cultural resource management plan for the Lower Delmarva Region of Maryland

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

A CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE

LOWER DELMARVA REGION OF MARYLAND

Dorchester

wi ico

Worceste)
Somerset

F
187
.E2
D33
1970

A CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE LOWER DELMARVA REGION

OF MARYLAND

THOMAS E. DAVIDSON
Maryland Historical Trust
and
Salisbury State College

WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY

K. PETER LADE
Salisbury State College

ftopecty of CSC Libr&27

S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
"OASTAL SERVICES CENTER
-3@ 'OUTH HOBSON AVENUE
-HARLESTON SC 29405-2413

Cv%

C'"i

ocz,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction p. I

The Cultural Record P. 5
Current Levels of Knowledge p. 6
The Prehistoric Period P. 10
The Historic Period P. 18
Demongraphy p. 24
The Agricultural Economy p. 29
Industry p. 32

Stresses on the Cultural Record p. 38
Management Units p. 39
Present Stresses on the Management Units p. 45
Summary p. 54
Future Development within the Region p. 61
Commercial and Residential Growth Areas p@ 62
Transportation p. 63
Agriculture and Forestry p. 64
Watershed Projects p. 64

Cultural Resource Management p. 66
Management Strategy p. 67
The Monitoring Process p. 71
Protection and Preservation p. 73
Bibliography p. 76

Appendix I
Houses and People on the Lower Eastern Shore p. 78

Appendix II
The Road Systems of Dorchester, Somerset,
Wicomico and Worcester Counties circa 1800 p. 84

Appendix III
Predictive and Explanatory Models p. 97

Appendix IV
Landsat Data Application to Archaeological
Surveying and Resource-Management P. 100

TABLES AND FIGURES

Map of the Delmarva Peninsula p. 3

Archaic Period Chronology and Diagnostic
Point Typology (after Hughes, 1981) p. 13

Woodland Period Chronology and Ceramic
Typology (after Hughes, 1981) p.- 16

Map of Somerset and Dorchester Counties 1669 P. 19

Map of Somerset and Dorchester Counties 1742 p.. 22

Map of Somerset County Hundreds circa 1700 p. 25,

Map of Water Mills on the Lower Eastern Shore p. 33

Map Showing Quadrangle Units 42

Diagram of Category 1 Land Use by Unit p.. 43

Diagram of Category 2 Land Use by Unit p. 44

Table of Land Use by Unit Groups p. 57

Table of Land Use by Quadrangle Unit P. 58

Table 1: Total Population on the Lower Eastern Shore p. 83

Table 2: Total Numbers of Dwellings Based on 7
Persons Per Dwelling p. 83

Map of 18th Century Roads in Dorchester County P. 85

Map of 18th Century Roads in Somerset County p. 86

Map of 18th Century Roads in.Wicomico. County p. 87

Map of 18th Century-Roads in Worcester County P. 88

INTRODUCTION:

The surviving material evidence of man's past in America is a
unique and fragile resource that Is subject to constant pressure from
a variety of destructive forces. Nowhere is this fact more evident
than on the Lower Delmarva Deninsula, where a combination of natural
and man-made stresses threaten a rich and varied cultural record that
for environmental reasons is particularly vulnerable. The cultural
heritage of the Lower Delmarva found expression in a number of differ-
ent material forms during the over 12,000 years that man has been living
there, but the geological structure of the peninsula itself provides
little natural protection for these accumulated cultural resources..
Erosion causes severe damage in coastal areas, and the light, sandy
soils of the inland regions offer little protection from natural and
artificial degenerative processes once the original vegetation cover
has been removed. Increased development of the region since the 1950's
has accelerated the rate of destruction of cultural resources for both
inland and coastal areas. Yet, substantial physical remains of past
human activity can still be found throughout all parts of the Lower
Delmarva region.

In order that the cultural resources of Maryland's portion of the
Lower Delmarva peninsula might be preserved, the Maryland Historical
Trust has taken on the task of developing a cultural resource management
plan for the region. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
recognizes the need for management strategies of this sort, and it
encourages the individual states to develop comprehensive preservation
plans. The state of Maryland's initial approach to this problem was to
designate seven regional management units within the state and to pre-
pare separate regional management plans for them. These management units
were designed to take into account both modern political divisions with-
in the state and also environmental and cultural factors relevant to
past human activity there.

Management Unit A within the state of Maryland is the Lower Delmarva
Unit. This unit comprises a four county region that is bounded on the
north by the Choptank River and the state of Delaware, and on the south
by the Virginia border. The counties contained within the Lower Delmar-
va Unit are Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester. The Lower
Delmarva Management Unit is further divided into research units. These
research units are 1, the Atlantic drainage; 2, the Pocomoke drainage;
3, the Nanticake-Manokin-Wicomico-Annemessix drainage; and 4, the Chop-
tank drainage. Research unit 4, the Choptank River drainage, is not

wholely contained within the Lower Delmarva Management Unit. It is
divided between the Lower Delmarva unit and management uni.t B. the Upper
Delmarva Unit, along the northern boundary of Dorchester County.

The Lower Delmarva region makes a logical unit for management purp-
oses since both now and in the past a fairly high degree of cultural un-
iformity has characterized the region. Lower Delmarva is today a pre-
dominantly rural area that is economically dependant on agriculture and
fishing. The industries that do exist in the area are concerned, for
the most part, with food processing. Tourism, however, has become
increasingly important in the economy over the past two decades, and
this has created new and quite severe developmental stesses in some
areas. Whi1e in most parts of the Lower Delmarva Region population has
remained steady or even declined in recent years, other parts, especially
in Wicomico County and northern Worcester County, have seen fairly rapid
population increases. The total population growth rate of the region as
a whole is misleading, because internal migration has created a very
uneven population density pattern that is affecting the natural and the
cultural environment of the Lower Delmarva in some quite significant
ways.

At the present time the major stresses on the Lower Delmarva region's
cultural resources do not result from urban or industrial development, even
though these processes are much more of a factor than they were prior to
the 1950's. The major impacts on the surviving cultural record of the
region stem from changes in rural land use and from the continued erosion
of the coastline. This fact Causes the Lower Delmarva region to have some
special management problems. It is difficult to monitor the effects of
land use changes and of natural environmental processes on the cultural
resources of the region since these stresses are geographically extensive
and continue at a slow but fairly steady rate over a long period of time.
Urban or industrial stresses are more likely to be intensive and inter-
mittent, and to be better monitored within existing public planning
structures. A management plan for the Lower Delmarva region must take
into account diffuse, low level stresses which are depleting-the cultural
record of the region at a substantial rate, but which are not necessarily
obvious if they are viewed within a short time frame. In the past historic
preservation in America has been a site specific, ad hoc activity geared
to respond to intense and localized impacts on the cultural record. Such
an approach is particularly inappropriate for the Lower Delmarva region
lor -he reasons discussed above. The design and implementation of a
comprehensive management plan for the Lower Oelmarva is absolutely essent-
ial if the cultural heritage of this unique area is to be preserved.

M-wr

Vk.Uft

W."wr
ox
&=Amu@\ mr
Apr"
@/' ypin mom

PIIIL

IFIN

AWSSS ?I TO
0,00

.2614.111
T

Awwww
'; swi
;j

ANN"
ZI

Ito,

A9%T 499 CASTLE. A@O WSSEX
c-all" :Eel
SolllalSL. MC"C$TgR.XtNT CUCILMANNIS.
SET. TALIKIT@ colll.co ..o
Mole ESTES CQUNTI cs . MA"LAMlet
lleeolAACll -a an-.01m. cw",.Ks .10141l.l.

W.'a 'ASSSOll
-7

'076

FRAMEWORK FOR THE MANAGEMENT PLAN:

IThe management plan for the lower Delmarva region presented here
will deal with three major topics. The first is the nature of the cul-
tural record within the region. This section of the plan considers
present levels of archaeological knowledge about the region, and recon-
structs, insofar as this is possible, the culture history of the region.
The culture history synthesis presented here attempts to Isolate cer-
tain general themes that shaped the cultural record of the Lower Delmar-
va. This section aims to provide the necessary context within which
the subsequent sections of the plan can be viewed.

The second, major topic that is addressed in the plan is the nature
and extent of the stresses that are being placed on the cultural record
of the Lower Delmarva region. The Lower Delmarva's cultural resources
are subject to a variety of destructive forces, and if correct management
decisions are to be made, these forces must be identified and evaluated.
Major categories of contemporary stresses are assessed for the whole of
the Lower Delmarva region, and patterns of stress are projected for the
future. This section also identifies some general areas of very high
stress that should receive special attention.

The final major topic that is dealt with in this plan is the est-
ablishment of management priorities and procedures. Several recommend-
ations are made about'survey and assessment strategies for the region.
A monitoring procedure for the Lower Delmarva is proposed, and some
specific recommendations about how preservation goals should be achieved
in the area are discussed.

This management plan does not advocate the adoption of a specific
theoretical framework within which both management and research aims
should be pursued in the Lower Delmarva region. The plan is intended
to be a specific response to the cultural resource management needs of
this particular region at this point in time. For the purposes of this
plan management and research are regarded as separate, but complimentary,
activities. It is hoped that the Lower Delmarva region management plan
is sufficiently flexible in structure to be compatible with a range of
differing research designs, but it is not in and of itself a research
design.

THE CULTURAL RECORD

CURRENT LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE

Prior to the 1970's virtually no systematic, professional archae-
ological research was done in the Lower Delmarva region, Since the 19th
century it has been recognized that significant prehistoric archaeolog-
ical resources were located in the region, but owing to the relative
isolation of this part of the Delmarva peninsula before the.completion of
the Bay bridges, these resources did not generate a high level of schol-
arly interest. Until very recently the-institutions of higher learning
on the peninsula did not teach archaeology, and as a consequence no
institutional base for academic archaeological research was present in
the region.

However, the changes in the way archaeological research was organized and
funded that occu red as the result of federal environmental legislation
enacted in the 1960's triggered a new interest in the archaeology of the
Lower Delmarva region. Also the increased levels of archaeological act-
ivity in the neighboring state of Delaware in the 1970's provided a
preliminary conceptual framework within which the prehistoric archaeology
of Lower Delmarva could be studied. During the 1970's a number of compli-
ance studies were undertaken in the Lower Delmarva region, and gradually
a limited understanding of the prehistory of the region developed. The
most significant advance in the prehistoric archaeology of the Lower
Delmarva, however, occured only recently with the appearance of Richard
Hughes' work on the region, entitled A Cultural and Environmental Over-
view of the Prehistory of Maryland's Co Eastern shore. Hughes'--5-ver-
view will provide the basis for the discussion of Lower Delmarva prehist-
ory that follows.

At the present time the main sources of information on the archae-
ology of the Lower Delmarva region are to be found in Hughes' work and
in the site files of the Office of the Maryland State Archaeologist in
Baltimore. The site file information consists of short written descript-
ions of the archaeological sites in Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico and..
Worcester Counties that have been reported to the State Archaeologist.
A cross-referenced set of U.S.G.S. 7.5' quadrangle maps give the specific
locations of the sites. Almost all of the reported sites are prehistoric.
At the present time very little is known about historic archaeological
sites in the Lower Delmarva region.

The site files maintained by the Office of the State Archaeologist
contain a total of 328 entries for the Lower Delmarva region. On a
county by county basis the archaeological site totals are; Dorchester
County 85, Somerset County 69, Wicomico County 50, and Worcester County
124. Very few of these sites, less than 10% of the total number, were

initially located by professional archaeologists during the course of
systematic archaeological investigations. Avocational archeologists
resident in the Lower Delmarva area originally located the great majority
of the archaeological sites that are now known for the region.

For the most part., therefore, the distribution of archaeological
sites in the Lower Delmarva region as it is presently known is a product
of unsystematic amateur survey activity. It can be assumed.that this
site file data does not accurately represent the actual cultural resource
base of the region either in terms of numbers or distribution of sites.
If the distribution of reported archaeoTogical.sites is considered for
the whole region, it can be seert that this distribution is Ivighly skewed.
Large numbers of sites are known for the central Pocomoke drainage, for
the Marshyhope Creek area and for the Dames Quarter/Deal Island area.
Few sites are known for southern Somerset County, the northern coastal
area of Worcester County, and for the islands of the Chesai)eake Bay.

There are four possible reasons why this site pattern may have
developed. First , it could be due to the fact that avocational archae-
ologists willing to report sites are not present in all parts of the
region. Avocational archeologists tend to collect artefacts in areas
near to their place of residence, and if no collectors are present in a
particular part of the region, sites will not be reported there. Second,
avocational archaeologists empirically construct models for site location.
Only areas that conform to certain geomorphological criteria may be exam-
ined for possible sites. Third, present day land use, espectally agricul-
ture, makes the location of sites easier by removing the ground cover
and turning over the soil. Sites can be located more easily in plowed
fields than in scrub, forest or marsh areas. This may encourage site
location in heavily agricultural areas and discourage it elsewhere.
Fourth, the uneven distribution of reported sites might in fact stem
from the uneven distribution of surviving cultural resources. A higher
percentage of site occurance in a particular'area might actually be
related to better site preservation there.

As far as the Lower Delmarvais concerned it is the,first of these
four factors that has had the strongest effect on the distribution of
reported sites in the region. If the number of sites that is recorded
on each of the U.S.G.A. 7.5' quadrangle maps of the region is examined,
it can be seen that 29% of all reported sites are located on just four
maps, Deal Island, Dividing Creek, Girdletree and Rhodesdale. The
principle residences of the four avocational archaeologists who have
reported the largest number of sites from the region to the State Arch-
aeologist are also located on the areas covered by these four maps. It
is not simply the case that these four individulas happen to reside in
areas where large numbers of sites remain to be located, or where present
agricultural practices contribute to the discovery of sites. Sites have
been found in the Deal Island, Dividing Creek, Girdletree and Rhodesdale
areas because highly skilled avocational. archaeologists have been look-
ing for them. Since the death of Perry Flegel, the avocational archae-
ologist who reported large numbers of sites in the Marshyhope Creek area,

not a single new site has been added to the Rhodesdale map. This dem-
onstrates the highly s.ignificant effect that the presence or absence of
avocational archaeologists can have on the reporting of site location
data.

Surprisingly, land use does not seem to have much of an effect on
the number of sites that are reported from a gf-ven area. Regression
analysis of the total number of sites reported within an area relative
to the amount of agricultural land within that same area showed no
correlation between these two variables for the Lower.Delmarva Region.
The site location models devised by the avocational archaeologists do have
an effect on the geographical distribution df the reported sites within
a specific area, but not so much for the region as a whole. Such models
determine what parts of an area will be examined, but the area itself is
usually not selected in this manner.

The most popular model in use for the Lower Delmarva region is the
"sand ridge" model-. Late Pleistocene sands are present over a large
part of the region, and well drained ridges or knolls of this sand are
common, particularly along the major rivers-. These ridges are-retognized
as being the most likely areas for inland prehistoric sites. The majority
of avocational archaeologists examine only the sand ridges within an
area, ignoring other possible site locations. Even though sand ridges
are recognized as good places to find sites, however, not all areas having
these ridges are collected. The largest single area of Late Pleistocene
sands is found in eastern Wicomico County, but very few sites have been
reported from this area. The work of the Lower Delmarva Regional Preser-
vation Office indicates that prehistoric sites do occur on the sand ridges
of eastern Wicomico County, but because of a lack of interested avocational
archaeologists in that area fewer than 10 sites have been reported from
there. This is in contrast to the central Pocomoke drainage area immed-
iately to the south, where 94 sites have been reported.

Avocational archaeologists who do not base their collecting behavior
on the "sand ridge" model are for the most part those who collect coastline
areas. The obvious association between shell middens and prehistoric arte-
facts in coastal areas provides the main key for the location of sites.
Coastlines subject to heavy erosion are checked, sometimes on a regular
basis, for traces of eroding shell middens. Most sites are not located
until they are in the process of being destroyed by erosion. Tangier Sound
is probably the area that receives the most attention from avocational
archaeologists. Less interest is evidenced in the Atlantic side of the
Lower Delmarva region, perhaps because erosion rates are generally lower
there.

The site location practices of Lower Delmarva's avocational archae-
ologists introduce two distinct biases into the recorded pattern of site
distribtuion for the Lower Delmarva region. First, not all areas within
the region are being examined for sites because of the tendency of avo-
cational archeologists to have geographically restricted areas of inter-
est. Sites are not reported from areas lacking avocational archaeologists,
and for areas where avocational archaeologists are present levels of site

location activity vary. Secondw the site.location models formulated
by the avocational archaeol'ogists of the region, whether explicit or
implicit,, tend to restrict site location activity to locales that-con-
form to specific geomorphological criteria. The best.example of this is
the "sand ridge' model, which excludes poorly drained areas from consid-
eration as possible locales for prehistoric sites. Prehistoric sites
are mostz- easily located on sand ridges, but this does not mean that
such sites only occur on sand ridges.

Coupled with these two biases that affect the geographical distri-
bution of reported sites is a further bias introduced by unsystematic
surface collecting at these sites. Only certain classes of artefacts
are collected from sites, chiefly complete projectile points and the
more obvious types of ground stone tools, like grooved axes. Some
avocational archaeologists collect potsherds and some do not. In many
cases if the surfaces of the potsherds are badly worn, they a 're not
even recognized as artefacts. Such differential surface collecting
behavior makes the periodization of sites uncertain, and restricts
possibilities for the diachronic study of site distribution.

Despite the uneven quality of the archaeological data that has been
produced by the avocational archaeologists of the Lower Delmarva region,
they will continue to play a vital role in the location and investigation
of the cultural resources of this region. Some avocational archeologists,
especially those who are members of the Archeological Society of Maryland,
are extremely competent and responsible, and are:capable of carrying out
archaeological research of a high standard. If properly guided these
individuals can become an integral part of a cultural resource management
strategy for the region. Every effort should be made to involve respon-
sible avocational archaeologists in the professional archaeological activ-
ities that take place in the Lower Delmarva region.

THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD IN THE LOWER DELMARVA-REGION

In broad outline the prehistoric cultures of the Lower Delmarva
region show the same patterns of change and development that have been
observed elsewhere in the Middle Atlantic states. Fluted projectile
points provide the earliest evidence of man's presence in the region
during late glacial times. Subsequent changes in the characteristic
material culture assemblages of the region conform to the general Paleo-
indian/Archaic/Woodland sequence that has long been recognized for the
Middle Atlantic Area. The prehistoric period proper ends in the 17th
century A.D. with the coming of European explorers and settlers, although
in the Lower Delmarva some aspects of prehistoric Indian culture survived
into the 18th century.

The prehistory of the Lower Delmarva region seemingly follows a
pattern whose macro-structure is. common to a considerably larger area.
The Delmarva peninsula was always part of a larger cultural universe,and
i nteracti on between groups both wi thi n and wi thoutthe peni nsul a was
the rule rather than the exception in prehistoric times. This does not
mean, however, that the prehistoric cultures of the Lower Delmarva region
were simply copies of ageneralized Middle Atlantic prototype. The Lower
Delmarva maintained a separate identitywithin this more extensive cultur-
al universe.

In part this separate identity is a consequence of the geographical
situation of the region. Maryland's Lower Eastern shore is part of
the Atlantic coastal plain, and in terms of climate and geomorphology
it is very similar to Maryland's western shore. Because the two shores
are separated by the Chesapeake Bay, however, the lower Eastern shore
interacts as freely with areas to the north as with Maryland west of
the Say. The north-south oriented rivers of the Delmarva Peninsula pro-
vide the easiest lines of contact with areas outside of the lower Del-
marva region, and this fact certainly helped shape characteristic cultural
patterns within the region.

