Holmes points, while moderately represe nted, show a definite decrease from the previous phase. This situation is very different from the Patuxent drainage.where the number of sites also decrease, but the number of Holmes points increase dramatically to be the most numer- ous point type in the area (Steponaitis 1980:85). Broadspear Tradition (Late Archaic.Phases IV and V); The Broadspear Tradition is thought to have developed out of the Piedmont tradition sometime around the second millennium B.C. and last- ed until about 1500 B.C. Broad-bladed points or "broadspears" and carv- ed steatite bowls are the artifactual markers of this period. The Broadspear tradition is seen to represent a, period during which, the sub- sistence strategy shifted from an emphasis on riverine zone exploitation. Witthoft (1953) sees the Broadspear cultures focusing on the exploitation of andromous ffsh which would have been well established in rivers and streams by this time when sea level was only about 3 to 5 neters below to cn (D aD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ C7 CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER . . . . . . . . . . Figure 46 LATE ARCHAIC III -153- its current level. This is a time when the climate was shifting to the warm, dry conditions of the sub-Boreal and both Kinsey (1972) and Custer (1978) see the changing subsistence strategy as an adaptive response'to this climatic shtft. Late Archaic IV: The similar Savannah River and Koens-Crispin points mark the Late Archaic IV phase (1900-1700 B.C.). The Koens-Crispin point is consider- ed to be the northern variant of the Savannah River point and it is interesting to note that it is far more numerous in the study area-than the southern oriented Savannah River. This may reflect a stronger north- ern influence on the area due to its physiographic isolation from the south and east by this time. The Savannah River points from the study area are all made of rhyolite, while the majority of Koens-Crisp.in points are manufactured from quartzite and chert with rhyolitebeing sec- ondarily used (see Figure 48). Steatite bowl fragments do occur within the study area which agrees with evidence from the Patuxent River area (Steponaitis 1980:89). Steatite bowls are not good temporal phase markers as they occur during both Broadspear phases as well as in the later Fishtail tradition. The distribution of steatite bowl fragments within the study area is shown in Figure 47. Based,upon the distribution of Late Archaic IV phase material with- in the study area (see Figure 49), it would appear that there has been some.shifting of sites to lower reaches of streams and rivers, best -154- Figure 47 DISTRIBUTION OF STEATITE VESSEL FRAGMENTS -155- P4 aD flo 46 Cb 0 to .66 aD - RHYOLITE - QUARTZITE QUARTZ ;o CHERT ARGILLITE co OTHER -LSI- Al OIVHO@V 2iVI 6t 3voij Si. LATE ARCHAIC IV seen along Dividing Creek, and to the Atlantic drainage area. Bearing in mind the previous discussion of a shift to a riverine focus during this tradition, these downstream shifts may reflect the move from what would have probably been more upland swamp areas at this time to the lower stream reaches where anadromous fish would be present. There is no direct evidence of such a shift, but the previously mentioned evidence from Kent County makes such a move seem likely. An absence of sites from the riverine areas of the Chesapeake Bay side of the peninsula is puzzling, but inundation may again explain this as the river valleys approached their present wide bay-like morphology. Late Archaic V: The Perkiomen Broadspear and Susquehanna Broadspear points mark the Late Archaic V phase'(1700-1500 B.C.). Perkiomen points are some- what more common in the study than Susquehanna points. Argillite and rhyollite were more often used for Susquehanna points than for Perkiomen points where chert and quartzite were the favored raw materials (see Figure 50). This ag rees with the same general trends noted in the Pied- mont area by Kinsey (1972). Custer's (1978) suggestion that these points were likely used in the manufacture of bone and wood tools seems possible when noting their seemingly inefficient shapes as projectile points. How- ever, other authors (for example Kinsey 1972 and Witthoft 1953) see these points as "toggle" harpoons used in the exploitation of fish re- sources. Microwear studies of use-wear on these points could aid-in solving this question. For now, it seems likely that the subsistence _158- W cn aD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE ;o QUARTZ > 20. -4 m > -4 m > 1-4 > CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER 4J- z 7 T. Figure.51 LATE ARCHAIC V strategy of the Broadspear culture was based on a hunting, gathering, shellfishing and fishing round along tidal streams and estuaries (Wilke and Thompson 1979). The slowing of sea level rise which began around 4000 years ago would have stablized coastal environments so that large numbers of waterfowl, anadromous fish and shellfish would have been available for exploitation. In Delaware, Broadspear tradition sites occur along rivers where there are large dense sites and inland where@ smaller sites are found. The distribution of Late Archaic V sites as. seen in Figure 51 shows a slight decline in numbers from the previous phase but still indicates a preference for river and stream drainages and a shift back to the Bay shore areas. Some inland sites on smaller streams probably are short term hunting and gathering sites. Fishtail Tradition (Late Archaic VI and Marcey Creek): The Fishtail Traditi.on is transitional between the Late Archaic period and the Early Woodland Period (1500 to 750 B.C.). The Orient and Dry Brook points mark this period and are seen by Kinsey (1972) as a result of the "convergence of the Perkiomen and Susquehanna phases." Steatite bowls are associated with these points during the Late Archaic; while the appearance of steatite-tempered Marcey Creek ceramics with the two point types marks the Early Woodland period. An environmental change was occurring at this time from the sub- Boreal warm, dry conditions to the mild and wet conditions of the sub- Atlantic which have-persisted until the present.. As mentioned earlier, the sea level rise had slowed considerably allowing coastal and estua- -161- car. 40.A z Figure 52 LATE ARCHAIC VI C: a 0 cn 0) ob to aD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE r QUARTZ ;o C7 < t- CHERT ARGI-LITE OTHER rine environments to stabilize. Site distribution as seen in Figure 52 for the Late Archaic VI phase seems to indicate a continued emphasis on upstream parts of tributaries and rivers along the general pattern of the earlier Broadspear tradition. Kinsey,(1972) states that the Fishtail settlement and subsistence base is a continuation of the earlier Broadspear strategy. The evidence from the study area seems to fit this conception, EARLY WOODLAND The environmental change to mild,wet conditions which began during the final phase of the Late Archaic period was complete by the middle of the Early Woodland (1-200-700 B.C.). By the end of the Early Woodland sea level rise should have slowed to such an extent that coastal and estuarine environments would have shown distributions of plant and ani- mal communities very similar to today, although the coastal zones would not show as extensi ve a drowned topography as at present. Marcey Creek Phase: The Marcey Creek Phase is distinguished by presence of steatite tempered ceramics and Fishtail points. Selden Island ceramics may also be associated with this period. Thomas (1974) suggests that middle drainage areas of large streams were the focus of Early Woodland cul- tures, while Gardner (1978) sees very little to distinguish the Early Woodland from the Late Archaic as regards settlemebt and subsistence _164- s3ils iviol ONVIOOOM AlV3 tq ajn6Lj EARLY WOODLAND TOTAL SITES ORIENT FISHTAIL *Can also be Late Archaic DRY BROOK FISHTAIL *Can also be Late Archaic ADENA m POTTS > < m 6-4 patterns on the Potomac coas tal plain. Wilke and Thompson (1977) see shellfish exploitation as an important resource activity. McNett and Gardner (1975) postulate that Marcey Creek Ware would not be manufactured on the Coastal Plain due to a lack of steatite sources. Steponaitis (1980:94-95) does mention the presence. of Marcey Creek Ware in the Patuxent drainage, but none of@the collections . exam- ined for this study had any Marcey Creek, Selden Island or Ware Plain ceramics present in them. The reason for this is hard to understand as steatite fragments do occur, showing it was being traded, presumably during the Late Archaic, and these ceramic types are known to occur above the study area in Delaware. It is possible that a conservative Late Archaic tradition continued within the study area without ceramics until the introduction of Dames Quarter Ware. Dames Quarter Ware is particularly associated with'the study area, being named for a location in Somerset County. It is possible that this pottery type represents the first use of ceramics within the study area, however such a,judg- ment must,await further data gathered in a more systematic fashion., Dames Quarter Phase: The Dames Quarter Phase (1000-700 B.C.) is marked by the presence of Dames Quarter Black Stone Tempered ceramics. This pottery is charac- terized by the use of a flat bottom with a coiled base and generally a smooth surface although cord and fabric markings are known (Wise.1975). Ware Plain ceramics, a crushed quartz, sand or limestone tempered cer- amic probably also occurs during this time and is similar to Dames -167- 0 KM 10 CD in m ;a --4 C) > =CI ED C-) m r- Orient Fishtail m C4 Dry Brook Fishtail (A C-) Both of above xz Figure 57 EARLY WOODLAND DAMES QUARTER PHASE 44 46 ul 0 ab to aD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ 0 -4 CHERT m C: -4 ARGILLITE OTHER Quarter ware (Wise 1975). Selden Island ceramics, a soapstone tempered coiledconoidal-shaped ware, likely also occur's during the same time period (Artusy 1977). No Selden Island ware was present within the collections examined for this study. The point type associated with the Dames Quarter phase is not clear. Throughout.,the Early.Woodland period, the association be- tween ceramic and lithic types is vague at best, Based on collections examined for this study, it appears that Fishtail tradition points (or- ient and Dry Brook) are the most strongly associated types with Dames Quarter ceramics, occurring together in 50% of cases (see Figure 56). The Dames Quarter phase can be seen as either a dramatic shift from the seeming depopulation of the Marcey Creek phase, or as a direct out- growth of the Late Archaic VI Fishtail Tradition. Settlement pattern evidence as observed during this study (see Figure.@57) shows little change from the Late Archaic VI phase. A slight shift to mo re riverine .upstream areas of the secondary streams and to the Atlantic coastal drainage areas may be occurring, but sampling bias could just as easily explain these minor shifts.. Gardner's (1978) work in the upper Potomac coastal plain, showed little difference between Early Woodland and Late, Archaic settlement patterns. His data indicate an emphasis on larger streams with a scatter of transient camps in the uplands. Wilke and Thompson (1977) find evidence of extensive shellfish exploitation during this period. There are no sites of the Dames Quarter Phase situated in estuarine areas or shoreline areas, but sea level rise and inundation could have obscured such sites along the Atlantic and Bay shores. -171- Amore li.kelly explanation for site distributIon is that a subsist- ence strategy similar to the Late Archaic, with exploitation of larger streams as the main focus, continued throughout the Early Woodland period in the study area. This agrees with Gardner's (1978) conclusions in the Potomac coastal plain and seems to represent a conservative continua- tion of the subsist ence and settlement pattern which arose during the Early Archaic Broadspear tradition. MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD The Middle Woodland Period (700 B.C. to A.D. 1000) is characterized on Maryland's lower Eastern Shore by the initial appearance of Wol-fe Neck Ware, a crushed quartz tempered ceramic with either cord or net decoration(Artusy 1977). There has been some dispute as to whether Wolfe Neck Ware and the succeeding Coulbourn ware belong in the Early Woodland or Middle Woodland period. Evidence from Delaware seems to indicate that the appearance of Wolfe Neck ware signals a clear break with earlier traditions, both on a technological level and a subsistence- settlement pattern level. Artusy (1977) notes: Wolfe Neck, Coulbourn and Mockley display a marked similarity in ceramic attributes with.the only real difference being temper. This change in temper from quartz to clay to shell, is not dramatic and in many cases is extremely subtle. Not only do ceramics exhibit stabili'zation when viewed as a tradition of cord and net exterior surface treatments, but these ceramics are often located at the same site, demonstrating a similar settlement pattern and resource collection system. This same shift in settlement pattern as well as a dramatic increase in site and artifact@density is noted within the study area, Based upon -172- 0 0 % 0 41 Figure 59 MIDDLE WOODLAND-TOTAL SITES -173- cri cri CD cn w Zn W cn (p CALVERT ROSSVILLE SELBY BAY LANCEOLATE SELBY BAY STEMMED v ;2 m -4 SELBY BAY SN < r7i BADIN JACKS REEF *Can also be in Late @oodland co these observations, it was felt that the Delaware definition of the Middle Woodland phase was the most applicable to Maryland's lower Eastern Shore. It should be noted that such. a dating system places the previously discussed (see Chapter 111) Delmarva-Adena archaeological complex within the Middle Woodland period on the Eastern Shore. This complex of exotic traits is dated from approximately 400 B.C. to A.D. 100, Known primarily from partially excavated burial sites, little is known of the non-cere- monial aspects of this cultural manifestation. The study by Wise (1974) of the Nassawango Creek site material from Worcester County indicates a predominant association of quartz.