Prehistoric archeological resources in the Maryland Coastal Zone a management overview

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

-4c f
-e. A' heology Reso-mr-es
Pi histor Tc ICA
a Z ofie
--in, the - Nlar-landC astal
A Mwageme nt Overview

Steve Wi" -and -Gail Thompson

d for-and funded- by- the Marylaiid De
partment of Natunil 'Resources
E aW Coastat Zone -Adm inistrAtion under a Coas enL -
Develo6ffwnt Grant from the Natbna[Oceanic-rndZAt%-"ph@eri:Amdm istration
M 3

i 9

J"T
Io

0 lit

v it
t lit

j t
-Io
Oli t k

if
4LY.

it f.'I
1. OL
j W t t if II,.: 4'5 1 i.-
F 'ji t tj
m I
0 1:

o; I;x@, ol,
fs, 1. 0
1, T I'
C: V. F, 1. 1 JI" I

i I t5 - I

.11 1 It1 '01-1

lr I` J

Illy
P.

I CLE

Prehistoric Archeological Resources
in the Maryland Coastal Zone
A Management Overview

Mir

_71

.13 -4
0 IK

Steve Wilke and Gail Thompson

:j
Prepared for and funded by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Energy and Coastal Zone Administration under a Coastal Zone Management
-11@ Program Development Grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Seattle, Washington
August 1971

Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

List of Figures . . . . . . ... . . . . xi
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Preface . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx

Chapter
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . I

What are Prehistoric Resources? . . . . . . . . . 1

The Nature of Prehistoric Resources . . . . . . . 2

Disturbance and Destruction of
Prehistoric Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Present Study . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 8
Major Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Major Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References Cited 20

2 Environmental Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Geology and Physiography . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 17
Postglacial Sea Level Rise . . . . . . ... . . . . 20
An Example of the Environmental
'-Effects of Sea Level Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . ... . . . . . 25
Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMXRCE @qAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENT ima s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVEqW Environment Affects the Distribution
. . . 30
CHARLESTON SC 294O5-T40,freservation of Prehistoric Resources
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3 Cultural Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Paleo-Indian Tradition . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 39
Archaic and Broadspear Traditions . . . . . . . . 40

Woodland Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Native -American Inhabitants at'the
li- Time of European Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.n, rl@
J-.@) 4 Cli
do
IJD V&"Srty. Of C9;C f6lbrakay

Ora coc

Chapter page

3 (continued)
Implications for Prehistoric Resources., . . . S2
References Cited . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 54

4 Resource Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Field Work . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 68
Biases and Limitations . .. . . . . . . . . ... 71
Results and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . 76
Conclusions . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 97
Prehistoric Resources of the Study
Area Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Dorchester, Somerset, and Wicomico, .100
Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anne Arundel County . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 103
Baltimore County . . ... . . . . . . . . .
Calvert County . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 104
Caroline County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Cecil County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Charles County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Harford County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Kent County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Prince Georges County . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Queen Annes County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
St. Marys County . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Talbot County . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 110
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Stress on Prehisto ric Resources . . . . . . . . . . 113
Stress from Inundation and Shore Erosion - - .115
Stress from Population Growth . . . . . . . . 122
Stress from Agricultural Activities . . . . . 126
Stress from Historic Shell Quarrying . . . . . 129
Stress from Relic Collecting . . . . . . . . . 133
Stress from Residential Development . . . . . 136
Stress from Recreational Activities . . . . . 138,

Chapter page
S (continued) Stress from Wetlands Destruction . .. . . . . . . 142
Stress from Transportation .. . . . . . . . . . 145
Stress from Military Activities . . . . . . . . 149
Stress from Industrial Activities . . . . . . . 150

Evaluation of Current and Predictable
Stress on Prehistoric Resources for
Each Study Area County ... . . . . . . . . . . 155
Anne Arundel County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Baltimore County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
Calvert County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
Caroline County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Cecil County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Charles County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Dorchester County . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 173
Harford County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Kent County . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 180
Prince Georges County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1H
Queen Annes County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
St. Marys County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Somerset County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Talbot County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Wicomico County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

6 Management Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Proposed Management Strategy . . . . . . ... . . 203
Current State Programs: Division
of Archeology . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 206
Current State Programs: Maryland
Historical Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,,
Useful Legislation for Prehistoric .226
Rcsource Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use Planning: Department
of State Planning . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 228

Chapter page

6 (continued)
Land Use Planning: Regional
Planning Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Land Use Planning: Coastal Zone
Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Land Use Planning: Center for
Environmental and Estuarine Studies . . . . . . 232
Land Use Planning: Power Plant
Siting Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Land Use Studies and Plans . . . . . . . . . . 233
Public Land Acquisition and Regulation . . . . 242
Federal Laws and Programs . . . . . . . . .. . 247
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Situations Requiring Special
Management Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Interim'Managemept Suggestions
for Study Area Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Anne Arundel County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Baltimore County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Calvert County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Caroline County . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 264
Cecil County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Charles County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Dorchester County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Harford County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 272
Kent County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 273
Prince Georges County . . . . . . . ... . . . . 275
Queen Annes County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
St. Marys County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Somerset County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 284
Talbot County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Wicomico, County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Management Strategy: Education
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Suggestions for an Education Program . . . . . 291

Chapter. 6 (continued) page
Mangement Strategy: Sensitizing
Goverment Agencies ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Management Strategy: Developing a
Prehistoric Resource Conservation Plan . . . . . 300
Management Strategy: Formulating
the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Management Strategy: Implementing
the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Appendix

A Survey Tract Results and Location Maps . . . . . . . 333

B Principal Legislation Concerning
Prehistoric Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Antiquities Act of 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Historic Site's Act of 1935 . . . . . . . . . 373
Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 . . . . . . . . . 376
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 . . . . . . .. 378
National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38S
Executive Order 1IS93 (1971) . . . . . . . . . 39-0
Archaeological Conservation Act of 1974 393
Excerpts from Department of Trans-
portation Legislation 49 U.S.C. 1651 . . . . . 397
Excerpts from Department of Housing
and Urban Development Legislation 49
U.S.C. 461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
The Maryland Archeological Resources
Act of 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
HumboldtCounty California Resolution
No. 71-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Inyo County Code Chapter 9.S2 . . . . . . . . 412
Marin County Code Chapter 5.32 . . . . . . . . 415
Hawaii Act 216 of 1969 . . . . . . . . .. . . . 417
British Columbia Archaeological and
Historic Sites Protection Act, May 11, 1972 420

Chapter page

Appendix

C Sources of Information on Maryland's
Prehistoric Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

vii

List of Tables

I'Ale page
4-1 Environmental Sampling Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4-2 Shoreline Development According to
Environmental Sampling Unit for
Study Area Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
.4-3 Percent of Shoreline Inspected by
Environmental Sampling Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4-4 Ground Visibility Conditions of
Systematically Discovered Sites . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4-5 Summary of Survey Results for
Study Area Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4-6 Shell and Nonshell Site Densities in
Sites per Mile by River System and
position . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Shell and Nonshell Site Densities for
Shell and Nonshell Areas on the Eastern
and Western Shores . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 85,

4-8 Shell and Nonshell Site Densities
According to Landform and Waterbody 86
Size in the Shell Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-9 Nonshell Site Densities According to
Landform and Waterbody Size in the
Nonshell Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4-10 Percent of Systematically Discovered
Sites Exposed to Varying Intensities
of Shore Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . 89
4-11 Percent of Systematically Discovered
Sites Exposed to Varying Intensities 89
of Shore Erosion by Waterbody Size . . . . . . . .
4-12 Shell and Nonshell Site Densities
According to Environmental Sampling
Units in the Shell Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
.4-13 Nonshell Site Densities According to
Environmental Sampling Units in the
Nonshell Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4-14 Minimum,Number of Expected Shell and
Nonshell Sites in the Shell Area 92
According to Environmental Sampling Units . . . . .
4-1S Minimum Number of Expected Nonshell Sites
in the Nonshell Area According to Environ-
mental Sampling Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

viii

Table page

4-16 Minimum Number of Expected Shell
and Nonshell Sites for Study Area
Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5-1 Shoreline Erosion Rates for Study
Area Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119,
5-2 1973 Bulkhead Permits Granted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Through
March 1S, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122t
5-3 1970 Population and Projections to
1990 for Study Area Counties . . . . . . . ... . . . 123
5-4 Estimated Urban Development Acreage
Required inStudy Area Counties for
the Year 2000 .125

S-5 Status of Conservation Measures in
Study Area Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-
S-6 Major Coastal Zone Military Facilities . . . . . . . 151
S-7 Amount of Developed Shoreline for
Study Area Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
S-8 County Summary and Ranking of Sources
of Stress on Coastal Prehistoric
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5-9 Development Projects Proposed for the
Kent County Coastal Zone During the
Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

6-1 Projected Division of Archeology
Budgets and Personnel Requirements,
1973 - 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
6-2 Suggested Division of Archeology
Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
6-3 Suggested Maryland Coastal Regions for
Division of Archeology Field Offices . . . . . . . . 218
6-4 Trends in National Register Entries
for Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 220
6-5 Examples of Popular Brochures Dealing
with Prehistoric Resource Conservation . . . . . ... 294

A-1 Survey Results for Anne Arundel (AA-)*
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M3
A-2 Survey Results for Baltimore (BA-)
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Table page

A-3 Survey Results for Calvert (CL-) County . . . . . .. . . 338
A-4. Survey Results for Caroline (CA-) County . . . . . . . 338
A-5 Survey Results for Cecil (CE-) County . . . . . . . . . 341
A-6 Survey Results for Charles (CH-) County . . . . . . . . 344
A-7 Survey Results for Dorchester (DO-) County . . . . . . 347
A-8 Su rvey Results for Harford (HA-) County . . . . . . . . 3147,
A-9 Survey.Results for Kent (KE-) County . . . . . . . . . 350
A-110 'Survey Results for Queen Ames (QA-') County . . . . . . 3.54
A-11 Survey Results for St. Marys (SM-) County . . . . . . . 356
A-12 Survey Results for Talbot (TA-) County . . . . . . . . 358
A713 Chi-square Test for the Uniform Distribution
of Systematically Discovered Shell Sites in
the-Shell,Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
A-14 Chi-square Test for the Uniform Distribution
of Systematically Discovered Nonshell Sites
in the Shell Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
A-15 Chi-square Test for the Uniform Distribution
of Systematically Discovered Nonshell Sites
in the Nonshell Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
A-16 Chi-square Test for the Random Distribut .ion
of Shell.Sites in the Shell Area . . . . . . . . . . . 366
A-17 Chi@-square Test for the Random Distribution
of Nonshell Sites in the Shell Area . . . . . . . . . . 367
A-18 Chi-square Test for the Random Distribution
of Nonshell Sites in the Nonshell Area . . . . . . . . 368

J -

List of Figures

Figure page

1-1 Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-1 Geologic and Physiographic Map of
Maryland Coastal and Adjacent Areas . . . . . . . . .. 18
2-2 Relative Sea Level Rise Curves of
Kraft et al. (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2-3a Chesapeake Bay Region Today .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2-3b Schematic Representation of Chesapeake
Bay Region ca. 7000 B.P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2-4 Example of Postglacial Shoreline
Evolution in Kent County, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 24
2-1 Shell Exposed Along Bank of Coastal
Lagoon Depicted in Fig. 2-4 . . . . . . ... . . . . . 27
2-6 Aerial View of Coastal Lagoon
Depicted in Fig. 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3-1 Time-Space Chart of Maryland Area
Prehistoric Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3-2 John Smith's Map of the Chesapeake
Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3-3 Reconstructed Distribution of Major
Native-Groups Ca. 1600 A.D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4-1 Areas Where Some Detailed Information
Is Available on 'Prehistoric Resources . . . . . . 57
4-2 Number of Reported Sites in a Portion
of Kent County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4-3a Viewing Conditions in Agricultural
Field . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 70
4-3b Viewing,Conditions on Forest Floor . . . . . . . . . . @O
4-3c Viewing Conditions in Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4-3d Viewing Conditions in Residential Area . . . . . . . . 70
4-4 Shell Site Densities of Chesapeake
Bay Survey Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4-S Nonshell Site Densities of Chesapeake
Bay Survey Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4-6 Shell Site Densities of Southern
Maryland Survey Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4-7 Nonshell Site Densities of
Southern Maryland Survey Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure page

4-8 Present Distribution Limits of Natural.
Oyster Beds, Reported Prehistoric Oyster
Middens and Expected Maximun Extent of
Shell Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4-9 Mean Densities and 95% Confidence Intervals
of Shell and Nonshell Sites by Area and
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 96
4-10 Wetlands and Offshore Waters Where Pre-
historic Resources Could be Expected . . . . .. . . . 102

S-1a An Example of Eroding Prehistoric
Resources in Kent County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5-1b An Example of Eroding Prehistoric
Resources in Kent County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5-2 Areas of High Shore Erosion Rates . . . . . . . . . 1,18
5-3a Shoreline Preparation Prior to Place-
ment of Stone Revetment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120
5-3b Shoreline After Placement of Stone
Revetment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5-4 Locations of 1973 Applications to
Alter the Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
5-5 Maryland Land Use 1958, 1967 and
Projections to 1986 . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . ... 124
S-6 County Shoreline Land Use in Percent
of Total Measured Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5-7a Nineteenth Century Limekiln Located
in Coastal Zone . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5-7b Quarry Scars in Prehistoric Shell Midden . . . . . . 132
5-8a Disturbance Caused by Unsupervised
Excavations in Coastal Archaic Site . . . . . . . . 135
5-8b Private Relic Collection from
Coastal Archaic Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5-9 Locations of Major Second Home
Developments within Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5-10a 1952 View of Coastal Area prior
to Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5-10b 1971 View of Same Area Showing Extensive
Shoreline Residential Development . . . . . . . . . 139
5-11a Shell Midden Disturbed by Grading
at House Construction Site, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

xii

Riguro page

S-11b Emergency Ex cavations of Coastal
Site Disturbed by Residential
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5-12 Locations of Principal Public
Recreation Facilities within
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
S-13 Location of Marinas in Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 143,
5-14a 19S2 View of Eastern Shore Coastal Area
prior' to Marina Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
S-14b 1972 View of Same Area after Development . . . . . . 144
S-14c 1938 View of Western Shore Coastal Area
prior to Marina Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5-14d 1970 View of Same Area after Development . . . . . . 144
5-is Location of Existing and Potential Major
Bridge Sites and Estimated Areas of
Secondary Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5-16, Development Associated with Transporta-
tion Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
S-17 Locations of Major Coastal Military
Installations within Study Area . . . . . . . . . . IS2
S-18a, 1938 View of Coastal Area prior to
Construction of a Military Facility .. . . . . . . . 153
5-18b 1972'View of Same Area Showing Shoreline
Alteration Associated,with Facility
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
5-19 Effects of Munitions Testing on Shore-
line of a Military Facility . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-20 Locations of Principal Industrial Sites
within Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5-21a 1952 View of Coastal Area Prior to
Industrial Development . . . . . ). . . . . . . . . . 157
S-21b 1970 View of Same Area after Development . . . . . . 157
S-22a 1952 View of Coastal Area prior to
Intensive Development for Industrial
and Recreational Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
S-22b 1972 View of,Same Area after Development . . . . . . ls8
S-23 Areas of Particularly High Modern
Cultural Stress on Coastal Prehistoric
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Xiii

Figure page
5-24 Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Baltimore
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 166
5-25 Present andAnticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Calvert County . . . . . . . 168
S-26 Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Cecil County . . . . . . . . 172
S-27. Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric-Resources in Charles County . . . . . . . 174
S-28 Present and Anticipated Stresses on,
Prehistoric Resources in Dorchester
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
5-29 Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Harford County . . . . . . .. 179
S-30 Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Kent County . . . . . . . . 182
S-31 Locations of Development Projects Proposed
for the Kent County Coastal Zone during
the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
S-32 Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Queen Annes
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
5-33 Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in St. Marys County . . . . . . 191
5-34 Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Somerset County . . . . . . 193
5-3S Present and Anticipated Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Talbot County . . . . . . . 195
5-36 Present and Anticipated,Stresses on
Prehistoric Resources in Wicomico County . . . . . . 197

6-1 Schematic Diagram of Proposed Management
Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
State and Federal Agencies and Programs
Potentially Useful to Prehistoric
Resource Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
6-3 Simplified Organizational Chart of the
Division of Archeology and the Maryland
Historical Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
6-4. Areas Likely to Contain Older Coast-
Oriented Prehistoric Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6

x1v

C'UTS;7-11 r
WIFE TER
Figure page

6-5 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Anne Arundel
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
6-6 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Baltimore County . . . . . 261
6-7 Suggested Priority Areasfor Prehistoric
Resources Conservation in Calvert County . . . . . . 263
6-8 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Cecil County . . . . . . . 266
6-9 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Charles County . . . . . . 268
6-10 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Dorchester County . . . . . 270
6-11 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Harford County . . . . . . 274
6-12 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Kent County .276
6-13 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation inPrince Georges
County . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 279
6-14 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Queen Armes
County . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 281
6-15 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in St. @brys County . . . . . 283
6-16 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Cons6rvation in Somerset Cbunty . . . . . . 286
6-17 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Talbot County . . . . . . . 287
6-18 Suggested Priority Areas for Prehistoric
Resource Conservation in Wicomico County. 289
6-19 Suggested Prehistoric Resource Education
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
6-20 Schematic Diagram of Prehistoric Resource,
Conservation Plan Development and
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
6-21 Suggested. Regional Baseline Study Areas . . . . . . 309
6-22 Prehistoric Artifact Density Map . . . . . . . . . . 314
6-23 Elements of a Suggested Prehistoric
Resource Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Figure page

ons . . . . . .. 334
A-1 Anne Arundel County Survey Tract Locati
A-2 Baltimore County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . 337
A-3 Calvert County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . . 339
A-4 Caroline County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . . 340
A-S Cecil County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . . . 342
A-6 Charles County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . 1. 345
A-7 Dorchester County Survey Tract Locations .. . . . . . . 348
A-8 Harford County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . . 349
A-9 Kent County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . . . . 351
A-10 Queen Ames County Survey Tract Locations ... . . . . 355
A-11 St. @Iarys County Survey Tract Locations . . . . . . . 357
A-12 Talbot County Survey Tract'Locations . . . . . . . . . 359

xvi

Acknowledg*ments

Since its beginning in 1974, this study has benefited from substan-
tial contributions by many individuals whom the authors wish to thank.
Several staff members of the Coastal Zone Unit of the Energy and Coastal
Zone Administration deserve special mention. Mr. C. TenBroeck and Mr.-E.
Bradley, Jr. initially encouraged the project and guided it through nu-
merous administrative problems. Mr. T. Chaney served as contract officer
during the latter half of the project, continuing to support and encour-
age the work. Mr. J. Robinson provided many materials needed for the study.

In the Division of Archeology, Mr. T. Bastian, Maryland State Archeo-
logist, and Ms . N. Wagner gave assistance and allowed access to the files
and site records of the Division. They answered countle@s questions and
provided support throughout the study. Mr. Bastian reviewed an earlier
draft of the report.

In the Maryland Historical Trust, staff archeologist Dr. L. Gilsen,
fo
rmer staff archeologist Dr. R. Riodan, and former director Mr. A. Town-
sendalso 'aided the study. Dr. Gilsen reviewed an earlier draft of the
report.

Individuals in other state offices gave assistance and information,
including J. Antenucci of the Department of State Planning. Planning de-
partments of study area counties provided copies of their comprehensive
plans. N. Beegle of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers provided informa-.
tion needed for the study. Aerial photographs were provided by P. Alfonsi
of the NASA Chesapeake Bay Ecological Program at Wallops Island, Virginia
@nd by J. Hlavka of the Naval Intelligence Support Center in Washington,
D. C.

Numerous archeologists aided the study. Dr. R. Dunnell, University
of Washington, gave advice on methodological aspects of the study., Dr. R.
Stuckenrath, Smithsonian Institution Radiation Biology Laboratory, provi-
many radiocarbon dates for Kent.County prehistoric sites. Others

XV11

shared their knowledge of the area's prehistory, including W. Clark of
the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, D. Griffiths.of the Delaware
Section of.Archeology, S. Israel of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
C. McNett, Jr. of American University, I. Smith of the Pennsylvania His-
torical and Museum Commission, and R. Thomas formerly of the Delaware Sec-
tion of Archeology-

Several scientists shared their knowledge about aspects of the study
area@envirlonment, including Dr. J. Kraft of the University of Delaware,_
Dr. J. Foss'of the University of Maryland, W. Sipple of the Maryland De-
partm ent of Natural Resources, and D. Wilson of the U. S. Soil Conserva-
tion Service.

Amateur archeologists also shared their information on the area's.
archeology,including P. Cresthull, W. Marye, T. Mayr, J. Mlessitk, the'l.
Mullikin, Jr. family, and J. Spiker.

Special thanks are due the many landowners and tenants throughout
the study area who generously granted permission to inspect their lands
and gave information on prehistoric remains. Without their cooperation
the field survey would not have been possible. Access to Aberdeen Pro-
ving Ground was arranged through the efforts of B. Glovier and W. Russell.

Field crew members included R. Asreen, D. Bernstein, G. Colflesh,
W.-Ebert, M. Hanley, J. Hanley, L. Steponaitis, R. Stewart, L. Tirpak, R.
Tirpak, and L. Zweber. Laboratory assistants included C. Arndt, N. Edens,
R. Skaggs, P. Warren, and L. Zweber. A. York advised on statistics.

Many individuals aided the production of the final report. C. Arndt,
S.-Barber, M. Cathcart, T. Small, and L. Schwarz drafted the figures; C'.
Haltom typed an earlier draft of the report; N. Tuksaudom typed the final
report; B. Dahn designed the covers; M. Dunnell and P. Rao edited an ear-
lier draft of the report; L. Zweizig edited the final report.

Photographs used in the report were obtained from the following agen-
cies: the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service provided
those used in Figs. 5-10, 5-14, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, and 5-22. The Division
of Archeology provided those used in Figs. 5-8a and S-11. The photograph
used in Fig. 3-2 was obtained from the Geography and Map Division of the

xvill

Library of Congress. The authors' own photographs were used in Figs. 2-5,
2-6, 4-3@ S-1, 5-3, 5-7, and 5-8b. Cover and chapter graphics are bated
on Theodore deBry engravings made from watercolor paintings by John White.
Photographs of the engravings were,obtained from the Library of Congress.

We give our sincere appreciation to everyone who contributed to the
study and the report. We aloneare responsible for any errors or short-
comings.

xix

PREFACE

This report represents an initial and significant step toward the

understanding and management of the archeological resources of the

Coastal Zone of 14aryland. The dynamic environmental and cultural changes

which transpired during the 12,000 year span of human occupation have

produced a varied and complex archeological record. Prolonged environ-

mental and cultural stresses constantly erode this non-renewable data

base. Interim and long-term management goals are presented in this report

to assist concerned individuals and agencies in interpreting and pre-

serving this archeological record, yet effective formulation and imple-

mentation of the ma.ny recommendations requires the cooperation of

individuals concerned with different aspects of natural and cultural

preservation.

The Niaryland.Historical Trust and the Division of Archeology

of the Maryland'Geological Survey (DOA) are the agencies primarily

responsible for the development and implementation of the management

objectives recommended in this -report. During the two-year period

between the writing and the publication of this manuscript, the NHT and

the DOA implemented severalof the management goals presented in Chapter

6., These include five baseline studies, Tesearchon the development of

a.state management plan, assessment of the,effect of shoreline erosion

on sites, examination of local collections, and establishment of a

cultural resource management position at.DOA.

The interpretation and,management of archeological resources requires

three major steps: assessment of the data base., formulation of a

management and research plan) and implementation of such a plan. The

current data base of 3,SOO sites varies in both the type of sites and

data represented. Baseline studies are essential forthe interpretation

of a 'representative sample of the total range of sites within different

regions of the state.

The Maryland Historical Trust supports baseline surveys with funding

received from the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service grant-in'

aid program. The Nff and DOA funded the Kent County baseline survey-

(Wilke and Thornp!@on 1977). This survey revealed many,relationships

between prehistoric sites and environmental factors in the Coastal Plain.

The MiT and DOA also funded a.baseline survey of the rapidly,developing

shoreline of the South River. This survey revealed numerous prehistoric

s
ites which escaped the affects of urban development. Othe joint pro-
i r

jectsinclude a systematic survey of serpentine deposits in the Piedmont

province and a three-year survey.of the archeological resources of the

monocacy Rivet valley'. A similar baseline study in the Hagerstown valley
isfunded b-f a matching grant between the Mff and the Thunderbird Research
Corporation. These land-based surveys@ are providing controlled data on

the archeological resources, in different envirorffftents in 'Maryland. The

surveys are of immediate value in clarifying and predicting the diversity,,

nature and distribution of archeological resources,

Mtching grant-in-aids are also provided by the NiT to study under.-
-water archeology sites. The first underwater project studies the

historic resources at Londontown in Anne Arundel County,. The @W,

Marine Museum, and Nautical Archaelogical Assoc'
Calvert lates:, Inc.,
are.funding a systematic survey,of selected*portions of the Patuxent@

xxi

River. Submerged terrestrial sites, shipwrecks, and associated land

sites are being examined to develop a predictive model of value in

interpreting the submerged archeological sites in the Patuxent and

throughout the state.

The HiT will continue to fund baseline surveys through the matching

grant program. Such studies will provide the controlled data base

essential for the formulation and implementation of research and

management plans.

The MiT and DOA are also funding a cultural resource management

position at the DOA. This position increases the DQA's ability to review

construction projects received through the Department of Natural Resources,

review process,,'to determine the affects of erosion on sites, to study

locallcollections, and to coordinate between the different agencies in

the state.. The %ryland Department of Transportation (DOT) has two

archeologists working out of the'DOA doing highway surveys and management

of DOT projects. The DOT annual appropriation forarcheological research

equals that of the DQA and-MM The DOT is also funding a Mff architect-

ural and archeological assessment of sites on the DOT properties in the

state. This survey,is in compliance with.the 1978 Board of Public Works

regulations requiring an assessment of the architectural and archeological

sites on all state property. By utilizing the matching funds provided by,.,

the, ME and by entering into contractual agreements with other agencies
the DOA annual budget now exceeds $100,000.

Implementation of the management goals advanced in this report will

require increased archeological expertise throughout the state. One

xxii

method of accomplishing this objective is through the establishment of

regional centers. The MHT is contemplating the establishment of six

regional centers located at educational institutions or goverment

agencies which can provide the 50 percent match to qualify for the

grant. Ultimately, 'each regional center will consist of at least one

archeologist, architectural historian, and historian. Once operational,

the regional centers will be able to implement many of the management,

goals set forth in this report.

While much has been accomplished in the past two years, a majority

of the goals and objectives advanced in this report remain unfulfilled.

The archeologists of the Council for Maryland Archeology are currently
discussing the development of a state plan for Maryland. However',

implementation of such a plan will require years of increased camuni-

cation with the public and private section and, ultimately, increased

state appropriations. The Aff review of federal and state projects
through the A-95 Clearinghouse has given increased emphasis to archeolo-

gical resources but.some agencies are slow or reluctant to comply with

existing laws. Major accomplishments can be made simply by working with

existing county, state and federal programs as discussed in the.report.

The success of the interim and long-term recommendations of, this report

will,depend upon the ability of archeologists-to assist private citizens
and government employees in complying with the existing laws and in

A incorporating known resources into the planning and education process.

Each recipient of this report is urged to studythe sections of the report'

relevant to his area,, interest, or agency. This report provides.the.,

basic framework fram which all concerned individuals can build toward,

xxiii

the comon goal of interpreting and preserving our inherited past.

Wayne Clark
Staff Archeologist
Nhryland Historical Trust
June, 1979

xxiv

Chapter

Y-777'r

Introduction

Chapter 1

Introduction

Eastern North America has abundant prehistoric remains, particularly

along the coastline. A variety of rich resources attracted early peoples

just as the coast -now attracts modern -populations. Sadly, modern land

development practices in thecoastal zone are rapidly disturbing and de-

stroying prehistoric remains which are both irreplaceable and nonrenewable,

resulting in an incalculable loss of our cultural and aesthetic heritage

as well as a loss of scientific information (Dunnell ms.).

What are Prehistoric Resources?

Prehistoric resources are archeological -remains which are composed

of objects or modifications to the soil that owe some aspect of their form

and/or location to human activities before recorded history. These re-

mains, usually called artifacts, rest as individual objects on or in

the soil, in groups, or in modified areas such as shell deposits.

Prehistoric remains result from early Native American life in

Maryland. Historic remains result from the time of European exploration

and settlement, left either by the Europeans or by the native.groups
they contacted. Thus,,the remains of the last Native American cultures
those that disintegra ted as a result of European contact -- are termed

historic here because some information on them is recorded as part of

Maryland's earliest written history.

The Nature of Prehistoric Resources

Prehistoric resources have several characteristics, including that
they are finite, fragile, unique, and systemic (Dincauze and Meyer 1975:
18-19). it is difficult to determine the number of prehistoric resources
that once existed. This number would depend upon the scale at which the
remains were conceived. Prehistoric artifacts are distributed across the
landscape in varying densities, reflecting patterns of past land use. If
we think of them as individual objects,, they must number in the millions.
However, if we think of them as groups of objects, they are much less
numerous. Of course, there.are certain kinds of resources, for example
large, thick shell deposits in the Chesapeake Bay area, which may never
have been very numerous and, now are practically destroyed. Regardless of
the scale at which we conceive prehistoric resources, they are finite.
With continuing disturbance or destruction, the number decreases; none
can be renewed because the cultures that created them have long since,
d isap peared.

In addition to being finite, prehistoric resources are unique and
systemic. Their uniqueness comes from 'the fact.that they were deposited
by particular past events that took place at specific times and places.
But the events that created individual prehistoric resources were related
to events taking place at other locations both before and after. Thus,
prehistoric resources result from the subsistence and settlement patterns
thai.past cultures-developed in adapting to their natural environments.

The significance of prehistoric resources,lies n.otmerely in the
objects themselves, but in their spatial relptionships to
each other and to the natural environment. For this reason, they must
be considered extremely fragile. Because prehistoric artifacts rest on
and in the soil, disturbing the soil destroys the evidence for prehis-
tory -- either by destroying the remains themselves or by altering their
locational relationships with each other and the natural environment.

Thus, most of the meaning and usefulness of prehistoric resources
depends on preserving the integrity of their locations. To be of endur-
ing value, they must be left intact and undisturbed before they are studied.
To be of the greatest value to scientific research, prehistoric resources
must be carefully collected and recorded. Only in context can they con-
tribute significantly to our understanding of the past.

Why are Prehistoric Resources Important?

Prehistoric resources can provide-important information about past
human activities; they can tell us what life was once like on the North
American continent. For the thousands of years before European contact
brought recorded history, prehistoric resources are the only record.
Thus, these remains are of incalculable value in understanding cultural
evolution that resulted in permanently settled agricultural towns in
many places.

Archeological remains contain information on both the documented
and undocumented past. For example, archeological excavations have pro-
videdinformation on early American colonial life at Jamestown and Williams-
burg. But documented history covers no more than a few hundred of the
10,000 years that people have lived in the Maryland coastal zone. By
studying archeological remains, we can learn how people adapted to the
environment, to its changes, and to each other as well as learning how.
the activities of prehistoric people may have affected their environment.
Through studies of prehistoric remains we can also gain a time perspecl-
tive on the cultural processes operating on all human populations. Most
important, we can learn more about our place in cultural evolution and
in the natural world. Thus, we can better understand the present and
we may be able to predict some aspects of the future through our studies
of the past. In thewords of Adan Treganza, "the archeologist transforms
remnants into contepmorary meaning, bringing the past into focus with
the present, giving perspective to man, time, and the natural worldly
(Moratto 1970: 1).

Prehistoric resources vrovide the only avenue for studying the

lifewdys that existed before recorded history. Information about the

past is important to the heritage of our society and to our identifica-

tion.

Archeologicalstudies can help biologists and geologists in

understanding the environment. For example, we have learned that.

interference with natural forest succession did not begin with European

settlement. Rather, this interference was present during Native

American occupation (Day 19S3; Elder 196S; Heizer 1955; Lewis and

Schweger 1973; Maxwell 1910). Studies like these can show the inter-

action between prehistoric cultures and their environments. Data from

archeological studies provides information relevant to the study of

such diverse problems.as the health of prehistoric populations and

changes in landforms in the past. This environmental information can

help us predict the future as well as aiding in the manipulation of the

pr eseftt environment. As one ecologist has concluded:
... an area which wa's wooded when first seen by white men was'
not necessarily primeval; ... an area for which there is no
record of cutting is not necessarily virgin; ... a 'knowledge
of local archeology and history should be part of the ecologist's
equipment (Day 1953:343).

That prehistoric remains are an important public resource is re-

flected in the visitation figures for archeological parks. We go in

great numbers to Mesa Verde, Colorado, and Cahokiaj Illinois, to monu-

ments.such as Flint Ridge and the Newark Mounds in Ohio, and to count-

less museums throughout the United States. In addition, audio-visual

programs about North America's prehistory consistently attract large

audiences as do coll6ge.courses in anthropology and prehistory.

The prehistoric resources of Maryland's coastal zone, particularly

Chesapeake Bay, provide an important natural laboratory for studying
the interactions between changes in environment and prehistoric cultures
through time. Here, people witnessed and had to contend with a series
of environmental changes. Fifteen thousand years ago, the Chesapeake Bay
area was the valley of the ancestral Susquehanna River. As the continen-
tal glaciers melted, the sea rose, moving the Atlanticcoastal zone west-
ward, consequently flooding the Susquehanna River to create the Chesa-
peake Bay estuary.

Continuing sea level rise and shoreline evolution have greatly al-
tered coastal environments and natural resources. When the Europeans
arrived, they found native people with agricultural economies occupying
much of the area. These early,explorers and settlers recorded some in-
formation about the native cultures they encountered but their informa-'
tion is incomplete. How did prehistoric adaptions change through time
and what relationship did these changes have with ongoing environmental
changes? Only Maryland's prehistoric resources can answer these questions.

The Chesapeake Bay area was the scene of interaction between late
Native American cultures and European culture. These late Native Ameri-
can people represented an environmental adaptation resulting from thou-
sands of years of cultural change. Interaction between the two cultures
produced trade, cooperation, and war. Among other things, the settlers
learned to use corn, tobacco, and seafood, all extremely important to
Maryland's economy. Cultural interaction also involved famous figures
in Maryland's early history, such as Captain John Smith.

Modern Maryland residents are directly related to the area's pre-
historic cultures,'simply by living in the same area. If the 'r emains
of prehistoric cultures are not preserved, these residents will lose a
valuable cultural and@aesthetic heritage. Most importantly, we will all
lose a great deal of information about the cultural processes that oper-
ate in human societies.

Maryland's rich archeological remains have never been adequately
studied. Nor have these resources been systematically tapped for infor-
mation on prehistoric and early historic economic systems and cultural

6
relationships. The ever-quickening rate of moclern shore-
line development is removing forever potentially significant resources
about which almost nothing is known. If the area's prehistoric resources
were studied, Maryland could play a prominent role in the understanding
of the prehistory of the eastern United States as well as providing data
on prehistoric human behavior unique to its own setting,.

Disturbance and Destruction of Prehistoric Resources

As soon as they were deposited, prehistoric resources began to be
disturbed by natural and cultural processes. Wind and water erosion and
sedimentation scattered and buried these remains. Activities by later
cultures also altered the soil and the prehistoric remains found in it..
Although this disturbance has proceeded constantly throughout most of..
the past,.ithas accelerated during the past SO years. Increases in popu-
lation and improvements in earthmoving technology can now quickly al ter
large areas of the landscape.

Coastal areas are noted for their rich natural resources brought
together by the intersection of land and sea. These natural resources
attracted prehistoric cultures in large numbers, resulting in the deposi-
tion of many prehistoric remains, especially when compared with the sparse
prehistoric occupation and remains that often characterize inland areas.
Because of its rich and diverse resources, the coast has had a unique
influence on human populations and has been the scene of important cul-
tura 1 developments (Dunnell ms.).

In addition to its attraction to prehistoric cultures, the coastal
zone also is the focus of many modern activities. Almost half of the
country's labor force,is employed in the coastal zone at present and
as much as 80% of the country's population may live in this zone by the year
2000. Thus, there is a great overlap between the distributions of pre-
historic resources and modern activities in the coastal zone.

When Captain John Smith left the Jamestown colony in 1612 to explore
Chesapeake Bay and its't-ributaries, he met groups of native peoples all

along his route. Most of these groups had a long cultural history and
may have been descended from people who occupied what'lis now the Chesa-
pedke Bay area as long ago as 10,000 years or more. Since the early 16001s,
as Euroamerican occupation and development of the Maryland coastal area
has proceeded, the remains of Maryland's coastal prehistoric cultures have
increasingly been disturbed by our modern land use. As development in
the Maryland coastal zone continues, concern for its effects on natural re-
sources has been expressed. But the effects of development are frequently.-
more harmful to prehistoric resources than they are to natural resources
because cultural resources are unique, extremely fragile, and nonrenewable.

Because we cannot estimate the total number of prehistoric resources
that were deposited and because we also do not know how m any have already been dis -
turbed or destroyed, we cannot conclude how many of these resources ma y
yet remain for possible preservation. According to one estimate, the
state of Arkansas lost 2S% of its prehistoric resources in the period be-
tween 1962 and 1972 (McGimsey 1972:3). Likewise, as few as 10% of the pre-.
historic resources located around the shore of San Francisco Bay may re-
main today (Moratto 1970:2).

Thus, as time passes, the resources as a,whole diminish in quantity
and increase in importance. The value of any given prehistoric site in-
creases as the reservoir of similar sites available for preservation de-
creases. Prehistoric resources are being lost at an alarming rate in
Maryland. Why? For several reasons: they are not readily apparent to
an untrained observer; their importance is unknown and unappreciated; and
their investigation may cause delays in construction and cost increases.

Access to information about the past can be,viewed as a basic human
right. This right should not be abridged unless it is through an over.-
riding concern for the public well-being. Once destroyed, prehistoric
remains cannot be regenerated; the cultures.that these remains represent
are forever lost. Finally, these remains are tangible evidence of the
long ancestral history of today's Native American population. Care and
respect equal to that given early colonial grave sites should be
given the remains of Native Americans who interacted directly with early
colonists.

The Present Study

Increasingly, legislation has recognized the need to conserve pre-
historic resources at all levels of goverment. This concern is reflected
in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) that authorizes
grants to coastal states to aid in developing management programs for
land and water resources of the coastal zone. The act specifically re-
quires that full. consideration be given to "ecological, cultural, historic
and esthetic values as well as to needs for economic development."

To include prehistoric resources in coastal zone management planning,,
information on their nature, distribution, and condition, as well as infor-
mation on the nature, location, and intensity of current and predictable
stress upon them, is .essential. However) comparatively little systematic
study has been undertaken in the coastal zone of Maryland. The result is
an almost complete lack of information.

The present study was designed to provide an overview of the
current status of prehistoric"resources in the Maryland zone. It's objec-
tives were to undertake a program of archival research, fieldwork, and
data analysis to:
assemble information on the nature and magnitude of prehistoric
resources,
test the feasibility of formulating a predictive model for the
environmental distribution of coastal prehistoric resources based
on limited fieldwork,
assemble information on past, present, and predicted sources of
disturbance or destruction to prehistoric resourcesl
assemble information on present programs for conserving prehis-
toric resources, evaluate their ef f ectiveness, and to suggest a manage-
ment strategy for conserving Maryland Is coastal prehistoric resources.
The present study was restricted to the Maryland Chesapeake Bay area with
supplementary fi eld work limited to the areas indicated in Fig. 1-1.

The remainder of this report is presented in five chapters and three
appendices. Chapter Two summarizes information on the environment of the
Maryland coastal zone, emphasizing its changes during the time that pre-
historic occupation is likely to have taken place and the implications
these changes have had for prehistoric activities and the subsequent pre-

Cecil

Harford

5 10 15
Seat* In miles Baltimore

A Kent

A
n
n
e
Queen
A
r Annes
u Caroline
n
D-C d
e

-Al
I'n
Talbot

S
LLI

U1
jE,

v
V8 -
Charles r

Dorchester
gz
qj

------------
lcomico
St.

Ad
Marys

Supplementary f ieldwork in

r
No fieldwork 'Ch

Fig -1 Study Area Map

servation of prehistoric remains.
Chapter Three sunnarizes.what is known of prehistoric occupation of
the ai-ca and considers what ages an(J.-ict-iv i.rics mi.glit be expected. His-
toric accounts of native grou. ps at the time of European exploration are
also.discussed.

Chapter Four presents the methods and results of fieldwork conducted
to supplement existing information on the prehistoric resources of the
Maryland coastal zone. It estimates the number of prehistoric resources
that might be expected in each of the study area counties in addition to
considering the feasibility of formulating a predictive model of the en-
vironmental distribution of prehistoric resources in the area.

Chapter Five summarizes the past, present, and predictable natural
processes and land uses that disturb or destroy prehistoric resources.

Chapter Six reviews current conservation programs andsuggests a
strategy for the improved management of coastal zone prehistoric resources.

Appendix A provides summary data on tracts examined by the survey
and statistical analyses, Appendix B provides the texts of legislation
dealing with prehistoric resources, and Appendix C lists sources of in-
formation on Maryland's coastal zone prehistoric resources.

Major Study Findings

Assembling information on the natural environment, prehistory, and
ethnohistory of the Maryland coastal zone reveals three facts about the
prehistoric resources that could be expected: they should be abundant,
following from the rich natural environment and long period of occupa-
tion; they should be diverse in nature and distribution, following from
seasonal variation in natural resources and environmental changes re-:
sulting from sea level rise as well as changes in prehistoric activities
and populations; and the prehistoric record will be difficult to inter-.
pret and will require an understanding of local geomoTphic history, fol-
lowing from the loss of many remains through erosion and inundation.

Although little is known about Maryland's prehistoric resources
a.nd few projects are now being undertaken to remedy this.1ack of under-
standing, the information available suggests that the prehistoric re-
cord does reflect the above expectations. A survey undertaken as part
of this study inspected approximately 440 miles of shoreline, locating
777 previously unreported prehistoric sites which enable the prediction
of a minimum of 6,500 sites for portions of the study area shoreline.

A predictive model of coastal prehistoric site distribution could2'
'not be formulated from the presence-absence site data collected by t he
field survey. Statistical analyses of these data did suggest that
sites are not uniformly distributed according to the environmental sam-
pling units chosen for the study; sites may be randomly distributed.
More meaningful patterns of.distribution, allowing the formulation of
a predictive model, might result if information on the age and activi-
ties represented in the remains were obtained.

Prehistoric resources are predicted to occur throughout the study
area.. Almost half of the total number are in Anne Arundel, St. Marys,
and Talbot counties. The distribution of these resources does not rule
out continuing development nor does it encourage development without a
better understanding of the area's prehistory on which to.base resource
management decisions.

The density of shell sites was found to increase downstream along
the Bay and its tributaries in relation to the upstream. and upper bay limit of
shell occurrence. Nonshell sites show an inverse distribution although
this may result from their being masked by shell sites. Former shore-
lines were found to contain as many prehistoric resources as present
.shorelines and prehistoric resources appear to be equally numerous-on,
both the Eastern and Western shores.

'Although individual cases of disturbance to prehistoric resources
frequently are small in scale, cumulatively these disturbances have
great effects. While few prehistoric resources may be completely de-
stroyed,each yearalmost none escapes some form of disturbance. De-
pending on overlap between the distribution of particular kinds of pre-
historic resources and modern development, some kinds of resources may

already be destroyed while others may be largely intact.

Erosion, inundation, agricultural, and a variety of de-
velopment activities disturb prehistoric resources. While nineteenth
century shell quarrying and modern relic collecting have specifically
exploited prehistoric resources, most disturbance has not been intention-
al,, resulting instead from an ignorance of the nature, location, and im-
portance of these resources. Further, the lack of a conservation pro-
gram for these resources has hindered the use of alternatives to mitigate
disturbance.

Most land in the study area is.owned privately. The disturbance
to prehistoric resources from agricultural and construction activities
goes on continuously and randomly, usually not subjectto any central
planning process.

For convenience, the counties bordering Chesapeake Bay can be di-
vided into four categories based on the major sources of disturbance
to prehistoric resources. Urban and industrial development is severely
disturbing resources of the upper Western Shore; in addition to agricul-
tural activities, suburban development is increasingly disturbing r e-
sources of the lower Western Shore; localized development and agricultural
activities disturb resources of the upper Eastern Shore; and erosion and
inundation are the primary sources of disturbance to resources of the
lower Eastern Shore.

The significance of the prehistoric resources that are currently
being disturbed and destroyed cannot be determined with the informa-
tion that is now available on Maryland's coastal prehistory. This situ-
ation severely limits the alternatives for mitigation. Because so lit-
tle is known, archeologists are forced to recommend that most threaten-
ed resources be scientifically excavated. If a framework were avail-
ableto interpret the region's prehistory, other ihitigatio-n alternatives,
less expensive and less comsuming of the resources, could be implemented.

While efforts are being made to.conserve prehistoric resources in
the study area, to date they have been ineffective, partly resulting..

from the lack of a centrally administered management strategy. In
addition, no education program exists to ai'd resource conservation.

Two state agencies deal with prehistoric resources, the Division
of Archeology and the Maryland Historical Trust. The Division of Arche-,
ology is designated by legislation to conserve prehistoric resources
but does not receive adequate staff or funding to carry out its duties.
Previously concerned almost exclusively with historic resources,
the Maryland Historical Trust has added a -staff archeologist.
This agency receives Federal funds for surveys to locate significant
prehistoric sites and for developing a state historic preservation plan.
The division of duties, expertise, and funding between these two agen-
cies may cause difficulties in coordinating conservation.efforts.

Four sources of information frequently are used by developers and
planners to judge the potential for disturbance to recognized prehis-
toric resources: the National Register of Historic Places, the Mary-
land Landmarks List, the Maryland Inventory of Historic Sites, and the
Division of Archeology files. None of these records was compiled for
resource management as none represents a cross-section of prehistoric
sites by age, function, and environmental setting. They do not indicate
.the relative abundance of kinds of prehistoric resources or locations
where they are not found.

Several mechanisms areavailable that could be used for prehis-
toric resource conservation from the state and Federal levels., in-
cluding sources of funds, programs for acquiring sites or areas, and
laws,requiring resource assessment or inventories, among others. Ef-
fective conservation of prehistoric resources, howeverwill require
aggressive use of these mechanisms guided by a conservation plan.

14
Major Recommendations

B.ecause development is increasing and the reservoir of prehis-
toric resources is decreasing, conservation is essential. For effec-
tive prehistoric resource conservation, it is recommended that a cen-
trally administered strategy be used to guide the development and
implementation of a conservation plan, the interim use of existing
state and Federal mechanisms, and the development of an education

program.

A conservation plan would provide mechanisms for regulating the
disturbance and destruction of prehistoric resources as well as as-
suring the preservation of a representative sample. Formulation of
this plan by archeologists and planners will require baseline studies
of prehistoric resources so that an interpretive framework can supply
the understanding of the area's prehistory now lacking. Through the
plan optimal mitigation procedures can be selected depending upon the
significance of the resources involved and the nature of specific
developments. The plan also could be used to guide changes in legis-
lation, rules, and regulations to assure that prehistoric resources
are adeq uately considered in environmental impact statements permits
to alter land use, and governmant acquisition of lands.

Because development and implementation of a conservation plan
will require several years, interim measures will be necessary to
slow the accelerating disturbance of prehistoric resources. Such
measures include maximizing the use of current Federal, State, and
local programs.

A strong program for educating government agencies and the pub@
lic.is needed for successful prehistoric resource conservation. Thus,
an education program must be started immediately and ultimately be
responsive to the conservation plan.

Develonment and implementation of the conservation strategy
should begin immediately. The legislative mandate of the Division of
Archeology makes it the logical agency to direct these efforts but its

funding and staff will have to be increa sed. As the locations of
approximately 30% of the prehistoric resources predicted to occur
along the study area shoreline already are known, interpretive
studies are needed to providethe framework upon which assessments of
significance and optimal mitigation choices can be made. Thus, it
is recommended that regional baseline studies begin with a pilot
study that uses distributional information developed by the present
:Study and emphasizes qualitative apsects of the prehistoric resources.
In addition, as the lead agency, the Division of Archeology should
initiate planning and data gathering meetings with members of the
archeological, planning, and,regulatory communities as soon as pos-
sible. Finally, the Division of Archeology should oversee the imedi-
ate implementation of interim measures and the creation of an education

program.

References Cited

Day, G. M.
1953 The Indian as an ecological factor in the@northeastern
forest. Ecology 34:335-346.

Dincauze, D. F. and J. Meyer
1975 Prehistoric resources in east-central New England:
a preliminary predictive study. Cultural Resource
N7-
Manag@ment Studies, National Park Service, partment.
of the Interior. Washington, D. C.

Dunnell, R. C.
MS. Comments on final proposed guidelines, Shoreline Man-
agement Act of 1971 (Washington State). Department of
Anthropology, University of Washington. Xeroxed.

Elder, W. H.
1965 Primeval deer hunting pressures revealed by remains from
American Indian middens. Journal of Wildlife Management.
29:366-370.

Heizer, R. F.
1955 Primitive man as an ecologic factor, Kroeber Anthro,-
pological Society Papers No. 13. Unii@e-rsity oT-C-al,.
ifornia, Berkeley.

Lewis, H. T. and C. Schweger
1973 Paleo-Indian uses of fire during the late Pleistocene;
the human factor in environmental.change. Abstracts of
the Ninth Congress of the International Union for a-
ternary Research R6-etings, Christchurc4 New Zealan
P. Z10.

McGimsey, C. R. III
1972 Public Archeology. Seminar Press, New York.

Maxwell, H.
1910 The use and abuse of forests by the Virginia Indians.
'William and Mary College.Quarterly Historical.Magazine
19:73-103.

Moratto, M.
@Death'of
.1070 the past. A Report to the People of Cali
-ro-rnia--bynthe Society for California Archaeology..

Chapter2

tz-, V-11, wa-I - I

Wont-
Environmental Dynan-@cs

jjjj
Al
Pit

TIT, 41. i

I it" m

J4.117 !:m 1;:Jol
4A

All

All;

Chapter 2

Environmental Dynamics

In order to understand the nature and distribution of Maryland's
prehistoric resources, it is necessary to understand the changing enviTon-
ments to which prehistoric people adapted. Environmental changes altered
the availability of plants and animals, in turn affecting where people
settled. 'These changes also affected the preservation of prehistoric
remains in that natural forces through time created a patchwork of pre-
served remains of various ages and functions. Therefore, the -record of
prehistoric remains in the Maryland coastal zone is expected to be complex,
both in its original content and as it is presently preserved.

Documenting inportant enviromental changes in Maryland occupies most
of this chapter; it concludes by focusing on the implications these
changes have for the distribution and preservation of prehistoric remains
in the study area.

Geology and Physiography

There are three physiographic provinces in Maryland: the coastal
plain, the Piedmont plateau, and the Appalachian Mountains. These pro-
vinces parallel the Atlantic coast in bands of varying width, increasing
in elevation and relief to the west. Figure 2-1 illustrates their loca-
tions, including the kinds and ages of the underlying rocks that largely
determine the topography of each province (Vokes and E&ards 1968).

The coastal plain is a low, flat surface that extends from the coast
of Maryland to the Fall Line west of Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 2-1). This
plain is a wedge of mconsolidated clays, silts, and sands with some
gravels, ranging in age from Cret aceous to Pleistocene. Underlying these
sediments is an eroded surface of predominantly Pre-Cambrian crystalline
rocks that emerges at the Fall Line. While the Eastern Shore coastal

r
A

0
q4

Legend

Paleozoic and Mesozoic
C
sedimentary rocks
h
e
S
Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian a
P
igneous and metamorphic rocks
.0
.41i
e
a
Mesozoic and Cenozoic k
e
unconsolidated sediments
B
a
y
Tidal marsh

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

plain is low and flat, the Western Shore is a rolling upland marked by
relatively higher elevations.

Most of the Maryland shoreline is broken and sinuous because sedi-
ments, on the coastal plain offer little resistance to erosion and because
low-lying portions are easily inundated. Only the bayshore of Calvert
County and parts of Anne Arundel, Queen Ames, and Kent counties are
marked by higher bank or relatively straighter shorelines.

The Piedmont plateau starts at the Fall Line, where the more resis-
tant crystalline rocks meet coastal plain sediments, creating a drop in
stream gradients (Fig. 2-1)'. The Piedmont consists of a broad upland
with low knobs and ridges'. cut by narrow stream valleys (Vokes and Edwards
1968).

Appalachian Mountains province (Fig. 2-1) is characterized by a
series of ridges formed of more resistant materials and separated by
valleys cut into less resistant materials.

During the Pleistocene epoch, over 1,000,000 - 10,000 B.P. (Before
the Present), variations in tenperature.and precipitation caused huge
continental ice sheets alternatively to expand and to contract. Many
studies have'reconstructed the nature, history, and age of landforms
altered by the glaciers and sediment derived from them. During the height
of the most recent continental glaciation (about 25,000 B.P.), the nearest
edge of the continental ice sheet was about 200 km. north of what is now
Maryland CPrest 1969).

Although none of Maryland's physiographic provinces was glaciated,
indirect effects of glaciation can be seen, particularly in the coastal
plain, where there is evidence of sea level changes and sediments deposited
by rivers, seas, and winds. A layer of loess (windblown silt) of vary-
ing thickness covers much of the land along Chesapeake Bay. This deposit
dates from the end of the last glaciation, about 14,000 - 10,000 B.P.
(Foss, Fanning, and Miller 1974). The dominant geologic process affect-
ing the coastal plain today is erosion from surface runoff (Gottschalk
1945; Costa 1975) and shoreline wave action (Maryland Geological Survey
1975; Sch.ubel 1968; Singlewald and Slaughter 1949).

Postglacial Sea Level Rise

The most striking changes in the Maryland landscape are associated
with the formation and continuing evolution of the Chesapeake Bay estuary.
This drowned drainage system originally was the valley of the ancestral
Susquehanna River and included deeply cut major tributaries in addition
to short, steeply graded minor tributaries.

Scientists estimate that at its greatest regression, sea level stood
about 100 m. lower than it stands@ today (Flint 1971:342). This situation
coincided approximately with the maximum extent of continental glaciation,
sane 2S,000 B.P. The lowered sea level displaced the Atlantic shoreline
eastward about 250 km., increasing the downcutting capacity of the Sus-
quehanna River and its tributary streams.

When the late-glacial warming period began about 18,000 B.P., the
level of the world's oceans began to rise. Kraft, Biggs, and Halsey
(1973) have developed a model for recent sea level rise, based on dated
samples of peats formed during the early stages of this rise along the
Delaware coast. These samples were extracted from various depths, radio-
carbon dated, and the results graphed (Fig. 2-2). The curve suggests
that sea level has been steadily rising, although at an ever-decreasing
rate, for at least 8,000 years.

Since little work has been done on sea level changes in the Chesa-
peake Bay area, there is no information to confirm the applicability of
the Delaware' model there. Our research in the northern Bay area provides
some data: "relevaht to sea level changes. For example, a radiocarbon date of
SP56S � 6S B.P. was obtained from a sample of oyster shells from the
base.of a prehistoric shell heap at the mouth of Fairlee Creek in Kent
County. Another date of S,065 � 16S B.P. was obtained from the base of
a shell heap at the mouth of Big Marsh, next to the confluence of the
.Sassafras River and Chesapeake Bay! The extent of the deposits and the

I
These radiocarbon dates were provided by Dr. Robert Stuckenrath, Smith-
sonian Institution. Their laboratory numbers are S.I. 1906 (5,565
65 B.P.) and S.I. 1917 (5,065 � 16S B.P.).

LH (n Lf-i
-H (1) 4-J

C:) Q) 4 pq
a) 'Cd -P
4) C) U- -H a)
Ito +-)
tgogg (n @O JOU (n 74@ tn (D
>01 4-)' 4J r-A 1024
Ct- (n
........ Cd
9 C's -r-4 (n 0
0 a) 4-) +-) +j
r--4 @-4 u L@' 4-)
4) -1-4 Cd
b- 0 Ln
b)O
Cd (D a) 0
.,.q r I u
> U r_
0
IV log, h.
CA 0
0 4: 9
41- 1 M con cd ro Q)
06 E 441- 0 pq (1)
0 0 PLI @4
0
16.
IN 4-J r-14 41
V) W tn 0) 0
m 0 B 0) 0 @A u
t4 P@ V) @-4 C13
44 U)
r-i
IN c ;:s 0 0
cn 0 (1)
cc C@-
0 fa V) 1@ 0 1)
ID r-q I _0 Ed
0) @: W
IN cd $-,

Ln V)
X @4 g
(1) (1) r-f @q u -H rq
0 (A
0 V)
.`-4 >'
LH '15 0 0
0 4 >
4-1 bO a) r--4 'H c7i 0
V) 0
M
i@ 4'-) " W, cod)
0 M r-q tn
W LH 0
CA V) 4-) 0
0 r-1 r-1. V) 0
4-) r-4 Cd +-)
0 rml
u 0 Q
4-) 4-) (-H V)
0 0 th 4 0 V)
4-) 0
u

Maryland
New Jersey Delawa
River

Delaware
Bay

0 Delaware
Susquehanna
River
0 System

Md.

C
h

Virginia a
p
0
a

a
y
t@@Atlantic coast
li-@Ca. 7000 B.P.

2 4 6 8 10

Scale in krn

Fig. 2-3b. Schematic representa
F
ig. 2-3a.Chesapeake Bay region today Bay region ca. 7000 B.P.

water level. The continued submergence of the-area means that low pro-
file parts of the coastal-zone are being inundated rapidly, and thus we
are losing many prehistoric. resources related to earlier p9sitions of the
shoreline.

Once the Chesapeake Bay was established, related natural processes
began to change local environments. Shore erosion, along with the trans-
portationand deposition of sediment, played an increasing role. As the
sea began to flood'each area, newly formed estuaries expanded across
former flood plains to abut flanking uplands which were conposed.of rela
tively soft, unconsolidated and easily eroded sediments. A highly indented
coastline with nunerous bays and coveswas created. The.expanding estuary
extended the distance over which prevailing winds could create waves. In
some,areas, as the waterrose and depths increased,, the destruciive.power
of the waves grew becau�e,they ad not lose force'in crossing extensive
shallows. The result of all these factors was probably an ever increasing
rate of shore erosion.

An Exarrple of the.Enviromental
Effects of Sea Level Rise

The following discussion indicates,the nature.and extent of,the.
changes which the Maryland coastal.zone.has undergoneover the past
years. The example shows the effects.of sea level riseand shore
erosion. Thus, Fig. 2-4 illustrates reconstructed stages of landscape
Aevelopment for parts-of the Maryland coastal zone where shoreline changes
have been documented by.our,studies.

Figure 2-4A shows the area as it probably appeared before. inmdation.
Thelocale was characterized by an upland deciduous forest, ravine slopes'..
and freshwater streams. With the b
eginning of inundation (Fig. 2-4B),
the stream and.ravine slope were transformed into a brackishwater shore
zone. Continued inundation (Fi 2-4,C) increased the proportion of open
9
,.water relative.to the surrounding uplands.

North
S

Bay or lagoon

L
AW2
Sand spit K.

Marsh

Ravine slope

_04
- P.C.,
r IL-x-
Woodland ;W Iz.
U
ADU
Shell midden
2000'
0

A Pre-inundation drainage

Q
7% 0.
_106
"
g
'16

UA UCY

16,
Iz
PC'

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

F i g,@ 2-4. Example of post glacial shoreline evolution in Kent County, Maryland

As sea level continued to rise, erosion modified the shoreline.
@and spits formed downcurrent from eroding headlands (Fig. 2-4D). Many
coves and inlets, once part of the highly indented shore zone landscape,
closed completely (Figs. 2-4E and 2-4F).

Figure 2-4G locates prehistoric shell heaps aro und this coastal
lagoon, with basal radiocarbon dates from four,sites. Prehistoric people
began to use this location by at least 4,000 B.P. Figure 2-5 illustrates
a portion of one of the thick shell heaps that ring this coastal lagoon.-

The events which ended with the closing of the cove mouths by a
stable sand spit would have had important implications for resources and
hence for human population distributions. First, the proportion of marsh-
land to open water behind the migrating sand spit increased. Also,
waters behind the closed spit became fresh, as did the marsh. Final spit
closure, denied anadramous fish access to upper stream areas and denied
oysters a suitable habitat. Subsequent changes in the landscape included
continued filling of the lagoon by sediments, with increasing marsh and
shrub vegetation. Ultimately, open water was displaced by woody plants
and trees. Figures 2-4F and 2-6 show the present appearance of-this
coastal setting.

In summary, the coastal zone is dynamic, and some of its features
are ephemeral. Prehistoric people had to change their resource pro Icure-
ment strategies in order to adjust to enviromental change or abandon
certain areas in favor of others.

Soils

The soils that mantle Maryland result from complex chemical and phy-
sical interactions over long periods of time among parent material, cli-
mate, vegetation, and geomorphic factors. As a result of the granular
parent material, coastal plain soils are sandy to silty, very light to
medium in texture, and generally well-drained except in low-lying areas
with high water tables or extensive hardpan development. These soils.@

North

C G, zix.
V5 15id

.1.1 7ow
W-c

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

LK-
iE e.
'14 1 Mt

4290 B.P.
'';but
2135 B.P.

3010 B-P

,V6

3300
B.P.

e
A.^ A A

F. Coastal setting today G. Prehistoric shell site locations with
select basal radiocarbon dates

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

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

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

WON
. . .............

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

are tyl)ically highly acidic. Piedmont and Appalachian soils are more
variable, ref Lecting the complex geologk enviromciits encoLuitered in
those areas

The subsistence economies of Maryland's prehistoric people were in-
fluenced by the plants and animals available to them and these were in
turn influenced heavily by the nature of the soil. Varying widely in
drainage, chemical,- and physical characteristics, soils were variously
used by prehistoric people in resource exploitation and settlement location.

In addition to contributing to land use and hence to the distribution
of prehistoric remains, soils influence the preservation of these remains.
Through time, strongly acid soils eliminate or deteriorate bone and ant-
ler materials, introducing strong bias into the prehistoric record. An
inportant exception occurs, however, in areas where the soil has been
influenced by shell debris left by prehistoric people. The resulting
alkalinecondition preserves bone and antler. Thus, in the coastal zone
shell heaps provide a special opportunity for finding a wider range of
prehistoric food and tool remains than would usually be found in areas
with highly acid soils.

Forests

Maryland forests are characterized by a Iwide variety of deciduous
trees and shrubs. Forests were inportant to prehistoric people because
they supplied food and cover to them and to the animals they depended

upon.

During the early period of European exploration and settlement, up-
land and mountain forests retained their natural state. Other areas,
however, especially along the Piedmont river valleys, had been altered
in prehistoric times by horticulture and burning. Since European settle-
ment, forests have been greatly altered by clearing for agriculture, and
cutting for fuel and lumber. Chestnut blight has accounted for the loss
of American chestnut trees.

Before these changes took place, the Middle Atlantic Piedmont was a
vast forest of oak-chestnut (Shelford 1963) which extended to the eastern
flanks of the Appalachian Mountains. There, other kinds of forests domi-
nated various elevations. In the coastal plain, the oak-chestnut forest
gave way to oak-hickory. Both types of forest produced nuts, a valuable
source of food for people and animals. The coastal plain also contained
.Upland or drainage divide swamps, as well as riverine and coastal swamps
and marshes (Braun 1950).

Although pollen experts disagree about how much Mid-Atlantic coastal
plain forests changed during the last glacial age and the following warm-
ing period, a general outline of events is available. Whitehead (1965,
1973) has reconstructed vegetation for the area from Chesapeake Bay to
southeastern North Carolina from the full-glacial period to the present
time. He suggests that during the full-glacial period, 25,000 to 15,000
B.P., the Chesapeake Bay area was made up of spruce, pine, some fir, and
birch forests. His map shows a spruce forest over the coastal plain and
Piedmont, south of a tundra-taiga zone beside the ice sheet. -Pine forest
grew between the sp ruce forest and a southern deciduous forest. White-
head suggests that the northern trees were displaced southward over 1,000
km. on the east side of the Appalachians, there developing forests with
few deciduous trees over a broad area south of the ice.

Late-glacial vegetation changes saw the spruce-pine forest replaced
by a pin e forest,-in turn replaced by a beech-hemlock forest. The oak-
hickory forest became established by 10,000 B.P. Whitehead's conclusions
are supported by the work of Harrison et.al. (1965) and Owens et.al.
(1974) in the Chesapeake Bay area. It should be noted that the early
northern type forest produced little plant or animal food that prehistoric
people could use easily, when compared to the later, more productive
deciduous forest.

An ima 1 s

Unfortunately, there is little information available on the makeup
of Maryland animal populations during the past 10,000 years. The varied
physiographic sections of Maryland today support a similar animal life.
However, the populations and ranges'of Maryland mammals and birds have
been radically changed by European settlement. Certainly some species
which prehistoric people hunted are,no longer found in 'the state.
'Fhe diversity of land resources was matched by equally diverse and
abundant water resources. The broad, slow-moving tidal waters of the
coastal plain provided habitats for huge populations of fish and shell-
fish as well as vast flocks of migratory waterfowl. In addition, the
Bay and the upper freshwater parts of the river-estuaries provided spawn-
ing and nursery areas for large schools of anadramous fish, such as shad
and alewife.

How Environment Affects the Distribution and

Preservation of Prehistoric Resources

The rise of sea level after the last continental glaciation was the
single most dynamic change to which prehistoric people in the area adapted.
The drowning of the Susquehanna River system by the sea created the complex
set of environments that now conpose Chesapeake Bay and its coastal zone.
Here., over time, differences in salinity., topography, soils, vegetation,
and substrate have formed an increasingly diverse set of habitats, sup-
porting rich and varied plant and animal life. Because of the dynamic
nature of the coastal zone, the record of prehistoric resources is expected
to be conplex - - both in content and in particular the remains preserved.

The radical change in sea level affected the distribution and preser-
vation of prehistoric resources in six major ways:

,The ancestral Susquehanna River drainage system became a large coastal
plain estuary. The rising sea increased the environmental complexity of
the area through time, creating more diverse wildlife habitats. Because

the coast was a richer area to exploit than either land or sea alone, pre-
historic people came to exploit the coastal zone. As a result, prehis-
toric resources are concentrated along the land-sea interface, decreas-
ing in number with increased distance from the shoreline.

Other changes resulted.from. the continued flooding. Chesapeake Bay
increased in size, changing the land to water ratio; the shoreline length-
ened and became more complex; water depths increased; stream gradients
decreased; currents and salinity altered; and the erosion rate increased.
Such changes affected the number, complexity, and location of natural
resources, and therefore suggest that many kinds of prehistoric resources
of various ages exist in the Maryland coastal zone.

Because the physiog raphic makeup of a coast determines the ease with
which it can be inundated by rising water, higher bank shorelines (although
less accessible to people from the water) are less susceptibI6 to inun-
dation. Therefore, more and older coast oriented resources are probably
preserved in these areas than along low ground areas such as the lower
Eastern Shore.

The topographic character of the coast being flooded controls the
shape of shorelines, as well as the range of landforms that result. Highly
indented shorelines offer more shelter and natural resources in less space
than do straight, featureless coastlines. Hence, sinuous coastlines are
likely to contain high densities of prehistoric resources.

Owing to the effects of ongoing flooding,.landscape features repre-
senting various periods of time have been preserved. Of primary impor-
tance are old Bay shorelines, now the uplands around lagoons'and marshes
(see Fig. 2-4). Because they were once the shoreline, these areas may
be the only places where coastal prehistoric resources of certain ages
are preserved.

Natural events have preserved some resources but destroyed innumer-
able others. The rising sea.has almost completely destroyed certain en-
vironments, such as ancestral flood plains, thus eliminating certain ages
and kinds of prehistoric remains around Chesapeake Bay. Many prehistoric
resources lie under the tidal waters and marshlands of Maryland, because

they have been inundated by the advancing sea.

Other considerations affect the distribution and preservation of pre-
historic resources. Changes in the physical and cliemical makeup of
I I
Chesapeake Bay waters may have directly influenced the distribution of pre-,-
historic inhabitants. Bay salinities were of partic ular importance: Bay
waters are characterized by a continuum of salinity values. Although the
absolute values of the salinity gradient change with the season, the basic
lateral and vertical stratification remains. Each of the Bay's major trib-
utaries, like the Bay itself, is characterized by fresh waters at the
source and brackish waters at the mouth. Therefore, for any given period
a variety of resources might be expected to occur along each body of
water. Both in the Bay and in its tributarie s, the transition area be-
tween fresh and brackish water provides an environment for harvesting
both fresh and brackish water resources. Prehistoric resources may be
dense along transition areas.

Owing to environmental changes (particularly silt deposition from
run-off caused by modern land clearing and agriculture), the distribution
of oysters is now reduced. Therefore, the distribution of prehistoric
resources near oyster reefs is probably greater than the present distri-
bution of living oyster reefs.

Surface geological deposits not only determine what the coast looks

'
like, but they also provide the parent material on which soils, plants,'
and animals establish themselves. In a broad sense, prehistoric remains
may differ with geologipal settings. Another u-av in which the coast, as a
geologic setting, has affected -orehistoric resources include: a thick layer
of loess (windblown silt), deposited from IS,000 to 10,000 B.P. covering parts
of the uplands along the upper eastern Chesapeake Bay.shoreline. Very
early prehistoric resources in this area are now under perhaps five feet
of sediment. Such remains are likely to be uncovered only by surface
erosion or deep excavations.

The raw materials for making stone tools were limited in the coastal
zone. Pebble cherts, jaspers, quartz, and quartzite were available. The
presence of other raw materials, such as rhyolite, soapstone, and argil-

lite, all of which had to be imported, indicates prehistoric people had
contact with other areas.

Different geologic materials have different resistances to erosion,
affecting changes in local landforms. Fewer coast-oriented prehistoric
resources may be expected in areas with high rates of erosion.

Soils formed on coastal plain sediments affected the activities of
prehistoric people and continue to modify their remains: coastal plain
soils influence the plantand animal makeup of upland areas, thus helping
to determine the nature and location of resources. Correlations between
soil type and prehistoric resources are likely; for example, late period
horticultural settlements would be expected to be most common in areas
with fertile, well-drained, and easy-to-work soils.

The highly acid nature of coastal plain soils directly affects the
preservation of prehistoric remains, in destroying artifacts differen-
,@ally. Pershable food and tool remains such as wood and bo-ne are
removed from the record; more resistant materials such as stone and cera-
mics remain. An important exception is in coastal shell heaps where
a basic soil favors the preservation of bone and antler. Thus, materials
in coastal sites vary according to soil conditions as well as according
to the age and culture. Sites which represent extensive use of organic
raw materials may be difficult to document unless accompanied by shell
deposits or certain other conditions (such as charring) which help pre-
ser,ve organic remains. It should be noted that soil chemical analysis
may aid in delineating sites of this type.

Finally, the character of the plant and animal.resources available
for human exploitation influenced the economic systems which prehistoric
'people devised to exploit them: many of the most important coastal zone
animals are available only during specific seasons; for example, salt-
water fish which spawn in rivers and migratory waterfowl. Prehistoric
resources should be found that relate to specific seasonal exploitation
activities. These remains should be located in areas permitting the
Igreatest harvest at the time of their availability.
Important plant resources also were available only during specific

seasons. The best time for gathering berries and grasses, for example,
would be sumer; nuts would be available in the fall, and roots, in the
spring. Prehistoric resources should exist in'the coastal zone or in
nearby upland areas, where seasonal plant gathering took place.

References Cited

Braun, E. L.
1950 The deciduous forests of eastern North America. Blakiston
Co., lphia.
Costa,, J. E.
1975 Effects of agriculture on erosion and sedimentation in the
Tiedmont Province, Maryland. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 86:1281-1286.
Flint, R. F.
1971 Glacial and q!12,t a geolog., John Wiley and Sons, New

Poss, J. E D. C. Farming, and F. P. Miller
1974 Loess deposits on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Paper
presented at the American Society of Agronomy Annual Meetings
at Chicago..'Illinois. Agronomy:Abstracts: 158-159.
Gottschalk, L. C.
1945 Effects. of soil erosion on navigation in upper,Chesapeake
Bay. Geographical Review 35:219-238.-
Harrison, W., R. J. Malloy, G. A. Rusnak, and J. Terasmae
1965 Possible late-Pleistocene uplift, Chesapeake Bay entrance.
Journal of Geology 73:201-229.
Kraft, J. C., R. B. Biggs, and S. Halsey
1973 Morphology and vertical sedimentary sequence models in Holo-
cene transgressive barrier systems. In Coastal geomorphology,
edited by D. R. Coates, pp. 321-3S4. State University of
New York, Binghamton.
Maryland Geological Survey
1975 Historical shorelines and erosion rates. Publication of
the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program. eL4A@1-

Owens, J. P., K. Stefansson, and L. A. Sirkin
1974 Chemical, mineralogic, and palynologic character of'the
Upper Wisconsinian-Lower Holocene fill in parts of Hudson,
Delaware, and Chesapeake Estuaries. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 44:390-408.
Prest, V. K.
1969 Ice margin positions. In Retreat of Wisconsin and Recent
Ice in North America. Canada Department of Energy, Mines,
and Resources-,-C@`67ogical Survey of Canada Map 1257A.
Schubel, J. R.
1968 Suspended sediment of the northern Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake
Bay Institute Technical Report 35.. The Johns Hopkins Univ-
ersity.
Shelford, V. C.
1963 The ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press,
ana.
Singlewald, J. T. and T. H. Slaughter
1949 Shore erosion in.Tidewater Maryland. Maryland Department of
Geology, Mines, and Water Resources Bulleiin 6.
Vokes, T1. E. and J. EcIwards, Jr.
1968 Geography and geology of Maryland. Mar-vland,G'q'Q',,I'' cal
Survey@Bulletin 19. Baltimore, Marylane ogi
Whitehead, [email protected] R.
1965 Palynology and Pleistocene phytogeography of unglaciated.-,;@'.
eastern NorthAmerica In The Quaternary of the United
States, edited by H. L-Wri-g-F-t-1, Jr.,-and D. G. Frey, pp.
417-432. Princeton University Press.
isconsin vegetational changes in unglaciated eastern.
rth America. Quaternary R esearch 3:621-631.
1973 Late-W*
No

seasons. The best time for gathering berries and grasses, for exanple,
would be sumer; nuts would be available in the fall., and roots,- in the
spring. Prehistoric resources should exist in the coastal zone or in
nearby upland areas, where seasonal plant gathering took place.

References Cited

Braun, E. L.
19so- The deciduous forests of eastern North America. Blakiston
CcF.-, Philadelphia.
Costa, J. E.
197S Effects of agriculture on.erosion and sedimentation in the
Piedmont Province, Maryland. Geological Society of America,
Bulletin 86:1281-1286.
Flint, R. F.
1971 Glacial and quaternary geolo John Wiley and Sons, New
rk.
Foss, J. E., D. C. Fanning, and F. P. Miller
1974 Loess deposits on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Paper
presented at the American Society of Agronomy Annual Meetings
at Chicago, Illinois. Agronomy:Abstracts: 158-159.
Gottschalk, L. C.
1945 Effects of soil erosion on navigation in upper,Chesapeake
Bay. Geogr#hical Review 3S:219-238.
Harrison, W., R. J. Malloy, G. A. Rusnak, and J. Terasmae
1965 Possible late-Pleistocene uplift, Chesapeake Bay entrance.
Journal of Geology 73:201-229.
Kraft, J. C., R. B. Biggs, and S. Halsey
1973 Morphology and vertical sedimentary sequence models in Holo-
cene transgressive barrier systems. In-Coastal geomorphology,
edited by D. R. Coates., pp. 321-354. State University of
New York, Binghamton.
Maryland Geological Survey
1975 Historical shorelines and.erosion rates. Publication of
Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program.

Owens, J. P., K. Stefansson, and L. A. Sirkin
1974 Chemical, mineralogic, and palynologic character of.'the
Upper Wisconsinian-Lower Holocene fill in parts of Hudson,
Delaware, and Chesapeake Estuaries. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 44:390-408.
Prest, V. K.
1969 Ice margin positions., In Retreat of Wisconsin and Recent
FEn__
Ice in North America. Canada Department of Energy, es,
and Resource@_,__Ce__o'15`gica1 Survey of Canada Map 1257A.
Schubel, J. R.
19.68 Suspended sediment of the northern Chesapeake Bay. Chesueake
Bay Institute Teclmical.Report 35.. The Johns Hopkins Univ-
ersity.
Shelford, V. C.
1963 The ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana..
Singlewald, J. T. and T. H. Slaughter
1949 Shore erosion in Tidewater Maryland. Maryland Department of
Geology, Mines, and Water Resources Bulletin 6.

0
Vokes, 1-1. E. and J. Edwards, Jr.
ryland. Maaland GeoloRical
1968 Geography and geology of Ma
Survey Bulletin 19. Baltimore, Maryland.
Whitehead, D. R.
1965 Palynology and.Pleistocene phytogeography of unglaciated
eastern NorthAmerica. In The Quaternary of the United
States, edited by H. E. WriTt-,,Jr., ana b_._0-.Fie_y, pp.
417-432. Princeton University Press.
onal changes in unglaciated eastern
1973 Late-Wisconsin vegetati
North America. Quaternary Research 3:621-631.