Also the fact that the Lower Delmarva region is located on a relatively
narrow peninsula between two large bodies of water must have had a major
effect on the pattern of cultural development there. Certainly from late
Archaic times on a range of subsistence options based on the exploitation
of rich marine food resources were open to the inhabitants of this
region. The inundation of the pre-Holocene Susquehanna River drainage
basin produced a mosaic of micro-environmental zones on the Bay side that
changed quite rapidly through time. The inundation process affected
notjust the bay shore itself, but also the many rivers and creeks that
drain into the Bay. Today estuarine conditions extend far up the major

rivers of the region l1ke the Choptankt Nanticoke and Pacomoke. There
are virtually no parts of the r'egion's rivers that.are not penetrated
by anadromous fish.- Inundation also produced large areas.of very pro-
ductive fresh and salt water marsh. The changes in material culture
that are observable over the last 12,000-years in. the Lower Delmarva
region should be viewed within the context of the perpetually changing
environmental conditions that existed there.

The general sea level rise that was responsible for the formation of
the Chesapeake Bay and for many sorts of environmental change within
the Lower Delmarva region has had a profound affect on the survival of
the cultural resource data base there as well. The total land area of
the Lower Delmarva region has been shrinking for a I-ong time, and even
though the rate of sea level rise today is considerably smaller than it
was 3,000 years ago, sea level rise is still the major destroyer of the
cultural record of the region. Reconstructions of prehistoric cultural
patterns in the Lower Delmarva region are developed through the examin-
ation of a severely truncated data base. It is not just that large
numbers of prehistoric sites have been lost; whole categorries of sites
have been lost. At the time of man.'s first entry into the region the
Atlantic Coast of Delmarva probably extended more than 50 miles east of
its present limit. This means that the Delmarva peninsuia as it is known
today was at that time an inland area that offered a very different
set of resource exploitation options. This factor inevitably tends to
distort views of the early prehistory of the Lower Delmarva region.

THE PALEOINDIAN PERIOD 12,000 B.P. - 9,500 B.P.

The only traces of the presence of Paleoindian groups within the Lower
Delmarva region are provided by isolated finds of fluted projectile points.
No actual occupation sites are known. Clovis points form the most numer-
ous category of Paleoindian artefacts found in the region, followed by
Middle Paleo points and then by Dalton-Hardaway points. Thus the earliest
phase of the paleoindian period seems to be the best represented in terms
of artefact numbers. This is probably a result of collector bias, how-
ever, since Clovis points are the most widely recognized of the paleo-
indian point types.

Paleoindian points are reported from two main areas, the coastline
along Tangier Sound and the interior drainage of the middle Pocomoke River.
The association of Paleoindian artefacts with interior areas of poor drain-
age like the Middle Pocomoke Rtver has also been noted in Delaware.
Extensive sea level rise since Paleoindian times makes the interpretation
of the fluted point finds along Tangier Sound difficult, since what are
coastline areas now were inland areas during the Paleoindian Period. It
is likely that the Tangier Sound area, however, was a locale where several
important streams and rivers flowed together in late Glacial times. It nay

have been, as a consequence, an area that was particularly attractive
to the varieties of game upon which Paleoindian.groups subsisted.

The traditional assumption that the primary PaTeoindian subsistence
strategy was based on the hunting of large game animals would seem to
hold for the Lower Delmarvaregion, at least during.the early part of the
Paleoindian period. By the Middle Paleo period, however,.changing en-
vironmental conditions may have caused a shift away from dependence on
large Pleistocene fauna. A more diversified subsistence strategy based
on the exploitation of plant and marine/riverine resources as well as
the hunting of both large and small animals would have been a logical
response to changes in climate and vegetation cover during the latter
part of the Paleoindian period. Changes of this nature in subsistence
pattern would form a bridge to the characteristic adaptive patterns
evidenced during the Archaic period in the Delmarva region.

THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 9,500 B.P. - 3,200 B.P.

The early part of the Archaic period was a time when environmental
conditions on the Lower Eastern Shore were changi-ng quite markedly. The
pre-Boreal conditions that characterized the late Paleoindian period gave
way to full Boreal conditions an the peninsula. As a consequence of this
change a plant cover much like that known for the region in the present
day came into being. The early Archaic period inhabitants of the Lower
Delmarva were probably less dependent upon hunting than the Paleoindian
inhabitants had been, and probably made more use of plant foods. Site
distribution for the early Archaic suggests that as well as exploiting
the interior drainage of the Pocomoke River and the Tangier Sound area,
which was the pattern during the Paleoindian period, Archaic groups were
also locating along small streams in the Atlantic drainage area of southern
Worcester County. This may indicate a further diversification of sub-
sistence strategies.

The characteristic projectile point types of the early Archaic are
quite different from those of the preceding Paleoindian period. Fluting
disappears and corner-notched points, especially of Kirk type, become
common. At a later stage in the early Archaic bifurcate base points
appear with LeCroy points being the most numerous type in the Lower Del-
marva region. As was the case with the Paleoindian points, locally
available cherts seem to be the favored raw material for point making.

In the middle Archaic period there is little evidence of a change in
settlement pattern or subsistencestrategy from the early archaic. There
does seem to be a real increase in the total number of sites between early
and middle Archaic in the region, however- The most commonly found
projectile point in the Lower Delmarva region, even when all prehistoric

13
ARCHAIC PERIOD CHRONOLOGY AND DIAGNOSTIC POINT TYPOLOGY

PHASE TRADITION DIAGNOSTIC POINT
B.C./A.0.

5oo
Marcey Creek Fishtail
1000 Lat Archaic VI Orient Dry Brook
Late Archaic V Perkiomen, Susquehanna
1500 Late Archaic IV Broadspear Clagett. Savannah River%
2000 Late Archaic III Holmes Koens-Crispin
2500 Late Archaic 11 Piedmont/ Vernon
3000 Laurentian Brewerton SN CN EN ET
3500 Late Archaic I Piscataway
4000 Otter Creek
Middle Archaic III Guilford Lanceolate
4500 Middle Archaic 11 morrow mountain I & 11
5000
Stanly
5500 Middle Archaic I
6000 Early Archaic V Kanawha
Early Archaic IV Bifurcate Le Croy
Early Archaic 11 St. Albans
6500 Early Archaic 11 Kirk CN & Stemmed
7000
Early Archaic I Corner-notched Palmer
7500
Dalton - Hardaway Dalton
8000 Hardaway
8500 Middle Paleoindian Middle Paleo
9000 Clovis Clovis

9500

periods are taken into account, is the Middle-Archaic Morrow Mountain
II point. Also during the middle Archaic large quantities of non-local
li'thic materials start to be used. A signifi.cant number of the Middle
Archaic points found in the Lower Delmarva are made of rhyalite and
Argillite, materials that are rarely used in the early part of the Ar-
chaic period.

During the fIrst part of the Late Archaic there is no indication of
any fundamental changes in subsistence strategy or site distribution
from the preceding middle Archaic. Two different traditions are recog-
nizable within the region at this time; the Piedmont traditiorr with
affinities to the south-and west and the Laurentian with affinities
to the north. The artefacts that are characteristic of these two tra-
ditions essentially have the same distributions and occur on many of
the same sites in the region.

The latter part of the Late Archaic does show a significant shift
in settlement pattern away from the swampy upper reaches of inland
streams and towards the mouths of major streams and rivers. This shift
may mark a change fn subsittencestrategy. It suggests that more use
was being made of marine and riverine food resources. By this phase of
the Late Archaic anadromous fish would be present in the lower reaches
of streams and rivers and oysters were present in exploitable quantities
in the Bay. The most numerous point type of the Late Archaic, the Koens-
Crispin, shows this downstream shift of Archaic settlement. Carved
steatite bowls also appear at this time.

The transition between Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods in
the Lower Delmarva region is marked by projectile points of the Fishtail
Tradition. They seem to occur in both pre-ceramic and ceramic contexts.
There is no evidence that sites of this time period were different in
subsistence base or distribution from the earlier Broadspear tradition
sites, although fewer of these sites are known from coastal areas. These
Fishtail points are often associated with steatite bowl fragments.

THE WOODLAND PERIOD 3,200 B.P. - circa 1600 A.D,

The beginning of the Woodland Period in the Lower Delmarva region is
marked, in essence, by, the earliest occurences of pottery there. A
steatite tempered pottery called Marcey Creek Ware is recognized as being
the earliest variety, of ceramic that occurs in areas adjacent to the Lower
Delmarva. This ceramic is not known to be present at all in the Lower
Delmarva region, however. Selden Island and Ware Plain ceramics, charac-
teristic pottery types of the early Woodland period in surrounding areas,
were also absent from the Lower Delmarva region. The earliest ceramic -
of the region seems to be Dames Quarter pottery, which was originally de-
fined on the basis of sherds recovered from the Lower Delmarva. The

point @ype association of Dames Quarter pottery lies. with the.Fishtail-
tradition. This is the.same association that has been recognized for
Marcey Creek Ware elsewhere.. Dames Quarter pottery seemingly marks the
begi'nning of the Woodland period on Maryland's Lower Eastern shore.
Distribution patterns for the early Woodland@_there are much the same
as terminal Archaic period distribution patterns in the region. Dames
Quarter pottery would:appear to be the regional equivalent of Marcey
Creek Ware.

The Middle Wood-land period in the Lower Delmarva region starts with
the appearance of WoTfe Neck Ware, which represents the beginning of a
recognizably different pottery making tradition that is continued by
Coulbourne Ware and Mockley Ware. These three wares are very often found
together at the same site. The major projectfle point types of the Middle
Woodland in the Lower Delmarva are the Rossville and the Selby Bay
Stemmed point.

The number of known Middle Woodland sites in the Lower Delmarva
region is very much larger than the number of known Early Woodland sites
there. Middle Woodland sites also show a much stronger tendency to occur
in coastal areas, which may suggest a strong dependence on marine food
sources. It is during the Middle Woodland period that the Atlantic
coastal drainage area first appears as a major zone of-settlement,
although small numbers of sites were present in this area as far back as
the Early Archaic. Middle Woodland subsistence activities may well have
included horticulture, although there is no direct evidence of this yet
from the Lower Delmarva region. There is also increased evi-dence of
contacts with groups outside of the-Delmarva area at this time. This
can be seen in the more extensive use of non-local raw matertals and in
the apparent adoption of mortuary practices characteristic of Adena/Hope-
well groups to the west.

The Late Woodland Period is marked by a number of significant changes
in both subsistence practices and settlement patterns. Corn agriculture
definitely is established by this time, although the Late Woodland peoples
of the Lower Delmarva pursued a diversified subsistence strategy that
included hunting, gathering and the exploitation of both fish and shell-fish.
Palisaded villages and permanent house structures are characteristic of the
Late Woodland, and it is likely that the total population was growing in
the Lower Delmarva region. The material culture of the Late Woodland is
more elaborate than that of earlier prehistoric periods, and seemingly
there is a greater emphasis on non-utilitarian items.

The characteristic artefact types present during the Late Woodland
in the Lower Delmarva region are Townsend series ceramics-and triangular
projectile points, among which Levanna and Madison points predominate.
Townsend pottery with incised decoration is associated with the early part
of the Late Woodland. In the latter part of the Late Woodland a cord
marked decorative tradition inspired by Potomac Creek Ceramics from the
western shore is adopted by many of the groups.making Townsend ceramics
in the Lower Delmarva region. The incised decorative tradition is not

WOODLAND PERIOD CHRONOLOGY AND CERAMIC TYPOLOGY

LOWER EASTERN SHORE of MARYLAND PATUXENT RIVER (WESTERN SHORE)

- Uj
Uj LU
1200 8C
1100 Marcey Creek Ware'
Uj I,."-
1000 Marcey Creek Ware Uj
I Uj
900 Selden Island Ware cr*
Sao Duns Quarter Ware
Uj
700 Accakeek Ware
600 Wolfe Neck Ware
Soo
400 Coulbourn Ware
300 Smallwood &
200 Popes Creek
Uj
100 Ware
WA
8C_A0 U_
_j
100 Mockley Ware A W
200 Mockley Ware
300
400 -A
Soo .&M W1
600 Hell Island Ware
700 21. Uj
4c V1
-4
V? UA
Soo Townsend Incised Series JS
6" @A I . (.n 0.
-RF1
900
R1 complex
1000 Townsend Incised Seriesa- -Townsend He"ingbone
1100 -RFI*
-RI(complex) _j Uj
1200 01
-Townsend Herringbone Townsend Carded Series
is .4 1
1300 Townsend Corded Sgrjej _RFI
-RFI* . @ .0 @ -0
1400 oPotomac Lo I -RI horiz. Potomac
-RI(horizontall Creek _TCH
ISOO TCH *Sullivan Ware Creek
I &I Ware
*Sullivan Ware
sMayoane P" ujj
1600 _j Uj (.n
1700
V1 W C6 W
UA

completely displaced, however, and incised Townsend series ceramics
continue to be made, especially in the northern part of the Lower
Delmarva region. The Potomac Creek inspired corded tradition pottery
is more common, though, and incised decoration is virtually nonexistent
in the southern part of the region.

Late Woodland sites typically are found immediately adjacent to
major streams and rivers. Areas of high Late Woodland settl.ement con-
centration are Marshyhope Creek, Dividing Creek and the middle Pocomoke
river. A numberof Late Woodland sites are also known from along Sine-
puxent Bay. During the course of the Late Woodland period the total
number of sites seems to increase, although a shift in overall settlement
pattern is not observable during the period.

THE POST-CONTACT PERIOD circa 1600 A.D. - circa 1300 A.D.

European contact with the inhabitants of the Lower Delmarva region
did not result in an immediate disruption of the Late Woodland cultural
pattern there. The earliest penetration of the region was by Europeans
interested in exploration and trade rather than in settlement. Colon-
ization of the Lower Delmarva region did not begin until the late 17th
century. From that time on the indigenous population of the region was
under steady pressure from incoming Euro-Americans, but relations be-
tween the two groups were generally peaceful.

A material culture that was basically Late Woodland in character
continued through the 17th century, although increasing amounts of Euro-
pean made goods were utilized alongside traditional artefacts. Contact
with the Euro-American colonists induced some profound social and econ-
omic changes, however. Historical records show that the major indian
tribes of the region were displaced from coastal areas relatively rapid-
ly, and that in the surviving inland settlements the procuring of furs
for trade with Euro-Americans became a major economic activity. The
Colonial government of Maryland also interfered with the socio-political
structure of the indian tribes of the region, selecting tribal chiefs
without regard for traditional authority patterns.

The Pocomoke, Assateague, Nanticoke and Choptank were the major
indian tribal divisions recognizable in the 17th century. By 1750 A.D.
all except the Choptanks had either migrated out of the region or lost a
separate cultural identity and merged with the Euro-American majority.
A small group of Choptanks remained on a reservation at Locust Neck in
Dorchester County until the end of the 18th century. After the disso-
lution of this reservation the remaining indians in the Lower Delmarva
region disappear into the general population of the region.

THE HISTORIC PERIOD IN THE LOWER DELMARVA REGION

DISCOVERY PHASE PRE-1660

The Lower Delmarva region makes its first brief entrance into the
historical record in 1524, when Giovanni da Verrazzano landed at a
place called "Arcadia" on the Atlantic coast of North America. "Arcad-
ia" was almost certainly located on the eastern seaboard of the Del-
marva Peninsula in what is now either Worcester County,Maryland or
Accomack County,Virginia. Subsequent to Verrazzano's exploration-of a
part of the Atlantic coast of Delmarva, the region dissapears from
history until the early 17th century. Spanish explorers, notably
Menendez-Marques and Gonzales, visited the Chesapeake Bay region in the
late 16th century but they tell us nothing specific about the Lower
Delmarva Peninsula.

In 1608 a party of explorers from the Jamestown settlement led
by Capt. John Smith sailed along the Bay coast of the region and ex-
amined two large rivers on the Eastern Shore that drain into the Bay,
the Pocomoke and the Nanticoke. Information gathered during this explor-
ation was used in the preparation of the Smith Maps of 1612 and 1624.
Smith's voyage was not followed up by further systematic exploration or
by European settlement of the region. However, after this initial ex-
amination of the area trading contacts began between the Indians of the
Eastern Shore and the European settlers of the Western Shore. There is
evidence that traders from the Virginia colony were sailing to the Man-
okin River area in present day Somerset county by 1620. Sporatic refer-
ences to trade with the Eastern Shore Indians continue up to the time of
the actual settlement of Dorchester and Somerset counties.

COLONIZATION PHASE 1660-1690

The date of the earliest settlementby Euro-Americans in the Lower
Eastern Shore region of Maryland is uncertain. Officially Dorchester
county was thrown open for settlement by the Lord Proprietor in 1659 and
Somerset County, then taking in present day Somerset, Wicomico and Wor-
cester Counties, was opened in 1661. In fact both Somerset and Dorchest-
er Counties probably were first settled before these dates. In the case

I I

COUNTIES 166

C4,
,2

f
i;@ .I
I @

of Somerset County, settlers from Accomack/Northampton County, Virginia
had apparently already taken patents on lands there under Virginia law.
The Maryland Archives note that in 1668 there were 26 Vfrginia land
patents totaling-24,800 acres in all that had been made il-1-legally with-
in the bounds of Maryland. Most of these were in what.is now southern
Worcester County. The boundary between the Maryland an&Vfrginia sect-
ions of the Eastern shore had not been surveyed properly at this time,
and knowingly or unknowingly residents of Accomack/Northampton had mi-
grated northward into Maryland territory. In the case of Dorchester
County, two prominent local historians assert that settlement there
probably began in the late 1640's with a few colonists crossi-ng the bay
from the Patuxent region and settling on the islands off the Dorchester
Coast. As far as Taylor's Island is concerned there is some evidence to
support this assertion. This earliest phase of settlement in Dorchester
and Somerset counties cannot have involved many people nor is it likely
to have preceded officially sanctioned settlement in either county by
more than about a decade.

Maryland's Proprietary government began granting patents for Dor-
chester County lands on a systematic basis in 1659. In 1661 a procla-
mation was issued which authorized the granting of lands to people res-
ident in Northampton and Accomack County, Virginia who wished to remove
to the Maryland part of the eastern shore. Under this proclamation
groups from Northampton and Accomack had formed settlements at Manokin
and Annemessix in Somerset County by the year 1662. The early settlers
of Dorchester and Somerset Counties had different origins,with the
Somerset residents being predominantly Virginians from Northampton and
Accomack while the Dorchester people were mainly Marylanders from the
western shore. There seems to have been little contact between these
two groups, and within a few years the lands that they occupied were
divided into two counties. Somerset County was created in 1666 and
Dorchester County in 1668.

CONSOLIDATION PHASE 1690-1730

After circa 1690 the phase of initial colonization on Maryland's
Lower. Eastern Shore effectively ends. Euro-Ameri-can settlement had ex-
tended to all parts of the region, although many areas were still very
lightly inhabited. A new pbase characterized by internal consolidation
and development begins. It is during this time that the Lower Eastern
Shore ceased to be a frontier region and began to develop the economic,
social and political structures that gave this region a separate identity
from surrounding regions. Industrial development began, towns were estab-
lished, characteristic religious institutions were created, and an inter-
nal road system took shape.

The early part of this phase coincides with a major disruption
of Maryland's economy caused by fluctuations in the tobaccomarket and
by the interruption of normal overseas trading patterns due towar in
Europe. Also thists the time of the Glorious Revolution in England that
had the consequence of ending the dominant role of the Lords Baltimore
in the-affairs of Maryland. These events had a considerable effgct on
the development of the Lower Eastern Shore counties and serve to divide
two periods of rapid growth, 1660-1690 and 1710-1730, from a middle period,
1690-1710, of low growth and economic readjustment. Important insti-
tutional changes@however, were taking place throughout the 1690-1730
period.

LATE COLONIAL PHASE 1730-1783

After circa 1730 the Lower Delmarva reg.ion entered a period of
relative stability that endured until the revolutionary war period.
Economic, political and social developments followed in the pattern set
during the preceding phase. Institutions elaborated but did not generally
undergo fundamental structural changes. Population increased steadily,
with most growth going to the northern and eastern parts of the region.
One political effect of population increases in the eastern part of
the peninsula was the creation of Worcester County. The original
Somerset County was divided in half, and the Atlantic seaboard portion
became the new county of Worcester with its county seat at.Snow Hill.
In the 1760's the boundary dispute between Maryland and what was to be-
come the state of Delaware was resolved, and by the time of the revolu-
tion the Lower Delmarva region's political boundaries had stabilized at
their present limits.

