Prehistoric peoples of Maryland's coastal plain

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

PREHISTORIC PEOPLES OF
MARYLAND'S COASTAL PLAIN

--7

Ji
Z-7-

MIT

4@0

--COASTAL

T 0 T-,7 C7,-@ 'T

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TIDEW.ATER ADMINISTRATION.
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION
78
.M3 NOVEMBER 1979
P7
1979

DEPAPTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
('@'OASTAL SERVICES CENTER
4@@134 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
MAKE
@STON ; SC 29405-241,1
PREHISTORIC PEOPLES

OF MARYLAND9S

C 0 A S T A L ZE
grovem of csc Llbr"T INFORMATION CENTEIR
COASTAL PLAIN

'A
7 -j . ......
tom

-,4 'o P'

8, -7

rlr\

'V,ZLt4f@; - - 1 0) @@Q wuazomg

Table of Contents

Chapter page
I Introduction ............................................................................... 3
What Are Prehistoric Resources? .... : ...................................................... 3
The Nature of Prehistoric Resources ....................................................... 3
Why are Prehistoric Resources Important ................................................... 3
Disturbance and Destruction of Prehistoric Resources ....... I................................. 4
References Cited ........................................................................ 5

2 Environmental Dynamics ..... : .............................................................. 9
Geology and Physiography ............................................................... 9
Postglacial Sea Level Rise ................................................................ 9
An Example of the Environmental Effects of Sea Level Rise ................................... I I
Soils .................................................................................. 16
Forests ................................................................................ 16
Animals ............................................................................... 16
How Environment Affects the Distribution and
Preservation of Prehistoric Resources ...................................................... 16
References Cited ........................................................................ 18

3 Cultural Dynamics .......................................................................... 21
Paleo-Indian Tradition .................................................................. 22
Archaic and Broadspear Traditions ........................................................ 22
Woodland Tradition .................................................................... 23
Native American Inhabitants at the Time of European Contact ................................. 24
Implications for Prehistoric Resources ..................................................... 27
References Cited ........................................................................ 28

List of Figures

Figure page
2-1 Geologic and Physiographic Map of Maryland Coastal and Adjacent Areas ...................... 10
2-2 Relative Sea Level Rise Curves of Kraft et al. (1973) .......................................... I I
2-3a Chesapeake Bay Region Today ............................................................ 12
2-3b Schematic Representation of Chesapeake Bay Region Ca. 7000 BY ............................. 12
2-4 Example of Postglacial Shoreline Evolution in Kent County, Maryland ....................... 13, 14
2-5 Shell Exposed Along Bank of Coastal Lagoon Depicted in Fig. 2-4 .............................. 15
2-6 Aerial View of Coastal Lagoon Depicted in Fig. 2-4 .......................................... 15
3-1 Time-Space Chart of Maryland Area Prehistoric Cultures ..................................... 21
3-2 John Smith's Map of the Chesapeake Bay Area .............................................. 25
3-3 Reconstructed Distribution of Major Native Groups Ca. 1600 A.D .............................. 26

Cover and chapter graphics are based on Theodore deBry engravings made from watercolor paintings by John White.
Photographs of the engravings were obtained from the Library of Congress.

Preparation of this publication partially funded by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

. CHAPTER 1 -I
INTRODUCTION

I
--- I

I- I
I I

Chapter 1

Introduction

Eastern North America has abundant prehistoric re- cause prehistoric artifacts rest on and in the soil, disturb-
mains, particularly along the coastline. A variety of rich ing the soil destroys the evidence for prehistory- either
resources attracted early peoples-just as the coast now by destroying the remains themselves or by altering their
attracts modern populations. Sadly, modern land devel- locational relationships with each other and the natural
opment practices in the coastal zone are rapidly disturb- environment.
ing and destroying prehistoric remains which are both Thus, most of the meaning and usefulness of prehis-
irreplaceable and nonrenewable, resulting in an in- toric resources depends on preserving the integrity of
calculable loss of our cultural and aesthetic heritage as their locations. To be of enduring value, they must be left
well as a loss of scientific information (Dunnell ins.). intact and undisturbed before they are studied. To be of
the greatest value to scientific research, prehistoric re-
What are Prehistoric Resources? sources must be carefully collected and recorded. Only in
Prehistoric resources are archeological remains which context can they contribute significantly to our under-
are composed of objects or modifications to the soil that standing of the past.
owe'some aspect of their form and/or location to human
activities before recorded history. These remains, usually Why are Prehistoric Resources Important?
called artifacts, rest as individual objects on or in the soil, Prehistoric resources can provide important informa-
in groups, or in modified areas such as shell deposits. ' tion about past human activities; they can tell us what life
Prehistoric remains result from early Native American was once like on the North American continent. For the
life in Maryland. Historic remains result from the time of thousands of years before European contact brought re-
European exploration and settlement, left either by the corded history, prehistoric resources are the only record.
Europeans or by the native groups they contacted. Thus, Thus, these remains are of incalculable value in under-
the remains of the last Native American cultures-those standing cultural evolution that resulted in permanently
that disintegrated as a result of European contact-are settled agricultural towns in many places.
termed historic here because some information on them is Archeological remains contain information on both
recorded as part of Maryland's earliest written history. the documented and undocumented past. For example,
archeological excavations have provided information on
The Nature of Prehistoric Resources early American colonial life at Jamestown and Williams-
Prehistoric res ources have several characteristics, in- burg. But documented history covers no more than a few
cluding that they are finite, fragile, unique, and systemic hundred of the 10,000 years that people have lived in the
(Dincauze and Meyer 1975: 18-19). It is difficult to deter- Maryland coastal zone. By studying archeological re-
mine the number of prehistoric resources that once ex- mains, we can learn how people adapted to the environ-
isted. This number would depend upon the scale at which ment, to its changes, and to each other as well as learning
the remains were conceived. Prehistoric artifacts are dis- how the activities of prehistoric people may have affected
tributed across the landscape in varying densities, reflect- their environment. Through -studies of prehistoric re-
ing patterns of past land use. If we think of them as indi- mains we can also gain a time perspective on the cultural
vidual objects, they must number in the millions. How- processes operating on all human populations. Most im-
ever, if we think of them as groups of objects, they are portant, we can learn more about our place in cultural
much less numerous. Of course, there are certain kinds of evolution and in the natural world. Thus, we can better
resources, for example large, thick shell deposits in the understand the present and we may be able to predict
Chesapeake Bay area, which may never have been very some aspects of the future through our studies of the
numerous and now are practically destroyed. Regardless past. In the words of Adan Treganza, "the archeologist
of the scale at which we conceive prehistoric resources, transforms remnants into contemporary meaning, bring-
they are finite. With continuing disturbance or destruc- ing the past into focus with the present, giving perspective
tion, the number decreases; none can be renewed because to man, time, and the natural world" (Moratto 1970:1).
the cultures that created them have long since disap- Prehistoric resources provide the only avenue for
peared. studying the lifeways that existed before recorded his-
In addition to being finite, prehistoric resources are tory. Information about the past is important to the her-
unique and systemic. Their uniqueness comes from the itage of our society and to our identification.
fact that they were deposited by particular past events Archeological studies can help biologists and geologists
that took place at specific times and places. But the in understanding the environment. For example, we have
events that created individual prehistoric resources were learned that interference with natural forest succession
related to events taking place at other locations both did not begin with European settlement. Rather, this in-
before and after. Thus, prehistoric resources result from terference was present during Native American occupa-
the subsistence and settlement patterns that past cultures tion (Day 1953; Elder 1965; Heizer 1955; Lewis and
developed in adapting-to their natural environments. Schweger 1973; Maxwell 1910). Studies like these can
The significance of prehistoric resources lies not merely show the interaction between prehistoric cultures and
in the objects themselves, but in their spatial relationships their environments.
to each other and to the natural environment. For this Data from archeological studies provides information
reason, they must be considered extremely fragile. Be- relevant to the study of such diverse problems as the