Chapter

fto*'I I@zw

Cuhu'ral Dynamics

imp

Chapter 3

Cultural Dynamics,

The story ofthe people who lived in Maryland before the Europeans,
came can be told only,,by the'prehistoric archeological record. When Euro-
peans began to settle the area at the end of the sixteenth century, they
wrote descriptions of the lifeways of the Native Americans they met. These
descriptions provide some information on prehistoric land.use and hence on,
the nature and distribution of archeological sites dating to that period.
However, for the 12,000 or more years during which prehistoric,cultures
existed before the coming of the Europeans, there is only'the prehistoric
record.

Prehistoric people inhabited the Maryland coastal zone for thousands
of years, which suggests that the area is likely to contain abundant pre-
historic resources. Furthermore, these resources are likely to be varied
as activities changed along with and independently of environmental changes
through time. What do archeologists know'about. prehistoric resources in
Maryland's coastal zone?

At present, archeologists know little about prehistoric people-and
their economic adaptations to the Maryland coastal zone. What informa-
tion is available is sketchy and not necessarily representative of the
range of diversity of the, prehistoric record. In fact, there have been@
very few profess,ional projectsi especially along the Eastern Shore. Vir-
tually no systematically derived information exists for Maryland's Atlan-
tic shoreline, aside from what can be generalized from similar nearby
areas in Delaware. Most available studies describe artifacts at indivi-
dual sites or offer untested speculations about past activities. In
short, there is no detailed regional information available on the kinds
of prehistoric resources, their interrelationships,distributional patterns,
or relative abundance in the coastal zone. I 'n general,-information about
past culture decreases in detail and amount as one considers older and

older time periods.

Most available studies reflect the early goals of archeologists who
were primarily interested in establishing regional chronologies. These
studies concentrated on' ,the age and distribution of artifact types, es-
pecially ceramics and.projectile'points (or arrowheads). Although they
continue to be interested in establishing regional chronologies, archeo-I
logists now are increasingly interested in studying prehistoric lifeways.
More recent studies concentrate on regions, rather than individual sites.
Such studies are valuable because they'seek to explain changes in settle-
ment patterns and subsistence systems. Information of this sort is nec-
essary1for constructing rational frameworks for assessing site signifi-
cance and representativeness.

Archeological studies have recognized four prehistoric cultural tra-
ditions,in Maryland: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Broadspear, and Woodland.
The cultural mits of these traditions are sumarized in Fig. 3-1.

The prehistory of the Maryland area may b e sumed in a general way
by referring to adaptive changes through time,. These changes are reflect-
ed in the nature and distribution of prehistoric artifacts and groups of
artifacts,in the coastal zone. The earliest culture, the Paleo-Indian
Tradition, may be seen as a hunting and gat@ering adaptation to a time
of@changing environmental conditions at the end of the last continental
glaciation. As the environment stabilized to near its present form,
Arqhaic Tradition cultures of.seasonal hunters and gatherers established
themselves, expanding t4rough time toward the limits of the enviroment's
carrying capacity and their technology. The spread of the Broadspear
Tradition about 4,000 years ago appears to have signaled new technological
advances; hunting and gathering in the coastal zone became more'efficient.
The final adaptive change was the adoption of horticulture late in the
Woodland Tradition about 1,000 years ago. The population then increased
beyond that which-c6uld be supported by hunting and gathering alone.,

Fig.- 3-1

Time-Space Chart of Maryland Area
Prehistoric Cultures

Years B.P. Lower Potomac Delaware State
Valley ..(Thanas-1974)'
(Gardner & Mc.Nett
1971; McNett&Gardner ms.;
Stephenson et al. 1963, Wright 1973)

Soo Algonquian Tribes Nanticoke/Leni
4-J Lenape
1,000 Potomac Creek Phase Webb Phase
Townsend Phase Slaughter'Creek
ri
:8 Mockley Phase Phase
2,000 Accokeek.Creek De lmarva Adena
Phase Phase
>1
Popes Creek Phase Carey.Conplex
3,000 Marcey Creek Phase Susquehanna
Phase
4,000 Broadspear Tradition Piedmont, Lauren-
Susquehanna Phase tian,' -Traditions,,
Koens7Crispin,
Phase
5,000
0
4J
Cd
6,000 Crude-Notched
Point Tradition
@',7,000 Archaic Tradition
Projectile
Points
8,000

9,000
Bifurcate Point.
10,000 6 Tradition
Corner-Notched Tradition
pre -103.000 0@ Fluted Projectile Fluted Proj ec-
Points tile Points

Paleo-Indian Tradition

At the close of the last continental glaciation when the ice retreat-
ed, (by about 13,000 B.P.), grasslands quickly colonized the areas north
of Pennsylvania; deciduous forests followed, and the present vegetation
zones became established. Paleo-Indian populations probably followed
the northward migration of plant communities and herd animals along the,:
East Coast.

Although many archeologists assume that Paleo-Indian tradition cul-
tures engaged only in the hunting of now extinct herd animals, the dis-
tributions of Paleo-Indian remains over forested as well as grassland
environments in the eastern,United States suggests that these groups
more probably gained their subsistence by exploiting a variety of resour-
ces. Gardner (1974) has investigated a series of Paleo-Indian occupa-
tions, called the Flint Run complex, located in the middle Shenandoah
Valley of Virginia. These materials (dating between 11,000 and 8,000 B.P.)
represent the quarrying of local jasper and river cobbles, tool manufac-
turing, ani habitation activities.

The earliest Paleo-Indian remains are recognized by a distinctive
projectile point called the Clovis point. Later in the tradition, several
projectile point styles replace the Clovis point, suggesting that through
time several adaptations may have developed in local environments.

Paleo-Indian tradition sites have not been reported in the Maryland
coastal zone; however., a number of projectile points of this tradition
have been fomd in Maryland and Delaware (Handsman and Borstel 1974,
Solecki 1961, Thomas 1974). Coastal oriented sites of this tradition
are not expected in the Maryland coastal zone. The Atlantic
coast was located east of its present position and the Chesapeake Bay
had not yet formed. Only sites related to Paleo-Indian exploitation of
coastal plain uplands would be found in what is now the coastal zone;
but the Paleo-Indian settlement pattern in the coastal plain is n ot well
enough understood to suggest what kinds of remains might be present and
their relative abundance. In addition, sites of that age were probably

-few and small;.and a great deal of time has elapsed during which they could'
liave been destroyod or buried by natural and liuman agents. Reg@inning about,
lOjOOO B.P., with the establishment of modern vegetation zones, Paleo-
Indian groups were replaced by Archaic Tradition peoples.

Archaic and Broadspear Traditions

Archeologists usually define the Archaic Tradition as prehistoric
remains without'evidence of pottery or horticulture, while the following
Broadspear tradition shows the beginnings of pottery or the use of stea-
tite (soapstone) vessels. The Archaic tradition is usually divided into
Early, Middle, and Late segments. None of these segments is very well
known in the Maryland coastal plain, although more remains are found of
late than of early and middle Archaic. That so few remains are found
probably results from the fact that populations were small and dispersed.
The preservation. of remains, especially older ones, is poor
in tiisarea where there have been few environments with aggrading sediments
during the past 12,000 years,; Archaic groups probably followed a mobile
settlement pattern of hunting and gathering seasonally abundant plant and
animal resources.

The Archaic Tradition is known from well documented archeological
sequences in several areas, particularly in West Virginia (Broyles 1971)
and South Carolina (Coe 1964). In its early stages, the Archaic tradition
throughout most eastern states is characterized by stylistically similar
projectile points. Late in the tradition, many local styles become dif-
ferentiated.

Early Archaic projectile point styles are found on the surfaces of
many sites along the Potomac River and its interior hinterlands, such as
along Zekiah Swamp. These points are identified.by referring to the
West Virginia and South Carolina prehistoric sequences. A possible Early
Archaic Tradition occupation has been found at the Ruppert Island site
on the upper Potomac River (McDowell 1972); this site may represent a
small camp for mining.a local outcrop of vein quartz.

Only one Farly Archaic tradition site is known from Maryland's
Eastern Shore, although Early and Middle Archaic projectile points are
found in many locations. The Chance site, located in Somerset County,
has been referred to as the most productive Early Archaic site in Mary-
land (Cresthull 1971).

In Delaware, Thomas (1974) has found that Middle Archaic tradition
sites include interior hunting camps containing evidence of repeated
seasonal occupation. These sites have restricted artifact inventories;,
contemporaneous middle Archaic sites found along the coast and major
rivers contain more variedartifacts. Late Archaic sites are found in
several microenvironments, suggesting that these groups undertook a wide
range of subsistence activities (Thomas 1974).

. McNett has defined several Late Archaic tradition archeological cul-
tures for the Potomac River area, including the Piscataway, Vernon and
Holmes cultures, represented at several sites. According to McNett, the
settlement pattern contains base camps along the Potomac
River with seasonal inland camps, such as those along Zekiah Swamp, for
hunting, gathering, and quarrying stone materials. In Kent County, the
authors of this study identified a series of late Archaic sites repre-!
senting the ex:
I ploitation of both coastal and inland environments.

Beginning about 4,000 B.P., Broadspear tradition cultures appear-
in the%coastal plain from northern Florida to the Northeast. These cul-
tures are recognized by similar tool kits, especially broad-bladed pro-
jectile points and steatite or ceramic vessels. These tools may repre-
sent a-technological advance in adapting to the.coastal plain environments,
which also may have changed at that time. While Broadspear tradition cul-
tures appear very similar in their early projectile point styles, they
too gradually differentiated over time.

Broadspear Tradition sites occur along rivers that empty into t he
Atlantic Ocean and along estuaries. Tumbaugh.(1975) has attempted to
explain the development of this culture, which he believes represents a
migration of groups from the coastal plain of the Southeast. He suggests
that these groups followed a hunting, gathering, shellfishing, and fishing

way of life along rich tidal streams and estuaries. The movement north-
ward may have resulted from environmental changes that made northern areas
suitable for this subsistence system. Perhaps the slowing rate of sea
level rise about 4,000 B.P. enriched these coastal environments by per-
mitting large populations of waterfowl, anadromous fish, and shellfish
to become established. The movement also could have resulted from a tech-
nological advance in exploiting.these rich resources.
Present in Broadspear Tradition technologies'are several kinds of.
artifacts that could have been used for fish exploitation -- broad-bladed
projectile points, net weights, spear-thrower weights, and stone roasting
platforms. Steatite vessels and ceramics certainly represent an advance
in cooking procedures, and there is indirect evidence for the use of ca-
noes. It seems likely that Broadspear Tradition prehistoric cultures rep-
resented increased population growth and expansion throughout the coastal
plain.

Along the Maryland coastal zone several Broadspear sites have been
investigated, including the Marcey Creek site at Potomac Palisades, where,
spring runs of herring, shad, and sturgeon could have been exploited (McNett &
Gardner ms.). In Delaware, Broadspear tradition sites are larger than
Archaic sites and contain denser debris. These sites are found along the
rivers, with hunting and gathering camps found in'inland areas (Thomas
1974). Witthoft (1953) suggests that steatite vessels probably indicate
the existence of river travel and that the use of raw materials from other
areas,such as steatite, suggests trade.

Woodland Tradition

When ceramics are found in the artifact inventory of prehistoric,
cultures, the remains are usually referred to as belonging to the Wood-
land Tradition. Although the presence of ceramics was earlier taken to
mean that horticultural subsistence also must have been present, this in-
ference is no longer'automatically made. Indeed, no direct evidence for
horticulture in the Middle Atlantic area has been found before 1,000 B.-P.,.

qlt4ough potter Even after 1,000 B.P.,
sed since about 3,000 B.P
yy was iL
is possible that some groups did not adopt horticulture because the
@qsource yield'from hunting and gathering in some areas (for example, in
the coastal zone) was too high to make horticulture advantageous.

The earliest prehistoric culture in which ceramics have been docu-
mented was the Marcey Creek phase. The addition of ceramics has not been
demonstrated to signal any dramatic change in the aboriginal lifeway, ex-
cept perhaps for increasing efficiency of the diversified hunting and
gathering economy. Several phases of the Early (3,000 to 2,500 B.P.) and
Naddle Woodland (2,500 to 1,200 B.P.) periods have been distinguished in
the Potomac coastal plain area by McNett (Gardner & McNett 1971; McNett & Gard-
ner ms.) He suggests that the transition area formed by the juncture of
fresh and brackish waters was especially important in providing a great
variety and number of plant and animl resources. McNett has iden-
tified a series of coastal and interior sites that he believes represents'
winter domestic and shellfish gathering camps, spring fishing camps, and
other sites in a seasonal round, including summer freshwater mussel pro-
curing stations and locations for processing plant resources. Fishing
sites were-located near the Fall Line on the Potomac River.
In the late Middle Woodland (by about 1,500 B.P.), according to Mc-
@ett (McNett and Gardner ms.) Mockley Phase sites show a shift away from
the' previous extensive use of oysters to smaller sites with fewer and smal-
li6i-oyster remains. A similar trend toward smaller shell sites is seen
dldnglthe Severn River (Wright 11073) although this shift takes place slight-
ly-liter in time. Change is also seen in the upper Eastern Shore, where
th&auth'ors of the present study have noted that markedly fewer shell mid-
densiseem to have been established after about 2,000 B.P.

McNett believes that this change represents the probable addition
.of corn horticulture to the established hunting and gathering subsistence
pattern, although no evidence for horticulture exists until later and
then in a different cultural tradition. An alternate explanation for the
upper Eastern Shore-may be that continuing shoreline erosion caused sand
spits to close many small estuaries, rendering many habitats no longer
titable,for oyster growth and anadromous fish runs. The degradation of

these important resources could have created an imbalance between popula-
tion and available resources, perhaps requiring movement to remaining en-
Vironments where oysters and fish continued to prosper. Such a move would
have left some areas virtually abandoned and open for occupation by the
horticultural groups that later moved into the coastal plain. The pres-
ence of competing groups and the resistance to land or resource loss by
local inhabitants might help explain the stockaded villages European ex-
plorers saw in the coastal plain.

On the Eastern Shore, the authors of the present study have reco rded
a sequence of coastal shell and interior nonshell sites that span the
phase sequence defined for the Potomac River. However, only a few Mock-
ley Phase ceramics and almost no later ceramics., except for Potomac Creek
wares,, are found.

Little is known of the Late Woodland Townsend CLAture (1,000 to 30.0
B.P.) that follows the Mockley Phase in the Potomac coastal plain. More
is known of Townsend culture prehistory in Delaware, where the subsistence-
settlement pattern apparently included the summer coastal exploitation,of
shellfish, finfish, deer, and plants, while fall-winter exploitation.in-
cluded nut gathering and deer and fowl hunting in the interior. In ad-
dit,ion, spring exploitation of anadromous fish along the rivers is postu-
lated.

A new prehistoric culture, Potomac Creek, appears in the Maryland
coastal plain not long before European contact, about 800 B. P. McNett (McNett
& Gardijer ms.) suggests that this culture developed in Piedmont river valleys,
including those of the Shenandoah and Potomc, from* a prehistoric culture
called the Montgomery @complex. This complex, beginning about 1,100 B.P.1
is characterized by large permanent horticultural villages at several
sites. Refuse remains include corn, squash, deer and small mammals fish,
and freshwater mussels, showing that the subsistence pattern included both
horticulture and the use of seasonally available resources. Sites con-
tain many pits, probably originally dug for food storage but later used
for refuse and burials. These sites were surrounded by defense stockades.
In tho.coastal plain the Potomac Creek culture has been investigated

at several sites including Accokeek Creek and Potomac Creek or Patawomeke.
Evidence has been found for large stockaded villages with large ossuary
bt burial pits in which the bones of many people were found. In addition
to the villages, at least one camp for procuring shellfish has been found,
at Loyola Retreat (McNett & Gardner m.s.).
At the time of European contact, bo th the Potomac Creek horticultural-
ists and the descendants of the earlier hunting and gathering groups may
have been present in coastal areas, although only the horticultural groups
.were mentioned by Smith (1907). However, natives of the Maryland coastal
plain probably felt the effects of European contact in the form of con-
t4gious diseases and movements of other native groups well before actually
seeing the Europeans themselves. Thus, remnant hunting and gathering
groups may have been destroyed before Smith's voyage of 1612.

Native American Inhabitants at the
Time of European Contact

Archeologists derive some information on lifeways from the study of
contemporary written accounts made by the Europeans. Such written accounts
for the Chesapeake Bay area include reports of English exploration and
settlement from about 1584 through 1620. These accounts contain infor-.
mation on native groups including their distributions,, interrelationships,
and the resources they exploited. Although these accounts are valuable
for indicating the nature, location, and distribution of late prehistoric
remains, the limitations of these accounts must be considered. The use
of these early accounts poses two main problems: the first concerns the
extent to which the reported lifeway already may have been altered by
earlier European contacts, and the second concerns the difficulties of
reports made by people who were not trained to make observations about
,other cultures.

Accounts of the Roanoke and Jamestown colonies do not represent the
first contacts between Europeans and the native inhabitants. Instead,
regular contacts began by the early sixteenth century in Canada and shortly

thereafter in Florida, spreading European trade goods and diseases through-
out the eastern seaboard in advance of the Europeans themselves. Further,
the intergroup warfare so extensive at and after European contact may not
have been very widespread before European contact stimulated it. Likewise,
the importance of agriculture may have increased or declined with the onset
of depopulation and instability. In short, it is difficult to measure the
reliability of European accounts.

The second problem concerns the reports themselves. Few firsthand,'
accounts exist that describe aspects of native lifeways in detail. Also,
these reports were seasonally.oriented: explorations usually were made
during the summer months, resulting in more descriptions of sumner acti-
.vities than of.other seasons. Different observers who saw the same group
at different seasons may give the impression that two different groups
were contacted.

There are further limitations to the accuracy of European observations.
Europeans were describing a culture that had some understandable aspects,
such as agricultural techniques and village life. Other aspects, such as
hunting and gathering techniques and the scheduling of the yearly activi-
ties, were less familiar. Again, the resulting accounts report some acti-
vities,.in toollittle detailand others in too much detail. The plethora
of local dialects and the prevalence of internecine warfare confused these
untrained observers. Finally, the Europeans who described the new land
and its inhabitants were trying to justify their experience to those who
remained in Europe; their descriptions frequently exaggerated certain as-
pects of the new land.

After the English colony was established at Jamestown in 1608, John
Smith sailed up the Chesapeake Bay exploring and mapping resources and
noting the distribution of native groups according to their strength in
fighting men. His description provides information on the contemporary
native inhabitants throughout tidewater Virginia and Maryland (see Fig
3-2). Smith found that Algonquian-speaking groups occupied most of the'
tidewater area on both the Eastern and Weste rn shores of Chesapeake Bay.
He mapped nearly 200 villages, 30 of which he designated by a symbol that
'stood for king's house or tribal capital (Fig. 3-2). The people lived in,

I o 7 A. 91
fll

In.

IV
eollow@

A6 co

4r/ I-

CL
6 Z
m

-Ir cl
J1

04 k

1*1 Qrl rd

permanent villages or towns along the Bayand its tributary rivets, parti-
cularly at the intersections of the many waterways.

From the time of the Roanoke colony onward, the English were impressed'
by the amount of territory held in the tidewater and the number of groups
that belonged to the Powhatan Confederacy. This confederacy included
approximately 30-36 tribes located on Chesapeake Bay's Western Sh Iore, from
the.Potomac River south to the James River. Most of these tribes acknowl-
cdged the leadership of Powhatan, apparently as a result of conquest
(Garrow 1974: 33-44). In addition to periodic fighting among themselves,
the Algonquian-speaking groups of the tidewater area fought with Siouan-
speaking groups of the Piechont.west of Chesapeake Bay, including the
Monacan and Manahoac confederacies, although no changes in territory.seem.
to have resulted from this fighting during early English colonization.
The Algonquians also regularly fought bitter wars with the Iroquois-
speaking groups, particularly the Susquehannocks and probably the Senecas,
who inhabited the Piedmont north of the Chesapeake Bay.

The Iroquois groups, known as Susquehannocks and Massawomekes or
Senecas, consisted of permanently settled villages or towns of agricul-
tural peoples living in the river valleys that flowed into the Susque-
hanna River. Through trade with groups further nor@hward, they obtained
brass and copper goods, which originally came from the French explorers
and settlers in Canada. Their wars with Chesapeake Bay groups may have
been stimulated by population expansion or by the need to establish a new
territory because of being pushed southward by other groups, who had in
turn been dislocated by the French settlers. As he traveled up Chesapeake
Bay, Smith noted that the Patuxent River Algonquians were clustered tightly
tbgether.and that north of them the area was deserted; both observations
are-understandable in view of the hostile relations that existe*d between
the Algonquians and the Iroquois to the north. Figure 3-3 presents the
general location of the major native groups thought to have inhabited the
greater Chesapeake Bay area at the time of Englishisettlement.

Although several scholars have estimated the population density of
tidewater Algonquian groups at the time of European contact, the most
thorough work is that of Feest (1973), who estimates 14,300 to 22,300

4 9
SUSOUEMANNOCKS
EL AWA@
Tocwogh 0

Ozini S

C hester
River Delaware
say 0
M N A?
A N
N T
A I
S hoptank
4 0
0 K
A E
C enticoke
River

C P 0
M 0 WA
0 N H
N F A
A ED TA
C E R N
A A
N Y C
h
el
or S,
a
P
e
a Atlantic
I Ocean
B
a
y

N
ot fa es-
t apeake
0
w
a W
TU S y e 0 P
ca 0m
OC 0 10 15 25

-"C Is in miles

Albemarle Sound

n
4) Ok
Flq@ 3-3. Reconstructed distribution ot
major native groups ca. 1600 A. D.

50*

people for the Virginia Algonquian. Mooney (1907) has traced the rapid
decline of Powhatan Confederacy groups from an estimated 8,000 to a few
family groups in 1705.

Tidewater Algonquian groups lived in small villages or towns always
located near the coast, according to Hatiot's (1893, 1971) report of the
Roanoke area. He described the number of houses per town as being 10 to
12., with some towns having as many as 20 or 30. The houses were construct-
ed of poles covered by bark or mats made of rushes. They were usually
12 to 16 feet long and half that in width. A wiroance or chieftain ruled
one, sometimes a few towns, and at most 18 (where according to Hariot's
report, there were 700 to 800 fighting men). Many local dialects were
spoken in these villages.

For Virginia, Smith specificied that settlements were found along
rivers near fresh springs, with from two to 190 houses together. Fields
and gardens surrounding the houses ranged from 20 to 40 and sometimes
100 to 200 acres. Both Hariot and Smith reported that towns were forti-.
fied; fortifications are represented on Smith's map of the Chesapeake
Bay (Fig. 3-2). Fields and houses were located outside the wooden pali-
sades. The location of settlements along tidewater rivers allowed access
to the greatest number and diversity of the area's resources. Upper
river areas were used primarily for the seasonal hunting of wild game.

The subsistence pattern of tidewater Algonquian groups. consisted of
the resources they used throughout the year, the places from which the
resources were obtained, and the technology for acquiring and preserving
the resources. This information not only aids in understanding the native
lifeway at the time of European contact, but also indicates the potential
nature, variety, and locations of contact period archeological remains.

.In general, tidewater Algonquian groups depended upon a wide variety
of wild and domesticated plants and hunted and collected animals. Garraw
(1974: 24) enumerates the variety of resources the Powhatans obtained by
cultivation, collection, fishing, and hunting, and concludes that although
cultivated crops satisfied little more than one-third of the yearly sub-
sistence, requirement, the value of crops lay in their reliability as a

controlled source of food. Smith (1907: 97) remarked of the Virginia
groups that "for neere 3 parts of the yeare, they naturally affordeth
from hand to mouth, etc."

In discussing Virginia groups, Smith also noted that
the yearwas divided into five seasons: 1) winter, 2) the budding of
spring, 3) the earing of corn, 4) sumer, and 5) harvest. During the
winter some of the people moved their residences to temporary camps in
the "deserts" or deserted areas of upper river drainages. There they'par-
ticipated in individual and communal hunts, using bows and arrows, snares,
and drives, in which many deer and other animals, including bear, were
taken (Smith 1907). Wintering migratory birds, such as ducks and geese
found along the waterways, also were used at this time.

From March through May overlapping part of the crop-planting season,
fishing was also important; herring.. shad, gar, and'sturgeon filled the
streams in migratory runs. That fishing was an important part of Algon-
quian subsistence is apparent in the variety of devices used, including
weirs or traps, canoes, nets, lines, spears, harpoons, and bows and arrows.
Fishing was practiced to a degree andextent that greatly
impressed the English settlers, evidenced in their many discussions and
illustrations of native fishing techniques.

The planting of crops took place from March through June or July.
Cultivated plots 100 to 200 feet square were prepared by removing the
bark from near the roots of trees and then scorching the roots with fire
(Strachey 1953 and Garrow 1974: 23). At the same time stubble was gathered
and burned. Sharpened sticks were used to plant several varieties of
squash, passion fruit (maycocks), tobacco, beans, and corn. Until harvest,
the crops were weeded and protected from birds and other animals.
I . - I
Although the gathering of animal and plant foods took place through
out the year, Garrow (1974: 26) states that it was particularly important
in spring and sumer,- the period between harvests when the previous yearts
store-of agricultural products had been exhausted. Many kinds of roots,
fruits, nuts, oysters, clams, mussels, birds, eggs, and insects were col-
lected. Shellfish were preserved by smoking, while many plant foods were
dried.

Crops were harvested fran August to October, and corn was dried or
roasted for storage. From harve st time until winter, the greatest variety
and amount of food was available, resulting in extensive feasting. When
stored supplies were exhausted in late winter, the next annual subsistence
round began.

Implications for Prehistoric Resources
Information derived from the known prehistory and ethnohistory of the
Maryl and coastal zone can give planners a very general idea of the prehis-
toric resources that could be expected even though this information was not
produced for managing these resources. Most importantly, prehistoric re-
sources should be abundant in the coastal zone because of the long period
of prehistoric occupation as well as the great number and variety of nat-
ural resources available for exploitation.

Second, prehistoric resources would be expected to be varied in many
Ways including what artifacts and features are present, the size of the
areas covered, density of artifacts, and the ages and kinds of activities
represented. This variation results from changes in coastal enviroments,
prehistoric activities, and population size during the long period of
occupation.
Several generalizations can be made about the nature and preservation,
of prehistoric remains-in the @Iaryland coastal zone. From the various
kinds of remains expected in the Maryland coastal zone, two obvious cate-
gories emerge: shell and nonshell (or lithic). Shell sites consist of
quantities of oyster shell, Crassostrea virginica, along with stone tools
and sometimes ceramics. Bone remains may also be preserved in the shell
deposits. All of the remains may be stratified in a layer sequence
based on age. Nonshell sites consist of stone tools and manufacturing
debris and possibly ceramics,usually confined to the top few inches of
the soil. Shell sites are typically more visible than nonshell sites.
Several types of shell and nonshell sites would be expected.

Because of increased population densities and better preservation,

more later than earlier prehistoric sites are expected in the coastal zone.
Older sites are important because they are rare.

In locations where the shoreline underwent changes during prehistoric
occupation, there may be evidence relating to land use at each stage of
enviromental development. Prehistoric people either moved to more familiar
environments or stayed and changed their activities. For example, Fig.
2-4 shows the stages of coastal geomorphic change in an area. Each set-
ting would have been characterized by prehistoric resources relating to
its contemporaneous use as well as to use during earlier stages of develo-oment.
Such continuous use of a restricted area often produces overlapping or
superimposed remains.

Numerous coastal oriented sites can be expected to have functioned.as
part of complex subsistence systems having more stations located in in-
terior as well as other coastal settings. Thus, sites cannot be understood
solely on an individual basis.

The Maryland coastal zone contains unique prehistoric areas and sites.
The Potomac, Patuxent, Susquehanna, and Choptank rivers (and their trib-
utaries) probably contain resources that relate to prehistoric communi-
cation and trade routes and to population movement into Maryland's coastal
zone as well as remains similar to those of the rest of the coastal zone.
Zekiah Swamp.is a unique area, containing a large number of Archaic
Tradition resources, probably hunting camps, along its margins. Finally,
the Chance site in Somerset County is uniquely large, very pro-
ductive Early Archaic tradition site that is now located in the coastal
zone because of the rising sea levels.

Differences and changes in prehistoric adaptation are expected to
be reflected in the prehistoric resources of the Maryland coastal zone, in
the nature of these resources, the size and number of areas they cover,-
and the inter-relationships among ages and activities they represent.
Only 'archeological resources can provide information on prehistoric life-
ways before European contact introduced written records. Thus, preserving
a representative sample of all kinds and ages of prehistoric resources
from the Maryland coastal zone for study and display should be a prime con-
sideration in land use planning.

References Cited

@royles, B. J.
1971 Sec'ond preliminary report: the St. Albans site, Kanawha
County, West Virginia. West Virginia .Geological and Economic
chae6l-o
@i@e ort of Ar 7g_]T@l Investigations 3. Morgan-
town, West Virginia.
Cbe, J. L.
1964 The Formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Trans--
actions of the American Philosophical Society,.Neii Series',
54(5). PFM_7@_IpFla.
Cresthull, P.
1971 Chance (18S05): a major Early Archaic site. Maryland Archeo-
logy 7(2):31-52.
Feest, C. F.
1973 Seventeenth century Virginia Algonquian population estimates.
q4rterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society Rf Virginia
28(2):65-79.
Gardner, W. M., editor
1974 The Flint Run Paleo7lndian complex: a preliminary report
1971-1973 seasons. Catholic University of America Archaeo-
7
Laboratory. Occaslo-n-ar-Urication 1. Washington$, -T.-C.
Gardner, W. M. and C. - W. McNett, Jr.
.1971 Early pottery in the Potomac. Proceedings of the Middle
Atlantic-Archaeological Conference 19,70:42-52.
Garrow, P. H.
1974 An ethnohistorical study of the Powhatan tribes. The Cheso'-
piean 12(1-2):1-72.
Handsman, R. G. and C. L. Borstel
1974 An archeological survey of Tuckahoe State Park. Manuscript
on file with the Maryland Division of Archeology..Xeroxed.
Hariot, T.
1893 Narrative of the first English plantation.of Virizinia. Re,-
printed b@ B._Qua-r1EiT,7L_on_&n_.
1971 A brief and true E2port of the new found land of Virginia.
T@i_the De Capo Pxis-s, Nevi York
RiprinteU
McDowell, E. E.
1972 The Archaic Stage of the Potomac River Piedmont: a techno-
ecological approach to archeological data Ph.D. dissertation,
American University. University Microfil@s, Arm Arbor.

McNett, C. W., Jr. and W. M. Gardner
MS. Archeology in the lower and middle Potoma-c Piedmont and
coastal plain. Manuscript in preparation, Department of
Anthropology, American University. Xeroxed.
Mooney, J.
1907 The Powhatan Confederacy, past and present. AmericanAnthro-
pologist 9:129-152.
Smith, J.
1907 A true relation, by Captain John Smith, 1608. In Narratives
of early Virginia 1606-1625 editedby L. G. Tyler, pp. 30-
- --ReK York.
-fl-8-.-MF1-es Scribners,
Solecki, R.
1961 Early man and changing sea levels, Poplar Island, Maryland.
American Antiquity 27:234-236.
Stephenson, R. L., A. L. L. Ferguson, and H. G. Ferguson
1963 The Accokeek Creek site,.a middle Atlantic seaboard culture
sequence. University of Michigan Anthropological Papers 20
Am Arbor.
Strachey, W.
1953 The historie of travaile into Virginia Britania (1612). Hak-
luyt SocieiT Public Wo. 6.7 London.
Thomas, R. A.
1974 A brief survey of prehistoric man on.the Delmarva Peninsula'.
Paper prepared for the.Delaware Academy of Science.
Turnbaugh , W. A.
1975 Toward an explanation of the broadpoint dispersal in eastern
North American prehistory.. Journal of Anthropological-.,@,
Research 31:51-68.
Witthoft., J@
1953 Broad spearpoints and the Transitional Period cultures in
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 23(l):4-31.''.
Wright H. T
1973 An archeological sequence in the middle Chesapeake region*,
Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey Archaeological Studies
1. Baltimore, Maryland.

Chapter

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

... . ......

Resource Evaluation

-LAW@' @- il t : 41"

711P

Cliaptor 4

Resource Evaluation

What kind of information is needed to manage prehistoric resources'.
Chapter Three demonstrates that prehistoric resources are present in the
%ryland coastal zone and that they are abundant. . To n9nage them,
planners need to know what kinds of resources are present according to
age and activity, the relative abundance of each kind, distributions
throughout the area, and finally current condition.

Does the information necessary for prehistoric resource management,
already exist? As Chapter Three points out, few studies have been made
of Maryland's prehistoric remains. Moreover, these studies have been
aimed at answering questions other than thoseof resource management.
H4nce, little of this information is directly applicable to managing pre-
historic resources.

The-information on Maryland coastal prehistory presently available
comes from studies conducted by archeologists from the areas's universities
-and local amateur groups, studies conducted in.Delaware by that statel@s
Section ofArcheology, and files kept by the Maryland Division of Archeo-
l9gy. However, in spite of its dense population and the many colleges and
tmiversities surrounding thearea, little professional work has been under-
taken in the Maryland coastal zone. For those areas where professionals
have worked -- the middle Potomac River, the Severn River, and western Kent
County information on age, functionand relationships is becoming avail-
able' for prehistoric remains (see Fig. 4-1)., In contrast, most of the,
Eastern Shore outside Kent County is little known, as are parts of the
Western Shore, particularly the Patuxent River area.'

Local professionals have had to rely heavily on "nearby work
as'a source of interpretation, in fact drawing analogies and making com-
parisons with areas that are not always very near and frequently have dif-
forent environmental histories. Although they probably participated in
b: road,regional trends, Chesapeake Bay area cultures were confronted with and

Cecil
AN

Harford

0 5 10 15

Baltimore
Scal* In miles

Balto.
Kent
4AN,

A
n
WU
n
e
Queen
r-,f; tit:Y
Annes
Caroline
D. C
5

Prince Talbot
Georges

C
a %

C,harles e
rt,

Dorchester

St. Wicomico
Marys

1 Wilke and Thompson 1977
2 Wright 1973; Cameron 1976 S
0
3 Gardner 1969; Stephenson and Ferguson 1 3 M
4 Gardner and McNett 1970, McNett and Gardner Ms.
5 Handsman and Borstel 1974

Fig. 4-1 Areas where some detailed information
is available on prehistoric resources

solvedproblems unique to their own environment. Hence, an understanding
.,Of.culture dynamics has not yet been achieved in the area.
The Division of Archeology, located in the offices of the Maryland
Geological Survey, maintain's records on prehistoric sites.. Included are
files of site description forms for each county in the state as well as
site locations mapped on U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangles. The informa-
tion contained in these records varies in detail and quality, reflecting
the wide range of interests of the professionals and amateurs who volun-
Prily submit the records. In addition, therdis no uniform. definition
of what constitutes a prehistoric site for the purposes of recording or
mapping.

Although the Division of Archeology records contain information on-a.
large number of prehistoric sites, these records were not designed for
managing prehistoric resources; their usefulness for that purpose is
limited. Thus, any apparent spatial patterns of prehistoric sites are
,probably biased to repre sent areas which have been examined. Because
records are not kept of the areas where sites are not found, no distribu-
tional information on prehistoric resources is available. Thus, the lack
of recorded sites for an area is often insignificant; gaps probably re-
flect places that have not been examined. Finally, information on the
age and prehistoric activities represented in these recorded sites is
usually very limited. When combined with the lack of detailed prehistoric
studies in the Maryland coastal zone, the scant information on individual
sites makes it difficult to assess relative significance for preserva-
tio n or mitigation efforts.

Awareness of prehistoric resources varies from place to place within
the coastal zone, and this variety is reflected in the records of the
Division of Archeology. For example, Fig. 4-2A shows the d ensity of sites
recorded in.coastal Kent County by the Division of Archeology prior to the
pre sent study. Although they were known to local artifact collectors and
landowners, additional sites had not been reported to the Division of
Archeology. A review of the archeological literature concerning the county
'added 13 sites". showh in Fig. 4-2B.. Since both the files and the archeo-
logical literature provide few site locations and no information at all on

owl low

A C

17 sites 197sites
4 sites

Legend

Reported sites
Do 26-10
scale in miles
El 1-5 11+

Fig. 4-2 Number of reported sites in a portion of Kent County based'on -(A) records of state archaeologist 8/ 73
(B) addition of sites mentioned in literature and .(C) additition of sites located.by intensive. survey program

areas where sites are not found it is difficult to derive the environ-
mental partmeters of site distribution.
In contrast, Fig. 4-2C shows the high density of prehistoric sites in density of prehistoric sites in
the area recorded by the present survey. Because the survey examined the
shoreline systematically, meaningful statements can be made about where
ssites do not occur as well as where they do occur. This example illus-
trates the need for field investigations oriented to resource management.
Also important, Fig. 4-2C shows the danger of relying on extant records
not compiled for resource management, when attempting to assess the pre-
historic remains in an area.

To generate the kinds of information necessary for managing prehis-
toric resources, studies must design a sampling plan to locate remains
systematically according to environmental parameters. Also, such studies
must obtain surface or excavated assemblages of artifacts for study. The
tem.systematic is used here to mean foot coverage of areas at predeter-
mined intervals. This definition contrasts with the meaning that the term
often carries in prehistoric studies, where it is used to mean methodical
interviews with landowners and relic collectors or methodical examination
Of areas thought likely to contain prehistoric resources. In the more
specific definition used here, systematic coverage produces information on
the distribution of prehistoric remains in addition to information
locations because the areas examined are differentiated from areas not
examined; and in examined areas the places in which remains are found are
differentiated from those where remains are not found.

A sampling plan is needed in management studies, simply because it is
expensive time consuming, and unnecessary to examine all of Maryland's
present and former shorelines. Data collected on prehistoric resources,
including artifacts, should be analyzed for information on the age and
activities reprsented. Thus, collecting and analyzing data gathered from
sampling will provide information on kinds of prehistoric resources, their
distribution abundance, and present condition.
Although expensive and time consuming, detailed studies ar necessary
in local environmental areas such as river basins in the coastal zone. With-

out funds and time to undertake detailed management studies, however, in-
terim studies can provide information on the magnitude and present condition
of prehistoric resources, also determining where there are any obvious dif-
ferences in distribution among kinds of sites such as shell and nonshell.

The purpose of the fieldwork reported here was to increase information
on Maryland's coastal zone prehistoric resources, especially for the least
known areas such as parts of the Eastern Shore. The fieldwork was designed
to provide information concerning the general nature, abundance, and dis-
tribution of coastal zone prehistoric resources. In addition, this infor-
mation.-was used to test the feasibility of constructing a predictive model
of,resource distribution based on environmental parameters. As an interim
measure, it is hoped that this information will help planners to focus
their conservation efforts on particular areas.

Survey Design

Effective resource management requires statistically reliable data on
the nature and distribution of the resource. Although the best results are
obtained by examining the entire area of interest, the expense of foot in-.
spection by qualified observers, coupled with the size of the study areal
argued against camplete examination. Thus the present study attempted to
sanple 10% of the study area and apply the resulting information to the
entire study area. The figure 10% was chosen arbitrarily because it was
believed to be the maximum that could be accomplished, given the time and
budget limitations of the study.

In order for the information gained to be applied confidently to the
larger area, a sanple must be an accurate, reliable representation of the
larger area. Statistical saWling specifies reliability by placing samples
so as to reduce bias (choices that tend to make samples consistently dif-
ferent from the population). To.reduce and control bias most effectively,
samples are selected at random. Random selection makes it more likely that
the study results will reflect the true 6aracteristics; of the population
being sampled and gives a method to estimate the actual bias.

In recent years, random sampling strategies have been used increasingly
in prehistoric research ftpller 1975) for investigating both sites and
regions. These strategies yield the most accurate results when dealing
with large numbers of small sampling units; they most frequently have been.
used in areas where few permissions to trespass were necessary and where
all parts of the study area were fairly accessible to survey teams.
In the present study, limited funds and limited time prevented the
use of random sampling. The wide distribution of small sampling units
throughout the large study area would have 'resulted in very limited cover-
age. The highly indented shoreline would have required extensive tr avel
between sampling units, and private ownership would have required numerous
permissions to trespass small areas.

Thus, a purposefully dispersed and stratified sampling strategy was
chosen for this study. The sample was designed to provide information for
the study and to control unintentional bias, by explicitly defining the
sampling units and carefully dispersing their location throughout the study

area.

The advantages of this type of sampling lie in reduced cost and faster
and better coverage of the study area. Disadvantages lie in the inability
to state statistically the amount of error expected in the sample, due to
the unknown nature of the population to be sampled and to thepossibility
of introducing patterns into the data during the process of purposefully
dispersing the sample. These disadvantages are discussed further in the
following sections.

For this study, the coastal zone was defined As all land within 200,
feet of present or former tidal waters. Previous experience in the area
indicated that a 200 foot setback would be sufficient for the study asi
our research in Kent County has indicated that prehistoric coastal land
use.was highly linear; the density of artifacts falls off rapidly as dis-
tance from the shoreline increases. However, it should be noted in passing
that areas of low artifact density represent another kind of prehistoric
1and use and contain unique artifact types. Thus, these areas should be

considered for preservation, along with denser, more spatially coherent
artifact clusters. In addition, modern activities that disturb prehis-
toric remains occur along-the coast line within the 200 foot-boundary of
this survey. Examples of these activities are bulkheading, waterfront
homes,, docks and piers, and marinas.
In order to understand how aspect"s of the present environment may
relate to the distribution of prehistoric resources, the study area was
divided into a series of sampling strata. These st rata, termed environ-
mental sampling units, formed the basic unit of observation and recorda-
tion for the field survey. Environmental sampling units were defined by
the intersktion of variables in important environmental parameters,
waterbody and landform. Eighteen possible environmental sampling units
resulted from combinations of each variable of waterbody size and each
variable of land form type, as shown in Table 4-1.

The nature of the body of water interfacing with the land determines
the seasonal and year-round aquatic resources available for human exploita-
tion. These resources vary in kind, number, and accessibility, depending
on such factors as water temperature, salinity, wave and current regimes,
bathymetry, and substrate. Owing to the lack of baseline data and the
highly dynamic character of the foregoing factors, they were not used.
Instead, size classes based on water surface area were used; waterbody size
might have directly affected prehistoric activities by influencing the
availability and density of aquatic resources local routes of communica-
tion, exposure, and erosion rates.

The type of shoreline, or landward component of the coastal zone, in-
fluences the distribution of terrestrial vegetation and wildlife and af-
fects offshore plants and animals as well, by supplying nutrients, sediment,
and freshwater. Access to the water also is controlled by factors such as
high banks and marshes.

,Other environmental parameters, such as plants and animals, undoubted-
ly have had an equal or even more 1wortant effect on the distribution of
prehistoric populations. However, these parameters represent the most
disturbed.elements of the environment. European colonization and changes

am IM no NWI Aft, a* 'am" 'we, am, 101 SO IWO,

3
Table 4-l' Environmental Sampling Units

Waterbody Size
Landform

1. wetlands (marshes and spits) 1. More than 300 square miles

2. Low bank (under 20 feet elevation) fast ground 2. 30 through 299 square miles

3. High bank (above 20 feet elevation) fast ground 12 through.29 square miles

4. 3 through 11 square miles

5. .25 through 2 square miles
.2
6. less than .25 square miles

11@laterbody size increments are arbitrary.
2 To qualify as a waterbody separate from adjoining coastline, centerline length must be
more than width.
3 Environmental sampling units are-derived''by,.7combining each kind of1andform with each
size of waterbody. Thus, envirorffnental.,sam'pling unit 11 consists of:wetlands along
square miles in area.
waterbodies that are greater than 300..

iii@land use have rearranged and destroyed old plant and animal associations.
Sbme regional studies have used environmental factors, such as carrying
d@@*ity, or,4,tl@asures of biological productivity by season and environment,
as guides.' However, such approaches require considerable baseline infor-
mation and these factors would be difficult to project backward in time
in,areas that have undergone dramatic and widespread environmental change.
Various cultural factors such as religious or aesthetic concerns
probably-played a part in the location of prehistoric activities. Since
it is difficult to control for such factors, this study assumed that cul
fural concerns and economic activities overlapped in most kinds of sites.
"'In classifying the study area into the sampling strata, the coastal'
rivL-,
zone was differentiated into two kinds of land: developed and undeveloped.
-Sample areas to be inspected were drawn from undeveloped land, with the
results to be applied to both.

"Developed land!' refers to areas of urban or suburban housing or
Andustry, where modern use of the landscape has likely destroyed, dis-
V-rkedor covered up prehistoric resources. In additionP two or-more
adjoining parcels of land under 300 feet each in coastal zone frontage
also were designated as developed. It was assumed that as individual par-
L A.
cels of land become smaller in size that preservation efforts become more
difficult. The increasing parcelization of the coastal zone increases
the number of landowners and the likelihood that these smallerparcels
will eventually be developed for housing or other soil disturbing activi-
ties. Developed land was identified on aerial photographs (provided by.
the National Aeronautic and Space Administration 1972) and Maryland De-
partment of Assessments and Taxation Tax Maps (provided by the Energy and,
Coaital Zone Administration 1974). Of the 353S.0 miles of coastline
6i@Affied'for this study, 1261.7 miles (35.7%) were interpreted as deve-
.theirefore unsuitable for inspection as sampling strata, as
loped and'- J
shown in Table 4-2.

Samplingtracts were chosen from undeveloped land in order to avoid
the@@r6@lem of looking for prehistoric resources in developed areas'.
B(ay and
Modern.development destroys or obscures resources and many permissions

Table 4-2 Shoreline Development According to Environmental
A Sampling Unit for Study Area Counties

Environmental Total Percent Miles of Percent of Total
Sampling Unit Mi'les of Total Develope@ Miles in Environmen
Shoreline tal Sampling Unit

11 80.8 2.3 25.5 31.6

12 101.3 2.9 7.2 7.1

13 20.2 .6 6.6 32.7

14 82.7 2.3 18.5 22.4

is 141.9 4.0 27.1 19.1
16 502.2 14.2 118.3 23.6

21 126.5 3.6 62.0 49.0

22 247.0 7.0 75.5 30.6

23 48.9 1.4 35.3 72.2

24 250.8 7.1 118.0 47.1
25 395.3 11.2 167.6 42.4
26 1003.4 28.3 377.5 37.6

31 45.9 1.3 20.2 44.0

32 85.3 2.4 21.1 24.7
33 4.8 .1 3.2 66.7
34 76.1 2.2 44.2 58.1
35 91.4 2.6 37.1 40.6
36 230.5 6.5 96.8 42.0

2
Total 3535.0 100.,0 1261.7 3s.@7

1. As measured on U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle maps using a dial measur-
ing device. Measurement includes former shorelines not currently ad-
jacent to tidal waters.
Z. Excludes Somerset, Wicomico and part of Dorchester counties (see Fig-1-1),

to trespass are required. Sampling undeveloped land increases the poten-
tial for finding prehistoric resources, especially lithic or stone debris.
However, such sampling is biased toward large parcels of agricultural
land and this bias may affect survey results where historic settlement
patterns corresponded with those of prehistoric populations. This bias
may particularly affect the discovery of the most recent prehistoric sites
if the earliest settters chose the same locations because the land was
cleared orappeared to be fertile.
The sampling design also incorporated stratification of the study
area according to the location of sampling tracts on the Eastern and
Western shores of the Bay and according to position along two important
rivers, the Potomac,and Choptank. At first glance the Eastern and Western
shores appear to mirror one another; however, regional factors may have
affected prehistoric settlement of each shoreline. Topographically,
Western Shore counties are characterized byrolling countryside and by
relief. In addition, the Western Shore has extensive, well-developed
terraces or flood plains along the Potomac and Patuxent rivers. Further-
more, the Potomac and Patuxent rivers are quite long with upper reaches,
that thrust deep into the Piedmont and, in the case of the Potomac, into
the Applachian Mountains. These extensive river system not only provided
avenues for prehistoric people to import raw materials and food resources
unique to the Appalachian and Piedmont provinces; they also provided major
corridors by which new peoples and different ideas entered the Maryland
coastal zone. The effect, if any, of thesedif ferences on coastal site
distribution is tested by dispersing the sample between the two shores.'

A final consideration governing the stratification of the sampling
tracts was the desire to see what effect salinity gradients may have had
on the distribution of prehistoric resources. Because the differences
between past and modern salinity gradients are not known and would have
changed through time as sea level rose, spatial position along the shore-
line, rather than modern salinity values, was used to stratify the samp-,
ling tracts. Assalinity decreases with upstream position along both.the
Bay and its major tributaries, it was reasoned that prehistoric resources
representing salinity dependent activities might be distributed similarly.

Owing to their length and known extrem es in salinity, the Choptank
and Potomac rivers were chosen for detailed examination of possible salin-
ity effects. Each river was divided into equal thirds of length, based
on the mid-river distance from mouth to the limit of tidal influence. An
attempt was made to sample each portion equally.

Field Work

A systematic prehistoric site survey was conducted in the study area
shown in Fig. 1-1. Fieldwork completed in July and August of 19741n-
cluded the inspection of portions of the.Chesapeake Bay and Chester River
shorelines of Kent County, the western shore of Kent Island in Queen Annes
County, and the northern part of Calvert.Countyl.s Chesapeake Bay shoreline.i.
Fieldw6rk.carried out in spring 1976 included the extensive survey of Anne
Arundel, Cecil, Charles, Harford, St. Marys, and Talbot counties. Smaller
lengths of shoreline wereinspected in Baltimore, Caroline, Dorchester,
Kent, and Queen Annes counties. Individual survey tract locations,and
1 through A-1 2.
summary information are provided in Appendix A, Figs. A.

Two-person survey teams, spaced atintervals of 50 feet and 150 feet
from the shoreline, conducted ground inspection. Each surveyor inspected
a 50 foot area on either side. Naturally, deviations occurred in this
coverage when obstacles were met. Because beach access varied from changes
in nearshore water depths and tidal fluctuations and thepresente of trees.
and other debris eroded from the bank above i ededprogress, walkers were
generally not stationed on the beach. However, in areas of very poor
ground visibility,.such as in forests or in fields. of mature.crops, one
walker was stationed along the shoreline to view cliff exposures and eroded
materials along the beach. In short, the upland surfaces of the coastal.
zone were preferred becausethey provided a greater surface area for view-
ing and more effective and reliable communication between surveyors.

The speed with which the field observation progressed depended.on
field conditions and.the necessity for obtaining permissions to trespass.
Progress was relatively more rapid in rain washed, planted fields than in

areas of heavy undergrowth or under marshy conditions. In areas of heavy
forest litter, no attempt was made to clear or otherwise impr ove ground
viewing conditions. Shovel testing or other subsurface testing procedures
were beyond the scope of the study. But in areas of heavy forest litter,
care was taken to inspect paths, farm roads, game trails, rodent holes,
toppled tree roots, ravine slopes, and the bases of tree trunks when cir
41
cumstances permitted. These conditions provided opportunities for viewing
the ground beneath the fores.t.litter. De-ep forest surveying was not
limited to such opportunities, but they were.incorporated in the walker's
path whenever possible. Wetlands, marshes, and sandspits the least
accessible sampling strata all were inspected whenever possible. The
photographs in Fig. 4-3 illustrate viewing conditions in agricultural
fields, forests, wetlands, and residential areas, showing prehistoric
@.shell remains in allof the situations except for wetlands.

In areas of multiple or corporate landownership, permission to tres-
pass was often the biggest delaying factor., However,, the use of county
tax maps prior to starting-survey in an area increased theefficiency of
the field program. Land ownership and property boundaries were thus de-
termined and communications established prior to ground inspection of
each sampling tract.

Each survey team was equipped with maps or aerial photographs for
reporting findings and survey conditions. Field notes and map-annotations
were codified later in the laboratory. For the purposes of this study,
artifact" meant anything owing its form or location to.human interven-
tion, not,datable to.the.historic period. All artifacts were noted
whether found in isolation or in dense clusters. It was not within the
scope of this study to obtain artifact collections from the various sites
discovered.

The remains of past human activities are spread across the ground
surface in a continuum of varying densities. Clearlythe definition of,
what constitut6s; a site or an artifact cluster is quite arbitrary and de-
pends on the problem under investigation. Sites in an,area can vary from
thousands to one or two artifact.s,.depending on the definition of site.

'go 10) 'go 'so Im '00 so 'MI Me low W so

Fig. 4-3a Viewing conditions in agricultural Fig. 4-3b Viewing conditions on forest floor
field showing prehistoric shell site showing prehistoric shell site

Fig. 4-3c Viewing conditions in wetland Fig. 4-3d Viewing conditions in residential area
showing prehistoric shell site

F'or this study, the basic unit of analysis, "site" is defined as any
locality where three or more artifacts were found within SO feet of one
another. All sites recorded in the study.had to meet this minimal require-

ment.

Sites composed primarily of food refuse in the form of oyster middens
or heaps present a special problem. Euroamerican.use of shells from
these.Native American refuse heaps has created secondary deposits. These
shells.were used forroad beds, placed on fields to.lime the soil, used
in mortar, and quarried to produce powdered lime in kilns. -Of course,
such nonaborig.inal activities transported both food refuse (.oyster shells
and vertebrate bone,s) and any manufactured items to new locations. In
certain areas,,oyst6r shells.frequently are used in riprap-or behind.
wooden,,breakwaters. Other accumulations of oyster shells around Chesa-
peake Bay mark,,the locations of former shucking houses and other activities
associated with a long and Active Eur.oamerican,shellfishery. Therefore,
each accumulation of shells encountered,was carefully examined for the
presence of Euroamerican and Native knerican artifacts. Most shell de-
posits were easily identifiable as to origin; they usually contained suf-
ficient evidence to suggest aboriginal origin or.they werebarren of pre-
'historic artifacts and usually'could,b.e 'associated,with historic sites
or structure .s,, or they contained artifacts from the historic period.
Shell deposits whose origins could not be,determined were not included in
the analyses..

Biases 'and Limitations.

Ideally, distributional studies for predictive,mOdels should.be
based on a data set or o3i An area.that still retains most or all of the
various patterned sets of remains, deposited by prehistoric occupation.
In'other words, enough of the original patterns must be retained to in-
sure their recognition. Further, these, remains ought to be roughl e iv-
y qu
alent in visibility throughout the study area. However, the coast is an
extremely dynamic,tone@,.where the energy and force of the sea are dissi-

pated against the land (see.Chapter Two). Erosion and inundation have
removed differentially, and in some areas completely, prehistoric remains.
in short, the patterned r.emains of."Past coastal oriented cultural
activities are now in various states of preservation. In some areas all
materials are under the sea; in other areas, only a random patchwork of
sites may remain. In yet other areas, most kinds of activities may still
be represented in the prehistoric record. Further, certain remains now
located in coastal settings may have been deposited originally in a river-
ine.or interior environment and these sites can create "noise" within the
data.

in order to explain and thus predict distributional patterns, rele-
vant enviromental sampling strata must be devised. Finally, and import-
antly, whenever possible, data gathering should provide for artifact col-
lectIng sufficient to identify the remains encountered by kind and age.
Such analysis improves the chance of interpreting patterns of resource dis-
tribution and permits estimates,about therelative abundance of various
kinds of sites.

Because artifacts could not,be collected in this study, all analyses
are based on presence or absence of sites alone. Kinds or ages of sites,
beyond distinguishing between sites with visible amounts of shell and those
i4ithout visible shell, have not been taken intoaccount. This shortcoining
limits severely the interpretive possibilities of the data.

Further complicating the.study of past land use patterns are the
highly variable modern land use and field viewing conditions encountered
during the survey (Fig. 4-3). Cultivated fields provide the best oppor-
tunity for discovering prehistoric resources, since relatively large
areas can be easily searched by foot surveyors. Pastures, forests, and
marshes, on the otherhand, are characterized by low visibility'and con-,
tain obstacles and entanglements.

'The data setused in thi s study is biased towaid easier to negotiate
envirorffnents which tended to be oversampled, and biased away from environ-

ments which were too difficult to inspect and hence were under-sampled.
Therefore, as Table 4-3 shows,, some environmental sampling units were
inspected disproportionately more and others disproportionately less
than they should have been, given their representation in the study area.
Because forests, pastures.,,lawns, and other settings do not -x@eveal pre-
historic remains as easily as do agricultural fields, the ability to see
these remains was significantly greater in cultivated areas.

Only one set of distinctions differentiated kinds of sites during
the study. A separate tally was kept for areas marked by deposits of
oyster shells and for areas without shell debris. By their nature, shell
sites are much more clearly visible than sites marked by small chips of
rock and occasional shaped tools. Therefore, the results of this study
are biased toward more readily detectable sites. This factor is especially
Critical in forested areas or in places with heavy ground cover. Here
lithic debris alone is rarely visible, save in occasional bare areas.
Shell debris, however, if in sufficient quantity, is clearly visible,
even in areas with substantial forest litter (Fig. 4-3b).

Field viewing conditions changed.daring the survey, when essentially
dormant forest understory and freshly planted fields grew to thickets and
waist-high stands of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Thus, throughout the
survey., viewing conditions generally deteriorated with time.

Rainfall patterns also affected survey results: rainfall is.critical
to successful reconaissance of cultivated fields. If fields are not washed
after plowing, discing, planting, or cultivating, the ability to gain in-.
formation fromthe surface is considerably reduced. The near drought con-
ditions that prevailed over much of coastal plain Maryland daring the
spring of 1976 severely hampered the acquisition of site location in for-
mation. Without rain, freshly worked fields maintain a powdery soil con-
sistency, making visual inspection difficult...- These drought conditions
impeded the search for nonshell deposits. But shell deposits could still
be-found even at a distance in agricultural,fields or capping the tops of
banks. Thus, all figures relating to site numbers and densities repre-
sent minimum numbers. This reservation is particularly true for nonshell

Table 4-3 Percent of Shoreline I nspected by
Environmental Sampling Unit

Enviromrental Study 1Area Number of Amount Survey@d
Sampling Unit Miles /Percent Instances Observed Miles/Percent

11 80.8 2.3 42 9.96 2.2

12 101.3 2.9 5 .57 .1

13 20.3 .6 4 .91 .2

14 82.7 2.3 14 2.84 .6

15 141.9 4.0 17 .3.90 .9

16 502.2 14.2 21 5.42 1.2

21 126.5 3.6 123. 59.43 13.4

247.0 7.0 47 24.62 5.5
.23 48.9 1.4 7 2.95 .7
.24 250.8 7.1 75 38.56 8.7
25 395.3 11.2 121 55.57 12.5

2.6. 1003.4 28.3 224 116.02 26.1

31 45.9 1.3 80 24.17 5.4

32 85.3 2.4 22 7.05 1.6

33 4.8 .1 4 1.82 .4
34 76.1 2.2 .41 10.64 2.4
35 91.4 2.6 60 @18.75 . 4.2
36 230.5 6.5 130 61.78 13.9

Total 3535.0 100.0 .1037 444.96.100.0

'As interpreted on 1:24,000 maps and measured with dial map mQ,3suring device.
Measurement includes former shorelines not currently adjacent to tidal
waters.
2Figured as percent of total,miles.surveyed

deposits.

Table 4-4 presents information on the ground viewing conditions under
which the sites discovered.by this survey werejocated. These data suggest
that fewer sites were discovered in unwashed agricultural fields than in
forested and other apparent low visibility situations. Further, whenever
viewing conditions were in the medium or low ranges, the number of nonshell
sites rapidly dropped off. Shell site discoveries were more, equally divi-
d6d among the categories.

Table 4-4 Ground Visibility Conditions of Systematically
Discovered Sites (N=777)

Relative Ground Percent of Percent,of Percent of
'Visibility All Sites Shell Sites Nonsf_:_11 Sites

1
High 37.1 33.0 42.3
MediuM2 23.9 28.7" 17.7
3
Low 17.1 21.6. 11.4
Unrecorded 16.7 28.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Includes cultivated and well washed fields, beaches, and sandspits.
21ncludes forests, lawns, pastures, marshes,,and.fields with mature
crops (e.g., winter wheat).
31ncludes cultivated but unwashed fields and fallow fields.

Another serious limitation inherent in evaluating prehistoric remains
is the masking of one kind of remains by another. Nonshell deposits rap-
resent a cluster of lithic debris, and shell deposits represent a
cluster of organic refuse along'With lithic debris. In areas of dense
shell deposits, lithic remains unrelated to the shell can be masked,
either by overlap or by direct superposition of shell remains. Detailed

artifact analysis is needed in order to sort out such deposits.

The sampling strategy also could affect the results of the survey.
Several considerations affected the choice of environmental parameters to
classify sampling strata, particularly that they had to be relevant to-,
past settlement and subsistence patterns, readily classifiable on 1:24,000
,scale maps, and recognizable in the field. The U.S.G.S. 7.5 topographic
series formed the base maps for sample stratification and data recordation.
While these maps are quite accurate, t@ey sometimes do not show small
Marshes and other coastal landforms. Likewise, their 20 foot contour in-
tervals did not allow the identification of small gullies, springs, and,
other potential sources of fresSwater which might have been useful in
stratifying the environment.

Land to be walked was selected from undeveloped land, favoring large
properties under single ownership. As noted above, this procedure could
bias the survey results if historic development locations correlate highly
with prehistoric, particularly late prehistoric, settlement patterns. As
Table 4-2 shows, more low and,high bank shoreline has been developed than
wetlands and spits. Most of the developed shoreline is found on the
Western Shore near the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. areas.

Crew-related factors,are not expected to produce bias in this study.
Three two-person survey teams composed of individuals with comparable
abilities were assigned survey tracts randomly. Thus, no one team was
responsible for all of the inspection work in any one county or area.
Another crew-related bias i the potential for.increased site reporting
is
with increasing experience in the particular field situation. In this
case, analysis of the density of sites discovered versus the mileage in-
spected for each enviroment did not reveal any significant relationship
between site discovery and the amount of each environment inspected.

Results and Interpretation

The ftbld program resulted in foot inspection of 225 sampling tracts
of varying lengths and environmental composition. Appendix A, Figs. A-1

to A-12 locate these tracts, and Tables A-1 to A-12 provide sumary infor-
mation on them.' In all, 443.7 miles of study area shoreline were surveyed,
resulting in the discovery of 777 new prehistoric sites (see Table 4-5).-
This number represents more than half again as many sites as were known
to the Division of Archeology by December 1976 for all study area counties.
As Table 4-5 indicates, nearly two-thirds of all prehistoric sites re- -
ported,for study area counties are located in the coastal zone.

In spite of the biases and limitations discussed above, this study
resulted in numerous insights concerning the distribution of Maryland's..
coastal prehistoric resources. An inspection of the densities of shelf
and nonshell sites by survey tract, Figs. 4-4 through 4-7, reveals cer-
tain overall distributional patterns. The circles representing site den-
sities on these maps are centered on individual survey trazts (see Appen-
dix A), and their.sizes are in proportion to the average site de_--_-74_ty cal-
culated for each tract. Overlapping circles thus result from nearby sur-
vey tracts with different site densities. The most distinctive pattern
is the limited distribution of shell-sites: these sites are restricted
to the middle and lower portions of major Bay,tributaries, and south of
a line extending west from Howell Point (Kent County) to the Harford
County shoreline. This pattern probably reflects the limits of exploit-
able oyster populations, a spatially more extensive food source in the
past.

Table 4-6 demonstrates this pattern for the Choptank and Potomac
rivers. Here, the rivers were divided into equal thirds, and shell si te
densities computed. For each river, the density of shell sites increases
downstream. This observation is e@xpected to hold for the other large
tributaries, including the Patuxent, Chester, and Nanticoke rivers. Fig.
4-8 summarizes the projected maximun distribution of shell sites. The
area enclosed by this line is referred to as the shell area, while that.
outside the line is referred to as the nonshell area.

That@the distribution of shell sites is more extensive than the dis-
tribution of modern oyster beds may be attributed to prehistoric transpor-
tation of shellfish. More likely, however, oyster beds contracted in
response to environmental changes associated with Euroamerican settlement.

-Table 4-5 Sumwry-of Survey Results for Study Area Counties

Sites Re- Sites Dis- Percent of Re-
County Miles of Miles Percent ported to covered by ported and Dis-
Shoreline Surveyed Surveyed Division of covered Sites in
Archeology3 this Study Coastal Zone

Anne Arundel 477.9 33.6 7.0 389 41 48.8
Baltimore 237.2 8.4 3.5 142 5 14.3
Calvert 174.7 13.1 7.5 38 0 100.0
Caroline 101.3 13.9 13.7 46 24 51.4
Cecil 206.8 35.5 17.2 83 55 52.9
Charles 269.7 54.8 20.3 110 114 74.6
Dorchester 65.8 7.3 11.1 52 0 73.1
Harford 240.5 21.7 9.0 98 52 64.0
Kent 346.1 82.6 23.9 11 146 100.0
Prince Georges 2 69.8 155 37.4 00
Queen Annes 2.79.1 17.5 6.3 47 10 54.4
St. Mary@ 424.5 49.3 11.6 80 156 87.7
Somerset 48 93.8
Talbot ' 2 641.6 106.0 16.5 55 174 90.0
Wicomico 36 50.0
Total4 3535.0 443.7 1390 777 64.7

'As measured on U.S.C.G. 7.5 minute quad maps using a dial measuring device. Measurement includes
shorelines not currently adjacent to tidal waters.
2No fieldwork conducted in county
3Includes sites reported to'December 17, 1976. Figures include some prehistoric sites, estimated to
number no more-than 5% of the total for each county except St. Marys where it may reach 10% (Bastian,
personal communication)
4Total excludes Somerset, Wicomico, and portions of Dorchester.counties.

5 1 WLES
CECIL ELKTON
AVERAGE NUMBER OF N HAVRE DE GRACE
SITES PER MILE
HARFORD
Au,
13.0
6.0
4.0
7.0

*0 BALTIMORE

BALTI MORE KENT

HOWARD CHESTERTWN

ai.11=151 ANNES

ANNE ARUNDEL co

CENTREVILLE
tu CAROLINE

ANNAPOLIS
PRINCE z
GEORGES 441

DENM

TALBOT
Lu

CL EASTON

z
uj
X

CALVERT

CAMSFMW W)RCHESTER
S

FIG. 4-4 SHELL SITE DENSITIES OF CHESAPEAKE BAY SURVEY TRACTS

0 5 10 MILES
CECIL ELKTON

AVERAGE NUMBER OF HAVRE DE GRACE
SITES PER MILE N HARFORD
8 0
6:0
4.0
7.0

.0 BALTIMORE

It. BALTIMORE KENT

HHOWARD CHESTERTOWN

QUEEN AMES

ANNE AftUNDEL QD

CENTREVILLE
CAROLINE

ANNAPOLIS

PRINCE
GEORGES

@c
4u

TALBOT
LAJ

EASTON

z
w

CALVERT

CHARLES DORCHESTER

FIG. 4-5. NONSHE LL SITE. DENSITIES OF CHESAPEAKE BAY SURVEY TRACTS

PRINCE GEORGES

-5-

CALVERT d)
7
CHARLES LA KATA MMMFFEDERKK

ST. MARYS

00
0 IN

MOWN mm v
cl
AVERAGE NUMBER OF
SITES PER MILE

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0

.0 N
WLES J,

,FIG. 4-6 SHELL SITE DENSITIES OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND SURVEY TRACTS
1011

PRINCE GEORGES

CALVERT
jo 7
CHARLES It LA PLATA PRM FREMMM 10

ST. MARYS

ummm PAM '0

WOUff NUMBER OF
SITES PER MILE

6.0
4.0
2.0 VER
.0

FIG. 4-7 NONSHELL SITE DENSITIES OF SOUTHERN IVIARYLAND SURVEY TRACTS

m MAN! M

Table 4-6 Shell and Nonshell Site Densities in Sites per Mile
by River System and Position

Potomac System (Hollis Point to Po int Look out),
Upper Middle Lower
Number of Instances
Observed 28 78 S6
Density of Shell Sites 0 2.40 2.97
Density of Nonshell Sites 21,51 .74 .36

Clioptank System,(Denton to Chlora Point)
Upper Middle Lower
Number of Instances
Observed 55 3-
26
Density of Shell Sites 0 .25
Density of Nonshell Sites 2.49 1..02 .85

Figures 4-4 through 4-7 and Table 4-6 also show possible maskin
g of
nonshel-1 sites by shell sites. Table 4-,_6 shows an inverse relationship
between shell and nonshell site densities, depending on position along
the Choptank and Potomac rivers. Likewise, Figs. 4-4 through 4-7 show
a similar complementary.di stributionfor the remainder of the Bay. This
distribution may represent prehistoric shellfish exploitation in certain,
areas of the Bay,,. with seasonal movement to other areas for other activi-
ties. Early accounts suggest that this type of settlement pattern may
have existed during the time of early colonial explorations (see Chapter
Three). However., the tendency of nonshell remains to be masked by shell
remains, along with the problems with finding nonshell sites caused by
dry soil conditions during the survey, make it. difficult to evaluate the
reasons for the apparent patterns in site distribution., In summary, it
seems that the trend to increased shell sites with downstream distance is
indeed real, whereas the trend to increased nonshell sites with upstream
distance may be only apparent. Further work is required in order to re-
solve this problem.

Table 4-7 compares site density for all survey tracts located on the,

Cecil

If
Harford
=k=
Scale In mile.i Baltimore

Bait
Kent

A
Awiles
n
In
e

A
r
U Caroline
n F. ...
C. > d :-A
e

Prince Talbot
Georges

:AC t.
..7

e j:
Dor.:heoter
%%% t
r

X,
.... . .... ........
7:
.7:.\ St
... .::Wicomico
. . .... ....
Varys ......
:.* * ::::.:.
kip
X
N4:::
X.
LEGEND

X"
Modern Oy-tter Bed S
0
u113
m
Yates, 11
e
A Prehistoric Oyster Midden
A r
.:.I s
a lnactlv,@? Oyster Bed e
Shell kkree ( Expected Limit of Shell Sites) t
Fj Non Shell Area

Fig.4-8 Prtise,@it distribution limits of natural Oyster
beds, reported prehistoric oyster middens and expected
maximum exten'. of shell sites

Western and Eastern shores. This table shows little difference between
the sides of the Bay, except for the density of nonshell site's outside the
area of shell site occurrence. These data suggest that@both sides of the
Bay have equal potential for prehistoric resources. However, this state-

ment
applies only to site presence. Such equality cannot necessarily be
expected in terms of the distribution of kinds and ages of prehistoric

resources.

Table 4-7 Shell and Nonshell Site Densities for Shell and
Nonshell Areas on the Eastern and Western Shores

Western Shore Eastern Shore

Shell Area Nonshell Area Shell Area Nonshell Area

361
Instances Observed 60 357 259
(147.6 mi.)' (33.7 mi.) (175.2 mi.) (87.7 mi.)
Density of
Shell Sites 1.42 --- 1.44
Density of
Nonshell Sites .41 2.70 .44 1.99

The midline dividing the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay rovides
p
the boundary between Eastern Shore and Western Shore.

Tables 4-8 and 4-9 present the density of shell and nonshell sites by
landform and waterbody size in both shell and nonshell areas. In the
shell area, shell site density increases with increasing elevation above
sea level. The lowunstable,and wet ground that comprises landfom 1 has
the lowest site density. Marshes and sandspits were probably the least
habitable environments, and marshes'are certainly the'most difficult . en-
vironments to survey. Within the shell area, nonshell site densities are
uniform but considerably lower than corresponding shell site densities.
This"finding may result.from. rare prehistoric use of this area for acti-
vities other than those associated with shell use, masking of'nonshell by
shell remains, or poor viewing conditions.

Further examination of Tables 4-8 and 4-9 shows that nons
hell site

Table 4-8 Shell and Nonshell Site Densities Accor 'ding to
Landform and Waterbody Size in the Shell Area

Total Percent Percent of Average Average
Environment Mileage of',Total Instances Mileage Observed Shell Nonshell
Mileage Observed Observed Mileage Site Site
Density Density
(sites/mile)

Landform

1 710.3 24.7 90 21.6 6.7 .51 .24

2 1771.6 61.6 463 245.4 76.0 1.36 .54

3 394.6 13.7 165 55.8 17.3 2.15 .27

Total 2876.5 100.0 718 322.8 100.0

Waterbody

1 229.3 8.0 229 88.S 12.0 .78 .15

2 269.5 9.4 43 18.9 5.9 2.76 76

3 66.4 2.3 is 5.7 1.8 1.91 .07

4 23.9 11.3 86 39.5 12.2 2.23 .48

5 517.2 18.0 108 50.7 1S.7 1.91 .90

6 1470.0 sl-1 237 119.s 36.7 1.29

Total 2876.5 100.0 718 322.8 100.0

Table 4-9 Nonshell Site Densities According to Landform
and Waterbody Size in the Nbnshell Area

Percent Percent of Average
Total of Total Instances Mileage Mileage Nonshell
Environment Mileage Mileage Observed. Observed Observed Site
Density
(sites/mile)

Landform

1 253.1 38.4 13 2.0 1.6 3.54

2 248.0 37.7 134 49.9 41.1 1-.47

3 157.4 23.9 172 69.6 S7.3 2.53

Total 658.S 100.0 319 121.S 100.0

Waterbody

1 29.9 4.4 16 5.1 4.2 2.06

2 148.1 22.S 31 13.3 7.7 2.S8

3 0

4 12.6 44 12.5 12.8 2.37

5 124 S 18.9 90 27.7 19.0 2.52,

6 273.0 41.6 138 62.9 56.3 1.70

Total 658.5 100.0 319 121.5 100.0.

densities are considerably higher in the rionshell area than in the shell
area. The unexpected high density in landform 1 in the nonshell area is
either due to the special use of these settings or, more likely, due to
the extremely small sample size. In general, for both shell and nonshell
sites in both areas, land more than 20 feet above,sea level has greater
site densities. Wetlands are not expected to have abundant prehistoric
resources, except in areas where these environments formed after prehis-
toric occupation. Of course, sites in wetlands have undergone more natural
disturbance than have upland sites, owing to the dynamic nature of this en-
vironment.,,
With regard to waterbody size, within the shell area shell site den-
sity is uniform except for waterbody 1 (land fronting directly on Chesa-
peake Bay). This low value probably results not only from cultural fac-
tors, such as a possible preference for sheltered bays and coves, but also
from. the greater rate of shore erosion which typifies the Bay shoreline.
Thus, through inundation and erosion, more sites fronting on the Bay have
probably been removed from the prehistoric record. Again, the average
density of nonshell sites is, significantly lower than that of shell sites.
In the nonshell area, lithic site density is uniform among the waterbody
classes.

Table 4-10 shows that, of the sites discovered by this survey, shell
sites are currently under more stress than nonshell sites from shore ero-
sion. Table 4-11 shows that sites on larger waterbodies are under the
most intense pressure from erosion.

Tables 4-12 and 4-13 present the average densities of shell and non-
shell sites according to environmental'sampling units in the shell and
nonshell areas. From these data it is possible to estimate the expected
number of sites by type and environment for shell and nonshell areas. The
results in Tables 4-14 and 4-15 show that 3,920 shell and 2,585 nonshell
sites may be expected in the study area. Because of the biases and limi-
tations discussed previously, these figures represent only the minimum
number of sites. Table 4-16 presents minimum number of shell and nonshell site
calculations for each study area county. Differences in the total number
of expected sites between counties reflect differences in shoreline length and

Table 4-10 Percent of Systematically Discovered.Sites Exposed
to Varying Intensities of Shore Erosioni

Erosion Rate All Sites (777) Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

High 8.8 9.6 7.8
Moderate 1.7 1.8 1.5

Low 3.4 5.0 1.2
Slight 17.7 22.4 11.6
Accretion 8.8 9.6 7.8
2
No Information 68.1 60.6 77.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

1
Based on "Historical Shorelines and Erosion Rates" (Maryland Geological
Survey 1975).

2
No erosion figures given or site located on former shoreline.

Table 4-11 Percent of Systematically Discovered Sites Exposed
to Tying Intensities of Shore Erosion by Waterbody
Size

Erosion Rate Waterbody Size Class
1 2 3 4 S 6

High (>8'/yr.) 2.5
Moderate (4-8'/yr.) 14 8 1.2
Low (2-41/yr.)
4.9 11.1 7.5 1.1 .7
Slight (<21/yr.) 46.9 46.9 8.18 10.8 10.2 6.9
Accretion 25.9 13.6 18.2 9.2 5.1 4.6
2
No Information 4.9 27.2 72.5 83.5 87.8
Total. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

'Based on "Historical Shorelines and Erosion Rates (Maryland Geological
Survey 1975).