Although population in all parts of the Lower Delmarva region grew
during the late colonial period, no large towns came into being. Cam-
bridge, Salisbury and Snow Hill were important commercial and administra-
tive centers... but none supported resident populations of more than a few
hundred. Transportation and communication within the region improved
with the extension of the road network and with the construction of more
bridges. Water transportation still remained the major means of carry-
ing commodities in and out of the region, however. Economic links to the
north with Delaware and Pennsylvania tended to get stronger during this
period. It is also at this time that political and economic friction
between the eastern and western shores of Maryland began to build up,
especially after circa 1750.

COUNTJES 1742
I
? 0

1 -

I evl@5
r%
@ t oftc -

POST REVOLUTIONARY PHASE 1783-1820

The Revolutionary War triggered an abrupt.reorientation of the
Lower Eastern Shore's economy by effectively ending pre-war patterns of
production and,trade. The conversion from tobacco production to grain
and livestock production had been going on gradually for several decades,
but with the coming of the war this process was accellerated greatly.
While no important battles were fought in the region the activities of
the British navy and local Tory pirates ended pre-existing patterns
of seaborne trade. This forced diversification with the agricultural
economy by eliminating one set of markets and creating a new demand for
food products. The end of the war brought increased trade with the
growing urban centers of Baltimore and Philadelphia to the north and
west. In the period between the Revolutionary War and era of canal
building in the early 19th century the Lower Delmarva region experienced
a boom as a supplier of agricultural products.

At the same time the Lower Delmarva region was declining in terms of
political and economic power relative to the western shore of Maryland.
No urban centers emerged on the Lower Eastern Shore, and although pop-
ulation continued to increase there, this increase was slight compared
to that of Baltimore and its surrounding counties. One result of the Revo-
lution was to make available more' land in the Lower Eastern Shore count-
ies, since the extensive holdings of Lord Baltimore were confiscated
and made available for patenting. Consequently a fair number of original
land grants were made during the post-Revolutionary period, especially
in interior areas.

PRE-CIVIL WAR PHASE 1820-1860

After 1820 total population in the Lower Delmarva region reached
a plateau that endured until the time of the Civil War. Although these
do not appear to have been times of economic hardship in the region
the relative economic and political position of the Lower Eastern S@ore
continued to decline with respect to other parts of the state. Attempts
to establish canal and railroad systems for the region were economic
failures. Grain and livestock production and lumbering remained the
economic mainstays of the Lower Delmarva. After 1820 the institution of
slavery declined very sharply although this decline does not seem to
have been associated with any strong abolitionist sentiment on the part
of the inhabitants. Communication with the western shore were improved
by the establishment of regular steamboat routes, and the internal road
system continued to develop.

POST CIVIL WAR PHASE 1860 to PRESENT

This phase in the history of the Lower Delmarva actually begins
just before the Civil War, with the arrival of the first railroad link
to the region. The effects of this event were deferred by the war until
the late 1860's, but there can be little doubt that the coming.of the
railroads was a pivotal event in the development of the region. The
Civil War for a time arrested the normal course of economic development
but it did not have the enormous economic and social consequences in
the Lower Delmarva that it had in the deep south. Most inhabitants
of the region remained loyal to the Union. Slavery was abolished with-
out severe damage being done to the agricultural economy, and the
immediate post-war years were i-n fact a time of relative prosperity.

The outstanding political event of the post-war period was the
creation of Wicomico county. This act was in fact just the official
recognition of an economic and social reality that had been evolving
for some time. In the late 19th century the Lower Eastern Shore region
was transformed into a social and.economic unit that is ancestral, in a
very direct way, to the present day Lower Eastern Shore. The economy
became concerned with the production and processing of foodstuffs for
sale to surrounding regions with greater populations and more developed
manufacturing economies. In the late 19th century this brought con-
siderable prosperity and encouraged population growth. For most of the
20th century this has not been as successful an economic strategy and
the Lower Eastern Shore has tended to grow more slowly than the rest
of the state of Maryland.

Improved access to surrounding areas has tended to end the relative
isolation of the lower Eastern Shore and to integrate the region's
economy more closely with the economy of the Middle Atlantic states as
a whole over the last three decades. The region still preserves an
economic and social character of its own, however. The post Civil War
period seems to have been the time when social and economic patterns
underwent their last great transformation on Maryland's Lower Eastern
Shore.

DEMOGRAPHY

The Euro-American colonization of the Lower Delmarva region began
from the Chesapeake Bay side, with the almost simultaneous settlement
of the lower parts of the Great Choptank and Little Choptank drainages
and of the lower reaches of the Manokin and Annemessix rivers. The
rivers of the Lower Delmarva acted as the major corridors for settle-
ment during the initial colonization phase (1660-1690). The lack of

d',O

of
.41

Jr
.01

oe 0,
00

.10 P J#

$OMERSET COUNTY H

circa 1700

an internal road system made access to the bay by boat an important
economic consideration.- Lands along the nav 'igable portions of the
rivers flowi.ng into the Chesapeake were occupied very rapidly. The
lands along the relatively short Annemessix and,Manoki-n Rivers that had
good agricultural potential were compl-etely claimed by 1670. The longer
rivers of the Lower Delmarva region, the Great Cttoptank, the Nanticoke,
the Wicomico and the Pocomoke, were navigable for a much greater part
of thei'r length than were the Annemessix, Manakin and Little Choptank
Rivers, but even so the most desirable lands a-long these rivers were
occupied before 1680.

Apart from water access, the other important characteristic select-
ed for by the early colonists of the Lower Delmarva region when occupy-
ing land was good drainage. Much of the land along the bay side of
the region is poorly drained and is not suitable for agrfculture without
extensive modification. These poorly drained lands tend to occur at the
mouths of rivers and were passed over in the earliest wave of coloniza-
tion. Therefore, although settlement tended to follow the course of the
rivers inland, there was no regular temporal progression of settlement
up these rivers. Desirable lands were claimed very rapidly up to the
limits of navigation on these rivers, while less desirable lands farther
down the rivers were not occupied, even though they had better access
to the Bay.

During the 1670's settlement began on the Atlantic side of the Del-
marva region as well. Early centers of settlement were the-St. Martin's
River, Trappe Creek and Brockatonorton Bay. There was a spread of pop-
ulation inland during the 1680's both from these Atlantic drainage
settlements and from the settlements along rivers flowing into the Bay.
With agriculturally desirable lands along the coasts and along the major
rivers already occupied, for the most part, the major focus of settle-
ment activity shifted to the lands of the interior that had good agri-
cultural potential even though they lacked direct water access. Simul-
taneously poorly drained lands near the mouths of rivers on the bay
side begin to be settled, although the main thrust of new settlement
was inland.

By 1690 virtually all areas of the Lower Delmarva region were
settled, although very few people were living in the interior portion
of southern Dorchester County or in what is now eastern Wicomico County
at that time. Large tracts of unoccupied land were still present through-
out the region, but these were lands that were in some respect undesirable,
and either lacked good access or high agricultural potential. As the
population of the lower Delmarva region grew, and an internal road system
developed, these less desirable lands eventually were occupied. This
process was not complete, however, until well into the 18th century.

The earliest population figures for the Lower Delmarva region date
to 1671, or about ten years after initial settlement. At that time the
total population of the region was just under 2000 persons. The bulk
of Dorchester County's population was concentrated along the Great and

Little Choptank rfvers.@ Population in Somerset County-was concentrated
within the drainages of the Annemessix, Manokin, southern Pocomoke and
southern Wicomico Rivers, and in the Monie Creek area.

Population Increased rapidly over the next two decades, and by the
1690's there were over 6500 persons in the Lower Delmarva region. Econ-
omic and political events outside of the region caused a.dramatic reduct-
ion in the population growth rate over the next twenty year period, but
rapid growth began again after 1710. Between 1710 and 1733 population more
than doubled, and by the latter date over 20,000 persons were living in
the Lower Delmarva region.

The population increases of the 1690-1730 period were not evenly dist-
ributed geographically. In Somerset County most new growth took place in
the Nanticoke and Wicomico drainage areas and on the Atlantic seaboard
side, in what isnow northern Worcester County. The areas showing the
lowest growth were the areas of-initial colonization, Annemessi-x, Manokin
and Monie. A s-imilar phenomenon is observable in Dorchester County,
with the largest population increases tending to-occur in the northern
and eastern parts of the county rather than in the Little Choptank area.-
This pattern,of higher growth rates for the northern and eastern parts
of the lower Delmarva region than for the longer settled southern and
western areas continued until the time of the Civil War.

The shift of population eastward led to-the creation of a new county,
Worcester, in 1742. Worcester took in the whole of the Atlantic seaboard
and most of the Pocomoke River drainage. Population growth continued
at a steady rate through the middle part of the 18th century, although not
at the explosive rate of the circa 1710-1730 period. Total population did
not pass the 40,000 mark until after the Revolutionary War. Somerset was
the fastest growing of the three Lower Eastern Shore counties, but most
of that growth was confined to the northern part of the county, especially
around Salisbury.

Slavery increased rapidly in the middle and late 18th centuries, with
the percentage of slaves relative to total population going from less
than 20% before 1730 to 38% in 1790. Throughout the 18th and 19th cent-
uries Somerset County contained the highest percentage of slaves and
Worcester contained the smallest percentage. The main slaveholding areas
within Somerset County were located between the Wicomico and the Annemessix
Rivers, and this pattern persisted up until- the abolition of slavery in
the 1860's. Slavery did not show a marked decline in the Lower Delmarva
region until after 1820. By 1850, however, the percentage of slaves
relative to total population had been reduced to 22%.

After the Revolutionary War population growth rates slovied for Dor-
chester and Somerset Counties, but increased for Worcester County. This
situation persisted up to circa 1820. In the period between 1820 and the
Civil War population growth slowed markedly in all parts of the Lower
Delmarva region, but there appears to have been a considerable internal
shift in population towards the Salisbury region. By 1850 Salisbury had

surpassed Cambridge as the largest town in the Lower Delmarva region.
At that time Salisbury had circa 1500 inhabitants, Cambrf 'dge circa
1200, and Berlin and Snow Hill circa 700-800 each. These figures
underline the basically rural character of.the Lower Delmarva region's
population, All of the previously mentioned.towns were in existence by
1750, and Cambridge and Snow Rill were first established blefore 1700,
but none of these places attracted large populations until the second
half of the l9th century. After the Civil War Salisbury and Cambridge
experienced periods of almost explosive growth as a result of the
economic reorientation of the Lower Delmarva region caused by the arriv-
al of the railroads and the rising importance of the canning and packing
industries. During this century, however, Salisbury began growing at
a much faster rate than Cambridge, and at the present day Salisbury is
clearly the major urban center of the region.

The growth of the Salisbury-region during the 19th century led to
the creation of a fourth county on Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore in
1867. Northern Somerset County and northwestern Worcester County were
joined to create Wicomico County, with its county seat at Salisbury.
The creation of Wicomico County was a logical outcome of a process that
had been going on for over a century. Population and economic power had
tended to concentrate in the north-central part of the Lower Delmarva
region, while the county seats of both Somerset and Worcester were loc-
ated in the southern part of the region where earliest settlement
occured. The different economic orientations of the northern and south-
ern parts of the region inevitably led to friction between the two areas,
and this ultimately resulted in the separation of@the two areas.

Economic developments of the late 19th century for a time inter-
rupted this tendency for the north to outstrip the south in growth.
The boom in the seafood industry after the Civil War caused the southern
part of Somerset county to increase its population at a substantial rate.
In fact, southern Somerset actually grew faster than Wicomico county
during the 1870's. This trend did not last long, however, and through-
out the 20th century Wicomico County has tended to grow faster than
Dorchester, Somerset or Worcester.

At the present time only Wicomico County continues to grow at a sig-
nificant rate. The total population of the. lower eastern shore is about
140,000 persons, more than 45% of whom live in Wicomico County. Somer-
set County has been loosing population for several decades, while Dor-
chester and Worcester show a very slow overall growth. Wicomico, however,
should continue to add approximately 10,000 persons per decade to her
population, with most growth occuring in the central part of the county.
In residential pattern the Lower Delmarva region is still overwhelmingly
rural and this state of affairs should continue until the end of the
century, at least.

THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY

The traditional view of the 17th and early 18th century economy
of Maryland emphasizes the primacy of tobacco production. Tobacco was
the mainstay of the export trade for the overwhelmingly agricultural
economy of the Chesapeake Bay region, and also served.as an internal
medium of exchange for the inhabitants of that region. The overall econ-
omic health of Maryland was tied to the level of tobacco prices. Eras
'of low-tobacco prices coincide,with eras of low, or-even no,.growth.
However, not all areas of the state were equally suited for tobacco
production. The eastern shore generally was a less favorable area for
tobacco growing than was the western shore, and on the lower eastern
shore, in particular, tobacco never seems to have had the same import-
ance that it achieved in the western shore's economy. Tobacco was
grown in Dorchester and Somerset Counties throughout the 17th and l8th
centuries, but other commodities were also produced for export, especially
grain, timber products and cloth.

The economy of Somerset County, in particular, more closely resembled
that of the eastern shore of Virginia than it did the rest of the state
of Maryland. Accomack/Northampton, from the late 17th century on, in-
creasingly turned away from tobacco production to concentrate on grain
and livestock production. By the 1660's considerable trade in these
commodities had developed between Virginia's Eastern Shore and both
New England and the West Indies. A number of ships built and owned by
Accomack/Northampton residents were involved in the coastal trade, and
the export of port, indian corn and wheat apparently offered a profitable
alternative to the tobacco trade.

Since this pattern had already developed in Virginia's Eastern
Shore by the 1660's, when the Manokin and Annemessix settlements in
Somerset County first came into being, it can be assumed that the early
Somerset county residents also took advantage of the New England and
West Indies Markets. Some of the wealthier settlers who came to Somer-
set County had been active in the coastal trade before they left Acco-
mack/Northampton, and it is unlikely that they abandoned existing
markets merely because they changed their place of residence. In 1684
there is a request to the MarylandCouncil for permission to export wheat
out of Somerset County. A few years later there is a record of a ship
being seized for illegally exporting barrels of pork from Somerset
County, and in 1692 there is a report of thirty Scottish, Irish and New
England ships trading illegally with Somerset County. This strongly
suggests that the Accomack/Northampton pattern is being repeated on the
Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, and that tobacco is only one of the
comodities being exported from that region.

It is easier to make inferences about the export trade in the case of
Somerset County than it is in the case of Dorchester County. The counties
of Maryland during the 17th and 18th centuries were divided into different
Naval Districts by the Proprietary government to facilitate the collect-

ion of taxes, and initially Somerset was the only county in the Poco-
moke Naval District. This means that Somerset's exports can be consid-
ered separately from the-rest of Maryland, since exports, are recorded
by naval districts. Dorchester on the other hand was part of the Patux-
ent and later the Oxford naval districts, which means that Dorchester
exports cannot be separated from the exports of several other counties.
The other naval districts show much more tobacco being exported than
does the Pocomoke District, but it is impossible to discover how much
of this tobacco is coming from Dorchester. The eastern shore of Mary-
land as a whole moved away from tobacco production from the early 18th
century onward, and in general it seems that the southern counties
moved away from primary dependance on tobacco faster than did the northern
counties of the eastern shore. Dorchester probably followed a course of
agricultural change somewhere between that of Talbot County to the north
and Somerset County to the south. Substantial quantities of low quality
tobacco are still being exported from the Great Choptank area in the
1760's, but by the time of the Revolut4on at least, grain products have
become more important.

The relative importance of tobacco as a crop to the different parts
of the Lower Delmarva region is suggested by the levels of expenditure
for tobacco inspection in these counties. Maryland@ colonial government
maintained a system of official tobacco inspection warehouses in each
county that produced tobacco, and fees to support the inspectors were
taken from county tax revenues.. During the 1760's Dorchester County
had seven tobacco inspection warehouses and paid tobacco inspectors
a total of 42,400 pounds of tobacco annually. The rest of the whole
Lower Delmarva Region had a total of only six tobacco inspectors and
paid these officials only 31,600 pounds of tobacco. This indicates
that Dorchester was producing substantially more tobacco than the rest of
Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore combined.

The Revolutionary War finally brought an end to tobacco as a major
crop in the lower Delmarva region. Tobacco continued to be produced in
small quantities after the war, but even in Dorchester this production
is unimportant relative to other agricultural products. The post-Revo-
lutionary period is one of relative prosperity on the Lower Eastern
Shore. The basic agricultural products are cereal grains, especially
wheat and indian corn, and livestock. Hogs were the most important type
of livestock raised, and some of the grain grown in the area was specific-
ally produced for feeding hogs.

During the years after the Revolutionary War and up to about 1820
slavery maintained the same levelof importance in the Lower Eastern
Shore's economy that it had evidenced before the Revolution. The
decline of tobacco as a major product does not seem to have affected the
demand for slaves. In Worcester County the percentage of slave owners
within the total population goes up significantly after the Revolutionary
War. Slave labor must have been used effectively in the production of
oo crops on the Lower Eastern Shore, and perhaps also in the lumber industry.
The total number of slaves does not decline in the region until after

1820, and as late as 1860 slaves-still account for approximately 20%
of the total population of the region.

The raising of grain and livestock remained the basic.agricultural
activities of the Lower Delmarva region until after the Civil War.
However, from circa 1840 on signs of increasing croo diversi-fication are
apparent. More flax i-s produced, and orchard and diiry products become
more important. Grain prices remained high through the 1850's, but
competition from western grain producers brought prices down after the
Civil War, and the dominance of grain on the Lower Eastern shore ended
in the late 1860's.

The decline of grain as a cash crop actually benefitted the farmers
of the Lower Delmarva region, since most were able to make a rapid and
successful shift to fruit and vegetable production. This was possible
since from the 1860's on the region had access to urban markets, notably
Wilmi-ngton and Philadephia,. by rail. The coming of the railroads made
the production of truck garden crops very profitable, and in the late
19th century the region produced melons, orchard fruits, tomatoes, table
vegetables, strawberries and potatoes in large quantities. The trend
towards a diversification of crops actually had begun before the Civil
War, but it was the coming of the railroad that made a transition from
grain crops viable economically.

The boom in fruit and vegetable production did not mean the total
end of grain and livestock production on the Lower Eastern Shore.
Wheat, corn and livestock raising continued on a more limited scale
throughout the region. The next major change in the agricultural econ-
omy of the Lower Delmarva reversed this trend away from grain farming
and animal husbandry. Between World War I and.World War II the region
rapidly became a preeminent producer of broiler chickens. Broiler
chicken production has continued to increase up to the present day,
and it is now the single most important agricultural activity on the
Lower Eastern shore. Along with broiler production, the raising of corn
and soybeans has also increased. These crops are used mainly for poultry
feed.

As of 1974 approximately 90% of all farms on Maryland's Lower Eastern
Shore raised either poultry, corn or soybeans. This percentage will
probably continue to increase in the future. As is the case for the
United States as a whole, the total number of farms in the Lower Delmarva
region is declining while the average size of a fam is increasing.
The total number of acres being famed in the region has steadily declin-
ed in recent years, going from 520,788 in 1959 to 443,217 in 1974. The
greatest decline in farmland acreage was in Wicomico County which went
from 131,363 acres to 102,523 acres. Agriculture provides employment for
a smaller number of persons each year. The rural farm population of the
Lower Delmarva decl i ned from 21.6% of total popul ati on to 6. 1 % of total
population between 1950 and 1970. These declines in total acreage farmed
and numbers of persons employed in agriculture do not reflect a substant-
ial decline in the importance of agriculture within the Lower Delmarva

economy. Instead they show the effects of increased mechanization and
the adoption of less labor intensi.ve crops. Agriculture and related
economic activities wfll continue to have a dominant role in the econ-
oraic makeup of the Lower Eastern shore for the forseeable future.