-tem pered ceramics (Wolfe's Neck Ware) with Rossville points. Observation of the artifacts from this site during this summer's study confirms such an association. Materials of this sort were present in two of the four burial features excavated at the site. A strong Selby Bay component at the site, along with a total lack of classic Adena blades, may hint at a Hopewellian influence rather than an Adena one. Further study of the material is needed. Wolfe Neck Phase: The Wolfe Neck Phase, dating from 700 B.C. to A.D. 110, is@character- ized by the presence of Wol'fe Neck ceramics and probably Calvert.'.and Rossville points during its-early part (ca. 700 to 400 B.C.), and by Coulbourn ceramics with Rossville and Potts points during its later part (400 to 100 B-.C.). These ceramic and point types are much more common than the preceeding Dames Quarter phase materials, with the Wolfe Neck -175- RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ -4 m T- CHERT ARGILLITE CD OTHER 0 KM 10. A-' ell M @-4 C-) CD 71Z CD -0 m Ln CD m CI Wolfe Neck Ware coulbourn Ware .wa Both of above ware being far better represented than the Coulbourn ceramics, although both tend to occur oh'the same sites. Lithic raw material use shows a dramatic increase in theuse of non-local argillite and rhyolite materials from the previous phase showing renewed contacts with other areas (see Figure 61). Artusy (1977) notes a strong similarity between Wolfe Neck ware, and Accokeek ware found on the Western Shore. A dramatic settlement pattern shift was also noted on the Western Shore associated with Acco- keek ware (Steponaitis 1980:96). McNett and Gardner (1971) attribute' this settlement shift to an increased use.of oysters after the intro- duction of ceramic vessels. A population increase and increased sedent- ism is felt to accompany this subsistence shift. Base camps near the estuarine zones with smaller inland hunting camps_are postulated. This model has certain problems in its application to the evidence seen with- in the study area. First, the presence of base camps in estuarine zones where ceramics would be used for the primary purpose of oyster prepar- ation implies that ceramics should occur almost exclusively on these sites. This is not found to be the case as ceramics are present in similar relative frequencies at the inland sites of this phase. Stepon- aitis Obid) notes a similar problem with the application of this model to the Patuxent drainage and, additionally, points out that oyster util- ization may have occurred for several thousand years before the manu- facture of ceramics arose. The presence or' absence of shell middens associated With the Wolfe Neck phase sites which were examined during this study could not be determined from the material. collected, but a -178- Figure 63 : PROJECTILE POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH WOLFE NECK CERAMICS -179- number of the sites on the back bay Atlantic coast and islands do have shell associated with them according to the state archaeologist's site survey reports on file in Baltimore. Thus, i t would seem that an in- crease in population and a more sedentary settlement pattern may well characterize the Wolfe Neck phase, but the development of ceramics and oyster exploitation is likely not the sole cause of such adaptive shifts. The settlement pattern which is noted includes sites both inland along secondary streams and near swamps as well as in coastal and estuarine areas (see Figure 62). This site distribution implies increased use of many resources, including oysters, which could be obtained by hunting, gathering, fishing, and most likely by this time, some form of horti- culture. No direct evidence of horticultural activities exist within the -study area, but the possible presence of such an adaptation should not be ignored. McNett and Gardner (1975) speculate that a decrease in the size of shell middens seen around the end of the Wolfe Neck phase may ,.represent the addition of corn agriculture to the established subsist- ence strategy. The Coulbourn Ware which marks the end of the Wolfe Neck phase, and Would be associated with the introduction of corn agriculture proposed by McNett and Gardner (ibid), shows a number of similarities to Popes Creek ware which occurs at about the same time on the Western Shore. Both of these ceramic types interrupt the sequence of crushed stone temp- ered pottery by using a different temper (Griffith and Artusy 1977), Popes Creek using sand and Coulbourn Ware using crushed ceramics orfired clay. A scraped interior attribute is also similar in both wares. A decline in the presence of both Popes Creek Ware and Coulbourn Ware a's compared 1180- 0 KM 10 cn --i CD C-) c') c) -i co m C-) --4 m V) Rossville C-) C> Calvert Both of above to the earlier crushed quartz ceramic wares is hard to explain. Both the earlier and later types of ceramics tend to occur at the same sites and appear-torepresent exploitation of the same environmental zones (Ar- tusy 1977)\. Whether a replacement of peoples has occurred or not is unknown at this point, but the general technological and subsistence patterns seem to indicate that the same group is responsible for both ceramic wares. Selby Bay Phase: The Selby Bay Phase (A.D. 110-485) is characterized by the presence .of Mockley shell tempered ceramics and Selby Bay (Steubenville, Fox Creek) points. The Badin Point, defined by-Coe (1964) may also date to this phase. A high use of non-local rhyolite and argillite occurs in the manufacture of Selby Bay points (see Figure 65). Selby Bay Stemmed points were the most commonly seen variety in the collections examined with the Side-Notched variety being a distant second in quantity and the Lanceolate variety being totally absent. Mayr (1972) reports that three- quarter grooved axes, elliptical two-holed gorgets, stemmed scrapers, bifacially retouched flakes, side scrapers and bone awls are also common during the Selby Bay phase. The subsistence and settlement patterns of this phase probably re- volve around the exploitation of a broad variety of resources in a number of different environments, much like the preceeding Wolfe Neck phase, Excavation reports from sites on the Western Shore (Mayr 1972, Woodward 1969) indicate the presence of deer, oyster, beaver, tortoise,. turkey, -182- (A .66 in C5) ..i a to RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ x co r CO) CHERT ARGILLITE rn OTHER 0 z Figure 66 MIDDLE WOODLAND SELBY BAY PHASE -184- 'Figure 67 : PROJECTILE POINTS ASSOCIATED .. WITH MOCKLEY CERAMICS, -185- sturgeon, razor clam, freshwater mussel and walnut in association with Mockley ceramics. Horticultural resources may also have been ex- ploited to a minor extent at this time, al'though no evidence as yet exists. The occurrence of Middle Woodland sites on the middle and lower stretches of drainage systems and near salt water bays in Delaware (Thomas 1974) coi.ncides well.with the above model and the observed distribution of sites within the.study area (see Figure 66). Both Wright (1973).and Handsman and McNett (1974) postulate a shift in settle- ment pattern from one based on a single large base camp and many smaller camps to one with many large and small camps. They see this occurring as a result of population increase and possibly horticulture. The lack of data on site size prevents testing this model with the study area at this time. Hell Island Phase: The Hell Island Phase (A.D. 500 to 1000) is defined by the presence of Hell Island Ware and Jacks Reef points. Levanna points may also occur with Hell Island ware (Thomas et al. 1974) at the end of the phase. Hell Island Ware represents a clear technological change from the pre- ceeding Mockley ceramics. The paste characteristics and tempering material are very different. He'll Island Ware is common in Delaware and appears to be related to such northern ceramic types as Jacks Reef Corded, Levanna Cord-on-Cord and Riggins Fabric Impressed ceramics (Artusy 1977). Thi's may imply some sort of intrusion or influence from the north. -186- Figure,68 :MIDDLE WOODLAND - HELL ISLAND .. PHASE . -lR7- w .66 cn RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ r 00 CHERT ARGILLITE -n C:: ;C m ko OTHER The site distribution pattern of the Hell Island phase (see Figure 68) shows a marked drop in the number of sites within the study ar;ea. The sites that are present are concentrated.around the upper and middle reaches of secondary streams, but a few sites also occur in both the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay areas. Lithic raw material used for points at these sites consisted solely of cherts (see Figure 69), indicating a @very.different raw material utilization pattern from the previous phase. Hell Island Ware was found at the Island Field site in Delaware assoc- tated with Jacks Reef points, so it seems to have a possible relation to the ceremonial aspects associated with the ill-defined Oxford and Webb Phases in Delaware (Thomas and Warren 1970). The ceremonial influences noted at the Island Field site are thought to result from interaction with the Hopewellian interaction sphere to the west of Maryland.in the area of Ohio and beyond. If this is so, one could expect to find cere- monially related artifacts within the study area at sites where Hell Island phase material is present,lbut no such material was noted within the collections studied. Whether these artifacts represent an actual intrusion of Hell Island using peoples into the study area or are the result of trade and influence from the north is unknown. However, from the site distribution evidence at hand it appears the settlement and subsistence pattern of this phase changed little. from the previous one. Systematic survey and excavation is needed to clarify the relation of this phase to the preceeding and following phases. -189- Figure 70 : PROJECTILE POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH HELL ISLAND CERAMICS I -Iqo- LATE WOODLAND PERIOD The Late Woodland Period (A.D. 1000 to European Contact) is charac- terized by a number of significant changes in the lifeways of populations in the eastern United States. Corn agriculture, large palisaded villages, deep middens, permanent structures including houses and storage pits, items of personal adornment and the first evidence of warfare all have been listed as characteristics of the Late Woodland Period in the east- ern half of North America. It is felt that all of these traits indicate an increased sedentism and population growth, accompanied by increased isolation of cultural groups. None of these traits has been adequately documented for the study area, but some preliminary aerial reconaissance (see Appendix II) seems to show areas which look very much likethe pali- saded villages known from other areas. Such villages were present by the time of European contact, so their appearance.within the study area is expected. The in.itial part of the Late Woodland period is marked by the presence of shell tempered ceramics known as the Townsend Series (Griffith 1977, 1980). These ceramics occur across the coastalplain and on the Delmarva Peninsula as far north as Dover, Delaware (ibid). Little Round Bay Phase: The Little Round Bay Phase (A.D. 1000-1300) is identified by the presence of three ceramic types of the Townsend Incised Series: kappa- hannock Incised (complex motif), Townsend Herringbone and Rappahannock 191 Fiure 71 : LATE WOODLAND - TOTAL SITES -110- u) ck b. -b- tn a) w (3) OD .86 eD (7) oo CD JACKS.REEF *Can also be Middle Woodland LEVANNA MADISON POTOMAC t- m A 4 rn Fabric Impressed. The type Rappahannock Fabric Impressed was not used to identify components of this phase due to its continued occurrence in the later Sullivan Cove Phase, The decorative-techniques used on these ceramics were based upon either direct corded or pseudo-corded (cord wrapped stick) impressions, incising or fabric impressing (Grif- fith 1980:27). These techniques were combined into design elements of horizontal bands, triangles, rectangles and squares, zig-zags (herring- bone), discrete lines or curvilinear lines (ibid:28). The projectile point type associated most strongly with these ceramic type@ within the study area is the Levanna Triangular point. These points are first noted in the preceeding Hell Island Middle Woodland phase associated with Jacks Reef points, but seem to have "become (more) common" than the latter by the end of the Middle Woodland period (Ritchie 1961:31). Levanna points are quite common within the study area, being most commonly made from chert with argillite and quartz occurring with diminished frequency (see Figure 73). No occurrence of the use of rhyolite was noted within the study area which differs from the observed pattern in the Patuxe nt drain- age where rhyolite was the most common raw material (Steponaitis 1980: 105). Other stone tools associated with this phase at the Mispillion site in Delaware include bifaces, hammerstones, unifacially and bifacially retouched flakes and scrapers (Thomas and Warren 1970b:6).' Bone and antler artifacts recovered in Delaware include awls, needles and lithic retouching