2
No erosion figures given or site located onfomer shoreline.

Table 4-12 Shell and Nonshell Site Densities According
to,Envirormental Sampling Units in the Shell Area

Environ- Percent Percent Average Average
mental Total of Total Instances Miles of Total Shell Nonshell
Sanpling Miles Miles Observed Observed Miles Site Site
Unit Observed Density Density
(sites/mile)

11 67.8 2.4 41 9.92 3.1 .33 .08

12 68.6 2.4 3 .34 .1 0 .0

13 16.4 .6 4 .91 .3 0 0

14 72.0 2.5 12 2.12 .7 2.20 .44

is 111.6 3.9 10 2.99 .9 .20 1.32

16 35S.9 12.6 20 5.34 1.7 .19 0

21 114.7 4.1 117 S7.80 17.8 .72 .27

22 151.3 5.3 29 15.49 4.8 2.39 .40

23 48.9 1.7 7 2.95 .9 2.20 .16

24 206.6 7.3 S9 33.79 10.5 1.91 .58

2S 348.9 12.3 79 39.20 12.1 1.37 .91

26 910.0 32.2 172 96.14 29.8 1.39 .58

31 34.5 1.2 71 20.72 6.4 1.13 0

32 S1.4 1.8 11 3.07 1.0 4.50 1.11

33 2.6 .1 4 1.82 .6 3.30 0
34 1.6 18 3.60 1.1 3.53 .11

35 57.9 2.0 19 8.48 2.6 5.06 .60

36 165.6 5.9 45 18.14 5.6 1.39 .42

Total 2829.5 99.9 718 322.84 100.0

Table 4-13 Nonshell Sit& Densities According to
Environmental Sampling Units in the Nonshell Area

Environ- Percent Percent' of Average
mental Total of Total Instances -Miles Total Miles Nonshell
Sampling Miles Miles Observed Observed Observed Site Density
Unit (site/mile)

11 13.0 1.8 1 .04 .1 0

12 32.7 4.6 2 .23 .2 0
13 13.8 .5 0 0 0.
14 10.7 1.5 2 .72 .6 1.02

is 30.3 4.3 7 .91 .8 6.29

16 146.3 20.9 1 .08 .1 0

21 11.8 1.7 6 1.63 1.3 0

22 95.7 13.6 18 9.13 7.5 2.40

23 0 0 0 0 0 -

24 44.2 6.3 16 4.77 3.9 1.33

25 46.4 6.6 42 16.36 13.5 1.20

26 93.4 13.2 .52 18.03 14.8 1.58

31 11.4 1.6 9 3.45 2.8 3.66

32 33.9 4.8 .11 3.98 3.3 3.33
33 2 * 2 .3 0 0 0 -
34 31.3 4.4 26 7.05 5.8 3.12
35 33.5 4.7 41 10.27 8.5 3.23
36 64.9 9.2 85 44.81 36.8 1.79

Total 705.5 100.0 319 121.44 100.0

Table 4-14 Minimum Number of Expected Shell and Nonshell Sites
in the Shell Area According to Environmental Sawlinja
Units

Environ- Average Shell Expected Average Non- Expected
mental Mileage Site Density Number of shell Site Number of
Sampling (sites/mile) Shell Sites Density Nonshell
Unit (sites/mile) Sites

11 67 * 8 .33 22.4 .08 5.4
12 68.6 0 0 0 0
13 16.4 0 0 .0 0
14 72.0 2.20 158.4 .44 31.7
1S 111.6 .20 22.3 1.32 147.3

16 355.9 .19 67.6 0 0
21 114.7 .72 .82.6 .27 31.0
22 151.3 2.'39 361.6 .40 60.5
23 48.9 2.20 107.6 .16
24 206.6 1.91 394.6 ..58 119.8
25 348.9 1.37 478.0 .91 317.5
26 910.0 1.39 1264.9 .58 527.8

31 34.5 1.13 39.0 0 0

32 51.4 4.50 231.3 1.11 57.1

33 2.6 3.30 0 0
34 44.8 3.53 158.1 .11 4.9

35 57.9 5.06 293.0 .60 34.7
36 165.6 1.39 230.2 .42 69.6

Total 2829.5 3920.2 1415.4

Table 4-15 Minimum Number of Expected Nonshell Sites in the
Nonshell Area According to Environmental Sampling Units

Environmental Miles in Average Nonshell Expected Number of
Sampling Unit Environment Site Density Nonshell Sites
(Sites/mile)

11 13.0 0 0

12 32.7 0 0

13 3.8 -

14 10.7 1.02 10.9

15 30.3 6.29 190.6

16 146.3 0 0

21 11.8 0 0

22 95.7 2.40 229.7

23 0 - -

24 44.2 1.35 58.8

25 46.4 1.20 55.7

26 93.4 1.58 147.6
31' 11.4 3.66 41.7

32 33.9 3.33 112.9

33 2.2 -

34 31.3 3.12 97.7

35 33.5 3.23 108.2

36 64.9 1.79 116.2

Total 705.5 1170.0

Table 4-16, MinimUm, Number of Expected Shell and Nonshell
Sites' for Study Area Counties

County Minimum. No. of Minimum No. of Total Percent of Percent of Total Number
Expected Non, Expected Shell Expected Total Expected Study Area of Reported
shell Sites Sites Sites Sites Shoreline Sites to 12/76

Aime Arundel 229.2 733.3 962.S 14.8 13.5 430
Baltimore 128.0 314.2 442.2 6.8 6.7 147

Calvert 70.7 267.3 338.0 4.9 4.9 38

Caroline 147.0 78.9 225.9 3.5 2.9 70
Cecil 352.7 -- 352.7 5.4 5.9 138

Charles 323.1 240.2 563.3 8.7 7.6 224

Dorchester. 31.2 73.8 105.0 2.0 1.9 52

Harfbrd 154.0 146.9 300.9 4.7 6.8 150
Kent 238.9 274.5 558.4 7.4 9.8 157
Prince Georges 100.6 -- 100.6 1.5 2.0 iss
Queen Ames 181.3 298.2 479.5 8.2 7.9
St. @ftrys 230.8 667.1 897.9 13.8 _12--O 236
Somerset -- -- -- 48
Talbot 352.9 825.8 1178.7 18.3 18.1 -229
Wicomico -- -- -- -- 36

Total 2585.4 3920.2 6505.6 100.0 100.0 2160

1Computed by multiplying expected average site densities by cunulative-mileage-@, of each environmental
sampling unit according to county

varied environmental compositions. Generally, as Table 4-16 indicates,
there is a direct relationship between shoreline length and number of total
expected sites. St. Marys, Charles and Talbot counties have higher-expect-
ed site frequencies than indicated by their shoreline length, thus suggest-
ing the added affect of environmental composition in these areas. It
should be reiterated that, based on current knowledge, the Potomac and
Choptank valleys could be expected to have. considerable prehistoric
resources, owing to the importance of these rivers as trade and commtmi-
cation routes.

The above data form the basis for higher level predictive inferences.
As shown in Tables-4-12 and 4-13, several instances of each environment
were observed. Elementary statistics, calculated using a CDC 6400 computer
with programs developed by Nie et al.(1975), provided the degree of variance
of average density for each observed instance of each environment. Using
these.data, confidence intervals were calculated for each environment's
average density. Figure 4-9 presents average site density and the 95
percent confidence interval for each environment, by site type and area.
(For example, based on survey data, there is a 95 percent likelihood that
between 1.27 and 2.55 shell sites occur for each mile in environment 24.)

Figure 4-9-shows considerable overlap among the confidence intervals
for the samplingstrata. This overlap makes it impossible to divide.the
average densities into groups based on discrete predicted site potentials.
Such broad and overlapping confidence intervals make it impossible to
assess whether the differences in average site density among the environ-,
ments.are real or apparent. Higher level statistical procedures, such as
analysis'of variance and multiple regression analysis, further confirmed
the high degree of variance within the data set and the consequent iMPOS7
sibility of explaining a significant amount of that variance in terms of
the environmental variables chosen to guide the fieldwork.

'Environmental.sampling units containing landform 3 (low bank) gener-
ally have the narrowest confidence intervals. Categories with broader
confidence limits are characterized by consistent unde rsampling in the
case of landform I (spits and marshes) or by mixed under- and oversampling,

Shell Area Nonshell Area
(see fig.no. 4-8) (see fig. no. 4-8)

Shell sites per mile Nonshell sites per mile Nonshell sites per mile
0 5 10 0 5 0 5 10 15 20

12' 12- 12-

13' 13- 13-

14- 14------4 14

15- 15-

16 - 16- 16-

21- 21- H 21-
C
22- 22 - @--A 22
L

23
23-H 23

24- 24- 24-
6 25- 25- 25-
26- 26 - 26-

C
31-1 31- 31-

32- 32- 32- i

33- 33- 3a-

34- 34- w 34-

35, 35----4 35-

36- 36 - 36

95%confidence interval
-4

mean site density

Fig. 4-9 Mean densities and 95% confidence intervals of shell and nonshell sites by area and environment

as in the case of landform 3 (high bank). Landform 3 areas included most
of Calvert County and nich of the upper Potomac area, areas characterized
by, little cultivated land and hence by generally poor ground visibility@,.
The data were subjected to two additional statistical procedures.."@
The first hypothesis tested was that the distribution of sites was uni-7.1
form across environments. Appendix A Tables A-13 through A-15 present.`@--,
Chi-square calculations on which the hypothesis is rejected at the .010'@
level of significance. A second hypothesis, that sites are randomly dis-
tributed across the environments in which sites are found, was tested by
the inverse sampling method. These computations are presented in Appen dix
A Tables A-16 through A-18. Chi-square calculations indicate that this.
hypothesis,cannot be rejected at the .010 level of significance.

Thus, within the context of this study and based only on site presence,
these analyses suggest that prehistoric resources are not uniformly, but
my be randomly, distributed among theenviroments chosen to typify the
study area coastline. This conclusion appears to counter the expected r--,-
sults, given the assumptions about the nature of prehistoric cultural re-
mains. Perhaps the primary reason for these results is the inability of
this study to consider site*age or function. While these analyses indicate
Ahat the data are not highly structured or explained by the chosen environ-
ments,.were temporal and functional information considered, the data might
be found to be structured in terms of these environments. Changes along
the coast have probably biased the prehistoric record. In addition, hi ghly
variable inspection conditions hindered perception, as did the presence of
nonshell sites that may not relate to the coast.

Conclusions

The fieldwork reported here has increased the information available
on Maryland's coastal prehistoric resources to a considerable extent.and
at the saw time provided information about little known areas such as2:
portions of southern'Maryland andmost of the Eastern Shore. This@study
makes'it clear that prehistoric resources are abundant in the Maryland'

coastal zone with approximately one shell site and one nonshell site ex-
pected for each mile.,of shoreline. Although they are more abundant than
has previously been documented, prehistoric sites are not so abundant as
to prohibit development -- providing enough baseline information is devel-
,oped to judge individual sites in terms of significance, mitigation options,
and so on,.

Prehistoric resources are distributed along former
as well as present shorelines and submerged . beneath the waters of
the Bay and its tributaries. Although sites are fairly evenly dis;tribuied,
more sites are found along indented shorelines than along straight Bay-,
fronting shorelines which have few creeks or lagoons. Straight coasts.may
have fewer sites because their lack of indentation provided less diverse
resources for prehistoric people, although the erosion that has straight-
ened these shores may have removed any traces of prehistoric remains. The
most obvious distribution pattern in the collected data is that of shell
sites. Spatial restriction to what is termed the shell area (see Fig. 4-8)
probably reflects past limits in the availability of this food resource.

The study failed to determine particular patterns in the presence or
absence of shell and nonshell sites according to the selected environmental
parameters of landform and waterbody size. It is possible tha-@ such pat-
terns could have been determined.if information on the age and function
of each of the sites located by the survey could have been collected. If
further work with detailed artifactual information drawn from a sample of
the located sites does not allow the determination of statistically signi-
ficant site distribution patterns along these environmental parameters,
then the environmental parameters may have to be redefined. Further de-
,tailed survey work should be concentrated in areas of more manageable size
and environmental integrity. Suggestions for further survey work appear
in Chapter Six.

Although artifacts could not be collected to provide information on
siteage and function during the fieldwork for the present study, the authors
recorded impressions about site age whenever prehistoric ceramics and pro-
jectile points were encountered. Together with known information on Mary-
Iand prehistory (see Chapter Three), these impressions allow,some prelimL-

nary conclusions about the distribution of prehistoric resources in the,
coastal zone. Archaic sites have been found throughout the study area.
Most Early and Middle Woodland sites have been found on the Western Shore
and in portions-of Kent County on the Eastern Shore. Of the two Late Wood-
land ceramic traditions, Potomac Creek occupations have been found on the
Western Shore and in portions of Kent County on the Eastern Shore, while
ceramics of the Townsend ceramic tradition have been found along parts.
of the Western Shore and especially along the Choptank River on'the Eastern
Shore. Thus, it may be concluded that sites will be differentially dis-,
tribut6d within the study area according to age and cultural tradition.
The fiel&ork has provided information for other generalizations,about
coastal prehistoric resources. Prehistoric coastal land use was observed
to be most dense adjacent to the shoreline,falling off rapidly inland.
The size and thickness of prehistoric shell'sites often appeared to be
primarily related'to immediate topographic considerations. Thick shell de-
posits may often represent accumulations of smaller superimposed occupa-,
tions, par ticularly on restricted necks of land. Further work will.be re-
quired to assess the full significance of site size and thickness. The;
territories of aboriginal groups probably varied through time according to
economic, political, populationand other factors and this is expected to
be.reflected in the distribution of theremains of these groups.
The oldest surviving shell sites recorded to date come from Kent
..County, which apparently provides a unique situation for the preser vation
of thesesites. The deep channel of the ancestral Susquehanna River lies
just off the present coast.of most of the Kent County shoreline. The
drowning of this channel prior to 6,000 years ago by sea level rise, along
withthe establishment of an oyster resource, provided a rich environment
for prehistoric people to exploit. These groups were able to live on the
adjacent uplands, now the coast of Kent County, and their sites have been
preserved to the present day.
In providing information on the abundance and distribution of Mary-
1a,hd's coastal zone prehistoric resources, the surface survey method was
successful. This method allowed quick and economical recovery of infor-

100

mation on where prehistoric sites were located and where they were not
located. Because success depended upon the availability of soil exposures,
the method is best used in agri cultural areas of the Maryland coast.

Prehistoric Resources of the Study Area Counties

The following discussion briefly summarizes present information on
the nature, abundance, distribution, and significance of prehistoric re-
sources in the study area counties, as shown by the present survey and,
by previous work. The study area counties are discussed individually ex-
cept for those with extensive wetlands, Dorchester,, Somerset, and Wicomico.
Because the present study was designed to evaluate them without fieldwork,
thesethree counties are discussed together at the beginning of this sec-
tion.

County discussions areincluded as a convenience to co@lrlty planners.
Political units such as counties of course may bear no particular relation_
ship to prehistoric settlement patterns and subsistence activities. There-
fore such units may not always be appropriate in conceptualizing strategies
for gathering data on and managing prehistoric resources.

Dorchester, Somerset, and Wicomico Counties

Dorchester, Somerset, and Wicomico counties share similar environmen-
tal features. Most of their low bank coasts have been inundated by sea
level rise to form.extensive marshes along the borders of Chesapeake Bay
and its tributary rivers. The present survey did not examine areasl'in@
the marshes because of the difficulty of archeological investigation and
because these areas are afforded some protection from disturbance by the
Maryland Wetlands Act. Two areas were examined north of the marshes along
the Choptank River in Dorchester County for a total of 7.3 miles and,no
prehistoric sites were discovered.

101

Little professional attention has been given to 'these counties; their
prehistory is relatively in1known and only a few shell and nonshell sites
have been recorded. Most of the recorded sites are located along tributar-
ies away from the Bayshore, probably reflecting the difficulty of finding
and expense of working on sites located in the marshes. One amateur,
J. Messick, reports finding many sites of various ages eroding out of
marsh vegetation along the shores of Somerset County (personal communication).

Important sites are known from the marshy counties -- for exople,
the Early Archaic tradition Chance site in Somerset county's coastal zone.
The early occupation at this site probably does not represent coastal,
activities, although as a result of sea level rise, the site is currently
in the coastal zone. Coastal sites would probably be recent because older
sites would now be submerged. Contact period sites from villages mapped by
Smith (1612; Fig. 3-2) would be expected in these"counties along with,sites
resulting from the location of the early Native American reservations
(Marye 1936, 1938). In addition, three ossuaries (large accumulations of
human bones) have been reported along the lower Choptank River in Dorches-
ter County (Ubelaker 1976). Finally, the Nanticoke River may have been im-
portant to prehistoric travel and communication-because its upper reaches-
extend far into the interior of the Delmarva Peninsula.

Thus, the marshy counties probably contain a considerable number of
prehistoric sites in their wetlands and on their broad offshore shallows,
as shown in.Fig. 4-10. While all offshore waters adjacent to the study
area shoreline can be expected to have submerged prehistoric remains, the
areas indicated on Fig. 4-10 are expected to yield more sites at shallower
depths because of their more recent inundation. This assessment is based
partly on interviews with watenmen who report uncovering large numbers of
prehistoric materials from these areas with clam dredges, including.oc
casional intact ceramic vessels. The numbers of nonshell and shell sites
are not predicted for the shoreline of themarshy counties.

102

Cecil

Harford
5 10

Sc*le In miles Baltimore

ILI
Balto. Kent
46

A
n
n

A Oueen
r
u Annes
n Caroline
D.C. d

Prince Talbot
Georges

C %
a %
I %
v
Charles a
rt

Dorchester

St. Wicomico
:7-
Marys

Wetlands

Offshore waters

Fig. 4-10 Wetlands and ottshore waters where
prehistoric resources could be expected

103

Ann e Arundel County

The coastal zone of Anne Ardindel County is greatly indented by a
large number of Chesapeake Bay tributaries. The present study examined
areas of the county for a total of 33.6 miles, finding 38 shell sites and
three nonshell sites. Because Anne Arundel County is highly developed for
..residential use, fewer sites probably were found than.would have been.if
the shoreline were less developed. Moresites were found along tributar-
ies than along Chesapeake Bay, probably as a result of erosion along the
Bay.

Professional and amateur archeologists have given attention to Anne
Arundel County, including Cameron (1976), Stearns (1937), and Wright (1973).
As a result, some understanding of the county's prehistoric occupation has
been achieved and mre sites have been reported for Anne Arundel than for
the other study area counties. Archaic through Woodland tradition sites
are found, including the recently reported West River Adena site, which
contains many large stone blades and tubular pipes (Ford 1976). A mini-
mun of 229 nonshell sites-and 733 shell sites is expected to occur along
the county's shoreline.

Baltimore County

Baltimore County's coastal zone is indented by tributaries of the@
Gunpowder, Middle, Back, and Patapsco rivers. Unfortunately, extensive in-
dustrial and residential development hindered archeological survey in the
county. Undoubtedly many prehistoric sites have been disturbed or destroy-
.ed. The present survey examined a few areas along the northeastern,shore-
line of the county for a total of 8.4 miles. Although Baltimore County
is located within the shell area and shell sites have been discovered
along its shoreline, the present survey discovered no shell sites and only
-five nonshell sites. Most of the county's known sites, reported by ama-
te,urs, are located along the Gunpowder River, partly because this shore-
line is less developed than that of the rest of the county and partly

104

because of the concentration of work in this area. A minip.= of 128 nor,
shell. sites and 314 shell sites is expected'to occur along the county's
shoreline.

Calvert County

Extensive,. almost uninterrupted high bank Chesapeake Bay coast bor-
ders the eastern part of Calvert County; the Patuxent River with its pre-
dominantly low bank and many tributaries forms the western border. 11@e
southern coast of the county is particularly conplex, with a series of,
creeks and former embayments near Drum Point. The authors surveyed much
of the northern two-thirds of the county's Chesapeake Bay shore for a @otal
of 13.1 miles. Although none of the Patuxent River shoreline was examined,
information on this area is found in the work of Stearns (1951).
Because Calvert County is located within the shell area, both shell
and nonshell'sites would be expected. The present survey located no.pre-
historic remains along the Bayshore surveyed. Indeed, only two'Prehis-
toric sites have been reported for the Chesapeake Bay coast of Calvert.
County, near the mouths of Fishing and Parker Creeks. The high banks
along the Bayshore may have made access difficult for prehistoric people
and severe erosion may have removed many of their traces. The present
dense forest cover inhibits effective field survey, perhaps also account-
ing for the seeminglack of coastal oriented sites along the Bay.

In contrast to the Bayshore, 49 sites have been reported for the
Patuxent coastal zone. Most of these sites are located along the river
itself rather than along its tributaries, reflecting the methodology of
'Stearns (1951) who searched for shell deposits from a small boat. Few,
sites are reported from the northern por tion of the Patuxent to.Cocktown
Creek, an area that Stearns did not investigate. From Cocktown Creek
southward along the Patuxent River, 33 shell sites have been reported;
one nonshell site-is known to be located along Htmting Creek. Several
contact period sites would-be expected along the county's Patuxent shore-
line, as shown on Smith's (1612; see Fig. 3-2) early map. A minimum of

105

71 nonshell sites and 267 shell sites is expected to occur along the
county's shoreline.

Caroline County

The coastal zone of Caroline County is made up of the.shorelines..of,
the upper Choptank River and Tuckahoe Creek. 1he present survey examined
a few areas for a total of 13.9 miles, primarily along the upper Choptank
River and near its intersection with Tuckahoe Creek. TWenty-four nonshell,
sites and no shell sites were found. Many of the sites along the Chop-
tank River were located near springs or small creeks; these sites contain-
ed quantities of Late Woodland tradition ceramics.* Although little is
known about Caroline County's prehistory.,, prehistoric sites from the Ar-
chaic and Woodland traditions have been discovered by professional and
amateur archeologists (Handsman and Bo'rstel 1974). A minimum of 147
nonshell sites and 79 shell sites is expected to occur along the countil'S
shoreline.

Cecil County

The transition between coastal plain and Piedmont in Cecil County,
forffts.an area of high bank shoreline that is broken by few trituaries,:'
especially along the Susquehanna River. The remainder of the county is
more indented by the Northeast, Elk, Bohemia, and.Sassafras rivers:with
their many tributaries and coastal lagoons. In addition, the Chesapeake
Bay shoreline is b roken by many tributaries in the southern part of the
county. The present survey examined a series of tracts along the Bay:and
the Elk, Bohemia, and Sassafras rivers for a total of 3S.5 miles where.
55 nonshell sites were recorded * Shell sites are not expected, since.the
county lies outside the shell area (see Fig. 4-8).

in Addition to the prese nt survey, prehistoric sites in Cecil County
are known primarily from the work of amateur archeologists, especially

106

along the Susquehanna, Sassafras, and t4)per Elk rivers. The activities
and ages represented by Cecil County's prehistoric remains are largely
unknown, although many Archaic remains and a few.Woodland ceramic sites
are known. Most of the sites discovered by this study appear to date to
the Archaic tradition. The county is expected to figure protinently into
Maryland prehistory, owing to its proximity to the mouth of the Susquehanna
River. This river served as a major north-south conduit for the movement
of people, goods, and ideas during prehistoric times. A minimum of 353
nonshell sites is expected to occur along the county's shoreline.

Charles County

The Charles County shoreline is made up of the Potomac and Patuxent
rivers. Th& Potomac shoreline contains many tributaries and coastal la-
goons, including Mattawoman and Nanjemoy creeks and the Port Tobacco
River. It presents a continuum of environmental change throughout its
length with gradually decreasing salinity. The Patuxent River also has
many tributaries. The present survey examined numerous areas along the
county's Potomac shoreline for a total of 54.8 miles; 73 shell sites were
found in the shell area (downstream from Maryland Point) and 41 nonshell
,sites were found in the shell and nonshell areas (upstream from Maryland
Point) of the county.

Four sites have been reported along the Charles County section of
.the Patuxent River. A significant portion of this coastline has already
been disturbed by construction associated with the town of Benedict; many
sites may have been located on the peninsula now occupied by the town.
Several archeologists, including Looker and Tidwell (1963), Hickey (1970),,
and Gardner and McNett (1970), have investigated Zekiah Swamp and its tri-
.butaries, Newport Rdn and Gilbert Swamp, where more than 50 nonshell sites
have been recorded. Many shell sites are,known for the Potomac River
shore, especially along Nanjemoy Creek, at the mouth of the Port Tobacco
River, and near Piccotvaxen Creek.

107

The prehistoric sites 'of Charles County are better known than those
of Maryland's other coastal counties,,due to the work of McNett, who de-
fined the Potomac River phase sequence in the county (McNett and Gardner
ms). In addition, ossuaries (large accumulations of human bones) have
been found along Nanjemby Creek and the Port Tobacco River (Ubelaker
1976). Finally, several contact period sites are expected in the county
as shown on Smith's map (1612; see Fig. 3-2). A minimum of 323 nonshell
sites and 240 shell sites is expected to occur along the county's shore-
line.

Harford County

The shoreline of Harford County is varied and complex, including part
of the Susquehanna and the Bush and Gunpowder rivers. The present survey
examined several areas along the county's shoreline for a total of 21.7
miles, where S2 nonshell sites and no shell sites were recorded. Unfortu-
nately, Aberdeen Proving Ground restricted access to most of its shoreline.
The transition between shell and nonshell areas lies within the county (Fig.
4-8) and Marye (personal communication) has reported finding no shell
sites north of Romney Creek. Nonshell sites are known along the Susque-
hanna. River and many are f ound near the river's mouth south of Havre de
Grace. As with Cecil Comty, the character and number of sites in Har-
ford County could be expected to reflect its proximity to the Susquehanna
River, a major route for the movement of people and ideas.

Nonshell sites also are found along the upper reaches of the Bush
and Gunpowder rivers, while shell sites are known'only from their lower
reaches. From the work of amateur archeologists, particularly Cresthull,
Harford County sites are known to span the Archaic and Woodland traditions.
Many examples of Late Woodland Potomac Creek ceramics were fomd during
this survey. A minimum of 154 nonshell.sites and 147 shell sites is ex-
pected to occur along the county's shoreline.

108

Kent County

The coastal zone of Kent County is highly indented between the Sassa-
fras and Chester rivers by Still Pond, Churn, Worton, and Fairlee creeks.
The present survey examined some areas along the Sassafras and Chester
rivers and extensive.areas along the Bay and its tributary creeks for a
total of 82.7 miles, where 88 shell sites and 58 nonshell sites were re-
corded. The oldest reported coastal oriented prehistoric sites in Mary-
land are located in this area. Prehistoric sites are abundant in the
county's coastal zone as a result of its many miles of present and former
shorelines. The density of prehistoric,sites, however, is low between
Tolchester and Swan Point where severe shore erosion has probably occurred.

The prehistory of Kent County is becoming known through the authors,
research and through Stearns'(1945) report on the area. Kent County is
known to contain large numbers of prehistoric sites, and a minimum of 284
nonshell si-tes and 275 shell sites is expected to occur along the county's
shoreline.

Prince Georges County

Both the Potomac and Patuxent river shorelines of Prince Georges
County contain a large number of tributaries. Although the present survey
examined none of the county's shoreline, shell sites and nonshell sites
have been reported along the Patuxent River. Likewise, nonshell sites
have been recorded for the Piscataway Creek area of the Potomac River, in-
cluding t4pwell-known Accokeek Creek site (Gardner 1969; Stephenson@and
Ferguson 1963).

Prince Georges County contains prehistoric sites of the Archaic and
Woodland traditions, including the type site for the Accokeek Creek Phase
(Stephenson and Ferguson 1963). The Accokeek Creek site also contains a
Late Woodland Potomac Creek Phase stockaded village occupation and ossuary;
it was observed by Smith in his early exploration of Chesapeake Bay'(1612).
Other contact period sites also should be found in the county. A minimum

109

of 101 nonshell sites is expected to occur along.the county's shoreline.

Queen Almes County

Except for western Kent Island, the Queen Armes County shoreline is
highly indented with many tributaries"ofthe Chester and Wye rivers and
Eastern Bay. The west coast of Kent,Island is quite strai ght, although
close inspection.shows that a number of tributaries and coastal lagoons
are present though their mouths have probably been disturbed by erosion.
The present survey examined almost all of the western shore of Kent,Is-
land and an area along Eastem.Bay for a total of 17.5,miles.

Although Queen Armes County is located within the shell area (Fig.
4-8), only six shell sites and four nonshell sites were found in the
survey tracts. The small number of sites probably results from erosion
of the tracts surveyed and residential development along the- western shore
of Kent Island. Little professional attention has been given to Queen
Annes'County, and as a result the county's prehistory is relatively unknown.

Prehistoric sites would be expected underwater along the county's
eroding shores; wqtermen report recovering prehistoric artifacts in clam
dredges. A 11n imm of 181 nonshell sites and 298 shell sites is expected
to occur along the county's shoreline.

St. Marys County

St. Marys County is bordered by the Potomac.and Patuxent rivers, both
indented by many tributaries, and Chesapeake Bay with both straight and
indented portions. The present survey examined many areas along the
county's Potomac shoreline and a few along the Bay for a total of 49.3
miles, recording 125 shell sites and 31 nonshell s4es, including several
Archaic Tradition nonshell sites in tracts along the-Bayshore.

Large numbers of prehistoric sites would be expected in St. Marys

110

County because of the many miles of present and former shorelines. Many
contact period sites would be expected as show% on Smith's map (1612;
'Fig. 3-2). However, in the past only a few shell sites and''nonshell sites
have-been recorded for the county, probably owing to the lack of systematic
surveys. As McMillan (1972) notes, much attention has been given to the
colonial history of the county, but little has gone to the prehistoric
resources. In fact, McMillan's and Robertson's (1976) work are the only-,
reported examples to date. A minimum of 231 nonshell sites and 667 shell
sites is expected to occur along the county's shoreline.

Talbot County

Talbot County's coastal zone is greatly indented by tributaries of
the Miles, Oxford, and Choptank rivers. The present survey examined many
areas throughout the county's shoreline for a total of 106 miles, where
62 nonshell sites and 112 shell sites were recorded.

Many sites are known in Talbot County as a result of the work of
several amateurs. However, because of little attention by professionals.,
the county's prehistory is relatively unknown. Sites are known for the
Archaic and Woodland traditions, including the Late Woodland.Townsend
Phase along the Choptank River. The Choptank River is marked by increased
numbers of shell sites near the river's mouth. The many miles of highly
indented shoreline of the county adjacent to Chesapeake Bay contain fewer
sites than might be expected, perhaps as a result of few freshwater sources
in prehistoric times. The many.necks; of land in this area have small'
drainage basins due to their small area, low elevation, and flat topography.
d be
Because of the county's eroded low bank coast, prehistoric sites woul
expected offshore under the waters of the Bay and its tributaries. A
minimum of 353 nonshell sites and 826 shell sites is expected to occur
along the county's shoreline.

References Cited

Cameron, L. D.
1976 Prehistoric huntersand gatherers of the upper Chesapeake
Bay region- a study on the use of a predictive model for the
analysis of subsistence-settlement systems., Unpublished
Bachelorls,thesis. Department of An@diio'pology, University
of Michigan.
Ford, T. L., Jr.
1976 Adena sites on Chesapeake Bay. Archaeology'2_f Eastern North
America 4:63-89.
Gardner., W. M.
1969 Archeological survey of Piscataway Park, Maryland. Manu-,
script on file at the Maryland Division of Archeology.
Xeroxed.
Gardner, W. M. and C. W. McNett,.Jr.
1970 Problems in Potomac River archeology. Proposal to the
National Science Foundation. Manuscript on file at the
Maryland Division of Archeology. Xeroxed.
Handsman, R. G. and C. L. Borstel
1974 An archeological survey of Tuckahoe State Park. Manuscript
pre-oared for the Maryland Park Service. Xeroxed.
Hickey, J. V.
1970 The prehistory of southeastern Maryland: an archeological
reconnaissance of the Zekiah Swamp. Unpublished M. A. thesis.
Department of Anthropology, George Washington University.
Looker, R. and W. A. Tidwell
1963 An hypothesis concerning Archaic Period settlement of.Zekiah
Swamp based upon an analysis of surface collections of pro-
jectile points. Archaeological'Society of Maryland Miscel-
laneous Papers S:T-13.
Marye, W.B.
1936 Former Indian sites in Maryland, as located by early'col6-
nial records. American Antiquity 1:40-46.

1938 Shell-heaps on Chesapeake Bay. In A report on the Sbusque
hanna River expedition, edited by W7. K. WoieheaU, pp. 123-
Andover, Massachusetts.
Maryland Geological Survey
1975 Historical shorelines and erosion rates. A Maryland Coastal
Zone Management Program Publication.

McMillan, B. 112
1972 An archeological survey of St.,Mary's County,,Maryland.
M. A. thesis, American University., University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor.
McNett, C. W., Jr. and W. M. Gardner
Ms. Archeology of the lower and middle Potomac Valley. Manu-
script in preparation. Xeroxed.
Mueller, J. W., editor
1975 Sampling in archaeology. University@of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
ins, K. Steinbrenner and D. H. Bent
Nie, N. H., C H. Hull, J. G.-Jenk
1975 SPSS -- statistical package for the social sc iences. mc@.
Uraw-Hill Book Conpany, New York.
Robertson, V.
The Newtown. Neck site:, a surface collection. Unpublished
Master's thesis.: Department of Anthropolog)r, George Wash
ington University.
Steams, E.
1937 Indian village sites on the Magothy river, Maryland The
Natural History Society of Maryland,Bblletin VIII
1945 Sow Indian village sites of Tidewater Maryland. Proceedings
of the Natural History Society of Maryland No.. 9.
An Indian.site survey of the,Patuxent River, Maryland.
Maryland Naturalist 21(1-2):2-20. Natural History Society
of Maryland, Baltimore.'
Stephenson, R. L. and A. L. L. Ferguson
1963 The Accokeek Creek site, a middle Atlantic seaboard culture
sequence.. University 2f Michigan Anthropology Papers..No. 20.
Ubelaker, D. H.
1976 Reconstruction of demographic profiles from ossuary skeletal
samples, a@case study from the tidewater Potomac. Smith-
h ---
sonian.Contributions to Anthropology No. 18. Was. ington,
D.

Wilke, S. and1G. Thompson
1977 Archeological survey of western Kent C2i@ntx, Maryland.
Report Prepared for the Maryland Historical TrusTunder

Aid.
a National Park Service@ Historic Preservation Grant-in-

Wright, H. T.
1 sequence,in
1973 An archeolQglca, the middle Chesapeake regionY
Maryland. Maryland Geological Siirvey A:rcheologic'al
Studies 1. Baltimore, Maryland.

1913 Summary of the survey of oyster bars of,Maryland, 1906-1912.
Yates, C. C.
'U. S. Department of Commerce Coast and Geodetic Survey.
WasEil gton, D., Q..

haDter5

Stress on Prehi storic Resources

Chapter 5

Stress on Prehistoric Resources

This chapter discusses the sources of disturbance and destruction to
prehistoric,resources in the Maryland coastal zone. This information is
'as necessary to the management of these resources as information on their
nature and distribution. Because prehistoric resources are found in the
soi,L-and because.contextual relationships are among their most valuable.
aspects, soil disturbance reduces or destroys the value of these resour-
ces. Further contributing to the relative ease w ith which they may be
disturbed is the fact that Most coastal plain prehistoric deposits are
shallow.
What harmwill be done if development over the next decade destroys
10% of the prehistoric resources in the 'coastal zone?I Since prehistoric
resources are finite and,nonrenewable,,any destruction reduces the total
numberbf sites available for preservation and study. Although there is
no way to calculate the original number of prehistoric sites, clearly
there,is not now a 100% sample of these sites. Many prehistoric resources
have already been destroyed by a variety of activities. Thus, we are
dealing with an unknown percentage of the original number. Because de-,
struction, at even a conservative rate, is irreversible, the value of the
sites lost is impossible to calculate,.

Based on the numbers of sites located in parts of the Maryland coastal
zone during this study, a minimum of 6,500 prehistoric sites is predicted
to occur in the coastal zone of the study area (Fig. 1-1). While this
number may seem large, few of these sites, if any, are likely to have
escaped some damage through natural or cultural activities.

Sources of disturbance or destruction to prehistoric resources...in-.
clude such natural processes as shore erosion and inundation, as well.as
such cultural activities as agriculture and the construction of erosion,

113

114

dontrols,'residences, and facilities for-recreation, transportation, and
i 11(kistry. Tn addition, other 'less cormnon (1isruj?tive activities include
MLinitions testing and relic collecting a's well as past shell quarrying.

Although agriculture brings the most widespread disturbance of pre-
historic resources and through time.can,destroy them, prehistoric resources,
1)
in cultivated areas usually can be studied and should be'considered for con-
servation efforts. (Md4anamon 1976; Talmage et al. 1977). Wortunately,
relic collecting most oftentakes place in agricultural areas, disturbing
or destroying sites@. On the other hand, constrUction. activities are far
more destructive of prehistoric resources. Thus, the less developed an,
area is, the more intact its prehistoric remains are likely to be.

Stresses act differentially to disturb or destroy coastal prehistoric
resources. Coastal resources are stressed more intensively than those
inland because of the concentration and overlap of prehistoric and modern
activities in the coastal zone. In addition, as discussed in Chapter Three,
the qualitative and quantitative differences among prehistoric resources
mean that certain ages.and kinds are more endangered than others. Spine
kinds probably were never very abundant; others may already have been
largely destroyed.,
Attrition, or the disturbance of prehistoric sites, is more wide-
spread than the destruiction of complete sites. Taken in individual in-
stances, attrition may seem small; but its cumulative effect is great.
Thus,,while the annual rate of site destruction in the state may be as
small as one percent, it is likely that most of the state's prehistoric
sites are disturbed each year.

Although there is a great deal of disturbance to prehistoricresources
each year, very few activities intentionally disturb these resources-, in-
stead, most disturbance, save that resulting from relic collecting and
past shellIquarrying, comes from ignorance of the nature, location, and
importance of prehistoric resources. Because many prehistoric resources
have already been destroyed and most are being disturbed at present, it
is important that these iesburces Ibe considered in land use planning.
Conservation should begin'as soon as possible.

115

Stress from Inundation and Shore Erosion

Inundation and shore erosion are natural processes that continually
destroy prehistoric resources in the coastal zone. As discussed in Chapter
Two, the sea has been rising nearly five inches each century (Kraft, Biggs,
and Halsey 1973). The consequeces of this continuing change are most,
noticeable in areas with low profile coastlines,particularly Dorchester,
Somerset, Wicomico, and parts of Talbot counties. Here, small increases
in water level are translated laterally over a considerable area, For
example, Metzgar (1973) identified more than 52,000 acres of land in these
counties as susceptible to conversion to tidal marsh. Foss (personal
communication) has documented the rapid rate of this conversion, noting
that nearly one foot of tidal marsh now occupies lands actively farmed
within the last 100 years.
Each year, shoreline erosion causes even more extensive damage than
does inundation. Singlewald and Slaughter (1949) and the Maryland Geolog-
qical. Survey (1975) have published area-wide studies on Chesapeake Bay
shore erosion. By comparing C rvey ch arts produced over
hesapeke Bay su
many decades, their studies identify areas of net gain and net loss
through shore erosion and sediment transport. Clearly, most of the 4,400
miles of Maryland's inland shores are being eroded, at least to Some degree,
For example, a shoreline loss of two
to six feet per year is reported for
the Bay coast of Calvert County (Calvert County Planning Office 1974).
Relatively few areas of net gain have
been reported; most eroded sediment
is deposited either in the Bay or in the A An inspection
tlantic Ocean.
of selected maps reproduced in Singlewald and Slaughter (1949) and the map
series produced by the Maryland Geological Survey (1975) suggests that the
shoreline has receded greatly in �everal places around Chesapeake Bay.
Although it varies, in some areas this recession amounts to 500 feet over
the past 100 years. Thus, in the past, considerable areas of land have
been lost to erosion.

It is impossible to estimate the number of prehistoric sites lost

116

to erosion around Chesapeake Bay, although the number is likely to be
very large. For example, nearly two-thirds.of the sites discovered by
this study located on Chesapeake Bay (waterbody size class 1) are being
eroded (see Table 4-11). In addition, almost all the known sites that
front on'Kent County's Bay shoreline are being actively eroded. Figure
5-1 illustrates the erosion of one of Maryland's known coastal prehis-
toric sites.

Figure 5-2 shows shore erosion rates to be higher along the Bay
coastline than along its tributaries, particularly along straightline
segments of the Bay's coast and along mars Ihy segments of lower Eastern@
Shore counties. Table 5-.l shows the amount of, coastline being eroded in
study area counties, where Dorchester, Harford, Queen Annes, and St.
Ma counties
rys are shown to have the greatest amount of shoreline loss
in the higher rate categories.

Several methods have been developed to help control coastal erosion,
including bulkheading, groin enplacement, wall construction, and riprap
fill. Distuthance to land along the shoreline that often accompanies.
these measures can disturb or destroy prehistoric resources. Because the
density of prehistoric r6sIources is highest along the shoreline, even
small scale erosion control.measures can damage sites.

Grading is.necessary for many shore erosion controlstructures.
Figure 5-3 illustrates the disturbance associated with placing a sloping
riprap revetment. along part of the Potomac River., Unfortunately, grad
ing for this,project disturbed an area known locally to contain prehis-
toric artifacts.

In order to alter the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, an application must
be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. More than 1,000 such appli-
cations were sought for Maryland in 1973 (see Fig. 5-4). Although most
projects involving shoreline alteration are very small in scope, it is
easy to see that the cumdative effect of numerous small projects can
be.substantial,- as Table 5-2 shows.

117

Fig. 5-la. An example of eroding prehistoric
resources in Kent County showing slump block
with midden layer(S)

-V

.... ... .
, ftx.
-gv

Fig. 5-lb An example of eroding prehistoric
resources in Kent County showing eroding
midden layer (S)

Cecil

Harford

0 5 10 is
Baltimore
Scale In miles

Balto.
Kent

A Queen
n
n Annes
e

A
r
u Caroline
n
A
D. C. d
a

Prince Talbot
Georges

C
a

Charles v
e 0 Dorchester
r
t

St. Wicom1co.
Marys

S
Note: Areas where shore 0
m
erosion equals or exceeds 12 acre/ e
r
mile/year. (Maryland Geological Surv s
ey 197
e
t
Fig 5-2 Areas of high shore
A
erosion rates.

Table 5-1 Shoreline Erosion Rates for Study Area Counties
(After Maryland State Cons tion Needs Committee 1071)
erva

Miles of,Shoreline Receding.Each Year
Shoreline Percent
Comty Leagth -Receding 0-11 .1-211, 2-41 4-61 10-201 25'+
(miles)

@Anne Armdel 419 84.3t 338.5 7.7 4.0 2.4 .8
taltimore 209 93.5% 180.7 :0.4 3.8 .1; 5
cAlveit 143 86.6% 104.5 13.3 3.4 2.7
Caroline @66 62.5 2.5
Cecil 200 94.7% 157.2 26.6. 5.6
to
Charles .183 97.3% 171. 0 7.0
Dorchester 498 98.3% 324. t 81.8 52.3 11.0 10.4 7.4 1@. 2
Harfoid 139 96.8% 100i.9 17.8 10.9 5.0
Kent 268 92.1% 21346 14.3 @13.3 5,5
Prince Georges. 44 92.3%
Queen Pimes 323 95.7% 242.7 33.0 26.1 3.0 4.4
St. Marys 297 95.5% 237.5 17.2 14.6 13.3 1.1
Somerset 619, 99.3% 563.7 22.7 17.5 7.1 2.2 1.4
Talbot @442 96.65% 362.3 @32.6 13.3 13.3 2.0 3.5
wiclomico .89 96.1% 7M 6.4

Total 3,93.9. 94.9%

NMI A* so low

120

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

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

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

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

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

... .... ... .

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

. . . ....... X..

:MX -X...

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

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

WIN

Fig. 5-3a Shoreline preparation prior to placement of stone revetment

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

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

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

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

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

B
0 w

.. . ..... ..

0.1 ME,

WA 5,41'.
iw

R.A

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

Fig. 5-3b Shoreline after placement of stone revetment

Cecil

Harford

5 10 15
Baltimore
Scale In miles

Balto.
Kent

Oueen
A
n Annes
n
e
A
r
u e Caroline
n
D.C. d
e

Pr i nce
-Georges Talbot

C
a

v
Charles e
r Dorchester
t

St. Wicomico
Marys
S
0
m
e
r
s
Legend e
t
OneI973 application to the dog
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Fig-5-4 Locations of 1973 applications
for permits to alt er the shoreline

122

Table 5-2 1973 Bulkhead Permits Granted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Through March 15, 1974 (After Eberhart, Chapman,
and. Dugger 1974: 14)

Bulkhead No. of Percentof Linear Ft.'of Percent of
Extent Permits Total Permits Bulkhead* Bulkheading
ing

0 - 150, 63 62% 5,570 28V
150 - Soo, 28 28% 5,660 .29%,
over 500, 10 10% 8,500 43;5

Total 101 100% 19,730' 100%,

-For example, a r Iecent study by the Maryland Geological Survey shows that
39% of the Anne Arundel County shoreline has some form of erosion protec-
tion. As a result, more than half of this county's shorelines along the
Chesapeake Bay and the Patapsco and Magothy rivers have been altered
(Slaughter et al. 1976).

Stress from Population Growth

The animating force behind much cultural stress on prehistoric re-
mains is the continued population growth of the Chesapeake Bay region.
Several published reports (e.g., Maryland State Highway Administration
1975; Metzgar 1973; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1973; Wallace, et al.
1972) document the nature and extent of current development and attempt
to predict future growth in the Bay area. The Maryland Department of.';
State Planning estimates that population in the study area counties (see
Table 5-3) will increase 48.7% by 1990. This population growth,'and the
expansion that acconpanies it, will intensify the activities presently
disturbing or destroying prehistoric resources in the coastal zone.
Related to" population growth, the overall use of the state's 6.3,
million acres has shifted. Figure 5-5, illustrates land use changes ob-

Table 5-3 1970 PopulatIm and Projections to 1990 for Study Area Counties
(After Maryland Department of State Planning Figures)

Increase
County. 1970 1980 1990 (1970-1990)

Anne Aruridel 297,S39 412,227 504,270 69.5
W timore 621,077 702,P96 867,649 39.7
Calvert 20,682 26,021 33,026 59.6
Caroline 19,7811 19,00l 21,141 6.9
Cecil 53j291 613%929 69,333 30.1
Charles 47,678 65,09S 89,792 88.3
Dorchester 29,405 29,800 33,280 13.1
Harford 115,378 175,527 207,592 79.9
Kent 16,146 16,116 17,147 6.1
Prince,Georges 660,S67 871,109 98S,936 49.3
Queen Ames 18,422 19,659 20,748 12.6
St. Marys 47,388 57,246 73,021 S4.1
Somerset 18,924 19,119 19.739 4.3
Talbot 23,682 25,662 27,699 17.0
wicomico 54,236 61,042 691898- 28.9

Total 2,044,196 2,563,149 3,040,269 48.7%

124

served between 1958 and 1967 and makes projections to 1986 (Maryland
State Conservation Needs Committee 1971:61). Principal among
these changes has been the decrease of crop,,pasture and forest

0% 100%

1958

1967

Legend
Nc@n-inventory land (federally owned
Forest land ban land, water)
U land, ur
trop land Other land (dunes, tide marsh,
farmsteds. etc.)

Pasture land

Fig. 5-5* Maryland land use 19 '58,1967 and projections to 1986
after Maryland State Conservation Needs Committes;1971)

land, and the increase of other, generally more soil-disturbing, uses
which result from continuing urbanization. If the 1986 projections.are
accurate, between 1967 and 1086 approximately 26,000 acres of forest,
crop, and pasture land will be converted to the more soil disturbing uses
each year. As the reservoirof land with relatively low intensity use
shrinks, the total stress on prehistoric resources, both in terms of number
of sites and severity of impact., grows. Thus, using current population
,densities for the coastal counties under study and multiplying by projected.
population figures for the year .2000 (Wallace et al. 1972: 261), itap-
pears that over 717,000 acres will be required for urban development.
Table 5-4 presents these calculations by county.

Table 5-4 Estimated Urban Development Acreage Required in Study Area Counties
forthe Year 2000 (After Wallace, et al. 1972: 261)

Total Urban Development of Total
CoMty Acreage Requirements in Acreage
Acres

Anne Arundel 266,841 125,460 47.0
Baltimore 389,260 105,110 27.0
Calvert 140,159 172,300 122.4
Caroline 204,801 12,257 5.9
Cecil 225.9281 32,722 14.5
Charles 293,126 242,500 82.7
Dorchester 371,198 7,040 1.8
Harford 286,720 82,400 28.7
Kent 181,760 14,790 8.1
Prince Georges 310,258 88,130 28.4
Queen Ames 30,600 12.8
St. Marys 234,878 35,200 14.9
.Somerset 212,480 3,270 l.S
Talbot 178,560 8pozio 4.S
wicomico 243,201 8,270 3.4

Total 3,777,242 9689089 25.6

1-26

It is important to observe that ownership of the Maryland shoreline
is overwhelmingly private. Scattered parcels of land within the public
trust are devoted to recreation, wildlife management, or military activities.
Only about three percent.of the Chesapeake.coastline is publicly owned
and accessible (Wallace et al. 1972)..

Stress from Agricultural Activities

Agriculture was thefoundation of Maryland's early settlement, and
thus, the soil of many coastal areas has been cultivated for more than
300 years. Even today, a high proportion of the land in coastal areas
is devoted to agricultural activities (see Fig. 5-6).

Because early farming methods lacked contour plowing, protective
plantings, and other modern practices, erosion rates increased dramati-
cally after the forests were cleared. Gottschalk (1945) has documented
the startling changes from erosion and sedimentation that took place dur-
ing historic times in many of the coastal waterways surrounding the Chesa-
peake Bay. For example, the head of navigation was displaced more,than
8.miles downstream on the Patuxent River.' Costa (1975) estimates that
from 7,6 cm. to 30.5 cm. of soil have been lost from Piedmont areas
since the time the forests were cleared. Because of its rolling topo-
graphy, the Western Shore coastal plain has probably undergone similar
deflation.

Modern agriculture involves many kinds of land preparation and con-
servation practices that can affect prehistoric resources. For example,
land clearing often requires heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, that
uproot trees and other obstructions. The impact of land leveling and
other field preparation procedures on prehistoric resources has been docu-
mented in Arkansas by McGimsey and Davis (1968) and Ford, Rollingson,
and Medford (1972).

The annua.1 cycle of preparing, planting, and harvesting involves
repeated use of plows, discs, fertilizer'applicators, cultivators, roto

127
00% 100%

9 9 a a a a a d a
Anne
Arundel 0 a 8 0 8 0 a smang
I a 0 a a a a 0 a 9 8 0 a a a a a
a 0 a a a a a a 0 a 0
MEMNON 0 a a a a a 0 a 0 a a8 a a
a.
Baltimore

Calvert

a
Caroline
i.... @R,
41k2Z t-I. M%'r
R AU.
Cecil
E @ @
L@E I @-
Charles 7 Eel z .1l.-l'-@-",.,;,-.,,..,;,vl..@"--

Dorchester

7
Harford anow

saw
Kent
%a
Prince Georges

Queen Annes
on
moo1
was
St. Marys
a woman
7.,
Somerset
7..
- :0 goals
a
'n soa0a
Talbot

Wicomico
a.-

Legend

Wetlands Pasture - Cropland Transportation &
lndustria@@(includ`es
commercial, military, and
Forest Residential extraction activities)

Measured shoreline lengths in miles'

Anne Arundel 421.5 Charles 167.5 Queen Annes 323.10

Baltimore 209.0 Dorchester 415.3 St. Marys 311.1

Calvert 124.3 Harford 120.5 Somerset 619.0

Caroline 66.0 Ken't 226.5 Talbot 442.0

Cecil 152.8 Pr i nce Georges 45.6 Wicomico 81.8

NOTE:
I. As measured from I in. Imi. county land use maps (mo. oopt.of State Planning 1973)
a a 00

Fig. 5-6 County shoreline land use in percent of total measured shoreline

128

hoes, and harvesters. Theuse of larger and heavier equipment to culti-,
Vate fields has increased the potential for damage to prehistoric sites in
recent years.. For exinple, the use of deeply penetrating (12" - 18 chisel
plows has increased the depth towhich site disturbance can occur. In
addition, the cultivation of'certain crops, particularly sod, can,dis-
turb prehistoric resources; they are removed from prehistoric sites in
each load of sod.

It is hard to monitor the disturbance of agriculturalactivities on
.prehistoric resources because no central planning agency is involved.
Nor do these activities necessarily follow a predictableschedule. Plo@w'
disturbance affects the top several inches of all prehistoric sites in
agricultural fields and'thus, all artifact relationships in shallow sites;
but only.the top layers ofthick sites are affected. However, because
shallow sites are-far more common than thick sites in the Maryland coastal
zonet few sites are expected to remain undisturbed. Fortunately, arch6o-
logists can gain useful information from prehistoric resources that have
been disturbed by agricultural activities, although through the years
continued disturbance decreases the amount of information that can be,
obtained.

.$oil erosion also can disturb prehistoric resources. Erosion rates
on the Eastern Shore often average 15 to 30 tons per acre each year, with
extreme cases reaching 100 tons(D. Wilson, personal communication). Ero-
sion.rates in counties with more topographic relief unquestionably equal
br.exceed these figures. Loss of soil also occurs from wind erosion in
some areas (Maryland -State Conservation Needs Committee 1971). Ero.-
sion can displace artifacts and in deflating the surface.. tend to concen-
trate artifacts from different levels. When this concentration has oc@,
curred, it is very difficult t interpret the artifacts' original relaiion-
ships. Valuable contextual information is thus lost and potential infor-
mation is greatly reduced.

Unfortunately, some measures devised by agencies such as the Soil
Conservation Service to deal with erosion can create additional stress on
prehistoric resources. For exanple, ditch, pond, and davi construction,fre-
quently displace large amounts of soil that my contain prehistoric re-

129

mains. Soil conservation practices, including land smoothing and water-
way diversions, open channels, and field drainage ditches,, are summarized
for study area counties in Table 5-5. It should be observed that not all
these practices occ Iur in the coastal zone, and that totals represent the
summary of many individual projects of varying size and scope. Although
each project may be insignificant by itself, the cumulative effect of
these,projects is great. Approximately-1,700 acres of ponds, 6,900 acre's
of waterways, and 1,050 miles of diversions, channels, and ditches have.:
been built in the counties under study. Furthermore, the future need f6r
these measures is anticipated to be great Waryland State Conservation
Needs Committee 1971: 11). While these measures can disturb prehistoric'
resources, the Soil Conservation Service has recently begun to study the'
potential impacts o If some projects, pa'rticularly watershed plans,, on pre-
historic resources.

Stress from Historic Shell Quarrying

In a report to the governor, Maryland State Geologist J. F. Ducatel
noted the abundance of shell deposits as early as 1834. Ducatel's maps
show the locations of many Native Amrican shell heaps around Chesapeake
Bay. But between the.early 1800's and the turn of the century, many of
these deposits of oyster shells were burned for agricultural or mortar
lime, hauled away for road construction, and used in the production of iron.

Several early writers discussed shell quarrying and comented on the
nature of the shell heaps. From their discussions, it appears that during
the long period of time that shell quarrying took place, many large shell
heaps were destroyed. Although the deposits were recognized as the remins
of prehistoric occupation, little information on their contents was ever
recorded (Ducatel 1834: 29).

Comments made by visitors to the quarrying operations indicate the
great size and number of shell heaps on both the Eastern and Western shores.
For example, antiquarian Francis Jordan commented on the Still Pond area
of Kent County, which he visited during the 18701s:

-5 Status of Conservation Measures in Study Area Counties
Table 5
(R. R. Nagel, personal communication)

Ponds Diversions Waterways Open Channels Drainage Ditches
County (No.) (Ft.) (Ac.) (Ft.) (Ft.)

Anne Armdel 147 10,000 116 35,500 47,970
Baltimore 755 340,700 .720 0 576,000
Calvert 125 92,000 100 0 9,510
Cecil 282 1S1,000 173 11,363 111,989
Charles 67 36,719 32 0 88,500
Dorchester 210 0 0 3,300 853,800
Harford 395 0 5,200 0 0
Kent 509 75,000 307 0 430,000
Prince Georges 53 222,524 160 10,901 120,009
Queen Annes 215 1,660 10 335,300 500,376
St. Marys 165 21j419 161 0 461,606
Somerset 183 0 0 230,071 71,760
Talbot 6,165 0 0 749,711
Wicomico 141 0 0 896,401 0

Total 3,409 957,187 6,979 522,836 4,021,231
(189.29 miles) (199.02 miles) (761.60 miles)

'Average size pond ='i/2 acre

131

Indeed, the magnitude of the remains exceed in area
anything I have seen north of Florida; so great as to sug-
gest, as a profitable financial venture, the erection\of
kilns at the head of the creek for burning the shells for
the lime. At the time of my visit the lime burner had col-
lected for that purpose in a nearby ravine shells roughly
estimated at over 200 tons, and yet, notwithstanding this drain
on the shell heaps which began many years before the civil
war and still goes on with an occasional inter-regnum, the
..,.,visible supply warrants the continuance of this industry for
a long time to com (Jordan 1906: 36-37).
The excavations made by the limeburners enabled me to
ascertain the depth of some of the larger mounds, which by
actual measurement I found to be from sixteen to twenty feet
(Jordan 1895: 138-139).
Similarly, Holmes (1907: 114) reported on the shell deposits at Popes
Creek, which were famous for,their extent and thickness, and noted that
same 500,000 cubic feet of shells hadbeen removed from them. The ex-
ploitation of shell deposits was strongly encouraged; for example,
State Geologist J. F. Ducatel wrote.
The value of this material [ie. oyster shells] ... can-
not be too strongly impressed upon the farmers of the lower
counties on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It is the princi-
al agricultural resource which Ithley possess7b er a:
py a g7g
p ication 'the may d( 7the CULCIS
1 of which le ihie procTuce of
emp
Tas1s Ddcgt
el sil
Can any armer t e discov
ery an the Eastern Shore, of limestone quarries even of mod-
erate lim, would be of immense benefit to the country? The
equivalent of such quarries we found in the shell banks
[i.e. Indian middens] that have just been indicated. They
should no longer be neglected. (1836: 50-51).
Thus, a great many shell heaps were either totally destroyed or severely
disturbed. Both Jordan and.Holmes (1907) reported that burials uncovered
while quarrying shell went unrecorded and unstudied, although the origin
of the shell heaps was generally understood.

Field surveys done in conjunction with the present study located
several areas that had been.disturbed by shell quarrying. Four.of the
largest middens; in Kent County showed such signs. Figure 5-7a shows the,
front of a limekiln located in the midst of extensive prehistoric shell
deposits near Still Pond Creek. Parts of the final charge of oyster shell
were still lodged in the upper portion of the kiln. Figure 5-7b shows,
an area in which shell had been quarried from'a midden located near the

132

Fig. 5-7a Nineteenth century limekiln
located in coastal zone

@
MW
7..... 0
-P

Fig. 5-7b Quarry scars in prehistoric shell
midden

133

mouth of Fairlee'Creek. It is difficult to interpret prehistoric re-
sources in areas of such
,complex historic disturbance.

In sum, large thick shell middens were sought and exploited for almost
a century, with a serious impact on the reservoir of shell sites. More
critical is the fact that the thickest shell deposits seem to have.been
the most heavily exploited. Because extremely thick deposits may repre-@
sent functionally distinct kinds of sites and because they usually offer
the best opportunity to obtain artifacts in a stratified context, such a@
loss seriously impairs the understanding of prehistoric.economic practices.
Large, thick midden deposits which have escaped shell quarrying and whic@
today remain undisturbed should be considered to be very rare and ought 111to
be preserved.

Stress from Relic Collecting

Relic collecting exacts a continuous toll on prehistoric resources.@'
The results of this activity are destructive, although not visually strik-
in g. It is of course important todifferentiate destructive relic col-
lectors from people who occasionally pick up anartifact and from people
who, because of a serious interest in a Ircheology, join amateur archeolo-
gical and historical societies that sometimes undertake archeological in
vestigations. But relic collecting is practiced as a hobby or an avoca-
tion by thousands of people.who comb cultivated fields for prehistoric
artifacts. Sore of these people closely study the best conditions for
collection, waiting for favorite fields to be'plowed and then washed by
several rains. Areas with concentrations of artifacts are searched an-,:
nually and, over time, systematically depleted.

Relic collecting destroys prehistoric resources because it strips
sites of their artifacts. These sites are less useful for study because
collectors remove artifacts from them differentially thus biasing the
kinds and quantities of artifacts remaining. Perfect examples and arti'
facts with special-shapes or exotic raw materials are usually preferred
over broken, common, or unfamiliar artifacts. Some kinds of sites are

134

differentially collected; for example, most relic collectors prefer non-
shell to shell sites. Projectile points or arrowheads are probably the,
most commonly collected artifacts from prehistoric sites. The systematic
removal of these items is particularly detrimental in that they provide
the major means of dating sites which lack ceramics or organic materials
capable of being radiocarbon dated.

Collecting or "surface hunting" has particularly serious consequences
in the upland areas of the coastal plain. The vast majority of sites in,-
side Maryland's coastal zone are relatively thin, with all artifacts con,"
centrated in the plow zone. Therefore, diminishing surface sites,by furL
ther collecting reduces our ability to understand the past or to preserv
representative parts of it for future study and enjoyment.

Because their interest usually lies in unusua I or @esthetically
pleasing objects rather than in knowledge about prehistoric lifeways,
collectors frequently do not label finds with information on their natural
or cultural contexts. Unprovenienced artifacts cannot be studied scien-,@I
tifically or displayed corre.ctly; hen ce, they add almost nothing to preh,is-
toric studies. Digging is extremely destructive to prehistoric resources
and it is fortunate that few relic collectors engage in it. Figure 5-8a.
shows disturbance caused by unsupervised excavations in a coastal Archaic
Tradition site, while Fig. 5-8b illustrates a private relic collection
made from coastal Archaic sites.

'Relic collectingis illegal on Federal and on Maryland state land.
However, laws concerning relic collecting on public lands are not well
known and rarely enforced.. These laws do little to 'curb this stress on
prehistoric resources. To reduce losses to prehistoric resources fran
relic collecting, it is necessary to educate the public about the need'',
for studying prehistoric artifacts-in place, and to encourage people inter-
in prehistory to,join local archeological and historical societie@_

135

r
MEE 6

1011
. . . ..... ...

Fig. 5-8a. Disturbance caused by unsupervised excavations
in coastal Archaic site
Mal

Fig. 5-8b Private relic collection from-coastal Archaic sites
mom

136

Stress from Residential Development

The Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study prepared by Wallace et al. estimates
that as many as 165,000 acres adjacent to Chesapeake Bayand its tribu-
taries will be developed for residential use during the thirty year period
which began in 1970 (Wallace et al. 1972: 183). Year round housing has
been and is expected to remain concentrated near large urban centers in
the peninsular areas of Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties (Wallace et al.
-71
1972: 179).

Second or recreational housing, however, has been andis expected, ,to
remain oriented to the shoreline. Figure 5-9 shows that areas of complex
shoreline near population centers and transportation corridors are favored
for this kind of development. Second or recreational housing in Maryland
is influenced by local economic conditions as well as by growth.in neigh-
boring states whose residents seek the amenities of Chesapeake Bay, and
this kind of development is expected to increase as individuals of the,'
post.-Norld War II population surge attain higher incomes and eventually
retire.

The Morton, Hoffman and Company, Inc. (1974) report on.second home de-
veloMent in Maryland estimates that the overall growth in second home
construction from 1974 to 1980 will be 34%. In addition, the report pre-
dicts that the lower Eastern Shore and southern Maryland will experience
the greatest growth in second homes, with other Chesapeake Bay areas show-
ing very small gains or even decreases (Morton, Hoffman and Company, Inc.
1974: 145)*

Residential development aw, disturb the shoreline in several ways'.
Building construction often requires land leveling, fill, and excavations.
In addition, pier construction usually involves excavations and, if erosion
control is necessary, the methods used disturb the soil and any prehistoric
resources that might be present, as discussed earlier.
The'6ffects of second home development on prehistoric resources c:an

I Cecil

Harford

0 5 10 15
Baltimore
Scale in miles

Balto.
t Ken t

Queen
A
n Annes
n
e

A
r
u Caroline
n
D.C. A
e
WV
Prince
Georges Talbot

C
a
Charles v
Dorchester
rt

St WiCdmiCO
Marys

S
0
m
e
r
Legend 8
e
t
0 Major second home enclaves
A Second home developments too

Fig. 5-9 Locations of major second home
developments within study area
(Morton. Hof f man and Co., Inc., 1974)

138

be illustrated best by an example from,southeim-Maryland. This project;,
pre�entl@'oc&ipies 4,SOO acres.of wooded land and 21 miles of shoreline.
The tract has been subdivided into 8,000 single family lots. A develop@-
ment of this size makes a huge inpact on the landscape, calling for roads,
utilities, house sites, and recreational-facilities. The 25,000 to 35,000
people who will live in this,development will increase the demand for
goods, services, and transportation improvements in the local area and
along the major transportation links. Undoubtedly, the potential for
disturbing prehistoric'resources through cumulative'landscape disturbance
is great in this and other c oastal zone residential developments. FigdYe
5-10 illustrate.s the amount of shoreline land disturbance that can accom-
pany residential development.

In addition, it is important to note-that preferred housing sites,
are frequently locations where prehistoric sites are found. Thus, environ-
mental intersections,*such as shorelines along bays and terraces that
provide'view overlooks, are preferred. Since large numbers of prehistoric
resources are often found at environmental intersections, the presence
,of prehistoric resources should be assessed before such areas are developed
for residences. Figure 5-11 illustrates the disturbance of prehistoric re-
sources that can come from residential construction.

Stress frm Recreational Activities

Because Chesapeake Bay is a focal point forrecreation in one of the
nation's most populous regions, its recreational facilities are intensively
used and pressure to expand them is increasing. The Maryland Outdoor
Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Phase II (Urban Research and
Development Corporation 1972: 41) estimates that approximately 600,000"
acres will be required to accommodate the recreational activity projected
for the state by 1990. In order to meet design requirements, 355,000..
acres mist be added to those available in 1970. Figure 5-12 shows major
areas in the coastal zone currently publicly owned and classed as open:
space or recreatio n areas. As this figure shows, little shoreline in the Mary-
land coastal zone is accessible to the public for natural area conserva-

139

Fig. 5-10a 1952 view of coastal area prior to
residential development

Fig. 5-10b 1971 view of same area showing extensive
shoreline residential development

140

Fig. 5-11a Shell midden disturbed by grading at house construction
site

&
. ww

%@ Ui. w i ;
w:
".05.

.jM

I ...... .. ... M.
wr
A; Y4

X-
.x: , pvw:,.
.. ... ........
rM

A.-
L"WOW

Fig. 5-11b Emergency prehistoric excavations of coastal
site disturbed by residential construction

Cecil

Harford SAL6

0 5 10 15
kw N in 0
Baltimore
Scale in miles

Balto. Kent

Queen
A Annes
n

A
r
U Caroline

D. C. e

Prince Talbot
Georges

C
a

V
e
Charles r Dorchester
t

St Wicomico
Marys 0

Legend
S
Af Public recreation area 0
m
e
r
s
e,
t
Fig. 5-12 Locations of principal public
recreation facilities within study area
(Urban Research and Development Corp. 1972)

142

tion and recreation. Adding more land could preserve prehistoric re-
sources as well as meet recreational needs, depending on the location
of the aroa and its projected land use.

Recreational Boating on the Tidal Waters of Maryland (Roy Mann Assoc-
iates, Inc. 1976: 5) points out that the number of pleasure boats regis-
tered in Maryland increased 9% per year between 1968 and 1974. This
i
tudy concludes that the demand for facilities, especially launching raups,'
s quickly exceeding the supply, particularly near the Baltimore and
Wa.shington, D.C., metropolitan areas. Likewise, the Maryland Outdoor
Recreation and Open Space study estimates that annual boating activitieg
will more than double by 1990 (Urban Research and Development Corporatibn
1972: 35).

Boating recreation can stress prehistoric resources in the coastal'
zone because boating services require considerable shoreline construction,
such as marinas, gas docks, launching ramps, and marine parks. Figure
5-13 shows the locations of marinas in the study area. Because these
facilities are frequently situated in coastal lagoons, their construction
can disturb prehistoric resources often associated with such settings.

During the fieldwork for the present study, several marina develop-
ments which involved extensive shoreline modifications were noted. Many
of these marinas were located in areas where prehistoric sites either are
known or are expected to occur. Figure 5-14 illustrates the amount of
shoreline disturbance that can accompany marina developme nt-

Stress from Wetlands Destruction

As shoreline development has proceeded, coastal wetlands have been
particularly vulnerable to destruction. In 1908, nearly 500,000 acres of
wetlands were reported for the state (Metzgar 1973: 11-2); however, by'
19683, only 300,000 acres remained. Two general categories of wetlands.can
be recognized; these include broad fringing marshes typical of the lower
Eastern Shore and coastal marshes occupying the sites of former open eM-
bayments. Prehistoric sites have been reported in association with both

1 4.@

Cecil

Harford %
0 5. 10 15

Scale in nrilles Baltimore

Ba I to- Kent

A Queen
n
n Annes
e
A
Caroline
u
n
0 d
e

Prince 0
Ta I bot
Georges

C
a

v
e
Charles r
t Dorchester

St. Wicomico
Marys 0

S
0
M
0 e
Legend r
e
t
a I marina
Fig. 5-13 Location of marinas in Maryland
1976)
(Rov Mann ASSOCIOtOS

- - ----- - ---- - -----
rJiA

..........
Fig. 5-14a 1952 view of Eastern Shore coastal Fig. 5-14b 1972 view of same area after
area prior to marina development development

....... . . .

ARM

MEN M.@,
Fig. 5-14c 1938 view of Western Shore coastal Fig. 5-14d 1970 view of same area after
area prior to marina development development

M "a IM , M, M. M M- M M, M M M

14S

categories. For example, amateur archeologists in Somerset County report
finding prehistoric artifacts and shell deposits eroding out from under
marsh deposits or appearing as small mounds in the midst of otherwise
extensive marshes. In addition, areas now marked by embayed-coastal
marshes were once the site of open bayscapable of supporting different
kinds of subsistence activities; and hence, the uplands adjacent to such
areas are frequently found to contain numerous prehistoric remains.

Fortunately, the state Wetlands Act (Art. NR title 9 (1974; 1975
Supp.))now controls the disturbance of both publicly and privately owned
wetlandsY thus decreasing the disturbance of prehistoric resources as-
sociated with wetlands. However, some activities, for example, agri-
cultural and mosquito control drainage ditches, are not controlled by
this act. The potential impact of these activities on prehistoric re-
sources should be evaluated for each project. In addition, upland areas
adjacent to wetlands should be evaluated for prehistoric resources prior
to soil disturbance by wetlands related activities.@

Stress from Transportation

In considering this stress on prehistoric resources, the direct
effects of transportation include improving road systems, constructing
bridges,and disposing spoil from channel maintenance. But, in addition
to these direct effects, improvements in transportation indirectly affect
prehistoric resources by increasing development in the coastal zone. The
Maryland State Highway Administration (1974) has estimated that use of
the state road system will double or even triple in the next twenty years.
Improving state roads to accommodate this increased use involves straight-
ening and widening present roads, as well as constructing new ones.

Indirect effects of improved transportation on prehistoric remains
begin when an area becomes more accessible to tourists, vacationers, and
potential residents from metropolitan areas. Increased tourism and residen-
tial development require more services and better roads, which quickly
turn rural areas into suburban residential communities,. For example,

146

southern Maryland is currently pressured by residential development from
e being noted in areas of
Washington, U.C., and population increases ar
Charles,, St. Marys, and Calvert counties. This effect is discussed in
the Calvert Co Comprehensive Plan (Calvert County Planning Office
1974: 1-3) which shows that population increases in the northern part of
the county are correlated with the recently completed dualization of
Highways 2 and 4.1inking Prince Frederick with Washington, D.C.
Further residential development unquestionably would be stimulated
by the construction of bridges,over major bodies of.water. Crossings of
the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay have been considered (Maryland-National
Capital Park and Planning Commission 1974;' Maryland State Highway Adminis-
tration 1975), and abridge near the mouth of the Patuxent River is now
under construction. Figure 5-15 shows the location of th ese bridges and
indicates the areas likely to be affected. These bridges will alter traf-
fic and development patterns, contributing to extensive changes in some
areas of the coastal zone.

The secondary effects on the coastline that result from new b idge
r
.links are amply illustrated in the case of Queen Ames County. Following
the opening of the cross-Bay Bridge, parts of Kent Island underwent dense,
strip development, as shown in Fig. 5-16. In addition, numerous recrea-
tional facilities and residential areas have been establish ed. The Queen
Annes County plan comments:
The greatest amount of subdivision activity has been on
Kent Island. Nearly 80% of all the lots created since 1947
have been in this area ... All but about six of these subdivi-
sions; have been along the shoreline and most of the actual
building development in these sub;0isions has been on the
actual waterfront lots... (Tarrant 1965: 23)

Finally,.trans@ortation improvements offshore, not directly related
to the coastal tone, can stress prehistoric resources. Perhaps the most
potentially disruptive of these activities in the foreseeable future is
the depositing of spoil from channel maintenance,and alteration in
northern Chesapeake Bay. Continuous harbor and channel dredging is
needed because of the influx ofsediment@from Bay tributaries, especially
the Susquehanna,River. The question is, where will dredge spoil be de-

Cecil

Harford

0 5 10 is
III WMW Baltimore
Scale in miles

Balto.
Kent

A
n
n
e Oueen
A
r A n n e s
u Caroflne
n
D.C d
e
I

Talbot
Prince
Georges

C
a

J
v
e
r
Charles
t
0 Dorchester

Wicomico
St.
Marys

S
Legend 0
m
e
Extant bridge r
Potential bridge site e
t
Esti6ated area of second
ary impact

Fig. 5-15 Location of existing and potential major bridge
sites and estimated areas,of secondary impact.

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

+j 0
@4 U

-7k;\M
OKI'. W,

oi
Cd W

u 0
-:@ .........
0 r

tn W
Cd

F4
P@ bo

AN Ln

149

deposited as the number of suitable locations fill up?

A considerable amount of dredging takes place in the Bay area.
Gottschalk (1945),notes,that the Federal goverment began dredging Balti-
more Harbor in 1836 and had removed more than Ill million@cubic yards of
spoil by 1956. From 1957 to 1968 alone, 38 million cubic yards of.sedi-
ment were dredged from the harbor and its approaches' Ntzgar 1973), and
the Department of State Planning has estimated that between 1969 and
1989, another 99 million cubic yards of sediment will have to be dredged
from the'same area. Large dredging projects are undertaken in less in-
dustrialized areas also; for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wicomico River Channel project has generated over 900,000 cubic yards of
spoil since 1950. In.addition, other projects, including residential
developments and marinas, require dredging.

In the past, offshore areas and wetlands were used for disposing
SP'0il'.'.th6 Wetlands Act, howeverI, prevents further use of wetland drea's'';
instead, spoil is now dumped on uplands@(in addition to offshore areas)*.
Dumping spoil on upland areas in the coastal zone can cover prehistoric
resources which, unless mappedbefore they are covered, will never be-
recorded. In addition, preparation for spoil disposal, (i.e., diking),
can involve,substantial alteration of the. soil and of any ptehistoric-re-
ce'tly been recognized by
sources that.may be present. This fact has re n
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which requires a consideration Of pre-
historic resources in.enviromental impact statements for Federally spon-
sored proj ects.
Finally, should the Chesapeake Bay area become more active in marine
shipping, for example, in handling offshore oil (which will require the
co nstruction of more ports and piers) stress on prehistoric resourteslin
'the coastal,zone would probably increase.-

Stress from Military Activities'

Military agencies control a large part of Marylandts coastline,
pecially in Charles, St. Marys, and Harford counties, where large test

150

facilities are located. For example, over 77,000 acres (approximately
27% of Harford County) are occupied by Aberdeen Proving Ground. This
reservation in fact controls most of Harford,County's shoreline.

Table,5-6 (see also Fig. 5-17) gives the location and extent of
major military landholdings in the coastal -zone. It has long been recog-
nized that there are substantial prehistoric resources on military lands,
especially on Aberdeen Proving Ground. Stearns (1943). and.Mayre (19-38),
in particular, observed and mapped prehistoric remains in coastal Har-
ford County. Aerial photographs indicate that large parts of military
tracts are not actively used. But significant land.use alteration does
occur, as may be seen in Fig.,.5-18. Aberdeen Proving Ground, for example,
is used for a variety of purposes, some of which, such as ordnance test-.
.ing, disturb the soil (Fig. 5-19).
Therefore, prehistoric resources on military lands have been subject
to disturbance. Further, as the report by Downing et al. (1975: 49)
shows, as much as 80% of lands on Edgewood Arsenal are considered con-
taminated. Thus, the prehistoric resources in these areas either have'
been dist@rbed or are practically inaccessible.' Reclaiming these areas
would be prohibitively expensive and likely to cause further disturbance.

Secondary impacts created by military operations and expansion also
Put demands on the landscape, in the form of increased housing, service,
and recreation related construction. Disturbance created by these acti-
vities, is especially critical in St.. Marys, Calvert, and Harford coun-
ties,.-@here military dgenciesare among the main employers of the local
labor force.