INDUSTRY

The industries of the Lower Delmarva region, from the 17th century
to the present day, mainly have been concerned with the processing of
locally available raw materials rather-than with the manufacture of
finished goods. The one notable exception to this rule is the shipbuild-
ing industry, which was important in the late 18th and 19th centuries, es-
pecially in Dorchester County. The Lower Delmarva Peninsula had little
to offer in terms of either metallic ores or fossil fuels. Attempts to
extract iron from the bog iron deposits of the Pocomoke River drainage
never achieved financial success. The quarrying of sand and gravel,
basically for local use, has been goingon in the region since the 18th
century, but the main extractive economic activities of the Lower
Delmarvaareaare agriculture, fishing and forestry.

Delmarva's industries concentrate on the processing of marine and
terrestrial food products and also lumber and textile products. This
pattern is one that formed quite early in the history of the region.
Even in the 17th century the Lower Delmarva region did not have agri-
cultural economy overwhelmingly dependent on tobacco, as the western
shore of Maryland did. Lower Delmarva's agricultural economy was a
mixed one, with livestock and grain products serving as cash crops as
well as tobacco. The Lower Eastern Shore's cereal grains in particular
seem to have been valued as exports.

Grain crops grew steadily in importance throughout the 18th century
while tobacco declined, and by the Revolutionary war period tobacco
had been totally eclipsed as a cash crop. The increasing importance of
10, grain in the 18th century economy of the region encouraged the estab-
lishment of grist mills. These mills were usually water powered,
although especially in Dorchester County some mills were wind powered.
The earliest mills to be built in the Lower Delmarva region were probably
established by individual planters to produce flour for local consumption
rather than for commercial purposes, but by the 1720's larger mills oper-
ated by professional millers on a full time basis had come into being.
Large water powered saw mills also appear early in the 18th century.

The topography of the Lower Delmarva region placed some major con-
straints on the development of the milling industry. The region generally
lacks fast flowing natural watercourses that are capable of generating
large amounts of head pressure for water mills. The most favorable lo-

%, I,I I I kF I P I I qP ,,

0
6

Water
00 & 0 Mills
0 0 0
0 18th centt

10 0
4 0 19th cent

-I"-%
0 000
0 0 . 0
0
k 0 0 0
0

f
111i;@
@ t .0 00 0
0
0 0 0

cations for water mills were in Northern.Dorchester County and in
Wicomico County, where streams flowing into the Choptank, the Nanticoke
and the Wicomico, Rivers-had the most potential as power sources.
Large water mills established before 1750 would-include Lockerman's
Mill west of Vienna..Venables Mil-l near present day Sa-lTsbury on the
Wicomi,co, Kennerly's Mill on the Transquakin.River and Hitches Mill
on Rockawal kin Creek.

In the latter part of the 18th century this tendency for large
water mills to locate in northern Dorchester and Wicomico Counties con-
tinued, but southern Dorchester County also supported a number of smaller
mills whose agregate production must have been signiftcant.

After the Revolutionary War the final demise of tobacco as a cash
crop, the increased demand for Delmarva's cereal products, and the grow-
ing importance of the timber industry all encouraged rapid-development
of water mills in the Lower Delmarva region. Wicomico County, then part
of Worcester and Somerset Counties, emerged as the major milling center
of the region,'rivaled only by the Nanticoke drainage area of northeast-
ern Dorchester County. Vast tracts of oak and pine were cut for lumber
in Wicomico, northern Dorchester, and Worcester Counties during the 19th
century, and saw mills became increasingly important to the region's
economy. The introduction of steam powered mills into the Lower
Delmarva area about 1840 gave a further impetus to the lumber industry
there, although these steam mills did not replace water mills as the
major source of power.

In 1840, the first year for which we have reliable census data on
mills, there were a total of 51 grist and saw mills within the area
that was to become Wicomico County. Worcester County had 18 mills,
Somerset County had 19 mills and Dorchester County had 42 mills. Within
Dorchester County, however, large commercial saw and grist mills were
basically confined to the part of the County-north of Vienna. The
dominance of Wicomico and northern Dorchester Counties in the milling
industry continued throughout the 19th century. In 1880 Wicomico County
supported 17 water powered grist mills and 21 water powered saw mills
generating a total of 519 horsepower, while Somerset County contained
only one significant water powered grist mill with a horsepower rating
of 12. In the late 19th century a number of small portable steam saw
mills were put to use in the Lower Delmarva region, but with the ex-
haustion of the most profitable stands of timber, these portable mills
soon went out of business. Water powered saw and grist mi-lls survived
in the region up until Worl'd*War II, but these mills had lost their eco-
nomic importance by the,1920's.

Although the milling industry was important to the Lower Delmarva
area in the 18th and 19th centuries, water power does not seem to have
been much used for manufacturing there. Maryland's Eastern Shore pro-
duced significant quantities of cloth during the 17th, 18th and early
19th centuries, but seemingly this cloth was manufactured on manually

powered looms tn the home. Somerset County was.exporting both linen
and woolen cloth as early as 1698, and the growth of cloth manufacture
tn this county can be seen as part of the'general economt..c.diversifi-
cation that led away from dependance on tobacco as a cash-crop. By
1800 all of the counties of the Lower Eastern shore are producing
significant amounts of cloth. In 1810 Worcester County was the third
largest producer of cloth in Maryland, with over a thousand looms
operating. There were, however, no fulling mil1s in the region at the
time, indicating that cloth making had remained a cottage.industry.
During the 19th century large scale machine production of textiles outside
of the region caused the decline of Lower Delmarva's cloth industry.
Textile production persisted on a much reduced scale, however, and even
today textiles and apparel are manufactured in the Salisbury region.

Another of Lower Delmarva's industries which flourished in the early
19th century but declined thereafter was the tanning industry. Maryland's
Lower Eastern Shore produced livestock in quantity and also had exten-
sive oak forests, the two essential raw materials for the manufacture of
leather, After the Revolutionary War an expanding market on the western
shore for both finished leather and oak bark to be processed for tannin
caused the rapid development of commercial tanneries and of related
businesses such as shoemaking and bark harvesting. These new enterprises
concentrated in Northern Dorchester and Worcester Counties and in the
area that was to become Wicomico County. These are the same areas that
were experiencing the most growth in the lumbering and milling industries,
and clearly all of these industries were complimentary. The time of
greatest growth for the tanning industry-appears to have been the 1820's.
Many of the tanneries founded in the early l8th century survived until
after the Civil War, but by that time this industry was already in de-
cline on the Lower Eastern Shore.

Shipbuilding is one of the oldest industries of the Lower Eastern
Shore. From the beginning of settlement in the region ships and boats
were important to the economy, since the internal road system of the
lower peninsula was not capable of handling heavy wheeled vehicles until
the late 18th century. Also the coastal trade was well developed on
the lower Eastern shore even in the 17th century, and several of the more
substantial planters owned ships with which to export their produce to
markets on the western shore or to other parts of the Atlantic coast of
America. Dorchester County was the most important manufacturer of ships
among the lower Eastern Shore counties. Ships were being manufactured
for sale in the Choptank River area early in the 18th century. By the
19th century shipyards existed at Cambridge, Church Creek, Madison, Tay-
lor's Island and along the Nanticoke River and Marshyhope Creek. Dor-
chester County's main rival in shipbuilding was Wicomico County, with
shipyards located along the east bank of the Nanticoke River. The rise
of the commercial fishing industry in the 19th century encouraged the
growth of shi-pyards throughout the region, but the depletion of the for-
ests in Dorchester County coupled with changes in the technology of ship-
building led to a steep decline in the industry by the beginning of the
20th century. As late as 1880 shipyards accounted for about 20% of total

capital investment in industry- for Dorchester County, but by the 1920's
shipbuilding investment was neglibible,

The processing of marine and terrestrial food products, which is
today Delmarva's biggest-Industry,,began in its present form in the Tate
19th century. The key factor in this development was. the construction
of railroads linking the lower Delmarva region:with the urban centers
to the north, although the establishment of regular steam packet ser-
vice to the western shore also contributed to,the transformation of the
regionts economy. Up until the Civil War grain and li,vestock were the
principal agriculturaT products of the Lower Del-marva. The opening up
of new lands in the western United States caused increased supplies of
these products to become available in Delmarva's traditional export
markets, however, having the effect of severely reducing profit margins.
After the Civil War the Lower Delmarva region rapidly went over to
the production of fruit and vegetables for nearby urban areas like Balt-
imore and Philadelphia. The railroads provided a means of getting these
products to market rapidly. Easy accessability to markets coupled with
the development of large scale canning techniques, also mainly a post-
Civil War phenomenon, completely changed the agricultural economy of the
region.

More rapid access to markets and improved preservation techniques
also had a major effect on the fishing industry in the Lower Delmarva
region. Fish, oysters and crabs had always been a part of the diet of
the inhabitants of this region but until the 19th century such products
were not significant exports. No regular market for oysters, the most
important single seafood product,existed before the 1830's, when oyster
packing houses became established in Baltimore. Initially oysters har-
vested in the Lower Delmarva region were sent to Baltimore by boat and
processed there, but after mid-century oyster houses increasingly tend-
ed to be located on the lower eastern shore. The canning of oysters
also began in the late 19th century, which further extended the markets
open to Eastern Shore products. Although never as important as oyster-
ing, another commercial enterprise that developed in the 19th century
was commercial seining for shad. Large scale seining continued on the
rivers of the lower Delmarva into the present century.

The emphasis placed on seafood and orchard and vegetable crops dur-
ing the late 19th century caused increased growth in the large towns
of the region, especially Cambridge and Sal-isbury. At the same time
southern Somerset and southern Dorchester counties, which had been de-
clining in economic importance relative to the northern parts of the
region, experienced a period of rapid growth. Oyster processing facil-
ities were located at a number of small towns along Tangier sound like
Fishing Island, Kingston, Fairmount, and Marion. Crisfield, at the
southern end of the Eastern Shore Railroad, developed into the largest
town in present day Somerset County. Southern Somerset County, which
had been experiencing much lower rates of population growth than the
northern part of the county for over a.century, grew faster than the
northern part of the county after 1850. This boom lasted only a few

decades however, and by the end of the century major development.tended
to occur in the north.again,

The industriesofthe Lower Delmarva region i 'n the 20th century are
basically those that predominated in the late 19th-century,. canneries,
packing houses for both seafood and truck garden crops, and lumber mills.
The one major addition to this list that dates to this century is the
broiler industry.. The raising of broiler chtckens has become the single
most important agricultura.1 activity in the region, and processing plants
for broJlers as well as plants for the manufacture of poultry feed have
become a major part of the total industrial makeup of the Lower Delmarva.

At the present time the main industri-al center of the Lower Delmarva
region is the Salisbury Metropolitan area. The Salisbury Metro Core,
as it is called by the Salisbury and Wicomico Planning and Zoning Commiss-
ion, is a 23,880 acre area around the city of Salisbury that contains
62% of the total population and circa 80% of the total industrial base
of Wicomico County, the most industrialized of the four Lower Eastern
Shore counties. The Metro Core is essentially all of the area that lies
within the line of the Rt. 13 Bypass. At the present time less than
half of the total land area of the Metro Core can be classed as intensive-
ly used, but the area is slated for rapid growth over the next decade,
and industrial development will continue to concentrate there.

STRESSES ON THE CULTURAL RECORD

MANAGEMENT UNITS

For the initial collection and interpretation of management data the
Lower Delmarva region is both too large and too heterogeneous to be
considered as a single unit. In order to monitor and assess adverse
impacts on the cultural resources of thts region, it must be subdivided
into smaller units. This will facilitate the recognition of critical
areas within the larger region and provide a basis for the development
of individualized cultural resource management strategies for these
critical areas. It is desirable that the management units be defined
in such a fashion that data from these units can be cross-referenced
with the archaeological site file data for the region in an efficient
way, since correct management decisions require the integration of
available archeological data with data on past, present and future land
use in the same areas. Additionally, because the Lower Delmarva Region
will be making extensive use of remote sensing to monitor environmental
and developmental stresses, these smaller management units should share
a common frame of reference with the remote sensing-.systems that are to
be employed. Compatability between the different data systems saves
time and avoids many of the data storage and retrieval problems that
would result from the development of parallel systems that could not
readily be cross-referenced.

The considerations outlined above led to the adoption of a system
of management units based on standard U.S.G.S 7.5 minute quadrangl-e
maps for the Lower Delmarva Region. Each of the smaller management
units in the region was taken to be coterminous with one of the quad-
rangle maps covering a portion of that region. This in effect divided
the Lower Delmarva Region into over fifty smaller units, each of which
was named and delineated according to the already established practice
of the United States Geological Survey. The U.S.G.S quadrangles already
serve as the standard geographical referencing system for the state
archaeological site files, and the remote sensing systems used by the
Lower Delmarva Regional Center produce data that could be related to
the quadrangle areas quite easily. The adoption of quadrangle based
management units therefore satisfied all the necessary criteria for an
efficient division of the Lower Delmarva Region into smaller management
units.

These quadrangle units are small enough to permit the recognition
of highly localized conditions affecting cultural resources while at the
same time being large enough to represent, in a meaningful fashion, gen-
eral trends in land use within an area. The units are of a standard
size, which makes possible the comparison and ranking of the units by
quantitative means. They can be combined to permit the study of large
scale processes, like the evolution of transportation networks, as well.
None of the existing political divisions within the Lower Delmarva region
are especially meaningful in terms of development either during the
_01 present day or in the recent past, so the adoption of a system of sub-
divisions based on county or election district boundaries is inappropriate
to the management procedures being developed by the Lower Delmarva Region-
al Office. On the other hand it also seemed to be inefficient to create

..4

a completely new system of subdivisions based on present day environ-
mental variables, since this would create severe practical monitoring
and administration problems and be incompatible with the archaeological
site file data system. The quadrangle units represent a practical
compromise between the various possible bases for the subdivision of
the Lower Delmarva Management Unit.

What follows is a description of a present day land use and natural
coastline erosion rates in each of the quadrangle units located within
the Lower Delmarva Management'area. -These descriptions are meant to
provide a base line or frame of reference for the assessment of both
natural and artificial stresses on the cultural resources of the Lower
Delmarva region. A comparison of the scope of these stresses for each
separate unit will permit the identification of the areas that, from
an historic preservation point of view, are being most severely damaged
by natural and man-made forces.

For management puposes the "present" will be defined as the month of
April, 1977. An examination of the Landsat and high level aerial photo-
graphic coverage for the area that is now obtainable through the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration pinpointed the April, 1977 date as
being best for which both types of remote sensing data were available.
Very good coverage from both Landsat and high level aerial photography
was needed for this initial baseline classification of the Lower Del-
marva region since Landsat imagery is received in digitized form rather
than in the form of actual pictures of the land surface. The initial
classification of the light frequencies recorded by Landsat is much
simplified if comparison can be made with aerial photographs of the same
region. After this initial classification has been made, however, the
Landsat imagery can serve as the mainstay for the monitoring of further
environmental change within the region.

The stresses that adversely affect the cultural resources of the
Lower Delmarva region have been divided into three general categories
for monitoring purposes. Two of these categories are concerned with
different types of land use and the third with the principle natural force
that is responsible for the destruction of the regions cultural record,
erosion. Briefly, the two man induced stresses on the environment of the
region are defined as Intensive Land Use (Category 1) and Extensive Land
Use (Category 2). An area of intensive land use is one in which the
principle use made of land is for industrial, commercial or residential
purposes. Intensive Land Use (Category 1) areas would include cities
and towns, industrial parks and plant sites, quarries, housing developments
or any other places where the land surface has been intensively modified
by construction or excavation. Specifically excluded from this category
are parks and other open areas within towns and cities that have not been
substantially modified. The geographical limits of towns and cities are
defined here in terms of land use rather than in terms of political bound-
aries.

Extensive Land Use (Cat'egory 2) areas are areas from which the
natiyep-lant cover has been cleared, but which have not- been substantially
modified by construction, or- excavation, Most extensive land useareas
are farms, but this classification would include cut overforest-areas
or any other cleared areas, whatever, their preserrt use might.be. Most
extensive land use areas are subject to regular plowing and to seasonal
erosion during those periods when the ground surface ts not covered by
plant life. The rate of surface degradation varies.depending on the
kind of use and on the characteristics of the soil. The impact on the
cultural record of extensive land use is at a lower level of intensity
and spread out over a longer period of time than is the case for Intensive
Land.Use.areas.

In the descriptions of land use characteristics that follow numer-
ical percentages are given for the total amounts of land within each
quadrangle unit that are affected by category 1 and category 2 stresses.
The boundaries of the quadrangle units do not coincide in all cases
with the boundaries of the Lower Delmarva management unit as a whole,
however. In cases where the quadrangle units include areas outside of
the limits of the Lower Delmarva region, the percentages refer only to
those areas of the quadrangle units that fall with the four county
region of the Lower Delmarva. Also, these percentages were calculated
on the basis of total land area, not on the basis of total unit area.
Several quadrangle uniFs-include substantial areas of open water, but
the percentages of category I and category 2 land use refer only to the
total land area within the quadrangle units.

The lands of the Lower Delmarva region that do not fall into either
the category I or the category 2 classifications basically are swamp,
marsh and forest areas. Most of the forested land of the Lower Delmarva
has on one or more occasions in the.past been cut over for timber or
even totally cleared for agricultural purposes, however@ and much of
this land is likely to be utilized again in the future. Forested land that
is privately owned is likely to be subject to intermittent category 2
stress, therefore. Swamp and Marsh lands are generally more secure
than forested areas, but when drained or filled can be made suitable for
either category I or category 2 use.

Apart from the Intensive and Extensive Land Use classifications the
third major category of stress on cultural resources is natural coast-
line erosion. Both the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean coastlines
of the Lower Delmarva region are eroding at a substantial yearly rate,
and this process severely damages the cultural record of the region.
Cultural resources are not simply submerged in a more or less intact form
by the rising water level; they are torn apart by storm and tide action
and their original context is lost. The coastline erosion process has
been going on for several millennia at varying rates of speed. The
rate and pattern or erosion during recent history has been studied by
the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Unit, though, and future erosion
rates can be predicted with some accuracy. Coastal erosion data will be
discussed along with the land use data for the individual quadrangle units.

ir 4p

of
wl

fee.
t
CA IRi

Pt III
h ch Oak a 6WWA&
E a u2
U2

low

""'AUSBUR
La lesville-
lp

Frill
valve
WhAW.
whit hilift ..... "ft M.

an
Al Cs
4t3 ne i
Q'4f . -
tic
nd Z
Isis.,

"twer

bo.,
Lid W411011
un k i City
h
all
Iwo
4p1V* . . @*q -. Q@
Sinit fji
. ' Welb
IslanW,

Cri
m
, MR

Tyl
QUADRAN

2 NA I. Category I Land Use

By Vnit
16 2 .8 NA

17 3

0 2 4 17

.7 4 4 0 2

0 0 .6 4 2

4 0 IB .7 NA

76 73 NA z Category 2 Land U

By Unit
28 57 36 63 62 NA

21 22 35 26 37 56 51 -55 55

9 14 5 10 33 51 38 34 46

0 0 8 31 38 28 37 38

0 0 28 39 76 43 25

0 0 12 12 NA

PRESENT STRESSES ON THE MANAGEMENT UNITS

Assawoman Bay Quadrangle- Land Use is dominated by commercial and
residential development of Fenwick Island, with 25% of the-total land
area.receiving Category 1 land use. Only 4% of the land receives Cate-
gory 2 use, with most of the rest of the land area being as yet unutil-
ized wetlands. In all 89% of the shoreline-falls into the slight and
low erosion categories (less than 4 feet per year) with the most severe
erosion occuring on the Atlantic Shore of Fenwick Island.