health of prehistoric populations and changes in land- resources about which almost nothing is known. If the
forms in the past. This environmental information can area's prehistoric resources were studied, Maryland could
help us predict the future as well as aiding in the manipu- play a prominent role in the understanding of the prehis-
lation of the present environment. As one ecologist has tory of the eastern United States as well as providing data
concluded: on prehistoric human behavior unique to its own setting.
... an area which was wooded when first seen by white
men was not necessarily primeval; ... an area for which Disturbance.and Destruction of Prehistoric Resources
there is no record of cutting is not necessarily virgin; ... a As soon as they were deposited, prehistoric resources
knowledge of local archeology and history should be part began to be disturbed by natural and cultural processes.
of the ecologist's equipment (Day 1953:343). Wind and water erosion and sedimentation scattered and
That prehistoric remains are an important public re- buried these remains. Activities by later cultures also
source is reflected in the visitation figures for archeolog- altered the soil and the prehistoric remains found in it.
ical parks. We go in great numbers to Mesa Verde, Co .I- Although this disturbance has proceeded constantly
orado, and Cahokia, Illinois, to monuments such as Flint throughout most of the past, it has accelerated during the
Ridge and the Newark Mounds in Ohio, and to countless past 50 years. Increases in population and improvements
museums throughout the United States. In addition, in earthmoving technology can now quickly alter large
audio-visual programs about North America's prehistory areas of the landscape.
consistently attract large audiences as do college courses Coastal areas are noted for their rich natural resources
in anthropology and prehistory. brought together by the intersection of land and sea.
The prehistoric resources of Maryland's coastal zone, These natural resources attracted prehistoric cultures in
particularly Chesapeake Bay, provide an important natu- large numbers, resulting in the deposition of many pre-
ral laboratory for studying the interactions between historic remains, especially when compared with the
changes in environment and prehistoric cultures through sparse prehistoric occupation and remains that often
time. Here, people witnessed and had to contend with a characterize inland areas. Because of its rich and diverse
series of environmental changes. Fifteen thousand years resources, the coast has had a unique influence on human
ago, the Chesapeake Bay area was the valley of the populations and has been the scene of important cultural
ancestral Susquehanna River. As the continental glaciers developments (Dunnell ms.).
melted, the sea rose, moving the Atlantic coastal zone In addition to its attraction to prehistoric cultures, the
westward, consequently flooding the Susquehanna River coastal zone also is the focus of many modern activities.
to create the Chesapeake Bay estuary. Almost half of the country's labor force is employed in
Continuing sea level rise and shoreline evolution have the coastal zone at present and as much as 80% of the
greatly altered coastal environments and natural re- country's population may live in this zone by the year
sources. When the Europeans arrived, they found native 2000. Thus, there is a great overlap between the distribu-
people with agricultural economies occupying much of tions of prehistoric resources and modern activities in the
the area. These early explorers and settlers recorded some coastal zone.
information about the native cultures they encountered When Captain John Smith left the Jamestown colony
but their information is incomplete. How did prehistoric in 1612 to explore Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, he
adaptions change through time and what relationship did met groups of native peoples all along his route. Most of
these changes have with ongoing environmental changes? these groups had a long cultural history and may have
Only Maryland's prehistoric resources can answer these been descended from people who occupied what is now
questions. the Chesapeake Bay area as long ago as 10,000 years or
The Chesapeake Bay area was the scene of interaction more. Since.the early 1600's, as Euroamerican occupa-
between late Native American cultures and European tion and development of the Maryland coastal area has
culture. These late Native American people represented proceeded, the remains of Maryland's coastal prehistoric
an environmental adaptation resulting from thousands of cultures have increasingly been disturbed by our modern
years of cultural change. Interaction between the two land use. As development in the Maryland coastal zone
cultures produced trade, cooperation, and war. Among continues, concern for its effects on natural resources has
other things, the settlers learned to use corn ' tobacco, been expressed. But the effects of development are fre-
and seafood, all extremely important to Maryland's quently more harmful to prehistoric resources than they'
economy. Cultural interaction also involved famous are to natural resources because cultural resources are
figures in Maryland's early history, such as Captain John unique, extremely fragile, and nonrenewable.
Smith.
Modern Maryland residents are directly related to the Because we cannot estimate the total number of pre-
area's prehistoric cultures, simply by living in the same historic resources that were deposited and because we
area. If the remains of prehistoric cultures are not pre- also do not know how many have already been disturbed
served, these residents will lose a valuable cultural and or destroyed, we cannot conclude how many of these re-
aesthetic heritage. Most importantly, we will all lose a sources may yet remain for possible preservation. Ac-
great deal of information about the cultural processes cording to one estimate, the state of Arkansas lost 25%
that operate in human societies. of its prehistoric resources in the period between 1962
Maryland's rich archeological remains have never been and 1972 (McGimsey 1972:3). Likewise, as few as 10% of
adequately studied. Nor have these resources been sys- the prehistoric resources located around the shore of San
tematically tapped for information on prehistoric and Francisco Bay may remain today (Moratto 1970:2).
early historic economic systems and cultural relation- Thus, as time passes, the resources as a whole diminish
ships. The ever quickening rate of modern shoreline de- in quantity and increase in importance. The value of any
velopment is removing forever potentially significant given prehistoric site increases.as the reservoir of similar

sites available for preservation decreases. Prehistoric re- The appendix lists sources of additional information
sources are being lost at an alarming rate in Maryland. on Maryland's coastal prehistoric resources.
Why? For several reasons: they are not readily apparent References Cited
to an untrained observer; their importance is unknown Day, G. M.
and unappreciated; and their investigation may cause 1953 The Indian as an ecological factor in the north-
delays in construction and cost increases. eastern forest. Ecology 34:335-346.
Access to in formation about the past can be viewed as Dincauze, D. F. and J. Meyer
a basic human right. This right should not be abridged 1975 Prehistoric resources in east-central New
unless it is through an overriding concernfor the public England: a preliminary predictive study. Cul-
well-being. Once destroyed, prehistoric remains cannot tural Resource Management Studies, National
be regenerated; the cultures that these remains represent Park Service, Department of the Interior.
are forever lost. Finally, these remains are tangible Washington, D. C.
evidence of the long ancestral history of today's Native Dunnell, R. C.
American population. Care and respect equal to that MS. Comments on final proposed guidelines, Shore-
given early colonial grave sites should be given the re- line Management Act of 1971 (Washington
mains of Native Americans who interacted directly with State). Department of Anthropology, Univer-
early colonists. sity of Washington. Xeroxed.
Elder, W. H.
In Maryland two state agencies deal with prehistoric re- 1965 Primeval deer hunting pressures revealed by re-
sources, the Division of Archeology and the Maryland mains from American Indian middens. Journal
Historical Trust. The Division of Archeology is desig- of Wildlife Management 29:366-370.
nated by legislation to conserve prehistoric resources, Heizer, R. F.
previously concerned almost exclusively with historic 1955 Primitive man as an ecologic factor. Kroebei
resources, the Maryland Historical Trust has added a Anthropological Society Papers No. 13. Uni-
staff archeologist. This agency receives Federal funds for versity of California, Berkeley.
surveys to locate significant prehistoric sites and for de- Lewis, H. T. and C. Schweger
veloping a state historic preservation plan. They do not 1973 Paleo-Indian uses of fire during the late Pleis-
indicate the relative abundance of kinds of prehistoric tocene: the human factor in environmental
resources or locations where they are not found. change. Abstracts of the Ninth Congress of the
The second chapter in this report summarizes informa- International Union for Quaternary Research
tion on the environment of the Maryland coastal zone, Meetings, Christchurch, New Zealand, p. 210.
emphasizing its changes during the time that prehistoric McGimsey, C. R. III
occupation is likely to have taken place and the implica- 1972 Public Archeology. Seminar Press, New York.
tions these changes have had for prehistoric activities and Maxwell, H.
the subsequent preservation of prehistoric remains. 1910 The use and abuse of forests by the Virginia In-
dians. William and Mary College Quarterly
Chapter Three summarizes what is known of prehis- Historical Magazine 19:73-103.
toric occupation of the area and considers what ages and Moratto, M. J.
activities might be expected. Historic accounts of native 1970 Death of the past. A Report to the People of
groups at the time of European exploration are also California by the Society for California Arche-
discussed. ology.

CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
. DYNAMICS
I

I ..11

Chapter 2

Environmental Dynamics

In order to understand the nature and distribution of During the height of the most recent continental glacia-
Maryland's prehistoric resources, it is necessary to under- tion (about 25,000 B.P.), the nearest edge of the conti-
stand the changing environments to which prehistoric nental ice sheet was about 200 km. north of what is now
people adapted. Environmental changes altered the Maryland (Prest.1969).
availability of plants and animals, in turn affecting where Although none of Maryland's physiographic provinces
people settled. These changes also affected the preserva- was glaciated, indirect effects of glaciation can be seen,
tion of prehistoric remains in that natural forces through particularly in the coastal plain, where there is evidence
time created a patchwork of preserved remains of various of sea level changes and sediments deposited by rivers,
ages and functions. Therefore, the record of prehistoric seas, and winds. A layer of loess (windblown silt) of vary-
remains in the Maryland coastal zone is expected to be ing thickness covers much of the land along Chesapeake
complex, both in its original content and as it is presently Bay. This deposit dates from the end of the last glacia-
preserved. tion, about 14,000 - 10,000 B.P. (Foss, Fanning, and
Documenting important environmental changes in Miller 1974). The dominant geologic process affecting the
Maryland occupies most of this chapter; it concludes by coastal plain today is erosion from surface runoff (Gotts-
focusing on the implications these changes have for the chalk 1945; Costa 1975) and shoreline wave action
distribution and preservation of prehistoric remains in (Maryland Geological Survey 1975; Schubel 1968; Single-
the study area. wald and Slaughter 1949).
Geology and Physiography Postglacial Sea Level Rise
There are three physiographic provinces in Maryland: The most striking changes in the Maryland landscape
the coastal plain, the Piedmont plateau, and the Appa- are associated with the formation and continuing evolu-
lachian Mountains. These provinces parallel the Atlantic tion of the Chesapeake Bay estuary. This drowned drain-
coast in bands of varying width, increasing in elevation age system originally was the valley of the ancestral Sus-
and relief to the west. Figure 2-1 illustrates their loca- quehanna River and included deeply cut major tributaries
tions, including the kinds and ages of the underlying in addition to short, steeply graded minor tributaries.
rocks that largely determine the topography of each prov- Scientists estimate that at its greatest regression sea
ince (Vokes and Edwards 1968). level stood about 100 m. lower than it stands today (Flint
The coastal plain is a low, flat surface that extends 1971:342). This situation coincided approximately with
from the coast of Maryland to the Fall Line west of the maximum extent of continental glaciation, some
Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 2-1). This plain is a wedge of un- 25,000 B.P. The lowered sea level displaced the Atlantic
consolidated clays, silts, and sands with some gravels, shoreline eastward about 250 km., increasing the down-
ranging in age from Cretaceous to Pleistocene. Under- cutting capacity of the Susquehanna River and its tribu-
lying these sediments is an eroded surface of pre- tary streams.
dominantly Pre-Cambrian crystalline rocks that emerges When the late-glacial warming period began about
at the Fall Line. While the Eastern Shore coastal plain is 18,000 B.P., the level of the world's oceans began to rise.
low and flat, the Western Shore is a rolling upland Kraft, Biggs, and Halsey (1973) have developed a model
marked by relatively higher elevations. for recent sea level rise, based on dated samples of peats
Most of the Maryland shoreline is broken and sinuous formed during the early stages of this rise along the
because sediments on the coastal plain offer little Delaware coast. These samples were extracted from
resistance to erosion and because low-lying portions are various depths, radiocarbon dated, and the results
easily inundated. Only the bayshore of Calvert County graphed (Fig. 2-2). The curve suggests that sea level has
and parts of Anne Arundel, Queen Armes, and Kent been steadily rising, although at an ever-decreasing rate,
counties are marked by higher bank or relatively for at least 8,000 years.
straighter shorelines. Since little work has been done on sea level changes in
The Piedmont plateau starts at the Fall Line, where the the Chesapeake Bay area, there is no information to con-
more resistant crystalline rocks meet coastal plain sedi- firm the applicability of the Delaware model there. Re-
ments, creating a drop in stream gradients (Fig. 2-1). The search in the northern Bay area provides some data rele-
Piedmont consists of a broad upland with low knobs and vant to sea level changes. For example, a radiocarbon
ridges, cut by narrow stream valleys (Vokes and Edwards date of 5,565.� 65 B.P. was obtained from a sample of
1968). oyster shells from the base of a prehistoric shell heap at
The Appalachian Mountains province (Fig. 2-1) is the mouth of Fairlee Creek in Kent County. Another date
characterized by a series of ridges formed of more resist- of 5,065 � 165 B.P. was obtained from the base of a
ant materials and separated by valleys cut into less resist- shell heap at the mouth of Big Marsh, next to the con-
ant materials. fluence of the Sassafras River and Chesapeake Bay. I The
During the Pleistocene epoch, over 1,000,000 - 10,000 extent of the deposits and the size and thickness of the
B.P. (Before the Present), variations in temperature and shells suggest that a vigorous oyster reef was established
precipitation caused huge continental ice sheets alter- in this extreme northern position at least 6,000 years ago.
natively to expand and to contract. Many studies have ' These radiocarbon dates were provided by Dr. Robert Stuckenrath,
reconstructed the nature, history, and age of landforms Smithsonian Institution. Their laboratory numbers are S.I. 1906 (5,565
altered by the glaciers and sediment derived from them. 65 B.P.) and S.I. 1917 (5,065 � 165 B.P.).
9

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.

vine

Legend

Paleozoic and Mesozoic
C
sedimentary rocks
h
e
Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian s
a
P
igneous and metamorphic rocks
7"
e
a
k
Mesozoic and Cenozoic N.
0
unconsolidated sediments e
B
a .....
y
Tidal marsh

Fig. 2-1 . Geologic and physiographic map of
Maryland coastal and adjacent areas (after Vokes and Edwards 1968)

Years before present

10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0
MLSL- MLSL

_10M _10M

-20M - -------- ------- 20M

-30M -------- -30M

Note: Curve based on data from Delaware Coast.

Fig. 2-2. Relative sea level rise curve of Kraft et al. (1973)

The history of oysters in Chesapeake Bay is important water rose and depths increased, the destructive power of
because sites related to oyster gathering are the most the waves grew because they did not lose force in crossing
readily detectable sites in Maryland's coastal zone. Fur- extensive shallows. The result of all these factors was
ther work is needed in clarifying the time and the extent probably an ever increasing rate of shore erosion.
of sea level rise; however, the evidence at hand suggests
that human populations occupied the area before the An Example of the Environmental
Chesapeake Bay formed. Many of the very early sites Effects of Sea Level Rise
have of course been lost to the combined processes of sea The following discussion indicates the nature and ex-
level rise and erosion. tent of the changes which the Maryland coastal zone has
Figure 2-3a shows the current shoreline of the Chesa- undergone over the past 10,000 years. The example shows
peake Bay region. In contrast, Fig. 2-3b shows a recon- the effects of sea level rise and shore erosion. Thus, Fig.
struction of the same area during a period of lowered sea 2-4 illustrates reconstructed stages of landscape develop-
level. The Atlantic shoreline is shown at the present 18 m. ment for parts of the Maryland coastal zone where shore-
depth contour and represents a condition extant at ap- line changes have been documented by our studies.
proximately 7,000 B.P. (Kraft, Biggs, and Halsey 1973). Figure 24A shows the area as it probably appeared
The margins of Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean before inundation. The locale was characterized by an
were displaced inland with the rise in water level. The upland deciduous forest, ravine slopes, and freshwater
continued submergence of the area means that low pro- streams. With the beginning of inundation (Fig. 2-413),
file parts of the coastal zone are being inundated rapidly, the stream and ravine slope were transformed into a
and thus we are losing many prehistoric resources related brackish water shore zone. Continued inundation (Fig.
to earlier positions of the shoreline. 24C) increased the proportion of open water relative to
Once the Chesapeake Bay was established, related the surrounding uplands.
natural processes began to change local environments. As sea level continued to rise, erosion modified the
Shore erosion, along with the transportation and deposi- shoreline. Sand spits formed downcurrent from eroding
tion of sediment, played an increasing role. As the sea headlands (Fig. 2-41)). Many coves and inlets, once part
began to flood each area, newly formed estuaries ex- of the highly indented shore zone landscape, closed com-,
panded across former flood plains to abut flanking up- pletely (Figs. 24E and 24F).
lands which were composed of relatively soft, unconsoli- Figure 24G locates prehistoric shell heaps around this
dated and easily eroded sediments. A highly indented coastal lagoon, with basal radiocarbon dates from four
coastline with numerous bays and coves was created. The sites. Prehistoric people began to use this location by at
expanding estuary extended the distance over which pre- least 4,000 B.P. Figure 2-5 illustrates a portion of one of
vailing winds could create waves. In some areas, as the the thick shell heaps that ring this coastal lagoon.

The events which ended with the closing of the cove creasing marsh and shrub vegetation. Ultimately, open
mouths by a stable sand spit would have had important water was displaced by woody plants and trees. Figures
implications for resources and hence for human popula- 24F and 2-6 show the present appearance of this coastal
tion distributions. First, the proportion of marshland to setting.
open water behind the migrating sand spit increased.
Also, waters behind the closed spit became fresh, as did In summary, the coastal zone is dynamic, and some of
the marsh. Final spit closure denied anodramous fish ac- its features are ephemeral. Prehistoric people had to
cess to upper stream areas and denied oysters a suitable change their resource procurement strategies in order to
habitat. Subsequent changes in the landscape included adjust to environmental change or abandon certain areas
continued filling of the lagoon by sediments, with in- in favor of others.

Maryland New Jersey Delaware
River

Delaware
Bay

Delaware
Susquehanna
River
0 System
Md. 0

h
e 4@1
Virginia a

a Va.
k
e

B
a le
y I
49
PAtiantic coast
ca. 7000 B.P.

0 2 4 5 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
W:lNE:JEL::1 WJWffZ:lE9:@
Scale in km Scale in k m

Fig. 2-3b. Schematic representation of Chesapeake
Fig. 2-3a. Chesapeake Bay region today Bay region ca. 7000 B.P.

North
:L In

LA_A_-j
Bay or lagoon V@ k;@L %"k..

Sand spit

Marsh

TZ
X

Ravine slope
F1
-j@- 46r-
IL
Woodland

A Shell midden
0 2000'

A. Pre-inundation drainage

S-
f. 4A, 6

&
U
Je
X
h
N6 1@
@41

.0c

6 - N:%J\
e.k., kill
C.
V
`5 SK

B. Encroachment of brackish water, C. Continued inundation,
minimum date 7000-9000 B.P.

Fig. 2-4. Example of post glacial shoreline evolution in Kent County, Maryland

:@7
North

Z
k"tc -A,-;Sr
4 --j Al_.iv
N,
x1i
k

L4 706. V.

-Y.Uelv X_
Z

A.;
7, Z
1W a

e C7*t z

D. Initial sand spit formation E. Complete sand spit closure,
minimum date 900 B.P.

A-Z W 4:
@. vt*'
4290 BA

U, 4,
2135 B.P

3010 B-P

T,
IV
A

3300
41 B-P
u@i
& -Z

*44'.