Stress from Industrial Activities

Except for activity concentrated in the greater Baltimore area,@'in-
dustrial development in Maryland's coastal zone has generally been dis-
persed and related to single purpose activities. Among these is the loca-
tion there of such facilities as power and sewage treatment plants. Num-
erous [email protected] are located around Chesapeake Bay, and continued in-

roble 5-6 Major Coastal Zone MilivIry Fzicilities
(@firylaluJ Department of- Stat6 Planning 1.974)

County Map No. Facility Acreage
(Fig. 5-17)

Charles 1 Naval Ordnante.Station,and.Research
Laboratory Indian Head 3,511.0

Charles 2 U.S. Army Blossom Point Proving,
Ground Upper Cedar,Point

St.-Marys 3 Naval.Electronic Systems Test
and Evaluation, Facility 852.0
n

St.@ Marys 4 Patuxent Naval Air Test Center
Lexington Park 6,837.9

C alVert 5 Naval Testing Center -,Solomons 29S.8

Calvert' 6 NavalResearch Laboratory
Randall Cliff Beach 174.9

Harford 7 U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving
Ground 71,250.0

Harford, 7 U.S. Army Edgewood-Arsenal 6,0254

Cecil 8 @Naval.Training Center
Bainbridge 1,249.4

Total. 91,496.0.

IS2

Cecil

Harford

7
0 5 10 is
B
Iti
a more
Scale In miles

Ba1to-
Kent

A Queen
n
n Annes
e

A
r
u Caroline
n
D. C. d
e

Prince Ta I bot
Georges

C
a
Charles v
e 0 0 Dorchester
r
t

2 St. Wicomico
Marys

-S
Note: See table 5-4 0.
m
3 e
for description. 0
r
lid
e

Fig. 5-17 Locations of major coastal
military installations within study are*a

1S3

.. .... . ...

Fig. 5-18a 1938 view of coastal area prior to
construction of a military facility

A-t

Fig. 5-18b 1972 view of s ame area showing shoreline
alteration associated with,facility construction

154

9 AIR

Fig. 5-19 Effects of munitions testing on shoreline of a military facility

155

ter&st in the coastal zone for power plant'siting is evidenced, in the
number of coastal locations chosen for preliminary study by the.Maryland
Power Plant Siting Program (Perkins 1974).

Figure 5-20 shows the locations of major industrial activity around
the Bay. Smaller scale,damercial activity, usually related: to. comer-.
cial fishing and services for recreational boating, also is found in
the coastal area'.

As the coastal counties attempt to expand and diversify their econom-,
ic bases, opportunities for developing new industries and expanding pre-
sent ones will increase. In addition, secondary impacts, such as resi-
dential construction stimulated by industrial expansion in interior,,
areas, are likely to be more-critical to coastal prehistoric resources
than actual industrial plant construction. Figures.5-21 and 5-122.il_@,
lustrate the effects of industrial development in two portions of the,
Maryland coastal zone.

Although it is assumed that the Maryland coastal zone will not@be come
highly industrialized, today's assumptions may be.modified by tomorrow's
necessities.. For exaftple, if-quantitieslof petroleum were discovered and
produced off the middle Atlantic coast, the Chesapeake Bay area@could be-
roducts. The need to
come involved in refining and shipping petroleum 0.
expand,docking, storage, and other facilities would-quickly increase
the impact of coastal industrial activities on prehistoric resources.

Evaluation of Current and Predictable Stress
on Prehistoric Resources for Each Study Area County
'For each stud'y county, the following'narratiVe-'with' accompanying, maps
presents an.overview of where planners,can expect:the most critical stress-
es on prehistoric resources over the next two decades. This estimate-as-
sumes that development generally will follow the-direttion set forth in
available county comprehensive.plans,
Figure 5-6 presents by county ihe.relative percentages.of shoreline

IS6

Cecil

Harford

34date in miles

Balto.
19 Kent

A aueen
n
n Annes
e

A
r
u
n Caroline
D.C. d
e

Prince
Georges
Talbot

C
a

Charles
e
r. 0 Dorchester
t

Marys Wicomicof

Legend

Extant power plant sites S
m
Proposed power plant sites
Ir
At Other Industrial sites s
t
F19.6-20 Locations of principal coastal
Industrial sites within study aeba.

157

.... .......

Me,

Fig. 5-21a 1952 view of coastal area prior to
industrial development

Fig. 5-21b 1970 view of same area after development

158

Fig. 5-22a 1952 view of coastal area prior to intensive
development for industrial and recreational
facilities

Fig. 5-22b 1972 view of same area after development

159

currently devoted to five land use categories: residential, industrial,
cropland, wetland, and forest. Each category has a different potential
for disturbing the landscapeand, with it,-prehistoric resources. 7hus,
residential and industrial areas di
sturb izitensively; prehistoric re-
sources are already greatly stressed in areas of extensi@ve. residen-
tial and industrial development. Although prehistoric resources may still
exist in these areas, it is likely that they have been damaged or destroy-
ed. Sites in these areas would be extremely difficult-to investigate be-
cause of land use constraints (e.g.,, pavement, buildings). On the other
hand, although croplands and wetlands are both receiving moderate stress
(from cultivation and surface deflation in the former, from shore erosion
and inundation in the latter), useful information on prehistoric resources
still may be found in these areas. Controlled surface collection of arti-
facts is economical and useful in agricultural areas. But investigatim
Of sites in wetland areas is more costly than similar investigations on
firm land, because water removal 3LS required. Finally, forested areas
currently are under the lowest stress, although land use prior to the
establishment of the present forest may have altered many of them. Thus,
those counties containing high percentages of wetlands and forested shore-
lines, including Calvert, Charles, Dorchester, Prince Georges, Somerset,
and Wicomico, counties, may have the best preserved prehistoric resources.
However, these are the most difficult environments in which to locate
sites.

For convenience, study area counties can be divided into the upper
and lower portions of the Western and Eastern shores. The individual.
county discussions presented'below show that Harford, Baltimore, and
Anne Arundel counties probably have lost many of their coastal prehis-
toric resources to shoreline development, thereby increasing the value
of any remaining sites. Residential development in the coastal zone of
these counties is extensive. In addition, some of'the Harford County
shoreline and most of the Baltimore County and city shoreline are stressed
by,military or industrial development.
Prince Georges, Charles, St. Marys, and Calvert counties are all'under

160

pressure for development from the Washington, D. C. or Baltimore metropol-
itan areas'. this pressure can be seen in residential and transportation
development, with attendant increases in service and recreation facilities.

Cecil, Kent, Queen Ames, Talbot, and Caroline counties currently are
relatively undeveloped. Cecil and Kent counties are under some degree of
pressure from the Baltimore-Philadelphia corridor, while Queen Annes and
Talbot counties are mder some pressure from Baltimore and Washington,
D. C. These pressures have taken the form of residential, transportation,
and recreational use increases. Caroline County has relatively little
shoreline; its prehistoric resources currently are affected primarily by
agricultural practices. The construction of a cross-Bay bridge to Kent
County would greatly stimulate development in the upper Eastern Shore
counties.

Lower Eastern Shore counties, including Dorchester, Somerset, and
wicomi*co, are relatively undeveloped and under little pressure for develop-
ment. However, the prehistoric resources in these counties slowly are
being lost through erosion and flooding in the extensive wetlands. The
dumping of channel'dredge spoil in Wicomico County may have affected some
prehistoric resources. Should a bridge be constructed linking Dorchester
and Calvert counties, the pressure for development would be expected io
increase greatly.

Table 5-7 presents summary information on development (as defined in
Chapter Four). Development is seen to be heaviest in the counties com-
prising and bordering the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan districts.
Eastern Shore counties are characterized by smaller amounts of shoreline
development save for Talbot county, which contains a large number of small
parcels of land.-

Table 5-8 ranks principal present and predictable future stress-
producing activities for each of the study area counties. These judgments
have been based on qualitative assessments and relative,evaluations of the
nature of stress on prehistoric resources. Although most of the counties
discussed below are concerned with the need to preserve aspects of their
natural environments and their historic structures, few include a considera-

161

Table 5-7 Amount of Developed 1 Shoreline for Study Area Counties

County Total Miles Miles 2 Percent
of Shoreline Developed Developed

Anne Arundel 477.9 304.4 63.7
Baltimore 327.2 142.9 60.2

Calvert 174.7 51.2 29.3
Caroline 101.3 1.1 1.1
Cecil 206.8 48.0 23.2
Charles 269.7 43.4 16.1
Dorchester 65.8 15.3 23.3
Harford 240.5 197.7 82.2

Kent 346.1 44.4 12.8
Prince Georges 69.8 9.4 13.5
Queen Annes 279.1 45.0 16.1
St. Marys 424.5 155.5 36.6
8omerset 4 ---
Talbot 641.6 203.4. 31.7
Wicomic04 ---

5
Total 3535.0 1261.7 35.7

See Chapter Four for definition of developed shoreline.
2As interpreted on aerial photographs and county tax maps and measured
on 7.5 minute U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps
3Information applies only to portion of county which formed part of
the area where fieldwork was done.
4Fieldwo,'rk was not conducted in these counties; they are not included
in the total mileage.
SShoreline mileages include former shorelines.

162

Table 5-8
County summary and ranking of soumqg of stress on coastal prehistoric resources

0
01 0 0

Anne Arundei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Baltimore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 di 0
Calvwt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Caroline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cecil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dorchester 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harford 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prince Georges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oueen Annes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mwys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Somerset 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Talbot 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0
w1cornico 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 Significant stress 9 Moderate stress 0 Low stress

163

tion of prehistoric resources in their planning.processes or provide for
prehistoric resources in zoning and other ordinance's affecting land use.

i
Figure 5-23 shows locations in the study area where prehistoric
resources are estimated to be under the most stress from current develop-

ment.

Anne Arundel County

Owing to its location near the population centers of Washington, D. C.
and Baltimore, Anne Arundel County is experiencing great pressure for
development. Since no comprehensive plan for the county was available,
the authors of the present study consulted a coastal zone land use profile
(O'Connor, Ventre, and Krepner 1976) and the population projections pre-
pared by the Maryland Department of State Planning. With its 478 miles of
highly indented shoreline, Anne Arundel county is intensely pressured for
residential deve lopment. At present, law density residential use takes
up approximately 53% of the land use in the county (O'Connor, Ventre, and
Krepner 1976). However, the population is expected to increase almost
70% from 297,539 in 1970 to 504,270 by 1990 04aryland Department of
State Planning). Thus, the greatest development pressure is expected to
lie in residential growth, although commercial, recreational, and trans-
portation activities will also increase. At present, no steps have been
taken to conserve this county's prehistoric resources., documented by
Wright (1973). Unless immediate measures are taken, few coastal sites
will exist in 1990.

Baltimore County

Reference to the Baltimore C Comprehensive Plan (Baltimore County
Office of Planning and Zoning 1975) shows that most of the coastal zone of
the county has been developed. It is likely that most of the prehistoric
resources along the coast have been disturbed or destroyed. But this

164

Cecil
nN

Harford

0 a 10 15
ktjIll;Jld==j - Baltimore
scale In Ollse

Bal to Kent
*n)

0.0

A
n
n
Queen
A
r Annes
U Caroline
n
D-C d
81

Talbot
Prince
Georges

C %%%
a

v
Charles 0rt
Dorchester

Wicomico
St.
Marys

Legend:
ISO, H19h stress areas 0
INN
F
G

Fig. 5-23 Areas of partiularly.high modern
cultural stress on coastal prehistoric *900rcO.9,

165

destruction increases the value of the few prehistoric sites that may re-
main in the rare undeveloped areas of the county.

The county's Eastern Planning Area (Baltimore County Office of Plan-
ning and Zoning 1975:64) takes in the coastal zone. Here, intense develop-
ment has encompassed Patapsco Neck completely and Back River Neck almost
completely (see Fig. 5-24). Land uses in this area include heavy indus-
trial, intensive commercial, and medium to high density housing. Some
land remains in Back River Neck and Bowley's Quarters; this land is clas-
sified as low density rural-residential, a designation that allows develop-
went to reach the level oflarge residential lots. This use of the land
involves the construction of many houses, and the accompanying soil dis-
turbance leaves little chance for the preservition of prehistoric remains
in the coastal zone.

Fortunately, a little land along both sides of the Bird River and at
the intersection of the Bird and Gunpowder rivers remains in the agricul-
tural classification. This land, along with the Aberdeen Proving Grount-'s
Edgewood. facility, is the only remaining coastal area in Baltimore County
in which some prehistoric resources may be preserved. Every effort should
be made to avoid stressing these areas by additional development.

The Baltimore Co Conprehensive Plan gives little discussion to
historic preservation and makes no mention' of prehistoric resources (Bal-
timore County Office of Planning and Zoning 1975:23)_'. However, the plan
suggests expanding lands for recreation and open space. If this suggestion
were adopted, it could help.conserve prehistoric resources. Prehistoric
resources could be considered in land acquisition and left undisturbed
by the construction of facilities. Further, the statewide agricultural
land preservation bill and the linear park system (p. 27) also could help
conserve prehistoric resources.

Calvert County

The Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (Calvert County Planning Office

166

0 4

"&W In oil**

Ch.

Baltimor* City

Cl
M.
Legend:

Areas of high stre". on, proOletOric rOwNrODs
from Industrial, resideMiat and military activities

Fig. 544 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources In Baltimore County

167

1974) is based on a philosophy of slow growth; however, the county's popu-
lation is expected to double by 1990, with the three major areas of develop_
ment being Solomons, Prince Frederick, and Twin Beaches. Approximately
12,068 acres of land will be needed for this estimated development. At
present, one percent of the county's land area is devoted to commercial
or industrial activities. The only major industrial operations in the
county, Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant and the Columbia Gas Corpora-
-tion liquefied gas plant, both occupy coastal locations (Fig. 5-25).
Military installations also occupy 470.7 acres of land in the county, in-
cluding 295.8 acres at the Naval Testing Center at Solomons and 174.9
acres at the Naval Research Laboratory at Randall Cliff Beach. Both in-
stallations contain coastal frontage.

Accelerated growth from t ransportation inprovements has been noted
already in the northern part of Calvert County, where 50% of the workers
commute out of the county. Impact on the county may result from the com-
pletion of the lower Patuxent River bridge, not to mention the impact
should lower Calvert County be used as one terminus for a new cross-Bay
bridge to the Eastern Shore (Dorchester County). Even without a major
bridge or industrial development, it has been estimated that the Solomons
area will use most of its 1973 supply of agricultural and developable land
by 1990 to accommodate the expected growth. Although the poorly drained
soils in this lower portion of the county may have deterred extensive pre-
historic use, large number's of prehistoric resources could be expected.
The present study recorded many prehistoric remains in a similar area along
the lower Potomac River in St..Marys County.

To date, growt h and development have been most intense along the Bay-
shore and in the southern part of the county. Metzgar (1973:VI-- 12)
makes the following statement in regard to possible changes of the focus
of development in Calvert County:

the trend has been for more development to take place along
the bay front than along river front. The economics of land
development may bring about a change in this trend. At this
time the best land along the bay front is either developed or
in the process of development. The cream has been skimmed off
and the remaining land is rugged, relatively inaccessible, and

168

Lagand

Military Installation

In Beaches Industrial site

a
Growth Center

Potential bridge terminus

Extant bridge terminus

Residential growth area

Areas of high shore erosion rates
(>12 acres /mile/yearl

Prince Chesapeake Bay
Frederick

We,

Approx. @coin In miles

gi@
N

Solomons
Fig. 5 -25 Present and anticipated stresses on
prehistoric resources in Calvert County

169

.has a limited amount of natural beach available. On the other
hand, the land along the river(Patuixent) is relatively undeveloped
in most cases, and topographically suited to extensive and econom-
ical development.

Development of the primarily agricultural Patuxent shoreline would pose
a serious threat to the prehistoric resources of,Calvert County. Most
known prehistoric sites are located along the Patuxent shoreline. Sub.-
dividing fams along the Patuxent shoreline or at its intersection with
significant tributaries could affect large numbers of sites.

Shore erosion is particularly critical along such of the Calvert
County Chesapeake Bay shoreline, and significant losses of prehistoric
resources can be assumed for this area. Moreover, the heavy forest and
vegetation cover of the eastern half of the county makes it hard to detect
sites in this area. The agricultural western part of the county fronting
,on the Patuxent River offers greater ease of site detectability.
The Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (Calvert County Planning Office
1974) does not consider the',county's prehistoric resources. The list ap-
proach to site significance for natural areas (Smithsonian 'Institution 1974)
and historic sites (the National Register) is used. But Calvert County
can be assumed to have significant prehistoric resources, which-should
notbe overlooked in county land use planning and zoning ordinances. Im--
portantly,, the plan does recommd that development be steered away from
sensitive areas like Parkers Creek, and indicates that the overall level
of development of the lower Patuxent region should be low.

In sun, from a resource. point of view, the current most stressed
areas are in the developing southern part of the county and along the
Chesapeake Bayshore. The rate of growth in the Solomons-Appeal-Olivet
planning district could increase-at or above predicted rates with the
completion of the St. Marys County-Calvert County bridge or with the con-
struction of a now cross-Bay bridge.

Qualitatively, the destruction of prehistoric resources on the Bay
shore is critical, because these sites are now rare and possibly unique
(certainly there are few additional examples of sites available for pres-

170

ervation). Three major coastal features indent the Chesapeake@shoreline
of the county: Parkers Creek-, Plum Point, and Fishing Creek. Of these,
only Parkers Creek remains essentially undisturbed. A large marina has
been constructed at the mouth of Plum Point, and much of the land around"
the mouth of Fishing Creek has been altered. Other areas of shoreline
indentation along the Bay are found in the southeastern portion of the
county; these areas currently are being stressed by residential develop-
ment. Continued development around coastal indentat ions or any initial
development of the Parkers Creek area will likely disturb the prehis-
toric record here, for which no examples have yet been studied.

Caroline County

No comprehensive plan was available to the authors for Caroline:
County. Agriculture and agricultural industries form. the economic basis
of the county. Because of this orientation, the population density is
low, with most election districts having fewer than 99 people per square
mile. The population is expected to increase slightly over the next 15
years fiom a 1970 population of 19,,438 to a total of 21,141 (Nhryland
Department of State Planning n.d.).

Caroline County's coastal zone is limite&to' a few miles along the
Choptank River and the Tuckahoe and Marshyhope creeks. Because of the
county's low population density and its agricultural use of the land,
little stress on prehistoric remains, other than those from agricultural
activities as discussed earlier in this chapter, is anticipated. However,
to insure conservation of prehistoric remains, count y development and
zoning plans should include a consideration of these remains, along with
ways tominimize their disturbance.

Cecil County

The information on Cecil County presented here is taken from the

171

comprehensive plan for Cecil County, prepared by Stottler Stagg and Associ-
ates (1974). Cecil County's population has grown during the past 30 years
as a result of its location in the Baltimore-Philadelphia corridor and be-
cause of its excellent transportation links. The comprehensive plan pre-
sents a philosophy of controlled development, estimating a growth rate of
2.4% each year, to a total county population of 78,000 by 1990.

Although only 14% of the land in Cecil County is classified as devel-
oped, there is pressure for residential and recreation (especially mar ina)
development in the coastal zone. The comprehensive.plannotes that growth
will be channeled into four primary areas, Elkton, Northeast., Perryville,
and Rising Sun, and three secondary areas, Cecilton, Chesapeake City, and
.the Route 40 corridor (see Fig. 5-26)., Wherever these areas intersect
with the coastal zone, stress on coastal prehistoric resources can be ex-
pected.

,The comprehensive plan points out that the land most suitable for
d6veloprent ("stable land!1) consists of fim ground with gentle slopes
(Stottler Stagg and Associates 1974:7 - 2). In addition, the plan pro-
vides a thorough considerati on of historic structures, although no mention
is made of the preservation of,prehistoric resources. Preservation of
these remains should be considered, because many sites would be expected
to occur on stable iand. Many other 'sites undoubtedly have been disturbed
by dredging and spoil disposal associated with maintaining navigable
chamels to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.

Charles County

The proposed conp r,ehensive plan for Charles County (Greenhorne and
O'Mara, Inc. 1974) provides the information for-this discussion of cLWrent
and predictable stress on prehistoricresources. IlAs county also empha-
sizes a philosophy of moderate growth in continuing recent trends. For-
merly an agricultural area, Charles County has recently received pressure
for residential growth'frm the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area, and
its population has increased,at the rate of 4 5% per year (Greenhorne

172

Tm' - O'h
rt he a

E I tojj_;.@,
a

FerryVille

Legend 10
0 Growth center .61
Residential growth area
Areas of high shore erosion
Dredge spoil disposal area
Marine devopment

Sassa fras
0 -4 R i v e r
..-Ammmmg--- _--j
approx. scale In miles

.Fig-5-26 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in
C,ecil County

173

and O'Mara, Inc. 1974:1 - 4). However, most land in the county remains
open, with 40.2% agricultural, Sl.l% wooded, and the remaining 8.7% devel-
oped (Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc. 1974:1 1). Of the developed land, use
for commercial and industrial concerns is still low. One power plant is
located on the Potomac shoreline, and another is proposed (see Fig. 5-27).

In the past, development in Charles County has taken place along
major highways. Because highway improvement and new highway construction
will take place in the northern part of the county, thereby increasing
access to and from Washington, D. C., it appears that the greatest develop-
ment pressures will be found in this area. Proposed highway modifications
include building an Outer Beltway and Southeast Expressway, as well as im-
proving U.S. 301, connecting with Virginia, and MD 23,.connecting with St.
Marys County. Improvement of U.S. 301 will increase development pressures
in the southern tip of the county (Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc. 1974:11 - 4).

. F igure 5-27 illustrates stressed areas in Charles County. However,
if a Chesapeake Bay crossing and associated highway are constructed to
link southern Maryland with the Eastern Shore, development pressures will
increase in both areas (Greenhorne@and O'Mara, Inc. 1974:11 - 8). At
present development pressures on the county's coastal zone prehistoric
resources are not great because the area is not readily accessible. If
future transportation changes increase accessibility, stresses on prehis-
toric re sources will also increase. Further, relatively few land owners
control the Potomac River coastline from Chicamuxen Creek to Maryland
Point. Should these lands begin to be subdivided and developed, stresses
on prehistoric resources' will increase accordingly.

Dorchester County

The philosophy expressed in the Dorchester County comprehensive plan
(Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1974) is one of slow, controlled economic and
population growth along with protection of the county's abundant natural
resources (pp. 5-7). This philosophy would guide growth to established
towns, including Cambridge, Hurlock, Secretary, and Vienna (see Fig. 5-28).

174
Legend-
Industrial site
Growth center
.A@
I@Extant bridge terminus
Residential growth area
(SPotential Industrial site
*Military facility

Plata

Indian Head
/C 00%

0
A

0
v 1111111M=_
approx. scale ln.mil:9

Fig. 5-27 Present 'and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Charles County.

Legend

Growth center

Residential growth center
Areas of high shore erosion
Areas susceptible to inundation

0 0

approx. 8
-4

Cambyldge@.
4k/

v E R
C-D

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

cret
C)

lenna
N a n tCc,

R v e r

Fig. 5-28 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Dorchester Countj

sib. a" "I no

176

Minor or no development of conservation areas, including wetlands (which
compose 32% of the county's land), waterfront, farmland, and forests is
recommended. The Plan is conservative in its attitude toward changes
to the natural environment, and suggests that studies be carried out before
extensive changes are made.

Although the preservation of historic structures and skills is dis-
cussed, prehistoric resources are not mentioned in the comprehensive plan;
but they should be considered in all studies that evaluate proposed changes
in land use. While fewer than 50 prehistoric sites in Dorchester County
have been reported to the Divisionof Archeology, potentially important
ancient prehistoric remains are known to exist along marshy coasts thanks
to the work of local amateur archeologists (see Cresthu.11 1971). In ad-
dition, several important ossuaries have been reported in the vicinity
of Cambridge (Ubelaker-1976).

.Stress to prehistoric resources results from both natural and cultural
land alteration processes in Dorchester County. Figure 5-28 shows the
areas where prehistoric resources are now being or are likely to be stress-
ed over the next 20 years. Shore erosion resulting from continuing sea
level rise pose's problems in the Neck District from Hills Point to Cook
Point and along Taylors and Hoopers Islands (Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1974:
53). Efforts that the Plan calls for to stabilize these areas could aid
in preserving prehistoric resources from erosion; however, because coastal
prehistoric si tes couldbe disturbed in constructing erosion controls, these
remains should be assessed as part of any stabilization plan.

Potential transportat ion development in the county also@@-could disturb
prehistoric resources. One alternative for a new transportation route
through the northern part of the county could disturb local prehistoric
resources by stimulating the conversion of agricultural land to commercial
use. A second alternative, looked upon more favorably by the Plan, by-
pass es Cambridge and Vienna (Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1974:75 - 76). In
addition, building a southern Bjty bridge crossing could disturb prehis@-
toric resources through residential, commercial, and industrial develop-
ment in the county.

177

The Plan calls for the construction of five additional boat launching
ramps in the county and at least one large waterfront park; such construc-
tion could disturb coastal zone prehistoric resources. Boat launching
ranps would be located in the northern part of the county along the Chop
tank, Nanticoke, and Marsbyhope rivers near Cambridge, Vienna, and other,
incorporated towns. Such construction would require facilities for park-
ing, sanitation, etc. (Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1974:91). The Plan recom-
mends locating a waterfront park near Cambridge at Gray (Great) Marsh
Point, although several other locations are discussed (Urban Pathfinders,
Inc. 1974:90). These projects should include a consideration of prehis-
toric resources to mitigate against their disturbance where possible,
perhaps incorporating interpretative exhibits in the proposed facilities.

As with most land use plans, that for Dorchester County fails to con-
sider specifically the preservation of prehistoric resources. However,
a more serious problem is the recommendation of public collection of his-
toric artifacts (Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1974:67 70). Unsurpervised
artifact collecting is not desirable.

Harford County

Information on Harford County comes from its.Comprehensive Master Plan
(Harford County Planning Office 1974). The county's population has grown
dramatically over the past 1S years, and this trend is expected to continue
as people move into Harford County for employment there and in nearby
Baltimore. The population has grown rapidly because of the county's near-
ness to Baltimore and because of its excellent transportation links. The
stresses that may be expec'ted to disturb Harford County's prehistoric re-
sources will cow from residential construction and from the services as-
sociated with residential growth. In addition, the county intends to en-
courage the establishment of new local industries, so that county residents
can work in the area instead of commuting outside, as 349. now do (Harford
County Department of Planning and Zoning 1974:2S).

Between 1960 and 1970, Harford County's population increased 501.
Since 1970 the increase has.slowed to a rate of 5% each year. Along with
the population increase, the amunt of agricultural and vacant land was
reduced by 9% between 1966 and-1973. This period als o saw,a 100t in-
crease in'the amount of land used for residences and a 300S increase in
the amount of land used for commercial property (Harford County Department'
of Planning and Zoning 1974:35).

Because the Federal government controls most of the county's shoreline,
there is great pressure for development on the remiihing coastal zone
lands, especially for residential use. As industry`,@increases, even more
pressure will be applied to the coastal zone for commercial enterprises,
re sidences, and associated services. Figure 5-29 shows@ most Harford County
coastal zone, including that under military control, as subject to present and
future stress on prehistoric resources. Even though the county's compre-
hensive plan suggests that coastal areas be protected for public use as
natural areas, it is anticipated that the press.ure,to develop will be great.
Since the early part of this century, thelederal government has con-
trolled the land that makes up Aberdeen Proving Ground, including Gunpowder
Neck and the Edgewood area. In an environmental impact assessment of the
E,dgewood Arsenal, Downing 2t al. (1975:34 - 35) suggested:
thevalue of the archeological sites on Edgewood Arsenal has
been greatly enhanced by the policy of restricted access which
has protected the areas from exploitation and vandalism. The
lack of farming since 1917 has prevented further ground dis-
turbances. As a result,, even though there are many sites
throughout the Upper Chesapeake Bay, those at Edgewood Arsenal
are among the few that have been preserved in the original state
with chronological layering largely still intact. The impor-
tance of this preservation to the archeoloical community can-
not be overstressed.

Downing 2t al. failed to note, however, that archeological sites "pr9tected"
by the,government have been subjected to destrdctive activities, parti-
cularly munitions explosions and disposal, over the past 50 years. 1he
result has been the contamination of over 4,800 acres (80%) of the Bdge-
wood installatbti:

Legend

Aberdeen division
179
Edgewood division

Areas of high erosion
E] Areas susceptible to
inundation
Developed area

Residential growth area
Growth center

A-

Havr
do Grace

Abe

0 5

approx. scale In miles

Fig. 5- 29 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Harford County

180

Contamination at Edgewood Arsenal is a serious problem.
Wooded areas and marshy lowlands make access to some of the
contaminated areas difficult. The fact that inert as well as
live rounds (many of which have lost their identifying mark-
ings).have been.used makes it difficult and hazardous to at-
tempt to clear an area. Even if decontamination were attempted,
the environmental consequences would be massive. Such an opera-
tion would require removal of all vegetation and soil to a
!je2th of 10 feet or more. Further, the cost of such an e rt
would be EiFn-se -an-al"W resulting land would still not be
certifiable for unrestricted use. These areas should be
fenced and maintained in perpetuity under Federal control
(Downing et al. 1975:52; emphasis added).

Thus, it appears that many of the prehistoric resources on Edgewood
Arsenal may never be ascertained to be intact; those sites in contaminated
areas may never be investigated by archeologists. These sites are irre-
trievably lost to conservation efforts.

Kent County

Kent County's economy is based primarily on agriculture, although
a seafood industry is located in the Rock Hall area. Chestertown is the
focal point for the acquisition of goods and services, and provides limited
manufacturing. In regard to future development, Johnson (1974) e.5timates
that 2,000 acres will be required for housing, recreational, industrial
and other needs by 1985. Countywide housing requirements will total 884
acres, 3@22 of them second home developments, which are likely to be lo-
cated along the coast. Approximately 1,000 additional acres are needed
for parks, recreation, and other public uses.

Parks located in the coastal zone, such as the proposed Fairlee
Point State Park, could help preserve prehistoric resources. However,
the construction of campsites, roads, and other park facilities could
disturb certain prehistoric resources. The impact of new construction
should be assessed in advance.

Agricultural activities and shore erosion are the major sources of
stress on prehistoric resources in Kent County. In addition, certain

181

local sites along the coast are heavily stressed by relic collecting.
Second home and marina developments have increased in recent years; if
this trend continues, the threat to coastal sites in the county will in-
crease greatly (see Fig. 5-30).1

Although Kent County is not developing as rapidly as some other areas,
.prehistoric resources are under increasing pressure. During the period
of this study (July 1974 through November 1976), several applications and
plans for developing this county's coastal zone were put forward, and
some of these projects already have been completed. Figure 5-31 and
Table 5- 9 indicate the nature and location of the projects, many of which
have had or may have an impact on prehistoric sites. Of course, some pro-
jects may not be approved or completed, but their consideration and plan-
ning shows the potential for soil disturbance in this county's coastal
zone. Table S-10 shows that the proposed developments represent a wide
spectrum of interests. That so many diverse projects are proposed for a
rural area like Kent County illustrates the increasing threat of distur-
bance to the coastal prehistoric resources.

It should be noted that an additional bridge linking the Baltimore
metropolitan area with Kent County could lead to widespread disturbance of
the area's prehistoric sites. With its 346 miles of waterfront and its
large tracts of flat,,well-drained land, Kent County would be subject to
extensive residential development.

The magnitude of this inpact is multiplied by a consideration of pre-
dicted population changes. Although the population of Baltimore is ex-
pected to remain essentially static, by 1990 the counties adjacent to the
city will add more than one-half million people to their 1970 cumulative
total. For the same period, Kent County is expected to remain the least
populated county in Maryland, with a total gain of 1,000 inhabitants. A
bridge between the Eastern and Western shores could greatly alter these
figures for Kent County. The only way to mitigate the extent of this
effect would involve advance planning and study. It should be recalled
that Kent County is particularly important to prehistoric conservation
efforts, because counterpart sites may have been heavily stressed on the

Legend:
Growth center
Residential growth area
Areas of high shore erosion
Betterton Marina development
Ire/

CHESAPEA KE

Ile,

Rock Hall

Chester

Millington

0 4

approz. Deale, In miles

Fig. 5-30 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Kent Caunty

M OW '"M 'ON Am 00) IM me W M on to @ MW M

6
8 Betterton

CHESAPEA KE 4
B A Y 3 2

00
14 Rock Hall
17 Chestertown 20

6 1

is
Millington

1A V-

0 4
I11Ipg===
approx. scalt In miles

Fig. 5-31 Locations of development projects pioposed -I, ir the Kent County coastal zone during the present study

Voi AN owl

184

Table S-9 Deve lopment Projects Proposed for the Kent County
coastal Zone During the Present Study (taken from
files of the "land Water Resources and Energy and
Coastal Zone Administrations and the Kent County !iw-s)

Project Number Location Type of Project Size
(see Fig. 5-31)

1 Wilson Point Timber bulkhead 320 fee t
2 Glencoe Timber bulkhead 155 feet
3 Kentmore Park Stone revetment 530 feet
4 Turner Creek Bulkhead 346 feet
Still Pond Neck Power plant 581 acres
6 Still Pond Neck Bulkhead 271 feet
7 Still Pond Creek Dredge spoil disposal
8 Still Pond Neck Sand/gravel quarry 675 acres
9 Kinnaird Point Residential development 200+ acres
10 Tolchester Power plant 1400 acres
11 Tolchester Marina expansion
dredge 64,000 sq. ft.
bulkhead 560 feet
12 Swan Point Dredge spoil disposal
dredge channel 300000 sq. ft.
dredge basin 320,000 sq. ft.
dike 350 acres
13 Swan Creek. Bulkhead 275 feet
14 Rack Hall Dredge spoil disposal 14 acres
is Davis Creek Bulkhead 200 feet
16 Langford Creek Stone dry wall 490 feet
17 Shipyard Creek Stone revetment 1250 feet
18 Deep Point Revetment 583 feet
19 Chester River Bulkhead 350 feet
20 Chester River Highway 213 improvement --

18S

Western Shore, owing to the activities at military test facilities in
Harford County and the continuing expansion of metropolitan Baltimore.

Of course, similar serious impacts could result from the construc-
tion of a deepwater port off western Kent County or from construction for
any other heavy industry, such as oil terminals. In sumary, any major
and relatively rapid influx of.people or large employers into this county
will increase the intensity of disturbance on coastal prehistoric resour-

ces.

The Plan (Johnson 1974:99) points out that one of Kent County's two
major assets is its rich historic heritage, including historic buildings.
The need to preserve these structures as well as develop facilities for
recreation and tourism is discussed, and the Plan suggests that the county
maintain its own.list of historic sites for preservation and acquisition.
Unfortunately, the Plan overlooks the county's abundant prehistoric re-
sources and rich prehistoric heritage. Just as with historic structures,
prehistoric remains can provide a focus for tourism.

Prince Georges County

Planning subregions V and VI contain Prince Georges County's only
coastal lands -- the Potomac River in subregion V and the Patuxent River
in subregion VI. Comprehensive plans have been prepared for both areas
by the Maryland-National,Capital Park and Planning Commission (1973, 1974)..
Subregion V includes the conrmities of Clinton, Accokeek, Piscataway,
Brandywine,and vicinities (1974), while subregion VI includes Westphalia,
Mellwood, Upper Marlboro, Rosaryville, Naylor, Aquasco, and vicinities
(1973). Formerly a rural area, Prince Georges County is,currently grow-
ing rapidly in population, owing to pressure from the Washington, D. C.
area.

During the past 30 years the population of Washington, D. C. has
nearly tripled, while that of Prince Georges County has increased seven-
fold (Maryland-National Capital Park and.Planning Commission 1974:2).

186

Because the county is growing as a suburban community for District of
Columbia workers, great pressure exists for establishing residential
developments, improving transportation routes, and constructing recrea-
tion sites and service facilities. As the Washington, D. C. metropolitan
population continues to grow and transportation improvements in highways
and rapid transit continue to be made, the pressures for growthand the
distance of its radius frm Washington will increase. Additional pressure
cows from the present residents of Prince Georges County, who would-like
to establish more industry to provide jobs.

Regardless of the direction from which growth emanates, alterations
of the landscape, particularly alterations near the coastal zone, can
disturb the county's prehistoric resources. Local industrial development
will probably involve little total acreage, although the sand and gravel
industry in the county is one that can seriously disturb prehistoric
resources. Becau e the planning maps for subregions V and VI indicate
park and open space along the coastal zones of the Potomac and Patuxent
shorelines, prehistoric resources in these waterfront areas my be secure
from disturbance, providing development adheres to the plan.

Although subregion V and VI plans include maps of both historic and
prehistoric sites and direct that these.sites should be preserved, this
approach has both advantageous and disadvantageous aspects. It is ad-
vantageous to consider prehistoric sites and to offer some of them pro-
tection. But this plan may:lead developers and planners to believe that
the sites mapped are the only.ones which should be preserved. Actually,
the sites listed represent but.a few of the total resources. Potentially
more important sites could be destroyed simply because no one knows they
exist.

Queen ATmes County

The Queen Ames Countr.,O rehensive master plan (Tarrant 1965) is
somewhat dated, but relies on, trends already established at the time of.

writing or anticipated for the future. Queen Annes County has experienced
rapid growth over the past 25 years and undoubtedly will continue to grow.
Most of its growth has affected the'residential, coftinercial, industrial,
and recreational portions of the county's economy, and results from the
construction of the Chesapeake Bay bridge. Because this bridge links
Washington, D. C. and Baltimore with Maryland's Atlantic coast, thousands
of people move through Queen Annes County each year. In addition, the
bridge enables many workers to live in Queen Ames County and commute to
jobs on the Western Shore.

As a result of recent development, Kent Island and Kent Narrows have
become almost suburbanized. Increases in residences, commercial services,
and recreational facilities, such as marinas,, all place stress on the pre-
historic resources of the county. According to Metzgar (1973:VI - 20),
"the construction of the first Chesapeake Bay Bridge had a significant
impact on developmental activity, particularly of subdivisions along the
shoreline .... with rising real estate prices, increasing land speculation,
and completion of the second bridge, a significant surge in pressure for
development seems certain."

Figure 5-32 illustrates several ateasof Queen Anne*s County which,
according to the comprehensive plan, wilr-experience continued develop-
ment. All of Kent Island, including Kent Narrows, and areas along U.S.
50/301 to Queenstown, are expected to increase in residential, commercial,
industrial, and recreational construction. Marinas are particularly
numerous in this area. Preferential siting of these structures at the
mouths of tributaries and lagoons along the coast means that they can
disturb prehistoric resources. Figure 5-32 also shows that areas around
Millington, Crumpton, Kingstown, and Corsica Neck (near Centreville) are
expected to experience residential groKffi-.-

Erosion has been responsible fbrZthi-@r6ss of 2,026 acres of Queen
Annes County during the past century (Te-tra@t 1965:2), while only a
small amount of land has been created byv@deposition. The western shore
of Kent Island has probably been eroded,mr'e than other area of the
county, as can be seen in its current straight coastline. Prehistoric

ngstown

0 4

appm. **of* In miles

.00.

entmille

Legend:
ZI ueenstown Growth center
IK HT
Residential growth area
E3 Areas of high erosion
'Marina development
R,
Extant bridge terminus

Eastern Bay

Fig@ 5-32 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Queen Annes County

M Wil

189

resources along the western shore of Kent Island may have been destroyed
through erosion, and field inspection of this shore revealed fewer pre-
historic sites than expected. Because of this destruction, remaining
sites should be carefully conserved and immediately studied in order to
assure that important information is not irretrievably lost.

St. Marys County

The development philosophy of St. Marys County is to maintain and
improve the natural environment while accomodating a reasonable level
of urban oriented economic growth (Demetr,iou 1974:3). At the present
time approximately 5% of the land is urban, including residential, com-
mercial, and industrial uses; an additional 5% is public or quasi-public;41%
is agricultural, mainly in the northern half of thecounty and along the
Patuxent River; and 49% is forested. In recent years agriculture has
decreased; developed land has increased. Currently developed areas in-
clude Lexington Park, an economic center; Leonardtown, a governmental
center; St. Marys City, a tourist center; and scattered linear development
along the major traffic arteries and. scattered subdivisions and marinas
in the coastal zone. The industrial-commercial element has been small and
oriented mainly to services. While at present one-third of the county's
labor force is employed by the federal government, chiefly at the Patuxent
Naval Air Station, in the future, the county will attempt to broaden its
industrial base.

During the period from 1960 to 1970, the population of St. Marys
County increased 20%, but this rate of growth is increasing. The popula-
tion increase results from growth in the Baltimore-Washi ngton, D. C. cor-
ridor, which first spilled over into the adjacent counties, Anne Arundel
and Prince Georges, and then into Calvert, Charles, and St. Marys. Dur-
ing the 1960 - 1970 period, the population growth rate was high in
Charles County (3.9%) and Calvert County (2.7%) because of their greater
proximity to the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Continued growth in St.
Marys County is expected to follow the pattern in Calvert and Charles

190

counties, although the growth will be slightly delayed in time.
The Comprehensive Plan for St. Marys Counly (Demetriou 1974 iden-
tifies future centers of development in several areas. As Fig. 5-33 in-
dicates, the Mechanicsville-Charlotte Hall area at the north end of the
county is expected to experience residential growth as a result of its
location along Route 235, a commuter arterial; Hollywood is expected to
experience commercial and residential growth, as is California, owing to
its, location near the intersection of Route 235 and the Patuxent River
crossing (under construction). Piney Point is expected to experience
residential and industrial development related to a nearby petroleum in-
stallation, and Lexington Park is expected to grow as a result of its
location near the Patuxent crossing, where major Baltimore-Washington
transportation routes will intersect. In general, waterfront residential
development is anticipated in scattered locations along the upper Potomac
and other areas.

Although the potential for new industrial development in St. Marys
County is limited, Piney Point will be affected if resident petroleum
facilities are expanded. The comprehensive plan discusses the possibility
that an oil refinery may be developed. Such development might attract
other petrochemical operations, along with a port facility. Increased
land,disturbance in the area could disturb prehistoric resources. Such
activities should be accompanied by an evaluation of the impact on any
prehistoric resources, with-in .portant sites designated for preservation.
Residential and commercial development associated with facility expansion
would undoubtedly favor coastal locations, further disturbing prehistoric

resources.

The comprehensive plan suggests a number of potential environmental
preserves following from a study of important natural areas of the Chesa-
peake Bay region (Smithsonian Institution 1974). Unfortunately, piehis-
toric resources were not consistently used as a criterion for determining
important natural areas in this study.

191
Legend:
Military installation
Industrial site
Growth center
Extant bridge terminus
Residential growth area
Areas of high erosion

Leonardtown

'@3

Lex I r
-N7
0 ark--

St. Marys
City

0 4

approx. scale In miles

Fig. 5-33 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in St. Marys County

192

Somerset County

According to the Comprehensive Plan for Somerset County (Stottler
Stagg and Associates 19.75), agriculture, fishing, shellfishing, and sea-
food processing comprise most of the county's economy. Although the
population of the county has declined during this century, it has recently
begun to' stabilize; the Plan anticipates slow growth through the next few
decades. In order to stimulate population growth and improve the local
standard of'living, the Plan recommends that the cou Int)r attract a diver-
sified economic base by increasing present economic activities and provid-
ing for others, (for example, a deepwater port and marine terminal at
Crisfield and an inland industrial park).

At present the primary source of disturbance to the county's pre-
historic resources comes from inundation and erosion in the coastal zone.
However, if a deepwater port and marine terminal are developed at,Cris-
field, the soil disturbance associated with these.structures and with the
industries that they would stimulate could greatly stress the county's
prehistoric resources. Figure 5-34 shows the location Qf current and po-
tential stress on prehistoric resources.

Although the Plan discusses the county's historic structures and
sites as well as their potential for attracting tourists, no mention is
made of prehistoric resources. But at least one important ancient site
is located in the county's coastal zone; others probably exist and should
be considered in the planning process.

Talbot County

The comprehensive plan for Talbot County (Urban Pathfinders, Inc.
1973) outlines a conservative plan for future development in the county.
Growth is intended to be controlled and moderate, so that the population
will increase no more tkan 10% per year th rough the year 2000. The
Policies set out to guide this growth could in several cases be used to
conserve prehistoric resources.

Legend

Growth center

Re sidential growth area

Note: Almost entire coast
susceptible to erosion and/or
inundation

C40
M a n o k i nR.

Ta n g i e r

CO S o u n d

risfield

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

0 4

approx. scale In mile*
P o c o m o k eS o u n d

Fig. 5-34 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Somerset County

wall IM: on, 061, (40, M so so '00 M M .00 'M 'No

194

The plan intends to discourage the conversion of farmland into other
uses, a goal which can minimize disturbance of prehistoric resources
(beyond that involved in cultivation). Further, the plan also suggests
that wildlife management areas be designated, conservation easements en-
couraged, and tax incentives provided for persons who develop and maintain
such are(as (Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1973:28 - 29). Also, restrictions on
the development of waterfront property are suggested. All these measures
should minimize the amount of land disturbance in the coastal zone. Par-
ticularly useful for the conservation of prehistoric resources Would be
the insurance of a setback restriction and controls for docking facilities
(p, 66). The plan calls for channeling.growth into established towns and
villages. Preserving the waterfront and the agricultural lands can aid
in preserving prehistoric resources, providing some mechanism exists for-
discovering prehistoric sites in coastal zone lots and thenoffering sane
alternatives directed at conserving them.

Figure 5-35 shows areas in Talbot County that are now under stress
from development or may be stressed'in the future.@ County zoning for
processing seafood along the coastal zone could stress coastal prehis-
toric resources (Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1973:31), although the seafood
industry is not expected to grow mudi. In addition, the plan calls.for
a consideration of the possibility.of utilizing water transportation
(p. 59). If water transport were found to be feasible, any extensive
coastal zone port construction would also disturb coastal prehistoric

resources.

Finally, historic structures and architecture are considered in the
caVrehensive plan@,. where it is suggested that the county undertake a
study to provide a way to insure the preservation of historic features
(p. 73). Unfortunately, prehistoric-sites are not mentioned in the study.
These cultural resources should be taken into consideration along with
historic resources.

195

0 4

E a s t e rn

B a Y

0 ford

0
rappe
Legend
4-
+
Growth center
lExtant bridge. terminus A,
Residential growth area
Area of high erosion

Fig. 5-35 Present and.anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Talbot County

196

Wicomico County

Agriculture, particularly poultry faming, along with industry in
the Salisbury area, fom the economic base of Wicomico, County. The
county's population has grown relatively rapidly during the past.25 years.,
and this trend is expected to continue (Maryland Department of State Plan-
ning n.d.) as subuxban areas grow around Salisbury. According to the Com-
Ereh ensive Plan for Wicomico County (Salisbury-Wicomico County Planning and
Zoning Commission 1976), development will be guided into@the Salisbury area
and smaller towns in the county.

Most of the countyfs coastal zone is comprised of wetlands which are
designated as conservation areas by the Plan. Thus, little development
and associated disturbance to prehistoric resources would be expected.
In these areas the primary source of disturbance to prehistoric resources
results from inundation and erosion. In addition, some prehistoric sites
may have been disturbed by dredging and spoil disposal for the Nanticoke
and Wicomico rivers and the shipping channel to Salisbury. Because con-
tinued dredging and spoil disposal are required to maintain these channels,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recently begun to prepare assessments
of the possible effects on prehistoric resources associated with current
projects. Figure 5-36 shows the locations where prehistoric resources
are or may become stressed.

The Plan discusses the need for preservation of historic and'pre-
historic remains and makes suggestions for ways in which preservation
could be accomplished. Only three of the 68 sites suggested for preser-
vation are prehistoric, however; thus, more prehistoric sites probably
could be added to the list.

Legend

Growth
E3Residen
0 4
I . Note: Almo
approx. scale in miles susceptible
inundation

lisbury

Fig. 5- 36 Present and anticipated stresses on prehistoric resources in Wicomico County

Mai we' sell 'MI 4m, AW so, am, M, m m low,

References Cited

Baltimore County Office of Planning and Zoning
1975 Baltimore County comprehensive Plan.
Calvert County Planning Office
1974 Calvert CoDt
X comprehensive plan.
Costa, J. E.
197S Effects of agriculture on erosion and sedimentation in the
Piedmont Province, Maryland. Geological Society of America,
Bulletin 86:1281-1286.
Cresthull, P.
1971 Chance (18S05): a major Early Archaic site. Maryland
Archeology 7(2):31-52.

Demetriou, A. C., Office of
1974 A compreheiisive plan for St. Marys County, Maryland.
tuiier','J. 4. Ulrich,.SI L. Eng .lish,
L. Grayson, andW. H. Rose
1975 @@ewood Arsenal: an installation environmental mmact as-
_T Department
sessment. Qe-wood Ar@enal Speciai Publicati
.of theF-kW,'_Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
Ducatel, J. F6
1834 kmual Report of the Geologist of Maryland. Baltimore.
1836 and geologi!
2ort of ILe engineer st, in relation to the new
3_
MD. to the executive of Maryland. William Meb@, ARiapTlis_
Eberhart, R. C., and V. J. Chapman, and Mi S. Dugger
1974 Pressures on the edges of Chesa
peake..Bay -- 1973. 'Chesa-
peake Research Consortium Publication 146. 26.'
Ford, J. L.s M. A. Rolingson,, and L. D. Medford
1972 Site destruction due to agricultural practices in southeast
Arkansas and.in northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological
Survey Research Series 3.
Gottschalk, L. C.
1945 Effects of soil erosion on navigation in upper Chesapeake
Bay. Geographical Review 35(2):219-238.
Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc.
1974 Proposed comprehensive,plan, Charles County, Maryland.
Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning
1974 Harford comprehensive'master plan. Draft COPY.
Holmes, W. H.
1907 Aboriginal shell-heaps of the middle Atlantic tidewater
region. AmericanAnthropologist N.S. 9:114.

Johnson, P. L.
1974 The smrehensive plan for Kent County, Maryland. Update
of original document prepared b@_ffa__rTa_nd_Va_-rt_F_oTmew and
Associates (1968). Washington, D. C.
Jordan, F. ,Jr.
1895 Aboriginal village sites of New Jersey, Delaware and Mary-
land. The Archaeologist 3:99-100, and 137-139.
1906 Aboriginal fishing stations on the coast of the middle
Atlantic states. Press of th N@W Era Fil'nfi'ng Lan-
caster, Va-.
Kraft, J. C., R. B. Biggs, and S. Halsey
1973 M@rphology and vertical sedimntary sequence mdels in
Holocene transgressive barrier systems. In Coastal Qeo-
mo@Mhology, edited by D. R. Coates, pp. 321-354. State
LhAversity of New York, Binghamton.
McGimsey, C. R., III, and H. A. Davis
'1968 Modem land use practices and the archeology of the lower
Mississippi alluvial valley. The Arkansas Archeologist-.
9(1-2):28-36.
McMananon, F. P.
1976 Cultural resource management in the plowzone, Massachusetts
Historical Commission, unpublished report submitted to
National Park Service, Washington, D. C. Mimeographed.
Marye, W. B.
1938' Shell-heaps on Chesapeake Bay. In A Report on the Susque-
hanna River Expedition edited by W_. K. ZY@h5e;-a-d, pp. 123-
lZ8. Andover, Massa setts.
Maryland Conservation Needs Committee
1971 Maryland soil and water conservation needs inventory.
Maryland Departmeiit of State Planning
n. d. State of Maryland population projections to 1990. Xeroxed.
1973 Land use maps for Maryland counties. Blueprints.
1974 State and federal land in Maryland

Maryland Geological Surve"y_"'
1975 Historical shorelines and erosion rates. A Maryland Coastal
Zone Management Pr6_g_ram-Pub-1-icafibiT._
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
1973 Adopted and approved master plan for Subregion VI West-
WIlwood, VMer Marlboro, Rosaryville,
anT 'vicinities.

200

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
1974 Adopted and approved master plan for Subregion V: Clinton
0 1 - f
Piscataway Brandywine, and cinitii sT.
Accokeek, vi
Maryland State Highway Administration
1974 20 year highM needs study. Maryland Department of Trans-
portation. Baltimore, M@Land.
1975 State 2Eimary hiSt Ua improvement -proWam 1976-1980. Mary-
land Department of Transportation. Baltimore, Maryland.
Metzgar, R. G.
1973 Wetlands in @jaZland. Maryland Department of State Planning.
Baltimore,-Maryland.
Morton Hoffman and Company, Inc.
1974 Second homes in Maryland: analyses and projections of
and characte _797U" ro-r-%
loation ristics; 79W. Prepared ry-
TETWjiartment of State Planning.
O'Connor, D., T. H. Ventre',. and P. E. Krepner
1976 Coastal zone land use profile in Anne Arundel County, Mary-
land. Prepared for the Baltimore Metropolitan Coastal Zone
Management Study. Xeroxed.
Perkins, K. E.
1974 Power plant site acquisition -- a status report. Record of
the L&Mland Power Plant Siting Act 3(3):1-6.
Roy Mann Associates, Inc.
1976 Recreational boating on the tidal waters of "land. A
Management Planning Study prepir-ed for the Maryland Depart-
Iment of Natural Resources Energy and Coastal Zone Adminis-
tration.
Salisbury-Wicomico County Planning and Zoning Commission
1976 The comprehensive plan for Wicomico County, Maryland.
Singlewald, J. T. and T. H. Slaughter
1949 Shore erosion in tidewater Maryland. Maryland Department-of
Geology Mines and Water Resources Bull7et-:'Lrn- -6.
Slaughter, T. H., R. T. Kehrin, B. G. Md4dlan, G. Cocoros, and D. Vanks
1976 Shoreline conditions, Anne Arundel County. Maryland Geolo-
gical Survey. Xeroxed.
Smithsonian Institution Center for Natural Areas Ecology Program
1974 Natural areas of the Chesapeake Bay region: ecological
priorit es.

201

Stearns, R. E.
1943 Some Indian village sites of tidewater Maryland. Proceedings
of the Natural History Society of Maryland 9. Baltimore,
WzT_anT_
Stottler Stagg and Associates
1974 Comprehensive plan, C6cil Coun@y, Maryland.
197S Comprehensive p an
for Somerset County, Maryland.
Talmage, U., 0. Chesler, and Staff of Interagency Archeological Services
1977 The importance of small, surface, and disturbed sites as
sources of significant archeological,data. National Park
__Wa__
Service Cultural Resources Management Studies. Tington,
D. @C.
Tarrant, J.
. 196S Comprehensive master plan, Queen Annes County, Maryland.
Ubelaker, D. H.
1996 Reconstruction of demographic profiles frm ossuary skeletal
les-;a case study from the tidewater Potomac. Smith-
sonian Contributions to Anthropolo No. 18. Washington,
D. C.
U. S. Army d6iiii-ol-E-n-g-ineers, Baltimore District
1973 Chesapeake Bay existlag conditions.report. Baltimore, Mary-
land.
Urban.Pathfinders, Inc.
1973 The coTrehensive plan, Talbot County, Maryland, comprehen-
sive planning prog
1974 The @mrehensive plan, Dorchester County, MaWand..compre-
rogr m. Baltimore, Maryland.
Urban Research and Development Corporation
1972 Maryland outdoor recreation and open'space plan-., comprehen-
ve lan II. Maryland Department of State PiLanning Publi-
si@ ii
ca bpn No. 175.
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd, Inc.
1972 Maryland Ches2eeake Bay st V a repovt to the Ma land
Department of State.Pi and !We- e_s&:e@ Bay ntor-
Wncy Planning ttee Hladelphia, Pennsylvania.
Wright, H. T.
1973 An archeological sequence in the middle Chesapeake region,
Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey Archeological Studies
No. 1

Chapter6

-Am,'
im
'ZvW vare
-MLlanarg-c-!:)me-n-t- Strategy

To
.7 -7
73

j @bl
Off
X I'd 1@@i o@jild
JARi JAI,

@J'jdoli-
11PL !T1

Chapter 6

Management Strategy

Based on existing, information and new data, previou!@@,..i@-'M'"@"p'ie"r'-s have
shown that the Maryland coastal Zone holds considerable and as yet poorly
understood prehistoric resources. Numerous cultural and natural factors
continue to disturb or destroy these remains of previous human activity.
Importantendangered, and mandated for conservation, prehistoric.r.emains
are fragile and nonrenewable resources. Applying'an effective, manage-
ment strategy can help prevent the loss of this irreplaceable,data b ank
on human behavior. A few recently instituted programs do exist, such as
those conducted by the Division of Archeology for the State Highway Admin-
istration.and for the Capital Programs Office of the Department of Natural
Resources. However, no coordinated, centrally administrated program
manages prehistoric resources within the Maryland coastal zone or in other
parts of the state.

Prehistoric resources in Maryland generally have been neglected or
salvaged piecemeal when required by federal agencies. As a primary ianage-
ment strategy, salvage operations are ineffective. Usually involving
intensive excavation, salvage is expensive and in its own way.consumes
the resource. Further, because of continuing developments@in related
fields and theoretical advances in the field of prehistoric archeology,
information gained through today.'s salvage operations may be of question-
able use in future research. In addition, multiple exxnples of the same
kind of site may be.excavated, producing redundant information... Projects
requiring salvage'are located arbitrarily, that is, without respect to
prehistoric resource distribution; hence, such projects are not-integrated
into any overall scheme or research design. Archeologists also must adjust
their techniques and operations to construction priorities, timing and

202

203

funding, instead of understanding the resource.
On the other hand, an occasional need for salvage exists; for example,
in areas where a number of sites are inadequately documented and in areas
where remains must be sacrificed. When baseline information has already
been gathered, salvage operations can be planned in advance to best ex-
ploit the information potential of the project. However, despite positive
aspects outlined by Wildesen (1975), salvage as the only means of miti-
gating disturbance to prehistoric resources provides a crisis solution
that wastes resources and money (Dicauze and.Meyer 1975). Designed to
broaden management options, this chapter suggests a strategy for the conser-
vation management,of prehistoric resources.

Proposed Management Strategy

The proposed management strategy contains three main elements; interim.
measures, including legislation; education; and resource conservation plan.
Maximizing current programs for prehistoric resource conservation, develop-
ing an education programand systematizing data acquisition on prehistoric
rexource.s are short term objectives (about 5 years). Data synthesis, plan
formulationand plan implementation will require additional time (about
10 years). Figure 6-1 presents a schematic diagram of this strategy.

"Interim measures" means creative and increased use of current state
and federal programs and laws until the new plan is formulated. At this
time, some measures would be incorporated'and others modified or super-
seded by those developed in the plan. In other words, interim measures
means the process of maximizing currently available mechanisms, These
measures, then, represent existing and potential conservation tools for
the next decade.

An education program gives governmental agencies and the public an
opportunity to learn about the nature, importanceand current state of
prehistoric resources. Results of prehistoric studies should b .e presented
in an understandable and interesting manner, and an education program must
be a continuing feature of prehistoric resource management in Maryland.

204

Division of Archeology Legislature
Maryland Historical Trust

Management
Strategy Laws

Interim Data
Measures Education Acquisition

Plan
Formulation

Plan Imple-
mentation

Fig. 6-1 Schematic diagram of proposed
management strategy
He
rim

sures

205

The education program will be modified, particularly with information from
regional baseline studies and during plan implementation.

Likewise, legislative measures will be used continuously in this
strategy for prehistoric resource management. Numerous laws and regu-
lations currently affect prehistoric resources. A later section of this
chapter discusses potential legislative approaches to prehistoric resource
co nservation; these approaches might be considered during plan,formulation
and introduced to legislative bodies during plan implementation.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the proposed management strat egy
is the development of a comprehensive, centrally administered prehistoric
resource conservation plan. A rational framework must guide management
decisions, whether they relate to assessing the significance of particular
remains, formulating National Register nominations, evaluating the impa'c't',
of a proposed project, choosi@g appropriate mitigation procedures for
threatened sites, or choosing representative sites for preservation.

Although the predicted density of prehistoric remains is not so high
as to prohibit coastal zone development, so little archeological work has
been done in Maryland that any loss of remains-at present must be viewed
as a critical loss. 'We know little about the kinds and quantities of extant
prehistoric remains; we do not know precisely what is being lost or how
that-relates to what is left. For effective management, biases and omis-
sions in the current d ata bank on Maryland prehistory must be rectified,
especially as coastal zone development continues. As Dunnell and Fuller
(1975:.2) observe: with a comprehensive understanding of a region's archeo-
logical resources, it is possible to rank sites in terms of their signi-
ficance, and to predict their occurrence....The impact of development upon
resources.can thus be minimized by avoiding them where possible'and feas-
ible, by conserving critical sites, by in corporating salvage operations in
project plans and budgets where avoidance is not possible, therefore mak-
ing siting decisions that weigh their archeological cost."

Plan formulation depends on two stages of data gathering, one oriented
toward information about the nature, distribution, and condition of the
resource and the other oriented toward planning and management mechanisms.

206

Implementing a management stragegy such as the one suggested here has
numerous advantages. In general, the proposed conservation plan provides
coherence and direction to conservation efforts within the state and hence
aids all agencies to better fulfill legal responsibilities regarding the
identification and protection of prehistoric resources. Greater flexibility
will result for those who plan and regulate land use, as well as for those
who respond to rules and regulations concerning land use. Further, avoid-
ing salvage as the primary response to potential impact increases efficiency,
lessens redundancy, and insures a better product for each dollar spent.
An innovative approach to education will heighten public and governmental
awareness and sensitivity, and, if correctly designed and executed, will
provide tangible and enriching returns in the form of exhibits, films,
lectures, museum displays, etc. The interim use of existing programs
should insure the most economical approach. Finally, using the management
strategy suggested here will achieve the primary goal of preserving a
representative sample of the state's prehistoric remains.

Current State Programs: Division of Archeology

Existing mechanisms, either specifically mandated or potentially
capable of serving prehistoric resource conservation, are diagrammed in
Fig. 6-2. Cultural resources -- prehistoric and historic remains--
specifically concern two state agencies, the Division of Archeology (DOA)
and the Maryland Historical Trust(MHT). Figure 6-3 presents a simplified
organization chart for these agencies.

The Division of Archeology is concerned with prehistoric resources.
DOA is linked administratively with the Maryland Geological Survey(MGS),
a branch of the Department of Natural Resources(DNR) (see Fig. 6-3);
DOA was created by the Maryland Archeological Resources Act of 1968 (NR
Title 2, Subtitle 3, revised 1973, see Appendix B). Section 2-304 of
this act provides for an Advisory Committee on Archeology, to be appointed
by the MSG Director. This committee advises MGS on archeological matters
and proposes rules and regulations for archeological materials.

Interim Meas

I
Current Stat
Programs,

Department of Department Of Current Land Planning Land
Economic and Natural Legislation and Acquisition Management
-Community Resources
Development l.'Maryland 1. DepartmeiTt of 1. Maryland
Archeological State Planning Park
Resources Act 2. Regional Service
2. Maryland Planning 2. Maryland
Maryland Environmental Council Forest
Maryland Geological Policy Act 3. Coastal Zone Service
@Historical Survey Unit (E & CZA) 3. Water
Trust 4. Power Plant Resources
Siting Program Administration
5. Environmental (Wetlands
Division of Trust Division)
State Histo Archeology 6. Agricultural
ric Land
Preservation Preservation
Officer Foundation

Fig. 6-2a. State agencies and programs potentially useful-
to prehistoric resource conservation

Interim Measures

Current Feder
Programs

Legislati I Planning Nation 1 Trust Advisory Council Department of
iisition and for Historic on Historic the Interior
1. Antiquities ilation Preservation Preservation 00
Act of 1906
2. Historic Sites 1. Soil Conservation
Act of 1935 Service
3. Reservoir 2. Corps of Engineers National
Salvage Act Park
of'1960
4. Historic' Service
Preservation
Act of 1966
S. NEPA 1969
6. Executive
Order 11593 Office of
7. Archeological Archeology and
Conservation Historic
Act of 1974 Preservation
Lan(
Acqi
Regt

Fig. 6-2b Federal agencies and programs potentially useful
to prehistoric resource conservation

Governor of
Maryland

Department of St. Marys Department of
Economic and City Natural
Community Commission Resources
Develo ent-

Maryland
Board Of Geological
U.S. Department Trustees Survey
of the Interior

Maryland Advisory
National Park Historical Committee on
Service Trust Archeology

Staff

Office f State is Division of
Archeology and Prese at Archeology
Historic Preservation Office

Fig. 6-3 Simplified organizational chart of the Division
of Archeology and Maryland Historical Trust
toric
ion

210

DOA staff is composed of the State' Archeologist and other support
personnel appointed by the MGS Director. In addition to the State Archeo-
logist, DOA currently has one full time employee; two other employees are
retained by yearly contract, one with the State Highway Administration and
the other with the Capital Programs Office of DNR. Part time employees
are occasionally engaged as funding permits. Presently receiving an ap-
propriation of $41,000 ffy 1977), DOA is located on the-campus of the Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore.

DOA's purpose is "to increase and diffuse understanding of Maryland's
prehistorical and historical archeology" (Bastian 1971:1), through a pro-
gram of researchi preservation, publication, public education, and coor-
dination. Legislatively assigned duties,(NR Title 2, Subtitle 3, Section
303) incl ude:
1) encourage, coordinate, and engage in fundamental research
2),cooper ate,with other state units in archeological excavations
3) work for the preservation of archeological sites on private lands
4).turate archeological objects discovered during construction in
.the state
5) cooperate with and assist other organizations in preserving archeo-
logical materials
6) make archeological materials for demonstration available to organi-,
zations in the state
7) make archeological exhibits available to schools and assist in
instruction
8) cooperate with agencies of other states for archeological preser
vation; prevent them from exploiting the state's archeological
materials
9) make available information on archeology
10) enforce the state's antiquities law.

Although these duties accurately reflect the goals of DOA programs at the
time they were issued and updated, recent years have seen an increasing
emphasis on the management of cultural resources, an emphasis partly r6-.
flected in the Rules and Regulations Governing Archeological Resources
(Maryland Geological Survey 1976).

In fulfilling its duties, DOA has undertaken a great many activities;'
for example, inventorying prehis.toric sites in the state and maintaining

211

records on them, surveying major construction areas, salvaging some sites
threatened by destruction through the coordination of volunteers, record-
ing and preserving private artifact collections, publishing information on
Maryland archeology for professionals and the public, assisting in the
preparation of archeological displays, coordinating archeological research
in the state', and developing public awareness of the need for archeologi-
cal conservation. In addition, DOA sponsors and engages in research with
special projects such as investigating Paleo-Indian artifacts, coastal
settlements, Archaic chronology, Late Woodland culture, and contact period
archeology (Bastian 1971).

Bo th the State Archeologist and an assistant (who combines secretarial
and technical skills) have been discharging these duties since 1970. Be-
cause their time,has been diffused over the numerous tasks required to
meet the many DOA responsibilities, few duties have been done thoroughly,,
few tasks have been kept up to date, and few projects have been followed
up. For example, only one of DOAVS publication series has appeared; no
comprehensive popular works have been issued, and newsletters and rep orts
from the office have been extremely late. As McGimsey has pointed out in
his discussion of public archeology, "a single archeologist can expect to
do little more than keep a partial record of what is being destroyed"
(1972:28). Without funds to hire adequate help, the State Archeologist
must undertake tasks that minimally trained personnel might handle at far
less cost; without time to provide leadership, the State Archeologist is
unable to acquire and administer public and private funds that might
greatly supplement DOA programs.

One important area where DOA has interfaced with other government
agencies and the public is as a repository for records on Maryland pre-
historic resources. DOA maintains records on all sites reported in the'
state through the activities of amateur and professional archeologists
as well as through the non-archeological,activities of citizens and agencies
who discover sites. In addition, DOA uses archival research and field
investigations to discover prehistoric sites.

Private and public agency developers often ask DOA for information on

212

prehistoric resources in various areas. Unfortunately, DOA records were
not intended for prehistoric resource management uses; therefore, these
records are not reliable indicators of potential prehistoric resources.
The only information this record supplies is that sites have been found
,in a limited number of locations.
DOA records include only those sites reported to the office; thus,
only a fraction of the sites known to the public are included. Many.land-
owners and farmers who are aware of prehistoric sites on their property
do not file reports -- perhaps not recognizing the importance of doing so,
not understanding the mechanics of filing, or not wishing to bring on poten-
tial restrictions on land use. Some may fear that public knowledge of
sites on their property will lead to trespdssing by relic collectors.
Relic'collectors themselves usually do not report sites they discover,
because of a proprietary attitude toward them.

Since DOA records do not contain much information, they are of limited
use in indicating site significance. That site locations do not result
from systematic discovery procedures means that information almost never
appears on areas where people have not looked for prehistoric remains,
areas where'no artifacts were found, or areas where biases may have masked
the presence of some kinds of remains thereby increasing the apparent fre-
quency of others. For example, the State Archeologist has noted that any
reports from relic collectors usually are "strongly biased toward sites
that are relatively lucrative for surface collecting (or digging)" (Bas-
tian, personal communication).

A map of all reported sites in Maryland would undoubtedly show con-
in areas. Suc
centrations of sites in certa' h a map could mistakenly be
interpreted to reflect prehistoric land use patterns; but the map would
probably represent only areas in which amateur and professional archeolo-
gists have worked. When they have consistently found sites in particular
environmental situations., relic collectors and archeologists often expend
great effort seeking similar locations. Such efforts create a very biased
sample of the sites in the area. In short, the biases inherent in un-
systematic site lists are very different to account for or to control.

213

Relying on DOA site lists and records for land use planning and re-
source evaluation puts additional, unnecessary stress on the remaining
resources as the actual variability and distributions of prehistoric Te-
sources go unrecognized. Although a professional archeologist with local
experience might use current DOA records to predict where examples of
some kinds of prehistoric resources might be found, it would be difficult
to make assessments of significance or to propose optimal mitigation pro-
cedures for specific projects because no regional framework exists upon
which such decisions might be based. Although this negative view of site
lists is not meant to deny their need and utility, it does however empha-
size their inadequacy and the potential danger of relying on them when
assessing and evaluating prehistoric resources.

DOA's Ten Year Plan (Bastian 1971) was drafted just prior to the
rapid nationwide increase in emphasis on cultural resource management.
It therefore does not advance a particular management strategy or preser-
vation plan; nor does it address many issues confronting the archeological
and land use planning-regulatory communities today.

The Ten Year Plan does contain budget projections for fiscal years
1973 - 1981, shown in Table 6-1. DOA budgets have fallen steadily behind
the.minimal needs expressed in 1971; the gap widens further when infla-
tion is taken into account. Personnel levels also have fallen behind pro-
jected minimal needs. Interstate comparisons of funding levels are.made
frequently. Expenditures are ranked and compared with those of other
states.with similar sizes or populations. But such factors as size and
character of resource base; past, current, and projected land use; and
level of understanding of the area's prehistory all reduce the meaning
of interstate compai-i'sons. Certainly prehistoric remain s are not dis-
tributed according to modern political boundaries. Thus, a more relevant
index of funding levels is whether the programs they support are meeting
legal responsibilities and providing effective conservation management of
prehistoric resources. Given Maryland's extensive and attractive coasts,
their proximity to a large metropolitan corridor, and a history of low pro-
fessional archeological activity, the conclusion seems inescapable -- in-
creased funding is needed for a management effort to meet conservation res-
ponsibilities.

214

Table 6-1 Projected Division of Archeology Budgets and Personnel
Requirements from 1973 Through 1981
(Adapted from Bastian 1976:5 and Bastian 1971:23)

Projected Actual Percent of Personnel Yes/No
Fiscal Year in 1971 Appropriation 1971 Projection Additions

1973 $30,000 $30,000 100% archeological Yes
aide
1974 $45,000 $36,000 80% historic sites No
archeologist
197S $S6,000 $39,000 69% clerk/typist No
1976 $72,000 $41,000 S6.9% archeologist No
1977 $83,000 $41,000 49.4% laboratory No
technician
1978 $84,000
1979 $85,000
1980 $100,000
1981 $100,000

Emphasis within DOA has been shifting: "salvage, field surveys and
examination of private collections have almost ceased in favor of coor-
dinating and administrative responsibilities" (Bastian 1976:1). These
new responsibilities include reviews of environmental impact statements,
increases in archival and curatorial activities, and responses to inquiries
for information on the presence and significance of prehistoric resources.
Unable to accomplish its originally mandated tasks, DOA also cannot provide
active leadership and direction in prehistoric resource management with
its present staff and funding.

Staff and funding levels for an effective program can be specified
by adapting to Maryland the successful model.of the Arkansas Archeological
Survey (McGimsey 1972). A two-stage increase in staff and funding would
allow DOA to discharge its mandated obligations and increase its effective-
ness in the area of resource management.

Thus, the first stage of budget increase should provide for a strong

215

central office adequately staffed and equipped to meet current respon-
sibilities as well as new demands for curatorial work, storage, and other
functions. Table 6-2 lists proposed central office staff and theirduties.
Bringing DOA staff to this.level, along with providing necessary equip-
ment, supplies, and transportation, would require an initial budget of
$100,000 ($17,000 more than the 1971 projected budget figure for fy 1977).

The DOA's new central office would house the Director, who also may
be the State Archeologist. The Director's duties would include full time
administration, setting DOA policy, coordinating activities, providing
liaison with the legislature, and promoting outside funding. As Dincauze
and Meyer point out, significant federal funding is available for pre-
historic preservation; however, these funds must be pursued vigorously
CDincauze and Meyer 1975:43).

Enlarging DOA's central office will make it possible to evaluate the
need. for regional offices, the second stage in increased budgetary sup-
port. Regional offices, staffed by an archeologist and a technician with
duties outlined in Table 6-2, might oversee the acquisition of baseline infor-
mation on prehistoric resources, even before a comprehensive management
plan has been implemented. Federal matching grants for site surveys
then would help defray costs to the state. Or, these offices might be
instituted after the conservation plan has been formulated, in order to
implement its policies.

Table 6-3 divides coastal Maryland into four hypothetical regions.
Each region has a high degree of internal consistency, in terms of environ-
mental composition and current patterns of development. Ultimately, each
region would employ a management program suited to its own circumstances.
Thus, one regional archeologist and one full time assistant would be based
in the central office, serving the northern Western Shore. Otherregional
staff might be housed in existing state field offices, education or re-
search institutions, or other suitable places.

To help support its regional offices, the Arkansas Archeological
Survey has a mutual arrangement with Arkansas institutions of higher
education to provide a percentage of the regional archeologist's salary
(on a nine month basis) and office-laboratory space. In return, the

216

Table 6-2

Suggested Division of Archeology Personnel

Position Duties

Central Office

Director (who may be - sets policy
State Archeologist) - interacts with state and federal agencies
- interacts with state legislature
- promotes prehistoric conservation through
public lectures and lobbying
- raises funds
- oversees development of master conser-
vation plan

State Archeologist - directs central office
(if not director) - coordinates activities of regional
archeologists
- oversees National Register nominations
of prehistoric sites
- directs acquisition of baseline data
on prehistoric resources

Editor - edits reports and publications
- writes educational popular brochures
in conjunction with Division staff
- produces Division publications

Technician - photographs sites and artifacts
- processes photographs
- drafts maps, etc.

Technician - curates artifacts
- catalogues artifact and site information

217

Table 6-2 (continued)

Position Duties

Secretary-bookeeper manages Division paper work
orders supplies

Typist types central office materials

Part-time help as needed for fieldwork and archival
research

Regional Offices

Archeologist - reviews impact statements and provides
field checks for sites
- forms liaison with local public and
private agencies for land use regu-
lation
gives public lectures
- produces information on region's pre-
history
- helps amateur groups to'design exhibits
- directs salvage archeology
- coordinates research with professional
and amateur groups

Technician curates artifacts
--catalogues artifact and site.information
- performs archival research
- types regional office materiails

218

Table 6-3 Suggested Maryland coastal regions for
Division of Archeology field offices

Region Counties

Northern Eastern Shore Cecil, Kent, Queen Annes, Talbot, Caroline
Southern Eastern Shore Dorchester, Somerset., Wicomico, Worcester
Northern Western Shore Harford, Baltimore, Anne Arundel
Southern Maryland Prince Georges, Charles, St. Marys, Calvert

regional archeol'ogist teaches one or two courses each year. TI-lese coursvs,
involving curatorial work and research, complement survey duties. Other
courses could include such topics as local prehistory, field methods,
or cultural@resource management. At present, none of Maryland's stat*@
supported educational institutions is heavily involved in local prehistory.
Most local prehistoric research is being conducted by archeologists from
other areas or from American University or Catholic University in Wash-
ington, D.C. Attempts should be made to encourage state supported in-
stitutions to become involved in local prehistory, without threatening
established programs or traditional concepts of academic freedom; for
example, a new faculty position, funded partly by federal matching monies,
may be acceptable to administratorsland faculty,alike.
DCA's present understaffed office can neither monitor closely devel-'
opment throughout the state nor check for compliancemith current
archeological legislation. It appears that the interests of.conserving
prehistoric resources may be better served by the regional offices than
by the infrequent and brief visits of the State Archeologist. Regional
offices provide several advantages over the current structure and regional
archeologists will be,familiar with the character of development patterns
in their regions and be acquainted with the administrative personnel who
partly control development; contact with the public will increase, educa-
tional goals can be tailored to the local setting, and a firmer grasp

219

of the magnitude and character of prehistoric resources within the region
can be achieved. Most important, the comprehensive management plan will
be better implemented and antiquities legislation better enforced.

In short, the present financial and staff resources of DOA do not
match its responsibilities, which have increased in number and complexity
far beyond those originally envisioned by the enabling legislation. There-
fore, the needs of prehistoric resource conservation are not being ade-
quately met at present. DOA needs to be strengthened and its resources
used effectively in the interim. Public visibility should be increased,
and financial and administrative support for an expanded program pursued
aggressively.