tools (ibid). It should be noted that in northern Delaware no shell-tempered ceramics are found (Griffith 1977), instead the north- ern Riggins and Overpeck ceramics occur. Griffith (ibid) suggests that the southern Townsend@Ware using groups were the peoples which the Euro- -194- RHYOLITE QUARTZITE m C) QUARTZ CHERT M C: ARGILLI E CTHER - Figure 74 : LATE WOODLAND - LITTLE ROUND BAY PHASE -196- peans identified as the Nanticokes and associated groups, while the Riggins and Overpeck users..are thought to be the ancestors of the Del- aware. Griffith further sees the existence of a buffer zone across the middle Delmarva Peninsula where only transient groups of the northern and southern peoples ventured. At the end of the Little Round Bay phase, a new influence from the west began to appear among Townsend cera- mic using peoples. This influence, defined on the Western Shore as the Potomac Creek phase (Stephenson 1963), manifested itself in the accept- ance of cord impressed design techniques instead of incising (Griffith 1980:36). In the study area, Townsend, Herringbone ceramics exhibit both incised and corded decorative techniques, probably representing a trans- itional period between exclusive use of incised decoration and.,its re- placement by corded decoration. Townsend Herringbone is poorly repre- sented within the study area. It appears that the acceptance of the Po- tomac Creek techniques varied from "refuges" where the incised tradition continued, to areas where both traditions occur simultaneously, to sites where corded design is the sole technique present (Clark 1976.). The appearance of western originating Potomac Creek influence with,the study area signifies a break in the previously noted northern influences which wereat work during earlier phases. Within the study area a large number of sites on the next phase (the Sullivan Cove phase) show a high percent- age of cord decorated Townsend ceramics signifying probable strong west- ern influences. Thus, a strong influence originating on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay may be seen to have begun to intrude into the existing cultural repertoire by at least the end of the Little Round Bay Phase. _197- Figure 75 DISTRIBUTION OF TOWNSEND HERRINGBONE CERAMICS -198- jo Figure 76 DISTRIBUTION OF RAPPAHANNOCK INCISED (complex motif) CERAMICS 0 KM 10 -n C-) 5-t: -0 rn @-4 ;)u ;v --i C> > C-) C) tn x:: (A m U) > m V) CD Lol C) Levanna .ft Ln C FT1 m m Jacks Reef The distribution of Little Round Bay Phase sites (see Figure 74) shows little real change feom the preceeding Hell Island Phase of the Middle Woodland. A slight rise in the number of more northerly sites is seen, but overall the same pattern of exploitation of diverse envir- onmental zones is noted. During this, period in the rest of the Eastern Woodl..and culture area of the eastern United States, a rising reliance on the cultivation ofsuch crops as corn, beans and squash has been ar- chaeologically documented. While no direct evidence for agriculture yet exists on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, it is likely that at least some agriculture was being practiced by this time. It is probable that aseasonal round of exploiting various environmental zones continued, but'a growing dependence on cultigens grown during the spring and summer was probably arising in combination with a continued dependence on shell- fish in particular. Sullivan Cove Phase and Potomac Creek; The Sullivan Cove Phase (A.D. 1300 to Contact) is one in which the differing ceramic decorative techniques show continued evidence-of ex- ternal. influences-working upon the study area. The ceramics which mark this phase belong to the Townsend Corded Series and include Rappahannock Fabric Impressed (not used here as a temporal marker due to its occurrence in the previous, phase as well), Rappahannock Incised (horizontal mbtifl, Townsend Corded Horizontal and Sullivan Ware, -201- N) RHYOLITE - QUARTZITE r- m - QUARTZ 4 m CHERT ARGILLITE rn --j co OTHER z .0*- 1- Figure 79 DISTRIBUTION OF RAPPAHANNOCK INCISED (horizontal motif) CERAMICS -203- Ilk '777 'A% .1 Figure 80 DISTRIBUTION OF TOWNSEND CORDED HORIZONTAL CERAMICS -204- The Rappahannock Incised (horizontal motif) ceramics have bands of lines incised parallel to the vessel lip with short, vertical lines sometimes incised from the lowest band. Townsend Corded Horizontal has horizontal cord impressed bands often surmounted by a surmounting oblIque or'v- erti.c.411-cord impressions. Sullivan Ware is a thin walled, lightly shell tempere"'d ware with partially smoothed cord marking. Both incising and cord-wrapped stick decoration can be present, but only the cord marked variety was noted within the study area. The characterist- ic projectile point of this phase is the Madison point, a thin triangular point usually isoceles@in shape. Chert is the most commonly used raw material within the study area with minor amounts of rhyollite, quartz and argillite being employed (see Figure 78). The presence of pure and mixed@components showing Potomac Creek influences, such as Potomac Creek ceramics, a corded or plain ware with crushed quartz or sand temper; Mayoane Ware, tempered with fine sand giving a gritty texture; and Poto- mac projectile points, a very small equilaterally shaped triangular point, indicate the strong influence of this Western,cultural manifestation in the study area. The exact relationship between the Townsend Ware using groups and the Potomac Creek using groups has been discussed:extensively in the lit- erature (Clark 1977; Giffith 1977, 1980; Steponaitis 1977, 1980). Clark (1977:178-236) offers a model based on his work on the Western Shore which suggests that Rappahannock Incised (horizontal motif) was replaced by Townsend Corded Horizontal and Sullivan ceramics as a result of the acceptance of Potomac Creek decorative motifs by the peoples of, the 205 Figure 81 : DISTRIBUTION OF SULLIVAN WARE CERAMICS -206- i .. Figure 82 @: .LATE WOODLAND - s@LLIVAN , - .. . 4 COVE,PHASE -207- :,:. Figure 83 : PROJECTILE POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH.TOWNSEND CORDED SERIES . CERAMICS -208- Townsend ceramic tradition. The small,,sample size noted for Townsend Corded Horizontal wares (a type thought to represent the total accept- ance of Potomac Creek motifs by Townsend tradition.peoples),on the central and northern Western Shore by Clark (1977) is speculated to be the result@of the displacement or assimilation of the Townsend popula- tion by the Potomac Creek group. Steponaitis (1980:108) offers the possi- bility that the low frequencies of Townsend Corded Horizontal and Sulli- van wares may suggest that they are minority wares within the total ceramic assemblage of the Patuxent drainage. Within the study area-on the Eastern Shore, a low frequency of Townsend Corded Horizontal and Sullivan Wares, associated with a high frequency of Rappahannock I ncised (horizontal motif) wares is not noted as it is on the Western Shore. In fact, this relationship is reversed within collections examined from the study area. Here, there are very few sites with Rappahannock Incised (horizontal motif) ceramics present (see Figure 79) while many more sites show a presence of Townsend Corded Horizontal Ware (see Figure 80) and/or Sullivan Ware (see Figure 81). This data seems to agree with Clark's model suggesting a replacement of Rappahannock Incised (horizontal motif) ceramics by Townsend Corded Horizontal and Sullivan Wares as a result of increasing western influence by Potomac Creek using groups. High levels of Townsend Corded Horizontal ware, along with the probable continued high presence of 'Rappahannock Fabric Impressed ceramics, suggests a con- tinued-dominant presence of Townsend tradition peoples within the study area, but with clear Potomac Creek influences at work. A corresponding high level of sites with Potomac Creek tradition wares present, but in small absolute numbers, (see Figure 84) may show that Griffithls@:(1980) -209- it Figure 84 LATE WOODLAND POTOMAC CREEK -2 10- Figure 85 DISTRIBUTION OF POTOMAC CREEK CERAMICS -211- 0 KM 10 Ail --i C:) -0 C-) CD -A rrI C-) Potomac M Ln Levanna Levanna M (n ;a C) Madison All of t L4 M suggestion of transient use of areas of the Eastern Shore and trade between groups of the two traditions was indeed occurring within the study area. Trade between groups is the most likely explanation as Potomac Creek tradition wares occur at many of the same sites as do the Townsend tradition wares. Cultural influences seem, to be a major factor in this instance. A subsistence strategy based upon the heavy utilization of culti- gens and supplemented by the seasonal exploitation of the diverse en- vironmental zones of the study area was probably practiced at this time. An increase in the number of sites from the last phase suggests a pop- ulation increase, probably due to increased productivity due to agri- culture. The descriptions by John Smith of the Indian groups he saw duH,ng his voyage up the.Chesapeake Bay in 1608 (Arbor 1910) are prob- ably very close to the type of subsistence strategy practiced during the Sullivan Cove phase. These descriptions portray a heavy dependence on agriculture supplemented by seasonally available resources. Without further data on site size and use, this subsistence-settlement pattern model must remain speculative. It is possible that agriculture played a minor role in the subsistence of peopleson the Tower Eastern Shore. POST-CONTACT PERIOD The Post-Contact Period, here defined as post A.D. 1600, was.a time of very rapid and far-reaching changes among the native groups of Maryland's lower Eastern Shore.. The effects of European contact must -213- Figure 87 : DIST .RIBUTION OF MAYOANE WARE CERAMICS - I -214- .I 0 KM 10 Ln to rD 00 0WO 70 --i C) C, :K C-,) F j;'k M -0 Madison (7) V) LA V) C> Potomac Both of above co CD RHYOLITE QUARTZITE QUARTZ lip CHERT ARGILLITE OTHER co have made themselves felt among the natNe peoples,of the Eastern Shore long before intensive settlement began around 1650. Disease probably preceeded European settlement, acting to reduce populations and per- haps upset the social structures. The native groups of the study area, the Nanticokes and associated groups, were said to live in groups of "two or three little houses, in each a fire" by John Smith in 1608 (Arbor 1910). This probably agrees with the archaeological evidence noted in this study which suggests numerous small farming and fishing sites from which seasonal forays for resources would be made. These sites would be characterized by an archaeologi cal assemblage very sim- ilar to the preceeding Sullivan Cove Phase with Townsend Corded Series ceramics and triangular projectile points being present. A lack of fortified villages noted by Smith indicates that the peoples of the area were not engaged in extensive hostilities at the time of contact, as was likely the case on the Western Shore, but some preliminary evidence from aerial surveys'of the area may indicate the presence of circular palisaded villages in the northern part of the study area. Further discussion of the post-Contact Period will follow in a report by Dr. T.E. Davidson in the spring of 1981.@ -217- CHAPTER VIII: CRITICAL AREAS The archaeological record of any region is Present in many forms. The traditional focus of most archaeological work has been the Psite." Problems arise, however, because the site only represents one aspect of any region's archaeological record., This reg-ional record has,been defined by Dunnel and Dancey (n.'d.:9 in Sciffer et al. 1978:2) "as a more or less continuous distribution of artifacts over the land surface with highly variable density characteristics." Using this definition, a site would be viewed as a high density area, while other areas of a r.eg ion would be classified as either moderate or low density or, at the bottom of this tanking, the single artifact find. Recent work has dem- onstrated that such isolated artifacts and low density scatters can tell us much about a region's prehistory (Thomas 1975; Rodgers 1974). As a result of this, any management plan or research.design should take the entire range of artifact density areas into consideration when looking at a region's archaeological record. Since real world constraints of funding do arise, we must at some stage select smaller sampling universes for st6dy from the entire regional archaeological landscape which will ideally include a sample of a full range of artifact density areas, repre- senting all time periods which occur within the region. This difficult task can only occur after some knowledge has been gained of the regional archaeological record through preliminary studies such as this one. Once certain characteristics of these artifact density areas have been identi -218- fied (such as their environmental locations) then numerous techniques can be brought to bear, for example aerial photographic survey, Landsat coverage and high altitude U-2 coverage., that will aid in the identifi- cation of areas where archaeological remains have a high probability of occurring. Such areas,.which will here be labeled critical areas, can then be i denti fi ed for management and research purposes. These cri t- ical areas will represent places where either a high density of sites from many time periods are known to exist, or-places where remote sens- ing techniques and other research tools have ident ified a high probabil- ity of archaeological value, or places where both techniques have indi- cated that these are areas important to the. prehistory and history of the region. Critical areas so identified which are also