F. Coastal setting today G. Prehistoric shel-I site locations with
select basal radiocarbon dates

Fig. 2-4. Example of postg1acial shoreline evolution in Kent County, Maryland

.. . . ......

!%W

Fig. 2-5 Shell exposed along bank of coastal lagoon,
depicted in Fig. 2-4

-I&A . . . . . . . . . . .

......... ...
. ........

Fig. 2-6 Aerial view of coastal lagoon
depicted in Fig. 2-4

Soils and birch forests. His map shows a spruce forest over the,
The soils that mantle Maryland result from complex coastal plain and Piedmont, south of a tundra-taiga zone
chemical and physical interactions over long periods of beside the ice sheet. Pine forest grew between the spruce
time among parent material, climate, vegetation, and forest and a southern deciduous forest. Whitehead sug-
geomorphic factors. As a result of the granular parent gests that the northern trees were displaced southward
material, coastal plain soils are sandy to silty, very light over 1,000 km. on the east side of the Appalachians,
to medium in texture, and generally well-drained except there developing forests with few deciduous trees over a
in low-lying areas with high water tables or extensive broad area south of the ice.
hardpan development. These soils are typically highly Late-glacial vegetation changes saw the spruce-pine
acidic. Piedmont and Appalachian soils are more vari- forest replaced by a pine forest, in turn replaced by a
able, reflecting the complex geologic environments en- beech-hemlock forest. The oak-hickory forest became
countered in those areas. established by 10,000 B.P. Whitehead's conclusions are
The subsistence economies of Maryland's prehistoric supported by the work of Harrison etal. (1965) and
people were influenced by the plants and animals avail- Owens etaL (1974) in the Chesapeake Bay area. It should
able to them, and these were in turn influenced heavily by be noted that the early northern type forest produced lit-
the nature of the soil. Varying widely in drainage, chem- tle plant or animal food that prehistoric people could use
ical, and physical characteristics, soils were variously easily, when compared to the later, more productive
used by prehistoric people in resource exploitation and deciduous forest.
settlement location. In addition to contributing to land
use and hence to the distribution of prehistoric remains,
soils influence the preservation of these remains. Animals
Through time, strongly acid soils eliminate or deteriorate Unfortunately, there is little information available on
bone and antler materials, introducing strong bias into the makeup of Maryland animal populations during the
the prehistoric record. An important exception occurs, past 10,000 years. The varied physiographic sections of
however, in areas where the soil has been influenced by Maryland today support a similar animal life. However,
shell debris left by prehistoric people. The resulting the populations and ranges of Maryland mammals and
alkaline condition preserves bone and antler. Thus, in the birds have been radically changed by European settle-
coastal zone shell heaps provide a special opportunity for ment. Certainly some species which prehistoric people
finding a wider range of prehistoric food and tool re- hunted are no longer found in the state.
mains than would usually be found in areas with highly The diversity of land resources was matched by equally
acid soils. diverse and abundant water resources. The broad, slow-
moving tidal waters of the coastal plain provided habitats
Forests for huge populations of fish and shellfish as well as vast
Maryland forests are characterized by a wide variety of flocks of migratory waterfowl. In addition, the Bay and
deciduous trees and shrubs. Forests were important to the upper freshwater parts of the river-estuaries provided
prehistoric people because they supplied food and cover spawning and nursery areas for large schools of
to them and to the animals they depended upon. anadromous fish, such as shad and alewife.
During the early period of European exploration and
settlement, upland and mountain forests retained their
natural state. Other areas, however, especially along the How Environment Affects the Distribution and
Piedmont river valleys, had been altered in prehistoric Preservation of Prehistoric Resources
times by horticulture and burning. Since European settle- The rise of sea level after the last continental glaciation
ment, forests have been greatly altered by clearing for was the single most dynamic change to which prehistoric
agriculture, and cutting for fuel and lumber. Chestnut people in the area adapted. The drowning of the Susque-
blight has accounted for the loss of American chestnut hanna River system by the sea created the complex set of
trees. environments that now compose Chesapeake Bay and its
Before these changes took place, the Middle Atlantic coastal zone. Here, over time, differences in salinity, to-
Piedmont was a vast forest of oak-chestnut (Shelford pography, soils, vegetation, and substrate have formed
1963) which extended to the eastern flanks of the Appala- an increasingly diverse set of habitats, supporting rich
chian Mountains. There, other kinds of forests domi- and varied plant and animal life. Because of the dynamic
nated various elevations. In the coastal plain, the oak- nature of the coastal zone, the record of prehistoric
chestnut forest gave way to oak-hickory. Both types of resources is expected to be complex-both in content and
forest produced nuts, a valuable source of food for peo- in particular the remains preserved.
ple and animals. The coastal plain also contained upland The radical change in sea level affected the distribution
or drainage divide swamps, as well as riverine and coastal and preservation of prehistoric resources in six major
swamps and marshes (Braun 1950). ways:
Although pollen experts disagree about how much The ancestral Susquehanna River drainage system
Mid-Atlantic coastal plain forests changed during the last became a large coastal plain estuary. The rising sea in-
glacial age and the following warming period, a general creased the environmental complexity of the area through
outline of events is available. Whitehead (1965, 1973) has time, creating more diverse wildlife habitats. Because the
reconstructed vegetation for the area from Chesapeake coast was a richer area to exploit than either land or sea
Bay to southeastern North Carolina from the full-glacial alone, prehistoric people came to exploit the coastal
period to the present time. He suggests that during the zone. As a result, prehistoric resources are concentrated
full-glacial period, 25,000 to 15,000 B.P., the Chesa- along the land-sea interface, decreasing in number with
peake Bay area was made up of spruce, pine, some fir, increased distance from the shoreline.

Other changes resulted from the continued flooding. material on which soils, plants, and animals establish
Chesapeake Bay increased in size, changing the land to themselves. In a broad sense, prehistoric remains may
water ratio; the shoreline lengthened and became more differ with geological settings. Another way in which the
complex; water, depths increased; stream gradients de- coast, as a geologic setting, has affected prehistoric re-
creased; currents and salinity altered; and the erosion rate sources include: a thick layer of loess (windblown silt),
increased. Such changes affected the number, com- deposited from 15,000 to 10,000 B.P. covering parts of
plexity, and location of natural resources, and therefore the uplands along the upper eastern Chesapeake Bay
suggest that many kinds of prehistoric resources of shoreline. Very early prehistoric resources in this area are
various ages exist in the Maryland coastal zone. now under perhaps five feet of sediment. Such remains
Because the physiographic makeup of a coast deter- are likely to be uncovered only by surface erosion or deep
mines the ease with which it can be inundated by rising excavations.
water, higher bank shorelines (although less accessible to The raw materials for making stone tools were limited
people from the water) are less susceptible to inundation. in the coastal zone. Pebble cherts, jaspers, quartz, and
Therefore, -more and older coast oriented resources are quartzite were available. The presence of other raw
probably preserved in these areas than along low ground materials, such as rhyolite, soapstone, and argillite, all of
areas such as the lower Eastern Shore. which had to be imported, indicates prehistoric people
The topographic character of the coast being flooded had contact with other areas.
controls the shape of shorelines, as well as the range of
landforms that result. Highly indented shorelines offer Different geologic materials have different resistances
more shelter and natural resources in less space than do to erosion, affecting changes in local landforms. Fewer
straight, featureless coastlines. Hence, sinuous coastlines coast-oriented prehistoric resources may be expected in
are likely to contain high densities of prehistoric areas with high rates of erosion.
resources. Soils formed on coastal plain sediments affected the
Owing to the effects of ongoing flooding, landscape activities of prehistoric people and continue to modify
features representing various periods of time have been their remains: coastal plain soils influence the plant and
preserved. Of primary importance are old Bay shorelines, animal makeup of upland areas, thus helping to deter-
now the uplands around lagoons and marshes (see Fig. mine the nature and location of resources. Correlations
2-4). Because they were once the shoreline, these areas between soil type and prehistoric resources are likely; for
may be the only places where coastal prehistoric re- example, late period horticultural settlements would be
sources of certain ages are preserved. expected to be most common in areas with fertile, well-
Natural events have preserved some resources but drained, and easy-to-work soils.
destroyed innumerable others. The rising sea has almost The highly acid nature of coastal plain soils directly af-
completely destroyed certain environments, such as fects the preservation of prehistoric remains, in destroy-
ancestral flood plains, thus eliminating certain ages and ing artifacts differentially. Perishable food and tool re-
kinds of prehistoric remains around Chesapeake Bay. mains such as wood and bone are removed from the
Many prehistoric resources lie under the tidal waters and record; more resistant materials such as stone and
marshlands of Maryland, because they have been inun- ceramics remain. An important exception is in coastal
dated by the advancing sea. shell heaps where a basic soil favors the preservation of
Other considerations affect the distribution and preser- bone and antler. Thus, materials in coastal sites vary ac-
vation of prehistoric resources. Changes in the physical cording to soil conditions as well as according to the age
and chemical makeup of Chesapeake Bay waters may and culture. Sites which represent extensive use of
have directly influenced the distribution of prehistoric organic raw materials may be difficult to document
inhabitants. Bay salinities were. of particular importance: unless accompanied by shell deposits or certain other
Bay waters are characterized by a continuum of salinity conditions (such as charring) which help preserve organic
values. Although the absolute values of the salinity gra- remains. It should be noted that soil chemical analysis
dient change with the season, the basic lateral and vertical may aid in delineating sites of this type.
stratification remains. Each of the Bay's major tribu-
taries, like the Bay itself, is characterized by fresh waters Finally, the character of the plant and animal resources
at the source and brackish waters at the mouth. available for human exploitation influenced the
Therefore, for any given period a variety of resources economic systems which prehistoric people devised to ex-
might be expected to occur along each body of water. ploit them: many of the most important coastal zone
Both in the Bay and in its tributaries, the transition area animals are available only during specific seasons; for ex-
between fresh and brackish water provides an environ- ample, saltwater fish which spawn in rivers and migra-
ment for harvesting both fresh and brackish water re- tory waterfowl. Prehistoric resources should be found
sources. Prehistoric resources may be dense along transi- that relate to specific seasonal exploitation activities.
tion areas. These remains should be located in areas permitting the
Owing to environmental changes (particularly silt dep- greatest harvest at the time of their availability.
osit.ion from run-off caused by modern land clearing and Important plant resources also were available only dur-
agriculture), the distribution of oysters is now reduced. ing specific seasons. The best time for gathering berries
Therefore, the distribution of prehistoric resources near and grasses, for example, would be summer; nuts would
oyster reefs is probably greater than the present distribu- be available in the fall, and roots, in the spring.
tion of living oyster reefs. Prehistoric resources should exist in the coastal zone or in
Surface geological deposits not only determine what nearby upland areas, where seasonal plant gathering took
the coast looks like, but they also provide the parent place.