Barren Island Quadrangle- This unit is characterized by an absence
of category I land use and only 9% of category 2 land'use, all of which
is confined to Meekins Neck. Erosion is the major destroyer of sites
here, with 42% of the total shoreline being subject to heavy (more than
8 feet a year) erosion. In the Tarr Bay area erosion is classified as
heavy for 80% of the shoreline. Barren Island itself has lost almost
half its total area since 1848.

Berlin Quadrangle- This unit has had a fairly rapid growth of cate-
gory 1 land use due to the expansion of the town of Berlin and the build-
ing of the Ocean City Expressway and the Ocean Gateway Highway. Cate-
gory 1 use accounts for 9% of the total land area and 50% of the area
receives category 2 land use. Erosion rates for all of the shoreline area
is in the slight or low categories (less than 4 feet a year) with the
most severe erosion on the Atlantic side of Assateague Island.

Blackwater River Quadrangle- There is virtually no Category 1
land use in the Blackwater unit, but 35% of the total area is subject
to Category 2 use. The southern part of this unit is unutilized marsh
and swamp, with agriculture possible only in the northern part. Coast-
line erosion is not a factor that affects the unit.

Bloodsworth Island Quadrangle- Most of the land area of the Bloods-
worth Island unit is unutilized. Less than 1% of the land receives Cate-
gory I use and there is virtually no Category 2 use. The only areas of
category I use are on Bishop's Head in the vicinity of Crocheron and Hog
Island. Shore erosion rates are not available for this unit but a good
estimate would be that circa 25% of the bay shoreline falls into the
heavy (more than 8 feet a year) category. The use of Bloodsworth Island
as a military target range should also be considered a significant impact.

Boxiron Quadrangle- Boxiron is basically an agricultural region as
far as land use is concerned.with Category 2 use amounting to 25% of the
total area. Category 1 land use is negligible within the Boxiron Unit.
Erosion rates are slight to low (less than 4 feet a year) for 79% of
the shoreline. Erosion is most severe on the islands in Chicoteague Bay
especially Mills Island and Big Bay Marsh.

Cambridge quadrangle- This unit is subject to category 1 use that
amounts to 16% of the total land area. Such land use is basically con-
fined to the city of Cambridge itself and to the Rt. 50 highway corridor
running east from-the city. The area south of Cambridge is character-
ized by Category 2 use that accounts for 36% of the total land area of
the unit. Erosion is categorized as slight (less than 2 feet a year)
for 83% of the shoreline.

Chicamacomico Quadrangle- Category 7 land use is negligible in the
Chicamacomico unit, while category 2 use accounts for 26% of the total
land area. Much of the southern part of Chicamacomico consists of unut-
ilized wetTands. This unit.is one of the areas that has been least
affected by development in the Lower Delmarva region. Coastline erosion
is not a factor that affects the unit.

Church Creek Quadrangle- Although no large towns are contained
within this unit, a total of 3% of the land area is subjected to cate-
gory I use owing to the presence of several small coastal towns. There
are many vacation homes in this area, and tourism and recreation are be-
coming increasingly important to the local economy. Apart from the 3%
of Category 1 development, a further 57% of the unit is subject to Cate-
gory 2 land use. Coastline erosion is slight for 70% of the unit, with
the highest erosion rates occuring along the Little Choptank River.

Crisfield Quadrangle- Crisfield is the major area of Category 1
land use in the southern half of the Lower Delmarva region, with 18%
of the total land area being intensively utilized. Crisfield is a major
seafood processing center and an important center for recreational boat-
ing in the lower Chesapeake. A further 12% of the Crisfield region re-
ceives Category 2 use. Erosion is slight or low for 31% of the shoreline
of the region, but the shoreline immediately adjacent to the town of
Crisfield has been extensively modified by man over the last century.

Deal Island Quadrangle- A total of 4% of this unit falls into the
category I classification with the main use being residential rather
than industrial or commercial. A further 8% of the unit receives Cate-
gory 2 use, but most of the unit is too poorly drained for agricultural
purposes. Although 83% of the shoreline has an erosion rate classed as
either slight or low (less than 4 feet a year), localized areas experience
considerably higher rates. A number of places along the north shore of
Dames Quarter and the west shore of Stump Point Marsh have erosion rates
of up to 8 feet a year.

Delmar Quadrangle- The Delmar unit is experiencing rapid Category 1
development along the Rt. 13 highway corridor that runs from the city of
Salisbury to the town of Delmar on the Maryland-Delaware border. Pres-
ently 17% of this unit is subject to Category 1 land use and 51% is
subject to Category 2 land use. With the continued expansion of the city
of Salisbury in a northeasterly direction it can be predicted that more
and more category 2 land will be converted to category 1 uses. The area

between Delmar and Salisbury is increasingly being utilized for new
residential developments and soon the Rt. 13 corridor north of Salisbury
will be entirely converted to residential, commercial and light indust-
rial use. Coastline erosion is not a factor that Wects this unit.

Dividing Creek Quadrangle- Dividing Creek is one of the least util-
ized inland units of the Lower Delmarva, with 28% of the area receiving
Category 2 use and virtually none of the area receiving Category I use.
Much of this unit is contained within the boundaries of the Pocomoke
State Forest. Coastline erosion does not affect this unit.

East New Market Quadrangle- Category 2 land use in the East New
Market unit is quite heavy, with 63% of the total land area being devot-
ed to such use. Category I use occurs on 2% of the unit, but this figure
is likely to increase with the continued development of the Rt. 50 corri-
dor that runs through the southern part of the unit. Presently the East
New Market area is characterized ky quite heavy agricultural use.
Erosion is slight (less than 2% a year) for 83% of the relatively small
shoreline area of the unit.

Eden Quadrangle- This unit is located just west of the Salisbury
Metropolitan area, but as yet category I land use is confined to only
1% of the total land area. The unit contains three small towns, Allen,
Eden and Quantico, but land use is basically agricultural, with Category
2 use being found on 51% of the area. U.S. Rt. 13 runs through the
southeastern corner of the unit, and additional residential and commer-
cial development along this highway can be expected. Coastline erosion
does not affect this unit.

Ewell Quadrangle- The Ewell unit takes in the inhabited parts of
Smith Island, basically the towns of Ewell, Tylerton, and Rhodes Point.
These towns give a total of 4% for Category 1 land use in the unit. Cat-
egory 2 land use is negligible. Erosion on the western side of Smith
Island is a severe problem, with 21% of the shoreline falling into the
heavy (more than 8 feet a year) category, and 22% falling into the moder-
ate (4 to 8 feet a year) category. On the north, east and south parts
of the island erosion is much less serious, and is generally in the
slight (less than 2 feet a year) category.
Federalsburg Quadrangle- (Data is only available for the portion
of this unit that lies west of Marshyhope Creek). Although the town of
Federalsburg proper is located in Caroline County, development assoc-
iated with this town extends into Dorchester County. Category 1 land
use in the area south of Federalsburg and around the town of Hurlock give
the unit a 5% Category I land use classification. A further 73% of the
unit is subject to Category 2 land use. Extensive gravel quarrying
south of Federalsburg poses a serious threat to the cultural resources
of the Upper Marshyhope Creek area. Coastline erosion does not affect
this unit.

Girdletree Quadrangle- Category 1 land use within this unit accounts
for 2% of the total area, with most of thi.s use concentrated in-the towns
of Stockton and Girdletree. Another 43% of the unit receives Category
2 use. Timbering is fairly important in this area and significant quant-
ities of forest land have moved into the Category 2 classification in the
last few years. Coastline erosion affects only a small part of this
unit and the rate of this erosion is classified as slight.

Golden Hill Quadrangle- There is less than 0.5% of Category 1 land
use in. this unit and only 22% of Category 2 land use. Most of the unit
is located within the swamps and Miarshes of the Blackwater river drain-
age. Coastline erosion is classified as slight (less than 2 feet per
year) for 69% of the total shoreline, and 30% of the shoreline is sub-
ject to aggredation rather than degradation by water action.

Great Fox Island Quadrangle- There is no land use of either Cate-
gory 1 or Category 2 type within the Great Fox Island Unit. Nearly
all the land area of this unit is contained within the Jones Island
Park or the Cedar Island Wildlife Management Area. Erosion is a major
threat to cultural resources here, with 51% of the total coastline
assigned to the moderate (more than 4 feet a year) or heavy (more than
8 feet a year) categories. Erosion is most severe along Tangier Sound,
and the rate of erosion appears to be increasing in recent years.

Hebron Quadrangle- Hebron as yet has only 2% of its total land area
undergoing Category I use, but the expansion of the Salisbury metropoli-
tan area into this unit will bring increased intensive land use in the
future. Commercial and residential use has grown steadily along Rt. 50
between Salisbury and the town of Hebron, and this trend should continue.
An additional 56% of the Hebron unit receives Category 2 land use. Coast-
line erosion is not a factor for this unit.

Honga Quadrangle- The Honga unit receives a relatively high (5%)
level of Category 1 land use for a coastal region that is not near a
city or large town. This is because of fairly dense residential use
on Hoopers Island. Category 2 land use characterizes only 14% of this
unit, mainly because much of the total land area is marsh or swamp. Ero-
sion is classified as slight for 72% of the Honga River shoreline, but
it is more severe on the Bay side of Hoopers Island, and especially along
Middle Hoopers Island.

Kedges Straights Quadrangle- The Kedges Straights unit is uninhab-
ited, and receives neither Category 1 nor Category 2 use. Information
is not available on erosion rates, but these can be presumed to be sim-
ilar to rates for the Ewell unit, with erosion along the west side of the
islands being moderate to heavy.

Kingston Quadrangle- Category I land use occurs on less than 1% of
the total area of the Kingston unit. The unit contains a number of very
small towns, but agriculture is the predomirtant land use in the area,
with 39% of the unit receiving Category 2 use. Much of the land within
the unit is unutilized because it is located within the extensive areas

of swamp that are associated with Marumsco.Creek and the Pocomoke River.
Coastline erosion does not affect-this unit.

Mardela Springs Quadrangle- Category I land use occurs on 1% of
the Mardela Springs unit while Category 2 land use takes in an addition-
al 37% of the unit area. Two towns along U.S. Rt, 50, Vienna and
Mardela Springs, account for virtually all of the Category I land use
within this unit. Further.development can be expected along the Rt. 50
corridor through the northern part of the unit. The area immediately
north of the bridge in Vienna is the only area of industrial. develop-
ment in the unit at the moment, but increased residential and commercial
development should be expected. Coastline erosion does not affect this
unit.

Marion Quadrangle- The presence of several small towns with the
Marion unit gives a total of 1% for Category I land use there. Further
Category 1 development will probably tend to occur along Rt. 413, the
main road connecting Crisfield with Rt. 13. Category 2 land use pres-
ently occurs on 28% of this unit. The marsh areas of Fairmount Neck
and the south shore of the Annemessix River are basically unutilized.
Erosion is classed as either slight or low for 83% of the shoreline, with
shoreline aggredation affecting another 16%.

Monie Quadrangle- Category I 1@tnd use occurs on just under 1% of
the land area of this unit, with three small residential towns, Mt.
Vernon, Venton and Oriole, accounting for nearly all of this total. In
all 31% of the unit is subject to Category 2 use. Shoreline erosion is
proceeding at slight or low rate along 89% of the coast, but rates are
somewhat higher in the Victors Neck and Holland Point areas.

Nanticoke Quadrangle- Category 1 development here is concentrated
along the east bank of the Nanticoke below Wetipquin Creek, where the
towns of Tyaskin, Bivalve, Jesterville and Nanticoke form a narrow
but almost continuous strip of residential and recreational development.
In all 4% of the unit is assigned to Category 1 and another 10% is subject
to Category 2 use. Marsh and swamp areas inhibit more extensive Category
2 land use. Erosion is slight to low (less than 4 feet a year), for
90% of the coastline.

Ninepin Quadrangle- Less than 0.5% of this unit is subject to Cate-
gory 1 land use, but Category 2 use is fairly heavy, taking up 46% of
the total unit area. Timbering has been going on in this area at a fairly
high rate in recent years. The Pocomoke River has been artificially
channelized-over much of its length in this unit, having an unknown but
undoubtedly deleterious effect on the cultural resources of the area.

Ocean City Quadrangle- This is the unit with the highest percentage
of Category 1 development in the Lower Delmarva region. In all 34% of
the unit receives Category 1 use and a further 14% receives Category 2
use. The portion of Fenwick Island within this unit is in essence.

totally developed, and Category I development has extended to the ad-
jacent Upper Sinepuxent Neck area as well. The only part of the Ocean
City unIt that Is not likely to go over to Category 1 use is northern
Assateague Island which is protected by its state and federal park
status. Northern Assateague is subject to very severe erosion, however,
with 54% of the total coastline of this unit having an erosion rate
classiffed as heavy (more than 8 feet a year). In the case of northern
Assateague the construction of erosion barriers at the south end of
Fenwick Island has intensified this problem, this whole part of Assa-
teague has moved half a mile to the west, probably destr6ying any in
situ cultural remains that pre-date 1900 A.D.

Pittsville Quadrangle- Category 1 lands account for 4% of the total
area of this unit, and another 55% of the unit is subject to Category 2
use. The present and future patterns of land use in the Pittsville unit
are dominated by the presence of the Rt. 50 corridor that runs along the
southern edge of the unit. Growth along Rt. 50 between Salisbury and
Ocean City has been increasing in recent years and this affects the
growth of the towns of Pittsville and Parsonsburg within the unit.
Future Category 1 development can be expected to occur between these
towns and the Rt. 50 corridor. Coastline erosion is not a factor for
this unit.

Pocomoke City Quadrangle- The Pocomoke City unit has the largest
total area of land under use for any unit within the Lower Delmarva Re-
gion, with 4% Category 1 usage and 76% Category 2 usage. Pocomoke City
is located at the junction of two major highways, Rt. 13 and Rt. 113,
and a combination of through traffic travelling along Rt. 13 and local
demand from the adjacent parts of Somerset and Worcester Counties has
turned this town into the major retail trade center for the southern part
of the Lower Delmarva region. The completion of the Bay Bridge-Tunnel
which links the Delmarva Peninsula with Norfolk and the south caused
a period of rapid growth for the Pocomake City area. This unit can
expect further growth. Coastline erosion is not a factor here.

Preston Quadrangle- Category I use is found on 2% of the land area
of this unit, while another 76% of the unit receives Category 2 use.
There are no important towns within this unit but it receives heavy
agricultural usage, and the Beulah landfill is located here. This land-
fill will continue to be used until the year 2000 A.D. Erosion is
classed as slight (less than 2 feet a year) for 76% of the shoreline of
this unit.

Princess Anne Quadrangle- The Princess Anne unit presently exhibits
4% of Category 1 usage and 38% of Category 2 usage. The town of Princess
Anne is the main administrative and retail sales center in Somerset County,
and while the county population has declined over the past two decades,
Princess Anne has expanded in total area. New residential areas have
appeared on the north side of town both east and west of Rt. 13. The
University of Maryland's Eastern Shore Campus at Princess Anne is also
slated for growth in the future. Category I land use-should increase,

therefore. Coastline erosion is not a factor for this unit.

Public Landtng Quadra'ngle- A total of 1% of this unit can be
assigned to the Category 1 land use classification, but there are no
towns of any size here. Large scale commercial digging for sand has
been carried out in the St. Lawrence Neck area of this unit, and in
recent years there has beert a considerable amount of timbering in the
area south of Cedarton, but agriculture is still the main land use. In
all 38% of this unit falls into the Category 2 land use classification.
For 80% of the coastline erosion is classified as slight to low, but
along the southern part of the coast are some areas of moderate (4 to 8
feet a year) erosion that make up 11% of the total coastline erosion
pattern.

Richland Point Quadrangle- There is no appreciable impact on the
Richland Point unit from either Category 1 or Category 2 land use.
Coastline erosion is the principal destroyer of cultural resources with-
in this unit. Erosion is slight to low for 84% of the total coastline.
For 27% of the western or Chesapeake Bay fronting coastline, however,
erosion is classed as heavy (more than eight feet per year)'.

Rhodesdale Quadrangle- (Data is only available for the portion of
this unit that lies west of Marshyhope Creek) This unit contains no
towns of any size-, and Category 1 land use occurs on less than 1% of
the total land area. Rhodesdale ranks quite high among the units in
Category 2 land use, however, with 62% of its total area receiving such
use. Rhodesdale is basically an agricultural area, but Category 1 land
use could increase with the exDansion of the town of Hurlock southward
into the unit and the growth of the Eldorado/Brookview area. Coastline
erosion is not a factor for this unit.
Salisbury Quadrangle- This unit is characterized by heavy Category
1 land use, with circa 6400 acres, or 17% of the total land area, being
intensively utilized. Almost all of this Category 1 use is located in
the Salisbury Metro Core area, which is contained within the loop of
the Rt. 13 bypass. The Metro Core has been developing rapidly since the
1950's, and will continue to grow in the future. Salisbury is the larg-
est city on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and the principal commercial and
manufacturing center for the Lower Delmarva Region. Category I land use
has increased at a rapid rate in the Salisbury area, particularly along
Rt. 50 east of the city, and Rt. 13 south of the city. This trend should
continue at least until the end of the century. Category 2 land use
accounts for 38% of the land area of the unit. It is likely that consider-
able amounts of Category 2 land will continue to be converted to Category
I use in this unit. Coastline erosion is not a factor for this unit.

Saxis Quadranqle- Less than 1% of this unit receives Cateqory I use,
and a total of 12% of the unit receives Category 2 use. Much of the land
area of the Saxis unit is unutilize marsh. Coastline erosion provides the
main threat to the cultural resources of the Saxis area. Erosion rates are
classed as slight or low (less than 4 feet a year) for 81% of the total
coastline. A further 20% of the coastline is subject to aggredation. A

large sectlon of the coastline of the unit south of Marumsco Marsh has
been severely impacted by the dredging of the Fai.r Island Canal.

Selbyville Quadrangle- Selbyville is one of the most heavily util-
ized units of the Lower Delmarva.Region, with Category I use occuring on
14% of the total land area and Category 2 use taking in another 63% of
the area. The great majority of the Category I development is concen-
trated in the southeastern part of the unit along both sides of the
Ocean City Expressway. The very large Ocean Pines residential area
takes in everything between the St. Martin's River and Manklin Creek.
The growth of Ocean City has resulted in an increasing spread of Cate-
gory 1 land use on to the mainland, especially around the two bridges
that cross to Fenwick's Island. Land use away from the Ocean City area
is still mainly agricultural, although the town of Bishopville, near
the Delaware border, continues to expand. Erosion rates are classed
as slight to low (less than 4 feet a year) for 74% of the coastline.
There has also been a considerable amount of artificial filling along
the shoreline of Jenkins Neck.

Sharps Island Quadran4le- A total of 4% of this unit receives
Category 1 use, largely because in recent years the area has attracted
large numbers of retirement and holiday home buyers and because of the
concomitant development of recreational facilities along the shoreline.
Category 2 use accounts for 28% of the unit. Erosion is heavy (more
than 8 feet a year) for 18% of shoreline of the unit, while 57% of
the total shore falls into the slight or low (less than 4 feet a year)
categories.. If the bay coastline is considered by itself however,
erosion is classed as heavy for 43% of its total length. Sharps Island.
itself has lost over 80% of its total land area since 1848.

Sharptown Quadrangle- (data is not available for this unit)

Snow Hill Quadrangle- Although the town of Snow Hill is an import-
ant administrative and retailing center for Worcester county only 2%
of the land in this unit can be classed as Category 1. The main land
use in the unit is agricultural, with 37% of the total land area re-
ceiving Category 2 use. The unit has also been subject to considerable
commercial timbering in recent years. Commercial gravel digging has
been carried out in an area to the southwest of the town of Snow Hill in
past years, but this is not apparently going on at the present time. A
new project to revitalize the area along the Pocomoke River at Snow Hill
has been proposed, but this will mainly affect areas already receiving
Category 1 use. Coastline erosion is not a factor for this unit.