experiencing high stress due to land development should be seen as of particular imp- ortance due to the high probabi lity of their destruction. This chapter will attempt to use the data gathered during the prep- aration of this report to identify some critical areas within the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. Additionally, some p-reliminary results of a test program using the remote sensing techniques of low and high level aerial photographic reconnaissance and Landsat orbiting satellite multi- spectral scanner images to identify critical areas, will. be presented (see Appendix II). A brief discussion of critical areas follows. -219- PARSONSBURG SAND FORMATIONS The central Delmarva PenlnsuTa is in many areas covered by a su- ficial blanket of sand known as the Parsonsburg Sand formation (Denny et al., 1979). The Parsonsburg sand is found in two topographic situations: in parabolic dunes on the east side of rivers such as the Nanticoke, Wicomico and Pocomoke; and in large areas of the central uplands where it blankets the land surface. In the upland areas, the surface of the sand is found either heaped into dunes or ridges separated by poorly drained depressions, or as level to gently rolling formations. It is the dune or ridge formations which are of interest here as high numbers of prehist-' oric archeological sites were found to occur on them. Radiocarbon dates from these formations place their age at between 3G,000 to 13,000 B.P. (i bid), meaning they were formed during the middle to late Wisconsin per- iod. The Parsonsburg Sands consist of the Lakeland and E vesboro Series of soils as identified by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (Hall 1970, 1973; Mathews and Hall 1966). The Lakeland and Evesboro Series soils are described as excessively drained sandy soils formed in marine or old alluvial sediments made up of medium and coarse sand. Scrub hardwoods, predominantly oak, are the native tree cover with shortleaf pine and Virginia pine present on the sand ridges and some loblol-ly pines present on the nearly level areas. Understory shrubs are general-ly lacking (ibid). The soils are described as easy to work and as being workable within a wide range of moisture content. They are among the first soils to warm in the spring and are subject to wind blowing'-'(ibid). -220- ,4.'..-,-%-The.theory of Parsonsburg Sand formation advanced by Denny, Owens, Sirkin and Rubin (1979) provides some possible clues as to its desira- bility to the prehfstoric populations of the study area, Denny et al. postulate, based upon numerous sections,and cores, that most of the sand ridges formed by being blown across a pond or a swamp. They state: We picture the central Delmarva upland during Parsons- burg time as a pine-birch barrens where isolated sand dunes were separated by small ponds or bogs. The pres- ent landscape on the Parsonsburg Sand consists of low sandy ridges separated by broad poorly drained swales and perhaps resembles the landscape as it was during Parsonsburg time... Ponds were present between sand hills because evapotranspiration was low as a result of cool temperatures and sparse vegetation. Dunes ad- vanced into ponds, where the sand was redistributed by circulating currents in the water. This picture of dune or ridge formation associated originally with swampy areas.is very interesting for its subsistence implications. The end dates for this formational process could conceivably overlap with the earliest human occupation of the area and even:to the present day many of these ridges are associated with inter-ridge swamps or poorly drained areas. See the geologic maps for Wicomico and Worcester count- ies (Owens and Denny 197.8, 1979) and the U.S.D.A. Soil Survey books (Hall 1970, 1973; Mathews and Hall 1966) for exact locations of sand ridges. Such swamp or poortly drained areas provide excellent sources of food (see Chapter V) and seem to have been highly attractive to man during all prehistoric periods '(see Distribution Maps in Chapter VII). Presumably the associated sand ridges provided dry encampment bases near high biomass resource areas, During later phases of the Woodland -221- period,itis conceivable that these soils, being among the "Ifirst.to warm in the spring" (ibid), may have been good areas for the early pl anting of certain crops and in all time periods they would have pro- vided about the first ecological area where spring plant growth would have begun. However, it must be noted that overall the sand ridges are poor areas for plant growth (Hall 1970) and it is probable that their main attraction was in providing high and dry encampment areas. A reasonably sized catchment area around most of these sand ridges where sites are known, say the normally quoted 5 to 10 kilometer circular tatchment area quoted by Hodder and Orton (1976), would include numer- ous micro-environmental zones that would produce a wide variety of food resources. Preliminary figures by Davidson (personal communication) show that known archaeological sites Within the study area have an approximately fifty times greater chance of occurring on Parsons.burg Sand ridges than on any other soil formation in the one county which he drew his figures from (Worcester County). This amazingly high probability cannot be ignored in future when both management and research plans are being constructed. An area of particular interest for both planning and research purp- oses which is associated with Parsonsburg Sand formations occurs in south- central Worcester County along the east bank of Dividing Creek. This area lies in a great sweeping bend of the creek and contains numerous sand ridges in association with swamp areas bordering the creek-and areas to the east and west of moderate to well drained heavier soils which -222- would have supported extensive forest growth. Virtually every sand ridge at this location has extensIve artifact scatters present on them. These artifacts date to all periods of prehistoric time from Paleoindian to Late Woodland. The high artifact recovery in this area is probably at'least partially due to its proximity to numerous collectors homes, but a similar high rate of artifact occurrence on sand ridges distant from the normal collector areas argues that more is at work here than collector bias. To test this theory, an environmentally similar area far from any known collectors was selected for a test using Landsat satellite data. The results are presented in Appendix ri. Thus, it would appear that virtually any area where ridge formations of the Parsonsburg Sand exist have a very high probability of site occur- rence.' For management purposes any such formation should be considered a critical area which requires archaeological investigation before devel- opment takes place. It is hoped that upcoming work with Landsat and aerial photography will go further towards identifying specific recog- nizableattributes of sites located on these sand ridges, with the re- sult that any such threatened area can be quickly and inexpensively checked for site occurrence using this remote,sensing data. ATLANTIC COASTAL AREA As mentioned earlier in this report, the Atlantic coastal drainage area is undergoing very heavy land development pressures, especially around Ocean City. In addition to these man1made pressures, nature is also impinging upon this area through the processes of sea level rise -223- and its associated shoreline transgression and erosion (see Chapter VI). This erosion and i.nundation has caused quite dramatic changes, even in the last 130 years. The rate at which the processes have.occurred can be judged by the changes in shorelines and off@shore islands seen in Figures 90, 91 and 92. These figures are reproduced from a Maryland Department of Natural Resources study of shoreline erosion rates since 1850 (1975) and clearly demonstrate the changes which have occurred since then in many areas of the Atlantic coastalzone. With such rapid development and erosion taking place, it is to be expected that any archaeological resources present in these areas are severely threat- ened.. Much of the,mainland coastal zone is made up of a geologic for- mation known as the Sinepuxent Formation (Owens and Denny 1978). This formation is described as "having a soil profile similar to that on the Parsonsburg Sand" (ibid). Sites which are known in this area almost .invariably occur on the Sinepuxent Formation and it can be expected that many of the same processes which affected prehistoric.populations on the Parsonsburg formations were also at work here. The back bay areas behind Agsateague Island possess high levels of shellfish and waterfowl resources. Undoubtedly these were exploited by prehistoric populations and the presence of numerous sites in the area attest to this. For the purposes of this study, it should be noted that certain problems were encountered in assessing the archaeological resources of this area. Particularly in those areas around Ocean City, there was a problem with.locating local collectors. Such collectors undoubtedly exist, but the pe cu,liarities of this area as a resort community during -224- 6 f4k %S iggs Landing ..7 S- kL atermelon N7 ointS S/ A Btu e Purnell Pond 2 Is Pond S IL cm. S 4. 1850 Shoreline S, A S L 4. A S A Ott Landing S 3 .......- -@ @\ -- o Light or 7 MAOTTY 3- % r $A Y, S S artin S@, R esnako Point nd. S A I\L 5 Shqldrake S 3 )F A ovo Re U nn S S i Say Pot t 7A 7 L Rob ns- Tuln A. A JL S S S A OL Figure 90 Shoreline erosion since 1850. S S )L S t (Atlantic Coastal Area) Mink Tu Poads,dee.-w J Park 30 3 4 0, Tra,er Sal" DI Pack, k Park `j t cean Cit@ West,-@ 'R@ t 'y 4 -Ocea 414- @4acjlo 4 rja;ers JI (WETT) a ANO 0 vc1pak Pier 9@ rimo;;@ Rp Sti 20 -tatI ard jj To-er an: itv 17 9 r 10 -XI 6 Light 9 N j Ib IS 35 if f let. 7_ 4i 23 A R d. Z4 ark ;.Q7r 1850 Shorelin md CO p Shoreline 47, 1942 40 :<tgj Fiat 33 0-ft, 20 Figure 91 Shoreline erosion since 1850. (Atlantic Coastal Area) 2.? -226- N11 ;e-z N. er ei Oyst Island Pon d On Ra 'Tr4ookS oar nd Ub ond- Pin.e Tidal F.I7at lsltd .0 ulth Ic Marnmocks 3 T 1850 Shoreline e S. nd A iody 3 land It .............. 0 n -7 Devil n Islan mm & Al 6 L S IFI-int 10 C-, 6 Swan J&-B W Isle of Figure 92 Shoreline S1 -- - , I erosion sinc 1850. L 114, -- (Atlantic Coastal Area) r." iglit Point Oc ::' 7 S L 2 -------------- -227- the summer months tends- to make it very difficult to contact the native residents. Many residents leave the area during the summer and early fall in order to rent thetr properties to tourists. Other property owners do not live in the area at all but are absentee landlords. This restricts access to possible sites and often has resulted in collections being re- moved or destroyed. It is probable that more collectors could be located during the winter months when many more residents would be present. This should be attempted in the future as the unique stresses upon this area make the gaining of a more thorough knowledge of the known prehistoric resources imperative. All evidence points to the mainland shore areas and the back bay islands as being very productive of prehistoric archae- ological sites and at present the shore and island areas should be con- sidered as critical areas. Some form of intensive survey is highly recommended for this area as the peculiarities of its current status makes any.other form of assessment very difficult. "MOUND" AREAS Two large earthen formations, very similar in size and shape to known man-made earthworks or "mounds," are known to exist within the study area. No such constructions have ever been positively identified on the Delmarva Peninsula although numerous references have been made to the out-of-character appearance of at least one of these formations by professional archaeologists (Daniel Griffith- pers. comm.). Neither of the two formations, known locally as the Parsonsburg Mound and the Pusey Mound, have been systematically examined although brief examinations of' -228- both have shown the presence of artifacts and local informants speak of artifacts being collected from the two formations for many years, The author noted a particularly hjgh artifact density an the Pusey Mound (18WO21) which is not as widely known as the Parsonsburg Mound. This lack of notoriety may account for the higher artifact density due @to'less surface collecting having occurred over the years. The normal topography of the study area is generally very level, with only the Parsonsburg Sand ridge formations providing some relief. These ridges are usually U-shaped as a result of formation by blowing winds. Neither the Parsonsburg or Pusey mound has@ such a shape, one being oblong and the other very precisely circular. The height of both these formations is also much greater than expected in this area. All of the above factors combine to suggest the high probability of these formations not being the result of natural geologic processes. While such a possibility cannot be ruled out, it is suggested that both of these formations be considered:critical areas in need of further archeological and geological study. UPPER TANGIER SOUND AREA The upper Tangier Sound area north of the Big Annemessex River to the Northwest bank of the Nanticoke River and including the Bay islands of Bloodsworth., South Marsh and Smith, represents an area which has un- dergone extensive physiographic alteration since the last Ice Age, The current physiography and geography of the area is the result of sea level -229- rise over the last 13,000 years. The area is divided by numerous drain- age,systems which all empty into Tangier Sound. In earlie r periods (prior to 3000 B.P.) these drainage systems all converged to empty into the ancestral Susquehanna River or forming Chesapeake Bay (see Chapter VI for further discussion). This geographic layout, where numerous drain- age systems converge into a relatively,small area, has presumably always presented an area of extreme environmental diversi ty to human groups in- habiting this part of the Eastern Share. Multiple micro-environmental zones,within a relatively small area provided a wide range of food and non-food resource availability with the result that human groups were attracted here during all prehistoric time periods. The area seemed especially attractive to the early Paleoindian and Archaic Period peoples. As the Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods are poorly understood on the Eastern Shore, this area should be viewed as being particularly imp- ortant for the study of these earliest inhabitants. Later period shell middens are abundant showing the areas continued importance in later prehistoric times. Shoreline and island inundation due to sea level rise has obscured much of the earliest remains, b ut the higher stands of land still show extensive traces of human habitation during all time periods and should be investigated before any alterations occur. _230- CHAPTER IX; SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The goals of the research presented in this report are:- 1. To construct a preliminary chronological sequence for the study area. 2. To develop a model of environmental change through time applicable to the diverse environments found on'the lower Eastern Shore. 