'References Cited
Braun, E. L. Owens, J. P., K. Stefansson, and L. A. Sirkin
-1950 The deciduous forests of eastern North 1974 Chemical, mineralogic, and palynologic char-
America. Blakiston Co., Philadelphia. acter of the Upper Wisconsinian-Lower Holo-
Costa, J. E. cene fill in parts of Hudson, Delaware, and
1975 Effects of agriculture on erosion and sedimen- Chesapeake Estuaries. Journal of Sedimentary
tation in the Piedmont Province, Maryland. Petrology 44:390-408.
Geological Society of America Bulletin Prest, V. K.
86:1281-1286. 1969 Ice margin positions. In Retreat of Wisconsin
Flint, R. F. and Recent Ice in North America. Canada De-
1971 Glacial and quaternary geology. John Wiley partment of Energy, Mines, and Resources,
and Sons, New York. Geological Survey of Canada Map 1257A.
Foss, J. E., D. C. Fanning, and F. P. Miller Schubel, J. R.
1974 Loess deposits on the Eastern Shore of 1968 Suspended sediment of the northern Chesa-
Maryland. Paper presented at the American peake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Institute Technical
Society of Agronomy Annual Meeting at' Report 35. The Johns Hopkins University.
Chicago, Illinois. Agronomy Abstracts: Shelford, V. C.
158-159. 1963 The ecology of North America. University of
Gottschalk, L. C. Illinois Press, Urbana.
1945 Effects of soil erosion on navigation in upper Singlewald, J. T. and T. H. Slaughter
Chesapeake Bay. Geographical Review 1949 Shore erosion in Tidewater Maryland. Mary-
35:219-238. land Department of Geology, Mines, and
Harrison, W., R. J. Malloy, G. A. Rusnak, and Water Resources Bulletin 6.
J. Terasmae Vokes, H. E. and J. Edwards, Jr.
1965 Possible late-Pleistocene uplift, Chesapeake 1968 Geography and geology of Maryland. Mary-
Bay entrance. Journal of Geology 73:201-229. land Geological Survey Bulletin 19. Baltimore,
Kraft, J. C., R. B. Biggs, and S. Halsey Maryland.
1973 Morphology and vertical sedimentary sequence Whitehead, D. R.
models in Holocene transgressive barrier sys- 1965 Palynology and Pleistocene phytogeography of
-tems. In Coastal geomorphology, edited by D. unglaciated eastern North America. In The
R. Coates, pp. 321-354. State University of Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.
New York, Binghamton. E. Wright, Jr., and D. G. Frey, pp. 417-432.
Maryland Geological Survey Princeton University Press.
1975 Historical shorelines and erosion rates. Pub- 1973 Late-Wisconsin vegetational changes in ungla-
lication of the Maryland Coastal Zone Manage- ciated eastern North America. Quaternary
ment Program. Research 3:621-631.

- CHAPTER 3
CULTURAL
DYNAMICS

I
1@ @l
I

-1

Chapter 3

Cultural Dynamics
The story of the people who lived in Maryland before tation to a time of changing environmental conditions at
the Europeans came can be told only by the prehistoric the end of the last continental glaciation. As the environ-
archeological record. When Europeans began to settle the ment stabilized to near its present form, Archaic Tradi-
area at the end of the sixteenth century, they wrote de- tion cultures of seasonal hunters and gatherers estab-
scriptions of the lifeways of the Native Americans they lished thernselves, expanding through time toward the
met. These descriptions provide some information on limits of the environment's carrying capacity and their
prehistoric land use and hence on the nature and distribu- technology. The spread of the Broadspear Tradition
tion of archeological sites dating to that period. How- about 4,000 years ago appears to have signaled new tech-
ever, for the 12,000 or more years during which prehis- nological advances; hunting and gathering in the coastal
toric cultures existed before the coming of the Euro- zone became more efficient. The final adaptive change
peans, there is only the prehistoric record. was the adoption of horticulture late in the Woodland
Prehistoric people inhabited the Maryland coastal zone Tradition about 1,000 years ago. The population then in-
for thousands of years, which suggests that the area is creased beyond that which could be supported by hunting
likely to contain abundant prehistoric resources. Further- and gathering alone.
more, these resources are likely to be varied as activities
changed along with and independently of environmental
changes through time. What do archeologists know Fig. 3-1
about prehistoric resources in Maryland's coastal zone?
At present, archeologists know little about prehistoric Time-Space Chart of Maryland Area
people and their economic adaptations to the Maryland Prehistoric Cultures
coastal zone. What information is available is sketchy
and not necessarily representative of the range of diver-
sity of the prehistoric record. In fact, there have been
very few professional projects, especially along the East- Years B.P. Lower Potomac Delaware State
ern Shore. Virtually no systematically derived informa- Valley (Thomas 1974)
tion exists for Maryland's Atlantic shoreline, aside from (Gardner & McNett 1971;
what can be generalized from similar nearby areas in McNett & Gardner ms.;
Delaware. Most available studies describe artifacts at Stephenson el aL 1963,
individual sites or offer untested speculations about past Wright, 1973)
activities. In short, there is no detailed regional informa- 500 C@ Algonquian Tribes Nanticoke/Leni
Z Lenape
tion available on the kinds of prehistoric resources, their <
1,000 Potomac Creek Webb Phase
interrelationships, distributional patterns, or relative [Townsend Phase] Slaughter Creek
abundance in the coastal zone. In general, information
0 lu Mockley Phase Phase
about past culture decreases in detail and amount as one 2,000 :a Accokeek Creek Delmarva Adena
considers older and older time periods. n Phase Phase
Most available studies reflect the early goals of arche- 94 Popes Creek Phase Carey Complex
ologists who were primarily interested in establishing re- 3,000 < Marcey Creek Phase Susquehanna
W
gional chronologies. These studies concentrated on the a. Phase
Cn
age and distribution of artifact types, especially ceramics 0
4,000 < Broadspear Tradition, Piedmont,
and projectile points (or arrowheads). Although they 0
Susquehanna Phase Laurentian
continue to be interested in establishing regional chronol- Traditions,
ogies, archeologists now are increasingly interested in Koens-Crispin
studying prehistoric lifeways. More recent studies con- Phase
centrate on regions, rather than, individual sites. Such 5,000
studies are valuable because they seek to explain changes 69000 Crude-Notched
in settlement patterns and subsistence systems. Informa- Point Tradition
U
tion of this sort is necessary for constructing rational 94
frameworks for assessing site significance and representa- 7,000 <, Archaic Tradition
tiveness. Projectile
Points
Archeological studies have recognized four prehistoric 72
cultural traditions in Maryland: Paleo-Indian, Ar- 8,000
chaic, Broadspear, and Woodland. The cultural units of 9,000
these traditions are summarized in Fig. 3-1.
6 Z
The prehistory of the Maryland area may be summed 10,000 W < Bifurcate Point
.45 Tradition
in a general way by referring to adaptive changes through < Z
time. These changes are reflected in the nature and distri- pre - 10,000 0. Corner-notched
bution of prehistoric artifacts and groups of artifacts in Tradition
the coastal zone. The earliest culture, the Paleo-Indian Fluted Projectile Fluted Projectile
Tradition, may be seen as a hunting and gathering adap- Points Points