Current State Programs: Maryland Historical Trust

The Maryland Historical Trust W), established in 1961 and located
in Annapolis, functions within the Department of Economic and Conmunity
Development. Currently employing 24 persons, the agency receives approxi-
mately $158,000 in state funds annually. An almost equal amount comes
from federal matching monies, although not.all these funds support Nffls
main activities. Since it represents the state's primary link with fed-
.eral preservation programs and funding, MHT must be sensitive to the
nature and abundance of Maryland's prehistoric resources. MHT's enabling
legislation is however ambiguous concerning its role in the conservation
of prehistoric archeological resources, describing its purpose as-

Acquiring, preserving and maintaining historical, aesthetic and
cultural properties, buildings, fixtures, furnishings and appur-
tenances pertaining in any way to the province and State of Mary-
land from earliest times, to encourage others to do so and to pro-
mote interest in and study of such matters (Art. 41, Sec. 181A).

"From earliest times" is an ambiguous term. Does it refer to age of the
province or to age of all human habitation?

This enabling legislation also made the Maryland Inventory of His-
toric Sites the official catalogue for sites having historic, architec-
tural, archeological, or cultural merit. In addition, this legislation.

220

made the Maryland Landmark List the official list of historic sites of
particular merit, including National Register properties, national his-
toric landmarks, and state, county, and municipal historic preservation
districts. At present, these listsreflect a strong bias toward historic
sites as Table._6@4 shows:

Table 6-4 Trends in National Register Entries for Maryland

Total Sites on Number of Percent
Date National Register Prehistoric Sites Prehistoric Sites

July 1975 309 14 4.5%
November 1976 414 19 4.0%
November 1977 432 19 4.0%

Although the purpose and use of the National Register of Historic
Places has been much discussed, it is generally agreed to recognize dis-
tricts, structures, sites, and objects of significance, ranging from local
to national, in history, architecture, archeology, or culture (Utley 1973:
63). Recognition, of course, does not guarantee perpetual-preservation.
Unfortunately, state and local planning agencies and developers have in-
creasingly come to use the National Register as the main tool for assess-
ing project impacts on prehistoric resources.

As noted above, Table 6-4 shows that the sites registered for Mary-
land emphasize historic rather than prehistoric significance. In compari-
son to the 19 prehistoric sites registered, more than 2160 prehistoric
sites have been reported in the study area and more than 6500 prehistoric
sites are predicted to occur in the study area coastal zone alone. Thus,
at present the National Register does not reflect the abundance and diver-
'sity of Maryland's prehistoric remains.

The under-representatim' of prehistoric sites probably reflects.not
only conditions in Maryland and the lack of extensive professional acti-
vity, but also regional trends. For example, 205 cases of expenditures

221

related to cultural resource conservation show a similar imbalance in
tonnsoCfund.s expended (Iroquois Research Institute 1977). The earlier
settled northeastern part of the United States tends to expend more re-
sources on activities related to historic places and structures; other
parts of the nation expend relatively more funds on prehistoric resources.

National Register nominations usually have not resulted from sys-
tematic,prehistoric studies of areas. Instead, these entries often re-
present unique si tes noted for a special feature such as exc eptional
size, age, or number of burials. The resulting list is biased, not re-
presenting the complete range of remains. Although small clusters of.
artifacts may not be so striking as large cemetaries or villages, the
information they contain is equally important. Carried to an extreme,,
selectively preserving unique or special sites can lead to innaccurate
conslusions. and confused public impressions about past cultures. Site
nominations showing the systemic relationships among sites should be en-
couraged, in order to preserve meaningful samples of the prehistoric re-
cord. Only systematic studies can reduce the omissions and redundancies
that might otherwise occur in the National Register.

Because planners often assume that no registered sites in an area
means that no significant sites exist, relying on the National Register
can produce stress on prehistoric resources. Planners may encourage
development in areas where important prehistoric resources could be
damaged. For example, a recent draft environmental impact report for a
coastal residential development in Anne Arundel County examined the
National Register and concluded that there were no properties lis ted or
eligible for listing that would be effected by the development. Thus,
no particular recomendati ons were set forth regarding prehistoric re-
sources. However, a shoreline inspection of part of this project during
the present study revealed three prehistoric sites, two of considerable
extent. Because the area is densely wooded, it is unlikely to have under-
gone extensive disturbance during modern times. This fact, coupled with
the loss of other prehistoric resources in Anne Arundel County from shore-
line development, means that these three sites could be locally or region-
ally significant.

222

Uncritical use of the National Register, like uncritical use of DOA
records, can thus create a false sense of security in users, Prehistoric
resources usually do not provide the highly visible, readily identifiable,
and easily comprehended profiles that historic structures do.

Perhaps the greatest factor affecting the nomination of Maryland pre-
historic sites to the National Register is the lack of adequate background
information on.which to make defensible and intelligent nominations. Until
this situation is remedied, Maryland will not be able to enjoy the poten-
tial protection afforded its prehistoric resources, were a representative
sample recognized by inclusi on on the National Register. Efforts should
be made immediately, then, by both DOA and M[AT, to expand the numbers of
prehistoric sites nominated to the National Register and to insure that
these nominations reflect the diversity of prehistoric resources found in
the.Maryland coastal zone.
As can be seen in the following passage, MHT's enabling legislation'
makes its role in conserving Maryland's cultural resources explicit (Art.
41,,Section 18E):

(g) To contract for service with, cooperate with and ot'lerwise
assist, insofar as practicable any agency of the State of Maryland
or any of its political subdivisions, and any private agency or
person in furtherance of the purpose of the Trust and to encourage
'Jndividual and coimmity plans and zoning ordinances relating to
the restoration, preservation, alteration and or development of
designated sites and areas...

To date,, ME has been particularly active in sponso ring county committees,
forming historic district zones, conducting county historic site surveys,
and holding public information seminars on topics related to preservation.
Most of these activities have been directed primarily to structures and
sites resulting from Maryland's colonial period and later.

An important area of ME operations,concerns the review of environ-
mental effects reports and impact statements forwarded by the Maryland
State Clearinghouse and other agencies. Both the National Enviromental
Policy Act of 1969 and the Maryland 'Environmental Policy Act of 1973 re-
quire that cultural resources be included in assessing environmental ef-
fects or the impact of proposed projects.

223

As the primary review agency for cultural -resources with regard to
A-95 Clearinghouse documents, *1T is in a lead position to monitor the
nature, location and rate of development as it may affect prehistoric
resources. Chapter Five points out numerous potential sources of stress
on prehistoric resources; however, no statistical information exists re-
garding actual damage annually or regionally. Therefore, MiT ought to
investigate the potential benefits of monitoring stress on prehistoric
resources. For example, a sampling plan might f lield check randomly projects
of different sizes and types. Such a stress-monitoring study could pro-
duce valuable management information by cross tabulating kinds of pro-
jects for size, locationoand possible effects on prehistoric'remains.
Critical localities and sources of stress could then be identified and
appropriate shifts in educational, permit-monitoring, and other programs
made.

Although DOA has the state's mandate for the care and protection of
prehistoric resources, MHT participates,in federal National Register and
Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid programs and is thus responsible to the
federal goverment for preserving both historic and prehistoric cultural
res,ources, Responsibility is held by the office of the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), who is appointed by the governor and housed
within MHT. The SHPO is charged with updating the National Register of
Historic Places with cultural resources of local, state, and national
significance. In addition, the SHPO administers the federal matching
fund program instituted under the Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(P.L. 89-665). Under this program the SHPO receives federal matching'
funds for surveying,the state's cultural resources, establishing a state
preservation plan, and acquiring and maintaining significant properties
for preservation. In addition, the SHPO has other duties and responsi-
bilities that relate to compliance with the federal act and subsequent
rules and regulations.

Federal rules and regulations require that each state establish a
historic preservation plan as one of the conditions for participating in
the National Register and Grants-in-Aid programs. The goals and criteria
of the Maryland Historical Preservation Plan were first articulated in

224

1970 (Raymond et al. 1970), prior to the publication of federal criteria
for state plans. In this docment, prehistoric resources are defined as
"areas that contain or are thought to contain archeological and ethno-
graphic remains, especially regions of prehistoric, Indian, and early
colonial culture" (Raymont et al. 1970:13). Prehistoric sites are placed
in an open space category and are explicitly recognized as being composed
of various kinds of remains (for example, villages, campgrounds, burial
grounds, etc.); however, prehistoric sites.are not treated in detail as
historic "'Sites and structures are.
The Plan does promote consideration of cultural resources in the
planning process and advocates a change from an older, more defensive
position. Most of the goals promoted by the Plan are consequent with cur-
rent approachi@s to the problem of managing prehistoric resou---ces, although
this document does not supplant the need for a prehistoric resource con-
servation plan.

Another condition for participating in National Register and Grants-,
in-Aid programs is the maintenance of a full time, professional staff res-
ponsible to the SHPO., This staff must be qualified in whatever fields
history, archeology, architecture, plaming.-- may be necessary. Re-
latively little effort and little funding were expended by MHT on pre-
historic resources until 1975, when to meet the above requirement MHT
added a prehistoric archeologist to its staff. Since that time both fund-
ing and efforts on behalf of prehistoric resources have increased.

The relationship and division of duties between DOA and MHT have been
discussed, with some suggesting that DCA's administration within MGS may
inhibit its growth (Bastian 1971, 1976 discusses this problem) and that
efforts on behalf of prehistoric resource conservation may be unnecessarily
duplicated. Indeed, there is a-dichotomy in handling the state's pre-
historic resources, with the federal mandate and the administration of
most financial support for preservation efforts resting with Mff, while
both Mff and DOA have received the state mandate for conserving prehis-
toric resources, with DOA having the primary responsibility.

MW has a large staff a nd an extensive organization coordinated at

225

the county level; MHT also has higher public visibility and direct, regular
ties to federal and private preservation a'
gencies and their programs. Mff
reviews projects for potential impacts on prehistoric resources and admin-
isters the National Register of Historic Places, including the review
process by which sites are added to the National Register. Finally, Nff
has recently become involvedin supporting surveys across the state to
identify prehistoric resources.

In contrast, DOA is a smaller-organization with relatively low public
visibility which maintains archival records as well as engages in con-
servation efforts for prehistoric resources. Interaction between DOA and
MHT accompanies their shared review of environmental impact statements.,
National Register nominations, and research proposals. DOA attempts to
articulate the needs of prehistoric resource conservation with funds avail-
able through MHT for prehistoric resource surveys. Evolving from this
relationship is a cooperative system in which projects are carried out by
DOA and funds administered by MHT, which also reviews project results. In
summary, most of the financial resources and federal responsibilities for
prehistoric resource preservation lie with NHT; the state mandate, records,.
and primary expertise on prehistoric resources are found in DOA. This
split plan differs from the centralized organizations adopted by many states.

Clearly, it is desirable to maximize the effectiveness of both these
agencies for prehistoric resource management. A review of alternative
organizational schemes., to evalaute whether or not other approaches might
improve their effectiveness, would be helpful. For example, current
trends suggest that MHT might assume an administrative role while DOA,
with the support of MHT administered funds, might assume an implementation
role, developing and executing a program for the acquisition of baseline
data in addition to continuing its archival and curatorial functions.

Areas of potential overlap between the two agencies might then be
clarified,, in order to avoid duplication of effort in educating the public,
improving legislation, seeking outside funding, acquiring baseline infor-
mation, implementing interim management measures, and providing leadership
for formulating a comprehensive management plan.

226

Useful Legislation for Prehistoric Resource Conservation

In addition to the Maryland Archeological Resources Act, the Mary-
land Enviromental Policy Act (NR 1-301 to 305), enacted in 1973, re-
quires consideration of prehistoric resources at the state level. This
act establishes the necessity for protecting, preserving, and enhancing
the state's diverse environment. Historic values are included among those
that make up a quality environment which must be taken into consideration
for an optimum balance between economic development and environmental
quality. The act requires that state agencies consider environmental amen-
ities and values along with economic and technical considerations in
planning dnd decision-making, and that studies or environmental effects
reports be undertaken to "develop and describe appropriate alternatives
to present policies, programs, and procedures that involve significant
adverse enviromental effects or unresolved conflicts concerning uses
of available resources" for each proposed state action significantly af-
fecting the natural, socio-.economic, and historic environment. Section 4,
Adverse and Beneficial Environmental Effects, of the MEPA Guidelines,
lists "Archeological Considerations." A more extensive checklist is avail-
able also, listing several kinds of archeological remains to be inventor-
ied (Section J). Since its enactment, MEPA has been amended to include "his-
toric resources" or those resources included on the Maryland Inventory of
Historic Sites.

. The DNR is responsible for issuing guidelines to assist state agencies
in preparing enviromental effects reports. To use MEPA most effectively
inpreserving prehistoric resources.,, it is necessary to assure that its
wording include both prehistoric and historic archeological sites along
with other cultural resources such as historic and architectural struc-
tures. Restricting historic resources to those located on the Maryland
Inventory of Historic sites is detrimental to archeological sites, both
prehistoric and historic, because few of these sites now are found on the
Inventory. T.his site by site, piecemeal approach to site registration may
suffice,for historic structures that can easily be perceived and evaluated;
but this approach will prove prohibitively expensive and ineffective for
prehistoric resources that are generally not susceptible to easy discovery

227

or understanding,

Since MEPA calls for envirormental effects reports to include a con-
sideration of prehistoric resources, DNR should assure that prehistoric
resources are regularly discussed. The archeological portions of these,
reports should be endorsed bypersons with recognized qualifications. To
facilitate consideration or prehistoric resources, DNR might.issue a
brochure explaining what these resources are, why they are important,how
to identify them, and how they should be treated in environmental effects
reports.

Article 6613, Sections 8.01-8.04 of the Maryland Code provides for
Historic Area Zoning. The purpose of this legislation is to safeguard the
heritage of a county or municipal corporation by preserving a district
reflecting elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, or
architectural history. Historic districts also will stabilize and improve
local property values, foster civic beauty, strengthen the economy, and
promote the education, welfare, and pleasure of the residents. As it is
used, "structure" includes natural land formations. Local governments are
authorized to create historic district commissions for establishing his-
toric districts; this commission may designate MHT to study and make rec-
omendations concerning preservation within the local area.

Historic area zoning could be used to preserve prehistoric resources.
Developing local areas with ongoing excavations of specific prehistoric
sites and constructing small museuns and roadside interpretive signs could
further local tourism, improve property values, and promote the education
and pleasure of local residents and transient visitors alike. This might
necessitate clarification of the enabling legislation to specify the con-
sideration of prehistoric resources and eventualcoordination with the pre-
historic conservation plan.

Finally, Article 81, Section 12E of the Maryland Code specifies that
up to SO% tax credit may be given to landowners for designating open..
space, open areas, or preservation easements. Such tax credits,, if ex-
tended to citizens for the protection and preservation of prehistoric
sites., could aid in lowering the cost of prehistoric resource conservation.

228

Tax credits could be offered to owners of agricultural lands who hold pre-
historic sites out of cultivation or who limit land use to cultivation
only. The taxation of land according to use, not value of highest pos-
sible use, also might encourage the preservation of forests, wildlands,
and other forms of low impact land use.

Land Use Planning: Department of State.Planning

Several planning and environmental assessment groups have been es-
tablished in Maryland to guide development. In addition to developing a
state land use plan and other duties, the Department of State Planning
(DSP) gathers basic planning information, partially funds and reviews
county planning efforts, and administers the state's A-9S Clearinghouse,
which attempts to make the federal grant-in-aid system responsive to
state and local goverment management decisions.

At present, consideration of documents by the A-95 Cleaiinghouse is
accomplished under a policy of "lead agency review." MHT is the lead
agency for A-95 documents regarding cultural resources, including mater-
ials from state agencies. The importance of the A-95 review process can-
not be overstated, since it provides the contact point for monitoring de-
velopment within the state. Of course, the value of such a review pro-
gram depends in part on the quality of information submitted in environ-
mental effects reports, impact statements, and development plans, and in
part on the quality of information on prehistoric resources available to
those reviewing the documents.

Thus, sensitizing agencies that submit materials to the A-95 Clear-
inghouse can improve their consideration of prehistoric resources.
Agencies should be made familiar with the nature and extent of the current
data bank on prehistoric resources, as well as provided with suggestions
on how best to consider these resources when preparing initial impact
assessment forms. Field inspection by professional archeologists should
be encouraged. Seminars for personnel from agencies which submit large
numbers of A-95 Clearinghouse docLnents might be held, familiarizing them

229

with procedures; informative brochures might be made available.

DSP also can designate areas of Critical State Concern (Art. 88C,
Sec. 2(b)(3)(1975 Supp.)), based on recommendations from local governments.
Critical areas located in the coastal zo ne automatically become Geographic
Areas of Particular Concern under the Coastal Zone Management Program.

Along with other biological, scenic, and cultural resources, pre-,
historic resources may be used to nominate Resource Protection Areas, in-
cluding tidal,wetlands, upland natural areas, prime recreation areas or
agricultural land, areas,of historic and prehistoric importance, aquatic
critical areas, high risk shore erosion and floor hazard areas. Although
a tendency might exist to nominate individual prehistoric resources as
critical areas following the precedent set by the National Register of
Historical Places, this approach is inefficient in prehistoric resource
conservation. Instead, areas containing representative samples of all
kinds of prehistoric land use, including interior areas, should be pre-
served under the critical areas program. In regard to this program, DSP
and DOA should cooperate to encourage counties to consider prehistoric
c
resources in critical area nominations. Guidance and suggestions on
potential critical prehistoric resource areas could be obtained from DOA
and *ff.

Finally, DSP has developed the Maryland Automated Geographic Infor-
mation System (MAGI). The MAGI system was developed to provide geographic
information to aid in preparing the state land use plan and was expected
to be useful to other regional planning efforts. The potential utility of
entering information on prehistoric resources in the MA.GI system should be
investigated by DOA and MHT.' Data on prehisforic resources could be@entered
into the,system, to provide users with information on the known presence or
absence of resources, available studies, or other relevant data. The 91.2
acre grid cell used by the system would provide a compromise between pro-
viding the specific location of prehistoric resources which could endanger
them and providing no locational information at all. Unfortunately, in-
vestigator biases prevent current information on Maryland's prehistoric
resources from reflecting the prehistoric record adequately, hence de-.,.
creasing the utility of MAGI applications.

230

Land Use Planning: Regional Planning Council

Article 78D of the Maryland Code creates a regional planning council
for Anne Arundel, Baltimore,.Carroll, Harford, and Howard counties, so
that special planning attention can be given this fast-growing area and
conflicts in land use can be minimized. Because of its fast development,
this area is one of exceptional stress to prehistoric resources. Con-
sideration. of these resources should be included in work by the planning
council. In addition, the regional baseline studies discussed later in
this chapter should include areas of high stress, such as parts of these
counties. DOA and MHT should conduct an information meeting with this
group to explain the need for considering prehistoric resources and to
find ways of implementing this concern.

Land Use Planning: Coastal Zone Management Program

In 1972 the federal goverment enacted th e Coastal Zone Management
Act P.L.92-583) recognizing the irretrievable loss and damage occurring
in the coastal zone to important cultural and historic resources, among
others. A primary objective of the Act was to encourage cooperation be-
tween government agencies in coordinating their activities in the coastal
zone and in devising ways of managing uses that often are in conflict.
To accomplish this end, the Act established a federal grants program
(Section 305) and offered technical assistance to states to develop coastal
zone management programs.

The stated policy of the Act is for program development to give "full
consideration to ecological, cultural, . historic, and aesthetic values, as
well as to needs for economic development." Although encouraging maximum
use of extant data banks, the rules and regulations developed to guide
Program Development Grant application procedures clearly recognize the
need for acquiring field data, for example via "resource surveys" and
"inventories."

In addition to encouraging the wise use of all coastal,resources,

231

the Act provides spectfic mechanisms that are potentially important to
prehistoric resource conservation. The Act requires "an inventory and
designation of areas of particular concern." Among the eight criteria
provided for designating such areas are "areas of unique, scarce, fragil e
or vulnerable habitat, physical feature, historical significance, cultural
value and scenic importance." Prehistoric resources are an important cri.-
'terion in designating such areas and therefore ought to be regularly con-,,
sidered. Information developed by regional baseline studies should en-
hance the quality of nominations for Geographic Areas of Particular Con-
cern. It should be noted that the Draft Coastal Zone Management Program
for Maryland explicitly recognizes prehi storic, resources as a factor in
determining these critical areas.

Another opportunity for prehistoric resource preservation provided by
the act is the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. This program authorizes,grants
of up to 50% for the acquiring, developing, and operating estuarine sanc-
tuaries, designed to provide field laboratories for studying "natural and
human processes within estuaries of the coastal zone." As.already noted,
prehistoric remains often are associated with estuaries and contain in-
formation on natural and human history; thus, they should be considered
as a criterion for selecting sites for this program. Although inclusion
in this program may require eventual destruction via excavation or other
study, this use of the resource could be a benefit, were studies inter-
disciplinary in scope and designed to address questions relevant to Ye-
source management or baseline information needs.

The Coastal Zone Management Unit of the Energy and Coastal Zone Ad-
ministration is the primary point of interface between the State of Mary-
land and the Coastal Zone Management Act, administered by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Maryland has been awarded three
Section 305 Program Development Grants; with this funding the Coastal Zone
Unit., has completed the final draft of Maryland's proposed Coastal Zone
Management Program. The unit now awaits final approval of the plan before
applying for Section 306 Administrative Grants.

At this time, Maryland stands out among coastal states in incorpora-

232'

ting aconsideration of prehistoric resources in'its Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program. This momentum should not be lost and, as the primary agency
for planning and information development within the coastal zone, the
Coastal Zone Unit should remain,invo lved in prehistoric resource conser-
vation matters. This involvement could take several forms, including co-
sponsoring prehistoric resource information sessions and management semi-
nars for state and local agencies and planners, investigating the use of
Section 306 Matching Grants for regional baseline studies, promoting pre-
historic resource conservation via news releases, films and suggested
legislation, and nominating Geographic Areas of Particular Concern.

Land Use Planning: Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies

One of the primary duties of the Center for Environmental and Estuar-
ine Studies, a branch of the University of Maryland, is to develop and
apply predictive information on.ecology to improve and preserve Mlaryland's.
physical environment (NR 3-403) . This goal is to be accomplished through
a program of research, public service, and education. Since they frequently
contain information on changes through time in the biological and physical
environment of an area, prehistoric resources can provide an important
(and often missing) time depth to ecological studies. In addition, the
successful acquisition and interpretation of regional baseline information
on prehistoric resources will require an understanding of paleoenvironmen-
tal changes in the Bay area. Thus, DOA and ME should approach the Center
to explore avenues of cooperation and mutual assistance.

Land Use Planning: Power Plant Siting Program

In 1971 the Maryland Legislature passed enabling legislation for the
Maryland Power Plant Siting Program*(PPSP) as part of the DNR. This legis-
lation provides the program with funding and authority to guide the develop-
ment of,power plant sites within the state. To date, numerous sites have
been considered for acquisition by PPSP as potential power plant sites,

233

including the Elms site, St. Marys County, the Still Pond Neck site, Kent
County, and the Bainbridge Naval Training Center site, Cecil County.. The
present procedure involves Jssuing reports based on prcliminary studies
of the suitability of a site for development; detailed investigations are
planned for sites selected for purchase.

Preliminary site evaluation reports issued.on the above properties
conclude that no, or only minimal, impact on cultural resources would occur.
from the development of the plant sites and transmission corridors. Docu-
mentation and supportive evidence for these conclusions however are minimal.
(Further investigation is explicitly recommended only for the Elms site.)

The consideration of cultural resources should be an integral part of
PPSP.1s preliminary investigation. Such consideration should involve field
inspection in addition to the review of such lists as the National Register
of Historic Places and DGA records. This procedure appears to be especially
prudent because coastal locations are frequently favored for new power
plant development.

Considerable ground disturbance accompanies the construction of power
plants, including plant site and transmission oriented construction, the
placement of intake and outfall structures, and possible canal construction
for:moving heavy plant components. If located in rural areas, plant con-
st ruction also can be accompanied by a considerable secondary impact on
prehistoric resources. However, PPSP results frcm forward-looking legis-
l.ation which, when combined with adequate information on prehistoric re-
sources, can insure compatibility between use of the coastal zone and
cons ervation of its resources.

Land Use Studies and Plans

Numerous recent studies have dealt with public land planning and ac-
.quis'ition in Maryland, including the Maryland Department of State Planning
Catalog of Natural Areas in Maryland (1968), the Smithsonian Institution
Natural Areas-of the Chesapeake Bay Region (1974), the three volume
Maryland'Outdoor Recreation and 0 en Space Comprehensive Plan (Raymond,

234

Parish, Pine, and Plavnick 1974; Urban Research and Development Corpora-
tion 1971, 1972), the Maryland Chesapeake.BayS-tudy (Wallace et al. -1972), the
seven volume.Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions'Report (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers 1973),and the three volume Maryland Uplands Natural Areas
Study (Rogers and,Golden 1976). Unfortunately, most of these studies do
not include a consideration of prehistoric resources. Both the DSP and
Smithsonian Institution studies, however, are forward looking in giving
some consideration to prehistoric resources in their discussions of pros-
pective natural areas.

Although planning can modify land disturbance and contribute to con-
serving prehistoric resources, planning processes have yet to effectively
incorporate a concern for their importance and sensitivity. There appear
to be two major reasons for this failure, one stemming from neglect or
ignorance and the other from a lack of adequate information on which to
base planning decisions. Natural area inventory and assessment studies
should include systematically inventoried cultural resources in their
schemes, because such resources are totally irreplaceable and, in that
sense, similar to non-regenerative natural resources. As discussed earlier,,
Prehistoric sites are the repositories not only of the residue of various
cultural processes, but.also they contain evidence for changes in the
natural system which may or may not have been caused by humans. Perhaps
most important is the fact that when prehistoric resources are included
as one of the criteria for designating or recommending natural areas for
acquisition, the relative cost of preservation decreases because it is in-
corporated with other concerns. A prehistoric preservation program based
on site-by-site piecemeal acquisition is far less efficient and economical.

As more data become available on Maryland's prehistoric resources,
natural region studies will be able to include a more effective consider a-
tion of them. Information on them is being produced by MHT surveys aimed
at identifying properties eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (see, for example, the authors' study on the archeological resources
of western Kent County, Wilke and Thompson 1977). In addition, DQA can
j?rovide information relevant to some prehistoric resources in specific

areas.

235

To preserve prehistoric resources effectively, land planning.and
acquisition projects and the studies upon which they are based must con-
sider prehistoric resources carefully. Therefore, state agencies should
encourage the use of prehistoric resources in planning studies and as a
criterion for determining priorities in acquiring lands for ecological
preservation areas. In this way prehistoric resources can become a routine
-part of the study, assessment, and evaluation of such activities.

County soils survey reports produced by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service are used increasingly as primary data sources in formulating county
land use plans, with such soils parameters as slope, drainage, and fertility
used to guide the nature and distribution of future development. As dis-
cussed in Chapter Two, prehistoric use of the landscape also was partly
determined by the distribution of soils and the vegetation and fauna they
supported.

The recent Charles County soils survey (Hall and Matthews 1974) re-
cognizes the extensive distribution -- perhaps more than 800 acres -- of
Indian Kitchen Midden soils in the county. These culturally affected soils
are a mixture of whole and fragmented oyster shell in a fine, black, or-
ganically rich matrix of moderate alkalinity. The discussion of these
areas concludes:
Although these areas have little value for crops limitations
are likely to be few for most nonfarm uses 1974:23; empha sis added).
This conclusion does not take into consideration the value of these areas
as cultural resources, nor does it recommend informing DOA about them be-
fore extensive land disturbance takes place. Omitting these concerns mis-
leads planners, who base land use projects partly on this information.
These-omissions also mislead individual farmers and other landowners who
use the reports to guide the development and use of their lands. The
handling of cultural soils in future county soil reports should be dis-
cussed with DOA and Hff. Topics to be covered should include recomenda-
tions for notifying DOA prior to disturbance of known cultural soils, use
recommendations, and site mapping.

The Department of State Planning Catalogue of Natural Areas inMaryland in-

236

ventories natural areas of presumed statewide significance. Consideration
is extended to areas' with unique historical, geological, or ecological
aspects. Throughout the state, 184 areas are included, totaling nearly
472,000 acres of which fifty-seven percent were privately owned at the
time of this study.

Prehistoric resources are considered in discussing the Zekiah Swamp
.area and are the primary attraction listed for two other areas, the Port
Tobacco and Pisctaway Creek Indian Villages. The latter two sites have
been quite.well known for some time. No reasons or criteria are presented
for including these sites and excluding countless other sites, possibly
more significant or endangered., Nothing in the report suggests that pre-
historic resources were considered in a systematic fashion. Therefore, it
is recommended that further studies of this nature include input from DOA
and MHT prior to initiating field studies.,

The Smithsonian Institution sponsored report Natural Areas of the
Chesapeake Bay Region (Smithsonian Inst.1974)includes a scheme "Inder which
23 2 sites in Maryland and Virginia are ranked and 64 prime natural areas
are recommended for procurement. Of the 232 sites,.124 are located in
Maryland with 29 considered prime. The report introduction states that
"strictly'archeological sites were not included in this study" (p. 42),
although in the numerical ranking system the presence of prehistoric
features in a natural area is accorded one point per occurrence within
each study area. For example, Zekiah Swamp is rated as follows:

Data Points
A;Wa@re
Zekiah Swamp
Maryland
Charles County
5.,385-hectares in size
Private ownership
Hardwood swamp forest 1
Good stands of Ilex 2paca,, gj!ercus palustris,
and Liquidambar styraciflua. Mature Timber
High diversity f plant species. 2
Populaous heterophylla, southern outlier I
Beaver, mink (commercial-species) 1
Osprey Cdepleted), heronry (seasonal'breeders) 3

237

Data Points
AwarTeU
Wilsoii's snipe and wood duck (overwintering) 1.
Concentration of migrating birds 1
Southern Bald Eagle nest (endangered) 4
Rare animals: red bellied woodpecker,
Maryland Diamondback Terrapin, Allocapania
Zekiah Stonefly 4
One of the largest of Maryland's remaining
undisturbed swamps 2

Rating Total 24

Zekiah Swamp was rated the highest of all 232 study areas examined. Left
out of the rating were 27 currently known prehistoric sites all recorded
by DQA. Undoubtedly many more sites could be added if the area were sub-
jected to a thorough and systematic prehistoric survey. Nine -- over 36% 7-
of the 29 prime natural areas in Maryland occur partly or completely within
Charles County. Seven of the nine Charles County areas are marked by the
presence of numerous known prehistoric sites. The relative sizes in hec-
tares and the number of recorded prehistoric sites associated with these
features.are as, follows:

Area Size Number of Reported
(in hectares) Prenstoric Sites

Zekiah Swamp 5385.3 27
Patuxent River 4*
Nanjemoy Creek-Wards Run 1010.0 34
Cedar Pt. Neck 2020.0 13
Lloyd Creek 16.2 0
Perry Branch 76.8 0
Maryland Neck 1018.3 2
Matt4woman Creek 1559.4 17
Chicamuxen Creek, 270.7 1

*Charles County portion

Systematic inclusion of prehistoric resources into the report's
ranking scheme would have produced a far different order than has been
achieved without their inclusion. By suggesting that prehistoric re-
sources are not used as a criterion, and then mentioning them in ranking,
the report gives the unfortunate impression that these resources do not

238

figure prominently in any of the study areas.

The failure of recreation, natural areas, and open space plans to con-
sider the nature an(I (listribtition of prehistoric resources poses,immediate
threats to these rcsotirces and diminishes local and regional educational
and interpretive possibilities as well. As Fig. S-12 shows, a surprisingly
small proportion of the Maryland shoreline is devoted to public recreationV
open space, or other conservation needs. The three volume proposed Maryland
Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (Urban Research and
Development Corporation 1971, 1972; Raymond, Parish, Pine and Plavnick 1974)
emphasizes the need for locating limited use and conservation areas along
the shorelines and waterways of the state (Urban Research and Development
Corporation 1972:49).

This plan further recognizes the aquatic orientation of historical
sites: "it is interesting that many of these historic sites relate closely
to one basic natural feature: water" (1972:22). Unfortunately, the plan
does not distinguish prehis toric sites as a kind of resource separate from
"historic structures and sites." The Maryland Outdoor Recreation and Open
Space Comprehensive Plan does however include several suggested state-
wi.d-e.policies and recommendations that pertain directly to cultural resources:
1. preserve historic structures and sites (Urban Research and Develop-
ment Corporation 1972:45)
2. control land uses adjacent to parks and major scenic or historic
sites to prevent urban encroachment (Urban Research and Develop-
ment Corporation 1972:4S)
3. incorporate irreplaceable historic sites and structures into an open
space system (Urban Research and Development Corporation 1972:46).
4. develop a systein of scenic roads incorporating historic, cultural,
-and unusual geologic features of the state (Urban Research and
Development Corporation 1972:47)
5. develop information programs to further the appreciation and
understanding of Maryland's natural., cultural and historic re-
sources (Raymond, Parish, Pine, and Plavnick 1974:8)
6. promote tourism connected with recreation, scenic, historic, and

239

natural areas (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Plavnick 1974:9)
7. emphasize the location of recreation areas at water resource sites,
and areas of historic, geologic and ecologic interest CRaymond,
Parish, Pineand Playnick 1974:9)
These and other guidelines could aid in efficient management of prehis-
toric resources, were their nature and distribution taken into considera-

tion.

Failure to consider these guidelines will reduce the effectiveness of
.the plan in aiding in low cost preservation of a representative sample of
the state's coastal prehistoric resources. For example, in Charles County
the Popes Creek area is proposed as a conservation area, with the min
attraction centered on a geologic scarp and the-general scenery. This
area also has long been well known as the site of an extremely large
coastal shell midden. The site complex was.first mentioned by Reynolds
(1883) and later was extensively described by Holmes (1907:118), who ob.-
served:

it is stated on the authority of residents of the neighbor-
hood that, at the outer margin of the terrace, the shells had ac-
cumulated to a depth of nearly twenty feet.. The greatest depth
observed in the portions that now remain is about five feet.....
The terrace-has a surficial area of about four acres.

On the south side of the creek, Holmes described similar extensive de-
posits which had attained depths of severalfeet, covering more than
twenty acres.
Although this site has been greatly diminished during historic oc-
cupation, any plans for developing the recreation or open space potential
for the area should incorporate an awareness of the intensive prehistoric
use of the area. The opportunity for protecting any undisturbed prehis-
toric remains and interpreting them must not be lost by oversight or
belated consideration of prehistoric resources.

The works of Hicke
y (1970) and Looker and Tidwell (1963), as well
as DOA records, suggest that Zekiah Swamp and its associated uplands in
Charles County were intensely exploited by prehistoric populations. The
recreation plan howeverdoes not recognize prehistoric.remains as part.of
the area's critical resources to be evaluated and incorporated in the

240

natural area that is Proposed for Zekiah Swamp.

Another example of recreational land planning that could create po-
tentially serious impacts on prehistoric resources is the Fairlee Point
Activity Center proposed for the mouth of Fairlee Creek in Kent County.
This point of land long has been known for its extensive prehistoric de-
posits. Mayre (1938:128) describes the extent of this deposit as follows:
this shell-heap covers a neck between the Bay and the first cove
of the southern side of Fairlee Creek, extending around the head
of this cove and up the creek, around several points or bends, a
distance, in all, of not less than three quarters of a mile. The
.nunber of acres,covered could not be determined but it is very con-
siderable....Near the mouth of Fairlee Creek ... the shellbank attains
a depth of fifty-four inches.

Radio-carbon dating of a sample of oyster shell collected from the base
of the shell deposit at Fairlee Point (locally known as Shell Point)
yielded a date of 5563 radiocarbon years Before Present One of the oldest
dated prehistoric sites known in Maryland's coastal zone.

The recreation and open space plan is, of course, projecting an
ideal plan, which must be balanced with other needs of area residents..
Several,areas have been disturbed already beyond.the level suggested with-
in the plan.

Clearly, the requirements of preservation and good management can be
achieved at the lowest cost only when all resources to be managed are con-
sidered at the time of initial planning. Therefore, policiesfor conser-
ving prehistoric resources should be incorporated in these plans. Potential
conflicts in land use can be minimizedY allowing conservation and preserva-
tion of areas based in part on prehistoric resources. Serious considera-
tion of these resources has been lacking in current state and local land
use plans, and this lack should be remedied by requiring such considera-
tion in document revisions and new plans. To this end, county planning

ann con-
departments should require county pl' ing consultants to include a
sideiation of prehistoric resources in comprehensive plans and other plan-
ning documents.

State agencies are frequently called upon to provide information'or

241

cooperate with federal,and other studies which result in primary planning
documents. Such opportunities to provide information and to state policy on
prehistoric resource conservation ought not be overlooked. Failing to
voice such concern contributes to the neglect of prehistoric resources.
It is thus important that interchange occur between sponsoring agencies
and DOA and MHT, to insure the-most effective inclus-ion of prehistoric re-

sources.

Whenever possible, information should be included from DOA and MHT
systematic surveys of regional prehistoric resources. In this way, all
relevant prehistoric resources can be considered in naturallarea planning.,
instead of the few widely publicized prehistoric sites whose significance
in relationship to other local prehistoric resources has not yet been
established.

As discussed above, Zekiah Swamp is often rated highly as a natural
area; many Archaic tradition prehistoric resources are found along this
natural feature. Thus, its natural and prehistoric resources could be
preserved together, providing moreefficient and economical preservation
than if each were considered separately., Prehistoric resources also may
be located adjacent to, instead of within, certain natural areas, as is
the case with Zekiah Swamp; special procedures may be necessary. to include
them. In the case of Zekiah Swamp, preservation easements to control land
use of parts of the adjacent uplands' would be necessary to ensure the
preservation of the prehistoric resources associated with the swamp.

Although incorporating prehistoric resources into public lands can
increase their vulnerability to destruction through vandalism, prehistoric
sites can be protected by safeguarding information on precise location and
by planting protective vegetation. When resources in a natural or rec-
reation area have been protected as much as possible, interpretive ex-
hibits giving information on prehistoric use of the area.can increase
public interest and enjoyment in visiting these areas. Whether or not
prehistoric resources are used as one criterion in selecting parcels for
public acquisition, they'should be taken into account before developing
these lands, so that mitigation procedures can be used to ensure their
maximum conservation.

242

Public Land AcquisitiQfi and Regulation

Current Maryland programs that might be used in preserving the statels'
prehistoric resources are reviewed here in order to maximize the possibility
for low cost resource conservation. The goal of preserving a variety of
ages and kinds of prehistoric resources can be aided by incorporating them
in natural area preservation programs. Setting aside tracts of land that
include diverse local environments would increase t@e likelihood,of pre-
serving a representative sample of the remains of all prehistoric cul-
tures. Because different natural settings were often utilized by prehis-
toric groups for different activities and activities changed through time,
preserving a variety-of natural settings helps preserve a variety of pre-
hi storic resources. Easily included in this type of preservation of
prehistoric resources could be aspects of the natural environment, in-
cluding scenic attractions, geological resources, plants, and animals.

The stated purpose of the Maryland Environmental ?rust (NR 3-201) is
to "conserve, improve, stimulate and,perpetuate the aesthetic, natural
health and welfare, scenic and cultural qualities of the enviromnent.'@
This concern is to be expressed through education and-other means. As
,part of their duties, trustees of the Environmental Trust are empowered
to undertake research and education programs,pertaining in part to cul-
tural qualities of the state environment. Grants may be' made for consul-
tingand other services, and culturally significant properties may be ac-
quired and held.

DQA and MHT staff members should make presentations to the trustees
of the Environmental Trust to enlist support @nd cooperation in exploring
ways in which the Environmental Trust can respond to the need for pre-
historic resource conservation'in the state. Because the Trust's mandate
And goals are clearly compatible with cultural resource conservation, as-
sistance should be possible in providing matching funds for federal grants,
sponsoring public education programs, and purchasing important,prehistoric
sites.

Another group, the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation,
has been established (AG 2-501) to preserve agricultural and woodland

243

areas to provide sources of,agricultural products, to control urban
expansion, and to protect open-space. The primary method of reaching these
objectives is- by acquiring easements over agricultural lands in order to
restrict their use. The merits of a similar scheme, coupled with appro-
priate inducements, might be investigated as a means of aiding prehistoric
resource conservation.

The Scenic Rivers Act (NR 8-410 to 8-807) is a land management program
that could be used to aid in prehistoric resource conservation. This act
proposes to protect water quality and conserve resources. It sets aside
certain rivers and related adjacent land areas that possess outstanding
scenic, fish, wildl ife, and other recreation values. Development is limited
to such activities as fishing, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, natural
and geological interpretation, scenicappreciation, and other programs.
Current scenic rivers include the Anacostia, Deer Creek (Harford County)-,
Monocacy, Patuxent, Pocomoke, Potomac (Montgomery and Frederick counties)
Severn, Wicomicd (Charles County), and Youghiogheny.

Using prehistoric resources as a criterion for establishing scenic
or wild river systems would provide low cost conservation for prehistoric
sites because related adjacent lands are encompassed by the act. To as-
sure that sites remain undisturbed, guidelines should control soil dis-
turbance within a setback of at least 200 feet of the shoreline, until a
qualified person can certify that prehistoric resources will not be dis-
turbed by specific construction projects.

The introduction to the Forests and Parks legislation (NR 5-101) en-
courages use of the state's natural resources to improve local economy,
preserve natural beauty, and promote recreational and leisure interest
throughout the state. Col lectively, this legislation provides forthe
setting aside of areas to preserve their character and resources for the
use and enjoyment of the state's population, with minimal modification.
By considering prehistoric resources along with other criteria for deter-
mining which areas to set aside,, low cost conservation could result. Con-
servation would be enhanced further if data from regional baseline studies
were available to assure the preservation of a representative sample of

244

the diversity of prehistoric resources. Wildlands often are located in
mountainous or otherwise primitive areas, although various coastal zone
areas could be included.

The Wildland and Open Areas Act (NR 5-1201 to 1207) is composed of
two parts. Part 1, Open Space or Open Areas allows for the acquisition
of lands for open areas, inc luding areas characterized by great natural
scenic beauty or where existing openness, natural condition, and present
use enchance surrounding developed areas or conserve natural or scenic

resources.

Part II, Wildland Areas, attempts to assure that expanding settlement
does not modify all areas within the state. It establishes a state policy
of securing an enduring resource of state wildlands by establishing a
state wildlands preservation system composed of designated wildland areas.

In classifying wildlands, the act defines their importance as lying
in their outstanding value for education, research, and appreciation of
natural processes. Since they contain information on various aspects of
past environments and may contain unique kinds of data or the only infor-
mation for certain time periods, prehistoric resources may be important to
ecologists studying past natural processes or interactions between cultural
and environmental systems. Thus, it could be advantageous to consider pre-
historic resources as one of the criteria for establishing wildlands. The
prehistoric resources in question ought to have been little disturbed, and
compatible land use (such as open space, recreation, or possibly agri-
culture) ought to be designated to ensure continued preservation.

Conservation of Woodland Areas legislation (NR 5-301 to 5-308) deter-
mines that DNR will formulate a program of forest conservation and manage-
ment to encourage the public to keep or develop lands for productive wood-
land purposes, including providing open and wooded areas. Such legisla-
tion could aid in the conservation of prehistoric resources by including
them as a criterion for ranking woodland areas suggested for conservation.

Land acquisition procedures under these programs are detailed in
Program Open Space legislation (NR 5-901 to 5-909). This legislation is
concerned with the useof federal and state funds as well as with admini-

245

strative procedures for land acquisition. As with other existing legis-
lation, incorporating prehistoric resources as a criterion for judging
land acquisition alternatives would resuli in low cost conservation of
prehistoric resources.

The Wetlands and Riparian Rights Act (NR 9-102 to 9-310) provides for
the preservation of wetlands and attempts to prevent their disturbance
and destruction. The act requires a license for dredging and filling all
state wetlands,, except for approved dredging associated with seafood and
seaweed harvesting, mosquito control, wildlife habitat improvement, and
agricultural drainage ditches.

In addition, some other activities are governed by specific DNR
regulations, and permits may be required by the Wetlands Unit. The permit
obtained from the Wetlands Unit of the Water.Resources Administration re-
quires that detailed descriptions and maps of the proposed activity be
presented for review primarily of biological and engineering aspects. At
times such proposals are reviewed by WU through the A-95 Clearinghouse

process.

Prehistoric resource conservation easily could be included in wet-
lands legislation if parts of a djacent related lands were subject to t 'he
same controls as wetlands themselves. Here a setback provision to prevent
soil disturbance inland from wetlands boundaries and other current or former
shoreiines could assist prehistoric resource conservation. Applications
for permits or licenses to alter private or state wetlands under*the Wet-
lands Act should coment on potential impact on prehistoric resources in
wetlands and on adjacent uplands.

,Another area in which DNR controls land alteration is in reviewing
local sedimentation control plans (NR 8-1101 to 8-1105). In particular,
Section 8-1104 requires local soil conservation district approval I before
land alterations for controlling erosion and siltation. As soil is the
matrix in which prehistoric resources are found, any soil disturbance has
the potential for disturbing prehistoric remains present. Therefore,
consideration should be 'give n to the ways in which this act might be used
to aid prehistoric resource conservation; for example, inspection for

246

prehistoric resources.could be required for all projects of certain sizes
Or types.

There are 24 soil conservation districts in Maryland, usually cor-
responding to county boundaries. The duties of state soil conservation
district supervisors include both research and regulatory activities
(AG 8-306); however, particular'-emphasis is placed on educational and
planning objectives. At minimum, brochures about prehistoric resources
should be available for developers, construction companies, and excava-
tion contractors. Each soil conservation district office ought to pro-
vide information on the need for resource conservation as well as on
specific procedures to be followed when these resources are encountered
in soils disturbing projects. Personnel from DOA and Nff should meet
with conservation district officials to explore the ways in whic'A prehis-
toric resources might be conserved along with the state Is soils.

In addition to the activit ies outlined above, DNR oversees permits
and loan applications for numerous other programs. T-.ICluded a@@.,e the admin-
istration of permits under the Coastal Facilities Review Act (NR 6-501
et seg. (1975 Supp.)), dredge and fill permits for the Maryland Port
Administration, permits under the Surface Mining Act (NR 7-6AO1 et sen.
(1975 Supp.)) and applications for loans and grants under the Shore Ero-
sion Control Construction Fund (NR 8-1001 et seq. (1974)) and the Water-
ways Improvement Fund (NR 8-707 to 8-723 (1974)). DNR also reviews some
federal projects as well as some private projects licensed by federal
agencies. Under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L.
83-566), DNR staff members undertake biological'field reconnaissance of
proposed project areas for the Soil Conservation Service, as well as re-
view the proposals for potential conflicts with state policies and manage-
ment plans. Finally, DNR, DSP, and the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene review local government comprehensive water and sewage plans and
issue permits, grants, and loans for sewage treatment plantsand other
construction (Art. 43, Sec. 387c (1975 Supp.)).

All these DNR programs and regulations provide potential points for
monitoring possible disturbance to prehistoric resources. The review of
these documents through the A-9S Clearinghouse will be greatly enhanced

247

when baseline information on prehistoric resources becomes available.
Until that time, DOA and Mff should review agency procedures to see if
initial consideration of prehistoric resources is limited to the insepction
of lists such as the National Register or if these resources are inspected
in the field. Information from lists and DOA records is not enough. On-
site inspection prior to permit or application submission should be con-
sidered for those programs or projects identi fied as frequently involving
large areas or considerable disturbance. Field inspections for biological
and engin&ering factors relating to a permit application often are under-
taken. In such instances., concurrent inspection for prehistoric resources
would greatly enhance resource conservation., Treatment of prehistoric
resources might be improved were agencies requiring statement-s and permits
to make brochures on these resources available to the public. Such infor-
mational brochures might discuss how to recognize prehistoric materials
and how to avoid disturbingthem.

Federal laws and Programs

Federal legislation first expressed its concern for prehistoric re-
sources in 1906 and preserving the country's national heritage in science,
history, and prehistory has been of increasing concern over the years.
This concern for national heritage has increased as the public and govern-
ing officials have become interested in providing a quality environment
for ourselves and for future generations. As awareness of prehistoric
resource destruction has grown, so have the companion desires to, preserve
and conserve or salvage the tangible remains of our national heritage.

Several themes unite legislation about prehistoric resources. The
earliest legislation established the principle that the goverment acted
for the people in protecting sites and objects loc ated on federally owned

248

lands. Since 1906, legislative intent has included private lands. Along
with the protecting remains, improper treatment has been discouraged with
penalties set for disturbing them on federal lands and a permit system-to
regulate their study. The National Park Service administers these feder-
ally controlled resources.

Another legislative principle establishes the desirability of and
intention to preserve sites and areas of historical and prehistoric in-
terest. In addition, funds are provided for salvaging remains threatened
with destruction by federal projects and for surveys aimed at adding sites
both historic and prehistoric, to the National Register of Historic Places.
Finally, legislation has required that impact on prehistoric resources be
assessed. Disturbing important sites is to be avoided when feasible al-
ternatives exist, should federal funds be involved in a project. Scovill
(1974:2) has summed the intent of governmental legislation suggesting
that this legislation attempts to provide for a balanced environment,
11not total development, and not total conservation."

The Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (National Park
Service), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National
Trust for Historic Preservation are the principal agencies presently
guiding and supporting the federal effort in cultural resource management.
Of particular importance are the National Register and Historic Sites,
Survey programs of the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation
As discussed above, these programs recognize important sites and grant
matching funds to allow survey programs to identify,potential National
Register nominations.

In addition, several Federal laws relate to prehistoric resources on
Federal lands or on lands affected by Federal projects. Copies of these
laws are included in Appendix B and their provisions are briefly reviewed
here.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 34-209; 34 Stat. 225) was the first
legislation establishing that the Federal-government should protect cul-

249

tural resources and work for their preservation and availability to the
public. This law prohibits disturbance of historic or prehistoric sites
on Federal lands without a permit from the goverment agency controlling
the appropriate lands; a penalty is established for violating this pro-
vision. In addition, the act provides for establishing national monuments
of historic or prehistoric materials located on Federally owned property.
Federal enforcement of this legislation should be encouraged by DOA, to
prevent unauthorized exploitation of prehistoric resources on the. large
tracts of military land in the Maryland coastal zone.

The Historic Sites Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-292; 40 Stat. 666) establishes
a national policy of preserving historic (including prehistoric) sites and
objects of national significance. The National Park Service is authorized
to do research under this law, thus providing for the development of this
agency's archeological work.
The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-523; 74 Stat. 220) provides
for the salvage of historic or prehistoric objects and information threat-
ened by Federal or Federally licensed construction of dams exceeding 5000
acre feet or 40 surface acres in capacity. Many salvage programs have
occurred in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation reser-
voirs becaus:e of this law. This act has been amended and superceded by
the Archeological Conservation Act of 1974 (discussed below).

The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665; 80 Stat. 915)
provides for an expanded National Register of Historic Places, which in-
cludes cultural resources of local, state, regional, and national signifi-
cance. It establishes a program of matching funds to state agencies to
make surveys of state resources, formulate a state preservation plan, and
acquire and maintain significant prehistoric or historic properties. The
act also establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Funds to match the monies made available for historic and prehistoric
preservation through this legislation should be aggressively sought by
Maryland agencies, -not only through MHT for historic preservation, but
also through DOA for prehistoric preservati on. Although the piecemeal
approach to prehistoric resource recognition-seen in the National Register

2SO

is inefficient, it will have to suffice until better approaches are
developed. Districts may be nominated to the,National Register of His-
toric places, an encouraging provision for prehistoric resources..

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190; 83
Stat. 852) continues the Federal policy of preserving historic , cultural,
and natural aspects of the national heritage. It directs Federal agencies
to evaluate the effects of major Federal activities on the natural and
cultural environment by preparing environmental impact statements to
consider alterations resulting from programs of Federal agencies. Agen-
cies are to use an interdisciplinary approach to insure an integrated use
of natural and social sciences and to use the environmental design arts
in planning and making decisions that my impact the environment in
Federally sponsored or licensed projects. In,addition to requiring that
historic (including prehistoric) values be considered in assessing pos-
sible impacts of Federal projects, mitigation procedures must be under-
taken to assure the preservation of resources or the recovery of scientifiC
data.

Executive Order 11593 (1971) directs Federal agencies to preserve,
restore, and maintain the historic and cultural environment of the nati@n;
Federal plans and programs also should contribute to preserving and en-
hancing non-Federally owned sites. Agencies must inventory prehistoric
and historic resources under their control or affected by their programs,
consider them during planning, and protect them or recover information if
disturbance cannot be avoided.. Cultural resources are expected to be pre-
served at professional standards with some sites nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places.
The Archeological Conservation Act of 1974 (P. L. 93-291; 74 Stat.,
220) amends the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 by directing all Federal
agencies to salvage information from cultural resources before Federally
funded or permitted projects or those involving Federal lands can disturb
the resources. Again, this legislation is directed at salvage rather
than at preservation. It does provide that up to one percent of the funds
for construction can be transferred by Federal agencies to the National

251

Park Service for archeological salvage.

The Department of Transportation (49 U.S.C. 1651; 23 U.S.C. 138;
and 23 U.S.C. 305) provides for a Highway Archaeological Salvage Program
that mainly has been used in regard to Federally aided highway projects
and the interstate highway system. State highway departments are to con-
sult all relevant agencies such as DOA before submitting a program to the
Bureau of Public Roads. The legislation provides for salvaging prehis-
toric resources affected by construction. Matching funds for archeological
research carried out by or under State Highway Department contract on a
highway,right-of-way are provided by the Department of Transportation.
Department of Housing and Urban Development legislation makes funds
available on a matching basis for acquiring and maintaining significant
sites. In addition, surveys may Oe conducted, which can include prehis-
toric resources; however, McGimsey (1972:118) observes that historic
rather than prehistoric sites are usually involved. Provisions of this
legislation can be applied in both urban and rural areas.

Two other Federal agencies whose programs are relevant to prehistoric
resource conservation in Maryland are the National Trust for Historic
Preservation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The
National Trust for Historic Preservation was chartered by Congress in
1949 to oversee loan and grant programs for evaluating and acquiring his-
toric properties. Other activities include educational and advisory pro-
grams aimed at encouraging public and private involvement in historic
preservation,

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was established by the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Council is composed of seven
departmental secretaries and administrators in addition to ten appointees
from outside the Federal goverment. In addition to advising the Presi-
dent and the Congress on historic preservation, the Council recommends'
measures for coordinating intergovernmental historic preservation activi-
ties and assists state and local governments with drafting preservation
oriented legislation. Both of these agencies should be consulted by DOA
and MHT regarding education and legislative measures as well as formula-

2S2

ti.iiga resource conservation plan.

In addition to funding and regulatory programs, the Federal government
is involved in various studies and information gathering activities
designed to provide basic information for land use planners, developers,
and other groups (e.g., preservation guides, county soil surveys, and
natural area studies). Thus, several Federal mechanigns exist to aid in
conserving prehistoric resources, but state support is required to imple-
ment them most effectively. State participation will require explicit
policies and professional administration, including support services and
funds for planning, data acquisition,'and preservation.

Federal agencies whose projects frequently affect the Maryland
coastal zone include the Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Amy Corps of
Engineers, military installations locAed in the state, the Department
of Transportation, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Each of thesi@ agencies has established guidelines for dealing with cul-
tural resources in various ways. For example, the Baltimore District
office of the Corps of Engineers has a staff archeologist, assigned to the
Planning Division's Environmental Analysis Branch, who reviews Corps pro-
ject s.

The Regulatory Functions Branch of the Operations Division handles
private and public-permits; environmental impact statements are usually
limited to cases involving large sums of money, extensive areas, or much
publicity. Review of environmental impact statements by this division
is restricted primarily to biological and engineering concerns. The
Corps, however, forwards permits for projects in navigable waters to DNR and AU
and these applications are returned for amendment if DNR withholds state
approval of wetlands permits or water quality certificates.

Conclusions

This review of current state and Federal programs indicates that
numerous potential sources of funding and other support for education,
acquisition of baseline information, and assistance in monitoring and

2S3

regulating prehistoric resources already exist. In existing programs,
concer ns for thes e resources vary from explicit and active to passive
or neglectful.. It is difficult to use most existing mechanisms to the
fullest extent because no predictive info rmation is currently available
to assist applicants in filling out impact statements. Nor does a regional
interpretive framework exist against which reviewers can assess the impact
given project. The lack of information also limits the range of
reviewer responses and potential mitigation suggestions.

In the absence of a conservation plan with supporting baseline infor-
mation,, the effective management of prehistoric resources requires the
active participation and cooperation of numerous groups. All state and
local government agencies need to cooperate with DOA and NHT to conserve
prehistoric resources, making a concern for conserving these resources
explicit policy. DOA and MHT need to make these agencies aware of the
nature of prehistoric resource conservation problems and seek-ways by
which the needs and legal obligations of each agency can best be met.
le mechanisms must be developed to aid agencies that require
For examp
information on site locations, but these agencies need also to be made
sensitive to the problems of releasing specific information on site loca-
tions to the public. Further, the use-of extant mechanisms, such as the
inventory provisions of,Executive Order 1.1S93, should be encouraged.

Situations Requiring Special Management Attention

Certain locations clearly are sensitive areas requiring particular
attention from lanners and prehistoric resource managers. Continuing
P
land disturbance, has greatly reduced the reservoir of intact prehistoric
resources. Sites that are still intact automatically assume particular
significance. As King, Moratto, and Leonard (ms.) have pointed out,
areas where development will involve previously undisturbed or minimally
disturbed land should be closely inspected for prehistoric resources.
This need is especially critical in environments predicted to contain high

254

densities of prehistoric resources, although predictive information of this
nature can be made available only as a result of regional baseline studies
of prehistoric resources. Until this information is available, areas
scheduled for development will have to be assessed individually. Well
preserved examples of low density prehistoric resources are equally im-
portant to conserve. Additional areas that deserve particular management
attention include those where prehistoric resources would be expected
but where they are invisible on the ground surface owing, for example, to
forested conditions. Also, sites or areas whose prehistoric significance
is not yet understood shouldreceive close attention.

It is important to recognize that prehistoric remains most often are
found in a,,,soil matrix; some soils even result from past cultural activi-
ties. Therefore., soil reports that recognize soils resulting from these
activities should suggest that DOA be notified, especially before the
soils are disturbed.

Prehistoric materials such as bone and other organic remins would
not be expected,to occur in highly acid soils. However, such items often
are found in shell middens because of their extreme alkalinity. Thus,
the determiants of preservation greatly limit the range of items -that
can be expected at given locations. Special preservation environments
locations characterized by wet-acid conditions, strongly alkaline condi-
tions, or very dry conditions -- present opportunities for the preserva-
tion of materials not,normally found in the prehistoric record. It is
important to monitor development in such areas as marshes or shell middens
very closely.

Observations made during the fieldwork for this study indicate
that high densities of prehistoric resources are found along the shore-
lines of present and former embayments in some areas.of Chesapeake Bay.
Undoubtedly, certain kinds of resources will be found in these areas that
differ from the resources of present shorelines. Until more'information
can be made available on the prehistoric resources of former shorelines,
they should be managed by the same prograims used in present shorelines.
As the amount of former shorelines is limited, development along them

25S

should be monitored closely. Field investigation results also indicate
that where present shorelines are close to ancestral river channels,
older and more varied prehistoric resources may be preserved. These
areas are shown in Fig. 6-4.

Areas with relatively higher relief in the marshy coastal zone of
Dorchester, Somerset, and Wicomico counties should be monitored, since
these areas are likely to contain prehistoric resources. In all cases;
areas closest to present and former shorelines should be monitored. The
density of prehistoric resources and thus the potential for disturbing
them increases as proximity to the shorelines increases.

National attention is increasingly being focused on the need for
protecting underwater historic and prehistoric resources. The sea level
history of Chesapeake Bay (see Chapter Two) suggests tha t large numbers of
prehistoric resources could be found beneath Bay waters (resulting from
the migrations of coastal peoples as transgressing waters inundated their
territories). Underwater dredging can therefore be expected to pose a
threat to submerged prehistoric resources.

Without information on the nature and distribution of submerged pre-
historic resources, only general guidelines can be offered for their con-
servation, pointing to the need for assessing the feasibility of recovering
data from these'remains as well as assessing the usefulness of the data.
Submerged prehistoric remains could include relatively well preserved
sites that have not been subject to relic collecting, agricultural activi-
ties, and other terrestrial dusturbance.

As a result of sea level rise, prehistoric resources resulting from
earlier coastal activities will be located.beneath deeper waters, fre-
quently under thick accumulations of sediment. If not completely im-
practical, finding and investigating these remains certainly will be dif-
ficult and expensive. Prehisto-ric resources resulting from more recent
coastal oriented activities will be confined to shallower areas with less
sediment accumulation, making them easier and cheaper to locate and in-
vestigate. It is possible, however, that the information contained in
more recent resources may be redundant to that contained in unsubmerged

2S6

Cecil

Harford

0 5 10 is
Baltimore
Scale In milts

Balto.
Kent

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

A
n
n
e Queen
r Annes
u Caroline
D-C - I
e,
Prince Talbot
Georges

C %%
a

v
e
Charles rt
Dorchester

Wicomico
St.
Marys

0
Legend m
ains
Areas with potential for older rem r

-4 Areas likely to contain older coast
Fig. 6
oriented prehistoric remains

257

sites.

Until an appreciation oC submerged 1)i-cliistoric resources can be
gained, dredging activit ies located near the banks of ancestral river
channels should be closely monitored., High densities of prehistoric re-
sources, as well as early examples, are likely to be associated with an-
cestral channels. Monitoring may involve inspecting samples of dredged
materials, exploratory drilling, or methods yet to be devised.

Interim Management Suggestions for
Study Area Counties.

The following sections suggest where interim management efforts might
best be focused until information from regional baseline studies becomes
available and a state conservation plan has been formulated. The number
and character of specific suggestions which can be provided here, as well
as the rationale behind such suggestions, are limited. As regional base-
line data and other information become available and input widened, the
management priorities doubtless will change. Existing infor-
mation and data developed by this study,-however, provide guidelines for
county planners and agency personnel with limited time and funding who
wish to concentrate on preservation and conservation efforts in the interim.
Areas not indicated as priority ones on individual county maps should not
be construed as having unimportant resources as most areas are essentially
unknown at this time.

These interim efforts may involve limited prehistoric site surveys,
consultation with DOA, inspection requirements, and so on. Of course,
until adequate information is made available, all prehistoric remains must
be considered significant and treated accordingly. A loss of any mater-
ial at this time represents a'loss of an unknown quantity.

Certain management practices are applicable to all counties. First,
a concern for prehistoric resources should be made explicit in planning
documents.and reflected in policies such as zoning ordinances, county,
envirorffnental review procedures, park development., sedimentation control

2SS

plans, open space designations, and building permits. In addition, in-
direct effects of development should be considered by county planning and
regulatory bodies. Local governments should make prehistoric resources
one criterion for recommendations to Geographic Areas of Particular Concern.
By,allowing tax deductions for donations of open space and forest conser-
vation properties, local governments may stimulate the preservation of
selected areas containing prehistoric remains. Adopting county antiqui-
ties laws or other forms of protection, such as setback requirements for
shoreline construction, also should be considered (see Appendix B). Fed-
eral sources of matching funds to support county level archeological
activities should be investigated with the assistance of MHT personnel.

Individual counties should consult DOA in considering the advantages
of developing select prehistoric resources. Such professionally guided
developments ought to align with the state conservation plan. Rather
than consuming the resource, these developMents.might involve only the
establishment of roadside interpretive exhibits and information signs.
Finally, county landowners with important resources ought to be sought
out and their cooperation secured for protecting the land.

Anne Arundel County

Anne Arundel County is characterized by a high degree of shoreline
development; few large tracts of land remain where undisturbed prehistoric
remains might exist. Figure 6-5 indicates areas where the shoreline appears
to have been modified the least, according to airphoto analysis. In these
areas the shoreline is often owned by relatively few individuals, an ad-
vantage when considering preservation schemes for large areas. Preser-
vation of prehistoric resources should be based on their representative-
ness in the area's prehistory and on other factors. The work of Wright
(1973) and Cameron (1976) provides some indication of what kinds of pre-
historic resources might be found along this county's shoreline.

If the areas indicated on Fig. 6-5 were surveyed for their prehis-
toric resources and artifacts were collected so that the remains could

2S9

Glen Burnie*

Annapolis

0 4
Uj
0"14 IN MINS

U)
Legend w

Priority area

F i g.. 6 -5 Suggested. priority a,reas,. for,.:,.archeb log ical resgurce conservat,,!.on, in
Anne..Arundel County

260

be identified and correlated with the models of Wright .(1973) and,Cameron
(1976), an interim scheme could be worked out to guide the kinds' of re-
sources or sections of shorelines that should be preserved and how the
management of prehistoric resources should proceed. Recently an Adena
occupation, remains,of which are rarely found in the Maryland coastal
zone, has been identified (Ford 1976). Examples of these and other pre,-
.historic resources should be preserved. Because more than 39% of its
shoreline has already been modified by bulkheading or other development
and significant increases in population have been forecast for the county,
threats of destruction and disturbance to prehistoric resources are im-
mediate and pervasive in'Anne Arundel County.

Baltimore County

Few coastal areas in Baltimore County have escaped industrial or
residential development.. Areas characterized by less intense develop-
mentare indicated in Fig. 6-6. Pressure on these areas should remain
intense, owing to their proximity to metropolitan Baltimore, but such
areas are believed to be those most likelyto contain intact prehistoric
remains. Most of the areas indicated in Fig. 6-6 have been designated as
"critical areas" according to the Baltimore County Comprehensive Plan
(1975, p. 24). Prehistoric resources should be of concern in these ac-
knowledged critical areas and the effects of future development on these
resources should be reviewed along with other enviromental considerations.

Although historical sites are mentioned in the Plan as assets worth
preserving (pp. 22-23), prehistoric resources are not mentioned specifi-
cally. The Plan, however, advances an ambitious park and natural area
program. Provided baseiine data exist, such parks are ideally suited to
concurrently preserve prehistoric resources. Baseline data could be
gathered in concert with DOA and the county's "Natural Resource Inventory"
program, as discussed in the Plan (p. 23). Certainly, prehistoric re-
sources should be considered in.basic data acquisition programs. Match-
ing fund programs administered by MHT might aid in funding t@hepreihistoric

261

0 4
scale In wnlle@o

Legend

Priority area

Baltimore City

4(1

Fig.6-6 Suggested priority areas for archeological resource
conservation in Baltimore County

262

sections of such resource surveys.

Calvert County

Initial conservation efforts in Calvert County should be directed
at the Bay shore (Fig. 6-7), with special attention to its few coastal
lagoons. These features are rare; most have already been disturbed by
marina and suburban development. Immediate survey for prehistoric re-
sources and conservation efforts should be directed at such areas as
Parkers Creek.

Because almost no information is available about prehistoric occu-
pation of"Calvert CountIy's Bay shore and because few sites have been re-
ported for the area, all sites that may be discovered ought to be con-
sidered for preservation. Where disturbance or destruction is unavoidablel
prehistoric sites should be investigated thoroughly before being disturbed.

Although the shoreline along the two large sand spits at Cove Point
and Flag Pond was not surveyed by the present study, these areas present
special environments that could contain unique prehistoric resources.
Therefore, the complex spit, marsh, and pond landforms in these areas
warrant investigation. In addition, the former shoreline along the up-
land against which the bars formed requires investigation; it may contain
examples of older coastal prehistoric resources that have been protected
from the erosion affecting almost all of Calvert County's Bay shore. Develop-,
ments in these areas should give careful consideration to prehistoric

resources.

The Solomons-Olivet-Appeal area of southern Calvert County is expected
to undergo growth in the near future (see Fig. S-25 In addition, pre-
historic resources on the opposite shore of the Patuxent River in this
area may already have been disturbed by development of the Patuxent Naval
Air Station. Because both sides of the Patuxent River mouth are similar
environmentally, they originally may have contained similar kinds and
quantities of prehistoric resources; only those in Calvert County can be
considered to be more or less intact. Thus, these resources also should

263

Chesageake
each

311

0 4
rn

scale in miles

Prince
Frederick

Legend

Priority area

Solornons

Fig.6-7 Suggested priority areas for archeological resource conservation
in Calvert County

264

be given management priority.

An early map by Captain John Siwitli (Vi,g. 3-2) indicates that at
least eight native settlements were located along the Patuxent River
shoreline of Calvert County during the early 16001s. Extensive prehis-
toric resources could be expected along this shoreline, and until base-
line information is available to guide their conservation, extensive
developments should conduct surveys and obtain information on resources
through surface collection and test excavations. Any resources found to
be undisturbed should receive particular attention for preservation.

Caroline County

Because Caroline County's shoreline is highly agricultural, its pre-
historic resources are undergoing relatively little destruction. Infor-
mation on the area's prehistoric remains and their interpretation is re-
quired before a framework can be developed to guide conservation manage-
ment. Until this information can be made available, the entire shoreline
of the county must be considered of equal priority for the conservation
of prehistoric resources.

Cecil County

The Cecil County Comprehensive Plan reiterates (pp. 2-7, S-4,.and
6-8) the desirability of protecting the county's historic structures
and localities; the importance of identifying and documenting historic
properties is also acknowledged. Such baseline information is of course
fundamental to deciding what to preserve, but these concerns also apply
to the prehistoric resources not specifically mentioned in the Plan.

In terms of existing land use and zoning, the greatest future stress
appears likely to occur north of Elk River.. This area also contains con-
siderable @ubl 'ic land in Elk Neck State Park and Forest. Given the po-
tential for disturbance in nearby areas of the county and the problems
associate&with the environmentally similar area occupied by the Aberdeen

26S

Proving Ground, the Elk Neck public properties should attempt to conserve
prehistoric resources.

Another area where interim attention should befocused is depicted
in Fig. 6-8. Here important sites associated with the juncture of the
Bay and the Susquehanna River might be expected to occur. Finally,
further expansion of marina facilities along the Bohemia and Sassafras
Rivers should be monitored for potential effects on prehistoric resources.

In presenting information on developable land'(Map 11) and the General
Plan (Map 13) the Plan emphasizes the sensitivity of stream valleys, flood
plains, coastal beaches,and tidal marshes. Such a concern can help pre-
serve prehistoric resources if setback requirements are integrated into
land use regulations. Prehistoric resources are frequently found in
high density along banks overlooking ravines, small stream valleys, and
other waterways. Planners and administrators should therefore take such
factors,.into account when permitting or planning development along the
margins of active or intermittent waterways..

Charles, County

Although great developmental pressure is not anticipated in Charles
County's coastal zone at present, prehistoric resources are undoubtedly
being disturbed or destroyed by such agents as small developments, relic
collecting, agricultural practices, and erosion. While the county's Com-
PrEhensive Plan (Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc. 1974) gives some consideration
to preserving historic properties, no detailed consideration of prehistoric
remains is included.

The Plan suggests that waterfront areas present ideal places for
clus'ter developments of second or retirement homes. The prehistoric re-
sources of such areas should be evaluated before developments are estab-
lished. Future transportation inprovements, especially in the northwestern
and southern parts of the county, will endanger waterfront areas by in-
creasing their accessibility from metropolitan Washington, D.C.. In ad-

266

Northeast
Elk-ton

@:!.. -M
Pe r r yv i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Legend

Priority area

Sassafras f
River
10 4
Opprox. semi* in enlies'

Fig.6-8 Suggosted Priority areas for arc Iheological resource conservation
in Cecil County

267

dition, the Plan suggests that artificial lakes be constructed in stream
valleys to retain water and provide recreation (Greenhorne and O'Mara,
Inc. 1974:I-16).Before lakes are constructed, areas affected should be
surveyed for prehistoric resources.

Large tracts of land in Charles County are devoted to public forests,
open space, and parks; however, few of these areas are located along the
Potomac River, where they might help preserve coastal prehistoric resources.
In the future, prehistoric resources should be used as one criterion for
acquiring.land for public use. The uplands along Zekiah Swamp, for example,
are known to contain many prehistoric resources (Hickey 1970; Looker and
Tidwell 1963). Thus, the maximum preservation of natural and cultural
resources would result from combining parts of the bordering uplands with
Zekiah Swamp, if part of the area is acquired for public use.

Other areas where interim efforts to manage prehistoric resources
should be focused are shown in Fig. 6-9. In addition to the Zekiah and
Gilbert swamp areas, parts of the upper Wicomico and Port Tobacco rivers
are indicated. These areas are noted for the presence of prehistoric
ossuaries (Ubelaker 1976) as well as for other kinds of-prehistoric re-
sour ces. Also, many prehistoric resources are known to occur between the
Swan Point area and Loyola Retreat, one of the few areas where the ances-
tral channel of the.Potomac River lies close to the present shoreline.
This geographic situation makes it likely that resources representing
earlier prehistoric coastal exploitation still are preserved today. The
remnants of the famous Popes Creek shell midden are located in this area,
,along with many sites explored by McNett, who developed a tentative model
for relationships among prehistoric sites in this region. The model
(McNett and Gardner ms. could be used to guide additional f ieldwork which
would define management stretegy for this area.

Military installations at Blossom Point and along Mattawoman Creek
should be encouraged to 'comply with Federal regulations governing pre-
historic resources, including the provisions for inventorying prehistoric
resources outlined in Executive Order 11593. Many prehistoric resources
are known to occur on these facilities and they should be incorporated

268

Legend

Priority area

La Plata

Indian Head
C 0

0 5

approx. scale in M11*8

Fig.6-9 Suggested priority areas for archeological resource
conservation in Charles County

269

into management schemes whenever possible.

Dorchester County

Like most study area counties, Dorchester County has little avail-
able information on which to base specific management priority suggestions..
At present the abundant wetlands that form most of its coastline are con-
trolled by the State-Wetlands Act of 1970. A total of 33,521 acres in
Dorchester County is under protection as wildlife refuges, parks, and

so on.

The Smithsonian Institution and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have
proposed that an additional 16,703 acres be set aside in 10 potential
wildlife management areas. Areas currently protected and those adopted
in the future would.make effective prehistoric preserves, if these re-
sources were specifically ment ioned in rules governing use of the areas.
Lan4 disturbance would have to be minimal and controlled, relic collecting
prohibited, and the public educat ed about the protection of various kinds
of resources in these management 4reas.

In view of the large portion of the Dorchester County coastal zone now
affQrded some degree of regulation and protection, immediate management
efforts could be directed to the areas indicated in Fig. 6-10. Since
Cambridge, Secretary, Vienna, and other towns are scheduled to receive
additional population growth, these areas should be evaluated early for
prehistoric resources. Prehistoric ossuaries have been reported from the
Cambridge area (Ubelaker 1976), and further discoveries should be con-
sidered for preservation in order to eliminate the continued depletion of
those sites already known. Areas outside the wetlands (principally along
the Choptank and.Little Choptank rivers) should receive attention until
a comprehensive conservation program has been established.

The Dorchester County CEprehensive Plan (Urban Pathfinders, Inc..
1974) generally takes a cautious attitude toward altering the county's
abundant natural resources, specifying the need-for studies before aspects
of the natural environment are unreclaimably altered, especially in

ap an so Op mom on 'ilm ORM M am M

Legend

N-
Priority area -Wq-wi

-XV

Q)
0 5
0

approx. scale In miles
-4

Carnbrid e.,;,..,

G9 R I V E Ft

-Z"

V e 'n'-'n 'a-

R i v e r

Fig. 6-10 Suggested priority areas for archeological resource
conservation in Dorchester County

271

design ated conservation areas. Prehistoric resources should be considere d
in studies made prior to land alterations, both in the designated growth
areas and in county conservation areas.

In regard to prehistoric resources, the greatest shortcoming in the
Plan is failure to mention concerns for conserving county prehistoric re-
sources. Mainly through inundation and erosion, these resources are
being and will continue to be lost. The Plan does, however, call for
an updated inventory of significant historic, architectural and cultural
features within the county. Suggested programs include establishing a
county museum and actively identifying and soliciting materials to be
preserved. The conservation of prehistoric resources can be a consequence
of such activities. The active program of funding acquisition suggested
by the Plan (p. 70) could be used to match Federal funds for prehistoric

resource surveys.

Another program discussed in the Plan uses conservation easements to
insure preserving natural resources. Such easements may involve scenic
views or recreational access to property that otherwise retains private
rights. For example, Article 81, Section 12E(d) of the Maryland Annotated
Code allows tax credits to 50% and occasionally to 100% for owners who
preserve the natural character of their land. Such easements also could
be used to protect specific prehistoric sites or areas containing sites.
The Plan also suggests enacting a program to insure preservation of the
county's historic features. Article 81,-Section 12G, of the Code allows
counties and towns to grant tax credits up to 10% of the cost of historic
renovation in historic zones. Again, tax credits could be granted for
protecting prehistoric sites or for reimbursing the expenses of salvage
excavation for sites which must be destroyed. Finally, designating con-
servation areas in the county where no or minor'development is permitted
should benefit the conservation of prehistoric resources (Urban Pathfinders,
Inc. 1974:6). Discouraging development in present open space areas like-
wise benefits these resources.