Taylors Island Quadrangle- There is no appreciable amount of Category
1 land use within this unit. A total of 21/00 of the land area of the unit
is undergoing Category 2 use, with much of the rest of the land here beinq
unutilized marsh. Erosion is a severe problem. Erosion rates are classea
as heavy (more than 8 feet a year) for 41% of the total coastline of the
unit and for 71% of the Chesapeake Bay coastline of the unit. The west-
ern coastline of Meekins Neck has retreated over half a mile since 1848.

Terrapin Sand Point Quadrangle- There is no land use of either
Category 1 or Category 2 type within this unit. Erosion is classed as
slight (less than 2 feet a year) for 51% of the coastline, but for a
significant minority of the units coastal areas (28%) erosion is in the
heavy range (more than 8 feet a year). This is especially true for
Terrapin Sand Point itself.

Tingles Island Quadran*gle- Less than 0.5% of this unit receives
Category I use, and only 23% receives Category 2 use. Much of the total
land area of the unit is unutilized.because it is part of the Assateague
Island National Seashore. Future development is most likely to occur
on the Lower Sinepuxent Neck which is accessible from the Ocean City area
via the Stephen Decatur Memorial Road. Erosion is classed as slight
(less than 2 feet a year) for 51% of the shoreline, but aggredation is
a problem for an additional 38% of shoreline areas. Aggredation is
particularly severe on the Atlantic side of Assateague Island.

Wango Quadrangle- Less than 0.5% of this unit receives Category I
use. The only town of any size is Powellville. Category 2 land use
occurs on 34% of the unit. Large areas of forest are present within this
unit, and intermittent commercial timbering is likely to affect sig-
nificant percentages of the unutilized land here. Coastline erosion is
not a factor for this unit.

Wetipquin Quadrangle- Category 1 land use affects 1% of this unit,
mainly in the area that borders the lower Wicomico River. Although
there are considerable regions of marsh and swamp contained within this
unit, most of the total area is well enough drained for Category 2 land
uses, and 33% of the total unit receives such use. Shoreline erosion is
mainly a problem for the lower Nanticoke River, but rates are classed
as slight to low (less than 4 feet a year) for 96% of the total shoreline
of the unit.

Whaleysville Quadrangle- Category I land use takes place on 3% of
the total land area of this unit. Category I use is confined almost ex-
clusively to a strip of land running through the southern part of the
unit that parallels Rt. 50 and the Conrail Line. The two major towns
of the unit are Willards and Whaleysville. A further 55% of the u6it
receives Category 2 use. Most such use is agricultural, but a signif-
icant amount of commercial timbering has taken place in the unit during
the 1970's. Coastline erosion is not a factor for this unit.

Whittington Point Quadrangle- No land use of either Category I or
Category 2 type occurs within this unit. The total land area of the
unit is contained within the limits of the Assateague Island National
Seashore and the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. Shoreline
erosion is classed as slight (less than 2 feet a year) for 77% of this

unit, while a further 23% of the shoreline is subject to aggredation.

Wingate Quadrangle- A total of 2% of the Wingate unit is subject
to Category I use, mainly owing-to the presence of several small towns.
Category 2 land use is confined to only 5% of the total land area. The
majority of the unit consists of unutilized marsh and swamp which will
tend to limit future Category 2 development. Erosion rates for 90% of
the shoreline fall within the sltght or low (less than 4 feet a year)
classifications, but rates are somewhat higher in the Fishing Bay area
than for the unit as a whole.

SUMMARY

An examination of the land use and erosion variables for the Lower
Delmarva quadrangle units shows that the existing stresses on the cult-
ural record of the region are distributed in a very uneven fashion.
Land use stresses affect up to 30% of the total area of some units while
having no effect at all on others. Similarly coastline erosion is
destroying the cultural resources of some units at an extremely rapid
rate. At the same time other coastline units are experiencing erosion
rates that are smaller by a factor of ten than are those of the most
severely impacted units. There are some larger patterns of stress, how-
ever, that appear when the Lower Delmarva Quadrangle units are compared.
The individual units can be grouped together into zones having similar
stress characteristics to assist in the development of a management plan
for the Lower Delmarva region. Ten main groupings are recognizable
within the fifty-one quadrangle units of the region. A list of these
groupings and their defining characteristics is given below.

1. Outer Chesapeake Bay Group- (Barren Island, Bloodsworth Island,
Ewell, Great Fox Island, Kedges Straights, Richland Point and Terrapin
San Point units) Land use, whether of Category 1 or Category 2 type is
highly localized and does not take in more than a total of 10% of the
land area of a unit. More than 75% of the land area of the units is
marsh. Erosion is classed as heavy for at least 20% of the Bay Shoreline
of each unit.

2. Upper Tangier Sound Group- (Deal Island, Honga, Nanticoke and
Wingate units) Category 1 land use is moderate (2-5%) and Category 2
land use is low (5-14%0). Most of the total land area of the units is
marsh. Coastline erosion is slight to low for over half of the total
coastline of each unit and erosion classed as heavy occurs on less than
10% of the total coastline.

3. Central Dorchester Group - (Blackwater River, Chicamacomico, and
Golden Hill units) Category 1 land use is very low (less than 0.5%) and
Category 2 land use ranges from 22 to 35%. Marsh conditions are present

over large portions of each unit, but at least a third of the total
land area is suitable for either Category 1 or Category 2 use. Coast-
line erosion is not an important problem for any of the units.
4. Northern Dorchester Group- (East New Market, Federalsburg, Prest-
on and Rhodesdale untts) Category 1 land use is moderate to low (0.8%-
5%) and Category 2 land use is very heavy (62%-76%). Most of the land of
these units is subject to agricultural use. Coastline erosion is not a
significant factor for these units.

5. The Western Inland Group- (Kingston, Mardela Springs, Marion,
Monie and Wetipquin) Category I land use is low (0.5%-l%), and Category
2 use is moderate.(28%-39%). Each of these units contains large areas
of marsh or swamp, but these conditions are present over less than half
of the total land area of each unit. Erosion rates are slight or low for
the river shorelines of these units.

6. Middle Pocomoke Drainage Group- (Dividing Creek, Girdletree,
Ninepin, Public Landing, Snow Hill and Wango units) Category 1 land
use is low or very low (less than 0.5% to 2%) and Category 2 land use
is moderate to high (28%-46%). Land use Is mainly agricultural, but
large tracts of forest remain and commercial timbering is important.
Coastline erosion is not significant for any of these units except Public
Landing.

7. Chincoteague-Bay Group- (Boxi@ron and Tingles Island Units)- Cat-
egory-1 land use-is.very low (less than,O-.5%) and:Category 2 land use is
low (23%-25%). Both units have large areas of coastline, but erosion
rates tend to be low or slight.

8. Fenwick Island Group- (Assawoman Bay and Ocean City units)
Category I land use is very high (25-34%) and Category 2 land use is
very low to low (4%-14%). Both units have large areas of coastline,
but erosion rates tend to be slight or low except for Assateague Island
where erosion is heavy.

9. Salisbury-Berlin Corridor Group- (Berlin, Delmar, Eden, Hebron,
Pittsville, Salisbury, Selbyville and Whaleysville units) Category 1
land use varies from low to high and Category 2 land use ranges from
moderate to very high. All units within this group show either Category
I land use in the heavy classification or Category 2 land use in the
heavy classification. The two main urban centers of Salisbury and Ber-
lin are linked by U.S. Rt. 50, and this whole corridor has in recent
years been subject to rapid development. Coastline erosion affects
only some units, and is classed as slight or low.
10. Lower Choptank Group- (Church Creek and Sharps Island units)
Category I land use is moderate (3%-4%) and Category 2 land use is moderate
to heavy (28%-57%). Both units have recently been affected by the increas-
ed development of recreational facilities and by the growth of second or
retirement home ownership. Erosion is slight or low for the majority of

the-coastline but it is heavy for much of the Bay coast.

Not all of the Lower Delmarva Uni.ts are contained within the ten
groups described above. Four other units include large Individual
towns (Cambridge, Crisfield, Pocomoke City and Princess Anne) that give
the units Category. I land use percentages in the moderate or heavy range.
These towns do not as yet seem to influence in a major way the pattern
of development outside of their own units, so they have not been combined
with surrounding units. In the case of Cambridge in particular, how-
ever, future land use changes may affect adjacent units in important
respects. Apart from these four "town" units, three other units remain
ungrouped. Two of these are Whittington Point, a unit not threatened
by current land use and subject to only slight erosion rates, and Sakis,
a unit with a Category 2 land use percentage equivalent to the neighboring
Crisfield unit, but with a Category I land use percentage in the low range.
The third unit is Taylor's Island, which has land use characteristics that
match the Central Dorchester Group and coastline erosion characteristics
that are similar to the Outer Chesapeake.Bay Group.

The ten multi-unit groups of the Lower Delmarva region clearly are
subject to radically different stress patterns. For Groups 1 and 2
natural erosion processes undoubtedly are the most important threats to
the cultural record. For Groups 3,4,5 and 6 the main stresses on cult-
ural resources result from Category 2 land use, but the nature and ext-
ent of these stresses vary markedly from group to group. For Group 7 a
combination of Category 2 land use and erosion contributes to site de-
struction, while for Group 8 the main threat is from Category 1 land use.
Group 9 is subject to major stress from both Category 1 and Category 2
land use. Finally Group 10-'s cultural record is threatened to a sig-
nificant extent by both categories of land use and also by coastline
erosion.

It is difficult to quantify the relative severity of these-differ-
ent stress patterns and to rank the groups according to the degree that
their cultural resource bases are threatened. Cultural resources are
not distributed uniformly in space, and in any case the nature of these
resources will differ from one area to another. It seems likely however,
that the four groups experiencing greatest stress as far as cultural re-
sources are concerned are Fenwick Island, the Outer Chesapeake Bay, the
Salisbury-Berlin Corridor and Upper Tangier Sound. The Northern Oor-
chester group and the Pocomoke City unit receive very heavy Category 2
use, but such stresses probably have a less immediate impact on the cul-
tural record than do the stresses operative within Groups 1,2,8, and 9.
Low stress groups would include the Chi-ncoteague Bay, Central Dorchester
and Western Inland Groups, as well as the Saxis and Whittington Point
units. These are groups with very low Category 1 land use and slight or
low coastline erosion problems.

LAND USE BY UNIT GROUPS

very low- low moderate heavy very heavy

Category 1 0.5 0.5-2.0 2.0-5.0 5.0-20.0 20.0-100.0

Category 2 5.0 5.0-25.0 25.0-40.0 40.0-60.0 60.0-100.0

---------------- m ----------------------------------------------

Category Category Shoreline
1 2 Erosion

Group 1 very low to very low to heavy for
moderate low 20% or more of Bay
(less than 10% total)

Group 2 moderate low heavy for less than
10%

Group 3 very low low to slight
moderate (only some units)

Group 4 low to very heavy insignificant
moderate

Group 5 low moderate slight to low
(for rivers)

Group 6 very low moderate to slight to low
to low high (only some units)

Group 7 very 1 ow low slight to low

Group 8 very heavy very low to slight to low
low (except Assateague)

Group 9 low to heavy moderate to heavy slight to low
(only some units)

Group 10 moderate moderate to heavy slight to low gener-
ally, but heavy for
the Bay

LAND USE BY QUADRANGLE UNIT

Category I Category 2

Assawoman 25% 4%

Barren Is. 0% 9%

Berlin 9% 50%

Blackwater 0% 35%

Bloodsworth .7% 0%

Boxiron 0% 25%

Cambridge 16% 36%

Chicamacomico 0% 26%

Church Creek 3% 57%

Crisfield 181% 12%

Deal Is. 4% 8%

Delmar 17% 51%

Dividing Creek 0% 28%

East New Market 2% 63%

Eden 1% 51%

Ewell 4% 0%

Federalsburg 5% 73% west of Marshyhope Creek only

Girdletree 2% 43%

Golden Hill .3% 22%

Great Fox Is. 0% 0%

10 Hebron 2% 56%

Honga 5% 14%

Kedges Straights 0% 0%

Kingston .6% 39%

Mardela Springs 1% 37%

Marion 1% 28%

Monie .8% 31%

Nanticoke 4% 10%

Ninepin .3% 46%
Ocean City 34% 14%

Pittsville 4% 55%

Pocomoke City 4% 76%

Preston 2% 76%

Princess Anne 4% 38%

Public Landing 1% 38%

Richland Point 0% 0%

Rhodesdal'e .8% 62% west of Marshyhope Creek only

Salisbury 17% 38%

Saxis .7% 12%

Selbyville 14% 63%

Sharps Is. 4% 28%

Sharptown data not available

Snow Hill Z% 37%

Taylors Is. 0% 21%

Terrapin Sand 0% 0%

Tingles Is. 2% 23%
10 Wango .27. 34%
Wetipquin 1% 33%

Whaleysville 3% 55%

Whittington 0% 0%

Wingate 2% 5%

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE LOWER DELMARVA REGION:

It seems unlikely that the Lower Delmarva will experience either
rapid overall population growth or much new in4ustrial development
within the remaining two decades of this century. This statement must
be qualified somewhat, since there is at I-east the possibility that the
region could become a base for offshore oil exploration and exploita-
tion, which would create a completely new set of cultural resource
management problems. At the present time, though, there is no strong
reason to believe that the region will be affected by oil industry
related development, even though there are persistent rumors that the
surrounding offshore areas may contain significant amounts of oil.

While industrial development will not be a significant threat
except in a few restricted areas like the Salisbury Metro Core, resi-
dential and commercial development will be a severe problem. Although
the Lower Eastern Shore's total population will not grow a great deal
in the next twenty years, there will be a considerable degree of popu-
lation redistribution. Rural farm population will probably continue
to decline, but this loss will be made up by the construction of housing
developments outside of the larger towns of the region. These housing
developments create relatively high spot population densities that
impose stresses on the environment that are not present in the case of
a dispersed rural/farm residence pattern. Housing developments require
elaborate water and sewer systems rather than individual wells and septic
tanks. Already central Wicomico County is running out of land with the
proper drainage characteristics to support even moderately dense resi-
dential housing.

A great deal of current residential and commercial development is
related to the growth of the tourism and recreation industries in the
Lower Delmarva region. The most obvious example of this is provided by
Ocean City. On an average summer weekend in Ocean City the tourist
population is considerably larger than the total resident population of
the Lower Delmarva region. Since facilities have to be designed to
accomodate peak demand rather than average annual demand,the Ocean City
area is much more developed than would be necessary if only the area's
permanent population needed to be served. Also there is a growing demand
for summer or vacation homes in many areas of the Lower Delmarva region.
This demand is increasingly affecting communities on the Bay as well as
the Atlantic side of the Delmarva Peninsula. As in the case cf the
inland residential housing developments high spot population densities
are created and facilities of all sorts must be upgraded even if peak
demand is seasonal.

COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AREAS:

The areas likely to be most serfously affected by commercial and
residential development over the next two decades are the Salisbury-
Berlin Corridor, the Sinepuxent-St. Martin's Neck area of Worcester
County and the Cambridge Crescent. The Salisbury-Berlin Corridor area
has been defined earlier in the current land use section of thft-.
plan. The Sine@puxent-St. Martin's Neck area is essentially a westward
extention of the Fenwick Island Unit. The westward spread of develop-
ment from Ocean City that is now affecting the Upper Stnwpuxent neck
should continue over the next twenty years, and eventually take in all
of Worcester County between Rt. 113 and Assawoman Bay. A similar
extention of this developed.areato the south should encompass the Lower
Sinepuxent Neck as well.

On the Bay side the chief area for development should be the Cam-
bridge Crescent. This is a crescent shaped region lieing along the
south side of the Great Choptank River between Cambridge and Secretary.'
The Cambridge Crescent may develop into a small scale version of the
Salisbury-Berlin Corridor, with development strung out along Rt. 50
as far east as Mt. Holly, and then turning northward up Rt. 16 to
Secretary. The pace of development here should be somewhat slower than
in the areas mentioned above, however, and the total land area that
will be affected is smaller.

Apart from these three major development areas, i.e. the Salisbury-
Berlin Corridor, the Sinepuxent-St. Martin's Neck area and the Cambridge
Crescent, some other areas of the Lower Eastern Shore should experience
considerable localized developmental pressure before the end of the
century. In Dorchester County the towns of Vienna and Hurlock are the
places outside of the Cambridge Crescent region that are likely to prove
to be the largest recipients of residential and commercial development.
In Somerset County the Crisfield area may continue to grow, especially
if the proposed improvements to the harbor there are carried through.
Pocomoke City, in southern Worcester County will almost certainly expand
significantly over the next two decades. In each of these cases,however
the total land area that is likely to be developed between now and the
year 2000 is small relative to the three major development areas outlined
above.

10,

TRANSPORTATION..-

One factor that will have a profound effect on development within
the Lower Delmarva region is any growth or modtfication in the transpor-
tation network serving this part of the peninsula. The Lower Delmarva
is primarily dependent on road transportation, with sea and rail trans-
portation being mainly utilized for certain special categories of bulk
cargo, like fuel for the Vienna power generating plant. For the most
part produce and manufactured goods are carried into and out of the
region by road. The key elements in the region's road transportation
network are U.S. Rt. 50 and Rts. 13 and 113. These three highways link
the major population centers of the region, and development tends to be
channeled along them in strip fashion. The keys to the functioning of
these major transportation arteries are the Chesapeake Bay Bridges,
which provide access to the westemn shore. Within the region itself
are two other important bridges, the Choptank River Bridge at Cambridge
and the Nanticoke River Bridge at Vienna. Both at the present time can
accomodate only a single lane of traffic traveling in each direction.
Route 50, which crosses these bridges is dual highway over most of its
length, but some sections of single lane highway still remain, especially
in the vicinity of the Nanticoke River Bridge at Vienna.

The Maryland Department of Transportation has planned some import-
ant changes in the primary road network of the Lower Delmarva region
that were to be completed before the end of the century. Within the
four county region a total of 49.89 miles of highway construction that
was classed as critical was proposed for the 1980's and 1990's. The
main changes in the primary highway network of the region that were
judged as critical concerned the dualing of the remaining single lane
sections of Rt. 50 and Rt. 113 and the completion of the Salisbury By-
pass. This would also mean the construction of new bridges across the
Nanticoke and Choptank rivers. A further 186.86 miles of road construct-
ion of a non-critical nature was also proposed. These non-critical
projects-, ma-inly concerned repairing and upgrading secondary roads in the
region.

The proposed dualing of sections of Rt. 50 and Rt. 113 have already
been postponed by the state for budgetary reasons. The replacement of
the Choptank River Bridge has been delayed indefinitely as well. It is
uncertain, therefore, how much change there will be in the Lower Delmarva
road system in the next two decades. If these proposed highway and
bridae construction projects do go through, however, even more rapid
ratei of growth along Rt. 50, Rt. 13 and Rt. 113 can be expected.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY:

Based on trends that are observable over the last two decades total
farm acreage shouldcontinue to decline for the Lower Delmarva region as
a whole for the rest of this century. -However, the rate of this decline
is slowing in Somerset and Worcester counties, and in Dorchester County
the total number of farm acres has actually increased since 1970.
Wicomito is the only county where the rate of decline-is increasing.
This is a result of the conversion of famland in central Wicomico to
other uses, as the Salisbury area continues to develop. Despite this
decline in total acreage, production should actually increase in the
future. This will be accomplished by more intensive use of the remaining
agricultural land, which will increase stresses on cultural resources
located on this land. Double croping, increased mechanization and the
construction of irrigation and drainage systems will accelerate the rate@
of destruction for cultural resources.

The damaging effects of agriculture in the Lower Delmarva region
are quite severe, especially for the relatively fragile prehistoric
sites of the area. The light soils of the Lower Delmarva are especially
susceptible to wind and water erosion when the plant cover has been
removed from them. In the watershed of Marshyhope Creek soil loss from
erosion has an average annual rate of 1.8 tons per acre, and consider-
ably higher rates are found for some particularly vulnerable soils.