3. To combine the data gathered on artifact inventories, site locations, and environmental diversity and change in order to suggest possible adaptational shifts during the different phases. 4. To define selected critical areas of high archae- ological research value. Information from all areas of the Middle Atlantic region was used as a baseline from which models were generated and to which data was compared. Similarities and differences between the study area and surrounding regions were noted. As has been briefly discussed earlier, both the data and the metho- dology used in this research have certain limitations which should be outlined. First, the chronological sequen ce defined in thi.s report is based upon the concept of "phase," Willey and Phillips (1958:22) define the phase as "an archaeologfcal unit, possessing traits sufficiently characteristic to distinguish it from all other units similarly conceived." -231- The traditional way'of meeting this definition was to develop a list of traits for each phase and then apply this to the archaeological materials being examined. The problem with such trait lists is thattheydo not aid in understanding the underlying cultural behavior which produced the archaeological record. Binford (1965:205) states that a cultural system has.many variables in operation and "Its operation is to be understood' in terms of many causally relevant variables which may function independ- ently or in varying combinations." Thus, it seems that two problems are.present when trying to define phases. First, we must define culture in such a waX that we will be dealing with specific examples of multi- variant systems (i.e. cultures) when we speak of phases and; second, it is necessary to accurately identify examples of these specific cultural systems in the archaeological record, which we see revealed by way of 'the artifacts we examine. In effect, the solution to the second of these two problems provides us with a typology of artifacts which allows'the separation of the archaeological record into segments based on morpho- logical, technological and functional changes in artifacts, while answer- ing the first problem demands that we take these separate segments defined by our typology and viewAhem in a systemic sense as prehistoric cultures which functioned as complete systems with economic, social, material and environmental factors at work within them. Clearly, given the nature of the data used in this. study, this report has taken preliminary steps in creating a usable typology of artifacts which provides the temporal seg- ments necessary for a chronological sequence, but it has been impossible to make more than very basic statements regarding the total cultural systems which are responsible W and reflected by these artifacts. -232, Practical problems with the data itself involved such things as: a lack of artifact samples from many areas due to such factors as difficult access for collectors or even a lack of collectors in!many areas; collect- or-blas in the differential selection of certain artifact classes such as projectile points over less collected classes like ceramics or flakes and broken tools; and a,lack of information on-site sizes and artifact densities which would have allowed more meaningful comparisons to have been drawn between sites of the same phase. The solution to the above problems lies in the application of a well designed systematic sampling strategy, with selected excavation, in order to aid in defining subsistence patterns and chronology. A sampl- ing procedure, employing both probabilistic and non-probabilistic tech- niques, should be devised. The large size of the study area, coupled with a 'lack of fundsi demands that a sample survey area.be selected based upon the data collected in this study regarding the relationship between environmental variables and the occurrence o f site and artifact types (see Critical Areas.- Chapter VIII). The majority of sampling would be accomplished by pedestrian surface reconnaissance with the aim of totally surface collecting selected areas. This would provide a better understanding of total artifact inventories and intra-site structure, which in turn would allow much more meaningful comparisons to be made between sites and provide a fuller understanding of total cultural syst- ems, The knowledge of prehistoric subsistence and settlement patterns which such a study would provide would be of particularly great value -233- to cultural resource managers. They would then be able to specify,, with a high degree of certainty, areas which were likely to contain or not contain.archaeological sites. Critical areas could then beidentified and appropriate planning measures taken. Based upon thedata gained researching this study, it is recommend- ed that the previously discussed systematic sampling strategy be applIed to the areas of the Pocomoke River drainage system. The reasons for selecting this area are: 1. The Pocomoke drainage provides a natural north-south transect of the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. Such a transect is ideal as the environmental ana physiographic features of the Delmarva Peninsula vary according to their north-south position. The drainage includes areas representative of the many environmental zones of the lower Eastern Shore; from the Chesapeake Bay area, through cypress swamp areas, to the better drained upland regions. Almost all areas related to prehistoric subsistence strategies would be represented. 2. A very high density of archaeological sites have been demonstrated by this study to occur within the Poco- moke drainage area. These sites show continuous habitation for at least the last 10,000 years, thus all time periods should be represented within the drainage, _234- 3. Large areas of the Pocomoke drainage are owned by the state in the Pocomoke State Forest. This will aid in carrying out a sampling program without undue delay and complications in securing private landowners' perynission for survey. 4. The Pocomoke River was one of the earliest areas to be settled by European colonists. This means that. the area also has very high potential for under- standing historic-European settlement of the East- ern Shore of Maryland.. Areas such as Snow'Hill were settled by the late seventeenth century and represent very important centers of Euro-American society from that day until the present. A high probability of contact period sites in such areas offers significant opportunity for the study of this period. 5. Numerous secondary stream juncture areas occur along the Pocomoke and its tributaries. These junctures seem to have been especially attractive to prehist- oric populations, making them important features for future study and management decisions. -235- w cn cri dD 4) CLOVIS m MIDDLE PALEO C) r% A L 'r.r",','-HAR DAWAY ALMER CN KIRK CN KIRKSTEMMED ST ALBANS LE CROY KANAWHA STANLY MORROW MOUNTAIN I MORROW MOUNTAIN 11 ,IQUILFOED 1PISCATAWAY REEK VERNON IBREWERTON SN BREWERTON CN z IBREWERTON EN co IBREWERTON ET -< LAMOKA -4 HOLMES -< 00 CLAGETT rn T SAVANNAH RIVER KOENS-CRISPIN PERKIOMEN USQUEHANNA ORIENT FISHTAIL Y BROOK FISHTAIL ADENA POTTS ROSSVILLE CALVERT SELBY BAY LANCEOLATE 71 SELBY BAY STEMMED SELBY BAY SN BADIN CKS REEF -71 LEVANNA MADISON POTOMAC c'l.jidAj'- INTOd N n 0 Sol 3dAI Iz: m F-> m I @_rm C) > > C) --4 (D 1-4 C) ;of ;0 r C:) m C) Cy C) r- r- m r- C) r-.*; r- -< ;u > > C) > r- r- @> m --I " M D> m m C-) aD Go 0) 0 OD rq. % % CX) I r, lip % en P-4 -42COO N to Ab A. cn oo cn m cD a ZZ ch cn- MIDDLE WOODLAND so LATE WOODLAND C 0 LATE ARCHAIC U ,N 39 T MIDDLE ARCHAIC 28 EARLY ARCHAIC EARLY WOODLAND PA,,LEO EARLY LATE TIME ATE ARCHAIC 268 289 -MIDDLE ARCHAI C 0 U N M.W. T LATE WOODLAND too so EARLY ARCHAIC EARLY WOODLAND PALEO EARLY LATE TIME FIGURE 97 8 1 B L 1 0 G R A P H Y Ahler, Stanley A. 1970 Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Mo. Archaeological Society Research Series #8. Arbor, Edward (ed.) 1910 Travel.s and Works of Capt. John Smith, 1580-1631. Burt & Franklin, New York. Artusy, Richard E., Jr. 1977 An Overview of the Proposed CerAmic Sequence in Southern Delaware. Maryland Archaeology Barbour, Philip L. (ed.) 1969 The Jamestown Voyages Under the First Charter, 1606-1609. 2 volumes. Issued by Hakluyt Society. 2nd Series, nos. 136-1.37. Cambridge, England. Bastian, Tyler 1971 Archeological Resources along the Proposed Route of the Electric Transmission Line from the Loretto Sub-station, Somerset Co., Through Wicomico Co., to the Vienna Generating Plant of D.P4,& L. Co. Md. Geological Survey, Baltimore. Binford, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cultural Proces- ses. American Antiquity 31(2):203-210. Blaker, Margaret C. 1963 Aboriginal Ceramics. In. The Townsend Sites near Lewes, Del. Omwake, H. G. and Stewart T. D. (eds) pp. 14-39. The Archae- olog 15 (1). Sussex Society of Archeology and History. Bloom, A. L. and M. Stuiver 1963 Submergence of the Connecticut Coast. In Science 139: pp. 332-334. 3ordes, Francois 1969 Reflections.on Typology and Technology in the Paleolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6:1-29. Braum, David P. 1974 Explanatory Models for the Evolution of Coastal Adaptation in Prehistoric New England. American Antiquity 39, no'.4. -241- Braun Emma Lucy 1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafners Publishers, New Jersey. Brown, Lois 1979 Fluted Projectile Points in Maryland. ms. Broyles, Betty J. 2nd Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha Co., West Virginia. Report of Arch. Investigations 3. W. Va. Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown. Bryson, R. A. 1970 The Character of Climatic Change at the, End of the Pleisto- cene. Abstracts of the lst Meeting of the American Quarter- nary Association. Butzer, K. W. 1964 Environment and Archaeology. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago. Cahen, D.; Keeley, L.H. and Van Noten, F. L. 1979 Stone Tools and Human Behavior in Prehistory. in Current Anthropology. Dec. 1979. Callahan, Errett 19-79 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern United States. in Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(l):1-180. Cameron, L. D. 1976 Prehistoric Hunters and Gatherers of the Upper Chesapeake Bay: A Study on the Use of a Predictive Model for the Analysis of Subsistence-Settlement Systems. Unpublished B.A. Honors Thesis. Dept. of Anthropology. Univ. of Michigan. Carbone, Victor A. 1974 The Palaeo-Environment of the Shenandoah Valley. in. A Pre- liminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. W. M. Gardner (ed.) Occas. Publ. No. 1, Arch. Lab., Dept. of Anthro.,, Catholic University. 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Ph.D. Diss. Dept. of Anthropology. Catholic University. Chapman,,Jefferson 1975 The Rose Island Site and the Cultural,and Ecological Position of the Bifurcate Point Tradition in Eastern N. America. University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville. 1976 The Archaic Period in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley: The Radiocarbon Dates. Tennessee Archaeologist l(l):l 12. -242- Clark, Wayne 1976 The Application of Regional Research Designs to Contract Archaeology: The Northwest Transportation Corridor Archeology Project. M.A. Thesis. Dept of Anthropology, The American University. Washington. D.c, Clark, W. E. and W. Dana Miller 1975 Projectile Points. in Report on the Excavations at U.M.B.C. Site 18-BA-71. Edited by K. Vitelli. The Arch. Soc. of Md. Misc. Papers 10:27-72. Cl arke, 0. L. (ed) 1977 Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press. New York. Cleaves, Emory T., Joanthan Edward Jr. & John D. Glasser 1968 Geologic Map of Maryland. Maryland Geologic Survey.- Coe, Joffre L 1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. in Archeology of Eastern United States, ed by James B. Griffin, pp. 301-11. University of Chicago Press. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series 54(5). Conrad, G. W. 1976 Arch. Reconnaissance of the Salisbury By-Pass from U.S. Rt. 13 to-Md. Rt. 12, Wicomico Co., Md. Md. Geological Survey, Archeological File Reports 33. Cresthull , Paul 1971 Chance (18S05): A Major Early Archaic Site" in Maryland Arch- eology 7(2). PP. 31m52. 