272

Harford County

The Harford County Comprehensive Master Plan (Harford County Planning
Office 1974) designates water areas of the county as natural feature pro-
tection areas to be preserved for public use. Pressure on these areas
for residential, industrial, commercial, and service construction will
be great in the near future, speeding the rate of disturbance to coastal
zone prehistoric resources. The projected rapid population increase,
the construction of new residences in the southern part of the county,
the preferential selection of the waterfront for residence construction,
and the limited amount of waterfront available in the county, all will
affect the extent and rate of disturbance t.o coastal prehistoric resources.

The Plan discusses several methods for protecting land in the county.
By taking them into account, these methods also could be used to conserve
prehistoric resources. Cluster zoning of housing, in which certain areas
are set aside for open space, exemplifies such a method, while other ex-
amples include private land trusts, government acquisition of land for
open space using compensation and easements, and historic district zoning
(Harfo.rd County Planning Office 1974:178-179). If prehistoric resources
are used as one criterion whenever one of these methods is used to con-
serve land, low cost conservation of these resources can result.

In addition, the Plan recommends that no further development take
place in such critical resource areas as wetlands, sand and gravel de-
posits, and primary agricultural lands. This recommendation also could.
enhance the conservation of prehistoric resources (Harford County Planning
Office 1974:7)

Goal #8 of the Plan provides for the preservation of historic sites
and structures in the county (Harford County Planning Office 1974:20).
Although this goal represents a first step toward conserving cultural
resources, the Plan does not designate measures to aid in preservation;
nor does it specifically recognize that prehistoric resources should be
included in preservation efforts.

Suggested priority areas for management attention are shown in Fig.

273

6-11. Only 1: -imited. areas of relatively undeveloped land lie outside the
boundaries of the Aberdeen Proving Ground complex, and the disturbance
and contamination of.the Aberdeen complex increases the importance of
remaining coastal lands. Initial efforts at managing prehistoric resources
.should be directed to the undisturbed areas in the southern part of the
county, where the fastest rate of growth is being experienced.

The area immediately southwest of Havre de Grace lies near the mouth
of the Susquehanna River, an important corridor for prehistoric trade and
communication. Also near the conjunction of several natural features
the Bay, the Susquehanna River, and the coastal plain-Piedmont interface
this area may have been of particular importance in the region's prehistory.
Located along a freshwater portion of the Bay when most Bay shoreline fronts
on brackish to saline waters,, this area contains information on prehistoric
exploitation of relatively freshwater areas and the highly productive Sus-
quehanna flats area. In fact, this information is available only in por-
tions of Harford and Cecil counties.

Finally, authorities at Aberdeen Proving Ground should be encouraged
to comply with all federal regulations regarding cultural resources, par-
ticularly the inventory provisions of Executive Order 11S93. Construc-
ting, testingand disposal activities at -the complex continue to diminish
the number, conditionand accessability of area prehistoric resources.

Kent County

The Kent County Comprehensive Plan (Johnson 1974) promotes preserving
the natural beauty of the county for its role in tourism and travel. Thus,
the historic district in Chestertown, along with other histo ric aspects
of the county attractive to visitors, are considered important. Pre-
historic resources should be added to concerns for the county's natural
beauty and historic features.

Owing to its geomorphic setting and its rural character, Kent County's
abundant coastal prehistoric resources remain relatively intact. These
prehistoric resources are important on a regional scale, for they include

274

%CI II

k16\

Havre
de Grace

Aberdeen

approx. scale in miles

Legend

Priority area

Fig. 6-11 Suggested priority areas for archeological resource
conservation in Harford County

275

the oldest known coastal-oriented prehistoric sites in the central por-
tion of the mid-Atlantic region. In fact, few localities in the Bay
area are expected,to contain well-preserved examples of earlier remains.
The areas indicated in Fig. 6-12 therefore should receive careful interim
attention because they contain a large number of relatively well preserved
prehistoric sites. Numerous sites also are found along the Sassafras and
Chester Rivers, however, further study is required before specific con-
servation measures can be proposed for them.

With fewexceptions, the 1985 land use plan presented in Plate 6 of
the Plan (Johnson 1974) shows shoreline land use varying from,rural agri-
cultural to rural residential. Low density land use is compatiblewith
prehistoric resource conservation, providing that setback provisions or
other measures are instituted to control shoreline modifications. Field
experience in the county indicates a high density of prehistoric resources
along the shore and on the flat ridges forming necks of land between water-
bodies. Developments in such locations should be evaluated before earth
disturbance takes place.

Prince Georges County

The comprehensive plans for subregions V and VI of Prince Georges
County 04aryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 1973, 1974)
attempt to determine lands "that should not be developed for various
ecological and economic reasons" (1973:6). If the county planning board
finds.that a proposed development plan does not meet county regulations
or would adversely affect an area, the board can disapprove the plan in
order to prevent undesirable development (Metzgar 1973:VI-18). Criteria,
for areas not to be developed include flood plain soils, steep slopes',
and high water tables. In addition, the guidelines for protecting the
natural environment state that historic sites should be protected even
if it is necessary for local governments to acquire them. Cultural re-
sources are listed*among the areas to be given priority in public ac-
quisition for open space ftryland-National Capital Park and Planning Com-

Legend
B ton
Pr i.or

C H E S A P E A K E

B A Y

Rock Hall

Chestertown

Millingt

8PPrOx. scale In mlles

Fig.6-12 Suggested priority area for archeological resource conservation
in Kent County

Ift lie

277

mission (1976:6). Although they were included in the planning maps for
subregions V and VI, prehistoric sites were not considered specifically
for preservation, beyond the guidelines quoted. Criteria for determining
which lands should not be developed and for designating open space areas,
as well as for protecting specific locations, should include prehistoric

resources.

Areas of Prince Georges County to be developed should be evaluated
for their prehistoric resources and samples of these resources should be
preserved. Cluster developments, neighborhood activity areas, new towns,
transportation improvements, employment areas , and the construction of
artificial lakes are a few of the kinds of developments proposed by the
plans for subregions V and VI (Maryland-National Capital Park-and Planning
Commission 1973,1974). Information from prehistoric resource evalua-clons
could be included in museums and interpretive displays in neighborhood
activity areas and new towns.

The plans for subregions V and VI discuss county or state acquisition
of lands to assure preservation of such natural features as flood plains
and stream valleys. Figure V (Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning
Comission 1973:S) illustrates compatibleland uses in the form of cluster
development along a stream valley park. This study has found the uplands
ad jacent to stream valleys to be likely locations for prehistoric re-
sources. Including some upland area within each park or open space would
therefore be desirable. Thus, the boundaries of Mattawoman State Park
and the Patuxent River Watershed Park should include setback bands of
adjacent uplands, in order to assure the preservation of prehistoric re-

sources.

A Prince Georges County ordinance enables the granting of special tax
credits to landowners who preserve open space land as scenic easements.
This legislation could be used to protect known prehistoric resources and
to,insure compatible development.

The plans propose extensive parklands or flood plain restrictions
along the, Patuxent River, Mattawoman Creek, and the southern shore of
Pis@ataway Creek. If these zone 's are established and developr@ent within

278

them is prohibited or carefully regulated, the potential for disturbing
a 1.iiajor portion of the county's coasta.1 prehistoric resources will be
greatly reduced.

An analysis of aerial photographs of the area, including the north
bank of Piscataway Creek and the Potomac shoreline to the District of
Columbia border, shows several locations with substantial development.
Because this area is close to major camuter arterials, continued growth
can be el ected. Development on the Virginia sho reline of the Potomac,
which is -similar environmentally, has been even more extensive. Thus,
the area indicated on Fig. 6-13 needs special interim management atten-
tion. This area, along with others in similar locations, should be in-
corporated into projects designed to acquire baseline data on prehistoric
resources, allowing survey emphasis in areas most threatened by disturb-

ance.

Queen Annes County

Although prehistoric resources are not specifically mentioned, the
Queen Annes County Comprehensive Plan (Tarrant 1965) does discuss his-
toric resources:

Further development of the tourist industry in the county will
involve the participation of the Historical Society and other
interested groups. A well organized systematic program of site
preservation, restoration where necessary, marking, visitation,
advertising, and other promotional activities, involving the coop-
eration of private owners, the State and County Road Departments,
and many others, can achieve important objectives with very little
expenditure of public funds (Tarrant 196S:17).

An inventory compiled from such sources as the county library, county
histories, and knowledgeable persons, lists 27 historic sites, mainly
extant buildings. Concerning preservation efforts for these sites, the
Plan comments:
In the Master County Plan, consideration has been (Tiven to the
preservation of these historic sites by avoiding them in laying
out new roads and in designating areas for new commercial or in-
dustrial developments, subdivisions, and the like, and by suitable

279

Legend

Priority area

Fig.6-1@ Suggested priority areas for archeological
resource conservation in Prince George's County

280

zoning. Recommendations are made also for the acquisition of
certain sites for public use and preservation, as recreation or
conservation areas or for other suitable purposes (Tarrant 1965:32).
Planningefforts in Queen Annes County, like those in other Maryland coastal
zone counties, should consider prehistoric resources for conservation as
actively as they do historic places.

Queen Annes County has comparatively few parks and recreation areas,
as the Plan notes; only 187 acres are available in comparison to the
20,830 acres proposed. Not only would additional park, recreation, and
wildlife protection areas enhan ce the quality of life for county residents
and visitors, but also such areas could serve the important function of
low-cost preservation of prehistoric resources. The nature and abundance
of prehistoric resources in areas proposed for parks could be used as a
selection criterion,

Until-a conservation plan has been established for Maryland prehis-
toric resources, planners should note particularly large scale residential
and commercial developments that could alter the overall land use character
of the Chester River shoreline. At present this area contains large estates
surrounded by agricultural land, and disturbance to prehistoric resources
has been minimal. Figure 6-14 indicates priority areas where prehistoric
resources should receive interim management attention. Areas experiencing
relatively rapid growth in residences and recreation facilities are shown.

St. Marys County

The St. Marys County Comprehensive Plan (Demetriou 1974) lacks specific
consideration of prehistoric resources, aside from mentioning that the
Smithsonian Center for'Natural Area Studies uses prehistoric resources as.
a criterion in designating potential natural areas. Prehistoric resources
should be used in forming the Waterfront Protection Zones discussed in the
Plan (Demetriou 1974:100,147). Preferred for development, waterfront areas
are tharact'rized by increasing numbers of marinas and first and second
homes. Waterfront Protection Zones would balance development with environ-

Kingstown

0 4

approx. scale In miles

0 Centreville
00

'k-

L4J
@!--Oueenstown

Legend
-Z,
Priority area

E a s t e r na y
Fig.6-14 Suggested priority areas for archeological
resource conservation in Queen Anne's County

282

mental. considerations, allowing development of suitable areas and pre-
venting development of unsui table areas. Unfortunately, the conservation
of prehistoric resources is not mentioned in the summary of areas for en-
vironmental concern (Demetriou 1974:134). Mechanisms for protecting pre-
historic resources in various environmental areas should be included in
the policies presented.

Development policies for inland as well as for waterfront areas should'
take prehistoric resources into consideration. Development policies are
presented for stream valleys, drainage courses, flood zones, wetlands,
flood plains, steep slopes, plateau areas, and for such activities as
shoreline modification, marina location, and bulkheading, dredging, and
filling. All these land disturbing activities could adversely affect
prehistoric resources in both inland and coastal'areas. Including pre-
historic resources in development guidelines could provide an inexpensive
aid to conservation efforts.

,The Plan indicates many areas along the coast that might be preserved
for open space and recreation (Demetriou 1974:130). These preserves also
could aid in conserving prehistoric resources, if these resources are taken
into consideration when alternate areas are evaluated and if a representa-
tive sample of the county's prehistoric remains are preserved.

Effective consideration of prehistoric resources for natural areas
requires data generated by regional baseline studies of prehistoric re-
sources. Until this information is available, prehistoric resources should
be conserved on the basis of their representation in the county's various
environments, both inland and coastal. For example, Captain John Smith
noted many villages during an early voyage in the region (see Fig. 3-2).
Such information could be used in conjunction with field data, in order
to include examples of these sites in proposed natural area preserves.

In addition, the areas shown in Fig. 6-1S should be considered for
the interim management of prehistoric resources on a priority basis. The
southeastern portion of this county's coastal zone contains many prehis-
toric sites, some apparently of,Archaic age. In view of the unusually
large number of prehistoric sites along Chesapeake Bay, this area may be

283

Legend

Priority area
00, <1

0 Leonardtown

Lexington
Park

0
4,

0
St. Marys
City

approx. scale In miles

Fig. 6-15 Suggested priority areas for archeological
resource conservation in St. Mary's County

284

of regional prehistoric significance@.

Other areas indicated on Fig. 6-IS include portions of St. Marys
County where the population is expected to increase significantly during
th e next '25 years (Demetriou 1974:104). The Plan promotes continued
urban expansion along a corridor connecting Leonardtown with Lexington
Park., which is anticipated to remain the center of population. The
Lexington Park area is dominated by the county's largest single employer,
the Patuxent Naval Air Test Center. Although this area has been exten-
sively disturbed by base construction activities, the provisions of
Executive Order 11593 calling for inventories of cultural resources should
be carried out.

Finally, several areas.have been indicated along the Patuxent River
in Fig. 6-1S where the ancestral river channel lies close to the present
shore because higher site densities and older sites may be found as a
result of this proximity.

Although great efforts have been undertaken'at St. Marys City to
study the historic archeology of Maryland's first capital, this work should
not be confused with prehistoric archeological studies which are infre-
quently undertaken in the county.- While a greater understanding of the
county's historic archeology is being made, there is almost no under-
standing of its prehistory, although the St. Marys City Commissionis
recovering prehistoric remains when they are encountered. Prehistoric
studies in the county would be of great interest, partly because they would
outline the cultural development of the native inhabitants who interacted
with Maryland's first European settlers. The St. Marys City Commission
should be encouraged to maximize interpretive and educational opportunities
relating to Native AmeriLan remains whenever possible.

Somerset County

The majority of Somerset County's shoreline is composed of wetlands
now protected by state legislation. The Somerset County Plan (Stottler
Stagg and Associates 1975) proposes coastal development compatible with

28S

the marshy shoreline. Crisfield is anticipated to remain the major em-
ployer and industrial area. Because future coastal development is likely
to cmai)ate from this area, it is a priority area For the interim manage-
ment of prehistoric resources (Fig. 6-16). Also of.importance are areas
of higher relief within or adjacent to wetlands because such areas may,
contain readily identifiable prehist s relating to coasta
oric remain 1 and
noncoastal activities. Although the fringing marshes are now protected,.
a setback corridor to control development on the fast ground bordering
the marshes may be desirable, in order to control potential disturbance
of prehistoric resources.

The Plan lists one objective dealing with the need to identify and
restore historic and cultural buildings and sites (Stottler Stagg and
.Associates 1975:2-3). To this objective should be added a consideration of
prehistoric resources.

Talbot County

The Talbot County Comprehensive Plan (Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1973.:
13) recognizes as a primary goal the preservation of the county's rich cul-
tural and historic heritage as well as the need to develop a mechanism for
preserving historic places and architectural features (Urban Pathfinders,
Inc. 1973:20). Like other counties, Talbot County needs to consider its
abundant prehistoric resources.

Several major nodes of population expansion are shown in the Plan
(Urban Pathfinders, Inc. 1973:62A) and the desirability of insuring lower
density development in the western half of the county, where most of the
shoreline lies, is indicated. Prior to the acquisition of detailed base-
line information on prehistoric resources and until a conservation plan
is formulated for their management, the areas indicated in Fig. 6-17
should be closely monitored. Increasing demands for waterfront housing
and the increasing popularity of aquatic recreation activities will ton-
tinue to disturb prehistoric resources. The area around the mouth of
the Choptank River has been marked for interim management of prehistoric

CO
M a n o k i n R@

41U

00
Ta n g i e r

S o u n d

ield
7,7

0 4 Legend

approx. scale In mlles Priority area
Poc o m o k e S o u n d

F i g. 6-16 Suggested priority areas for archeolovical reource conservation in Somerset County
a Ow 'M 'WO Mo, 'go

287

4
Nor-=
scale in miles

E a s t e r n

B y

Ejaston

Legend
Priority area

Fig.'6-li Suggested priority areas for archeological resource
conservation in Talbot County

288

resources, partly because of the relatively high density of prehistoric
resources discovered there during the Field investigation described in
Chapter Four.

The Plan recognizes the need for measures to protect the waterfront
and suggests setbacks be required to control the amount of development
there. If this suggestion is made a regulation, it could aid greatly in
minimizing disturbance to coastal prehistoric resources.

Finally, the Plan recognizes the need to assure the preservation of
historically-significant places and architectural features. It recommends
setting up an administrative-body to inventory these features, determine
their significanceand establish review procedures to designate signifi-
cant resources for preservation. The Plancontains the necessary elements
to a strategy for conserving prehistoric resources, however, a concern for
these resources should bemade explicit and an active liason with DOA and
@&ff should be established to explore approaches to funding and technical
assistance.

Wicomico County

Of the county plans reviewed for this study, only'that of Wicomico
County specifically addresses the problem of conserving prehistoric re-
sources. This plan (Salisbury-Wicomico County Planning and Zoning Com-
mission 1976) recommends two policies, one calling for land development
regulations and public programs to provide for the protection and pre-
servation of historically and archeologically significant sites, and the
other encouraging efforts towards public sensitization about the value of
cultural resources.

Until these suggestions can be incorporated into county programs,
the areas indicated in Fig. 6-18 are suggested for priority interim
management of prehistoric resources. Most of Wicomico County's shoreline
is characterized by fringing marshes that already receive some protection
from development. The areas indicated in Fig. 6-18 are adjacent to planned
growth areas or where soil conditions could support increased nonagri-

0 4

approx. scale In miles

00
C")

a Us bury
64!

Legend
G 0
0 Priority area

Fig.6-18 Suggested priority areas for archeological resource conservation in Wicomico County

290

cultural uses. Like Dorchester and Somerset counties, large tracts of
land are already in the public domain or under public control. When
rurOor information on. area prehistoric resources is available, a
specific conservation plan can be developed. Again, care will have to
be taken in-considering the potential for prehistoric resources in the
fast ground component of the coastal zone.

Management Strategy: Education Program

in recent years, the greatest stress on prehistoric resources has
resulted from almost universal oversights and misunderstandings about their
existence, nature, and value. When they have been recognized, prehistoric
remains usually have been viewed as curios or relics rather than fragile
and irreplaceable pieces of scientific information. Because the effective-
ness of any management strategy depends on the political and economic
support of citizens and their governing bodies, people need to understand
the nature and importance of prehistoric resources and the need to con-
serve them. Business and government leaders as well as average citizens
need to learn how the conservation of prehistoric resources can provide
future cultural, educational, and economic benefits. A strong education
program is essential in the coastal zone, because of its overwhelming
control by private landowners who would be affected by the regulation of
prehistoric resources.

Public awareness of prehistoric resources needs to be increased and
improved by an innovative program of education. DOA and Kff are the ap-
propriate agencies for transmitting information on prehistoric resources
and their conservation to the public.and to other state agencies. One
of their most important goals ought to be acquainting the public with
the value of prehistoric resources. An education program should be ini-
tiated now and integrated into the conservation plan. Such a program must
be developed carefully, however, providing constructive outlets for people
who want to own prehistoric artifacts or do fieldwork. Materials and
activities must be provided. that maintain interest and at the same time

291

reinforce the idea that conserving prehistoric resources is an important
concern that produces tangible benefits.

DOA can direct information to specific segments of the public. For
example, pamphlets and lectures at society meetings could alert amateur
archeologists and relic collectors to the detrimental effects of unsuper-
vised surface collection and excavation. Local amateurs and relic col-
iectors are one of the most important tarEcts for education since their
activities remove and deplete prehistoric resources.

Until recently, professional archeologists had been concerned pri-
marily with the damage caused by unsupervised excavation. As new prob-
lems have been suggested for study, new techniques have been derived for
studying them, and the preponderance of plowzone or thin prehistoric
sites in the Maryland coastal zone has been recognized, continued surface
collection of artifacts has come to be seen as a serious stress on the
resource base. Alternate, constructive ways for hobbyists to pursue
their interests must be devised and communicated. Locating prehistoric
remains instead of recovering them might be emphasized for those wh6
wi.sh'to do fieldwork. Also) attempts should be made to involve amateur
groups in the development of a state resource conservation plan. The
reservoir of local knowledge and experience represented by amateur archeo-
logists should be tapped whenever possible. Perhaps,some groups could
be integrated into regional baseline data acquisition activities.

To date, DOA educational and information dissemination efforts have
been oriented toward amateur archeological groups. To this very import-
ant but restricted audience must be added.programs for the general public.
Information on prehistoric resource conservation could be disseminated
through the media, brochures and pamphlets, and public lectures. To this
end, a general education program is sug gested below and outlined in Fig.
6-19.

Suggestions for an Education Program

Public service announcements on television and radio, feature articles

rt (D

ITJ

rD
0
cn 0
Qq
0
(D m cn

(D 0 @l @-h CD
v) (D -@Il
0 :7' Cn (D
r) 1--: @- 0 w r+
@l W 0 r+ 0
n +CD
(D o n
0 @t r+ (D n FL
n r+

(n r+ r+
0 @D cn
r+ r+
w
r+
(D

t7m "Cl IT1 n n
2
(D r+
1 @-t (D
n cn C)
w 0 C-1.
r+

0 0

Z67

293

in conservation magazines, newspapers, and agency newsletters, and messages
on billboards all could be used to convey results of publically sponsored
projects and to promote the conservation of prehistoric resourcesi Docu-
mentary films, along with articles on conservation and prehistory topics,
are additional ways to inform the public.

Brochures and pamphlets describing prehistoric resource conservation
could be placed in the offices of all agencies that interface with people
involved in soil disturbing' activities (e.g., the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice,,Corps of Engineers, Water Resources,Administration, and building
permit offices). This material could take a form such as "Guidelines for
Subdivision Developers," and include.information about the nature and
importance of prehistoric resources as well as legal responsibilities and
measures for mitigating impact. Table 6-5 gives eight examples of bro-"
chur es and pamphlets designed to help in the conservation of prehistoric

resources.

Frequent community lectures could deal with timely research topics
and answer questions about the prehistory of the local area and about con-
servation problems in general. Lectures of this, sort are popular when
illustrated with slides, films, and exhibits of artifacts. In addition
to general audience lectures, programs could be taken to special audiences
such as county historical societies and conservation groups.

Yublic schools are an especially suitable place to teach prehistoric
resource conservation, particularly at the primary level. Courses of
study could be designed to heighten awareness of the environment inre-
lation. to prehistoric, historic, and present land use. Children fre-
quently appreciate-remains from past cultures in our environment and
Native American prehistory is usually of special interest. Traveling
display kits of prehistoric artifacts, along with examples from various
prehistoric cultures, could provide tangible materials for use in educa-
tion programs. For example, many museums operate successful programs in
local school districts by preparing and circulating kits of artifacts and
teacher manuals. Such a program could be operated or coordinated by DOA.

-C
Seattle's Pacific Science Center, lor example, working with local schools,

294

Table 6-S

Examples of Popular Brochures Dealing with Prehistoric Resource Conservation

Brochure Title Purpose Sponsoring Organization

Archeology and Archeolo- To acquaint developers Society for American
gicalResources -- A Guide with the nature of pre- Archeology, n.d.
for'Those Planning to Use, historic resources,
Affect,: or Alter.the Land's their current destruc-
Surface tion, and the need for
impact mitigation. In-,
cludes current federal
legislation.
Archeology on the Pacific To acquaint the public Society for Califor-
Coast of North America with prehistoric re- nia Archeology, n.d.
sources-and their cur-
rent destruction.
Death bf the Past To acquaint the public Society for Califor-
with current destruc- nia:Archeology, 1970
tion of California's
prehistoric resources.
Preserving British To acquaint the public British Columbia
Columbia's Prehistory with British Columbia's ArcheologicalSites
recent Archaeological Advisory Board, 1973
and Histor'c Sit
1 es Pro-
tection Act..
The Relic Collector To acquaint relic,col- British Columbia
and the Law in lectors with the Arch- ArchaeologicalSites
J
British Columbia aeological and Historic Advisory Board, n.d.
Sites Preservation Act.
The Status of California Presents information on Society for Califor-
.Archeology the status of prehist- nia Archeology, 1973
oric resource conser-
vation in the state.
Stewards of the,Past To acquaint landowners University of Missouri
and farmers with the Extension Service, h.d.
nature of prehistoric
resources, their des-
truction and the'need
for preservation. How
to report sites.
You Can Help Save To acquaint the.public Society for California
California's Past with prehistoric resour- Archeology, n.d.
ces, their destruction,
and the need for preser-
vation.

29S

recently has developed a teaching game oriented to prehistoric research
and conservation. Accompanied by a handbook describing the area's pre-
history, the game covers such topics as survey and excavation strategy,
interpretation of artifacts, and resource conservation. Presented in
a game format with a board and cards, the device gives students a variety
of choices in dealing with prehistoric resources, and each choice has
'consequences, Thus, students grasp the methods and results in'prehistoric
research as they learn about the need for conserving prehistoric resources.
Such teaching materials could easily be adapted to the Maryland setting.

In addition to DOA's series of technical research publications, a
series of popular publications on Maryland prehistory could be issued.
These publications could be updated regularly to kee p the public informed
about Maryland's prehistory and the need to conserve it. Because effec-
tiveprograms in cultural resource management require substantial public
support, communicating t heresults of prehistoric research would encour-
age financial contributions. In short, DOA and @Iff must maintain a high
degree of visibility in the area of public education and information pro-

grains.

Selected prehistoric resources might be developed to improve educa-
tion and recreation opportunities, improve community pride, and provide
new economic stimulus. People are interested -in learning about prehis-
toric lifeways, as shown by high attendance at prehistoric and historic
excavations, parks, monuments, and museums. Courses in schools and col-
leges that deal with anthropological and archeological topics also are
well attended, and there is widespread interest in television documen-
taries and films dealing with prehistoric and historic archeological sub-
jects. For example, 10,000 people visited the Island Field prehistoric
site exhibit in South Bowers, Delaware, in 19'74. In 1975 and 19765, 1 at-
tendance exceeded 11,000, with averages of 400 visitors per week for the
summer months (D. R. Griffith, personal communication).
State and local agencies, such as the State Highway Administration,
Maryland Forest Service, and Maryland Park Service, should enlist the
cooperation of DOA and MHT in planning and constructing interpretative

296

exhibits, roadside points of interest, and regional museum-parks. In-
terpretive exhibits on local prehistory also could be displayed in state
and local agency offices and developments, in parks, power plants, road-
side rest areas, natural areas and in game preserves. At very low cost,
these interpretative exhibits could provide information on prehistory
and prehistoric resource conservation. Such exhibits should give infor-
mation 'on the local environment and on known prehistoric use of the area.
Maps, text, and casts of artifacts should be displayed, along with a
message on the need to conserve prehistoric resources. Traveling ex-
hibits could be assembled to circulate to county libraries and histori@
ca*1 society museums.

fnfon-ftation on prehistory is easy to incorporate into roadside points
of interest. Visitors can inspect a series of environmental settings
used by particular cultures with stops displaying artifacts or replicas
found at sites located in that setting. Diagrams and other interpre-
tive aids present information on present and past environments and on
the use of these environments by prehistoric, historic, and present day
peoples. With appropriate safety and security measures, some sites could
be left partially excavated. Using pamphlets or voice recorded systems,
all locations could be self-guiding. Such roadside exhibits might be
integrated with a scenic road system. In various parts of the state,
then, roadside exhibits could acquaint the public with examples of the
range of prehistoric remains peculiar to that region.

110ibits could allow visitors within short drives to recreate pre-
historic economic cycles, such as th "e seasonal hunting and gathering
pattern. These tours could expose visitors to discussions of the natu-
ral environment and culture history at each point of interest, while com-
parisons of the artifacts of each location could clarify the nature and
variety of tools used at each prehistoric resource procurement station.
In addition, time differences between sites at different stops could be
shown by discussions of stylistic differences. Thus, visitors could
learn through graphic examples how archeologists arrive at their con-
clusions. Heightening interest in prehistoric resources, expecially when
they emphasize the dynamic nature of environmental and cultural changes,

297

these displays instill a sense of responsibility toward prehistoric re-
sources. For example, a proposal has been made to establish an archeolo-
gical park at a locally well-known prehistoric site in California (Dixon
1971:63-66). The many benefits discussed by this proposal include estab-
lishing a public park'where ongoing prehistoric fieldwork can be viewed,
along with creating outdoor village exhibits and a museum focusing on
features of the local environment. By limiting excavations necessary
for construction and coordinating them with archeological fieldwork, such
park developments aid in preserving and protecting prehistoric materials
beneath the ground surface. The surface can then be landscaped to pro-
tect prehistoric artifacts and structures. Financed by research grants,
longterm prehistoric studies attract the public; parts of the site can
be excavated and then refilled, with some of the discoveries left for
permanent public viewing like those at the Island Field site in Delaware.
Thus, the activities of archeologists are visible, and signs, exhibits,
and tours acquaint the public with theirlwork.

For the benefit of local schools and the general public', permanent
prehistoric exhibits could be designed to recreate Native American life-
ways. Exhi bits might include reconstructions of prehistoric houses with
artifacts and activities shown in dioramas, along with illustrations,of
archeological excavation and analysis techniques. Burial and other cere-
monial deposits could be left in place to demonstrate.religious life
A botanical garden could present the natural vegetation at the time'of
prehistoric occupation, showing food plants from local and nonlocal en-
J,
vironments and explaining how they were prepared and used. Ramps and.
stairways might allow visitors to view geological deposits and deposit
changes at various levels during prehistoric times. A museum of local
ecology and a visitor center could house display collections from the site,
including all aspects of the environment and the interaction of humans with
the environment through time (Dixon 1971:63-66). In this way, prehistoric
resource conservation could be incorporated into community recreation and
education.
The success of developing selected prehistoric remains as interpre-
tive and educationalcenters depends partly on solving problems of site

298

security and partly on instilling values of conservation in the general
public. Developing particular prehistoric resources would depend on the
goals of a state conservation plan. Any development of prehistoric re-
sources that involves physical disturbance consumes the resource; thus,
educational and other benefits must be weighed against the cost of dis-
turbance. On a broad scale, educational. efforts must be designed care-
de constructive outlets for newly awakened cur-
fully.in order to provi
iosity about prehistoric remains.

Management Strategy: Sensitizing
Goverment Agencies

Federal., state, and local governmental agencies operating in Mary-
'land need to be familiarized with the status of prehistoric resource con-
servation in the state, particularly in the coastal zone. A status.re-
port should be prepared for planning., regulatory, and funding agencies
affecting prehistoric resources with their activities. This report should
apprise agencies of the nature and limitations of current knowledge about
prehistoric resources in the coastal zone, al.,ohg with the current require-
ments, programs, and activities that relate to managing.these resources.
Likewise, DOA should ask these agencies for information about the current
status of activities and procedures that might affect prehistoric re-
sources. Although most agencies are required to consider prehistoric re-
sources in planning, permitting, or funding projects, implementing these
requirements depends:on how each agency interprets them.

Agencies with long term involvement in coastal zone development,
whether from a regulatory, funding, or use standpoint, should be identi-
fied. These agencies ought to be involvedin gathering baselineinfor-
mation on prehistoric resources and in formulating a conservation plan
for managing them. Federal agencies thatoperate in the coastal zone can
be identified and encouraged to comply with the provisions for prehis-
toric resource inventory under Executive Order 11593. When coordinated,
through DOA, E. 0. 11S93 inventories could be incorporated into base-
line data. In addition, Administrative seminars, tailored to individual

299

agencies or groups of agencies, can suggest how to become more responsive
to the problems and needs of prehistoric resource conservation, especially
in li-ht of regional conditions.

Soil survey and other Soil Conservation Service activities would pro-
vide an excellent contact point for educating local landholders in the
Jillportance of conserving prehistoric resources. With training, soil con-
servation personnel could gather information on prehistoric resources
during field investigations and interviews with farmersl thus, economi-
cally combining this concern with their normal activities. Routine
questions and observations could provide valuable input for the data
bank on prehistoric re@Sources and help the acrency to meet legal respon-
sibilities.

Drainage associations and county conservation districts also should
be asked to distribute educational materials and to seek support for pre-
historic resource conservation. 'Likewise, county agricultural agents who
are involved in planning and implemepting local and regional erosion con-
trol and preparing new Iagricultural land, could provide a point of con-
ac t. Lialsoii with local goverrnents should be made a priority for DOA
lild MIrl, because of the im-nortance of acquaintin local governments with
9
the nature and distribution of prehistoric resources and the need for
their conservation. The management strategy should maximize opportuni-
ties for input from local residents and for control by local authorities
such as zoning boards and planning departments.

Further, all state field personnel should be trained to recognize
prehistoric remains as well as instructed to report them to DOA and
see that they are not disturbed. State and local agency enforcement
personnel should become acquainted with the Maryland Archeological
Resources Act of 1968 and enforce the -provisions that prevent the exploi-
tation of prehistoric resources on state owned or controlled lands.

Unaware of the provisions against relic collecting on state and
federal lands, stat c personnel generally do not enforce these laws. A
few state game wardens and park custodians themselves are relic collectors.
Relic collecting by state employees should be discouraged, and these

300

employees should be urged to join archeological and historic.societies
in order to pursue their interests.

Finally, although concern for cultural resources is evident in all
comprehensive plans for Maryland coastal counties, this concern is biased
toward historic resources. Therefore, DOA and Aff ought to cooperate
with the information programs of the Energy and Coastal Zone Administra
tion to sponsor regional information seminars or sessions with county,
planners and other agencies,, familiarizing them with the need for pre-
historic resource conservation and with current management programs.

Maiiagement Strategy: Developing a Prehistoric
RCSOUrce Conservation Plan

Because so little is known, Maryland's preh 4storic resources resemble
J-
plant or animal resources that need managing but lack ecological studies.
Management decisions affecting prehistoric rdsources require information
about nature, abundance, distribution, and c ondition. Unhappily, prehis-
toT-ic data currently available for coastal Maryland do not adequately
reflect its diverse and complex prehistoric record.

As Dunnell and Fuller (197S) have pointed out, all remains must be
considered important and significant in poorly known areas, while in
well. known areas, some remains will be more important than others.
Doubtless some areas are similar in content, too, inaking the resources they
contain nopupique. Were development mistakenly to assume an area to
be well known, however, all the remains could be lost. Until major defi-
ciencies inknowledge are remedied to -permit the assessment of smaller
scale projects, all coastal areas must be considered poorly known.

Thus, an adequate data base must be assembled for planning. Simply
responding to inquiries about the presence of prehistoric materials at
particular locations is not enough. The development of a centrally coor-
dinated prehistoric resource conservation plan will require considerable_
time and funding, with efforts aimed at assembling information and balan
cingdivergent views.and interests. A simplified schematic of plan develop-

301

ment is presented in Fig. 6-20. Responsibility for developing a plan
lies with DOA anLIMIU, ilthotigh the primary responsibility should reside
W'111 olle at
I gellcy or- Ow othcr.

TWO broad categories of- data are required as input in the plan for-
muiation process. Because no interpretive framowork exists for the region,
systematically collected regional data on prehistoric resources is essen-
tial. The resulting prehistoric data bank must be an accurate reflection
of the prehistoric recordresponsive to management needs. Likewise, con-
siderable information must be gathered from archeological, planning and
re1gulatory communities, including suggestions for education programs,
legislation, permit requirements, priorities, funding,and interagency

cooperation.

The Maryland archeological community also should be consulted. Re-
Sixiiislidc iii large part For the current data bank and thus Familiar with
the currenl status of Maryland prehistory, this group is a reservoir of
local expertise with interests in the future status of Maryland prehistory.

F_
,-de-ral. agencies like the National Park Service and z-he Advisory Council
Preservation can provide expertise in federal programs and
011 1 L
prehl.storic resource planning. The archeological comunity could pro-
vide input on regional baseline survey priorities, design spec ifications,
research problems integration, report standards, permit systems, procedures
for defining critical areas, legislative suggestions, funding, and miti-
gation strategies. Input from this group would be important to the design
and execution of regional baseline studies and to the development of
administrative aspects of the prehistoric resource conservation plan.

The expertise of land planning and regulatory agencies also should be
tapped for ideas on how best to articulate needs, and mechanisms. Input
from these agencies should also help in designing implementation mechanisms,
includiiig legislation and regulations. Their involvement should increase
along with their awar Ieness of prehistoric resource conservation problems,
perhaps making them more active in conservation.

Information could be acquired from these groups through a series of
meetings with varying composition and topics, perhaps co-sponsored by

Plan Development
DOA and M[ff

Professional archeologists.
Advisory Council on
Dept. of State Plaiu-itno
Historic Preservation
National Park Service County Planners.
Regional. (OAHP and IAS) Input on Coastal Zone Unit
Baseline St. Marys City Commission Prehistoric Regulatory agencies
Council for Maryland Resource Land managers
Stu ies Archeology Management Enviromental Trust
Advisory Council Other
on Archeology
ArcheDlogical Society
)of C@lahd, Inc.._
Regional
Interpretive
Franework
Predictive Plan
Model Formulation
Archeological
Sensitivity
Maps

Plan
Implementation

Fig. 6-20a Schematic diagram of prehistoric resource
conservatioii p.Lui development and implementation

A* As am, aw,

Flan
Implementation

improved Other New or Improved
Educational Management Legislation
Mechanisms
Significance Conservation
Criteria and Easements
Management Tax Credits
Responses Permit
Designation of Requirements
Prehistoric Impact
Resource Assessment
Preserves Requirements
Impact Mitigation
Assessment Requirements
and Report
Specifications other

Fig. 6-20b Schematic diagram of prehistorl-c -resource
conservation plan development and implementation

304

primary managing and planning agencies (i.e., DOA, MHT, DSPand the Energy
i InrOrMation could he shared and progress
and Coastal Zone Administration).
coul.d. be comunicated to the'partics involved through a short, irregular
newsletter.

As noted above, the prime prerequisite to developing a resource con-
servation program is the acquisition of baseline information on prehis-
toric resources. To manage Maryland's wetlands, for example, it is ne .c-
essary to know 11therelative abundance of various wetland types, the values
of various wetland types for various uses, and the distribution and magni-
tude of development pressures throughout the coastal zone" .(Maryland Water
Resources Administration 1974:38). Likewise, in setting up the Power Plant
Siting Program it was recognized that general biological and ecological
baseline studies would be an essential part of,the siting environmental
research program.

To determine the potential impact on prehistoric resources of.any
development project, several kinds of information must be known through
baseline studies of prehistoric resources:
1) the kinds ofremains that occur in the area according to culture,
age, and function
2) the numbersin which each category of remains are found and
their enviromental distribution
3) the current condition of these remains (have most.of them.been
disturbed or destroyed,.or are they relatively undisturbed?)
information already dvailable,such as the culture sequence outlined for,
the PotomacRiver (McNett and Gardner ms.) and the settlement models
presented by Wright (1973) and Cameron (1976) provide an initial under-
standing of the prehistoric remains in some Maryland areas, but.these
interpretations wore not developed for. resource management.

The present study is a first steptoward providing information for
the management of Maryland's coastal prehistoric resources, however, it
provides only a small part of the information needed for efficient manage-
ment. Because prehistoric remains@ result from complex economic systems
often com
prising several activities spaced over various enviroments., in-
dividual remains cannot be understood in isolation. Instead, they must

305

be understood in terms of the historical. and functional relationships
that link them@through the areas in which they are found. Naturally, not
every nuance of prehistoric land use must be understood before the re-
source can be managed effectively.
To date, most archeological reseaTch in the Chesapeake Bay area has
investigated chronological problems. The regional approach suggested
here adds a concern for the spatial variability in prehistoric remains,
involving among others, problems of artifact density, site definition,
and function. We do not understand the range of diversity among pre-
historic remains in the Chesapeake Bay area, and therefore no regional
interpretive framework exists for assessing site significance or allow-
ing suggestions about optimal mitigation procedures. Acquiring regional
baseline information on prehistoric resources must be considered of the
highest priority.

Regional baseline studies are distributional studies based on environ-
mentally controlled and systematically collected data obtained from a co-
lieront geographic area by an explicit sampling design. Although they are
expensive, in the long run these studies are more economical than the
salvage operations presently used. Data acquisition surveys should be
designed to expand the current,data base and include areas where prehis-
toric resources are already threatened.

Regional baseline studies or site surveys are enabled by the Maryland
Archeological Resources Act, the Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
Executive Order 11S93, and the Archeological Conservation Act of 1974.
In addition, the need for baseline data is recognized in the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972. Although this latter act emphasizes the
use.of extant data banks, no data exist for Maryland's coastal zone'
adequate to meet management needs.

Some funding is now available for surveys through federal matching
funds granted to states for historic preservation. The National Park
Service (1977) and MHT (ms.) both have published lists of sources for..
preservation funding. The Archeological Conservation Act of 1974
authorizes agencies to conduct necessary data reqovery studies in con-

306

JwIction with federally executed or assisted construction projects. For
these cases, federal. agencies may use existing funds, seek appropriations,.
or seekto h,-ive transferred up to I' of project funds to the Secretary

of the Interior.

Other ideas for funding might follow the example of Washington State,
where personalized automobile license plates are available at extra cost
to provide revenues for wild bird conservation activities. Similar in-
novative approaches to funding might include a state tax on development
under which land changed from less to more intensive use might be taxed
at a higher rate. Further, those responsible for secondary impacts might
be required to provide some funding for education, regional salvage, or
baseline surveys.

Agencies with a long term interest in regulating or developing
specific areas also could be approached for funding. These agencies might
see quickly the overall advantage of a coordinated planning approach over
a project-by-project, piecemeal salvaging of information on prehistoric
resources. Certainly, expensive salvage operations are recommended more
frequently than necessary, were adequate data available for assessing
representativeness and significance in specific prehistoric resources.
With baseline information and advanced planning, impact mitigation need
not always be expensive; in most cases, such mitigation can be turned into
positive advantages to the community. Information from project inventories
or.regional prehistoric surveys could be incorporated into a community
museum, county library or school display, thus providing interpretive and
educational benefits.

Acquiring regional baseline data on prehistoric resources should be
designed to- address management needs and (whenever possible) research
questions. Devised by MiT and DOA with input by the Advisory Committee on
Archeology and the Maryland Council on Archeology, survey design should
coordinate the problems, research goals, and expressed needs of resource
planners and regional archeologists.

Regional study areas should be defined in order to guide surveys into
local environments of manageable size. When dividing the Chesapeake Bay

307

area into regional units, environmental, development, and survey conditions
should all be considered. Data acclijisit-ion sti-ategics will have to suit
[ocal conditions as well as 1)LJ.ld oii existing data, relate to loci]. re-
search problems, take local development trends into account, and involve
local planning, regulatory, and funding bodies, not to mention local
amateur archeologists Varying land ownership patterns and ground visi-
bility conditions are further inducements to subdividing the region into.
internally homogeneous study areas.

To inventory all prehistoric resources in the coastal zone would be
impossible as well as costly and redundant. Because a large percentage of
the coastal zone has seen a variety of prehistoric activities, it is equally
impossible for modern development to avoid disturbing prehistoric sites.
Therefore, regional surveys should be guided by a sampling design that
insures equivalent and redundant coverage of selected sampling units.
Using such procedures assures that differences in land use in various.parts
of the coastal zone will be represented, and allows data to be collected as
economically as possible. Interior areas also must be included, because
prehistoric land use systems were active in both coastal and interior
areas. Baseline surveys should utilize comparable iampling strata and
locational procedures for each region, including comparable inspectional.
methods, whenever possible.

Because they represent the most effective and efficient means of
acquiring data from regions, the field techniques of surface survey and
artifact collection should be emphasized. Likewise, remote sensing tech-
niques should be employed when feasible. Owing to its higher cost, the
lo cal. nature of-resulting information, and its greater destructiveness,
excavation should be minimized. When possible, surface inspection should
take advantage of the. ground visibility afforded by agricultural fields.
Surveys should, however, be conducted under an environmental sampling
scheme; thus, surveys should not be restricted solely to high visibility
ground conditions or limited to areas known to have or suspected of having
high densities of prehistoric resources.

The results of the present study indicate that baseline surveys must
go beyond noting the presence or absence of prehistoric resources. Funds

308

must be budgeted for artifact acquisition and analysis sufficient to deter-
mine period of occupation and to characterize the activities represented
in cach art@Fact cluster. Although they will be expensive, these pro-
jects will provide the necessary effective management tools.. As Dunnell
and Fuller (1975:1) point out, more important than knowing where pre-
historic resources exist is whether they are significant to understanding
the local prehistoric record. Only when this information is available
can the resources be managed effectively.

Figure 6-21 illustrates one way in which the Chesapeake Bay area
might be divided into local study environments. Regardless of how study
area boundaries are drawn, they must be selected for their potential rele-
.vance to prehistoric occupation, and the possibility of related prehistoric
use among various study areas must be kept in mind.

In the suggested scheme, Area I includes the Potomac River shoreline
and adjacent interior, providing an environmental cross-section from brack-
ish water'coastal. plain to freshwater Piedmont. This corridor has long
been recognized as an important prehistoric communication route. The,
Patuxent River drainage basin comprises. Area II, while Area III includes,
the Bay shoreline of Calvert County, an area that is characterized by a re-
treating cliff shoreline rarely broken by Bay tributaries. Its dense for-
est cover requires special survey techniques in-order to maximize the
chance for finding prehistoric resources.

The highly indented and extensively developed shorelines of Anne
Arundel and Baltimore counties comprise Area IV. This area also will re-
quire special survey techniques for finding prehistoric resources where
the shoreline has been greatly modified, but the area must be surveyed in
a way comparable to that used in agricultural areas. Like Area III,
agricultural land use in Area IV is infrequent and there are few areas
where the ground surface is exposed to view. While ground visibility is
not a serious problem in finding prehistoric shell middens, sites com-
posed of lithic'or ceramic remains are much less obvious, especially when
the soil is covered by grass or other vegetation.

A pilot project assessing the prehistoric potential of Area IV is

309

Cecil

Harford
00
Q@ v 0
-@?O . 0
10 0 0 (
15 00 0 0" V
lid Ild bw @!@O%O 0 00 - ut .0
-?o'?%O 0
Baltimore
Scal* In nifts 00.0- 0 0 00
00% OVI
-00 0
0 0
0

BMW..,
Kent

A
n x Vil
n
e
A Oueen
r Annes
u
Caroline
n'.
D-C 0

Talbot
Once-
Georges
M",

--I.. 4L < 000.,
7 goo,
V
Charles 1 2

.-Porchester,-@.

A
-J @p' t
Vill

1corn

MarysO,@,k-.3,,

Legend
Suggested study areas

Fig. 6-21 Suggested regional baseline
study areas

310

highly desirable. Although the Anne Arundel and Baltimore County shorelines
usually are regarded as having few surviving prehistoric resources, no
data have been collected systematically to allow an evaluation of the nature
and extent of disturbance to prehistoric resources in the area or to inven-
tory the age, kind, condition, and number of surviving resources. Repre-
sentative samples of this area should be inspected in order to evaluate re-
sults from a cost-benefit perspective. Fieldwork in highly developed areas,
will be slow and costly, owing to the large number of permissions needed
to trespass and problems of ground insp ec tion and coordination. Local in
formational meetings held prior to the survey might elicit cooperation; if
the fieldwork were accompanied by an innovative effort to educate local
landowners, the experience should increase citizen awareness of and.sensi-
tivity to prehistoric resources.

Areas V and VI are similar environmentally, in that they are located
at the conjunction of Chesapeake Bay and the Susquehanna River, incorpora-
ting the transition from brackish waters capable of supporting oysters to
fresher waters where oysters cannot survive. These areas are close to th'-,
Piedmont and have moderately indented shorelines. Area V is distinguished
from Area VI because the shoreline is almost.completely controlled by the
Federal government. Land here has been modified extensively; much of.it
has been contaminated by munitions and most is forested. These conditions
nequire a special survey strategy, and support for such work might be ob-
tained from the government's need to fulfill some of its respon-
sibilities for inventorying and protecting prehistoric resources as required
by Executive Order 11S93.

Area VI contrasts with Area V in that its land is privately owned and
in agricultural use. In addition, four river basins make this area an
important nursery for many fish species. Survey and development conditions
are similar throughout the area, although the northern part is characterized

over.
by somewhat more development and forest c

Although the highly indented shoreline in Area VII appears to mirror
that found in Area IV, substantial differences result from Area VII's lack
of topographic relief and from extensive coastal agricultural land use.

311

Nor does Area V11 adjoin the Piedmont, as Area IV does. As a result of
extensive agricultural lands and lack of development, survey conditions
are almost ideal in this area.

Area VIII includes the broad marshy shorelines of most of Dorchester,
Wicomico, and Somerset counties, creating similar environmental conditions
which inhibit development. Natural stresses such as erosion and inunda-
tion are the most important factors affecting prehistoric resources here.
Like Areas III and IV, special survey te'
chniques are required for finding
prehistoric resources in the marshy shoreline of Area VIII. It might be
argued that this area receives some protection from wetlands legislation;
but this rotection cannot extend to damage from natural forces, and these
p
forces continue to diminish prehistoric resources. Because few data on
the area's prehistoric resources have been systematically gathered, little
is understood about their nature and distribution. The continuing de-
structiOn increases the importance of evaluating them, despite their pro-
tection from development. Further, artifacts eroding from marshes are
accesible to relic collectors by boat. Enforcing antiquities legislation
is a problem in such a large area requiring water patrol.

Finally, Area IX is comprised of the shoreline of Worcester County,
where the Atlantic coast with back bay marshes and bay-mouth barriers

ma
ke it unique among Maryland's coastal counties.

In addition to defining survey areas, appropriate sampling strata
must be selected. Depending upon how the sampling strata are selected,
unique prehistoric resources might be found in some strata, while some
resources may be distributed redundantly through other strata and some
strata may contain no resources. Biological and physical or geomorphic
C,
parameters are important criteria for a sampling scheme; experimentation
will suggest specific variables. For example, data developed by the
present study could be used in a small pilot project designed to formu-
late environmental sampling strata useful for predicting the distribution
of prehistoric resources.. A sample could be drawn from the tracts investi-
gated by this study, and the sites revisited to collect artifacts for analy-
sis. Experiments then could be made to seek correlations between various

312

environmental variables and the kinds of prehistoric resources, according
to ages and activities represented i n t1iom.

Divergent geomorphic areas in the coastal zone always must be recog-
nized and taken into account in distribution studies of prehistoric re-
sources. The dominant processes affecting the shoreline, sea level rise
L1111d sliore crosion,operate on quite different landforms throughout the Bay

ar
ea (Cor exwiiple, the cliffs of Calvert County and the low bank of Dor-
chester County). Older shorelines are retained in some parts of the Bay,
while in other parts, even.recent shorelines are lost.'

Selecting and implementing environmental criteria to stratify the
coastal zone will require a multi-disciplinary understanding of the history
of coastal evolution in each area. Dominant processes and surfaces of
various ages must be identified and surveyed, and prehistoric remains in-
terpreted. This information also will help in understanding what pre-
historic resources are missing from the archeological record'. Ultimately,
successfully predicting prehistoric resource distribution in the coastal
zone will depend on an understanding of coastal geomorphic history.

Another decision to be made for regional baseline studies is whether
or not survey work should be carried out or emphasized in areas where pre
historic resources are under the most stress from disturbance. Because
resources in such areas ate likely to represent fragments of the prehis-
toric recourd, it may be preferable to carry out baseline studie s in other
areas where modern disturbance to resources is minimal. This plan opts
for a more complete prehistoric record but fails to salvage fragmented pre-
historic resources before they are finally lost. This decision requires
input from planners as well as archeologists, along with reviews of current
development trends and the state of information.on prehistoric resources in
each study area.

It will be important, of course, to preserve prehistoric resources in
a variety of environmental settings, some,of which are presently under-
going intense development. Therefore, coastal areas with well drained soils
and other conditions that make them attractive to future development should
be incorporated into area surveys on a priority basis. Li kewise, areas of

313

high erosion and inundation also should be incorporated whenever possible,
hec@tuso these processes constintly reduce the mimber of prehistoric re-
SOL11-CCS -- very rapidly in some cases.

Also affecting the design of regional baseline surveys and the analysis
of resulting data arethe scale and attributes chosen to typify prehistoric
remains. In the past, archeologists and others have tended to use the
concept "archeological site" to mean a discrete, high density cluster of
artifacts. Prehistoric land use, however, was almost continuous across
the landscape, varying only in nature and intensity.

Recently, the concept of "siteless survey" has been introduced by
Dancey (1974) and Dunnell and Dancey (ms.), and successfully employed in
Kent County by Wilke and Thompson (1977). Figure 6-22 shows a portion of
the Kent County coastal zone that was extensively surveyed; this figure il-
lustrates thecontinuous nature of prehistoric land use. The area.was
gridded into 30m x 30m units and all artifacts were collected and proven-
ienced, The artifact density map shows the distribution of artifacts by
unit. Note that the entire area contains pr ehistoric remains in densities
that vary with proximity to the coast. This presentation quickly reveals
the arbitrary nature of site designation or boundary determination in such
a setting. Thus, low density artifact scatters are an integral and im-
portant part of the prehistoric record that must be considered.

Stylistic and functional studies of artifacts segregate the kinds and
ages of prehistoric activities represented by the artiltact distributions
shown. If an area like the one shown were scheduled for development, it
would,be difficult to assess the significance of prehistoric land use re-
presented by the numerous artifact clusters and lower density scatters
without comparative baseline information. This in turn limits the range
of mitigation options that could be selected.

Management Strategy: Formulating the Plan

Formulating a conservation plan and incorporating into development
plans a concern for prehistoric resources will affect siting and.other

3 14

Legend

Artifacts recovered

0 15-24

0 60 90 150 1-4 25-49
Scale In motors 5-14 M 50+
Unsurveyed shell site

Note: Survey squares= 30m X30rn

Forest
1-M .1

16Z

-----------

SS
Coastal lagoon-

X.,

,1@N
Jwarsw
1t2A

Chesapeake Say

Fig. 6-22 Prehistoric artifact density map

315

development decisions, control or modify resource disturbance or destruc-
tion rates, and recover scientific information from resources scheduled
("or LI-i-StUrbance or destruction. Creating such a plan involves synthe-
sizing regional baseline and administrative information. Certainly, parts
of this process should begin before regional baseline surveys have been
completed; however, final plans will require the active participation of
the archeological community, especially in assessing regional survey re-
sults and designing conservation mechanisms and priorities.

It is difficult to estimate the cost and time needed to accomplish
this program of data acquisition. Many variables affect such estimates
local, state@and Federal administrative atta monetary support, availability
and interest of professional archeologists, political considerations, data
acquisition specifications (e.g. sample size). Although the area under
consideration is large, a carefully designed survey that emphasizes a
sampling approach should balance the tasks to be.done with the mean s that
can be madip available.

Several factors, some peculiar to the Maryland setting, directly
affect the design and implementation of any conservation plan. As dis7
cussed in Chapter Three, contact period aboriginal populations were forced
out of the area, decimated by diseases, or completely acculturated. There-
fore, few direct descendants ofaboriginal peoples remain in the state and
a deep interest in their prehistory has developed. In contrast, there is
a great deal of interest in Maryland's long and well documented history.
Marylanders take pride in tracing their ancestry to early colonial roots
and spend large sums of public and private monies for the restoration and
upkeep of early structures. As Jordan (1975:73) has noted for New Eng-
land,,"minimal public (therefore political) knowledge and interest in pre-,.
history must compete with and overcome enormous historic interest." A
common cultural backgroundallows people.to relate more' readily to struc-
tures and other historic remains than to stone artifacts and shell scatters,
the remains of prehistory.

In general, the layman's knowledge of aboriginal peoples in Maryland
is limited to the contact period; most people are not aware of the long'

316

time depth of Maryland prehistory. Maryland shares similarities to the
New England setting outlined by Jordan (1975:73), including the fact
that the most of the population is oriented to urban and suburban resi-
dence: "the majority of the population has no contact.with the majority
of the land." In addition, most of the Maryland coastal zone is privately
owned and most landowners resist land use controls.

Prehistoric sites in the coastal zone tend to be thin, mixed, and
most have been disturbed by plowing at some time. Owing to extensive
agricultura 1 land use, prehistoric remains are visible to the practiced
observer and hence susceptible to relic collection. Usually covering
smat'l areas and confined to the plow zone, these remains can be depleted
quickly. At the same time, coastal zone sites lack above ground remains;
to the unpracticed eye these sites are indistinguishable from areas not
containing prehistoric remains (save for areas marked by scatters of
shell debris) and can be disturbed unwittingly.

. Only 4 small group of amateur and professional archeologists presently
is committed to the study and conservation of Maryland's coastal prehis-
toric resources. The primary emphasis of local university research pro-
grams in recent years has been directed outside the coastal plain or 'out-
side Maryland...

Other factors affecting the design of a conservation plan relate to
the nature.of stresses on the resources. As.discussed in Chapter Five,
these stresses generally come from diverse sources. Lacking central plan-
ning and coordination, these stresses appear small scale in individual
instances, but they are significant cumulatively. Finally, many of the
current land management and acquisition program,s emphasize areas, whereas
prehistoric resources have tended to be recognized on an individual basis.
The fact that prehistoric land use was essentially continuous across the
landscape suggests that a more effective approach to.tonservation might
be to emphasize areas.or regions and the spatial variability of prehistoric
remains therein.

Several legislativeapproaches,could be used to further prehistoric
resource conservation, and these should be considered when formulating a

317

conservation plan. Most,of these measures are currently being used in
vat ioiis state and local governments; tliLis, they have passed the test of-
1.Cgi.S1;1ti.VC SCrUtiny. However, because ol' flicit- recent enactment, their
practical utility has not yet been evaluated.

Some of these measures encourage private prehistoric conservation by
giving tax credits for preserved sites and by making trespass for relic
collecting a misdemeanor. These measures specify how to acquire prehis-
toric sites or easements to them, how to zone for site preservation, or
how to require setbacks for soil disturbance near shorelines. Various
legislative measures are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Some local governments, prohibit the disturbance of prehistoric
sites without allowing time for preservation, relocation, or salvage of
the remains. Funds are sometimes provided to carry put such activities.
Other local governments use eminent domain procedures to protect sites.
Finally, government restrictions on the possession of prehistoric arti-
facts might be considered as a conservation measure.

For example, some governmental units in California and Hawaii have
enacted legislation to protect prehistoric resources on public and private
property from unauthorized disturbance. The California Environmental
Quality Act shows legislative intent to "preserve for future generations...
exmipl.cs of the major periods of California history" (Pub. Res. Code Sect.
21001c, quoted in King, Moratto, and Leonard ms.). In court decisions this
law has been applied to private property as well as to public property.
Humboldt County, California (Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 71-14;
Appendix B), protects Native American burials and ceremonial sites by
withholding approval from projects in which the county is involved until
preservation or relocation of these materials is guaranteed.

Inyo County, California (Ordinance No. 146j; Appendix B), specifies
that

No publicly or private sponsored project or action shall be
expressly permitted by the county planning commission ... or any
other county agency where the commission finds that any archeo-
logical, paleontological, and historic features, or Native
California Indian burial sites may be disturbed in any way by

318

the project or action; provided, the commission may condi-
tionally expressly permit the project or action if the project
or action sponsor takes responsibility for preservation, pro-
tection, or relocation of the features or sites in accordance
witha. specific plan for preservation, protection, or reloca-
tion that shall be reviewed and approved by the comission
after a public hearing.

Marin County, California (Ordinance 1589, Appendix B), requires that
a permit be issued from the county's department of public works before
a prehistoric site can be disturbed. Liaison agencies, including colleges
and archeological societies, are asked to comment on significance, with
the provision that 60 days be allowed for the study of significant sites.
Unfortunately, this legislation may not prove effective for prehistoric
resource conservation as the cost of site evaluation and salvage apparently
must be carried by the liaison agency and such costs probably will become
too expensive for the liaison agencies.

The City of Irvine, California (Appendix B), has adopted a policy
requiting that prehistoric sites be taken into consideration in planning
projects and be discussed in impact statements. These sites must be as-
sessed, then preserved or salvaged. Further, this policy encourages the
development of interpretive and educational programs utilizing archeo-
logical sites.

In Hawaii (see.Appendix B), sites are listed on tax maps. If they
N re direatened by disturbance, 90 days notice must be given by private
reqtl I rod
;tgetwics. According to McGimscy (1972:77), "st@ite igencics ore

t
expend tip to one percent of construction funds to recover archeological
o
and historical remains affected" (Hawaii Act 216 of 1969).

While it is essential that time'be made available for studying
threatened prehistoric resources it is even more important to make funds
available for such studies. Although the City of Irvine and Humboldt and
Inyo counties require that the developer sponsor salvage studies, the
legislation is recent and its practicality has not yet been demonstrated.

North Carolina, Ohio, and the Canadian province of British Columbia
have provided for condemnation or eminent domain procedures to save im-
rtant archeological sites from destruction. The British Columbia
po

Archeological and Historical Sites Protection Act of 1972 provides that:

2. (1) Where, in the opinion of the minister, land is
of exceptional archeological or historic significance, he
may, by order, designate it as an archeological site or as
an historic site.
(2) Where, in the opinion of the minister, an object
is of exceptional archeological or historic significance,
lie may, by order, designate it as an archeological or as
an historic object.
(3) Where land is designated under this section and
it is shown that the value of the land is diminished by
reason of the designation, the minister shall pay to the
owner an amount to be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council.
7. (2) Where, in the opinion of the minister, land con-
tains a site that is likely to be altered, damaged, or de-
stroyedby reason of commercial, industrial, agricultural,
residential, or other development or activity, or is likely
to depreciate or become dilapidated,, he may
(a) order a site survey and, if he considers it
necessary, a site investigation; and
(b) order the owner or person responsible for
the development or activity to provide
sufficient funds for the site survey and,
if required, the site.investigation; and
order that the development or activity be
suspended in whole or in part until the
site survey and, if necessary, the site
investigation, have been completed.

Another legislative approach might,be to restrict possession of pre-
historic artifacts,- although the usefulness of such legislation to pre-
historic resource conservation is not now known. Alabama has declared
state ownership of all archeological materials (McGimsey 1972:29), but
the constitutionality of this legislation has not yet been tested in

court.

Because they are endangered nonrenewable resources, artifacts might
be included in legislation similar to the Federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884) and in the Maryland Endangered
Wildlife Act (Art. NRIO-2AOS) . AMOaSUre like this could make it illega]
to possess artifacts without a permit for educational display or scientific
study. Likewise, the possession or sale of artifacts collected from state
or Federal lands without a permit could be made illegal. Although it would

320

be designed to control relic collecting, such legislation might alienate
people who collect artifacts out of a genuine interest in prehistory.

Local governments could use performance zoning to specify the quali-
fications that a prehistoric site must meet in order to,be zoned for.
preservation. This type of,zoning already has.been used in Washington
County, Maryland, for historic preservation. The major drawback to per-
formance zoning is that it may be challenged and fail in court tests.
As "spot zoning," it can be argued to be the antithesis of planned zoning.

Many kinds or prehistoric resources are located along waterways such
as the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In addition, the greatest
densities of artifacts are found close to the water's edge, withlesser
densities of artifacts found.the further away from the water's e4e one
lo.oks. Thus, zoning regulations could specify a certain setback for soil
disturbance. Using this requirement, the soil within a certain proximity..
to the water's edge could not be disturbed unless it were demonstrated
to be free of prehistoric resources. Washington State, for example, re-.
quires a permit for development within 200 feet of its shorelines. Florida
reouires a 50 foot setback for construction or excavation near the ocean.

To be most effective. in preserving prehistoric resources, setbacks
in Maryland should be applied to both present and former shorelines, in.-
cluding the state's wetlands. Such setbacks would not only lessen the.
effects of direct disturbance to prehistoric resources, but also they would
provide a buffer zone protecting both the.sites and waterways.

Tax credits could provide a powerful tool for encouraging landowners
to preserve prehistoric resources, especially when coupled with state
programs such as open space and scenic rivers. Advance planning could
establish criteria for judging the eligibility of prehistoric resources
for tax reduction. New Mexico,, Virginia,. and Wisconsin have provided for
this type of prehistoric resource preservation (McGimsey 1972:98). cur-
rent Maryland legislation (Art. 81, Sec. l2e) that provides up to 50ttax
credit to landowners for designating open space,, open areas, or preserva-
tion easements, could be modified to include designated prehistoric re-

sources.

321

Conserving prehistoric resources requires citizen cooperation. Some
statos request citizens, landowners, and state agencies to cooperate in
proserving prehistoric resource..-, by asking them to report these resources,
protect them, and to permit only inves tigations carried out by recognized
educational or scientific institutions. Georgia, for example, provides
a "finder's fee" or reward for those who -report prehistoric resources to
.the state, although the practicality of this measure has not yet been tested.

Other states (forexample, Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan, North Dakota,
and Tennessee) make it an act of trespass to enter private property to
collect prehistoric materials. McGimsey (1972:98) notes that making this
activity a misdemeanor better enables landowners to protect their sites.

State and local governments could preserve specific prehistoric re-
sources by making them landmarks, parks, or museums or by using them as
a criterion in establishing natural areas or interpretive centers (such as
the Remington Farms self-guiding nature tour in Kent County). Examples
of prehistoric resources used as state museums or parks include Delaware's
Island Field prehistoric museum, Illinois' Cahokia Mounds museum and park,
and some of Ohio's prehistoric parks such as the Newark Mound group and
the Flint Ridge stone quarry area

According to McGimsey (1972:97), eight states now allow prehistoric
landmarks or zones (groups of sites) to be established by the agreement
of landowners. Depending on wording, the state may forbid their disturb-
ance without permission. States with these agreements include Arkansas,
Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, and
Texas.

Two states, Iowa and Illinois, provide for the consideration of pre-
historic resources in the acquisition of land for recreation (McGimsey
1972:97). Lipe (1975)*envisions using prehistoric resources as a criter.-
ion for establishing natural areas or other land to be protected from
disturbance.

One of the most important steps that Maryland could take would be.
to make explicit a policy of prehistoric resource conservation, perhaps
as a General Assembly resolutio n, and administer it vigorously. Senate,

322

Bill 320, vetoed in 197S, is an example of good legislative, treatment of
cultural resources. A bill of this type should be enacted.

New proposals for legislation should be based on information from
regional baseline studies, consultation with interested professionals, and
reference to a conservation plan. In addition, similar legislation estab-
lished in other jurisdictions should be reviewed in terms of its effective-
ness and ability to withstand court tests.

DOA and MHT need to maintain an.active dialogue with legislators.
Legislators should be provided with the opportunity to become familiar
with the nature of prehistoric resources and the problem of conserving
them, perhaps by means of short,, illustrated informational meetings and
field trips emphasizing thescientific necessity and the practical bene-
Fits of prehistoric conservation.

That the property rights of citizens seem increasingly regulated by
enviromental legislation,,suggests that any additional constraints im-
posed.by prehistoric resource con .servation legislation might not be favor-
ably received. Therefore, new legislation, regulations, and ordinances
relating to prehistoric resources should'. where appropriate, present
alternatives.and,.c.hoices to compliance. A good education program, es-
pecially one that brings the results of prehistoric research to the
local level, will help enlist cooperation with prehistoric legislation.

Some basic elements of.a. prehistoric resource conservation plan can
be specified at this time (Fig 6-23). Foremost, the plan should be based
on a philosophy of conservation or Irwise use" of the prehistoric resources
Found in the coastal zone. An integral part of this conservation philo-
sophy should be the preservation of a substantial representative sample
of what resources originally were deposited. This sample will insure that
such resources will' be availablefor use (interpretation, study, or dis-
play) at a future time. This guarantee is especially important as new
techniques are developed for studying prehistoric remains and new ques-
tions are.asked of the data'. In general, the plan should continueand
improve an education program as well as give.a. framework for management
decisions and day to day administration. Finally, the plan should pro-

323

Plan
Philosophy

Education Conservation Preservation

Regulation mitigation nUs e
1. Permits 1. salvage 1. museum parks
2. laws and 2. preservation 2.1 roadside displays
regulations in place 3. exhibits etc.
3. inspection 3. project
- requirement relocation
4. setbacks 4. reorientation
etc. of buildings
S. survey and
collection
6. protective
covering,
stabilization
etc.

Fig. 6-23 Elements of a suggested
prehistoric resource
conservation plan

324

vide a blueprint for preservation efforts for'a representative sample
of the are al,s prehistoric resources.

Kanagement Strategy: Implementing the PIan

Implementing a prehistoric resource conservation plan will involve
many mechanisms including legislative,.educational, administrative, and
otherlmeasures. Of particular importance will be the use of a regional
interpretive framework for,guiding key managementdecisions. Several
ways in which regional baseline data can help serve this requirementare
discussed below.

Regional baseline studies of.prehistoric resources will produce in-
formation on the kinds of resources present, 'their relative abundance,
and their participation in prehistoric cultural systems. Using specific
predictive models, other results will include refined rules of prehis-
toric resource.distribution. Study results will provide a regional in-
tcrpretive context that does not now exist for the area and would deter-
mine which areas would require no further surveys and thus are 11safell
for unrestricted development. In addition, regional baseline studies
will allow more representative and defensible National Register nomi-
nations. In areas where prehistoric resources are common and need to be
conserved, information from baseline studies can aid in determining
optimal setback of ground.disturbing activities from the shorelines.
Finally, this.information will aid in improving the effectiveness of
existing legislation or in designing pew.legislation, rules, and.regu-
lations to aid in conservation.

By relating,the@predicted distribution of various-kinds of prehis-
@toric resources to,currefit 1@Lnd use, narrow@estimates of the potential
reservoir of prehistoric.resources by damage and disturbance categories
can be ided. Additionally, incompatible1and use practices can be
Prov
identified on a regional,basis, resulting in redirecting or redesigning
education or other management efforts to'the particular local situation.

Regional baseline study results would give.direction to initigation

325

and conservation strategies for particular areas. Sensitive areas in.
which development should not take place and clear zones where develop-
ment might proceed could be identified. In addition, the local and
regional syntheses resulting from detailed artifact anal yses, coupled
with information on the relative abundance of prehistoric resources,
would provide a yardstick by which the significance of individual pre-
historic resources could be measured and ways of mitigating disturbance
could be selected.

Perhaps the most important type of information resulting from re--
gioilal basel-ine studies of prehistoric resources concerns the signifi.-
caiice of indiv-idual resources. When certain kinds of resources become
well. known through these studies or when they are found to be relatively
abundant, less exhaustive mitigation procedures can be followed. In
contrast, little known or poorly represented types of resources could be
protected from disturbance or information salvaged before they are de-
stroyed.

Regional baseline stud ies can provide a basis for determining the
significance of the prehistoric resources of any givenarea. Simply,
the procedure would involve correlating the nature and location of a
proposed development with the number of undisturbed resources predicted
to occur in that environmental setting. This information could be used
to produce sensitivity maps of prehistoric resources (see King and Hickman
1973), showing areas likely to contain the most prehistoric resources or
the least af)undant kinds of resources. Sensitivity maps can be of great
value in managing areas where development is extensive at present or
predicted to be extensive in the future.
Land disturbance presents the most serious threat to prehistoric'
resources. Although planning can modify land disturbance to conserve
these resources, planning processes have yet to incorporate a concern
for prehistoric resources effectively. For example, in discussing pre-
sent conditions and future problems in the Bay area, recent major inven-
tory and planning reports -- including those by Wallace et al. (1972)
and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973) -- fail to recognize the

326

extent and fragile nature of prehistoric resources. In many cases,
planners have no adequate information on these resources to incorporate.

Regional baseline studies will provide primary data that might be
used in planning by various agencies and groups concerned with land
use alteration. This is, of course, the primary place for concern about
prehistoric resources. Early consideration maximizes the opportunity for
preservation by guiding further project-specific site inventories and
thelselection of optimal mitigation procedures. Cost and time estimates
for prehistoric resource studies can be integrated into the budgets and
time tables, insuring that consideration will not cause costly delays in
construction. Planning consideration also provides time to deal with
the indirect effects of developments on local prehistoric resources.

Regional baseline information will give planners and developers a
better understanding of the condition of prehistoric resources,, permitting
the advance preparation of mitigation or preservation strategies. For
exampl.e, when disturbance cannot be prevented, salvage investigations of
varying proportions might be recommended. Surface collecting might be
recommended when an abundant type of prehistoric resource is involved;
partial to complete excavations might be recommended if poorly represented
or otherwise significant resources were involved. Whenever possible,
.prehistoric resources should be preserved rather than salvaged. Exca-
vation will, however, be unavoidable in some circums tances and even
desirable in others, because of lack of-information on many kinds of
prehistoric resources. Early planning avoids unfavorable publicity and
public reaction to the destruction of prehistoric resources, as well as
the costly delays that frequently accompany last minute salvage efforts.
Regional baselineinformation should permit planners to recognize various
categories of shoreline for management, including shoreline that requires
no further attention to prehistoric resources (such as environmental set-
tings containing no prehistoric sites, those that contain redundant or
adequately preserved samplesor those from which the recovery of infor-
mation' is impractical). Environmentalsettings containing unique or
poorly represented sites will present fewer options for alternative uses.
In these situations, prehistoric resources must be preserved or infor-

327

mation salvaged. Undoubtedly, some areas will require more study, with
project-specific inventories needed to identify kinds of resources or
the remaining numbers of resources.

Finally, information developed by regional baseline studies will
provide a basis on which prehistoric resource preserves could be estab-
lished. These preserves would be designed to contain examples of the
full range of kinds and ages of prehistoric resources found in an area.
In the past, prehistoric 'resource parks and monuments have often been
established around a few impressive prehistoric sites such as large
mounds or cliff dwellings. Certainly these sites provide spectacular
views for the public and examples ought to be preserved. Spectacular
sites, however, usually do not provide areas for research on various types
of prehistoric problems or for viewing various kinds of prehistoric re-

sources.

Prehistoric land use involved many kinds of activities -- procuring
and processing foods, quarrying raw materials, burials, and other cere-
monies -- these activities deposited many kinds of artifacts in varying
densities almost continuously across the landscape. Thus, a more ef
ficient approach to preserving prehistoric resources might lie in setting
aside tracts of land containing examples of all kinds of locally found
resources. This type of preservation is similar to setting aside wild-
Lif'o preserves sucli as feeding habitats and.nesting areas for birds and
spawning grounds for fish. The difference is that we know much more
about the nature of plant and animal resources than we @:now about pre-
historic resources.

The advantages of this type of preservation lie in the economic
combination of a variety of resources including geological and topo-
graphic aspects, plant, animal, and prehistoric resources in contrast
to the expensive piecemeal treatment of these resources. In addition,
this method of preservation allows prehistoric resources to be studied
in relation to their environments.

Prehistoric preserves should be designated for local areas such as
parts of river systems, and should focus on lands where only minimal

328

damage to prehistoric resources has taken place. Forested lands and
perhaps also agricultural lands would be preferred. Programs such as
the state critical areas, estuarine sanctuaries, natural areas and scenic
rivers, could include prehistoric resources. Regional baseline studies
should guide decisions concerning placement for the most representative
preservation. In the interim, environmental parameters can be used to
guide placement.

References Cited

Baltimore County Office of Planning and Zoning
1975 Baltimore County comprehensive plan.
Bastian, T.
1971 Ten year plan for the Division of Archeology, Maryland
Geological.Survey. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Xeroxed.
1976 Updating the "ten year plan for the Division of Archeology,
Maryland Geological Survey." Johns Hopkins University,
'Baltimore. Xeroxed.

Cameron, L. D.
1976 Prehisto ric hunters and gatherers of the upper Chesapeake
Bay region: a study on the use of a predicti,@,e model for
the analysis of subsistence - settlement systems. Unpub-
lished Bachelor's thesis. Department of Anthropology,
University of Michigan.
D.-mcoy, W. S.
1974 The archeological survey: a reorientation. Man in the
Northeast 8:98-111.
Demetriou, A. C., Office of
1974 A comprehensive plan for St. Marys County, Marylan .d.
Dincauze, D. F. and J. Meyer
197S Prehistoric resources in east-central New England: a pre-
liminary predictive study. U.S. National Park Service
Cultural Resource Management-S-tudi7es.-Washington, D.C.
Dixon, K. A.
1971 Archaeological site preservation: the nealected alternative
to destruction Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly@
7(4):S3-70..

329

Dunnell, R. C. and W. S. Dancey
n1s. Siteless surveys: a regional data collection strategy.
Department of Anthropology, Univorsity of Washington.
Xeroxed.
Dunnell, R. C. and J. W. Fuller
197S An archaeological survey of Everett Harbor and the lower
Snohomish ita. Report to tEe @1_at@ional_Pa_rk_
Service un er contract No. CX-9000-4-0101. Department of
Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Ford, T. L., Jr.
1976 Adena sites on Chesapeake Bay. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 4:63-89.
Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc.
1974 Proposed comprehensive plan, Charles County, Maryland.
Hall, R. L. and E. D. Matthews
1974 Soil survey of Charles County, Maryland. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

11arl-ord County Department of Planning and Zoning
1974 llarford County comprehensive master plan. Draft copy.
Hickey, J. V.
1970 The prehistory of southeastern Maryland: an archeological
reconnaissance of Zekiah Swamp. Unpublished M.A. thesis.
Department of Anthropology, George Washington University.
Holmes, W. H.
1907 Aboriginal shell-heaps of the middle Atlantic tidewater
region. American Anthropologist n.s. 9:114.
Iroquois Research Institute
1977 Archaeological and historical investigations for energ
cly
facilities, a state of the art report. Prepared For-the
Federal Power- _Commis`s1oF_0_ff_1ce__oT -Energy Systems under
Contract No. FP-1807.
Johnson, P. L.
1974 The comprehensive plan for Kent.County, Maryland. Update
6-f-original document prepared by Harland Bartholomew and
Associates (1968). Washington, D'.C.
Jordan, D. F.
1975 Factors affecting New England archeology. Man in the
Northeast 10:71-74.