Paleo-Indian Tradition The Archaic Tradition is known from well documented
At the close of the last continental glaciation when the archeological sequences in several areas, particularly in
ice retreated, (by about 13,000 B.P.), grasslands quickly West Virginia (Broyles 1971) and South Carolina (Coe
colonized the areas north of Pennsylvania; deciduous 1964). In its early stages, the Archaic tradition
forests followed, and the present vegetation zones be- throughout most eastern states is characterized by stylis-
came established. Paleo-Indian populations probably fol- tically similar projectile points. Late in the tradition,
lowed the northward migration of plant communities and many local styles become differentiated.
herd animals along the East Coast. Early Archaic projectile point styles are found on the
Although many archeologists assume that Paleo-In- surfaces of many sites along the Potomac River and its
than tradition cultures engaged only in the hunting of interior hinterlands, such as along Zekiah Swamp. These
now extinct herd animals, the distributions of Paleo- points are identified by referring to the West Virginia and
Indian remains over forested as well as grassland en- South Carolina prehistoric sequences. A possible Early
vironments in the eastern United States suggests that Archaic Tradition occupation has been found at the Rup-
these groups more probably gained their subsistence by pert Island site on the upper Potomac River (McDowell
exploiting a variety of resources. Gardner (1974) has in- 1972); this site may represent a small camp for mining a
vestigated a series of Paleo-Indian occupations, called the local outcrop of vein quartz.
Flint Run complex, located in the middle Shenandoah Only one Early Archaic tradition site is known from
Valley of Virginia. These materials (dating between Maryland's Eastern Shore, although Early and Middle
11,000 and 8,000 B.P.) represent the quarrying of local Archaic projectile points are found in many locations.
jasper and river cobbles, tool manufacturing, and habita- The Chance site, located in Somerset County, has been
tion activities. referred to as the most productive Early Archaic site in
The earliest Paleo-Indian remains are recognized by a Maryland (Cresthull 1971).
distinctive projectile point called the Clovis point. Later In Delaware, Thomas (1974) has found that Middle
in the tradition, several projectile point styles replace the Archaic tradition sites include interior hunting camps
Clovis point, suggesting that through time several containing evidence of repeated seasonal occupation.
adaptations may have developed in local environments. These sites have restricted artifact inventories; contempo-
Paleo-Indian tradition sites have not been reported in raneous middle Archaic sites found along the coast and
the Maryland coastal zone; however, a number of pro- major rivers contain more varied artifacts. Late Archaic
sites are found in several microenvironments, suggesting
jectile points of this tradition have been found in Mary- that these groups undertook a wide range of subsistence
land and Delaware (Handsman and Borstel 1974, Solecki activities (Thomas 1974).
1961, Thomas 1974). Coastal oriented sites of this tra- McNett has defined several Late Archaic tradition
dition are not expected in the Maryland coastal zone. The archeological cultures for the Potomac River area, in-
Atlantic coast was 'located east of its present position and cluding the Piscataway, Vernon, and Holmes cultures,
the Chesapeake Bay had not yet formed. Only sites represented at several sites. According to McNett, the set-
related to Paleo-Indian exploitation of coastal plain tlement pattern contains base camps along the Potomac
uplands would be found in what is now the coastal zone; River with seasonal inland camps, such as those along
but the Paleo-Indian settlement pattern in the coastal Zekiah Swamp, for hunting, gathering, and quarrying
plain is not well enough understood to suggest what kinds stone materials. In Kent County, the authors of this study
of remains might be present and their relative abundance. identified a series of late Archaic sites representing the ex-
In addition, sites of that age were probably few and ploitation of both coastal and inland environments.
small; and a great deal of time has elapsed during which
they could have been destroyed or buried by natural and Beginning about 4,000 B.P., Broadspear tradition cul-
human agents. Beginning about 10,000 B.P., with the tures appear in the coastal plain from northern Florida to
establishment of modern vegetation zones, Paleo-Indian the Northeast. These cultures are recognized by similar
groups were replaced by Archaic Tradition peoples. tool kits, especially broad-bladed projectile points and
steatite or ceramic vessels. These tools may represent a
Archaic and Broadspear Traditions technological advance in adapting to the coastal plain en-
Archeologists usually define the Archaic Tradition as vironments, which also may have changed at that time.
prehistoric remains without evidence of pottery or horti- While Broadspear tradition cultures appear very similar
culture, while the following Broadspear tradition shows in their early projectile point styles, they too gradually
the beginnings of pottery or the use of steatite (soap- differentiated over time.
stone) vessels. The Archaic tradition is usually divided in- Broadspear Tradition sites occur along rivers that emp-
to Early, Middle, and Late segments. None of these ty into the Atlantic Ocean and along estuaries. Turn-
segments is very well known in the Maryland coastal baugh (1975) has attempted to explain the development
plain, although more remains are found of late than of of this culture, which he believes represents a migration
early and middle Archaic. That so few remains are found of groups from the coastal plain of the Southeast. He
probably results from the fact that populations were suggests that these groups followed a hunting, gathering,
small and dispersed. shellfishing, and fishing way of life along rich tidal
The preservation of remains, especially older ones, is streams and estuaries. The movement northward may
poor in this area where there have been few environments have resulted from environmental changes that made
with aggrading sediments during the past 12,000 years. northern areas suitable for this subsistence system. Per-
Archaic groups probably followed a mobile settlement haps the slowing rate of sea level rise about 4,000 B.P.
pattern of hunting and gathering seasonally abundant enriched these coastal environments by permitting large
plant and animal resources. populations of waterfowl, anadromous fish, and shellfish

to become established. The movement also could have shift takes place slightly later in time. Change is also seen
resulted from a technological advance in exploiting these in the upper Eastern Shore, where the authors of the pre-
rich resources. sent study have noted that markedly fewer shell middens
Present in Broadspear Tradition technologies are sev- seem to have been established after about 2,000 B.P.
eral kinds of artifacts that could have been used for fish McNett believes that this change represents the prob-
explo itatio n- broad- bladed projectile points, net able addition of corn horticulture to the established hunt-
weights, spear-thrower weights, and stone roasting plat- ing and gathering subsistence pattern, although no evi-
forms. Steatite vessels and ceramics certainly represent dence for horticulture exists until later and then in a dif-
an advance in cooking procedures, and there is indirect ferent cultural tradition. An alternate explanation for the
evidence for the use of canoes. It seems likely that Broad- upper Eastern Shore may be that continuing shoreline
spear Tradition prehistoric cultures represented increased erosion caused sand spits to close many small estuaries,
population growth and expansion throughout the coastal rendering many habitats no longer suitable for oyster
plain. growth and anadromous fish runs. The degradation of
. Along the Maryland coastal zone several Broadspear these important resources could have created an imbal-
sites have been investigated, including the Marcey Creek ance between population and available resources, per-
site at Potomac Palisades, where spring runs of herring, haps requiring movement to remaining environments
shad, and sturgeon could have been exploited (McNett & where oysters and fish continued to prosper. Such a move
Gardner ms.). In Delaware, Broadspe'ar tradition sites would have left some areas virtually abandoned and open
are larger than Archaic sites and contain denser debris. for occupation 'by the horticultural groups that later
These sites are found along the rivers, with hunting and moved into the coastal plain. The presence of competing
gathering camps found in inland areas (Thomas 1974). groups and the resistance to land or resource loss by local
Witthoft (1953) suggests that steatite vessels probably in- inhabitants might help explain the stockaded villages
dicate the existence of river travel and that the use of raw European explorers saw in the coastal plain.
materials from other areas, such as steatite, suggests On the Eastern Shore, the authors of the present study
trade. have recorded a sequence of coastal shell and interior
nonshell sites that span the phase sequence defined for
Woodland Tradition the Potomac River. However, only a few Mockley Phase
When ceramics are found in the artifacts inventory of ceramics and almost no later ceramics, except for Po-
prehistoric cultures, the remains are usually referred to as tomac Creek wares, are found.
belonging to the Woodland Tradition. Although the pres- Little is known of the Late Woodland Townsend cul-
ence of ceramics was earlier taken to mean that horticul- ture (1,000 to 300 B.P.) that follows the Mockley phase in
tural subsistence also must have been present, this infer- the Potomac coastal plain. More is known of Townsend
ence is no longer automatically made. Indeed, no direct culture prehistory in Delaware, where the subsistence-set-
evidence for horticulture in the Middle Atlantic area has tlement pattern apparently included the summer coastal
been found before 1,000 B.P., although pottery was used exploitation of shellfish, finfish, deer, and plants, while
since about 3,000 B.P. Even after 1,000 B.P., it is possi- fall-winter exploitation included nut gathering and deer
ble that some groups did not adopt horticulture because and fowl hunting in the interior. In addition, spring ex-
the resource yield from hunting and gathering in some ploitation of anadromous fish alongthe rivers is postu-
areas (for example, in the coastal zone) was too high to lated.
make horticulture advantageous. A new prehistoric culture, Potomac Creek, appears in
The earliest prehistoric culture in which ceramics have the Maryland coastal plain not long before European
been documented was the Marcey Creek phase. The addi- contact, about 800 B.P. McNett (McNett & Gardner ms.)
tion of ceramics has not been demonstrated to signal any suggests that this culture developed in Piedmont river
dramatic change in the aboriginal lifeway, except perhaps valleys, including those of the Shenandoah and, Potomac,
for increasing efficiency of the diversified hunting and from a prehistoric culture called the Montgomery com-
gathering economy. Several phases of the Early (3,000 to plex. This complex, beginning about 1,100 B.P., is
2,500 B.P.) and Middle Woodland (2,500 to 1,200 B.P.) characterized by large permanent horticultural villages at
periods have been distinguished in the Potomac coastal several sites. Refuse remains include corn, squash, deer
plain area by McNett (Gardner & McNett 1971; McNett and small mammals, fish, and freshwater mussels, show-
& Gardner ms.). He suggests that the transition area ing that the subsistence pattern included both hor-
formed by the juncture of fresh and brackish waters was ticulture and the use of seasonally available resources.
especially important in providing a great variety and Sites contain many pits, probably originally dug for food
number of plant and animal resources. McNett has iden- storage but later used for refuse and burials. These sites
tified a series of coastal and interior sites that he believes were surrounded by defense stockades.
represents winter domestic and shellfish gathering camps, In the coastal plain the Potomac Creek culture has
spring fishing camps, and other sites in a seasonal round, been investigated at several sites. including Accokeek
including summer freshwater mussel procuring stations Creek and Potomac Creek or Patawomeke. Evidence has
and locations for processing plant resources. Fishing sites been found for large stockaded villages with large os-
were located near the Fall Line on the Potomac River. su Iary or burial pits in which the bones of many people
In the late Middle Woodland (by about 1,500 B.P.)q were found. In addition to the villages, at least one camp
according to McNett (McNett and Gardner ms.) Mockley for procuring shellfish has been found, at Loyola Retreat
phase sites show a shift away from the previous extensive (McNett & Gardner ms.).
use of oysters to smaller sites with fewer and smaller
oyster remains. A similar trend toward smaller shell sites At the time of European contact, both the Potomac
is seen along the Severn River (Wright 1973) although this Creek horticulturalists and the descendants of the earlier