1972 A Sample of Bannerstones from Northern Maryland. Bulletin of the Archeology Society of Maryland 8:6-9. Curry, D, C. 1978 Arch. Reconaissance of Three Proposed Drainage Outfalls Along Md. Rt. 12 near Salisbury, Wicomico Co. Md. Md. Geological - Survey, Archeological File Reports 132. Cushing, E *M., 1. H. Kantrowitz and K. R. Taylor 1973 Water Resources of the Delmarva Peninsula. Geological Survey Professional Paper 822. U.S.G.P.O. Washington, D.C. Custer, Jay F. 1978 Broadspears and Netsinkers: Late Archaic Adaptation Indicated by Depositional Sequences from Four Middle Atlantic Archaeolog- ical Sites of the Ridge and Valley Province. Paper prepared for the 8th Annual Middle Atlantic Conference, Rehobeth Beach, Delaware. -243- Davidson, 0. S 1934 Probiems fn the Archaeology of the Delmarva Peninsula. Bull- etin of the Archaeological Society of Delaware 1:1@18. Davis, J. C. 1973 Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. Wiley;.New York. Denny, Charles S. and James P. Owens 1979 Sand Dunes on the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland & Dela- ware. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1067-C. U.S.G.P.O. Washington, D.C. Department of Natural Resources 1976 Maryland's Bicentennial Trees and a Listing of Species of Trees Believed to be Living in Maryland in 1776. Maryland Forest Service, Dept. of Natural Resources. Doran, J. E. and F. R. Hodson 1975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. The Pitman Press. Bath. Dewey, E. S. and Flint, R. F. 1957 Postglacial Hypsithermal Interval. Science 125:1,82-84. belaware.Section of Archeology, Div. of Historical & Cultural Affairs An Archaeological Inventory of Delaware Prehistory. Demarest II, J..M, W. H. Hoyt and S. C. Wile Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction of Bloodsworth Island, Md. Preliminary unpublished report. Denny, C. S., J. P. Owens, L. A. Sirkin & M. Rubin 1979 The Parsonsburg Sand in the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Md. - and Delaware. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1067-B. U.S.G.P.O. Washington, D.C. Dincauze, Dena F. 1976 The Neville Site. Peabody Museum Monographs #4. Cambridge, M,assachusetts. Dragoo, Don W. 1964 Relationship of the Eastern North American Burial Cult Mani- festation to Central America and the Old World. Proceedings of the 35th International Congress of Americanists, Mexico, 1962. Earle, Carville V. 1975 The Evolution of Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallows Parish, Md. 1650-1783. Univ. of Chicago. Dept. of Geography. Research Paper 170. -244- Edwards, Robt. L. and Arthur S. Merrfll 1977 A Reconaissance of the Continental Shelf Areas of Eastern North America from the Times 9500 B.P. and 12,500 B.P. in Archeology of Eastern North America. 5:1-43. Emery, K. 0. and K. L. Edwards 1966 Archeological Potential of the Atlantic Continental Shelf in American Antiquity 31:733-37. Epperson, T. W. @1980 Archeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Salisbury Bypass from U,S. Rt. 50 to U.S. Rt. 13, Wicomico Co., Md. File Report #154. Ewan, Joseph and Nesta Ewan 1970 John Banister and his Natural History of Virginia, 1678-1692. Urbanna. University of Illinois Press. Evans, Clifford 1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology. in Smithsonian Insti- tution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin #160. Fairbridge, Rhodes W. 1958 Dati.ng the Latest Movements of the Quarternary Sea Level. in Transactions of the New York Academy of Science. 20: 471-482. Feest, Christopher F. 1978 Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes. in Handbook of N. American Indians. Vol. 15, The NorthEast. Bruce G. Trigger (ed.) 240-252. Smithsonian Institution. Fernald. M. L. and A. C. Kinsey 1943 Edible Wild Plants of E. N. America. Ildewild Press, Cornwall. Fitzhugh, William 1972 The Eastern Archaic: Commentary and Northern Perspective. in Pennsylvania Archaeologist 42:no 4:1-19. Footner, H. 1944 Rivers of the Eastern Shore. Tidewater Publishers. Cambridge, Maryland. Foss, J. E., D. S. Fanning and F. P. Miller 1974 Loess Deposits of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. pp. 158- 159. in Agronomy Abstracts. American Society of Agronomy. Foundation for Illinois Archeology 1979 Lithics Lab Definition of Morphological Types. Unpublished. Frey, D. B. 1953 Regional Aspects of the Late Glacial and Post-Glacial Pollen Succession of.Southeastern North Carolina.- in Ecological Monographs 23 (289-313). -245- Funk, Robert E. 1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late Glacial Environment, in Man in the Northeast 4:7-39. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. in Handbook of N. American Indians: The Northeast, Bruce 67 Trigger (ed.) pp.16-29. Smi thsoni an. Gardner, William M. (ed) 1974 The Flint Run Palaeo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occ. Pub. #1, Arch. Lab. Catholic Univer- sity, Washington, D.C. 1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Dredge Spoils Areas in the Wicomico River (East) Maryland. Report to U.S. Amy Corp of Engineers. Baltimore. 1978 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Ms. 1979 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic. Unpublished manuscript. Griffin, John W. 1974 Investigations in Russell Cave, Russell Cave National Monu- ment, Alabama. National Park Service, Publications in Arch- eology 13. Griffith,* Daniel R. 1976 Ecological Studies of Prehi,story ' in Transactions of the Wo I Delaware Academy of Science. Ne r1%. 1977 Townsend Ceramics and the Late Woodland of Southern Delaware. M.A. Thesis, American University, Washington, D.C. 1980 Townsend Ceramics and the Late Woodland and Southern Delaware. Maryland Historical Magazine 75:23-41. Griffith, D. R. and R. E. Artusy, Jr. 1977 Middle Woodland Ceramics from Wolfe Neck, Sussex Co.,., 'Dela- ware. in The Archeolog vol 28, no 1. Sussex Society-of, Archeol@`gy and History, Del. Guilday, J.E., P. S. Martin and A. D. McCrady 1964 New Paris No 4; A Pleistocene Cave Deposit in Bedford Cobihty`-,@. Pennsylvania. in Bulletin of the National Speleological:,.,,Soc- iety, 26:121-15-4. Hack, John Tt 1957 Submerged River Systems of the Chesapeake Bay. in Bulletin- of the Geological Society of America 68:817-830. -246- Hal'I. Richard L. 1970 Soil Survev of Wicomico Co.. Md.. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printina Office. Washinaton. D.C. 1973 Soil Survev of Worcester Co.. Md. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Handsman. R. G. and C. W. McNett 1974 The Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: Chronoloov. AdaDtation and Continuitv. Paoer Dresented at the 5th Middle Atlantic Archeolonical Conference. Baltimore. 1974 The Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: Chronoloq Y. Adaotation and Contact. Paoer presented at the 5th Middle Atlantic Conference. Baltimore. Harrison, W. R. J. Mallow, Gene A. Rusnok and J. Terasmae 1965 Possible Late Pleistocene Uplift, Chesapeake Bay Entrance. in The Journal of Geology 73:201-229. .Hayden, Brian (ed.)! 1979 Lithic Use Wear Analysis. Studies in Archaeology Series. Academic Press, S. Streuver, General Editor. Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder, 1928 Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay. in.Bulletin of the U.S. Bur- eau of Fisheries. No. 43. Hodder, Ian and Clive Orton 1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Hodge, Frederic W. (ed) 1959 Handbook of American Indians Ncirth of Mexico. Vols 1 and 2. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 30. 1907-1910. Pageant Books, Inc. New York. Holmes, William H. 1897 Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province. in Smithsonian, Bureau of American Ethnology, 15th Annual pp. 3-152. Holmes, W. H. 1903 Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. 20th Annual Rep- ort. pp, 1-237. 1907 Aboriginal Shell-Heaps of the Middle Atlantic Tidewater Region. American Anthropologist. N.S. 9(l):113-128. -247- Israel, D. 1978 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance,of the Daugherty Creek Canal Dredge Disposal Site "GO Project Area, CrIsfield, Somerset Co4, Maryland. Baltimore District Army Corps of Engineers, Johnson, Douglas 1942 'The Origin of Caroli.,na Bays. Columbia University Press, New York. Keeley, L. H. 1977 The Functions of Palaeolithic Flint Tools. in Scientific American 237(5):10846.. Keeley, L. H. and M. H.'Newcomer Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test Case, in Journal of Archaeological Science. Kerhin., Randall T., Owen P. Bricker and Emergy T. Cleavers 1977 Report on the Chesapeake Bay Earth Science Study. Maryland Geological Survey. Kinsey, W. Fred 1972 Archeology in the Upper Delaware Valley: A Study of the Cul- tural Chronology of the Tocks Island Reservoir. Anthropolo- gical Series 2. The Penn..Historical & Museum Comm. Harris- burg. 1974 Early to Middle Woodland Cultural Complexes on the Piedmont and Coastal.Plain. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(4):9-19. Kraft, John C. 1971 Sedimentary Fades Patterns and Geologic History of a Holo- cene Marine Transgression. in Geological Society of America Bulletin 82:2132-2158. 1977 Late Quaternary Palaeogeographic Changes in the Coastal En- vironments of Delaware, Middle Atlantic Bight, Related to Archeologic Settings. in Amerinds and Their Palaeoenviron- ments in N.E. North America.. Newman, W. S. and B. SAlwen (eds). Annals of the N.Y. Academy of Sciences 288. Kraft,John C. and J. John Chacko 1978 Palaeogeographic Analysis of Coastal Archeological Settings in Delaware., in Archeology of E. North.America 6:41-6.0. Lewis, Cara L. 1971 A Handbook for Delmarva Archaeology. Office of Archaeology, Dept of State, Delaware. -248- Lippson, Alice L (ed) 1973 The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of Natural Resources in Maryland, Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. Looker, R. Jr. and W. A. Tidwell 1963 An Hypothesis Concerning Archaic Period Settlment of @ekiah Swamp Based upon an Analysis of Surface Collections of Pro- Jectile Points. Arch. Society of Maryland. Miscellaneous Papers 517-13, MacCord, Howard A. 1969 Camden: A Postcontact Indian Site in Caroline County. Quar- terly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 24(l):1-55. MacCord, H. A., Sr. and W. J. Hrani@ky 1979 A Basic Guide to Virginia Prehistoric Projectile Points. Special Publication No. 6. Arch. Society of Virginia. McCary, Ben C. 1953 The Potts Site, Chickahominy River, New.Kent County, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin, ASV, Vol. 8(l). McLean, F. T. 1917 A Preliminary Study of Climatic Conditions in Maryland. Maryland Weather Service. Baltimore. McNamara, J. M. 1977 Archeological Assessment of the Area Planned for the Proposed Work Center at Deal Island Wildlife Management Area, Somerset County, Maryland. CPA. 1977 Archeological Assessment of the Area Planned for the Proposed Shower Building at James Island State Park. CPA. McNett, Charles W. Jr. 1978 Archeological Reconnaissance of Improvements to Md. Rt. 12 from Relocated Rt. 13 to E. Main Street in Salisbury, Md. Report submitted to Md. State Highway Administration. McNett, C.W. and W. M..--Gardner 1971 Shell Middens of the Potomac Coastal Plain. Proceedings of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference. 19,75 Archeology in the Lower and Middle Piedmont and Coastal Plain. manuscript. Manson, Carl 1948 Marcey Creek Site. An Early Manifestation in the Potomac Valley. American Antiquity 13(3):223-26. -249- Manson, R. J. 1962 The Palaeo-Indian Tradition In Eastern N. America, Current Anthropology 3(3);227,228. Maryland Coastal Zone Management 1975 Historical Shorelines and Erosion Rates: Lower Eastern Shore (maps). Prepared by Md. Geological Survey. Marshall , Brad 1977 A Report on an Intensive Archeological Reconnaissance Survey of Pine Bluff Village Wicomico County, Maryland (18WC16 and 18WC20). Report submitted to Oxford Development Corporation, Boston. Maryland State Planning Department 1964 Classification and Inventory of Wildl ife Habitats in Maryland. .Mathews, Earle D and Richard L. Hall 1966 Soil Survey of Somerset County, Maryland. U.S.D.A. Soil Con- servation Service. Washington, D.C. Mayy-@, Thomas 1972 Selby Bay in Retrospect. Paper read at Annual Meeting of the Archeological Society of Maryland. Easton. Mesti&, Jean 1967 Early Archaic in Somerset, Co., Maryland. in Archeological Society of Maryland Bulletin 3:121-2. Metzgar, R. G. 1973 Wetlands in Maryland. Maryland Department of State Planning. Baltimore. Milliman, John D and K.O. Emery .1968 Sea Levels During the Past 35,000 years. in Science 162: 1121-1123. Mooney, James 1928 The Aboriginal Popula 'tion of America North of Mexico. Smithsonian Misc. Collections 80(7):1-40. Moseley, M. E. and C. J. Mackey 1972 Peruvian Settlement Pattern Studies and@'Small Site Methodol- ogy. in American Antiquity 37:67-81. Mueller, J. W. 1975 Sampling in Archaeology. Univ, of Arizona Press, Tucson. Natural Resources Institute 1970 Assateague Ecological Studies; Final Report. Part 1. Envir- onmental Information. University of Maryland Contribution No. 466. -250- Newman, Walter S. and Gene A. Rusnak 1965 Holocene Submergence of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. in Science 148,,1464,1466, Newman, W. and Bert Salwen (eds) 1977 Amerinds and Their Palaeoenvironments fn N.E. North America, Annals of the N,.Y, Academy of Sciences 288, Noel-Hume, Ivor 1962 An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 17(l), Owens, J. P. and C. S. Denny 1978 Geol.ogic Map of Worcester County. Maryland'Geological Sur- vey. Annapolis. 