330

King, T. F. and P. P. Hickman
1973 The southern Santa Clara Valley, California: a general
plan for archaeology. Report to the U.S. National Park
Service. Tucson.
King, T. F., M. J. Moratto, and W. N'. Leondard III
MS. Archaeological impact evaluation. Report on a study by the
Society for California Archaeology in cooperation with the
Archaeological Survey, University of California', Los Angeles.
Xeroxed.
Lipe, W. D.
1975 Wilderness and arhcaeological conservation. Paper presented
at the 40th meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.
Dallas.
Looker, R. and W. A. Tidwell
1963 An hypothesis concerning Archaic Period settlement of Zekiah
Swamp based 'upon an analysis of surface collections of pro-
jectile points. Axchaeological Society of Maryland Mis-
cellaneous Papers S:7-13.
McGimsey, C. R.,III
1972 Public archeology. Seminar Press, New York.
McNett, C. W., Jr. and W. M. Gardner
MS. Archeology of the lower and middle Potomac Valley. Manu-
script in preparation. Department of Anthropology, Ameri-
can University. Xeroxed.
Maryland Department of State Planning
1968 Catalog of natural areas in Maryland.
Maryland Geological Survey
1976 Rules and regulations governing archeological resources.
Maryland Historical Trust
Sources of funding for Historic Preservation. MHT Guides
to Historic Preservation Activity No. 4.
Maryland Water Resource Administration
1974 Request for assistance under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act 1972, P.L. 92-583. Proposal to tFe -National
Oceanic alld7AImospNeilic AdFl-histration.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
1973 Adopted and approved master plan for subregion VI --,West-
plFal-ia, WeTi-w-o-o-T, upper Marl bo-ro, __iUsyr7i I I e, Naylor,.
Aquasco, ancf--vicinities.

331

1974 Adopted and approved master plan for subregion V--Clinton,
Accokeek, Piscataway, Branywine, and vicinities.
Mayre, W. B.
1938 Shell-heaps on Chesapeake Bay. In A report on the Susque-
hanna River expedition, edited by W. K. Moorhead pp. 123-
128. Andover, Massachusetts.
Metzgar, R. G.
1973 Wetlands in Maryland. Maryland Department of State Planning.
Baltimore, Maryland.
Raymond, May, Parish and Plavnick
1970 The State of Maryland historic preservation pLan Technical
Report No. 1 - goals and c
riteria. Prepared for the Mary-
land Historical Trust and Maryland Department of State
Planning.
Raymond, Parish, Pine and Plavnick
1974 Maryland outdoor recreation and open space comprehensive
plan.
Reynolds, M.
1883 The Precolumbian shellmounds at Newburg, Maryland. Compte-
Rendu du V Congress International Americanistes,292-313.
Copenhagen.
Rogers and Golden, Inc.
1976 Maryland uplands natural areas study, Eastern Shore (2 vols.)
Western Shore. Prepared for the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Program.
Salisbury-Wicomico County Planning and Zoning Commission
1976 The comprehensive plan for Wicomico County,Maryland.
Scovill, D.H.
1974 Gearing up for contract archaeology. Museum of Northern
Arizona Technical Series No. 14:S7-62. Flagstaff.
Smithsonian Institution Center for Natural Areas Ecology Program
1974 Natural areas of the Chesapeake region.
Stottler Stagg and Associates
1974 Comprehensive plan, Cecil County, Maryland.
197S Comprehensive plan for Somerset County, Maryland.
Tarrant, J.
1965 Comprehensive master plan, Queen Annes,County, Maryland.

332

Ubelaker, D.H.
1974 Reconstruction of demographic profiles from ossuary skeletal
sample, a case study from the tidewater Potomac. Smith-
sonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 18, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
1973 Chesapeake Bay existing conditions report. Including summary
report and four technical appendices.
U. S. National Park Service
1977 Sources of preservation funding. 1.1593 Newsletter of the
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation 2(1):8-11.
Urban Pathfinders, Inc.
1973 The comprehensive plan, Talbot County, Maryland compre-
hensive planning program.
1974 The comprehensive p an, Dorchester County, Maryland, compre-
hensive Planning program.
Urban Research and Development Corporation
1971 Maryland outdoor recreation and open space comprehensive plan.
Vol. I.
1972 Maryland outdoor recreation and open space comprehensive plan.
Vol. II.

Utley, R. M.
1973 Archeology and the National Register. Historic Archaeology
7:63-67.
Wallace McHarg Roberts and Todd, Inc.
1972 Maryland Chesapeake Bay study. A report to the Maryland
Department of State Planning and the Chesapeake Bay Inter-
agency Planning Committee. Comprehensive Planning Assistance
Project.No. Md. P-87.
Wildesen,L. E.
1975 Conservation vs. preservation of archeological sites. News-
letter of American Society of Conservation Archeology 2(2):
9-11.
Wilke, S. and G. Thompson
1977 Archeological survey of western Kent County, Maryland. Repor
prepared for the Maryland Historical Trust under a National
Park Service Historic Preservation Grant-in-Aid.
Wright, H. T.
1973 An archeological sequence in the middle Chesapeake region,
Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey Archeological Studies.
No. 1.

s;):)ipu;)ddV

!l Vj@
0@
Nit

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

Appendix A

Tab le A- 1 Survey Results for Anne Arundel (AA-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-1.)

Sinvey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A@ South River 25 1.36 0 2
26 .04 0 0

B Deale is .49 1 .0
C Annapolis,.
S. River 11 .19 0 0
21 .68 0 0

D South River 26 1.52 3 0
36 .15 0 0
E Gibson Island 11 .08 0 @O
21 1.06 0 0

F Gibson Island 11 .30 0 0
21 .64 0 0
G Gibson Island, 16 .04 0 0.
Annapolis 21 .49 0 0
26 .91 0 0
H Annapolis 21 1.89 2 0
26 .11 0 0

I Gibson Island 14 .08 0 0
24 .91 3 0
25 1.40 0. 0
26 .57 0 0
i Round Bay 26 .15 0 0
36 .68 0 0
'K Round Bay 34 .39 0 0
L Round.Bay 34 li @O 0
36 JS 0 0

M Deale is .34 0 0
25 .04 0 0

N Deale 26 .98 4 1

0 Deale 25 .11 0 0
26 .99 9
P Peale 26 1.02 0 0
Q Deale 16 .38 0 0
26 .68 0 0

333

334

Legend

AA-A
P-MM-4 Survey tract,

AA- I

AA-T

ft. AA-K AA-X

AA-J

A-4

'AA-0

AA-X AA-S AnnspolIS

AA-T
06

AA-M 6)
A&,U

AA-AC
AA-D
AA-A

AA-M

AA-A@
A"- AA-Mf

0 &1@ -in mil*s
0 2 3 4

Fig. A-1
Anne Arundel County survey t'ract locations

335

Table A-1 (continued)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

R South River .34 .26 0 0
S South River 26 .38 0 0
36 .23 0 0

T South River 24 .38 0
26 .42 2 0

U South River 14 .26 0 0
is .34 0 0
16 .23 0 0
24 .23 0 0
2S .11 0 0
26 .34 0 0
34 .30 0 0
36 .26 0 0

V Gibson Island 16 .04 0 0
26 1.32 0 0
36 is 0 0

W Gibson Island 26 .49 0 0
36 .15 1 0

x Gibson I sland 26 .53 0 0
Y Sparrows Point, 21 .98 1 0
Gibson Island 25 .64 2 0
31 .04 0 0
z Sparrows Point 11 .15 0 0
13 .23 0 0
23 .64 0 0
26@ .42 0 0
AA Annapolis, 21 .76 3 0
Gibson Island 25 .04 0 0
26 .11 0 0
35 .11 1 0
36 .04. 1 0
AB Deale 26 .26 2 0
AC Annapolis 14 .19 0. 0
0 0
15 .19
16 .19 0 0
@24 .64 2 0
25 .34 0 0
.26 .15 0 0

336

Table A-1 (continued)

S Enviromental Length Number of Number of
Turvey Quad* Map 11 Sites
ract Sanpling Unit in miles Shell Sit es Nonshe

AD Annapolis 15 .26 0 0
16 .57 0 0
24 .19 0 0
25 .19 0 0
26 .91 0 0

Total 33.S8 38

Table A-2 Survey Results for Baltimore (BA-) County
(For tract locations, see Fig. A-2.)

Survey d. Ma Envirormiental Length Number of Number of
Tract Qua p Sanpling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Gwipowder 23, .04 0 0
Neck 33 .76 0 0
B Gunpowder 25 .42 0 0
Neck 26 .42 0 0
C Gunpowder 11 .23 0 0
Neck 13 .57 0 0
15 .30 0 1
23 .15 0 0
25 .42 0 3
D Gunpowder 11 1.06 0 1
Neck 21 .23 0 0
E Gunpowder 2S 2.61 0 0
Neck
F Gunpowder 26 .38 0 0
Neck, 31 .38 0 0
33 .45 0 0

Total 8.42 0 5

337

Legend

BA@ A
Survey tract

0 *40

BA-F

BA-A
BA-

Middle BA-13
River

AA-C

BA-D

A
46

scale in miles

1 0 1 2 3

Fig. A-2
Baltimore County survey tract locations

338

Table A- 3 Survey Results for Calvert (CL-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-3.)

Survey Quad, Map Environmental Length Number of Nurber of
Tract Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Prince 11 .26 0 0
Frederick, 21 .76 0 0
North Beach 31 1.70 0 0
B Broomes Island, 11 .23 0 0
Prince 21 2.27 0 0
Frederick 31 S.26 0 01
C Broomes Island, 21 .19 0 0
Cove Point 31 2.42 0

Total. 13.09 0 0

Table. A-4 Survey Results for Caroline (CA-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-4.)

Survey Quad. Yjap, Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Fowling Creek 25 .68 0 2
26 .64 0 1
35 .26 0 1
B Hobbs,, 22 .38 0 1
Fowling Creek 32 1.55 .0
35 .15 0 1
C Hobbs 22 .38 0 2
26 .30 0 1
32 .30 0 0
36 2.01 0 2
D Hobbs, 22 .76 0 1
Denton 32 .79 0 3
36 .95 0 5
E Preston 22 .95 0 0
26 1.93 0 0
36 1.82 0 0

Total 13.85 0 24

339

Legend

CL-A
Survey tract

Chose k*
:::ch

CL-A

CL-B

A
Prince
Frederick

IL CL-C

Long Beach

scale In miles
1 0 1 2 3 4

Fig. A-3
Calvert County survey tract locations

340

Legend:
Survey tra ct
CA-A

Denton

CA-D
N

CA-C

CA-B

Preston

CA-E

scale in miles

Fig. A-4
Caroline County survey tract locations

341

Table A-S @urvey W@sull-.,; for Cecil (CF-) Coizity
(For stirvoy I riwl loc.,it Miis, sov Fig. A--S.)

Survey Quad. Map' Enviromental Length Nunber of Nunber of
Tract: Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nanshell Sites

Cecil County (CE-)
A Spesutie 11 .04. 0 0
21 .26 0 0
31- .23 0 0
B Spesutie 24 .04 0 0
26 .64 0 0
31 .11 0 0
34 .26 0 0
1.29 0 0
C Spesutie 24 .19 0 0
34 .19 0 0
36 2.20 01 2

D Earleville 25 .04 0 0
35 .83 0 1
36 .53 0 0

E Earleville 2S .49 0 0
26 S3 0 2
36 .38 0 0

F Earleville 24 .64 0 0
.23 0 1

G Earleville 24 .38 0 0
34 .49 0 1
H Earleville is .42 0@ 0
2S .48 0 0
3S .64 0 0
I Earleville 215 .08 0 0
34 .23 0 0
3S 26 0 0

i Earleville 24 .49 0 0
34 .19 0 2
K Cecilton 2S .04 0 0
34 .11 0 1
3S .34 0 1
36 .19 0 0

L Cecilton. 2S .19 0 1
26 .53 0 0
3S .15 0 0

342

Legend
CE-A
Survey tract

Elkton

Perryville
4fr
CE-AB

CE-A CE-AC

CE A A

it CE-0

CE-R CE-Z

CE-S

CE-0
CE-F
CIE 0
CE E-J E-P
CE-Y
AU CE-K -M
CE-H
CE- D CE-V
CE-L
CE-T CE-E

CE-H
41 CE-U

N C, CE-A
Cocilton

CE-K
CE-C CE-W

CE-9

04
4 A a

@sale In miles
0 2 3 4

Fig A-5
Cecil County surVey tract locations

343

Table A- S (continued)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

M Cecilton 25 .45 0 0
26 .53 0 1

N Cecilton 26 .64 0 1

0 Cecilton 25 .80 0 2
26 .26 0 2

p Cecilton 25 1.06 0 0
26 .23 0 0
36 .30 0 0
North-East 24 .76 0 1

R Nort h East 26 .15 0 0
34 .19 0 0
35 .49 0 0
36 .34 0 0
S Earleville 24 .08 0 0
26 .08 0 0
34 .45 0 0
36 .23 0 1

@T Earleville 14 .49 0 1
U Earleville, 16 .08 0 0
Spesutie 26 1.51 0 3
36 .08 0 0

V Earleville 26 .08 0 0
36 1.21 0 0

w Earleville is .08 0 0
.25 .45 0 1
@26 .91 0 2
36 1.82 0 S

x Earleville 25 .53 0 3

35 .72 0 4
26 .37 0 0

36 .30, 0 1

y Cecilton 25 1.29 0 6
26 .23 0 0
35 .23 0 1
36 .23 0 0
z North East 24 .19 0 0
.19 0 0
36 .30 0 0

344

Tdble A-5 (continued)

Survey Environmental Length Number of Number of
Quad. Map
Tract Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

AB Havre de Grace 35 .64 0 1
36 .38 0 0

AC Havre de Grace 31 .83 0 2
36 .49 0 3

AD Havre de Grace 25 .04 0 0
35 .19 0 1
36 .34 0 1

Total 35.54 0 55

Table A-6 Survey Results for Charles (CH-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-6.)

Survey Quad, Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Mount Vernon 26 1.74 0 3
B Mount Vernon 26 .91 0 1
36 .1.55 0 3
C Indian Head, is .19 0 4
Port Tobacco 22 .11 0 0
24 7.61 0 9
26 S3 0 1
35 1.17 0 2
D Widdwater 22 1.82 0' 1
26 1.40 0 1
E Wider4ater 22 .95 0 0
32 .11 0 0
P Widewater 12 .04 0 0
22 1.48 0 0
G Wid&at6r,, 12 .19 0 0
Nan* 22 .91 0 2
jemoy -
26 1.14 0 0
k Mathi" Point 25 3.30 0 1
I Mathias Point 24 1.06 4

345

CH-A
CH-0 Legend

CH-A
Owe'aaaaal Survey tract

cm-c

La Plate

CH- L
0 C*-W CH-N

H-H
C"-o CH-1 CH-0

Cl#-j CH-P
CH-9

CH-P 0 CH-0
0
c*_Q CN-X 0 1

Newburg 0
clo-W 0
scale In miles
0 1 2 3 4

-11

C14-6

N-7
c _U

c*_V

Fig. A-6
Charles County survey tract locations

346

Table A-6 (continued)

Sur.vey Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Quad. Map Sampling Unit in miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

i Mathias Point 24 .68 2 0
26 1.14 0 0

K Mathias Point 22 .61 2 1
@26 .4S 0 3

11 Mathias Point 24
.38 0 1
34 .30 0 0

M Combined with L
N Mathias Point 24 2.04 .6 0
0 Mathias Point 2. 2 .45 2 0
24 .87 5 0
26 .53 0 0
32 .34 0
34 .15 2 0
P Mathias Point 12 .11 0 0
22 .23 1
26 .26 0 0
32 .42 3
36 1.06 1 0
Popes Creek 26 .95 0 0
36 2.04 2 0
R Morgantown 22 .98 4 1
26 2.08 6 0

S Colonial Beach 22 1.33 4 0
North 26 1.36 4 0
25 .83 0 0
T Colonial Beach
North 26 .68 0 0

U Rock Point 13 .11 0 0
16 .30 0 0
23 .57 5 0
26 2.23 10 2

v Rock Point 23 .91 0 1
26 1.55 4 0
W King George 12 .19 0 0
22 .1.17 2 0
32 .76 2 1
x Nanjemy 12 .04 0 0
32 S3 1 3

Total 54.84 73 41

347

Table A-7 Survey Results for Dorchester (DO-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-7.)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Sharps Island 21 3.33 0 0
Tilghman 25 .38 0 0
B Church Creek, 21 1.70 0
Oxford, 26 .76 0 01
Tilghman
C Preston 22 .42 0 0
25 .64 0 0
26 .11 0 0

Total 7.34 0 0

Table A-81 Survey Results for Harfor d (HA-) County
(For survey tract location, see Fig. A-8.)

Survey Ma Environmental Length Number of Number,bf
Tract Quad' P Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Perryman 14 .42 0 0
24 .91 0 3
B .,Spesutie is .11 0 1
25 2.04 0 4
C Spesutie, 35 1.52 0 8
Perryman 36 .19 0 1
D Perryman 25 1.36 0 2
E Spesutie 21 .83 0 0
F Gunpowder Neck 23 .49 0 0
G Not inspected
H Havre de Grace, 15 .11 0 0
Spesutie 31 1.06 0 8
35 .38 0 4

I Havre de Grace 21 .53 0 0,
31 .98 -.0 -5

i Aberdeen 36 1.10 0 0

@48

Legend

DO-A
eo-@ Survey tract

DO-B

DO-A 0

Cambridge

Church
Creek

Boole in miles

0 1 2 3 4

Fig. A-7
Dorchester County survey tract locations

349

Legen.d HA-J

NA-A
b--4 Survey tract

Havre
do Grace

Aberdeen HA-1

HA-H

HA-C HA-N
40 HA-E
HA-0

HA-P HA-B

HA-M Aberdeen Proving Ground

Edgewood

HA- K
HA-A

HA-D

MA-L

HA-(Qk

HA-F

Ab scale In miles
0 2 3 4

Fig. A-8
Marford County survey tract locations

350

Table A-8 (continued)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

K Edgewood 24 .15 0 0
25 .64. 0 0
26 2.84 0 1
L Edgewood 14 ..45 0 2
24 .15 0 1
26 -95: 0 3
M Edgewood 25 .68 0 2
26 .80 0 3
N Spesutie 31 .23 0 0
35 .49 0 0
36 .26 0 1
0 Perryman 24 .39 0 2
26 .57 0 0
34 .11 0 0
36 .23 0 0
P Perryman 24 .57 0 0
34 .23 0 1

Total 21.68 0 52

Table A-9 Survey Results for Kent (KE-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-9.)

Survey Envirorimental Length Number of Number of
Tract Quad* Map Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Betterton 26 .19 0 0
54 .49 0 2
35 .38 0 0
36 3.79 0 6
B Betterton, '14 .@3 0 0
Galena 24 .26 0 1
26 .26 0 2
34 .11 0 0
36 1.48 0 6

3S1

I L

84 I'S
A. P ft-A
R, x9-9,

KA-P
KE-C
aff-A,
K.E Kit' (Ki-I Gain.&
KE-0 KE-A 111111011 Pa@d
KE., K V KE-8
KII-X

pa- A

KE-V

q KE-
K9-AM KZ-AF

no-he 4,

U KE-Aff

Logend:
RE-AD me" Hall KE-m

RZ-0
Survey t!act
KE-A

seal* In miles

Fig. A-9,
Kent County survey-tract locations

3S2

Table A-9 (continued)

Survey Quad. Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Map Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

C Galena 24 .68 0 2
26 .19 0 0
36 1.55 0 6
D Millington 34 .64 0 0
36 .19 0 0
E Cecilton, 24 .19 0 0
Millington 26 .11 0 1
.34 1.0 0 7
36 .76 2

F Galena 26 .45 0 0
34 .83 0 1
36 5.34 0 5

G Rock Hall 25 .68 3 0
26 .26 0 0

H Swan Point 21 .61 0 0
36 .95 0 0

I Betterton 11 .64 0 0
14 .23 0 0
24 2.73 0 0
34 0 0

i Betterton 36 .45 2 0

K Betterton 35 .38 0 2
36 .76 0 2
L Betterton 34 .61 0 1
M Betterton, 11 .04 0 0
Hanesville 21 1.52 1 0
31 1.52 2 0

N Betterton 34 .19 0 1
36 .15 0 0
0 Betterton, 26 .04 0 0
lianesville 36 1.55 6 0

P Betterton 36 1.36 0 1
Q Betterton, 35 1.36 6 0
Hanesville 36 .34 1 0

R Betterton 25 .26 0

353

Table A-9 (continued)

Survey Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Quad. Map Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites -Nonshell Sites

S Betterton 36 .19 0 1

T Betterton 25 .83 1 0
35 .30 2 1

U Betterton 26 .61 0 2

V Betterton 26 .23 0 1

w Hanesville 25 1.06 3 0
26 .76 0 0.
3S 1.10 4 0
36 .49 0 0

X Hanesville 26 .11 1 0
36 .04 0 0

Y Hanesville 15 .19 0 0
21 3.86 2 0
25 .23 1 0
26, 2.69 6 0
31 1.97 3 0
35 2.12 6 0
36 .72 0 0

z Hanesville 25 .08 0 0
35 .45 2 0

AA Hanesville 11 .38 0 0
21 .68 0 0
25 .30 1 0
26 2.84 4 0
31 1.52 2 0
36 .08 0 0
AB Hanesville, 25 .95 3 0
Rock Hall 26 .08 2 0
35 .68 4 0
36 .64 1 0
AC Hanesville, 11 1.21 0 01
Rock Hall, 21 S.26 5 0
Swan Point 26 1.63 0 0
31 4.24 7 0
36 is 0 0

AD Swan Point 21 .57 2 0
26 .23 1 0
AE Rock Hall 36 .30 0 1

354

Table A-9 (continued)

Survey Quad. Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract MaP Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

AF Rock Hall 2S. .11 0 2
35 .26 0 0

AG Chestertown 22 .11 1 0
26 .76 1 0

AH Chestertown 26 .08 0 0
36 .53 0 1
AI Langford Creek 21 2.68 0 0
26 .26 2 0
51. 1.02 0 0

Total 82.64 88 S8

Table A-10 Survey Results for Queen Annes (QA-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-10.)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Ntiles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Queenstown 21 2.69 1 4
B Love Point, 11 .34 0 0
Kent Island 21 2.65 5 0
26 .83 0 0
31 .95 0 0

C Kent Island 11 .53 0 0
21 2-80 0 0
31 .08 0 0
D Kent Island 1.1 0 0
21 2.92 0 0

E Kent Island 11 .53 0 0
Clairborne 16 .19 0 0
21 2.92 0 0

Total 17.51 6 @4

3SS

Legend,

OA-A
t---4 Survey tract

4f/

*A-11

Kant
Wend C,
Queenstown

OA-C

4W
AL

4m
V)

OA-0 QA-A

SAY

OA-6

SCSI* In M11*s

2 3 4

Fig. A-10
Queen Annes County survey tract locations

356

Table A-11 Survey Results for St. Marys (%I-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-11.)''

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Rock Point 23 As 1 0'
2S .42 0 V
26 .26 0 0'
33 .61 4 0
35 .80 4 0.
36 1.40 01.
@B Rock Point 2S .91 1 1
26 .15 0 1
35 .91 2 2

C Leonardtown 24 ..76 @2 0
34 .61 s 0
D, Leonardtown 24 .61 @2 1
26 .80 1 0
St. Clements, 24 1.21 6 2-
Leonardtown 26 .34 0 0@
F St. Clements 22 .87 1 0
24 1.33 3 0
26 Al 3 0
"G, -Leonardtown 2.27 7 0
34 .42 3 0
H St. Clements 22 1.48 2
26 1.10 1 1

I St. Clements 22 .57 1
26 2.16 '0 9.1
i St. Clements, @26 ..91 2 0
Piney Point
'K Piney Point .26 2.24 4 0
@L Piney Point 25 1.02 3 0
26 .68 1 0
St. Marys city is .61 0 0
25 Al 0
N' St. Marys city 14 o04 1 0.,
24 1.40 .10
26 .64 1
O@ Sto Marys city .24 .30 1 0
25 .76 2 1
..49 2 0

3S7

Legend

SM-A
Survey tract

L*OfterdtOw"

GM-P

ON-1

9M-j

0 orW Mille
A 40

GM-K
30
4p

SM-L
0 11111-101

*M_T

*M-O BM-U

40-M
M-W
11111-10

OCale In ip.Ilea -90-M SM-K,AL
o 1 2 3 4

GM-S

Fig.: A41'
St. Mary's County survey t ract locations

358

Table A-11 (continued)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

P St. Marys City 14 .45 0 0
24 1.33 0 0
Q St. Marys City, 25 1.63 14 0
St. Georges 26 .30 5 0
Island
R St. Georges 22 .98 0 0
Island 26 2.31 3 0
Point Lookout

S Point Lookout 22 .72 0
26 1.78 2 3
T Point-No Point, 11 .08 0 0
St. Marys City 21 1.59 2 2
U Point No Point 11 .57 0 1
21 1.93 2 4

V Point No Point 11 .98 0 0
21 1.10 1 0
26 .95 2 1

w Point No Point 25 .72 6 0
0
26 .91 5

X Point Lookout 26 .98 2 0

Total 49.26 125 31

Table A-12 Survey Results for Talbot (TA-) County
(For survey tract locations, see Fig. A-12.)

Survey Quad. Map Envirormental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

A Trappe, 22 1.21 3 1
Oxford 25 .38 0 2
26 2.39 6 0
B Oxford 21 .. 45 0 0
25 ..83 2 0
26 2.08 12 0

TA-AE

0
TA-AF

TA-AM

TA-W

TA
TA-AR TA-AG
TA-W Z/r@-

TA-0 4
Easton
TA-H
TA-S 4r
TA"-G TA-R A,

TA-1
TA-AC

TA-AD
TAr-J TA-AP A-AK TA-AS 0
TA-K X

IJQ T TA-Aa TA- A-At
TA-AN

TA-AS TA-Y

T"
TA-X
Oxford TA-T
TA@a

too TA-0 Trappe
Legend: TA-E
!,@@ survey tract TA-C
TA-A
A TA-A

TA-AA
0 4P 0 TA-u TA-Z

0 Pj TA-V
segle In fail**
Fig-A-12
Talbot county survey tract locations

W
ON low, 010 10110 as

360

Table A-12 (continued)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

C Oxford 21 .76 1 0
26 2.65 0 6
D Trappe 25 AS' 0 0
26 .98 1 0
E Trap pe 25 .49 2 1
26 1.63 1 1

F Oxford 21 1.06 0 0
25 .19 0 0
26 .61 0 0
G Oxford 21 .57 0 0

H St. Michaels 24 .38 1 0
26 1.10 5 0
I Tilghman, 11 1.14 2 0
Claiborne 16 .26 A 0
21 .19 0 0
26 .49 1 0
i Tilghman 11 .26 0 0
.76 0 0
X Tilghman 11 .15 1 0
24 .80 1 0
L Tilghman 11 .19 0 0
16 .26 1 0
21 .64 1 0
26 .23 0 0

M Claiborne 24 1.63 0 2

N Claiborne 24 .98 1 0

0 Claiborne 24 .19 0 0
26 2.01 0 0
P Claiborne 16 91 0 0
24 :38 3 0
26 1.59 1 .4
Q Claiborne 16 1.78 0 0
26 1.52 0 0

R Easton 24 1.14 0 2
26 .34 0 1

S Easton 24 .76 0 1

361

Table A-12 (continued)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental Length Number of Number of
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

T Trappe 25 1.29 0 2
26 1.40 3 0
U Cambridge 22 1.67 5 1
26 1.44 2 0
V Cambridge 25 1.52 6 0
26 2.12 2 2

W St. Michaels 24 1.14 1 0
26 .45 1 0*

X Oxford 24 .91 1 0
26 2.04 5 0

Y Oxford 24 .68 4 0
25 1.40 2 0
26 .15 0 0
z Cambridge 25 1.17 0 0
26 .38 0 0
AA East New Market 22 .72 6 0
32 .76 7 0

AB Oxford 24 1.33 1 0
26 1.21 1 0
AC Trappe 26 .38 0 2
36 .4S 0 1
AD Trappe 32 .45 0 3
36 .91 0 3
AE Fowling Creek 25 .11 0 0
35 .87 0 S
36 3.26 0 0
AF Fowling Creek 35 .68 0 0
36 1.97 0 1

0 2
AG Fowling Creek- 22 1.40
26 .57 0 0
32 .76 0 2
36 6.10 0 3

AH Oxford 25 .38 0 0
26 1.74 0 2

AI Oxford 25 1.02 1 0
26 1.55 2 0

362

Table A-12 (continued)

Survey Quad. Map Environmental, Length Number of Number
Tract Sampling Unit in Miles Shell Sites Nonshell Sites

AJ Oxford 26 1.17 4 0

AK Oxford 26 .38 0 0

AL Oxford 2S .80 4
26 .80 0 4

AM Claiborne 11 .30 1 0
21 4.05 7 1
AN Trappe, 22 1.97 0 0
Preston 26 .83 1 2
32 .26 0 0
36 2.88 1 0
AD Tilghman is .26 0 0
16 .19 0 01
25 .83 0 1
26 1.44 0 0
AP Tilghman 24 2.16 1 0
25 1.10 0 0
26 0 0
AQ Tilghman 24 .42 0 0
25 1.40 0 0
26 1.67 0

AR Claiborne 21 .57 0 0

AS Oxford 24 .38 1 0
26 .11 0 0

Total 105.96 112 62

Total (all counties) 443.7

363

Table A-13 Chi-SquareTest for the Uniform Distribution of
Systematically Discovered Shell Sites in the Shell Area
(See Fig. 4-8 for limits of the shell area.)

Environmental Percent Observed (0) Expected (E) 2 (O-E) 2
Sampling Surveyed Shell Sites Shell Sites (O-E) (O-E) E
Unit

11 3.1 4 14 -10 100 7.14

12 .1 0 0 0 0 0.00

13 .3 0 1 - 1 1 1.00

14 .7 1 3 - 2 4 1.30

is '.9 1 4 - 3 9 2.30

16 1.7 1 8 - 7 49 6.10

21 17.9 36 79 -43 1849 23.40

22 4A 36 21 +15 225 10.70

23 .9 6 4 + 2 4 1.00

24 10.5 69 46 +23 529

25 12.1 53 54 - 1 1 0.00

26 29.7 143 131 +12 144 1.10.

31 6.4 14 28 -14 196 7 .00

32 1.0 14 4 +10 100 25.00

33 .6 4 3 + 1 1 .30

34 1.1 10 5 + 5 25 5.00

35 2.6 31 12 +19 361 30.10

36 5.6 19 25 - 6 36 1.40
Total 100.0 442 442 0 134.301

'With seventeen degrees of freedom at the .010.1evel of significance
chi-square = 33.4. Therefore, the hypothesis that site's are distributed
uniformly among environments must be rejected.

364

Table A-14 Chi-Square Test for the Uniform Distribution of Sys,
tematically Discovered Nonshell Sites in the Shell Area
(See Fig. 4-8 for limits-of the shell area.)

Environmental Observed (0) Expected (E) 2
Sampling Percent Nonshell Nonshell (O-E) (O-E) 2 (O-E)
unit Surveyed Sites Sites E

11 3.1 2 4 2 4 1.0

12 .1 0 1 1 1 1.0

13 .3 0 1 1 1 1.0

.7 2 1 + 1 1 1.0

is .9 1 1 0 0 0.0

16 1.7 0 2, - 2 4 2.0

21 17.9 11 23 -12 144 6.3
22 4.8. 6 6 0 0 0.0
23 .9 1 1 0 0 0.0

24 10.5 13 14 - 1 1 .1

25 12.1 25 16 + 9 81 S.1

26 29.7 53 39 +14 196 S.0

31 6.4 0 8 8 64 8.0
32 1.0 4 1 + 3 9 9.0

33 .6 0 1 1 1 1.01,
34 1.1 1 1 0 0 0.0

3S 2.6 5 3 + 2 4 1.3

36 S.6 6 7 1 1 .1

I . I
Total 100.0 130 13.0 0 41.9

1With seventeen degrees of freedom at the .010 level of significance
chi-square - 33.4. Therefore the hypothesis that sites are distributed
uniformly among environments must be rejected..

365

Table A-15 Chi-Square Test for the Uniform Distribution of
Nonshell Sites in. the,Nonshell Area
(See Fig. 4-8 for limits of the nonshell area.)

Environmental Observed (0) Expecte 'd (E) 2
Sampling Percent Nonshell Nonshell (0 -E) (O-E-) 2 (O-E).
Unit Surveyed Sites Sites E

11 .1 0 0 0 0 0

12 .2 0 0 0 0 0

13 - - - -
14 1 0. 0 0
is .7 5 1 .+4 16 16

16 .1 0 0 0 0 0

21 1.3 0 3 -3 9 3
22 7.5 9 is -6 36 2.4
23

24 3.9 6 8 -2 4 .5

25- 13.5 28 28 0 0 0
26 14.8 24 '30 -6 36 1.2

31 2.8 15 @6 +9 81 13.S

32 3.2 12 7 +5 25 3.6

33 - - - - -
34 5.8 17 12 +5 25 2.1

35 8.5 29 17 +12 144 8.5

36 36.9 56 76 -20 400 5.7

Total 100.0 205 204 2 59.1

'With fourteen degrees of freedom at the .010 level of significance
chi-square = 29.14. Therefore the hypothesis that sizes are distributed
uniformly among environments must be rejected.

-366

Table A-16 Chi-Square'Test-for the R.Andom'Distribution
of Shell Sites-in,the Shell Area
(See Fig..' - 4- 8" for@_, limits -.of, the shell: ar6a.)

Environmental Observed Observed. (0) Expp@cted
miles 2 .-E)
_E)
Sanr@ling Observed Shell- Miles -for- -(E) (O-E). (0 E
1-thit .:Sites .1 Shell Site Miles

Il 9-.92 4 2.48 1.31 +1.17 1.37 IAS

-12 .34 0

13 .91 0 - - - -

-14 L12 .1 2.12 1.31 + .81 .66 .@so

is 2;'99 1 2.99 1. 31 +1.68 2.82 2.15
_16 5.34 11 5.34 1.31, +4.03 16 24 12.40

+ .
21 57-.80 36 1.61 1.31 30 .09 A7

22 l5o49 36 .43 .1.31 --.88 77

.23 2.95 -6 .49 1.31 - .82 .67 @51

.24 33.79 69 .49@ 1.31 - .82 .67 .51
@25 39.@ 20 53 .74 1.31 - .57 -.'.32 '.24
96.14 143 .67 1.31 - .64 Al '.311
31 20.72 14 1.48 1.31 + .17 @.'03 @_.021

32 -3;07 14 .22 1.31 -1.09 1.19

33 1.82 ..4 .46 1.31 - AS .72 @ss
.34 3.60 10 .36 1.31 - AS _90
35 81A8 31 .27 1.31 -1.04 1'.08 .82'

@36 18A4 .95 1.31 - --.36 -.13 .10

Total 322.84 442 1.31 + .14 21A2 1

"With fifteen_-degfe6s' bf'freedom dt'th6 -.010 le'Vel -of sig;'hificande
chi-'@quare 30.58. , Therefore the hypothesis 'of random -di.@triibiltioh
it be rejected.
among environments carmo

367

Table@A-17 Chi-Square Test for the Random Distribution
of Nonshell Sites in the Shell Area
(See Fig. 4-8 for limits of the shell area.)

Environmental Miles Ibs,rved (0) Miles for 1 Expected(E JO-E) (O-E) 2(0-E)
Sanpling Nonshell
Unit Observed.Sites Nonshell Site Miles E

11 9.92 2 4.96 2.68 +2.28 5.20 1.94

12 .34 0 - - - -

13 .91 0 - - - - -

14 2.12 2 1.06 2.68 -1.62 2.60 .97

is 2.99 1 2.99 2.68 + .31 .10 .04

16 S.34 0

21 S7.80 11 2.68 +2.57 6.60 2.46

22 1S.49 6 2.58 2.68 .10 .01 .01

23 1 2.95 .27 .07 .03
24 33.79 13 2.60 2.68 b8 .01 Al
2S 39.20 @2S l.S7 2.68 1.11 1.23: .46
26 96.14 S3 @1.81 2,68 .87, .76 .28

31 20.72 0 - -

32 3.07 4 ..77 2.68 + .92 .85 .32

33 1.82 0
34 3.60 1 @3.60 2.68 .92 ..85 .32
35 8.48 S 2.68 .98 .96 .36

.18.14 '34
36 6 .3.02 2.68 + .12 .04

Total. 322.8 4 130 2.68 8.281

'With twelve degrees of freedom at the-4010 level of significance chi-
square 26.22. Therefore the hypothesis of random distribution among
enviroments cannot be rejected.

368

Table A-18 Chi-Square Test for the Random Distribution of
Nonshell Sites in the Nonshell Area
(See Fig. 4-8 for limits of the nonshell area.)

Environmental Observed Observed 2
Miles, (0) Expected(E 2 (O-E)
Sampling Observed Nonshell Miles for 1 Miles 10-B)(O-,E) E
Unit Sites Nonshell Site

11 .04 0

12 .23 0

13 - -
14 .72 1 .72 .56 +.16 .03 .05

is .91 5 .18 .56 -.38 .14 .25

16 .08

21 1.63
22 9.13 9 1.01 .56 +.4S .20 .36

23 - - - - - -
24 4.77 6 .80 .56 +.24 .06 .11
25 -16. 36 28 .58 .56 +.02 .01 .02
26 18.03 24 .75 .56 +*19 .04 .07
31 3.45 is .23 .56 -.33 .11 .20
32 3.98 12 .33 .56 -.23 .05, .09

33 - - - - - - -
34 7.05 17 .41 .56 -.is .02 .04
35 10.27 29 .35 .56 -.21 .04 .07
36 44.81 56 .80 .56 +.24 .06 Al

'Total 121.44 205 .56 1.37

'With@ten degrees of freedom at the .010 level of'significance chi-
square 23.2. Therefore the hypothesis of random distribution among
environments cannot be rejected.

Appendix B_

Principal Legislation Concerning Prehistoric
Resources (after McGimsey 1972 and
Lipe and Lindsay 1974)

Antiquities Act of 1906

An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities, Approved
,June 8, 1906 (Public Law 59-209; 34 STAT. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431-433)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person
who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic
or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity,
situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the
United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the
Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands
on which said antiquities are situated, shall upon conviction,
be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be
imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall
suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the
court.

SECTION 2. That the President of the United States is hereby
authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation
histori.c landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and
other objects.of historic or scientific interest that are situ-
ated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the
United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a
part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases,
shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the
proper care and management of the objects to be protected:
Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract
covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private
ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary
for the proper care and management of the object, may be relin-
quished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is
hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts
in behalf of the Government of the United States.

SECTION 3. That permits for the examination of ruins, the ex-
cavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects
of antiquity upon the lands under their respective jurisdictions
may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture,
and War to institutions which they may deem properly qualified
,to conduct such examinations, excavation, or gathering, subject

369

370

to such rules and regulations as they may prescribe: Provided,
That the examinations, excavations, and gatherings are under-
taken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities,
colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational insti-
tutions, with a view to incroasirig the knowledge of such objects,
and tliat the gatherings shall be inade for permanent preservation
in public museums.

SECTION 4. That the Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid
shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regu-
lations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
Act.

Uniform Rules and Regulations Prescribed by the Secretaries of
the Interior, Agriculture, and Way To Carry Out the Provisions
of the "Act for the@Preservation of American.Antiquities,"
1. Jurisdiction over ruins., archeological sites, historic,
and prehistoric monuments and structures, objects of antiquity,
historic landmarks, and other objects of historic or scientific
interest,,shall be exerclsed under the act by the respective
Departments as follows:

By the Secretary of Agriculture over lands within the exterior
limits of forest reserves, by the Secretary of War over lands
within the exterior limits of military reservations', by the
Secretary of the Interior over all other lands owned or con-
trolled by the Government of the United States, provided the
Secretaries of War and Agriculture may by agreement cooperate
with the Secretary of the Interior in the supervision of such
monuments and objects covered by the act of June 8, 1906, as
may be located on lands near or adjacent to forest reserves and
military reservations, respectively..

2. No permit-for the removal of any ancient monument or
structure which can be permanently preserved under the control
of the United States in situ, and remain an object of interest,
shall be granted.
3. 'Permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of
archeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity'
will be granted, by the respective Secretaries having jurisdic-
tion, to reputable museums, universities, colleges or other *
recognized scientific or educati,onal institutions, or to their
duly authorized agents.
.4@ No exclusive permits shall be granted for.a. larger area
than the applicant can,reasonably be expected to explore fully
and systematically withinthe time limit named in the permit.

371

S. Each application for a permit should be filed with the
ZIOL-retary having JUrisdiction, and must be accompanied by a
del"ii ni to otjt] i no of the 1)r,ol)os(,(l woi-k , i ndicat i n-P, the name of--
the i list i tilt ion making t he 1-c(Itlest , th(_@ J)T.oJ)osvd fol. tlle
beginning the field work, the length of time. pr-oposed to be
devoted to it, and the person who will have immediate charge
of the work. The application must also contain an exact state-
ment of the character of.the work, whether examination, excava-
tion, or gathering, and the public museum in which the collec-
tions.made under the permit are to be permanently preserved.
The application must be accompanied by a-sketch plan or des-
cription of the particular site or area to be examined, exca-
vated, or searched, so definite that it can be located on the
map with reas.onable accuracy.

6. No permit will be granted for a period of more than
three years, but if the work has been diligently prosecuted
under the permit, the time may be extended for proper cause
upon application.
7. Failure to begin work under a permit within' six months
.after it is granted, or failure to diligently prosecute such
work after it has been begun, shall make the permit void with-
out any order or proceeding by the Secretary having jurisdic-
tion.
8. Applications for permits shall be referred to the
Smithsonian Institution for recommendat@ion.

9.' Every permit shall be in writing and copies shall be
transmitted to the Smithsonian Institution and the field
officer in charge of the land involved. The permittee will
be furnished with-a copy of these rules and regulations.

10. At the close of each season's field work the permittee
shall report in duplicate to the Smithsonian Inst 'itution, in
such form as its.secretary may prescribe, and shall prepare
in duplicate a catalogue of the collections and the photographs
.made during the season, indicating therein such material, if
jany, as may be available for exchange.

11. Institutions and persons recei'Ving permits for excava-
@tion shall, after the completion of the work, restore the lands
upon which they have worked to their customary condition, to
the satisfaction of the field officer in charge.

12. All permits shall be terminable at the discretion.of
the Secretary having jurisdiction.

13. The field officer in charge of land owned or controlled

372

by the Government of the. thii-ted Stitcs shall, from time to time ,
iii(luirc and report as to the existence, on or near such lands,
of, ruins and archeologicAl sites, historic or prehistoric ruins
or monuments, objects or antiquity, historic landmarks, historic
and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or
scientific interest.

14. The field officer in charge may at all times examine the
permit of any person or institution claiming privileges granted
in accordance with the act and these rules and regulations, and
may fully examine all work done under such,permit.

15. All persons duly authorized by the Secretaries of Agricul-
ture, War, and Interior may apprehend or cause to be arrested, as
provided in the act of February 6, 1905 (33 Stat. 700), any per-
son or persons who appropriate, excavate,-injure, or destroy any
historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, by any object of an-
tiquity on lands under the supervision of the secretaries of
Agriculture.. War, and Interior, respectively.

16. Any object of antiquity taken, or collection made, on
lands owned-or controlled by the United States, without a permit,
as prescribed by the act-and these rules and regulations, or
there taken or made, contrary to the terms of the permit, or
contrary to the act and these rules and regulations, may be
seized whenever found and at any time, by the prope field
officer or by any person duly authorized by the Secktary havin-g
jurisdiction, and disposed of as the Secretary shall determine,
by deposit in the proper national depository or otherwise.

17. Every collection made under the authority of the act and
of these rules and regulations shall be preserved in the public
museum designated in the permit and shall be accessible to the
public. No such collection shall be removed from such public
museum without the written authority of the Secretary of the.
Smithsonian Institution,.and then only to another public museum,
where it shall b6 accessible to the public; and when any public
museum, which'is a depository of any collection made under the
provisions of the act And these rules and regulations, shall
cease to exist, every such collection in such public museum
shall thereupon revert to the national collections and be
placed in,the proper national depository.

Washington, D.C., December 28, 1906.

The foregoing rules and regulations are he-reby approved-in
triplicate and, under authority conferred by law on the Secre-
taries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War, are hereby made
and established, to take effect immediately. E.A. Hitchcock,
Secretary of the Interior. James Wilson, Secretary of Agri-
,culture. William H. Taft, Secretary of War.

373

Historic Si tes Act of 1935

An Act To Provide for the Preservation of Historic American Sites,
Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities of National. Significance, and
(Of- Ot,110Y' J'UrPOSOS, Appr@oved AtigList 21 , 1.93S (1)tiblic Law 74-292;
49 STAT. 066; 1.6 U.S.C. 401.--407)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is hereby
J-eclared that it is a national policy to preserve for public use
historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance
for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States.
(16 U.S.C. sec. 461.)

.SECTION 2. The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred
to as the Secretary), through the National Park Service, for the
purpose of effectuating the policy expressed in section 1 hereof,
shall have the following powers and perform the following duties
afid functions:

(a) Secure, collate, and preserve drawi ngs, plans, photographs,
and other data of historic and archaeologic sites,, buildings and
objects.

(b) Make a survey of historic and archaeologic sites, build-.
ings, and objects for the purpose of determining which possess
exceptionaltvalue as commemorating or illustrating the history.
of the United States.
(c) @ake necessary investigations and researches in the Un .ited
States relating to particular sites, buildings, or objects to
obtain true and accurate historical and archaeological facts and
information concerning the same. I I
(d) For the purpose of this Act, acquire in the name of the
United States by gift, purchase, or otherwise any,property,
personal or real, or any interest or estate therein, title to
any real property to be satisfactory to the Secretary: Provided,
That no such property which is owned by any religious or e uca-
tional institution, or which is owned or administered for the
benefit of the public shall be so acquired without the consent
of the owner: Provided further, That no such property shall be
acquired or contract or agreement for the acquisition thereof
made which will obligate the general fund of the Treasury for
the payment of such property, unless or until Congress has,
appropriated money which is available for that purpose.

(e) Contract and make cooperative agreements with States,
municipal subdivisions, corporations, associations, or indi-
viduals) with proper bond where deemed advisable, to protect,.
preserve, maintain, or operate any historic or archaeologic

374

building, site, object, or property used,in connection therewith
for public use, regardless as to whether the title thereto is.in
the United States: Provided, That no contract or cooperative
agreement shall be iFa-deor entered into which will obligate the
general fund of the Treasury unless or until Congress has appro-
priated money for such purpose.

(f), Restore, reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve, and maintain
historic or prehistoric sites, buildings, objects, and properties
of national historical or archaeologicalosignificance and where
deemed desirable establish and maintain-museums in connection.,
therewith.
(g) Erect and maintain tablets to.mark'or commemorate historic
or prehistoric places and events of national historical, or archae-
ological significance.

(h) Operate and-manage historic and archaeologic sites, build-
ings, and properties acquired under the provisions of this Act
togetherwith lands and subordinate buildings forthe benefit of
the public, such authority to include the power to charge reason-
able visitation fees and grant concessions, leases, or permits
for the use of land, building space, roads, or trails when neces-
sary or desirable either to accommodate the public or to facili-
tate administration: Provided, That such concessions, leases, or
permits, shall be let-at competitive bidding, to the person mak-
ing the highest and best bid.

Ji) When the Secretary determines that 'it would be adminis-
tratively burdensome.to.restore, reconstruct, operate, or main-
tain any particular historic or archaeologic site, building, or
property donated to the United States through the National Park
Service, he may cause the same to be done by organizing a corpora-
tion for that purpose under the laws of the District of Columbia
or any State.

.(j) Develop an education program and service for the purpose
of.,making available to the public facts and information pertain-
ing to American historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and
properties of national significance. Reasonable charges may be
made for the dissemination of any such facts or information.

(k) Perform any and all acts, and make such rules and regula-
tions not inconsistent with this Act as may be necessary and
proper to carry out the provisions thereof. Any person violat-
ing any of the rules and regulations authorized by this Act
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 and be adjudged
to pay all cost of the proceeding.s. (16 U.S.C. sec. 462.)

37S

SECTTON 3. A general advisory board to be known as the."Advisory
Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments"
is hereby established, to be composed of not to exceed eleven per-
sons, citizens of'the United States, to include representatives
competent in the fields of history, archaeology, architecture,
and human geography, who shall be appointed by the Secretary and
serve at his pleasure. The members of such board shall receive
no salary but may be paid expenses incidental to travel engaged
in discharging their duties as members.

It shall be the duty of such board to advise on any matters re-
lating to national parks and to the administration of this Act
Submitted to it for consideration by the Secretary. It may also
recommend policies to the Secretary from time to time pertaining
to national parks and to the restoration, reconstruction, con-
servation,--,and general administration of historic and archaeologic
sites, buildings, and.properties. (16 U.S.C. sec. 463.)

SECTION 4. The Secretary, in administering this Act, is authorized
.to cooperate with and may seek and accept the assistance of any
Federal, State, or municipal department or agency, or*any educa-
tional or scientific institution., or any patriotic association,
or any individual.

(b) When deemed necessary, technical advisory committees may
be established to act in an advisory capacity in connection with
the restoration or reconstruction of any historic or prehistoric
building or structure.

(c) Such,professional and technical assistance may be employed
without regard to the civil-service laws, and such service may be
established as may be required to accomplish the purposes of this
Act and for which money may be appropriated by Congress or made
available by gifts for such purpose. (16 U.S.C. sec. 464.)

SECTION S. Nothing in this Act shall be held to deprive any
State., or political subdivision thereof, of its civil and crimi-
nal jurisdiction in and over lands acquired by the United States
under this Act. (16 U.S.C. sec. 465.)

SECTION 6. There is authorized to be appropriated fo r carrying
out the purposes of this Act such sums as the Congress may from
time to time determine. (16 U.S.C. sec. 466.)

SECTION 7. The provisions of this Act shall control if any of
them are in conflict with any other Act or Acts relating to the
same subject matter. (16 U.S.C. sec. 467.)

376
Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960
An ACT to Provide for the Preservation of Historical and Archae-
ological Data (including Relics and Specimens) which might Other-
wise be Lost as the Result of the Construction of a Dam, Approved
June 27, 1960 (Public Law 86-523;74 STAT. 220; 16 U.S.C. 469-
469c)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the
purpose of this Act to further the policy set forth in the Act
entitled "An Act to provide for the preservation of historic
American sites buildings, objects, and antiquities of national
significance, and for other purposes," approved August 21, 1935
(16 U.S.C. 461-467) by specifically providing for the preserva-
tion of historical and archaeological data (including relics and
specimens) which might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed
as the result of flooding, the building of access highways, and
other alterations of the terrain caused by the construction of
a dam by an agency of the United States, or by any private person
or corporation holding a license issued by any such agency.

SECTION 2.

(a) Before any agency of the United States shall undertake
the construction of a dam, or issue a license to any private
individual or corporation for the construction of a dam, it
shall give written notice to the Secretary of the interior
setting forth the site of the proposed dam and the approximate
area to be flooded and otherwise changed if such construction
is undertaken; Provided, with respect to any floodwater retard-
ing dam which provides less than five thousand acre-foot of-
detention capacity and with respect to any other type of dam
which creates a reservoir of less than forty surface acres the.
provisions of this section shall apply only when the construct-
ing agency, in his preliminary survey, finds, or is presented
with. evidence that historical or archaeological materials exist
or may be present in the proposed reservoir area.
(b) Upon receipt of any notice, as provided in subsection (a),
the Secretary of the interior (hereinafter referred to as the
"Secretary"), shall cause a survey to be made of the area pro-
posed to be flooded to ascertain whether such area contains
historical and archaeological data (including relics and speci-
mens) which should be preserved in the public interest. Any
such survey shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible
If, as a result of any such survey, the Secretary shall deter-
mine(1) that such data exists in such area, (2) that such data
has exceptional historical or archaeological significance, and
should be collected and preserved in the public interes, and

377

that it is feasible to collect and preserve such data, he
shall cause the necessary work -to be.performed in such area to
collect and preserve such data. All such work shall be per-
formed as expeditiously as possible.

(c) The Secretary shall keep the instigatingagency notified
at all times of the progress of any survey made 'Under this Act,
or of any work undertaken as a result of such survey, in order
that there will be as little disruption or delay as possible in
th e carrying.out of the functions of such agency.

(d) A survey similar to that provided for by section (b) of
this section and the work required to be performed as a result
thereof shall so far as practicable also be undertaken in connec-
tion with any dam the construction of which has been heretofore
authori@ed by any agency of the United States, or by any such,.
private person or corporation holding a license issued by any,
such agency.

je) The Secretary shall consult with any interested Federal
and State agencies, educational and scientific organizations,
and private institutions-and qualified individuals, with a view
to determining the ownership of andthe most appropriate reposi-
tory for any relics.and specimens recovered as a result of any
work performed as provided.f.or in this section.

SECTION 3. In the administration of this Act, the Secretary may

1. enter into contracts or make cooperative agreements with
any Federalor State agency, any educational-or scient.ific organi-
zation, or any institution, corporation, association, or qualified
individual; and

procure the temporary or intermittent services of experts
or consultants or organizations thereof as provided in Section
is of the Act of August 2, 1046 (SU.S.C.SSa); and

accept and u tilize funds made available for salvage
archaeological purposes by any private person or corporation
holding a license issued by an agency of the United States for
the construction of a dam or other type of water or power control
project.

SECTION 4. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

378

Historic Preservation Act of 1966

An Act to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Additional
Historic Properties Throughout the Nation, and for Other Purposes,
Approved October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-665; 80 STAT.915; 16 U.S.C.
470)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress finds
and declares

(a) That the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded
upon and reflected in its historic past;

(b) That the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation
should be preserved as a living part of our community life and
development in order to give a sense of orientation to the Ameri-
can people;

(c) That, in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban
centers, highways, and residential, commercial, and industrial
developments, the.present governmental and nongovernmental his-
toric preservation programs and activities are inadequate to
insur.e future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate
and enjoy the rich heritage of our Nation; and

(d) That, although the major burdens of historic preservation
have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies
and individuals, and both should continue to play a vital role
it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal
Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and
activities, to give maximum encouraglement to agencies and indi-
viduals undertaking preservation by@@rivate means, and to assist
P
S.tate and local governments and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation in the United States to expand and accelerate their
preservation programs and activities.

Title I

SECTION 101.

(a) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized

1. to expand and maintain a national register of districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in Ameri7
can history, architecture, archeology, and culture, hereinafter
referred to as the National Register, and to grant funds to
States for the purpose of preparing comprehensive statewide
.historic surveys and plans, in accordance with criteria estab-
lished by the Secretary, for the preservation, acquisition,

379

and development of such properties;

to establish a prograni oF niatching grants-in-aid to States
flor projects having as their purpose the preservation for public
benefit of properties that are significant in American history,
architecture, archeology, and culture; and.

3. to establish a program of matching grant-in-aid to the
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States,
chartered by act of Congress approved October 26, 1949 (63 Stat.
927), as amended, for the purpose of carrying out th.e responsi-
bilities of the National Trust.

(b) As used in this Act

1. The term "State" includes, in addition to the several
States of the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

2. The term "project" means programs of State and local
governments and other public bodies and private organizations.
and individuals for the acquisition of title or interest in,
and for the development of, any district, site, building, struc-
ture, or object that is significant in American history, archi-
tecture, archeology, and culture, or property used in connection
therewith, and for its development in order to assure the preser-
vation for public benefit of any such historical properties..

3. The term "historic preservation" includes the protection@
rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
history, architecture, archeology, or culture.

4. The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.

SECTION 102.

(a) No grant may be made under this Act

1. unless application therefor is submitted to the Secretary
in accordance with regulations and procedures prescribed by him,

2. unless the application is in accordance with the compre-..
hensive statewide historic preservation plan which has been
approved by the Secretary after considering its relationship
to the comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan prepared
pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of,1965
(78 Stat. 897);

3. for more than 50 per centum of the total cost involved,
as determined by the Secretary and his determination shall be

380

f inal;

4. unless the grantee has agreed to make such reports, in
such form and containing such information as the Secretary may.
from time to tome require;

S. unless the grantee has agreed to assume, after completion
of the project, the total cost of the continued maintenance,
repair, and administration*of the property in a manner satis-
factory to the Secretary; and

6. until the grantee has complied with such further terms
and conditions as the Secretary may deem necessary or advisable.

(b) The Secretary may in his discretion waive the requirements
of subsection (a), paragraphs 2. and 5. of this section for any
grant under this Act to the National Trust for Historic Preserva-
tion in the United States, in which case a grant to the National
Trust may include funds for the maintenance, repair, and,adminis-
tTation of the property in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.

(c) No State shall be permitted to utilize the value of real
property obtained before the date of approval of this Act in
meeting the remaining cost of a project for which a grant i.s'
made under this Act.

SECTION 103.

(a) The amounts appropriated and made available for grants to
the State for comprehensive statewide historic surveys and plans,
under this Act shall be apportioned among the States by the
Secretary on the basis of needs as determined by him: Provided,
however, That the amount granted to any one State shall not,ex-
ceed SU per centum of the total cost of the comprehensive.state-
wide historic survey and plan for that State, as determined by
the Secretary.

,(b) The amounts appropriated *and made available for grants to
the States for projects under this Act for each fiscal year shall
be apportioned among the States by the Secretary in accordance
with needs as disclosed in approved statewide historic preserva-
tion plans.

The Secretary shall, notify each St ate of its apportionment, and
the amounts thereof shall be available thereafter for payment to
such State for projects in accordance with the provisions of
this Act. Any amount of any apportionment that has not been
paid or,obligated by-the Secretary during the fiscal year in
which such notification is given, and for two fiscal years there-
after, shall be reapportioned by the Secretary in accordance with
this subsection.

381

SECTION 104.

(a) No grant may be made by the Secretary for or on account
of any survey or project under this Act withrespect to which
financial assistance has been given or promised under any other
Federal program or activity, and no financial assistance may be
given under any other Federal program or activity for or on
account of any.survey or project with respect to which assis-
tance has been given or promised under this Act.

(b) In order to assure consistency in policies and actions
under this Act with other related Federal programs and activities,
and to assure coordination of the planning, acquisition, and de-
velopment assistance to States under this Act with other related
Federal programs 'and activities, the President may issue such
regulations with respect thereto as he deems desirable, and such
assistance may be provided only in accordance with such regula-
tions.

SECTION 105. The beneficiary of assistance under this Act shall
keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including
records which fully disclose the disposition by the beneficiary
of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the pro-
ject or undertaking in connection with which such assistance is
given or used, and the amount and nature of that portion of the
cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources,
and such other records.as will facilitate an effective audit.

SECTION 106. The head of. any Federal Agency.having direct..Or.
indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally
assisted undertaking in any-State and the head of any Federal
department or independent agency having authority to license
any undertaking shall prior to the approval of the expenditure
of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issu-
ance of any license,,as the case may be, take into account
the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building
structure, or object that is included in theNational Register.
The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation established under title II,of
this Act a reasonabl& opportunity to comment.with regard to
such undertaking.

SECTION 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be
applicable to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme Court
building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol and its
related buildings and grounds.

SECTION 108. There are authorized to be appropriated not to
exceed $2,000,000 to carry out the provisions of this Act for
the fiscal year 1967, and not more than $10,000,000 for ea,ch

382

of the three succeeding fiscal years. Such appropriations shall
,be available for the financial assistance authorized by this
title and for the administrative,expenses of the Secretary in
connection therewith, and shall remain available until expended.

Title II

SECTION 201.

(a) There is established an Advisory Council on Historic Preser-
vation (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") which shall be
composed of seventeen members as follows:

1. The Secretary of the Interior.

2. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

3. The Secretary of Commerce.

4. The Administrator of the General Services Administration.

S. The Secretary of the Treasury

6. The Attorney General.

7. The Chairman of the National Trust for Historic Preserva-
tion.

8. Ten appointed by the President from outside the Federal
Government. In making these appointments, the President shall
give due consideration to the selection of officers of State
and local governments and individuals who are significantly
interested and experienced in the matters to be considered by
the Council.

(b) Bach member of the Council specified in paragraphs 1.
through 6. of subsection (a) may designate another officer of
his department or agency to serve on the Council in his.stead.

(c) Bach member of the,Council appointed under paragraph 8.
of subsection (a) shall serve for a term of five years from the
expiration of his predecessor's term; except that the members
first appointed under that paragraph shall serve for terms of
from one to five years, as designated by the President at the
time of appointment, in such manner as to insure that the terms
of not less than one nor more than two of them will expire in
any one year.

(d) A vacancy in the Council shall not affect its powers,

383

but shall be filled in the same manner as the original appoint-
ment (and for the balance of the unexpired term).

(e) The Chairman of the Council shall be designated by the
President.

(f) Eight members of the Council shall con stitute a quorum.

SECTION 202.

(a) The Council shall
1. advise the President and the Congr"ess on matters relating
to historic preservation; recommend measures to coordinate activi
ties of Federal, State, and local agencies and private institutions
and individuals relating to historic preservation; and advise on
the dissemination of information pertaining to such activities;

2. encourage, in cooperation with the National Trust for
Historic Preservation and appropriate private agencies, public
interest and participation in historic preservation;

3. recommend the conduct of studies in such areas a .s the
adequacy of legislative and administrative. statutes and regula-
tions pertaining to historic preservation activities of State
and local governments and the effects of tax policies at all,
levels of government on historic preservation;

4. advise as to guidelines for the assistance of State and
local governments in drafting legislation relating to historic
preservation; and

5., encourage, in cooperation with appropriate public and
private agencies and institutions, training and education in the
field of historic preservation.

(b) The council shall.submit annually a comprehensive report
of its activities and the results of its studies to the Presi-
dent and the Congress and shall from time to time submit such
additional and special reports as it deems advisable. Each
report shall propose such legislative enactments and other
actions as, in the judgment of the Council, are necessary and
appropriate to carry out its recommendations.

SECTION 203. The Council is authorized to secure directly from
any department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, in-
dependent establishment or instrumentality of the.executive
branch of the Federal Government information, suggestions, esti-
mates, and statistics for the purpose of this title; and each
such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office,
independent establishment or instrumentality is authorized-to

384

furnish such infirmation, suggestions, estimates, and statistics
to the extent permitted by law and within available funds.
SECTION 204.The members of the Council specified in paragraphs
-1. through 7. of section 201 (a) shall serve without additional
compensation. The members of the Council appointed under para-
graph 8. of section 201 (a) shall receive $100 per diem when
engaged in the performances of the duties of the Council. All
members of the Cuncil shall receive reimbursement for necessary
traveling and subsistence expenses incurred by them in the per
formance of the duties of the Council.

SECTION 20S.

The Director of the National Park Service or his designee
shall be the Executive Director of the Council. Financial and
administrative services (including those related to budgeting,
accounting,financial reporting, personnel and procurement) shall
be provided The council by the Department of the Interior, for
which payments shallbe made in advance, or by reimbursement,
from funds of the Council in such amounts as may be agreed upon
by the Chairman of the Council and the Secretary of the Interior:
Provided
, That the regulations of the Department of the Interior
for the collection of indebtedness of personnel resulting from
erron Ments
eous pay (5 U.S. 46e) shall apply to the collection
of erroneous payments made to or on behalf of a Council employee,
and regulations Of said Secretary for the administrative control
of funds (31 U.S.C. 665.(g) shall apply to appropriations of
the Council: And Provided fuither, That the Council shall not be
required to prescribe such regulations.
(b) The Council shall have power to appoint and fix the com-
pensation of such additional personnel as may be necessary to
carry out its duties, without regard to the provisions of the
civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949.
(c) The Council may also procure, without regard to the civil
service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, temporary and
intermittent services to the same extent as is authorized for
the executive departments by section IS of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), but at rates not to exceed
$50 per diem for individuals.
(d) The members of the Council specified in paragraphs 1.
through 6. of section-210 (a) shall, provide the Council, on a
reimbursable basis,with such facilities and services under
their jurisdiction and control as may be needed by the Council
to carry out its duties, to the extent that such facilities and
services are requested by the Council and are otherwise available
for that purpose. To the extend of available appropriations, the

385

Council may obtain, by purchase, rental, donation, or otherwise,
such additional property, facilities, and services as may be
needed to carry out its duties.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

An Act to establish a National policy for the environment, to
provide for the establishment of a Council on EnvIronmental
Quality, and for other purposes, Approved January 1, 1970 (Pub-
lic Law 91-190; 91 STAT. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321-434)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the-
sembled That this Act ma
United States of America in Congress as y
be cited as the "National Environmental PolicyACt of 1969".

Purpose
SECTION 2. The purposes of this Act are: to declare, a national.
policy which will encourage production and enjoyable harmony be-
tween man and his environment; to promote efforts which -will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and
to enrich the understand-
stimulate the health and welfare of man;
ing of the ecological systems and natural resources important to
the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

Title I
Declaration of National Environmental PolicY
SECTION 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of
man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the
natural environment, particularly the profound influences of poPu-
lation growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion,
resource exploitation, and new expanding technological advances
and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and
maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and de-
velopment of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of
the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local govern.
ments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use
all practicable means and measures including financial and techni-
cal assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the
general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man
uctive harmony, and fulfill the social,
and nature can exist in prod
economic, and other requirements of present and future generation
of Americans.
licy set forth in this Act, it is
(b) In order to carry out the po

386

the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use
all practicable means, consistent with other essential considera-
tions of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans,
functions,programs, and resources to the end that the Nation
may
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
of the environmet for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful,productive, and
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environ-
ment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or oher
undesirable and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects
of our national heritage, and Maintain, wherever possible, an
environment which supports diversity and variety of individual
choice;
(S) achieve a balance between population and resource use which
will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
amenities; and

(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a health-
ful environment and that each person has a responsibility to con-
tribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.

SECTION 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the
fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and
public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and ad-
ministered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act,
and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall --
A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will
insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and
the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking
which may have an impact on man's environment;

(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultations
with the Council on Environmental Quality established by title II
of this Act, which will insure that presently unquantified environ-
mental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration
in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations;

CC) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for

387

legislation and other major Federal actiond significantly affect-
ing the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by
the responsible official on
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) an adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved In the proposed action should it be imple-
mented. Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible
Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any
y
Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such
Statement and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and en-
force environmental. standards, shall be made available to the
President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public-
as provided by section 552.of title S., United States Code, and
shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review
processes;

(D) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to
recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves un-.
resolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources;

(E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of envir on-
mental problems and, where consistent with the foreign policy of
the United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolu-
tions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation
in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of man-
kind's world environment;

(F) make available to States, countries, municipalities, institu-
tions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring,,
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment;

(G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning
and development of resource-oriented projects; and

(H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality established by
title II of this Act.

388

SECTION 103. All agencies-of the Federal Government shall review
their present itatutory authority, administrative regulations,
and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determin-
ing whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein
which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions
of this Act and shall propose to the President not later than.
July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to bring their
authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes,
and procedures set forth in this Act.

SECTION 104. Nothing in :Section 102 or 103 shall in any way,
affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency
(1) to comply with.criteria or standards of environmental quality,
(2) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State
agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the
recommendations or certification of any other Federal or State
agency.

SECTION 105. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are
supplementary to those.set forth in existing authorizations of
Federal agencies.

Title II
Council On Environmental Quality

SECTION 201. The President shall transmit to the Congress annual'ly
beginning July 1, 1970, an Environmental Quality Report (herein-
after referred to as the "report") which shall set forth (1) the
status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered
environmental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to,
the air, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water,
and the terrestrial environment, including, but not limited to,
thelorest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural
environment; (2) current and foreseeable trends in the quality,
management and utilization of such environments and the effects
of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements
of the Nation; (3) the adequacy of available natural re 'sources for
fulfilling human and economic requirements of the Nation in the
light of expected population pressures; (4) areview of the pro-
grams and activities (including regulatory activities) of the
Federal Government, the State and local governments, and nongovern-
mental entities or individuals, with particular-reference to their
effect on the environment and on the conservation, development,and
utilization of natural resources; and (5) a program for remedying
the deficiencies of existing programs and activities, together.
with recommendations for legislation.

SECTION 202. There is created in the Executive Office of the
President a Council on Environmental Quality (hereinafterreferred

389

to as the "Council"). The Council shall be composed of three
members who shall be appointed by the President to serve at his
pleasure, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
President shall designate one of the members of the Council to
serve as Chairman. Each member shall be'a person who, as a result
of his training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally
well qualified to analyze and interpret environmental trends and
information of all kinds; to appraise programs and activities of
the Federal Government in the light of the policy set forth in
title I of this Act; to be conscious of and responsive to the
scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and,
interests of the Nation; and to formulate and recommend national
policies to promote the.improvement of the quality of the environ-
ment.

SECTION 203. The Council may employ such officers and empl oyees
as may be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under
this Act, in accordance may employ and fix the compensation of
such experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying
out of its functions under this Act, in accordance with section
3109 of title 5, United States Code (but without regard to the
last sentence thereof).

SECTION 204. It shall be the duty and function of the Council

(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of the
Environmental Quality Report required by section 201;

(2) to gather timely and authoritative information concerning
the conditions and trends in the quality of the environment both
current and prospective., to analyze and interpret such information
for the purpose of determining whether such conditions and trends.
are interfering, or are likely to interfere, with the achievement
of-the policy set forth in title I of this Act, and to compile
and submit to the President studies relating to such conditions
and trends;

(3) to review and appraise the various programs and activities
of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set forth
in title I of this Act for the purpose of determining the extent
to which such programs and activities are contributing to the
achievement of such policy, and to make recommendations to the
President with respect thereto;
(4) to develop and recommend to the President national policies
to.foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality
to meet the conservation, social, economic, health, and other
requirements and goals of the Nation;

(5) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research, and.
analysis relating to ecological systems and environmental quality;

390

(6) to document and define changes in the natural environment,
including the plant and animal systems, and to accumulate necessary
data and other information for a continuing analysis of these
.changes or trends and an interpretation of their underlying causes;

(7) to report at least once each year to the President on the
state and condition of the environment; and

(8) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and recom-
mendations with respect to matters of policy and legislation as
the President may request.

SECTION 205. In exercising its powers, functions, and duties
under this Act, the Council shall

(1) consult with the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environ-
mental Quality established by Executive Order numbered 11472,
dated May 29, 1969, and with such representatives of science, in-
dustry, agriculture, labor, conservation organizations, State and
local governments an d other groups, as,it deems advisable; and

(2) utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facili-
ties, and information (including statistical information) of
public and private agencies and organizations, and individuals,
in order that duplication of effort and expense may be avoided,
thus assuring that the Council's activities will not unnecessarily
overlap or conflict with similar activities authorized by law and
performed by established agencies.

SECTION 206. Members of the Council shall serve full time and the
Chairman of the Council shall be compensated at the rate,provided
for Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay'Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313).
The other members of the Council shall be compensated at the rate
provided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C.
5315).
SECTION'207.. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry
out,the provisions of this Act not to exceed $300,000 for.fiscal
year 1970, $700,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 for each
fiscal year thereafter.

Executive Order No. 11593

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 15P
1971, 36 P.R. 8921.

By virtue of the authority vested in me as'.President of the United
States and in furtherance of the purposes And policies of the@.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C.

391

4321 et -seq.), 58 the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(80 Stat. 915, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 59 the Historic Sites Act
of 193S (49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 461. et seq.), 60 and the Anti-
@JLI,iti.cs Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), 61 it
is ordered as follows:

Policy

SECTION 1. The Federal Government shall provide leadership in
preserving, restoring and maintaining the historic and cultural
environment of the Nation. Agencies of the executive branch of
the Government (hereinafter referred to as "Federal agencies")
shall (1) administer the cultural properties under their control
in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship for future generations,
0) initiate measures necessary to direct their policies, plans
and programs in such a way that federally owned sites, structures,
and objects of historical, architectural or archaeological sig-
nificance are preserved, restored and maintained for the inspira-
tion and benefit of the people, and (3) in,consultation with the
Advisory,Council on Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 470i), insti
tute procedures to assure that Federal plans and programs contri-
bute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned
sites, structures and objects of historical, architectural or
archaeological significance.

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies

SECTION 2. Consonant with the provisions of the acts cite&,in the
first paragraph of this order, the heads of Federal agencies shall:

(a) no later than July 1, 1973, with the advice of the Secretary
of the Interior, and in cooperation with the liaison officer for
historic preservation for the State or territory involved, locate,
inventory, and nominate to the Secretary of the Interior all
sites., buildings, districts, and objects under their jurisdiction
or control that appear to qualify for listing.on the National Regi-
ster of Historic Places.