Commercial forestr in all probability will increase within the
y
Lower Delmarva region mainly owing to an improved market for low quality
hardwoods. -The overall quality of the timber grown in the region's forests
has been declining for some time because of poor management and logging
practices. However, the-demand for lower quality timber has been growing
recently, and with wood increasingly being looked upon as an alternative
fuel source this trend should continue. Commercial timbering imposes
severe stresses on the land surface, and it should be regarded as a serious
threat to the cultural record of the region. Worcester and eastern
Wicomico Counties are the areas that will be most affected by timbering
for the remainder of this century.

WATERSHED PROJECTS:

The U.S.O.A. has proposed certain water management projects for the
Lower Delmarva region in the 1980's and 1990's that should affect cultural

projects are to reduce erosion, fmprove drainage and provide an increas-
ed water supply for irrigation and other uses. A large scale project
in the Pocomoke River Drainage that would affect over.17,000 acres has
already received initial approval, and is scheduled to begin in the
mid-1980's. Such projects have both primary and secondary effects on
cultural resources. The initial effect is in the actual modifications
made to the drainage pattern of the river or stream in question. The
secondary effect is a long term one that results from the changes in
land use that such projects make possible. Watershed projects encour-
age the extension of agriculture and forestry into areas where these
activities were previously limited by swamp or marsh conditions. In
all over so,660 acres within the lower Delmarva region will be modified
to some extent by the watershed projects that are proposed for the re-
mainder of the twentieth century.

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY:

If correct management decisions are to be made, then knowledge
about the nature and extent of the cultural resources of the Lower Del-
marva region must be combined with knowledge about the nature and extent
of the forces, both natural and man-made, that do damage to the cultural
record of the region. A necessary first step in cultural resource
management is the development of a set of procedures whereby information
can be gathered in a systematic fashion. Complete preservation of the
cultural record is not possible, even if funds and manpower for historic
preservation were unlimited. Therefore preservation priorities must be
established, and these priorities should be derived in an objective
fashion, taking into account the whole of the cultural resource data
base of the region and the stresses on that data base. Day to day pres-
ervation decisions will always contain some element of subjectivity,
but these decisions should be made wi-thin a general framework that was
created in a non-subjective fashion. Systematic data gathering is.
obviously the foundation for a rational cultural resource management
plan.

The Lower Delmarva region presently lacks a systematically derived
cultural resource data base. Through the use of remote sensing tech-
niques, however, it has been possible to assess the present day stresses
on the cultural record in a systematic fashion. This does not mean
that all of the processes that contribute to the destruction of cultural
resources have been identified or that the effects on the cultural record
of these processes have been assessed in absolute terms. Nevertheless,
a basis now exists for making generalizations about the relative rates
of cultural resource destruction within the Lower Delmarva region. The
goal of systematic, region-wide knowledge has been achieved, in an
unrefined form, for one of the two major sets of factors that should
'100 form the basis for management decision making. The other major area of
knowledge that is required for rational management decision making has
not progressed to this level yet. Information about the nature and
distribution of cultural resources is incomplete and uneven. The first
and most important management need of the Lower Delmarva region is
systematic knowlege of the cultural resources which survive there.

Systematic region-wide knowledge of cultural resources does not
mean that every historic and prehistoric site must be located and
assessed specifically. This would be desireable, but it is not really
practical, at least in the forseeable future. What is needed is enough

systematic survey work to provide a basic knowledge of the nature of the
data base. Information about site frequency and distribution from
selected areas within the Lower Delmarva region would permit the devel-
opment of predictive models, which could then be applied to other,
unsurveyed areas. These predictive models to not necessarily have to
explain past human behavior, nor do they have to be deductively derived.
They are management, and not research, tools.. These models would be
based on the recognition that cultural.resources co-vary in a predict-
able way with geomorphological features and also with other elements of
the cultural record. The emphasis in this sort of modeling would be
on association rather than on causality.

An example of this sort of "associational" predictive model for the
historic period can be derived from data on house location and road lo-
cation contained within the 1877 Atlas of the Eastern Shore. In Worcester
county during the late 19th centdr-yove-r60% of all -dw-eMi-n-gs were located
within a quarter mile of a county road. The obvious implication of this
observed distribution is that there is a strong association between
the line of county roads and the location of dwelling houses in the
19th century. This "model" does not explain the observed phenomena,
it merely notes the association. The "model" can be used, however, to
predict site frequency and site location in other areas.

The development of "associational" models would represent only the
first and most simplistic response to the problem of recognizing general
patterns in the cultural resource data base. Knowledge of the wider
cultural context from which cultural resources emerge is important to
the management process, and research in this area should not be neglected.
Cultural resource survey strategies should be developed with nomothetic
goals in mind. However, there is also an immediate need for basic data
gathering, especially in those areas now experiencing a high rate of
environmental and developmental stress. Interim, management oriented
survey programs should be gotten under way, therefore, as soon as
possible in these areas.

The most pressing need for such surveys exists in the heavily
stressed Outer Chesapeake Bay, Upper Tangier Sound, Fenwick's Island
and Salisbury-Berlin Corridor areas defined in the preceding section.
The whole length of the Chesapeake Bay coast from the mouth of the
Little Choptank River to Cedar Island south of Crisfield should be
examined for sites, and this survey should include the shorelines of the
major islands as well. The rate of site destruction is extremely high
here. A survey of this part of the Chesapeake Bay shore could be done
relatively rapidly if only the shoreline proper were examined. The
survey could be conducted from the Bay side using a shallow draft boat.
This would elminate the problem of traveling through the salt marshes
that border the Bay shore. By working from a boat and concentrating on
only the immediate shoreline, several miles of shore could be examined
per day, Once baseline data on coastal sites has been gathered, then
a realistic monitoring strategy could be developed. A schedule for
re-examining various parts of the coast in the future could be worked out

based on erosion rates and the nature and extent of the cultural
resources present.

For the Salisbury-Berlin Corridor the main stresses placed on
the cultural resources data base are land use stresses rather than
environmental stresses. The parts of this area that are most likely
to be affected by future development are the Salisbury Metro Core and
a band of territory extending north of Rt. 50. High priority should
be given to the identification of cultural resources within the Salis-
bury Metro Core, which will see continued rapid growth for the rest
of the century. However, it is to be expected that the cultural
resources of the Salisbury Metro Core have already been severely
damaged by intensive land use. The other part of the Salisbury-Berlin
Corridor area that will be receiving heavy developmental pressure within
the near future is a band of territory about one mile wide that runs
along the north side of Rt. 50 from the outskirts of Salisbury to
Berlin. While a much wider corridor of land between Berlin and Salis-
bury is presently receiving higher than average use, it is this band
immediately north of Rt. 50 that increasingly will be going over to
the more intensive forms of land use. A systematic survey should be
made of this band-of territory in the near future.

The Fenwick Island area is subject to rapid growth and development
which shows no signs of abating in the forseeable future. This devel-
opment is not confined to the barrier island proper. It also occurs
on the-adjacent parts of the mainland. Fenwick Island has been so
severely affected both by development and by natural erosion processes
that pre-19th century cultural resources essentially do not exist there
in primary context. The mainland regions bordering Assawoman and Isle
of Wight Bay, which are now, or soon will be, affected by Ocean City
related development should be surveyed as soon as this is possible,
however. Both historic and prehistoric cultural resources are known to
be present in these areas, and if the planning agencies that are direct-
ing development in this region do not take cognizance of these resources,
they will be destroyed within a few decades. What is lacking is the
specific site location knowledge that should come from a systematic
survey. With such knowledge the most harmful effects of future develop-
ment can be ameliorated.

In addition to the surveys mentioned above, which concentrate on
areas of high stress with the aim of producing-data to fulfill immediate
management needs, a survey strategy that is not directly predicated on
management concerns should also be developed. This survey strategy
should attempt to answer questions about the general cultural context
of the region in a diachronic fashion, and should also address questions
of process. A stratified random sample approach based on geomorpholog-
ical criteria should be adopted for this investigation. The initial
geomorphological classification of the areas to be surveyed should be

derived from Landsat Satellite imagery and high level aerial photograph-
ic coverage rather than from more conventional data sources like soil
survey maps. A classification and sampling strategy that is based on
remote sensing data would offer two important advantages.

First, predictive models developed from such surveys could be
applied directly to other areas within the region by using Landsat data.
Landsat and high level aerial photography give overall uniform coverage
for the Lower Delmarva region at several different points in time.
Soil, vegetation and drainage information that has been derived from
other sources for the Lower Delmarva region is the product of a number
of individual investigations conducted over several decades. Coverage
is uneven, with important categories of data missing for some of the
counties. Also the data does not reflect the present condition of
the region, but rather the condition of the region at some time in the
past. Landsat and aerial photography have the facility to gather data
from the whole region by a uniformly applied technique at a single
point in time. Such uniform coverage is not available for just one
date, it is available for several different dates within the lastdecade.
The areas within the Lower Delmarva region as a consequence are much more
strictly comparable through the use of remote sensing data than they are
by any other means. This fact would enhance the applicability of
predictive models by eliminating some sources of variation, while at
the same time simplifying the mechanics of using such models on a
practical day to day basis.

The second advantage that would come from the use of remote sensing
data in the design of surveys is that this same data will be used to
monitor present day stresses on the cultural,record. By basing both
cultural resource assessment and environmental and land use monitoring
on the same set of data a fully integrated cultural resource management
plan can be developed. The key issue in cultural resource management
is the interaction between present day forces that affect the land
surface and the surviving materials culture traces of man's past.
Landsat imagery and high level aerial photography can examine both of
these factors simultaneously and in a consistent fashion. By relying
on remote sensing information, management decisions can be made on
the basis of quantifiable data. A numerical expression of the likeli-
hood of site occurance within an area can be determined and this can be
integrated with a numerical expression of the rate of present day stress
on the cultural resources of that area. The ability to quantify the
variables that must be taken into account when decisions are made will
strengthen the position of preservationists, since the charge that such
decisions are either arbitrary or subjective can no longer be made.

The areas selected for survey should represent all of the major
geomorphological divisions within the Lower Delmarva region. Prefer-
ably these survey areas should all be located within one of the four
research units already established within the region. A concentration

of survey activities within a single unit will facilitate the recognition
of macro-patterns in the cultural development of the Lower Delmarva.
The most promising area for such survey activity is the Pocomoke River
Drainage, research unit 2. Almost all of the major geomorphological
-zones of the Lower Delmarva region are represented within the Pocomoke
drainage, from the salt estuarine bay marshes of the river's mouth to
the freshwater cypress swamps near its head. Only certain specialized
Atlantic coastal zones are not represented, and these could be dealt
with in a supplemental survey project. The completion of a stratified
sample of survey areas within the Pocomoke drainage would provide the
necessary cultural resource data to implement an integrated cultural
resource management plan for the Lower Delmarva region.

THE MONITORING PROCESS:

Once a cultural resource management strategy based on the procedures
outlined in the previous section has been established and begins to
function on a normal basis, the next requirement will be for a system
that continuously monitors stresses to the cultural record. On a region
wide scale this can be accomplished by regularly updating the information
derived from remote sensing for the Lower Delmarva. Landsat imagery
for any given part of the earth is available on an 18 day cycle. However,
because of cloud cover and other factors not all of the Landsat scenes-0-f
a given area provide complete high quality coverage. Still, each year
from 10 to 12 good scenes of the Lower Delmarva region should be avail-
able. Continuous updating on a monthly basis is theoretically possible,
therefore, but this would probably be excessive. Updating on a six month
cycle would be adequate to monitor changes in land use and it would also
be realistic in terms of manpower and resources. Each Landsat scene costs
approximately $250.00 and requires a considerable amount of both computer
and operator time to get set up and running on a regular basis. In terms
of the amount of information that a single scene can give these costs
are very small, but resources for cultural resource management and plan-
ning are limited and a basic constraint will be the lack of personnel
time to use all of the information generated.

Each year, therefore, two complete Landsat scenes should be acquired.
One of these scenes should be an April scene, since April is the month
when the initial land use classification was made. The other scene
should be a late Fall scene, after crops have been harvested. High
level aerial photographic coverage for the region is not available with
the frequency and regularity of the Landsat data. However, depending
on availability such photographic coverage should be acquired every two

years. Regular cross checks between the Landsat data and high level
aerial photographs are desirable for the updating of the land use class-
ification system. Also a certain amount of low level aerial photography
should be done for some specific high stress areas. No attempt should
be made to produce complete low level coverage for the region, however,
since this would be prohibitively expensive and, in many cases, redund-
ant, as Landsat and high level aerial photography would be providing
the necessary management data.

Monitoring by remote sensing will provide the necessary data on
large scale changes in land use and on coastline erosion. There still
remains the problem of monitoring highly localized stresses caused by
specific development projects. Regular contacts with county planning
agencies are a necessary part of the monitoring process. In general
these agencies are willing to supply information about construction
projects upon request. The Salisbury-Wicomico County Planning and
Zoning Commission goes further than this and invites comments from the
Regional Preservation Office on the larger projects like housing devel-
opments that are proposed within the county. The county planning
agencies cannot be expected to involve the Regional Preservation Office
directly in every decision, large and small, that they make, however.
This is desirable for the large scale projects, but it is impractical
to do this on a day to day basis for all categories of activity taking
place within the planning offices.

An effort should be made, therefore, to provide these planning
agencies with synopses of the data that has been gathered on the
cultural resources of the Lower Delmarva region and to indicate to
them areas where there are high probabilities that cultural resources
will be found in the future. The information supplied to these agencies
should consist of maps indicating likely areas within their respective
counties for various categories of cultural resources and also a narra-
tive explaining the significance of these categories of resources and
placing them within an overall thematic context. The maps supplied to
the agencies need not be so detailed that specific archaeological sites
locations are shown. The aim should be to give planners, who typically
do not have a specialist knowledge of the cultural resources to be
found in the region, enough information to recognize how their decisions
are likely to affect the cultural resource data base. A willingness on
the part of the historic preservation community to provide information
that aids in the planning process inevitably will encourage planning
agencies to show greater concern for cultural resources.

PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION:

The ability to predict the nature and extent of the cultural re-
sources within a region and to understand and monitor the natural and
man-made stresses on those resources is not enough to insure the sur-
vival of the cultural resource data base of that region. Knowledge of
the parameters that define the data base must be used as a tool to
influence present day behavior that affects the cultural record. Hist-
oric preservation efforts should be channeled towards the most practical
and cost effic.ient means of protecting resources. It should be recog-
nized that every trace of man's past activities within the Lower Del-
marva region cannot be preserved. The aim shoul.d be to protect a rep-
resentative sample of the region's cultural record, and to gather as
much information as is possible about those parts of the record that
are certain to be destroyed.

The piecemeal survey and salvage approach that has characterized
cultural resource management efforts in the Lower Delmarva region to
date is not a practical and cost efficient way of dealing with historic
preservation problems. Such localized evaluations lack sufficient
context-to have much meaning, and it is difficult to subsume them,
after the fact, into any larger management or research framework. Once
the goal of systematic, region-wide knowledge of the cultural resource
data base has been achieved, each new project requi-ring a management
decision need no longer be treated as a unique phenomenon. Mitigation
efforts can be directed towards those parts of the cultural record in
greatest need of preservation, with the option of salvage excavation
being selected only under special circumstances.

Conservation of the data base should be the primary goal of cult-
ural resource management. Every effort should be made to protect cult-
ural resources from adverse development impacts rather than to try to
salvage some knowledge fromhfstoricor prehistoric sites after their
destruction becomes inevitable. On the other hand, when the destruction
of cultural resources is occuring through some natural agency like coast-
line erosion that cannot be controlled, priority should be given to
recording as much information as possible. Management decisions should
take into account the fact that there are both controllable and uncon-
trollable forces that contribute to the depletion of the cultural record.
Where impacts are even potentially controllable the emphasis should be
on preservation; where impacts are uncontrollable the emphasis shoul'd
be on recording. Both activities are legitimate parts of cultural
resource management.

Since the conservatien ethic lies at the core of zhis cultural
resource management strategy every effort should be made to restrict the
uses of lands with known cultural resources of importance. This can
be accomplished in a variety of ways. The highestlevelsof protection

are achieved when such I ands. are purchased or otherwise, acquireid'by an
organization or an.agency specifically for preservation purposes. An
example is the acquisitton of the historic plantation site of Pemberton
Hall by the Pemberton Hall Foundation. The Pemberton Ha-1,1. Foundation
is a non-profit organizatton whose sole purpose is the.preservation of
this significant histortc property. Organizations of this sort should
be encouraged to expand their activities to the maximum extent possible,

Another approach that is especially appropriate for prehistoric
cultural resources is the incorporation.of areas containing such resources
into areas protected by natural area preservation programs. At the pres-
ent time the Nature Conservancy in Worcester County is acquiring.by
purchase and by gift lands along Nassawango Creek. Worcester County
members of the Archaeological Society of Maryland are encouraging the
Conservancy to include the Nassawango Adena Site (WO-23) within the
natural preservation area being established along Nassawango Creek.
Active cooperation by individuals and groups interested inhi-storic
preservation and in the preservation of natural resources should aid
both causes. State Wildl-ife Management Areas, although they were not
created with cultural resources in mind, already serve to protect some
important prehistoric sites in the Tangier Sound region. If an aware-
ness of the compatability between cultural resource and natural resource
preservation aims could be made a part of future natural area protection
plans, Lower Oelmarva's cultural resources would benefit-greatly.

Individual private landowners can also be encouraged to protect
cultural resources on their own properties. Very often landowners are
not aware of the nature and significance of the cultural resources that
are located an the lands that they possess. The owners of properties
containing significant historic and prehistoric sites can be encouraged
to take advantage of existing historic preservation laws and programs.
A key first step is to get such properties listed on the National Reg-
ister of Historic Places. Once this has been accomplished, property
owners should be asked to set legal limits on the ways such properties
can be utilized. The granting of preservation easements seems to be
a particularly effective way to protect cultural resources while at the
same time benefiting the property owner financially. Preservation
easements in the past have been used almost exclusively to protect
standing historic structures, but legally there does not seem to be any
reason why this same approach could not be used in the protection of
prehistoric sites of National Register quality.

Essential to all of the protection processes outlined above is the
dissemination of knowledge about the importance of cultural resources
and about the dangers threatening these resources. Education is the
main ingredient in making historic preservation work, particularly in
an area like the Lower Eastern shore. Maryland's Lower Eastern shore
has a population with a high level of regional consciousness and a
strong interest in the past, What is lacking is knowledge of the

processes by which cultural resources can be preserved and an awareness
of just how severe the need for immediate action to protect these re-
sources is. Higher levels of public awareness will have a very direct
effect on historic preservation policies as implemented by state and
local government within the region, as well as encouraging non-governmental
historic preservation activities. The education process should begin
through existing organizations that are concerned, on a regional basis,
with archaeology and history. Several of these exist in the Lower
Delmarva region, and include in their membership influential community
leaders. Shaping the climate of opinion about historic preservation
within the region is the only way that effective, region-wide preser-
vation policies can be implemented. Cultural resource management within
the Lower Delmarva region must be based on the cooperation of large
numbers of individuals who are not professionally involved in historic
preservati on.

S E L E C T

B'I'B L 1 0 G R A P H Y

Ames, S. M.
1973 Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century,
Russell and Russell, New York.

Clark, C.B., ed.
1950 The Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, Lewis, New York.

Griffith, D.R.
1980 'Townsend Ceramics and the Late Woodland of Southern Delaware'S
Maryland Historical Magazine, 75:23-41.

Hughes. R.B.
(in press) A Preliminary Cultural and Environmental Overview of the
Prehistory of Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore Based upon a. Study of
Selected Artefact Collections, Maryland Historical Trust, Annapolis.

Jones, E.
1902 History of Dorchester County, Maryland, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.

Karinen, A.E.
1959 'Maryland Population, 1631-1730', Maryland Historical Magazine, 54:
365-407.

Land, A.C., Carr, L.G. and Pappenfuse, E.
1977 Law Society and Politics in Early Maryland, Johns Hopkins, BaItimore.