hunting and gathering groups may have been present in After the English colony was established at Jamestown
coastal areas, although only the horticultural groups were in 1608, John Smith sailed up the Chesapeake Bay ex-,
mentioned by Smith (1907). 14owever, natives of the ploring and mapping resources and noting the distribu-
Maryland coastal plain probably felt the effects of Euro- tion of native groups according to their strength in
pean contact in the form of contagious diseases and fighting men. His description provides information on
movements of other native groups well before actually the contemporary native inhabitants throughout
seeing the Europeans themselves. Thus, remnant hunting tidewater Virginia and Maryland (see Fig. 3-2). Smith
and gathering groups may have been destroyed before found that Algonquian-speaking groups occupied most
Smith's voyage of 1612. of the tidewater area on both the Eastern and Western
shores of Chesapeake Bay. He mapped nearly 200
villages, 30 of which he designated by a symbol that stood
Native American Inhabitants at the for king's house or tribal capital (Fig. 3-2). The people
Time of European Contact lived in permanent villages or towns along the Bay and its
Archeologists derive some information on lifeways tributary rivers, particularly at the intersections of the
from the study of contemporary written accounts made many waterways.
by the Europeans. Such written accounts for the Chesa- From the time of the Roanoke colony onward, the
peake Bay area include reports of English exploration English were impressed by the amount of territory held in
and settlement from about 1584 through 1620. These ac- the tidewater and the number of groups that belonged to
counts contain information on native groups including the Powhatan Confederacy. This confederacy included
their distributions, interrelationships, and the resources approximately 30-36 tribes located on Chesapeak-e Bay's
they exploited. Although these accounts are valuable for Western Shore, from the Potomac River south to the
indicating the nature, location, and distribution of late James River. Most of these tribes acknowledged' the
prehistoric remains, the limitations of these accounts leadership of Powhatan, apparently as a result of con-
must be considered. The use of these early accounts poses quest (Garrow 1974: 33-44). In addition to periodic
two main problems: the first concerns the extent to which fighting among themselves, the Algonquian-speaking
the reported lifeway already may have been altered by groups of the tidewater area fought with Siouan-speaking
earlier European contacts, and the second concerns the groups of the Piedmont west of Chesapeake Bay, in-
difficulties of reports made by people who were not train- cluding the Monacan and Manahoac confederacies,
ed to make observations about other cultures. although no changes in territory seem to have resulted
Accounts of the Roanoke and Jamestown colonies do from this fighting during early English colonization. The
not represent the first contacts between Europeans and Algonquians also regularly fought bitter wars with the
the native inhabitants. Instead, regular contacts began by Iroquois-speaking groups, particularly the Susquehan-
the early sixteenth century in Canada and shortly nocks and probably the Senecas, who inhabited the Pied-
thereafter in Florida, spreading European trade goods mont north of the Chesapeake Bay.
and diseases throughout the eastern seaboard in advance The Iroquois groups, known as Susquehannocks and
of the Europeans themselves. Further, the intergroup Massawomekes or Senecas, consisted of permanently set-
warfare so extensive at and after European contact may tled villages or towns of agricultural peoples living in the
not have been very widespread before European contact river valleys that flowed into the Susquehanna River.
stimulated it. Likewise, the importance of agriculture Through trade with groups further northward, they ob-
may have increased or declined with the onset of depopu- tained brass and copper goods, which originally came
lation and instability. In short, it is difficult to measure from the French explorers and settlers in Canada. Their
the reliability of European accounts. wars with Chesapeake Bay groups may have been
The second problem concerns the reports themselves. stimulated by population expansion or by the need to
Few firsthand accounts exist that describe aspects of establish a new territory because of being pushed south-
native lifeways in details. Also, these reports were ward by other groups, who had in turn been dislocated by
seasonally oriented: explorations usually were made dur- the French settlers. As he traveled up Chesapeake Bay,
ing the summer months, resulting in more descriptions of Smith noted that the Patuxent River Algonquians were
summer activities than of other seasons. Different clustered tightly together and that north of them the area
observers who saw the same group at different seasons was deserted; both observations are understandable in
may give the impression that two different groups were view of the hostile relations that existed between the
contacted. Algonquians and the Iroquois to the north. Figure 3-3
Th*ere are further limitations to the accuracy of Euro- presents the general location of the major native groups
pean observations. Europeans were describing a culture thought to have inhabited the greater Chesapeake Bay
that had some understandable aspects, such as area at the time of English settlement.
agricultural techniques and village life. Other aspects, Although several scholars have estimated the popula-
such as hunting and gathering techniques and the tion density of tidewater Algonquian groups at the time
scheduling of the yearly activities, were less familiar. of European contact, the most thorough work is that of
Again, the resulting accounts report some activities in too Feest (1973), who estimates 14,300 to 22,300 people for
little detail and others in too much detail. The plethora of the Virginia Algonquian. Mooney (1907) has traced the
local dialects and the prevalence of internecine warfare rapid decline of Powhatan Confederacy groups from an
confused these untrained observers. Finally, the Euro- estimated 8,000 to a few family groups in 1705.
peans who described the new land and its inhabitants Tidewater Algonquian groups lived in small villages or
were trying to justify their experience to those who re- towns always located near the coast, according to
mained in Europe; their descriptions frequently exag- Hariot's (1893, 1971) report of the Roanoke area. He
gerated certain aspects of the new land. described the number of houses per town as being 10 to

Z-74"

Nyl@

)00
Z.

t VU
- @; Z' 4f

C-

Z
at 0,

El.
=r

0 rW r-w"t
=r

lbw
dV

ID
Alp

Joe
............

SUSOUEHANNOCKS

DE
0." LAWA@
oCwoqh R E
0
Ozini s

Chester
River Delaware 0
Bay

M N,
A
A N
N T
A I
ho tankc
R ver0
0 Sca K
A ta E
C Nanticoke
Y River
C P0
M 0 W
0 N A- H
N A
A TA
C E N
R
A
N C
h
e
0 S
a
P
e
a Atlantic

B Ocean
jam's a
y 4&0 10

N
Ot C es-
t apeakw
0 GQ4
w
a W
TU sc y e0
a Pe
M
ro QD e
ra OC 0 10 is 25.

scale inm'llew

Albemarle Sound

n
Fig. 3-3. Reconstructed distribution of Ok
major native groups ca. 1600 A.D.