1979 Geologic Map of Wicomico.County. Maryland Geological. Survey. Annapolis. Peck, Donald 1979 Late Woodland Ceramics from the Upper Western Shore, Maryland. Maryland Archaeology 15(l). Porter, F. W. 1979 Indians of Maryland and Delaware, A Critical Bibliography. Indiana University Press. Bloomington. Pritchard, D. W 1952 Salinity Distribution and Circulation in the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine System. in Journal of Marine Research 2, no.2: 106-123. Ray, C. E, B.N. Cooper and W. S..Benninghoff 1967 Fossil Mammals and Pollen in a Late Pleistocene Deposit at Saltville, Virginia.. Journal of Paleontology 41:608-622. Redman, C. L. 1973 Multistage Fieldwork and Analytical Technique. American Antiquity 38:61-79. Reynolds, Elmer R. 1889 Memoirs on the Pre-Columbian Shell Mounds at Newburg, Mary- land and the Aboriginal Shell Mounds of the Potomac and the Wicomico Rivers. American Anthropologist 2:252-259. Ritchie, William A. and Richard S. MacNeish 1949 The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State, American Antiquity 15(2):97-124. Ritchie, W. A. and Don.W. Dragoo 1959 The Eastern Dispersal of Adena, American Antiquity 25:43-50. -251- Ritchie, William A. 1961 A Typology,and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. N.Y. State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 384. Albany. 1969 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press, Garden City. Rodgers, J.. B. 1974 An Archaeological Survey of the Caves Butte Dam Alternative Site and Reservoir, Arizonai Anthropological Research Paper 8, Arizona State University. Rouse, I. 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archeology. American Antiquity 25:313-323. Ryan, J. Donald 1953 The Sediments of the Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin #12, Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources. Maryland Board of Natural Resources. Baltimore. Schiffer, M. B. and G. J. Gummerman (eds) 1977 Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. New York: Academic Press. Schiffer, M. B., A. P. Sullivan and T.C. Klinger 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10(l):1-28. Schobel, J. R. and C. F. Zabawa 1972 Report on Investigations to Delineate the Ancestral River Valley Systems of the Chesapeake Bay.. Maritime Sediments 8: 32-35. Shreve,@F. (ed) 1910 Plant Life in Maryland-. Maryland Weather Service Vol 3-. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Sipple, @W. S. 1978 An Atlas of Vascular Plant Species: Distribution Maps for Tidewater Maryland. Department of Natural Resources, Wetlands Permit Section. Annapolis. Sirkin, t. A., C. S. Denny and Rubin Meyer 1977 Late Pleistocene Environment in the Central Oelmarva Penin- sula.- Geological Society of America Bulletin.vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 139-142. -252- Sirkin, L. A., J. P. Owens and K. Stefansson 1974 Chemical,. Mineralogic and Palynologic Character of the Upper Wisconsinan-Lower Holocene Fill in Parts of Hudson, Delaware and Chesapeake Estuaries. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 44:390-408. Sirkfn, L. A. and R. Stuckenrath 1975 The mid-Wisconsinian (Farmdalian) Interstadial in the North- ern Atlantic Coastal Plain. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs vol 7:118-119, Smith, John 1884 The Generall Historie of Virginia 1624. in Capt.'John Smith of Willoughby Works. Edward Arbor (ed). 2 Vols. Birming- ham: The English Scholar's Library- Solecki, R. 1961 Early Man and Changing Sea Levels, Poplar Island, Maryland. American Antiquity 27:234-236. Stephenson, R. L. A. L. L.Fetguson and H. G. Ferguson 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site, A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Univ. Of Michigan Anthropological Papers 20. Ann Arbor. Steponaitis, Laurie Cameron 1980 A Survey of Artifact Collections from the Patuxent River Drainage, Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust and Depart- ment of Natural Resources. Strackey, William 1953 (1612) The Historie of Travell into Virginia, Britania (1612). Louis B. Wright and Virginia Freund (eds.) Hakluyt Society, 2nd Series, No. 103, Cambridge, England, Stuiver, M. and J. J. Daddario 1963 Submergence of the New Jersey Coast. Science 142(951). Swanton, John R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. Talmadge, V., 0. Chesler and Staff of I.A.S. 1977 The Importance of Small,, Surface and Disturbed Sites as Sources of Significant Archeological Data. Cultural Resource Management Studies. U.S, Dept of the Interior, N.P.S, Washington, D.C. Tatnall, R. R. 1946 Flora of Delaware and the Eastern Shore. Intelligencer Print- ing Co. Lancaster. -253- Thomas, D. H. 1975 Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek without a Site? in Mueller (ed),Sampling In Archaeology. Thomas, Ronald A. 1966 7Nc-F-7, The Hell Island Site. in Delaware Archaeology: Bulletin of the Archeological Boi-rd vol. 2, #2. Dover, Delaware. 1969 Adena Influence in the Middle Atlantic Coast, Delaware Ar- chaeological Board. Dover. 1974 A Brief Survey of Prehistoric. Man on the Delmarva Peninsula. Delaware Academy of Science. Thomas, Ronald A. , et al. 1974 A Discussion on the Lithics, Ceramics and Cultural Ecology of the Fox Creek-Cony-Selby Bay Paradigm as it Applies to the Delmarva Peninsula. Proceedings of the 5th Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference. 1975 Environmental Adaptation on Delawarets Coastal Plain. Archaeology of Eastern North America vol. 3:35-90. Thomas, R. A. 1976 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Rhodes Point to Tylerton, Federal Maintenance Dredging Project, Smith Island, Somerset Co, Maryland. Baltimore District, Amy Corps of Engineers. 1977 Radiocarbon Dates of the Woodland Period from the Delmarva Peninsula. Bulleting of the Archaeological Society of Del- aware. Fall, 1977, pp. 49-53. A Report on the Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Fishing Bay and Pocomoke River Dredged Material Disposal Sites on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Baltimore District, Amy Corps of Engineers. Thomas, R. A. and N. Warren 1970a A Middle Woodland Cemetery in Central Delaware: Excavations at the Island Field Site.- Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Delaware 8:1-33. 1970b Salvage Excavations at theMispillion Site. The Archeolog 22, No. 2:1-24. Thurman, M. D and W. P. Barse n.d. Mo@kley and Mockley'-like Pottery in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Paper presented at the 5th Mid-Atlantic Archeological Confer- ence, Baltimore, -254- Tolstoy, P. and S. K. Fish 1975 Surface and Subsurface Evidence for Community Size at Coapexco, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 2:97-104. Turnbaugh, W. A 1975 Toward an Explanation of the Broadspear Dispersal in Eastern North American Prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Re-i search 31:51-68. Ubelaker, Douglas 1976 The Sources and Methodology of Mooney's Estimate of North American Indian Populations. Ch. 8 in W. M. Denevan's The Native Population of the Americas in 1492. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison. pp. 243-288. U.S.D.A. 1964 How to Appraise Game Habitat. Soil Conservation Service. Ithaca. Vogt, E. Z. (ed) 1974 Aerial Photography in Anthropological Field Research. Har- vard University Press: Cambridge. Webb,-W. E. and S. G. Heidel 1970 Extent of Brackish Water in the Tidal Rivers of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey Report #13. Baltimore. Wendland, W. and R. A. Bryson 1974 Dating Climatic Episodes of the Holocene. in Qu aternary Research-4:9-24. Whitehead, Donald R. 1965 Palynology and Pleistocene Phytogeography of Unglaciated E. N. America. The Quaternary of the U.S. H. E. Wright, Jr. and David B. Frey (eds) Princeton University Press. pp. 417- 432. 1972 Developmental History of the Dismal Swamp. Ecological Mono- graphs 42:301-315. 1973 Late Wisconsin Vegetational History in Unglaciated Eastern North America. Quaternary Research 3:621-631. Wilke, Steve and Gail Thompson 1974 Prehistoric Archeological Resources in the Maryland Coastal Zone: A Management Overview. Coastal Zone Management. Annapolis. 1977 Archeological Survey of Western Kent County, Maryland. Report prepared for the Maryland Historical Trust, Department of Economic and Community Development, under a National Park Service Historic Preservation Grant-in-Aid. -255- Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press. Wise, Cara L. 1974 Mockley Ware and its Precursors and Successors on the Del- marva Peninsula. in A Di'scussion on the Lithics, Ceramics and Cultural Ecolo-gy of the Fox Creek-Cony-Selby Bay Para- digm-as it Applies to the Delmarva Peninsula. R. Thomas, D. Griffith, C. Wise and R. Artusy, Jr. at 5th Mid-Atlantic Archeological Conference. Baltimore. 1974 The Nassawango Adena Site. Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin #33. Milford, Delaware. 1974 Two Early Pottery Vessels from Kent County, Delaware, The Archeolog vol. 26: #1. Sussex Society of Archeology and History of Delaware. 1975 A Proposed Early to Middle Woodland Ceramic Sequence for the Delmarva Peninsula. Maryland Archaeology 11(l):21-29. Witthoft, John 19.53 Broad Spearpoints and the Transitional Period Cultures in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 23(l):4-31. WoTfinger, Paul M. 1970 Radiocarbon Dates for N. E. United States and Adjoining Areas. Franklin and Marshall College. Lancaster, Pa. Woodward, Douglas R. 1969 Exploratory Excavation on the Dora Property, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Miscellaneous Papers of the Archaeological Society of Maryland, No. 8. Wright, H. T. n.d. The Hell Island Report. manuscript. 1973 An Archeological Sequence in the Middle Chesapeake Region, Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey Archeological Studies #1. Baltimore. -256- TABLE I. Sites Represented in the Hirst Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 18W064 18WO84 18WO65 18WO83 18W066 18W080 18W057 18WO76 18W047 18WO74 18WO37 18WO73 18WO35 18W072 18W034 18WO43 18W060 18WO129 ISWO46 18WO141 18WO56 18WO140 1SW039 1SWO142 18W071 18W044 18W069 18WO97 18W059 18WO134 18WO58 18WO133 18WO53 18WO128 18WO48 18W098 18WO67 18WO95 18WO50 18WO94 .18WO49 18W091 18W051 18WO90 .18WO131 18W042 18WO63 18WO127 18W038 18WO78 1SW088 18WO41 18WO85 -257- TABLE II. Sites Represented in the Filmer Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- -------------------------------------------- 18W025 18SO65 18WO125 18S044 18WO29 18SO42 18WO14 18S038 18W021 18S037 18WO28 .13S039 18WO9 18S040 18WO126 18S041 18WC9 18SO66 Filmer 18W025 -258- TABLE III. sites Represented in the Messick Collection --------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- I- 18SO8 18SO5 18S07 Eldridge France Marina 18S021, Geanquakin Creek -259- TABLE IV. Sites Represented in the Vaeth Collection -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 18WO143 Dickerson Fleming Spencer Lee -260- TABLE V. Sites Represented in the Pusey, Dinwiddie, Omwake, Moore, Delano, Beauchamp, Fehrer, Goldsborough, and Maryland Geological Survey Collections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ 18WC2 18WO138 18WO11 18WO23 18WO130 18SO70 18WO136 18SO68 18WO135 18S069 18WO137 Whiton Crossing 18S071 -261- APPENDIX I A P P E N D I X I I APPLICATION OF SELECTED REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES TO THE ..ARCHAEOLOGY OF MARYLAND"s LOWER EASTERN SHORE: In his very ilnfomrative book, Flights into Yesterday, Leo Deuel (1969) discusses, how by its nature and purpose--and almost by definition--archae- ology belongs to the ground. He speaks of the generations of archaeologists who have spent countless hours on hands and knees troweling, shoveling, trenching and tunnelling in order to locate the lost chapters of human history and finds it ha rdly surprising that in the popular mind and liter- ature archaeology has come to be solely.associated with excavation. But archaeology, both as an.adventure and as a science, has come to be asking questions which Schliemann or Ca@Vrwould never have dreamed of. Deuel (ibid) emphasizes that, while digging will always play a major role in archaeology, it is no longer the be all and end all it once was. He sees this change reflecting the fact that modern archaeologists no longer search for beautiful isolated objects to fill museum cases, but rather for entire cultural units as they existed in a whole environmental and social landscape. The single site can no longer be the largest object on which we focus our attention. We must tune our eye to see a whole way of life which included the physical, technological, and functional setting within which these people lived. 