(b) exercise caution during the interim period until inventories
and evaluations required by subsection (a) are completed to assure
that,any feder'ally owned property that might qualify for nomina-
tion is not inadver 'tently transferred, sold, demolished or sub-
stantially altered. The agency head shall refer any questionable
actions to the Secretary of the Interior for an opinion respect-
ing the property's eligibility for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places. The Secretary shall consult with,
the liaison officer for historic preservation for the State or
territory involved in arriving at his opinion. Where, after a
reasonable period in which to review and evaluate the property,

~'~qth tS~4qq~qc~qzr~6qqt
~,~j ~q@ar~,-Y~iede~qp~6qt~qq~@~qr
~I~qe ~I~i~8qm~,~4qi~8qn-~@es~)ft~qi~qt~qa~i~qi-st~qt~qketp~qit~qe~Dp~(~qf~0qn~qt~-~8qt~-h~0qt~g~,
~qT~qj~qi ~8qt ~qjb
~4qM~qi~qa~@~qc~4qRre_~@~q@~I~4qq~,~qr~j _e~-~6qd~- ~0qfo ~q!~@~8qt-~qs-~rt~qi~6qmgp~qo~-~qDv~qf~0qNe~, ~qTf~qm~qtr
~- A ~qi~8qd~4q*~4qW~qI~2qP~qI~qr~2qC~2qg~0qk~6qT~qt~'~qO~I~0qf~qi~4q@~qf~qI
~a
~6q9~-~(~qi~c~qle~-~.~0qr~@~,~c~qllba~i~qg-~qd-~i~qidyg~ql~iea~qd~)b~q@lea~:~6qk~0qt~,r~6qw~0qd~4qn~q!~0qa~qi~q)~2q&~qi~qqu r
~116qe ~6qi~6qn~qd- els
~0qM~qO~6qM~t~0q4~2qbn~qi~-~qA~ql
~2qW~2qk~,~0qq~,~qr~)e~,~q(~ql~6q4ft~6qA~qr ~- ~4q@~6qh~,~-~1~.6~qr~Le~-~0qO~6qO~8qf~8qi~2qj~q@d~qd~8qz~qyat; ~2qn~6qs
~4qt~4qm-~q@ftih~,~,~,~4qa~qlR~qq~4qd~q(~6qp~2qr~2qv~qi~ri~.~q@~0q@~6qM~qc~q)E e~2q&~2qje
~qo~qi~qr p~q, -~qeser
and
~4qA~.~4qV~@P~2qA~qT~n~2qt~4qy~ls~2q4~,e ~-w~q*~j~qj~qj~8q4-~-~qj~-~j~q1 ~j~j~qx~qj~4qqt~jta~qc~)t~-~,~qj~-~jw~qj~rt~i~4qh~qn ~q9~)~0qp
s~4qre ed-~8qt~0qr~qeg~)a~8qt~0qh~0q*~qlp~qr~2qd~0qV~qg~@~8q@t~q)pru~2qAe~:~0qp~qlt~0qr~0qgyed
~q*~j~2q%~qr~4qr T~qt~q)H~qi~qFslt~qo~)rli~qL~qc~igPr~qd~-~-~,~'~.~@~qie~qr~~qx~qbait~qi~-~ql~qt~2q&~qir~qL~@~8qgia~q)~ql~qE~ql a~qj~qc~4qw~0qm~8q�s~4qb~q(~qT~2q&~8q#~2q*~,~qo~0qzhe
A, I
~;v ~qi~, e~qQ~qr~,~(~8qk~4qq~qj~qt~qc ~qj~q)~qI~qL~P o~,
~0qX-~6qjd~6qA~-~qd~- ~qja~@n~j ~2qQp~-~-p ~qe~i~4qn~8qt~0qa~,
~6qn~-~0q1~,t~8qV st~qo~:c~qo~qom~4qm~6q6~in-~-~0qte~qc~4qm~ ~4qt~-~qI~'~8qm ~0qp~2qT~8qdp~2qw~0qv~qE~0qMon of rail-roads
and highways, a~qnd other alterations of the terrain caused by the
~0qCC~qb~4qhs~2qk~2qW~q:~qF~2qA~-~6qk~2q0~-~-e~qi ~4qM~-~8q6~--a~qs~i~4qur~le~i~qs~n to~q; a~L~q-~is~q/u~qr~qie~Y~e~qth~- ~qa~qih~8qa~4qw ~q4~8qb ~i~6qSe~qr-~le~-~,~,~6qG~2q@~qoj~q@~q6 ~0qW
d~6qb al
~q4~qo~q?~i~q@~4qa q~0qw i~qo~r~qr~a t~q;~q@~qts ~qs
~,~q@~4q@~qs~4qA-~4qance~)~-~ra ~cp~2qm~q9~-pe~-~2qnt~0qy~d~qI~0qA~8qf~8qte~qIdI~qi~0qM ~qthe~qI~6qW~2qx~4qv~0qf~qa~q2~8qna~qj~6qB~6qT~qj~qE~qp~8q6~,~0qW
e~4qpny
~qO~0qA~c~4qf~4qf~@~qis~j~q@~-~,~qq~,~8qx~j~2qt~-~qq~0qy ~qP~0qJ~,~-a~qc~j~'
~8qgs
~.~@~q) ias-~iyto~i~ql~0qb~-~-e~,~,-~rs~0qu~0qV~i~,-~,t~,-an~q3L~q'~qia~4qf~4qf~4qi~8qW ta~-~2qk~4qV~8qa~qx~qie~@~0qd ~a~q3~a~0qx~i~-~q9~q1~4q&mc~6qas~qi~0qAe~0qesult
~,~q:~2qV~4qy~q,~, ~q!~qi~-~0qt~-~2qqp~2qA~-~qa~-~0qke c~qt~t~qa~ik~ie~j~qrru~qt~q@~6qq~qz~qi~n~qta,
~0qt~6q4~q!~4qm e ~-~q@~,~, ~q4~qj~qr-~jaw -~2qk q-~) ~i~2qQ~z~qj ~6qd~4qm~;v e~q) ~IM ~2qS~8q&~qB~qI E~4qn~-~qp~-~-~6qd~0qd~qr~)~0qd sl~0q@ ~0qc~4qh~qr~qt~qs~6qh~qe~qd 3~-~qp~qr~qr~0qV j ~@ e~qc t
~8q%~8q9~qJ~qE~qL~I~qE~4qWI~qP d ~-
~6qA~0qp~6qV~, ~qza~qnp~,hotographs and maps, of the property, and
that copy of such records then be deposited in the Library of
~4qC~q@P-~6qW~qj~2q"~,~q@~q5 ~qz~qPs ~4qP~8qA-~4qm~y~qt~o-~lo~4qf ~qa~q4~j~8qhe -H~-~8q@~-s~qj~qt-o
j~qr~8qk~4qo ~s~qS~4q@~0qA~qr~qle~0qy~a~r~c~4q& r take
R~q!~,e~-~qQ~-~@~-O~j~6qn~4qd efol~qr~qi~2q&~4qmt~4qu~8qxet~cus~Ee~a~q)ar~qr~0q&~4qk~8qw~qf~0q@e~qi~qr~qe~@~0qb~6qt-
A g~j~6q" ~qS~q; ~8q@je ~-~c ~4qb ~im ~4qMb ~i ~qC~- ~qt~4qO~irb ~qnt NO~q) ~1D e~4qp ~qf ~qt~-~j~qr ~8qU~qLe ~qr~6qa~0qx ~i~qo-~6qk- tt~qi~4qm~-i ~qRn~qf t er ~4qk~qb~qam ~2qf ~qo~qir~-~L a~8q9~qv~4q4~qJ~8qd~qa g~qO~0qn~4qe
~qX
~cja~,_s~qi~qs~j~qI~z~qp
~8qq~-e~qh ~0q6~L ~1~@~2q6 ~qe~0qt~-~4qhe~e ~0q=~.~qj~q@p ~q1~,~-~0qa ~6qu~4q6~8qm o~qT~qfn t~qt~4q@ ~c~qa~4qh o~2q#~qee ~4qu~4qm~2qz~2qb~I~qt~e~4qf~4qt~-~.~qr e f e r ~qr e d
to as the "Secretary") setting forth the site of the proposed dam
~2qi~qg
~qpt~q@~2qp~r~(~qy~,~qj~.~qe~qta~j~qs_~0qu~qg~qr~c~qps~a~0qw~0qtd ~0qV~6qT~4qd~-~qc~s~-~-~4qd~qI~2qb~qx~8qw~qd~4q&~0qb ~q@p~4q@~0qv~4qi~4qt~qi~8qw~3~0qf~4q@et~qh~q@~6qd~i~2qm~qp~4q4~6qm~cte~qiifance~,~,
t~qj~ql~,~0qk~qq~-~0qu
~@ ~0qjj~8q@ Tp~8q4~q@e~q'~js~2q&~6q@~q:~qC~q;~q:~q,~6q@~-
q~qq~4qqi ~L _~6q@~q:~6qjo~L~0qn~qs, ir~ieh~s~-~qm~qb~2qd~8qi~qk~qie~qtati~qc~q0~4qro~8qv~0qk~0qd~0qa~4q*~,st~0qU~8qm~qtti~i~qo~@hthoife~@~qf~0q@~qtra~qt~qic~qly
~.~,e d~qf ~6qp~6qA~0q4~q1~,~v~6qr
~ge~qig-~qils t-~je~,~-~-
~6qr~4qp,_~6qd~r~c~q$~:~qi~q;~q4~-~-t~-~,es~qj~,~-~qa~it ~-~vp~'~.~6qr~-o~qz~6qf~6qie~,~-~qIs~4q@~0qn~qt~2qdest~6qb~qm~g~qi~ra~qr~6qU~qfsa~ipi~-~@~8q6~:~qi~q;~6q@~qi~0qb~ql~qo~qQ~ql~u~6q"~qcd
t_~,~4qhe~qr~E~qS.e~,~qc~q;~4qye~qjt~qz~qL~-~qr~q3 ~-~qft ~Ft~4q&
~L ~f ~4qy co_ ~8qr~qi~-ty and with respect to any other. type
of dam which creates a reservoir of less than forty surface acres
~q(~-~qLe~.-~q)e s~q@~qk~qb~-~4qm~6qA~it~@s~iP~2qS~i~qg~qL~qce~,~.d~iure~ql~q*i~0qTe~q@~-~6qq~L~4qu~q@~ql~qir-~qi~-~q,~,~2qi~qlp~-~6qd~4qrs~8qb~-~-~8qh~T~0qd~0qp~qlt~q7oy s~0q=~qb~qj~q5~q3e~qc~v~8qe~qj~8qM ~2qV~4qd~qq ~4qt~0qWi~4qt~8qt~8qtuct-
S~qIe~j~4qq~-re~qUt~4qN~-~r~4qY~qq~q@~qPf 1~q@h~je~qj~qt~qj~qgit~qj~qe~qf~qf~4q@~qi~-
~0qN~qM~4qM~q@~qL~,r 1~q5~q1r~q)t os ~-~Lt~8qh~qee~, ~q)A~8qd ~6qy i-~q9 ~4qb~0qn~-~qd
~j~qis ~0qC~, o~4qun c~4q1~2ql ~qj~qo-~6qne ~2qV~0qd~T~qst~(~8qA i c
P~8qT~,~4q6L-s~qi~qp~4qF~(y~ql~-a~l~4q@~4qKo~l~0q@~-~,~@~0qnot~q@~ql~La~qtte~q@~qr ~r ~1~q1~q1~@ -a- -~2qxya~-~0qI~c ~-~2qS~:~qI~6qd~q@~r~qs ~qt~qt~i~0qv~qi~4qm~4qt
~qi ~8qS ~0qR~6qni ~6qJ~, I~0qn~I~qt~qa h~(~qi~(917~(2~qgi~(am~4qU ~T~qE~4qM~qt~qi~0qv
a~2qSit e~,-~.~qT~a~2qy ~qf~qL~qo~qcr ~qi~0qpe~6q&~6q4~6qA Wt ~2qk~4qA~4qd ~0qv~qq~qu~qi~qr~q@~,~-e~qin~etp o ~qs e d ~qr e s e r v o i r a~ e a
~2qU~2q)C~,~@~qcp~q@~qq
~,p e~4qy a t e ~q( ~z~6qy ~qi ~4qt~, h~j~,~,~,~, ~q(p~j~6q4~2qT~k~qc~f-~4qh~-a s ~6qg ~- ~e~i ~i~0qfd p ~4qi~m
o~2qA~-~qj t~~,~.~2q@~.ei ~-~0qN~-~qy~6q@:~6qA o n~qLa~2q@~' ~-~. ~i~0qr~qs ~qra~6qa~6q& ~qt~8qx~-an~4qs~8qf~8qer~4qe~q@e sf ~qb !a p~4qT~4qD T ~qt~q1~6qyo ~q1~q1 it ~6qi~0qt~4qd~,
~@ ~P ~,
~8qkn~-~qpst_~8qp~qc~-~6qp~6q�~@ei~-~-s~0qp~2q&h ~- o~4qp ~6qf~6qto~qia ~8qw~0qk~qb~4qhex~0qnco~0qhp~8q4~(t~qf~qL~4qb~8qI ecw~0qd~4qt~4qh~4qr~0quc t ion
~qrv~-~q@~Ltj~qi~-~0qpnf ~L~qo~Lb~qj-~.e~6q& ~, ~- ~p~j~qT ~@-e~qjr~jt~q@~4qy~qc
~,~c ~qi~qt-~qL~q) a~4qg~.~, ~4qw~(~j~2qh i~qj~qe~qj~io
~2qy~q( ~qj ~4qv e~-si ~L
p~8qge~c~qs ~4qd~qs~L n~8qo~qctt~6qke~0qt~qtT~2qA~q@ ~0qdn ~-~qp~qLno~2qg~2qz~6qr~qea~6qs~4qo~qyi-
~@~5~2q@~-~0qLes~eec~2qp~-~.~4qR~-~8qp~(m ~qc~qr~0qb~-u~, ~k~4qdepo~6qt~4qp ~(p~qj~-~iba~,~-~qi~-~4qct~-~-o~0qxcp~0qt~6qi~8qYa~q(t~0qb ~4qih~qg~q;~,~.e~qj~q7~8qc~-~qi~;~(~qt~4qa~qPt scientific,
prehistorical, historical, or archeological data, such agency
shall notify the Secretary, in writing, and shall provide the
Secre-~0qg~@e~4qf~8qP~qO~4qn~q�~,~qi~ql~qb~qi~-~2qj~qi~qi~0qp~~6qA~Le~8qpr~0qo~Lft~qd~q:h~4qt~qn~2qBe~-~2qc~6qm~2qa~(ta~0q"I o~(~qf~qn~(th~8qen~qin~6qge~8qt~qli~8qorproject,
Dr~o~~qg~ram~, o~r activity. Such agency may request the Secretary t~o
~6qS~6qU~4qS~0qU~0qP~-~6qNa~l~q5~e t~qj~2qT~0qber~2q5~2q@~,~qC~-~8qT~4q@~I~qt- ~8qe~qi~qa
r yp ~qo~i~qf t~L~2qt~qh ~@~-~8qn~r~q@e~2qx~qf~qL~6qdrpsha~qd~-~ql~0qvation of such data
~Y
(including preliminary survey, or other investigation as~2p~1p~~6qae~6qa~,'~-
~q(~6qNde~2qg~2qg~qo~2qu~8qx~-~qgge Si~qt~6q4t~.-eu~'~-a~qI~qI~8qdc~qI~qQ~-~qC~q4~2qA-~ ~qla~qi~@st~"~6qo~2qwicep~qreserva~qt~l~qi~qd~)~qt~li~4qo~qff~qf~qc~ql~8qulsuc~6qb
eya~q-~q@~q-~q,u~q.~q4~q-te~q@~'ando~-,~q!~qi~q@~irv~q@~-y~-~f~qpd~8qp
~q.~q@~qr~q.~q.~q@~qt~q@lyi~qo~6qWned~q-nliis~qtp~44qp~qi~4qepp~qi~00qe-~qpe~4qdtf~8qes and~8q4 ~36qR~0qh~0q@re
ap ~4q@~4q@~qL~68qge~0q;a~qi~4qt~q-~q.0~q'~36q4~8q0~04qm~0qi~2qL~4qi~2q4~2qt~4qois~q-~q.~0q@~0qighup~36qtope~08qr~36qt~4qiesufbrali~4qiti~24qtge~8qon t~48qf~48qi~0qe
~48qp~44qp~2qp p r~q-
pies
~0qL~qiaa~qr~76q@~0q@gis~0qi~8qg~2q)~qr~qlyo~4qf~8qn~q.~36qH~q,~4qi~0qs~0qt~2qO~60qg~6qi~2qci~52qP~4qi.a~0qc~q.ea~36qde pursuant to this section
shall' be submitted to the Secretary, who shall make them available
(~00qk~q,~6qj ~92q4~2q9~q@~04qve~6qi~q,~q,~2q?~44qpl~6qg~0qfit~6qg~2qyian~8q4~68qp~68qd~qcp~q-~0qt~0qo~6qce~64qd~12qu~q-~40qte~8qse~8qt~@~6q6e~4qb~qre applied by Federal
agencies in the 'reviews and nominations required by section 2 (,a).
SYS
~0q4 ~36qq~2qj~4qi~q-~08q4~q- p~8qr~q-~q,~4qo~q-~2qg~4qg~60qd~04qure~56qge~6qs-~56qbal~0q@~0qrbe~q-idevef~6qdpedci~00qnlce~04qns~qt~8qi~2ql~q?t~16qa~20qt~0qt~q-~16qonby
~00qw~8ql~2qt~q-nth~0qg ~44qq~q.~88q4~q-~4qfec~6qg~2q9~40qd~qO~2qqg~4q@
~qr ~q1~4qD~q-~6qQ4e~q-~4qS~q;~q-to any private person, association, or-

~qf~qi~qc~q$~ql~qd~2qxped~qite~qy~q4ct~qionSup~qQ~:~qotn~q@~6qm~qln~qA~-~qVi~qO~l~qDsd~qb~qQe~qt~8qh~qqn~ql~qg~qgt~qi~2qq~4qU~q4ls~4qg~8qgg~qi~.~q@~qt~q@~qEn~qQf
~6qf~q0~qg~qh~qsa~q1~qc~) , ~q3~-~qt~qr~i~f ~qf~qe~qt~-~I~.yd~qe~4qm~ql~qi~qb~qio~-~4qge~qg~qTr~qa~4qy~2qb~qs
~q5~qX~qI~q5 ~P -ta~qfx~qt~i~q@a~q;~qki~qq~q@t~qg~qr~j~6qa~qt~qL~qio~6qg~2qpp~T~qop-
~riated expressly for this purpose condu~'c ~.t, with the consent of
~qk~qd~qJ ~ql~qi~q4i~.~-~qi-~@~q9~qL~qIs~qO~6qf~6qf~2q@~6qql~qk~6qgsaf~qgEg~0qhis~qt~qf~qiric
p~qres~qerv~qa~6qti~6qn~et~qp~qr~q6~4qp~qr~qi~,~ql~qi~qshi~q@ i~qgns~8qup~8qq~i~qgy
~'~0qhe~qi~qucp~qrQp~q9rt~q@~qe~qst~0qW~0qh~qi~q9~4qbnh~qa~,
~qc~4qi~qdsu~2qr~qdgard~qi~6qugt~qi~qt
~qdespe~q@t~-~n~qeou~0qbistor~i~qia~qlya~qrch~qi~-~.~qt~qocpu~qza~q!cQ~qri~qg~qr~la~qbae~2qo~8ql~q@g~qi~q@~q4~q1e~q!~q@~qig ~6qW ~q;~qk~6qq~q4~qr~qIce
andewhichhas~i~qasresu~ql~qta~qOfysu~qc~-~6qb~,ee~,~0qV~.a~ql~0quat~0qi~-o~0qn~qs~-~qi~ql~qa~qg~qy ~u
~.~q1~0qg~,n~q@~qbm~qO~qt~q9~qi~8q9a @ ~2qR-~2qA~0qy 9
pu~qi~qtableafo~qrci~qist~q&ngoonp~qth~qe~@~iNa~,~qt~qi~qe~qt~qa~,~ql~, ~qL~qZ~qeg~qj~qg~q&~6qera~qQfaH~qi~qr~a~q9Q~qr~qjc~o~4q?l~6qa~q@es.
lays in construction or as a result of the temp~qgrary loss of the
~0q(~ie~qO d~q6v~qp~qt~q6paandomakeya~8qva~qil~qdb~q&er~qg~qo~ql~-~qFede~qr~qaI ag~qo~7
~qa~qg~qles and State and
local governments information concerning professional methods
~q&~2qh~4qdTt~q6~6qbh~2qkiqu~qOs)~qf~4q6~qt~qrep~q2eser~6qving, ~qimpro~2qv~@~q&~2qng~qfiresto~qr~q@ngna~2qn~qdi~i~qo~qa~0qi~qb~l~qla~qi~0qp~-
~qin~-g h~qi~qd~qtoricopr6per~qmie~q�~ency or appropriate historical or archeo-
logical authority that scientific, p~rehistorical, historical, or
~,~q(f~qohad~8qk~q&~qg~q@~-c~qE~qC~ad~qdra~qi ~qdgeh~qei~qe~qg ~qi~qi~qi ~qi~qth~qp ~-~qe~4qvalua~q&~,~qi~q@~qL~ql~qabi~4q@e~-~qm~qg~qi~6qfi~q@~qgt~qi~q@~:~qg,
pre~4qse~6qtv~iation~qy ~qim~8qpro~8qmement~-~l~@e~qt~-e~qs~qt~qOr~-~qatio~6qn~qi~qa~qL~qi~qddma~qin~qt~qt~qL~ql~q@~ql~ql~qg~q@d~qO~8q�r~2qb~ql~q�~qct,
~4qto~qr~qicip~4qy~q@pert~-~qies~qgram, shall~, if he determines that such data is
significant and is being or may be irrevocably lost or destroyed
~@~q(g~qa ~qr~qdv~qi~qewr~qa~6qn~!~qdo~qe~'~,~qv~-~_a~qI~0quaI~qt~qett~qL~i~q@ p~qia~qL~'~q$e~qO~qf~qi~qg~qg~2qX~q4~q5~qks~-~qf~q@~qK~qp~q@~.~q4s~qg~4qfl~q6u~qF~6qB~qiufunding
Fed~qb~qt~6qa~q&np~qr~qppe~qr~l~qt~.~q@~- ~2qT ~2qP ~q@~6qU~0qAd~0qR~qL~J~qfP~q@~q�e~qEause
~qosp~qt~(~qr~8q@n~q@~q5~qfer~qr~q@di~-~qf~qo~qtvhi~qg~-~q@o~8qf~qt~q@g ~q@~-~,um
to ~'a~qss~6qu~qo~q;~.ed~Lt~8qb~qa~c~qt~-dthes~4qh~qi~-s~q$~4qpr~qi~qg~qld~qc~8qb~qg~.~qWggt~'~2qgv~q@~qft~q*~4qug~6qbi~6qp~-~'opgr~qt~qA~q@sa~qi~q6as
p~q)~q7~q0~qs~6qgr~6qy~qe~0qd ~6q4~0qn ~i~qx ~C~, ~q@~6qP~q@~Ps~0qT~qg~qAndata
~qg~-~0q@ab~qili~4qu~qg~q;~qi~q@~qL~qa~qa ~8qK~qP~qAt~qP~2qf~q4~8q09~2qP~,a~qA~qI~qPP~6qP~q@~0qV~,~q9~qL~R
~qt~qona~0qa~qc~@~qe~qianda~-~-~.~qr~-op~-a~qirs~qO~8qi~-~n~q$u~2qp~-~4qbbP~qT~qQ~0qP~q@~qT~q&~-~q;~q@~q@swhich~, in his opinion, are
not being, but should be recovered and preserved in the public
~q@~6qW'e~0qr~-~qV~qe~0qY~qi~qew and comment ~4q4~qon Federal agency procedures submitted
pursuant to section 2 (e) of this order.
(b) No survey or recovery work shall be required pursuant to this
section which, in the determination of the head of the responsible
agenc~q)~6qT~4q@Ew~2qW~2qB~6qV~6qTEi~,~_~2qH~2qO~8q%~qJ~0q5~2qZ Federal or federall~0q@~qI~_~qC~8q"~qF~'~qP~qt~8qN~qJX~2qP~8qNojects or
activiti~@~q U~_~qder~~@~-~4q�~q!~q@~qIn in connection with any emergency, including
My '13~,~. 1
projects o~-~~,~- activities undertaken in anticipation of, or as a re-
sult of, a natural disaster.

(c) The Secretary shall initiate the survey or recovery effort
within sixty days after notification to him pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section or within such time as may be agreed upon with
the head of the agency responsible for funding or licensing the
project, activity or program in all other cases.

(d) The Secretary shall, unless otherwise mutually agreed to in
a~qT
writing, co~8qa~qq~qr~8qZ~8qM~L~Pe~0qB~I~qIo~6qp~0qy le~-~4qb~'~qi~qi~4qi~qc~!r~-~q@~,s~d~qst~qc~qi~(~q6~6q@a~6qA~q@~(-tn~ofo~-~q19~q17~i4blic entity
damaged as a result delays i~qn construction or as a result of
the tempora~08qh~2qne d~76q4~2qX~0qigo~q:~64qRe~q-~2qg~6qI~6qq~q,~q,~0qrv~qp ~q- ~0qg~q-~6qPa~80q&topf~2qn~80qJ~80qP6~80qPederally owned
n~qL ~2q9~76q@~40qT ~72q&~0qL
lands.
An Act to provide for the preservation of historical and archaeo-
~56qa~2ql~4qo~52qg~q-~0qj~q-~2qp~32qw I
I
~36qW~64qd ~qi ~6qs e f ~qi~2qb ~qi ~6qe d ~56q4 ~24qP ~0qg ~q5~8q7 t ~qo ~q-~8q9 ~0qL S I it ~68qb ~32q9 n1 It h Q f p ~q- it ~72qb ~72qY e ~00qC ~2q9 n Is ~0qf, _~6q@ ~76q4 ~36q@ n af a# I de ~80qY a ~44qN f 6
~52qI9~q6~0q74p~q-~q,~0q(~q(~6qP~0qL~00qu~q,~q_b~qE~8qI_~44qI_~2qc ~2qJ~20qAwa~60q9~04q@~q-~60qg~qL9~q--~0ql~qi~q@~4qie~00q@4~2qm~60q5~qLt~q@-at~qun~qc~6q2~68qg~q-~q.~2qG~0q)this Act, or of any work
undertaken as a result of such survey, in order that there will
be as little disruption or delay as possible in carrying out of

394

That it is the purpose of this Act to further the policy set forth,
in the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the preservation.of
historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of
national significance, and for other purposes", approved August 21,
193S (16.U.S.,C. 461-467), by specifically providing for the preser-
vation of historical and archeological data (including relics and
specimens) which might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed
as the result of (1) flooding, the building of access roads, the
erection of workmen's communities, the relocation of railroads
and highways, and other alterations of the terrain caused by the-
construction of a dam by any agency of the United States, or by
any private person or corporation holding a license issued by any
such agency or (2) any alteration of the terrain caused as a result
of any Federal construction project or Federally licensed project,
.activity or program.

S.ECTION'2. Before any agency of the United States shall undertake
the construction of a dam, or issue a license to any private indi-
vidual or corporation for the construction of a dam, it shall give
writtennotice to the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter.referred
.to as the "Secretary") setting forth the site of the.proposed dam
and the approximate area to be flooded and otherwise changed'if
such construction is undertaken: Provided, That with respectto@
any floodwater retarding dam which provides less than five thousand
acre-feet of detention capacity and with respect to any other:type
of dam which creates a reservoir of less than.forty surface acres
the provisions of this section shall apply only when the construct-
ing agency, in its preliminary surveys, finds, or is,presented
with evidencethat historical or archeological materials exist.
or may be present in the proposed reservoir area.

SECTION 3. (a) Whenever any Federal agency finds, or is notified,
in writing, by an appropriate historical or archeological authori-
ty,, that its activities in connection with any Federal.construction
project or federally licensed project, activity, or program may..
cause irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientifici
prehistorical, historical, or archeological data, such agency.
shall notify the Secretary, in writing, and shall provide the
Secretary with appropriate information concerning the project,
program,.or activity. Such agency may request the Secretar .y to
undertake the recovery, protection, and preservation of such data
(including preliminary'survey, or:other investigation as,ne'eded,
and.'.analysis and publication of the reports resulting ftom,such
investigation), or it may, with funds appropriated for such PTO
jec'.t, program, or activity, undertake such activities. Copi6s@@
of,reports of any investigations made pursuant to this section
shall be submitted to the Secretary, who shall make them available
to the public for inspection and review.
(b) Whenever any Federal agency provides financial assista.nce,by*,
,.%;@or
loan, grant, or otherwise to any private-person, as.sociation..,

395

public entity, the Secretary, if he determines that significant
scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archaeological data
might be irrevocably lost or destroyed, may with funds appTop-
riated expressly for this purpose conduct, with the consent-of
all persons, associations or public entities having a legal in-
terest in the property involved, a survey of the affected site
and undertake the recovery, protection and preservation of such
data (including analysis and publication). The Secretary shall,
unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing, compensate any
person, association or public entity damaged as a resu 'lt of de-
lays in construction or as a result of the temporary loss of.the
use of private or any non-federally owned lands.

SECTION 4. (a) The Secre tary, upon notification, in writing, by
any Federal or State agency or appropriate historical or archeo-
logical authority that scientific, prehistorical, historical, or
archeological data is-being or may be irrevocably lost or des-
troyed by any Federal or federally assisted or licensed project,
activity, or program,,shall, if he determines that such data is
significant and is being or may be irrevocably lost or destroyed
and after reasonable notice to the agency responsible for ; funding
or licensing such project, activity, or program,, conduct or cause
which are or may be affected and recover and preserve such data
to be conducted a survey and other investigation of the areas

(including analysis and publication) which, in his opinion, are
not being, but should be, recovered and preserved in the public
interest.

(b) No survey or recovery work shall be required pursuant tothis
section which, in the determination of the head of the responsible
agency, would impede Federal or federally assisted projects or
activities undertaken in connection with any emergency, including
.projects or activities undertaken in anticipation of, or as a re-
sult of, a natural disaster.

(c) The Secretary shall initiate the survey or recovery effort,
within sixty days after notification to him pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section or within such time as may be agreed'upon with
the, head of the agency responsible for funding or licensing the..
project, activity or program in all other cases.

The Secretary shall, unless otherwise*mutually agreed to.in
writing, compensate any person, association, or public entity
damaged as a result of delays in construction or as a result of
the temporary loss of the use of private or.n,on-federally owned
lands.

SECTION S. (a) The Secretary shall keep the agency responsi ble
for funding or licensing the project notified at all times of.
the progress of any survey made under this Act, or of any work
undertaken as a result of.such survey, in order that there will
be as little disruption or delay as possible in,carrying out of

396

.the functions of such agency and the survey and recovery programs
shall terminate at a time.mutually agreed upon by the Secretary
dnA the head of such agency unless extended by mutual agreement.

(b) The Secretary shall consult with any interested Federal and
State agencies, educational and scientific organizations, and
private institutions and qualified individuals, with a view to-.,,
determining the ownership of and the most appropriate repository
for any relics and specimens recovered as a resultof any work
performed as provided for in this section.

(c).The Secretary shall coordinate all Federal survey and,
recovery activities authorized under this Act and shall submit
an annual report at the end of each fiscal year to the Interior
and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States.Congress in-
dicating the scope and effectiveness of the program, the specific
projects surveyed and,the results produced, and the costs in-
curred by the Federal Gover.nment as a result thereof.

SECTION 6. In the administration of this Act, the Secretarylmay:

enter into contracts or make cooperative agreements with any
Federal or State agency, any educational or scientific organiza-
tion, or any institution, corporation, association, or qualified
individual; and
(2) obtain the services of experts and consultants or organiza-
tions thereof in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code; and

(3) accept and utili.ze funds@made available for salvage archeo-
logical purposes by any'private person or corporation or trans7
ferred to him by any Federal agency.
�ECTION 7. (a) To carry out the purposes of this Act, any
Federal agency responsible for' a construction project may assist
the Secretary and/or it may transfer to him such.funds as may be
agreed upon, but not more than one per centum of the total amount
authorized to be appropriated for such project, except that, the
one per centum limitation of this section shall not apply in'the
event that the project involves $50,000 or less: Provided, That
the costs of such survey, recovery, analysis, and.publication
shall be considered nonreimbursable project costs.
(b) For the purposes of subsection 3 (b), there are authoriied
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, but not more
than $500,000 in fiscal year 1974; $1,000,000 in fiscal year
1975; $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1976; $1,,500,000 in fiscal year
1.977; and $1,500jOOO in fiscal year 1978.

397

.(c) For the purpose s of subsection 4 (a), there are authorized
to be appropriated not more than $2,000,000 in fiscal year 1974;
$2oOOO,OOO in fiscal. year 1975; $3,000,000 in fiscal year 19.7-6;
$3,000,000 in fiscal year 1977; and $3,000,000 in fiscal year
1978.

Excerpts from Department of Transportation Legislation

49 U.S.C. 1651'. Congressional Declaration of Purpose

(a) The Congress hereby declares that the general welfare, the
economic growth and stability of the Nation and its security
require the development of national transportation policies and
programs conducive to the provision of fast, safe, efficient,
and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent
therewith and with other national objectives, including the
efficient utilization and conservation of the Nation's resources.

(b) (1) The ConIgress therefore finds that the establishment of
a Department of Transportation is necessary in the public interest
and to assure the coordinated, effective administration of the
transportation program to the Federal 'Government; to facilitate
the development and improvement of coordinated transportation
imum ex-
service, to be provided by private enterprise to the max*
tent.feas.ible; to encourage cooperation of Federal, State, and
local governments, carriers, labor, and other interested parties
toward the achievement of national transportation objectives;
to stimulate technological advances in transportation; to provide
general leadership in the identification and solution of trans-
portation problems; and to develop and recommend to the President
and the Congress for approval of national transportation policies
and.programs to accomplish-these objectives with full and approp-
riate consideration of the need-s of the public, users, car riers,
industry, labor, and the national defense.

(2) It is hereby declared to be the national policy that special
effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the coun-
tryside and public park and recreational lands, wildlife and.
waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.

U.S.C.. 138..'Preservation of Park Lands

It is hereby declared to be the national policy that speciad, e@fort
should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside-
and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl.
refuges, and historic sites. The Secretary of Transportation

398

shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior,
Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the
States.in developing transportation plans and programs that in-
clude measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the
lands traversed. After the effective date of the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1968 [August 23, 19681, the Secretary shall not
approve any program or project which requires the use of any
publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wild-
life or waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance
as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having
jurisdiction thereof, or any land and historic site of national,
state, or local significance as so determined by such officials
unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the
use of such lands, and (2) such program includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wild-
life, and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such
use.

23 U.S.C. 305. Archeological and Paleontological Salvage

Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title to the
extent approved as necessary by the highway department of any
State, may be used for ar cheolo ical and paleontological salvage
9
in that State in compliance with the Act entitled "An Act for the
preservation of American antiquities," approved June 8, 1906 (34
Stat. 225), and State laws where applicable.

Excerpts from Department
of Housing and Urban Development Legislation

4..0 U.S.C1. 461 Comprehensive'planning

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

(h) Grants for Surveys of historic structures. In addition to
the other grants authorized by this section, the Secretary is
authorized to make grants to assist any city, other municipality,
or county in making a survey of the structures and sites in such
locality which are determined by its appropriate authorities to
be of historic or architectural value. Any such survey shall be
designed to identify the historic structures and sites in the
locality, determine the cost of their rehabilitation or restora-
tion, and provide such other information as may be necessary or
appropriate to serve as a foundation for a balanced and effective
program of historic preservation in such locality. The aspects
of any such survey which relate to the indentification of his-
toric and architectural values shall be conducted in accordance

399

with criteria found by the Secretary to be comparable to those
used in establishing the national register maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior under otlier provisions of law; and the
reSLOAS of each such survey shal'i I)e made available to the Secre-
tary of the Interior. A grant under this subsection shall not
exceed two-thirds of the cost of the survey for which it is made,
and shall be made to the appropriate agency or entity specified
in paragraphs (1) through (11) of subsection (a) [basically,
those listed are federal, state, regional, and certain local
planning and development agencies] for [sia], if there is no
such agency or entity which is qualified and willing to receive
t,he grant and provide for its utilization in accordance with this
subsection, directly to the city, other municipality, or county
involved.

42 U.S.C. 1460. Definitions

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

(c) "Urban renewal project" or "project" may include undertakings
and activities of a local public agency in an urban renewal @rea
for the elimination and for the prevention of the development of
spread of slums and blight, and may involve slum clearance and
redevelopment in an ruban renewal area, or rehabilitation or con-
servation in an urban renewal area, or any combination or part
thereof, in accordance with such urban renewal plan. Such under-
takings and activities may include -- . . . (6) acquisition of any
other property in the urban renewal area where necessary to elimi-
nate unhealthful., insanitary or unsafe conditions, lessen density,
eliminate obsolete or other uses detrimental to the public welfare,
or otherwise to remove or prevent the spread of blight or deteriora-
tion, to promote historic and architectural preservation, or to
provide land for needed public facilities; . . . (9) relocation
within or outside the project area of structures which will be,,
restored and maintained for architectural or historic purposes;
and -. . . (10) restoration of acquired properties of his-toric or
architectural value.

'Withstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (A) no
contract shall be entered into for any law or capital grant under
Not

this subchapter for any project which provides for demolition and.
removal of buildings and improvements unless the Secretary deter-
mines-that the objectives of the urban renewal plan could not be
achieved through rehabilitation of the project area,

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

(d) "Local grants-in-aids" shall mean assistance by a State,
municipality, or other public body, or (in the case.of cash grants

400

or donation of land or other real property) any other entity, in
connection with any project on which a contract for capital grant
has been made under this subchapter, in the form of (1) cash
grants to defray expenditures within the purview of subsection
(e) (1) of this section; (2) donation, at cash value, of land'or
other real property (exclusive of land in streets, alleys, and
other public rights-of-way which may be vacated in connection
with the project, or of air rights over streets, alleys, and
other public rights-of-way) in the urban renewal area, and demo-
lition, removal, or other work or improvements in the urban re-
newal area, at the cost thereof, of the types described in clauses
(2), (3), (7), (9), and (10) of the second sentence of subsection
(c) of this,,section; . . . ([See above.])

42 U.S.C. 1SOO. Congressional Declaration of Findings and Purpose

([As it would appear to be amended by the Housing and Urban Develop-
ment Act of 1970, Public Law 91-609, 84 Stat. 1770, Title VII,
Section 701 (c) and (d)].)
*(c)* T'he- *Co*ng*re*ss'fu*r*t@,h*er*fin*ds'th*a't 'there* is*a*ne*ed' f'or, t'im*e11, y
action to preserve and restore areas, sites, and structures of
historic or architectural value in order that these remaining
evidences of our history and heritage shall not be lost or des-
troyed through the expansion and development of the Nation's
urban areas.

(d) It s the purpose of this chapter to help curb urban sprawl
and prevent the spread of urban blight and deterioration, to
encourage more economic and desirable urban development, to
a.s.sisi in preserving areas and properties of historic or archi-
tectural value, and to help provide necessary recreational,
conservation, and scenic areas by assisting State and local
public bodies in taking prompt action to (1) provide, preserve,;
and develop open-space land in a manner consistent with the
planned long-range development of the Nation's urban areas,
(2) acquire, improve, and restore areas, sites, and structures
of historic or architectural value, and (3) develop and improve
open-space and other public urban land, in accordance with pro-
grams to encourage and coordinate local public and private,.efforts
toward this end.

42 U.S.C. 1500a. Grants to States and Local Public Bodies

([As it would appear to be amended by the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1970, Public Law 91-609, 84 Stat. 1770,
Title VII Sections 702 (a) and (b)].)

401

(a) Authorization. The Secretary is.authorized to make grants to
States and local public bodies to help finance (1) the acquisition
of title to, or other interest in, open-space land in urban areas
and (2) the development of open-space or other land in urban areas
for open-space uses. The amount of any such grant shall not ex-
ceed SO per centum of the eligible project cost, as approved by
the Secretary of such acquisition or development. Not more than.
50 per centum of the non-Federal share of such eligible project
cost may, to the extent authorized in regulations established by
the Secretary, be made up by'donations of land or materials.

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

(c) Restrictions on use of grants. No grants.under this title shall
be made to (1) defray ordinary State or local governmental expenses,
(2) help finance the acquisition by a public body of land located
outside the urban area for which is exercises (or participates in
the exercise of) responsibilities consistent with the purpose of-
this title, (3) acquire and clear developed land in built-up urban
areas unless the local governing body determines that adequate .
open-space land cannot be effectively provided through the use of
existing undeveloped land, or (4) provide assistance for historic
and architectural preservation purposes, except for districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects which the Secretary of
the Interior determines meet the criteria used in establishing
the National Register.

(d) Determination of further terms, and conditions for assistance.
The Secretary may set such further terms and conditions for assis-
tance under this ch@apter as he determines to be desirable.
.(e) Review of applications; consultation'with the Se cretary of the
Interior; exchange of information. The Secretary shall consult
with the Secretary of the Interior on the general policies to be
followed in reviewing applications for grants under this chapter.
To-assist the Secretary in such review, the Secretary of the In7
terior shall furnish him (1) appropriate information on the
status of national and statewide recreation and historic pre'ser-
vation planning as it affects the areas to be assisted with such,
grants, and (2) the current listing of any districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history.,
architecture, archeology, and culture which may be contained on a
National Register maintained by the Secretary of the Interior @
pursuant to other provisions of law. The Secretary shall provide
current information to the Secretary of the Interior from time to
time on significant program developments

42 U.S.C. 1500b. Planning Requirements

[(As it would appear to be amendedby the Housing and Urban-Devel-
opment Act of 1970, Public Law 91-609, 84 Stat. 1770, Title VII,

402

Section 703.)]

The Secretary shall make grants under section 1SOO a and 1500c-1
of this title only if he finds that such assistance is needed
for carrying out a unified or officially coordinated program,,
meeting criteria established by him, for the provision and devel-
opment of open-space land which is a part of, or is consistent
with, the comprehensively planned development of the urban.area.

'42 U.S.C.. 1SOOc. Conversions to Other Uses

[(As it would appear to be amended by the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1970, Public Law 91-609, 84 Stat. 1770, Title
VII, Section 704.)]

No open-space land for the acquisition of which a grant has.been
made under this chapter shall be converted to uses not originally
approved by the Secretary without his prior approval. Prior
approval will be granted only upon satisfactory compliance with
regulations established by the Secretary. Such regulations,sh4ll
require findings that (1) there is adequate assurance of the sub-
stitution of other open-space land of as nearly as feasible equiva-
lent usefulness, location and fair market value at the time,of the
conversion; (2) the conversion and substitution are needed for
orderly growth and development; and (3) the proposed uses of the
converted and substituted land are in accord with the then appli-
cable comprehensive plan for the urban area, meeting criteria
established by the Secretary.

([Note Title VII, Section 705 of Public Law 91-609, 84 Stat. 1770,
provides additional wording which would appear further to amend this
section and this chapter by adding, "No open-space land involving
historic or architectural purposes for which assistance has.been
granted under this title shall be converted to use for any other
purpose without the prior approval of the Secretary of the In-
terior."j)

42 U.S.C. 1500d. Technical Assistance, Studies, and Publication
of Information
(a) In order A carry out the purpose of this chapter, the Secre-
tary is authorized to provide technical assistance to State and
local public bodies and to undertake such studies and publish:such
information, either directly or by contract, as he shall determine
to'be desirable.

(b) The Secretary is authorized to use during any,fiscal year not
to exceed $125,000 of the funds available for grant$ u:@der this

403

chapter to undertake such studies and publish such information.
Nothing contained in this section shall limit any authority of
the Secretary under any other provisioii of law.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of-this chapter, the
Secretary may use not to exceed $10,000,000 of the sum.authorized
for contracts under this chapter for the purpose of entering into
contracts to make grants in amounts not to exceed 90 per centum. -
of the cost of activities which he determines have special value,-
in developing and demonstrating new and improved methods and
materials for use in carrying out the purposes of this chapter.

42 U.S.C. 1SOOd-1. Grants for Historic Preservation

The Secretaryis authorized to enter into contracts to make grants
to Sta tes and local public bodies to assist in the acquisition of
title to or other permanent interests in areasY sites, and struc-
tures of historic or architectural value in urban areas, and in
their restoration and improvement for public use and benefit, in
accordance with the comprehensively planned development of the
locality. The amount of any such grant shall not exceed 50 per:-
centum of the total cost, as approved by the Secretary,, of the
assisted activities. The remainder of such cost shall be provided
from non-Federal sources.

Criteria for Grants for Historic Preservation. Section 605 .(h)
of Public Law 89-7S4 provided that: "C6m-mencing three years after
the date of the enactment of this act [November 3, 1966],-no grant
shall be made (except pursuant to a contract or commitment entered
into less than three years after such date) under Section 709 of
the Housing Act of 1961([this section]) or Section 701 (h).of the
Housing Act of 1954 [Section 461 (h) of Title 40], or under Section
103.of the.Housing Act of 1949 [Section 1453 of this title] to the
extent that it is to be used for historic or architectural preser-
vation, except with respect to districts, sites, buildings, struc-
tures, and objects which the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development finds meet criteria comparable to those used in
establishing the National Register maintained by the Secretary
of the Interior pursuant to other provisions of law." This
annotation may have been superseded by section 1500a (c) as it
appears to have been enlarged by Public Law 91-609, 84 Stat.. 1770,
Title VII, Section 702 (b), particularly in regavd to the wording
having reference to the National Register. [,(See page 260.)]

42 U.S.C. 1500e. Definitions

[(As it would appear to be amended by the Housing and Urban,
Development Act of 1970, Public Law 91-609, 84 Stat. 1770,
Title VII, Section 709.)] As used in this chapter

404

(1) The term 'open-space land' means any land located in an
urban area which has value fQr (A) park and recreational pur-
poses, (B) conservation of land and other natural resources,
or (C) historic, architectural, or scenic purposes.

(2) The term 'urban area' means any area which is urban in
character, including those surrounding areas which, in the
judgment of the Secretary, form an economic and socially re-
lated region, taking into consideration such factors as present
and future population trends and patterns of urban growth, lo-
cation of transportation facilities and systems, and distribu-
tion of industrial, commercial, residential, governmental,
institutional, and other activities.

(3) The term 'State' means any of the several States, the
District of Columbia, and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
territories and possessions of the United States.

t4) The term 'local public body' means any public body (includ-
ing a political subdivision) created by or under the laws of a
State or two or more States, or a combination of such bodies
a.nd includes Indian tribes, bands, groups, and nations (includ-
ing Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos) of the United States.

(5). The term 'open-space uses' means any use of open-space land
for (A) park and recreational purposes, (B) conservation of land
and other natural resources, or (C) historic, architectural or,
scenic purposes.

42 U.S.C. 3303. Eligibility for Assistance; Implementation of
Programs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(a) A comprehensive city demonstration program is eligible for
assistance under sections 3305 and 3307 of this title only if

(1) physical and social problems in the area of the city covered
by the program are stich that a comprehensive city demonstration
program is necessary to carry out the policy of the Congress as
expressed in section 3301 of this title;
@2 the program is of sufficient magnitude to make a substantial
impact on the physical and social problems and to removeor arrest
blight and decay in entire sections or neighborhoods; to contri-
bute to the sound development of the entire city; to make marked
progress in reducing social and educational disadvantages, ill
health, underemployment, and enforced idleness; and to provide
educa'tional, health, and social services necessary to serve the
ppor and disadvantaged in the area, widespread citizen participa-
tion in the program, maximum opportunities for employing residents

405

of the area in all phases of the program, and enlarged opportuni-
ties for work and training;

(3) the program, including rebuilding or restoration, will con-
tribute to a well-balanced city with a substantial increase in
the supply of standard housing of low and moderate cost, maximum
opportunities in the choice of housing accommodations for all
citizens of all income levels, adequate public facilities (includ
ing those needed for education, health and social services, trans-
portation, and recreation), commercial facilities adequate to
serve the, residential areas, and ease of access between the resi-.
dential areas and centers of employment;

(4) the various projects and activities to be undertaken in con-
nection with such programs are scheduled to be initiated within
a reasonably short period of time; adequate local resources are,
or will be, available for the completion of the program as
scheduled,,and, in the carrying out of the program, the fullest
utilization possible will be made of private initiative and enter-
prise; administrative machinery is available at the local level
for carrying out the program on a consolidated and coordinated
basis; substantive local laws, regulations, and other requirements
are,, or can be expected to be, consistent with the objectives of
the program; there exists a relocation plan meeting the require-
ments of the regulations referred to in section 3307 of this title;
the local governing body has approved the program and, where approp-
riate, applications for assistance under the program; agencies
whose cooperation is necessary to the success of the program have
indicated their intent to furnish such cooperation; the program
is.consistent with comprehensive planning for the entire urban or
metropolitan area; and the locality will maintain, during the
period an approved comprehensive city demonstration program is
being carried out, a level of aggregate expenditures for dctivi-
ties similar to those being assisted under this title which is
not less than the level of aggregate expenditures for such ac-
tivities-prior to initiation of the comprehensive city demonstra-
tion program; and

(5) the program meets such additional requirements as the Secre-
tary may establish to carry out the purposes of this title-
Provided, That the authority of the Secretary under this para-
graph -,;Nall not be used,to impose criteria or establish.require.-
ments except those which are related and essential to the
specific provisions of this subchapter.

(b) In implementing this subchapter the Secretary shall

(1) emphasize local initiative in the planning, development,
and implementation of comprehensive city demonstration programs;

(2) insure, in conjunction with other appropriate Federal

406

departments and agencies and at the direction of the President,
maximum coordination of Federal assistance provided in connection
with this subchapter, prompt response to local initiative, and
maximum flexibility in programing, consistent with the require-
ments of law and sound.administrative practice; and

(3) encourage city demonstration agencies to (A) enhance
neighborhoods by applying a high standard of design, (B) maintain,
as appropriate, natural and historic sites and distinctive neigh-
boyhood characteristics, and (C) make maximum possible use of new
and improved technology and design, including cost reduction,.tech-
niques.

THE MARYLAND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ACT OF 1968

(Annotated Code of Maryland: Natural Resources,
Title 2, Subtitle 3.; Revised 1973)

SECTION 2-301. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. In order to protect and.
preserve historical, archeological, and scientific information,
matters and objects found on privately owned lands-in the state,
the General Assembly declares that archeological excavations on
privately owned lands should be discouraged except in accordance
with the spirit and authority of this subtitle. A person who
knows the locations of any archeological site in the state is
encouraged to commu'nicate'the information to a reputable museum,
an institution of higher education, a recognized scientific or
historical'institution or society, or the survey.

SECTION 2-303. DIVISION OF ARCHEOLOGY --,CREATED AND CONTINUED;
STATE ARCHEOLOGIST: APPOINTMENT OF OTHER EMPLOYEES. The Division
of Archeology is created and continued within the survey. The
administrative head of the division is the State Archeologist who
shall be a professional archeologist whom the director of the
survey appoints in accordance with the state merit system. The
director of the survey shall appoint, in accordance with the
state merit system, assistants and other.employees provided in
the state budget.
SE'CTION 2-303. SAME DUTIES. The Division of Archeology shall:

(1) Sponsor, engage in, and direct fundamental research into the

407

archeology of the state and encourage and coordinate archeologi-
cal research and investigation undertaRen by any scientific or
flistorical insti.tUtiOll Or SoCiCty, MUSCH111, Or irlstittition of
Iiigher education in the state;

'(2) Cooperate in excavation of sites of historical or archeologi-
cal significancein custody or control of any other state unit;

(3) Protect and encourage the preservation of prehistoric or
historic sites located on privately owned lands in the state;

(4) Retrieve and preserve objects of archeological significance
discovered during the course of any public construction in the
state;

(5) Cooperate with and assist museums, institutions of higher
education, and scientific o-f historical institutions and societies
in the preservation and protection of objects and materials of
archeological nature in their custodv;

'(6) Make available to museums, institutions of higher education,
and scientific or historical institutions and societies objects
and materials suitable for demonstrating the archeological his-
tory of the state;

(7) Make available to public and private schools in the state
exhibits, and assist in the instruction of pupils as to the
manner of life of the early settlers and natives of the state;

(8) Cooperate with similar agencies of other states for the
general purpose of preserving archeological sites and objects
and materials of archeological significance and prevent the
exploitation of these sites, objects, and materials in this
state by institutions or agencies of other states;

(9) Disseminate archeological facts and materials through publi-
cation of reports of archeological research and investigation;
and

(10) Enforce laws regulating archeological sites, objects, and
materials on state-owned or controlled lands.

SECTION 2-304. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ARCHEOLOGY.

(a) Created and continued; organization. -- The advisory committee
on Archeology is created and continued. It consists of five mem-
bers whom the director of the survey appoints from among citizens,
of the state who have skill and knowledge in archeological matters
including representatives of reputable museums, institutions of
higher education, and recognized scientific or historical soci-
6ties or institutions. A member of the committee serves an

408

indefinite term. A vacancy is filled in the same manner as an
original appointment. The committee shall choose a chairman.
A committee member may not receive compensation for his services
but shall be reimbursed for necessary travel expenses and dis-
bursements'made in order to attend any meeting or perform any
other, official duty. There shall be at least four meetings a
year held at the call of the chairman. The State Archeologist
shall attend all advisory committee meetings.

(b) Duties. -- The committee shall.advise the survey on archeologi-
cal matters and propose rules and regulations regarding archeologi-
cal matters for its review and appropriate action.

SECTION 2-305. PERMIT REQUIRED FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION;
POWERS OF STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NOT SUPPLANTED. A person
may not excavate, appropriate, injure, or destroy any archeologi-
cal site situated on land owned or controlled by the state with-
out a permit from the survey. Nothing contained in this subtitle
abrogates or supplants any power of the State Highway Administra-
tion.

SECTION 2-306. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS; RULES AND REGULATIONS TO
CONDUCT EXCAVATIONS;.PURPOSE OF EXCAVATIONS. The survey may
grant a permit for archeological excavation of an archeological
site on land the state owns or controls to any person or institu-
tion who or which in the survey's judgment is qualified to conduct
an excavation to gather objects and materials of historical or
archeological value or interest. The survey may adopt and pro-
mulgate rules and regulations for excavation. The rules and
regulations shall be designed to assure proper safeguarding and
preservation of the objects and materials for the people of the
state. Archeological excavation shall be conducted only for the
benefit of reputable museums, institutions of higher education,
or other recognized scientific or historical institutions or@.
societies, so as to increase knowledge and appreciation of arche-
ological objects and materials.

SECTION 2-307. RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PRESERVE SITES, OBJECTS,
AND.MATERIALS. The survey may adopt and promulgate rules and
regulations regarding preservation of sites, objects, and
mIte'
a rials of archeological significance for the people of the
state.

SECTION 2-308. SURVEY MAY ACCEPT GIFTS AND EXPEND OR INVEST SAME.
Th6@survey may accept any inter vivos or testamentary gift for
any purpose within its jurisdiction. Unless otherwise specified
by the donor, the Survey may expend both principal and income of
any.inter vivos or testamentary gift of money for its purposes or
invest it in whole or in part in general obligations of thestate.

SECTION 2-,309. OWNERSHIP AND DEPOSIT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL OBJECTS.

409

AND MATERIALS. Any object or material of historical or arche-
ological value or interest found on an archeological site or
land owned or controlled by the state is the property of the
state. Tt shall be deposited for- I)ormanent preservation in a
reputable museum, institution oF higher education, or with a
recognized scientific or historical institution or society.

SECTION 2-310. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF SUBTITLE. Any person
who violates any provision of this subtitle or any rule or
regulation promulgated pursuant to it is guilty of a misdemeanor
.and upon-conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $100 or
imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both, with costs imposed
in the discretion of the court. A separate offense shall exist
for each day excavation, appropriation, or an act of injuring
or destroying any archeological site occurs.

410

Humboldt County, California

Resolution No. 71-1-4, March 16, 1971

Establishing County Policy Regarding Protection of Indian
Graves, Burial Grounds, Cemeteries and Ceremonial Sites
Within Humboldt County

Whereas, Indians comprise a substantial segment of the population
of-H-u-m5oldt County with strong emotional, historical, and environ-
mental ties to'lands within Humboldt County; and

Whereas, because there has been continuous Indian occupation of
many areas within Humboldt County since time immemorial; and

Whereas, many Indian individuals, groups, and tribes are concerned
that increased commerce, new roads, new water projects, and simi-
lar improvements may encroach on and, in some cases, destroy
existing Indian graves, burial grounds, cemeteries, and cere-
monial sites; and

Whereas, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association
was formed by Indians of Humboldt County for the following
purposes:

(a) The protection of Indian cemeteries in the Northwest
California area.

...(b) The preservation of these cemeteries as peaceful and
final resting places for the relatives and ancestors of Indians
of California.

(d) The education of the public to the great indignity
suffered by Indians whose relatives' graves are interfered with
by anthropologists and vandals; and

Whereas, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association has
"respectfully requested the 'Board of Supervisors of Humboldt
County to adopt a policy in harmony with.these aims.
Therefore, .Be It Resolved that the Humboldt County Board of Super-
visors adopts the Ti'llowing broad policy with respect to Indian
graves, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial grounds within
Humboldt County:

.1. That whenever any project or operation, for which,the

411

County is responsible in whole or in part, will involve activi-
ties which may adversely affect Indian graves, cemeteries,
burial gr.ounds, or ceremonial sites, the County will, as,early
in the planning process as possible but, in any case prior to
final approval or authorization of such project or operation,
consult with representatives of Northwest Indian Cemetery Pro-
tective Association and other interested Indians.

Such consultation will be directed to the questions of whether
the project or operation will adversely affect Indian graves,-
.cemeteries, burial grounds, or ceremonial sites and whether there
are reasonable alternative means of accomplishing the project or
operation which would not adversely affect such graves, etc. if
the project will adversely affect such graves, etc., and there
are no reasonable alternative means available, then no final
approval or authorization shall be given unless the project
sponsor agrees in writing to take full responsibility for pre
serving, protecting, and/orrelocating such graves, cemeteries,
burial grounds, or ceremonial sites and the project sponsor shall'
do so in accordance with the directions and wishes of the North-
west Indian Cemetery Protective Association.

2. The County will request and encourage State and Federal
agencies working within the County to adopt a similar policy for
their projects and operations.

3. Cou nty law enforcement agencies will continue to
vigorously enforce those laws which protect Indian burial grounds,
cemeteries, and ceremonial sites.
4. Finally, in all matters 'which may relate to Indian ceme-
teries and Indian ceremonial grounds, the County will conscien-
tiously attempt to consult and reach agreement with representatives
of the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.

412

Inyo County, California

Inyo County Code Chapter 9.52,
Disturbance of Archaeological, Paleontological
And Historical Features

Sections:

9.52.010 Indian burial site - Disturbance prohibited
Exceptions.
9.52.020 Indian burial site - Disturbance - Project plans
required.
9.52.030 Project or action - Commission approval
Requirements.
9.52.040 Project or action - Discovery of Indian burial
site.
Penalty for violation.
9.52.060 Civil remedies.

9.52.010 Indian burial site - Disturbance prohibited
Exceptions.

Excavation or exploration for archaeological, educational, or
arti.fact collection purposes of any Native California Indian
burial site shall not be permitted.

This section shall not be construed to prohibit surveys con-
ducted by or contracted for b y the county.of Inyo, or the Big
Pine Indian Reservation, or the Bishop Indian Reservation, o 'r
the Death Valley Timbi-Shaw Shoshone Band, or the Fort Indepen-
dence Indian Reservation, or the Lone Pine Indian Reservation,
or the Owens Valley-Paiute-Shoshone Band, on land in their
respective jurisdiction, for the purposes of determining the
stence of a Native California Indian burial site or the
effect that a proposed project or action may create on a Native
California Indian burial site; provided the surveys shall not
significantly disturb Native California Indian burial sites;
and provided the person designated by the county to be responsible
for surveys conducted by or contracted for by the county shall,
within a reasonable time prior to the survey, notify the Native
California Indian Tribes or Bands designated in this section of
the time and place of the intended survey and allow a representa-
@ive of the Native California Indians to be present and.assist
in the location of Native California Indian burial sites during
the'survey. (Ord. 245 11, 1973.)

413

9.52.020 Indian burial site - Disturbance Project plans
required.

When the preponderance of archaeological or h1storical evidence
indicates that a site was set aside for the repose of the human
remains of a community of Native California Indians, no public
or private project or action in the county of Inyo is responsible
for, or may regulate, in whole or in part, that may disturb a
Native California Indian burial site, shall be expressly permitted
until plans for the project or action shall be submitted to the
Big Pine Indi'an Reservation, the Bishop Indian Reservation, the
Death Valley Timbi-Shaw Shoshone Band, the Fort Independence In-
dian Reservation, the Lone Pine Indian Reservation, the Owens
Valley-Paiute-Shoshone Band, or representatives they may desig-
nate, for review and comment. The plans shall contain the infor-
mation necessary to describe the project or action and the probable
effect it will have on the burial site. Failure to comment within
twenty days@shall be regarded as a review with no comment; provided,
if written request is received within the twenty-day comment period,
the time for review and comment may be extended by the county
planning commission. (Ord. 245 : 111, 1973.)

9.52.030 Project or action - Commission approval - Requirements.

No publicl y or privately sponsored project or action shall be
expressly permitted by the county planning commission, hereinafter,
"the commission", or any other county agency where the commission
finds that any archaeological, paleontological, and historical
features, or Native California Indian burial sites may be disturbed
@in any way by the project.or action; provided, the commission may
conditionally expressly permit the project or action if the project
or action sponsor takes responsibility for preservation, protec-
tion, or relocation of the features or sites in accordance with a
specific plan for preservation, protection, or relocation that
shall be reviewed and approved by the commission after a public
hearing. The public hearing shall be held, in the instance of
Native California Indian burial sites, following the review and
comment required by Section 9.52.020.

No plan shall be sufficient and no plan shall be approved by the
commission unless the plan, in addition to proposed preservation,
protection, or relocation measures, shall propose reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project or action that do not require
significant disturbance of the features or sites. The commission
may deny express permission if it finds a reasonable alternative
exists.

If, in that instance of Native California Indian burial sites,,.
relocation is expressly permitted by the county, interested
Native California Indians in the county shall have the right to

414

dis inter and bury; provided, if the interested Native California
Indians do not disinter and bury within fourteen days of notice
to the Native California Indian'tribes or bands designated in
Section 9.52.020, then any sponsor shall disinter and bury. Re-
location shall be as near as possible to the original site.
Relocation shall not be the preferred way to secure Native
California Indian burial sites. (Ord. 245 : IV, 1973.)

9.52.040 Project or action - Discovery of Indian burial site.

If in the course of a project or action commenced pursuant.to
express permission in accordance with this chapter*, or in the
course of a projec't or action in any way commenced,.over which
the county has jurisdiction, an archaeological, paleontological,
or historical or a Native California Indian burial site is dis-
covered, the person responsible for the project or action shall
notify the county planning commission of the existence of the
feature or site,- and in the instance of an archaeological,
paleontological, or historical feature, if any damage to the
feature or site is contemplated, allow the commission a reason-
able time, not to exceed fourteen days, to relocate the feature
if the commission, in its discretion, finds relocation is proper,
considering the resource value of the feature balanced against
the economic detriment to the project or action, and, in the in-
stance of a Native California Indian burial site, the commission
shall notify interested California Native Indians in the county,
within three days of notification to the commission by the person
responsible for the project or action, of the existence of the
discovered Native California Indian burial site, and expressly
permit the interested Native California Indians eleven days.to
relocate the burial site in accordance with the relocation pro-
visions of Section 9.52.030. (Ord. 24S V, 1973.)

9.52.050 'Penalty for violation.

Aviolation of this chapter, or any provision thereof, is
punishable as a misdemeanor by fine not exceeding five hundred
dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months or by both.
(Ord. 245.: VI, 1973.)

9.152.060 Civil remedies.
Nothing in this' chapter prohibits any citizen@or group of citi-
zens from pursuing any civil remedies available to said parties
pursuant to law. (Ord. 245 VII, 1973.)

41S

Marin County, California

Marin County Code Chapter S.32,
.Excavating Indian Middens

Sections:

Purpose of chapter.
5.32.020 Permit required to excavate.
5.32.030 Liaison agency.
5.32.040 Application for permit.
5.32.050 Issuance.
5.32.060 Conditions for issuance.
5.32.070 Conformance to stated conditions required.
5.32.090 Violation a misdemeanor.

S.32.010,,Purpose of chapter.

In Marin County there exist certain deposits of shells and other
materials in mounds hereinafter referred to as Indian middens,
believed to have been deposited by Indians in the distant past.
The middens may be of inestimable value in formulating the early
history of the county and the habits of Indians when the middens
are studied under the supervision of qualified archaeologists.
Uncontrolled excavations into the aforesaid middens for commercial
purposes without regard to their possible historical and archaeolo-
gical values. are destructive of the(,archaeological integrity of
the sites. (0 rd. 1S89 IP'1967.)

5.32.020 Permit required to excavate.
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corpo ration or copartnership
to knowingly disturb in any fashion whatsoever, or excavate, or
cause to be disturbed or excavated any Indian midden without a
permit being issued therefor by the department of public works.
(Ord. 1589 : lp 1967.)

5.32.030 Liaison agency.-

Upon receiving written application therefor, the board of super-
visors shall designate an institution of higher learning, or an
association having as one of its major purposes the study of
Indian relics'or sites,having archaeological significance, as a
liaison agency between the department of public works and insti.
tutions of higher learning or associations, having as o 'ne of , I
their purposes of study of objects of archaeological slIgnificance.
(Ord. 1589 3, 1967.)

416

5.32.040 Application for permit.

Application for a permit.to.excavate Indian middens shall be in
a form acceptable to the director of public works, and may be
made by the owner of the middens or a person authorized in writ-
ing by the owner, to make the application. The permit.'shall state
whether the excavation is for either archaeological or nonarchaeolo-
gical purposes. (Ord.. 1825 : 1, 1971/Ord. 1589 : 4,,1967.)

.5@. 32.050 Issuance.

Upon receipt of an application for the excavation of an Indian
midden, the director of public works or his designee shall for-
ward the application to the liaison agency designated by the .
board of supervisors pursuant to Section 5.32.030. Within five,
days of the receipt of the application, the liaison agency so
designated shall notify the director of public works whether the
midden for which application is made for excavation is of archa-
eological significance. If the designee certifies that the
midden is not of archaeological significance, a permit shall be
issued to the applicant upon the receipt of the certificate.
(Ord. 1589 : 5, 1967.)

5.32.060 Conditions for issuance.

In the event the liaison agency certifies that the midden for'
which application for excavation is made is of archaeological
significance, the director of public works may issue a permit,
but shall subject the permit to conditions including but not
limited to the following:

(A.) Prior to nonarchaeological excavation or removal of
materials from the middens, the permittee shall not excavate
for a period of sixty days in order to allow archaeological
excavation of the site;

(B The permittee or owner of the property shall be required
to grant a license for the excavation, identification, and classi-
fication of artifacts and proper scientific analysis of materials
having historical or archaeological significance to recognized
institutions of higher learning or associations having as their
major purpose the study of Indian relics a nd other sites having
archaeological value. The terms of the license shall be such.
as are agreed to by the prospective licensee and property owner,.
,(Ord. 1825 : 2, 1971/Ord. 1589 6, 1967.)
5.3@2'.070 Conformance to stated conditions required.

Any act done under the authority of a written permit issued

417

hereunder shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the permit. (Ord. 1589 _: 7, 1967.)

S.32.090 Violation a misdemeanor.

Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of
a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as
provided in Section 1.04.270. In the event of a continuing
violation, each day that the violation continues constitutes a
separate and distinct offense. (Ord. 1589 9, 1967.)

Hawaii Act 216 of 1969

A BILL FOR AN ACT Relating to the Preservation and Protection of
Prehistoric and Historic Sites and Archaeological Remains. Be It
Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Hawaii:

SECTION-1. Chapter 9 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955 is
amended by adding new section to read as follows;

",Sec. 9- Archaeological investigation, recording and salvage;
appropriations. Whenever any public construction or,improvement
of any nature whatsoever is undertaken by any government agency
on lands which are controlled or owned by the State or by any
county and which are sites of historic or prehistoric interest
and value, or locations of prehistoric or historic remains, one
per cent of the appropriations for such public construction or
improvement, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be
expended by the department of land and natural resources for the
archaeological investigation, recording and salvage of such
sites.or remains when it is deemed necessary by the department."

SECTION 2. Section 14-8 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955 is,
amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 14-8. Prehistoric and historic sites and remains.

(a) The department of land and natural resources shall locate,
identify, and preserve in suitable records information regarding
prehistoric and historic sites, locations, and remains. The.in-
formation shall be submitted to the director of taxation who shall
clearly designate on all.tax maps of the'State, the location.of
all prehistoric or historic sites, or locations and remains,.- The

418

department shall.cooperate with other -,tate agencies and owners
of priv;)to prehistoric or h istoric si t-es

(b) Before any pUblic constrtiction or improvement of any
nature whatsoever is undertaken by the State, the city and
county of Honolulu, or any of the counties, or any governmental
agency or officer, the head of such agency or such officer shall
first examine the current tax map of the area to be affected by
such public construction or improvement to determine whether any
heiaus, ancient burial places, or sites, or remains of prehistori-,
cal or historical interest are designated on such map. If'so
designated, the proposed public construction or improvement shall
not be commenced, or, in the event it has already begun, continued,
until the head of such agency or such other officer shall have
advised the department of the proposed public construction or im-
provement and shall have secured the concurrence of the depart-
ment or, as hereafter provided, shall have secured the written
approval of the governor.

if the concurrence of the department is not obtained after ninety
days after the filing of a request therefor with the' department
by, or after the filing of a notice of objections by the depart-
ment with, the agency or officer seeking to proceed with any
project, such agency or officer may apply to the governor for.
permission to proceed notwithstanding the nonconcurrence of the
department and the governor may take such action as he deems best
in overruling or sustaining the department.

(c) Before any construction, alteration, or improvement Of
any nature whatsoever is undertaken or commenced on a designated
private prehistoric or historic site.by any person, he shall give
to the department three months notice of intention to.construct,
alter, or improve the site.
After the expiration of the three-month notification period, the
department shall either commence condemnation proceedings for
the purchase of the site or remains, permit,the owner to proceed
with his construction, alteration or improvement, or undertake
or permit the recording and salvaging of any historical infor*m.a-
tion deemed necessary to preserve Hawaiian history, by any
qualified agency for this purpose.

Any person who violates the provisions of the first paragraph of
this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned
not.more than ninety days, or both."

SECTION-3. Chapter 14 of the Revise 'd Laws of Hawaii is amended
by adding a new section to read as follows:

"S ec. 14-8.5. Excavation and removal of prehistoric and historic

419

remains on private lands.

110"ore any prehistoric or historic remains are excavated or re-
moved from private lands by the depirtment of land and natural.
resources, the department or its designated investigators shall
first secure the written approval of the owner of such lands.
Whenever the value of the private,prehistoric or historic site
is diminished by the excavation.or removal of prehistoric.o,r
historic remains by the department of land and natural resources,
the-owner of the site shall be compensated for the loss, at. a.-
monetary sum mutually agreed upon by the department and the
owner or at a monetary sum set by the court."

SECTION 4. Section 14-10.2 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955
i.s amended,to read as follows:

"Sec. 14.10.2 Permits to examine ruins, excavate and gather
objects on pub 111-c-11-a-H-J.'s.

Permits for the examination of ruins, excavation of archaeologi-
cal. sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon lands
owned or controlled by the state or any county, may be granted
by the department of land and natural resources to persons or
institutions which-they deem properly qualified to conduct. such
examination, excavation,, or gathering, subject to such rules
and regulations as the department may prescribe; provided, that
the examination, excavations, and gatherings are undertaken for
the benefit of public museums, universities, colleges, or other
recognized-public scientific or educational institutions, with
a view to.increasing the knowledge of such objects and that the,
gatherings may be made for permanent preservation in public
museums if so deemed by the department."

SECTION 5. Section 14-10.3 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 19 55
is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 14--10.3 Penalties.

It shall be unlawful for any person to take, appropriate, exca-
vate, injure or destroy any prehistoric or historic ruin or
monument or object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or
controlled by the State without the permission of the department
of land and natural resources. Any person who violates this
section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned.n. ot
morethan ninety days, or both.

Any prehistorical and historical objects and remains which have
been taken without a permit shall be seized, deposited and pre-
s6rved in public museums by the department of land and natural
resources.

420

SECTION 6. Chapter 14 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 19SS is
amended by adding a new section to read as follows:

"Sec. 14- Reproduction of prehistorical or historical objects;
representation as-originals; penalties.

It shall be unlawful to reproduce or forge a prehistorical or
historical object with the intent to represent it as an original.
Any person who violates this section shall be fined not more than
$1,000 or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both."

SECTION 7. Chapter 99 of the Revised Laws-of Hawaii is amended
by adding a new section to read as follows:

"Sec: 99- Reservation of rights to prehistoric and historic
remains on leased pubilc lands.

The board of land and natural resources shall, in leases of
public lands retain the rights to all prehistoric and historic
remains found on such lands."

SECTION 8. The Revisor of Statutes may reword and renumber the
references in this Act and make such other formal or verbal
changes as may be necessary to conform with the Hawaii Revised
Statutes.

SECTION 9. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

British Columbia, Canada

Archaeological and Historic Sites
Protection Act, May 11, 1972

1. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(a) "designated," when used in relation to a site or an
object, means designated under section 2; and "desig-
nate" and "designation" have correspon ding meanings;

(b) 11minister" means the member of the Executive Council
charged from time to time with the administration of
this Act;

421

(d) 11permit" means a valid and subsisting permit issued
under this Act;

(e) "site" means land of archaeological or historic signifi-
cance, and includes land covered by water. 1972, c.4,
S. 1.

2. (1) Where, in the opinion of the minister, land is of
exceptional archaeological or historic significance, he may, by
order, designate it as an archaeological site or as an historic
site.

(2) Where,-in the opinion of the minister, an object is of
exceptional archaeological or historic significance, he may, by,*
order,-designate it as an archaeological object or as an historic
object.

(3) Where land is designated under this section and it is,
shown that the value of the land is diminished by reason of the
designation, the minister shall pay to the owner an amount to
be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. 1972, c.4,
s. 2.

3. The minister may, with the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council and on behalf of the Crown, acquire, by purchase; gift,
or lease, any site or object. 1972, c.4,.s. 3.

4. No person or agency shall knowingly

(a) destroy, desecrate, deface, move, excavate, or alter in
any way a designated site or remove from it an object;

(b) destroy, desecrate, or alter a burial-place or remove
from it skeletal remains;

(d) destroy, deface, alter, excavate, or dig in an Indian
kitchen-midden, shell-heap, house-pit, cave or other
habitation site, or a cairn, mound, fortification, or
other site or object, situated on Crown lands,

except to the extent and in the manner that he is authorized ta
do so by a permit. 1972, c.4, s. 4.

422

S. (1) Upon application made to him in writing, the minister
may issue a permit to excavate, or alter a site and to remove,
mov'e, or alter objects from it.

(2) The minister may limit a permit as t& time and location,
may require such reports as he deems necessary or proper, and
may impose other terms and conditions that he considers necessary
or proper.

The minister may cancel or suspend a permit at any time.,
1972, , C. 4, S. S.

6. Where a person is excavating or altering, with the consent of
the owner, a site or an object that is not situated on Crown
lands or that has not been designated, the consent or agreement
between tha t person and the owner shall be deemed to contain the
following conditions

(a) that the consent or agreement is subject to sections 4
and 7; and

(b) that the person shall report to the minister the results
of his findings and work, and shall submit to the,minis.-.
ter such reports as the minister deems proper or necessary;
and

(c) that the person shall not remove from the Province any
object derived from the site without the written consent
of the minister. 1972, c.4, s.6.

7. (1) For the purposes of this section

(a) "site investigation" means the examination of a site for
the purpose of recording, removing, moving or salvaging
objects;

(b) f1site survey" means the examination of land for the.pur-
pose of determining the archaeological or historic re-
sources.of the land.

(2) Where, in the opinion of the minister, land contains a.
si,t,e that is likely to be altered, damaged, or destroyed by
reason of commercial-, industrial,,agricultural, residential, or.
other development or activity, or is likely to depreciate or
become dilapidated, he may

(a) order a site survey and, i f he considers it necessary,
a site investigation; and

(b) order the owner or person responsible for thedevelopment.

-423

or activity to Provide sufficient funds for the site
survey and., if required, the site investigation; and

(C) order that the developiiieiit or activity he suspended in
wholc'or in part unti-I flic site survey and, if necessary,
thesite investigation, have been completed.
(3) Where a site surv'ey or site investigation is ordered
under subsection (2), it shall be undertaken forthwith and in
such a manner that it will not cause undue hardship on the
owner or.person responsible for the development or activity.
1972,,c.4, s. 7.

8. A person who contravenes this Act, or a permit or direction
of the minister under this Act, is guilty of an offence and is
liable., on summary conviction, to a penalty of not m'Ore than one
th'ousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months-, or to both the fine and the imprisonment. 1972, c.4,
s. 8.

Appendix C

Sources of Information
on Maryland's Prehistoric Resources

Federal and State Agencies

U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Washington, D.C. 20240 (202) 343-1100
a. maps, reports, documents
b. National Register of Historic Places;
information on registration procedures
2. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1522 "K" Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. (202) 254-3974
a. information on conservation procedures
3. National Trust for Historic Preservation
740 Jackson Place N.W.
Washington, D.C. (202) 638-5200
a. information on conservation procedures,
grants and educational materials
4. Division of Archeology
Maryland Geological Survey
Latrobe Hall
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (301) 23S-0771
a. maps, reports, collections., documents, etc.
S. Maryland Historical Trust
Shaw House
21 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 267-1438.
a. maps, reports, collections, documents, etc.,
6. Maryland Hall of Records Commission
St. Johns and College Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21404 (301) 267-5914
a. maps, documents, etc.
7.. Bureau of Archeology and Historic Preservation
Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs
Hall of Records
P. 0. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901 302) 678-473.9
a. maps, reports, collections, documents, etc.

424

425

Universities

Americaii University
Department of Anthropology .(202) 686-2182
Washington, D.C. .20016

a. maps, reports, collections, etc.
1. Contact Professor'C. W. McNett

2. Catholic University of America
Department of Anthropology
620"Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20064 (202) 635-5000

a. maps, reports, collections, etc.
1. Contact Professor W. M. Gardner

3. University of Maryland
Department of Anthropology
College Park, Maryland 20742 (301) 454@41514

Museums

1. Smithsonian Institution
National Museum of Natural History
Department of Anthropology -
Washington, D.C. 20560 (202) 628-4422

a. National Anthropological Archives
1. maps, reports, collections, etc.

b. Contact Dr. C. Evans, Chairman

2. Natural History Society of Maryland
2643 North Charles
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (301) 235-6116

a. collections, publications, etc.

Libraries

1 U.S Lib rary of Congress
10 First Street S.E.
Washington, D.C. .20540 (202) 426-5000

426

2 H.S. Library of Congress
Geography and Map Division
845 South Pickett Street
Alexandria, Virginia (202) 370-1216

3. Enoch Pratt Free Library
400 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, Maryland (301) 396-5430

Amateur Archaeological Societies

1. Archaeological Society of Maryland, Inc.

a. Current Lists of Officers and Addresses
Available from:
Division of Archeology
Latrobe Hall
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Historical Societies

1. Maryland Historical Society
201 West Monument
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (301) 685-3750

a. maps, books, documents, etc.

2. St. Marys City Commission
St. Marys City
Maryland 20686 (301) 994-0779

3. Calvert County Historical Society
Prince Frederick
Maryland 20678

4. Historical Society of Cecil County
Cecil County Library'Building
135 East Main Street
Elkton, Maryland 21921

S. Historical Society of Charles County
CIO Mr. Watson M. Perry
Elleslie, Box 336
Port'Tobacco, Maryland 206 77

427

6. Dorchester County Historical Society
Meredith House
904 LaGrange Street, Box 361
Cambridge, Maryland 21613

7. Historical Society of Harford County
324 Kenmore Avenue, Box 391
Bel Air, Maryland 21014

8. Historical S-ociety of Kent County
Church Alley
Chestertown, Maryland 21620

9. Prince Georges County Historical Society
C/O Frederick S. DeMarr
4010 Hamilton Street
Hyattsville, Maryland 20732

10. Queen Anne's County Historical Society
Box 296
Commerce Street
Centreville,, Maryland 21617

11. St. Marys County Historical.Society
Box 212
Leonardtown, Maryland 206SO

12. Somerset County Historical Society
Teackle Mansion
Princess Anne, Maryland 218S3

13. Wicomico County Historical Society
Gay Street
Salisbury, Maryland 21801

IN. -, 7-- aW @

=.M -A

for

'0 OA97 L