12, with some towns having as many as 20 or 30. The gathered and burned. Sharpened sticks were used to plant
houses were constructed of poles covered by bark or mats several varieties of squash, passion fruit (maycocks),
made of rushes. They were usually 12 to 16 feet long and tobacco, beans, and corn. Until harvest, the crops were
half that in width. A wiroance or chieftain ruled one, weeded and protected from birds and other animals.
sometimes a few towns, and at most 18 (where according Although the gathering of animal and plant foods took
to Hariot's report, there were 700 to 800 fighting men). place throughout the year, Garrow (1974: 26) states that
Many local dialects were spoken in these villages. it was particularly important in spring and summer, the
For Virginia, Smith specified that settlements were period between harvests when the previous year's store of
found along rivers near fresh springs, with from two to agricultural products had been exhausted. Many kinds of
100 houses together. Fields and gardens surrounding the roots, fruits, nuts, oysters, clams, mussels, birds, eggs,
houses ranged from 20 to 40 and sometimes 100 to 200 and insects were collected. Shellfish were preserved by
acres. Both Hariot and Smith reported that towns were smoking, while many plant foods were dried.
fortified; fortifications are represented on Smith's map Crops were harvested from August to October, and
of the Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 3-2). Fields and houses were corn was.dried or roasted for storage. From harvest time
located outside the wooden palisades. The location of set- until winter, the greatest variety and amount of food was
tlements along tidewater rivers allowed access to the available, resulting in extensive feasting. When stored
greatest number and diversity of the area's resources. Up- supplies were exhausted in late winter, the next annual
per river areas were used primarily for the seasonal hunt- subsistence round began.
ing of wild game.
The subsistence pattern of tidewater Algonquian Implications for Prehistoric Resources
groups consisted of the resources they used throughout Information derived from the known prehistory and
the year, the places from which the resources were ob- ethnohistory of the Maryland coastal zone can give
tained, and the technology for acquiring and preserving planners a very general idea of the prehistoric resources
the resources. This information not only aids in under- that could be expected even though this information was
standing the native lifeway at the time of European con- not produced for managing these resources. Most im-
tact, but also indicates the potential nature, variety, and portantly, prehistoric resources should be abundant in
locations of contact period archeological remains. the coastal zone because of the long period of prehistoric
In general, tidewater Algonquian groups depended occupation as well as the great number and variety of
upon a wide variety of wild and domesticated plants and natural resources available for exploitation.
hunted and collected animals. Garrow (1974: 24) enu- Second, prehistoric resources would be expected to be
merates the variety of resources the Powhatans obtained varied in many ways including what artifacts and features
by cultivation, collection, fishing, and hunting, and con- are present, the size of the areas covered, density of ar-
cludes that although cultivated crops satisfied little more tifacts, and the ages and kinds of activities represented.
than one-third of the yearly subsistence requirement, the This variation results from changes in coastal environ-
value of crops lay in their reliability as a controlled source ments, prehistoric activities, and population size during
of food. Smith (1907: 97) remarked of the Virginia the long period of occupation.
groups that "for neere 3 parts of the yeare, they naturally Several generalizations can be made about the nature
affordeth from hand to mouth, etc." and preservation of prehistoric remains in the Maryland
In discussing Virginia groups, Smith also noted that coastal zone. From the various kinds of remains expected
the year was divided into five seasons: 1) winter, 2) the in the Maryland coastal zone, two obvious categories
budding of spring, 3) the earing of corn, 4) summer, and emerge: shell and nonshell (or lithic). Shell sites consist of
5) harvest. During the winter some of the people moved quantities of oyster shell, Crassostrea virginica, along
their residences to temporary camps in the "deserts" or with stone tools and sometimes ceramics. Bone remains
deserted areas of upper river drainages. There they par- may also be preserved in the shell deposits. All of the re-
ticipated in individual and communal hunts, using bows mains may be stratified in a layer sequence based on age.
and arrows, snares, and drives, in which many deer and
other animals, including bear, were taken (Smith 1907). Nonshell sites consist of stone tools and manufacturing
Wintering migratory birds, such as ducks and geese debris and possibly ceramics, usually confined to the top
found along the waterways, also were used at this time. few inches of the soil. Shell sites are typically more visible
From March through May, overlapping part of the than nonshell sites.
crop-planting season, fishing was also important; Several types of shell and nonshell sites would be ex-
herring, shad, gar, and sturgeon filled the streams in pected. Because of increased population densities and
migratory runs. That fishing was an important part of bette r preservation, more later than earlier prehistoric
Algonquian subsistence is apparent in the variety of sites are expected in the coastal zone. Older sites are im-
devices used, including weirs or traps, canoes, nets, lines, portant because they are rare.
spears, harpoons, and bows and arrows. In locations where the shoreline underwent changes
Fishing was practiced to a degree and extent that during prehistoric occupation, there may be evidence
greatly impressed the English settlers, evidenced in their relating to land use at each stage of environmental
many discussions and illustrations of native fishing development. Prehistoric people either moved to more
techniques. familiar environments or stayed and changed their ac-
The planting of crops took place from March through tivities. For example, Fig. 2-4 shows the stages of coastal
June or July. Cultivated plots 100 to 200 feet square were geomorphic change in an area. Each setting would have
prepared by removing the bark from near the roots of been characterized by prehistoric resources relating to its
trees and then scorching the roots with fire (Strachey contemporaneous use as well as to use during earlier
1953 and Garrow 1974: 23). At the same time stubble was stages of development. Such continuous use of a re-

stricted area often produces overlapping or superimposed Hariot, T.
remains. 1893 Narrative of the first English plantation of Vir-
Numerous coastal oriented sites can be expected to ginia. Reprinted by B. Quaritch, London.
have functioned as part of complex subsistence systems 1971 A brief and true report of the newfound land
having more stations located in interior as well as other of Virginia. Reprinted by the De Capo Press,
coastal settings. Thus, sites cannot be understood solely New York.
on an individual basis. McDowell, E. E.
The Maryland coastal zone contains unique prehistoric 1972 The Archaic Stage of the Potomac River Pied-
areas and sites. The Potomac, Patuxent, Susquehanna, mont: a technoecological approach to archeo-
and Choptank rivers (and their tributaries) probably con- logical data. Ph.D. dissertation, American Uni-
tain resources that relate to prehistoric communication versity. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
and trade routes and to population movement into Mary- McNett, C. W., Jr. and W. M. Gardner
land's coastal zone as well as remain similar to those of MS. Archeology in the lower and middle Potomac
the rest of the coastal zone. Zekiah Swamp is a unique Piedmont and coastal plain. Manuscript in
area, containing a large number of Archaic Tradition re- preparation, Department of Anthropology,
sources, probably hunting camps, along its margins. American University. Xeroxed.
Finally, the Chance site in Somerset County is uniquely Mooney, J.
large, very productive Early Archaic tradition site that is 1907 The Powhatan Confederacy, past and present.
now located in the coastal zone because of the rising sea American Anthropologist 9:129-152
levels. Smith, J.
Differences and changes in prehistoric adaptation are 1907 A true relation, by Captain John Smith, 1608.
expected to be reflected in the prehistoric resources of the In Narratives of early Virginia 1606-1625,
Maryland coastal zone, in the nature of these resources, edited by L. G. Tyler, pp. 30-118. Charles
the size and number of areas they cover, and the interre- Scribners, New York.
lationships among ages and activities they represent. Solecki, R.
Only archeological resources can provide information on 1961 Early man and changing sea levels, Poplar
prehistoric lifeways before European contact introduced Island, Maryland. American Antiquity
written records. Thus, preserving a representative sample 27:234-236.
of all kinds and ages of prehistoric resources from the Stephenson, R. L., A. L. L. Ferguson, and
Maryland coastal zone for study and display should be a H. G. Ferguson
prime consideration in land use planning. 1963 The Accokeek Creek site, a middle Atlantic sea-
References Cited board culture sequence. University of Michigan
Broyles, B. J. Anthropological Papers 20. Ann Arbor.
1971 Second preliminary report: the St. Albans site, Strachey, W.
Kanawha County, West Virginia. West Virginia 1953 The historie of travaile into Virginia Britania
Geological and Economic Survey Report of A r- (1612). Hakluyt Society Publication No. 6.
chaeological Investigations 3. Morgantown, London.
West Virginia. Thomas, R. A.
Coe, J. L. 1974 A brief survey of prehistoric man on the
1964 The Formative cultures of the Carolina Pied- Delmarva Peninsula. Paper prepared for the
mont. Transactions of the American Philo- Delaware Academy of Science.
sophicalSociety, NewSeries, 54(5). Philadelphia. Turnbaugh, W. A.
Cresthull, P. 1975 Toward an explanation of the broadpoint
1971 Chance (18SO5): a major Early Archaic site. dispersal in eastern North American prehistory.
Maryland Archeology 7(2):31-52. Journal of Anthropological Research 31:51-68.
Feest, C. F. Witthoft, J.
1973 Seventeenth century Virginia Algonquian pop- 1953 Broad spearpoints and the Transitional Period
ulation estimates. Quarterly Bulletin of the Ar- cultures in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania A rchae-
chaeological Society of Virginia 28(2):65-79. ologist 23(l):4-3 1.
Gardner, W. M., editor Wright, H. T.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian complex: a pre- 1973 An archeological sequence in the middle Chesa-
liminary report 1971-1973 seasons. Catholic peake region, Maryland. Maryland Geological
University of America Archaeology Laboratory Survey Archaeological Studies 1. Baltimore,
Occasional Publication 1. Washington, D. C. Maryland.
Gardner, W. M. and C. W. McNett, Jr. For further information on Maryland's prehistoric ar-
1971 Early pottery in the Potomac. Proceedings of cheological resources contact:
the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference Division of Archeology
1970:42-52. Maryland Geological Survey
Garrow, P. H. Merryman Hall,
1974 An ethnohistorical study of the Powhatan Johns Hopkins University Maryland Historic Trust
tribes. The Chesopiean 12(1-2):1-72. 34th and Charles Streets 21 State Circle
Handsman, R. G. and C. L. Borstel Baltimore, MD 21218 Annapolis, MD 21401
1974 An archeological survey of Tuckahoe State Phone number: 235-0771 Phone number: 269-2438
Park. Manuscript on file with the Maryland
Division of Archeology. Xeroxed.

3 6668 00002 0976