'With this in mind it is perhaps not surprising that archaeologists should take to the air and even outer space in order to open up their vistas over what the ground observer can see. From above one can often get very close to seeing entire cultural contexts as they fit into the whole of the prehistoric landscape and one can get a much clearer picture of the environmental processes which have and still are shaping this landscape, such as sea level ri-se and its associated shore transgression and inundation and the work of man himself in altering the land's fa ce. O.G.S. Crawford, the great British archaeologist who more than anyone else developed;the techniques and showed the value of aerial archaeological survey, gave a fitt- ing example when he compared the view of an Oriental carpet as gained by a cat lounging on it by the fireplace, with that of 'his master standing above it. The carpet is only'a disconnected series of dots and stripes to the cat, but to his master above these dots and stripes merge into a beautifu 1 and harmonious whole. In the hopes of securing a better understanding of the very extensive "cultural,carpet" of'Maryland's lower Eastern Shore, the Lower Delmarva Archaeological Research Center'and the Coastal Zones Management Unit decided to perform a number of test photographic flights in combination with a program begun with the geography department at Salisbury State College of utilizing computer generated maps from NASA's orbiting Landsat earth resources.satellite. It was hoped that the two sources of data woul'd combine to give a much more thorough picture of theregion's prehistoric and historic resources and their relations with the physical environment. All archaeological ma rks picked up from the air are refTections of -2- dislocations of the earth by man during past ages. The way these dislocations reveal themselves on aerial photographs can be summarized by three basic categories: 1. The first of these is shadow sites or shadow marks. These depend on the fact that if struck by the proper angle of light, any depression or bump in the ground will cast a shadow which is visible from above. The effect can be striking as even minute irregularities suddenly emerge sharply defined by black shadows. For such sites to reveal themselves the flight must be carefully timed so as to catch ideal conditions of light angle and bearing. For the low oblique lighting necessary, flights must be made in the morning or evening hours. Different films such as infrared will often accentuate the feature. 2. The second category is soil mark sites.. These sites are revealed when freshly disturbed earth shows areas of either lighter or darker soil than the surrounding matrix. All archaeologists are familiar- with the processes which lead to the formation of tell-tale soil color differences in cultural features and'they need not be discussed further here. Again, infrared can aid in separating cultural soil marks from non-cultural ones. Deep plowing can destroy soil marks rapidly. -3- 3. The third category is the crop mark site. The mechanism is simi1ar to the'soil mark process but here the modified soil reveals itself through vegetation rather than directly in the soil. Plant growth differentials reveal themselves ei'ther by color or physical form or commonly by both. The plants act in effect like a photographic developer. Soi-l disturbances can work either to be harmful or beneficial to plant growth. In areas where improved soil fertility or moisture retention is present, such as over a filled-in trash pit, the result is referred to as positive crop marks; while areas of reduced fertility or moisture are referred to as negative crop marks. Landsat images are revealed by different processes which will be discussed later. It must be borne in mind that any or all of these marks can be caused by natural or recent activities and it is here that the skill of the archae- ologist is called upon to recognize the true ancient landscape. A thorough knowledge of the areas of archeology,geology and palaeo-environment is a, necessity. Final determinations should always be made by on-site examination whenever possible. 1b The detection of all three categories of marks is greatly enhanced by the application of specific techniques,which have over and over been proved of great-value. These techniques should include multip1e flights over the same area at different times of the year and at different times of day. Crop marks are especially responsive to conditions of'drought and this summer's -4- unusually dry weather was a large factor in encouraging our own program. Selection of film types for the marks expected can be critical. For example, the use of infrared film can detect anomalies in portions of the electro- magnetic spectrum which would be invisible to regular film or the naked eye. 'In addition to site discovery, aerial photographs and Landsat images can be very valuable in predicting where unknown sites should be. For example, it was found that ancient river and stream beds as well as areas of poor drainage.often are revealed very clearly in the aerial photographs. It is highly probable that early man would have been attracted to these watercourses and that sites should be associated closely with them. Colonial field boundaries and alignments often reveal*themselves in present fields which are in no way aligned with the original landholdings. Old roads and house foundations emerge clearly. Landsat data has been especially valuable in site prediction based on geological variations such as the high correlation of prehistoric sites with Parsonsburg sand ridges. Cross checking of Landsat images with aerial photos has shown a very accurate detection rate on the Landsat'maps. The sand ridges can be clearly identified for large areas where no accurate geologic information is available, such as Somerset County, and then be used for predictive model formation and cultural resource management needs. The Landsat Earth,Resources satellite orbits the earth at an altitude of approximately'570 miles circling the globe 14 times daily and overflying any one locale once every 18 days. Such continuous and systematic a survey -5- offers vast potential for the application of this data, in the form of computer generated images, to all areas of cultural resource management. Environmental areas can be studied in great detail-and any on-going changes occurring in these areas can be examined to predict rates of cha nge (such as shoreline erosion and inundation or commercial development) and identify areas needing immediate attention. TheInformation which Landsat produces is generated not by a camera, but by an instrument known.as a multispectral scanner. This scanner acquires data in two visible and two infrared portions of-the light spectrum and sends it to earth at the rate of 15 million bits per second. Since this data is in a computer-compatible format, the information can be manipulated and analyzed statistically in order to isolate any specific variables which one may be interested in. With this capability in mind, a program was initiated to identify variables associated with known archaeological sites which had been 'identified during the course of this summer's work. As has been discussed previously (see Chapters VII'and VIII), some preliminary variables which seem to be closely associated with prehistoric archaeological site occurence are: presence of Parsonsburg Sand ri'dge formations; close proximity to water, especially at stream junctures; and presence of swamp areas,'especially in associatton with the previous two variables. Once these variables were identi- fied, aprogram was initiated-to see if Landsat data could be used to identify,. them and"then generate maps showing where these variables occur within the study area. While our results are preliminary at this stage, we are so far encouraged by the information generated. Identification of sand ridge for- mations, swamps and watercourses has proved to be possible and highly accurate -6- when checked against both low and high level aerial photographs and on the ground inspection. The possibilities for cultural resource management which this technique offers are very exciting. It seems possible that areas faced with development can be inspected, at least on a preliminary basis, for probable cultural remains in a quick, efficient and economical manner. As the techniques are refined and further variables affecting site location and identification are discovered, even more accurate use may be made of Landsat information. To demonstrate one application of this technique, a test was run which is presented here. First, an area of known high'archaeological site occurrence was studied in order to identify the variables associated with these sites. The variables identified were those listed above. Second, another area with a similar environmental makeup was selected where very little collector activity had occurred and therefore few archaeological sites were known (seven in this instance)_. This provided a test area where known variables could be looked for using the computer generated maps. The 7 known sites provided some basis of control in-the application of variables from another area. It is felt that the test run has resulted in the identification of numerous probable archaeological site locations within the test area. The control sites were easily identified using the previously selected variables. It is hoped that'research on the Pocomoke River drainage due to be conducted next summer will allow extensive on the ground checking of the identified probable site locattons. A brief one day survey of a sample.of the Landsat identified probable site locations showed prehistoric artifacts present on the majority of the checked areas and it must be kept in mind that these checks were very cursory in nature. 7- Preliminary results and maps are presented here. Probable site locations are identified by being circled in red. The symbol #( number) here used designates Parsonsburg Sands formation; a blank designates swamp areas, and designates high moisture levels such as in extremely waterlogged areas or open water. Further ground inspection of probable sites will be necessary' to test for possible problems in site identification. These problems could include such things as known sites being mis-mapped on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle sheets on file at the Maryland Geological Survey. These sites are often located by a general verbal description from the collector and this procedure can pro- duce discrepancies.. A further problem in testing our Landsat data against known sites is the fact that some of the sites shown on the Maryland Geological Survey quadrangles coul d have been destroyed by plowing, quarrying, construction, etc. or the sites could be obscured by heavy vegetation. Further, many of the quadrangles are out of date (some being compiled as early as 1942). This causes difficulty in located sites on the ground as many mapped landmarks have since disappeared. Solutions are being devised to overcome these problems and further work should eliminate or reduce these to manageable levels. KEY TO LANDSAT IMAGE TEST RUN AV& URBAN AREA RECORDED (KNOWN) SITE WHICH DID NOT PRODUCE CHARACTERISTIC SIGNAL (This could result from site destruction, mis-mapping or other causes). RECORDED SITE RECOGNIZED BY CHARACTERISTIC SIGNAL(S). UNKNOWN SITE RECOGNIZED BY CHARACTERISTIC SIGNAL(S). (Artifacts recovered during on-site investigation) POCOMOKE RIVER Landsat images were compared to the 7.5' U.S.G.S. quadrangles for Whaleysville and Ninepin. ------------------------- 11111111222221216122121221111221221@111121122'211222222,1212,22212,211--@,@'22I.222,22'12,1,12,1,12,2@l@l,,2222@2."222;'2,2,2@l@l@l@l@ll@1,111@lI 9. . . . . . . .00000 0 . . . . I. . . . . .222 4' U . . . . . . . 0 11300 . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #01 AN . . . . . .NNW .1110 .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . l3v ....... ... .... 1300 ..... . N1.4 No --Mo #01-0. 1 11 1 11313 . . . . . . . . . . .'o + IID. . . . . . .- - - - - - - - - -. . . . . . . . . . . . +--.. ........... ............ -- ----------- -- 21 .... 42 ----- ------ --- - ----- ... ........... ... ....... ---- ---- --------- -- ............ Ixwlo ... 1. Ax@ x xx 1-111"N ..A I132S .. ..... x li ... ..... ...... 'L. VWC 33 . ............. 1329 ....... ...... ........0...... ......... 140#610 1- .......... ............. 11329 NO .... .... ..... -- ----------- 11331M...... goo ------- I......... ------ ... . @ + .. ..... ............ No ........ ......... :'4 . ...... ...... .-- ------- - 3 11341 .... ..... 11342 ------- . .... ....... 1343 ------ ----- 1134 'WC -- - ---------- --- . ..... 4""4 1134@ ....... 11346 .... ... 41 4----- xxxxx 1:3 0KXM 350 .... ........ 0 11353 11356 11357 Xk. I1.,5aa------- .... .. .... ....... ----- ------ 136, .. . . ............ 113610... .... 0, 11364 A4x 1 .... .... 11 -4.00 ........... ..... .... +44- ...... .005 ..... I'll 11367 .... .... ... .... #0 14 ..... --------- 44@ .. 1@ 16 0 N+.4:j0lNfl* +11,X @361 .... ..... .. 1@370 ...... 1'3 71 .. ....... ....... #+#Nkk. ON# 04-4 11372... ... ......... .0'. ,;,I ----- -- ------- --- --- ----- 0. ........ .... ... . ..... I -:--, Mo. 1@375 .... ... ....... ....... ... 111;6 ........ ..... . ..... . 113M I "@O *4:*4- .......... -------- - - ------ A.. 36 . ............ .. - --- ---- ....... 138 --- --------- --- 1365 ---------- - ----- ----- ....... ....7.. . ..... ------ 131........... . 3:8 .............. ......N 1139@2 .#07 139 ...... . ..... . @111117 ..... ..... . 411 *++--.. ...... .N. +1 114- ... ............. ;4" 03 11404 . ......... 1@4406 0. 0 1140 ... I:... *** 001 I..Wd:3'0', "(D I , , , , , i@llol ... ..... .. It4+ 14:01 @l 2 .......... 40.414. 1#0:+. ox 0. :4 X X 11414 +4 .4 . .. .. ...... ....... . ..... 1415 -401.1....... illitilli.12222222222111122111221222 .. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2' -' 22@ 2 2 2 42 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 52 2 52 252 2 262 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 @ 2, 2 2 2 2 '1222@2 2 @ @11 -'I,'? " 2:'.2 92 2 2' 3 3 03 03 03 3 @3 1@ 3 @i 3 99999999900 0 000 , '@ ..... 3 3 3 4 444 5,66 '? , 0 a I 000 011 122,22133 33 3 33 4 444 5555 5 5 66 "6 67, ,777,78 9 98 8999?979 999 0 0 ............ - ---- ----------._-...... ........... I----------- -..- ------ 3 6668 00000 8740