Lippson, A.L., ed.
1973 The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of Natural Resources, Johns
Hopkins, Baltimore.

Maryland Department of State Planning
1976 The Lower Eastern Shore Region, An Overview

Maryland Department of Transportation
1976 Maryland 20 Year Highway Needs Study, 1977-1996.

Maryland Geological Survey
1975-Historic Shorelines and Erosion Rates: Lower Eastern Shore.

Maryland Historical Society
Vols. I-LXXII Archives of Maryland.

Massachusetts Historical Commission
1979 Cultural Resources in Massachusetts: A Model for Management

Mereness, N.D.
1968 Maryland as a Proprietary Province, Edwards, Cos Cob, Connecticut.

Porter, F.W.
1979 Indians of Maryland and Delaware: A Critical Bibliography, Indiana
University, Bloomington.

Salisbury-Wicomido County..Planning and Zoning Commission
1975 Salisbury Metro Core Comprehensive Plan. -

1981 The Comprehensive Plan for Wicomico County.

Stottler Stage and Associates
1975 Comprehensive Plan for Somerset County, Maryland

Tate, T.W. and Ammerman, D.L.
1979 The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, W.W. Norton, New York.

Torrence, C.
1966 Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Regional Publishing,
Baltimore.

Truitt, CA.
1932 Historic Salisbury, Maryland, Country Life Press, New York.

Truitt, R.V. and Les-Callette, M.G.
1977 Worcester County, Maryland's Arcadia, Worcester County Historical
Society.

Westlager, C.A.
1948 The Nanticoke Indians, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.

Wilke, S. and Thompson, G.
1977 Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the Maryland Coastal Zone,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Wright, J.M.
1921 The Free Negro in Maryland 1634-1860, Columbia University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
1978 Delmarva River Basins Survey.

Urban Pathfinders, Inc.
1974 The Comprehensive Plan, Dorchester County, Maryland.

A P P E N D I X I

Houses and People-on the Lower Eastern Share (1671-1850)

One major factor to be considered in historic preservation planning
is the total number of historic sites representing any given period of
time that are present within a particular region. If the significance
of,an historic site is to be assessed in an objective fashion, then that
site must be viewed within a framework of the total universe of contemp
orary sites existing in the region in question. As a rule "significanc;'l
is a relative rather than absolute concept, and it is important to est-
ablish the total size of the available data base before judging the
importance of some part of that data base in relation to the whole of it.
This paper attempts to determine the size of the total historic site
data base on the lower eastern shore for various points in time between
1671 and 1850. The aim will be to come up with theoretical maxima for the
total number of sites that were in existence during certain time periods.
Obviously we cannot say how many of these sites still survive, but a
knowledge of how many sites there might be in an ultimate "best case"
situation is still very useful. For one thing it will allow statistical
techniques to be used in a more valid way for site assessment.

The data that is used here is gathered from several di fferent census
and tax lists and consequently it is somewhat variable in quality. Also,
because of the nature of the available records, we can only deal with
-sites where dwellings were located. However, individual dwellings and
their associated outbuildings account for the overwhelming number of
structures that stood during any of the time periods in question on the
lower eastern shore, and realistically it is mainly dwelling sites that
will be recognizable as sites on the ground. The period under study
extends from 1671, when the first figures for numbers of tythables ore
the eastern shore are recorded, to 1850, the date of the first really
complete census that includes data about dwellings in the area.

The population schedules of the 1850 census provide three Important
categories of data for this study; the whole number of persons, the total
number of families to which these persons-belong, and the total number
of dwellings that these families live in. We have these figures for
the three counties then existing on the lower eastern shore, Oorchester,
Somerset and Worcester. Two general conclusions can be drawn from this
data. First, the number of families matches very closely the number of
dwellings in the case of all three counties. This means that single
family dwellings are the rule, as would be expected for a mid-nineteenth
century agricultural region. Second, the average number of people
making up a household is very similar for all three counties. the aver-
age number of persons per household for the whole region is 6.9, and
the averages for each separate county are within 10%0 of this 6.9 figure.

These averages are based on the total number of persons within the
counties including slaves. If the slaves are disregarded, the aver-
ages for the counties are even closer. For the purposes of this paper,
however, it is more convenient to base calculations on the whole number
of persons both free and slave@ since in some of the earlier records
slaves are not separately listed.

Prior to 1850 we do not have tallies-of the numbers of dwellings
beingoccupied at any single point in time on the lower eastern share,
but we can calculate numbers of dwellings by using census and tax data.
We have figures for the total population of the region that extend
back in time as far as 1701, although only since the beginning of the.
federal census in 1790 do we have data taken at regular intervals.
Before 1701 and for some years in the early and middle parts' of the
18th century we do not have figures for the total population of the
region, but we do have records of the number of tythable or taxable
persons living there. Total population can be estimated from the
number of taxable persons. Once we-have total population figures we
can then calculate the total number of households, which should be
almost the same as the total number of dwellings.

There are, of course, some problems in translating the numbers of
tythables into total numbers of persons. As far as the problem of
calculating total population in colonial Maryland is concerned, refer-
ence should be made to the work of A.E. Karinen. Karinen's Ph.D.
dissertation was a study of changes in Maryland's population between
1631 and 1840. He proposed numerical ratios that could be used to cal-
culate total population from numbers of tythables. These ratios, how-
ever, were based on figures for the whole state of Maryland and do not
take into account any variation by county. It is apparent from the
lower eastern shore data that Karinen's conversion factors are too low
for all the counties there. Karinen gives a ration of 3 to 1 for total
population as compared to number of taxables between the years 1712
and 1790. However, for the year 1755 the ratio between total population
and taxables on the lower eastern shore is about 3.5 to 1, and for
Dorchester county in the year 1712 it is 4.58 to 1. Before 1705 the
ratio used by Karinen is 2.6 to 1, but for the only year within this
time span for which we have data both on total population and on the
number of taxables the ratios are 3.2 to I for Somerset County and 3.0
to I for Dorchester County.

Changes in the ratio between total population and numbers of tax-
ables follow the same pattern on the lower eastern shore that they do
in the state of Maryland as a whole. As time passes there tend to be
fewer taxables in relation to the whole number of persons living in the
lower eastern shore counties. However, from the data now available it
seems that there always were fewer taxables relative to total population
in these counties than in the state as a whole. Why this should be is
somewhat puzzling. The same criteria for defining a taxable person
s:1ould have been used throughout Maryland.- For nearly all of the period
under question taxable persons included all men aged sixteen or older
except for a few exempted categories like clergymen and paupers.

However, slaves were also considered to be taxable,, and there is
some evidence that relatively fewer slaves were owned on the eastern
shore than on the western shore. Difference in slave numbers was
probably one factor,, therefore, that accounted for some of the appar-
ent variation in the ratios. Although we don't really know why these
ratios are higher for the lower eastern shore, this fact should def-
initely be taken into account when calculating total population for
the region. Consequently for the'years 1676 to T701 the ratios for
calculating total population will be those given for the year 1701,
that is to say, 3.2 to I for Somerset County and 3.0 to I for Dorchest-
er County. Before 1676 taxables were more broadly defined than after
that year, so instead of the 3 to I ratio a 2.8 to I ratio will be used
for the years 1671 and 1675. Karinen suggests that the difference
between the pre- and post-1676 ratio would be about .2, and we will
accept the judgement for purposes of this paper. From 1701 on we
generally have-total population figures when we have any population
figures at all, so the 18th century ratios are not needed in most cases.
The one important exception is the year 1733, for which we have only
numbers of taxables. Instead of Karinen's ratio of 3 to 1 we will use
an average of two total-population-to-taxable ratios that we do have
for the 18th century. These ratios are for the years T710 and 1755,
which bracket the year 1733 more equally in time than do any two other
18th century ratios that we have. The average ratios used for 1733
are 3.5 to 1 for Somerset County and 4.0 to 1 for Dorchester County.

It should be kept in mind that the data from which population
totals for the lower eastern shore counties are drawn undoubtedly varies
in accuracy, and that earlier figures are probably less reliable generally
than are later figures. It is not really possible to assess the degrees
of accuracy of the 17th and 18th century data, but since this information
was gathered for tax purposes it probably gives a good approximation of
the true state of affairs. The federal census data from 1800 on seems
to be quite reliable, and raises no real interpretive problems. Another
factor affecting county population totals on the lower eastern shore is
changes in county boundaries. In the 17th century Somerset County took
in all of the present counties of Somerset, Worcester and Wicomico plus
part of what is now Sussex County,Delaware. In 1742 Worcester County
was created out of Somerset County, and both Somerset and Worcester
Counties included parts of Delaware until 1775. Dorchester County both
lost and gained bits of territory during the 18th century, but these
changes were relatively minor compared to Somerset County. Since this
paper only deals with the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, no totals
are given for Wicomico County, which was about equally divided between
Somerset and Worcester Counties until 1867. As far as the data tables
are concerned, entries dated before 1742 and labeled 'Somerset' refer
to the whole region now occupied by Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester
Counties plus part of Delaware. Entries labeled either 'Somerset' or
'Worcester' and dating after 1742 refer to Somerset and Worcester Counties
as they existed before 1867, that is including the area that is now Wi-
comi co County.

Once population totals have been determined for the counties, the
next step is to calculate numbers of households from these totals. We
have accurate figures for the numbers of dwellings and of families rel-
ative to the total population for 1850, as was mentioned above. The

first federal census, dating to 1791, records the total number of heads
of families for individual Maryland counties, and this figure should be
much the same as the total number of families at that time, but unfor-
tunately these figures are defective for the lower eastern shore count-
ies. Green and Harrington propose a ftgure of 7 for the number of
persons per dwelling in 18th century America and a figure of 6 for the.
average number of persons in a family. These figures do not relate
specifically to the lower eastern shore, but they agree very well with
the 19th century population to dwelling ratio of 6.9 to 1 calculated
from the 1850 census for the regi on. The rati os cal cul ated by Green and
Harrington also seem to be applicable during the 18th century on the
eastern shore, insofar as we can tell. The total number of heads of
families in Dorchester and Somerset Counties is recorded for the year
1704 and-, when this number is compared to total population for the same
year, we get an average family size of 6.1 persons. Clearly average
family size in 1704 on the lower eastern shore is very close to the aver-
age of 6 proposed by Green and Harrington. Consequently we can probably
also accept their figure of 7 for the number of persons per dwelling
in the 18th century, which is, after all, practically the same as the
6.9 to 1 ratio obtained for the lower eastern shore counties in 1850.*
Since we have no totals for heads of families or numbers of dwellings
on the lower eastern shore in the 17th century, the Green and Harrington
figure will also be used for determining numbers of households before
1700. Therefore the same factor, 7, will be used in calculating numbers
of dwellings in Somerset, Dorchester and Worcester Counties for all
years dealt with in this paper. Table 2 gives the total numbers of
dwellings likely to have been standing in selected years from 1671 to
1850 for the counties.

These dwelling numbers are, of course, theoretical maxima and do not
accurately reflect how many dwelling sites actually survive in an arch-
aeologically recognizable form. Also the same dwelling sites and even
the same structures undoubtedly are reused and modified through time
and therefore appear in the totals for more than one year. It should be
kept in mind that in the 17th and early 18th centuries the majority of
dwellings in use were quite small timber structures without real found-
ations or durable structural features like stone or brick chimneys.
Dwellings of this sort leave slight and easily destroyed physical re-
mains, and undoubtedly most such sites are no longer recognizable on
the ground. This means that while there may have been about a thousand
17th century dwelling sites in existence at some point in the past on
the lower eastern shore, the number surviving today is very much smaller.
Any 17th century site that can be recognized today represents a signifi-
cant percentage of all 17th century sites, known and unknown, that still
survive in the regiZ-n-. The situation is not much better for the early
18th century on the lower eastern shore, and it is not until after 1730
that the larger total number of sites and the generally better state of
preservation of these sites begins to give us a fairly sizeable data base,
at least in theory. Undoubtedly many fewer historical sites survive in
recognizable form than are indicated by the theoretical totals calculated
in this paper, and in general the farther back in time you go from the

present the smaller will be the percentage of sites surviving. The
very small numbers of reported historic archaeological sites from this
area do not give a sufficient basis for calculating the probable rate or
percentage of loss for these sites, but at a guess I would say at least
half of all late 19th century sites known to exist from documentary
sources are no longer recognizable as sites on the ground. Presumably
the percentage of loss for 17th and early 18th century sites is much
higher, suggesting that the surviving data base for the early historic
period in the lower Delmarva region is quite small at leastinterms of
absolute numbers of sites. I suspect that the western shore counties,
although they undoubtedly had a larger number of early historic sites
initially, have already lost an even larger percentage of these sites,
since these counties generally have been under greater development press-
ures. Sites dating to the 17th and the first quarter of the 18th centuries
make up one of the most fragile parts of the state of Maryland's total
archaeological resource base, and the loss of any of them detracts in a
very significant way from the total resource base of the state.

TABLE 1

TOTAL POPULATION ON THE LOWER EASTERN'SHORE

1671* 1675* 1694* 1695* 1696* 1701 1704

Dorchester 736 994 1983 1947 1884 2617 2312

Somerset 1158 1809 4604 4640 4442 5404 4435

Worcester - - - - - -

1710 1712 1733* 1755 1791 1820 1850

Dorchester 2181 3475 7800 11753 15875 17759 18877

Somerset 6314 6352 12222 8582 15610 19579 22456

Worcester - - - 10126 11640 17421 18859

N.B. * denotes total based on taxables

--------------------- ------------------------ m --------------

--------------------- ---------------- m ------------

TABLE 2

TOTAL NUMBERS OF DWELLINGS THERE BASED ON 7 PERSONS PER OWELLINU

1671 1675 1694 1695 1696 1701 1704

Dorchester 105 142 283 278 269 374 330

Somerset 165 258 658 663 635 772 634

1710 1712 1733 1755 1791 1820 1850

Dorchester 312 496 1114 1679 2268 2537 2705*

Somerset 902 907 1746 1226 2230 2797 3147*

Worcester - - - 1447 1663 2489 2875*

N.B. * denotes actual figure taken from the 1850 census population
schedules

APPENDIX 11

THE ROAD SYSTEMS OF DORCHESTER, SOMERSET, WICOMICO AND WORCESTER

COUNTIES CIRCA 1800

This is a listing of modern roads in the four lower Eastern

Shore Counties that duplicate the line of roads that were in existence

at the end of the 18th century. The main source used was the Griffith

Map of Maryland (1794). Most of the modern county roads listed here

follow very closely the recorded courses of the circa 1800 roads.

The major highways listed here tend to straighten out the actual line

of the earlier roads, but still follow the same general course. The

roads are listed by county and are further subdivided according to the

U.S.G.S. Quad. Map on which they are shown. If the same road is on

two quad. maps it is listed twice.

18TH CENTURY ROADS

IN DORCHESTER

18TH -CENTURY ROADS
&@7

IN SOMERSET
v

-1 %, I I IL I k I I p I- p I !

18TH CENTURY ROADS IN WICOMI(

. ISTH CENTURY ROADS

IN WORCESTER

fl*
lr*

I
N

6
0 %P
C@o
lw

DORCHESTER

Quad. Map Road.

Blackwater River 1. Bucktown Rd. from Indianbone Rd. to Bucktown
2. Bestpitch Ferry Rd. from Bucktown to 'T' junct-
ion and the north branch of the 'T'
3. Greenbriar Rd. from Bucktown to Key Wallace Drive
4. Maple Dam Rd. from Cambridge to Key Wallace Drive
5. Key Wallace Drive

Cambridge 1. Whitehall Rd.'
2. Aireys Rd. from A-irey to Austfn Rd.
3. Austin Rd. to Rt. 50 (Mt. Hol7y).
4. Rt. 50 from Hicksburg to the Mt. Holly/East New
Market Road
5. Mt. Holly/East New Market Rd.
6. Rt. 50 (Mt. Holly to Cambridge (considerably
straightened)
7. Indianbone Rd. from Drawbridge Rd. to Bucktown Rd.
8. Bucktown Rd. from Indianbone Rd. to Bucktown
9. Maple Dam Rd. from Cambridge to Key Wallace Drive
10. Church Creek Rd. from Maple Dam Rd. to Church Creek
11. Cambridge/Hudson Rd. (Rt. 343)

Chicamacomico 1. Elliot Island Rd. from Henry's Crossroads to
Savanna Lake
2. Drawbridge Rd. from Henry's Crossroads to Airey
3. Giffith Neck Rd. from Drawbridge to Cedar Lndg.
4. Steel Neck Rd. from Drawbridge to Newbridge Rd.

Church Creek 1. Golden Hill Rd. (Rt. 335) from Church Creek to
Rt. 336
2. Church Creek Rd. from Maple Dam Rd. to Church Creek
3. Taylor's Island Rd. (Rt. 16) from Church Creek
to Smithville Rd.
4. Cambridge/Hudson Rd. (Rt. 343)

East New Market 1. Drawbridge Rd. from Henry's Crossroads to Airey
2. Middletown Branch Rd. from Drawbridge Rd. to Big
Millpond
3. Linkwood Rd. from Salem to Linkwood
4. the old road from Linkwood to Hicksburg
5. Airey's Rd. from Airey to Austin Rd.
6. Rt. 50 from Mt. Holly/East New Market Rd. to
Hicksburg

10,

DORCHESTER (continued)

East New Market 7. Mt. Holly/East New Market Rd.
(continued) 8. Indianbone Rd. from Drawbridge Rd.. to Bucktown Rd.
9. Rt. 50 from Big Millpond to Old Ocean Gateway Rd.
10. Centennial Rd. from Vienna/Rhodesdale Rd. to
New Market/Rhodesda-le Rd.
11. East New Market/ Elwood Rd.
12. Mt...Holly/East New Market Rd.

Federalsburg I. Palmers Mill Rd. from Rhodesdale to Harrison's
Ferry Road
2. Harrison's Ferry/Williamsburg Rd.
3. River Rd. from Williamsburg to Federalsburg
4. Allens Corner/Reliance Rd. from Federalsburg
to Reliance
5. FederaTsburgyPreston Rd.

Golden Hill 1. Key Wallace Drive
2. Golden Hill Rd. (Rt. 335) from Church Creek to
Rt. 336
3. Crapo Rd. (Rt. 336) from Crossroads to Lakesville
4. Hooper Island Rd. to Fishing Creek
5. Smithville Rd.
6. Taylor's Island Rd. (Rt. 16) from Church Creek
to Smithville Rd.

Honga 1. Crapo Rd. (Rt. 336) from Crossroads to Lakesville
2. Andrews Rd.
3. Lakesville/Crapo Rd. to Toddville Rd.
4. Hooper Island Rd. to Fishing Creek

Mardela Springs 1. Elliot Island Rd. from Henry's Crossroads to
Savanna Lake
2. Drawbridge Rd. from Henry's Crossroads to Airey
3. Vienna/Henry's Crossroads Rd.
4. New Bridge Rd. from Steel Neck Rd. to Vienna/
Henry's Crossroads Rd.
5. Rt. 50 from Big Millpond to Old Ocean Gateway Rd.
6. Old Ocean Gateway Rd. to Vienna
7. Rhadesdale/Vienna Rd.

Preston 1. Federalsburg/Preston Rd.
2. Elwood Camp Rd.
3. East New Market/Elwood Rd.

Rhodesdale 1. Rt. 50 from Big Millpond to Old Ocean Gateway Rd.
2. Rhodesdale/Vienna Rd.
3. Kelly Rd. from Rhodesdale/Vienna Rd. to Rt. 14

DORCHESTER (continued)

Rhodesdale, 4. Cokesbury Rd. from.Eldorado to.Rt. 392
(continued) 5. Centennial Rd. from Vienna/Rhodesdale Rd.
to New Market/ Rhodesdale Rd.
6. Palmers Mill Rd. from Rhodesdale to Harrison's
Ferry Rd.

Seaford West 1. Cokesbury Rd. from Eldorado to Rt. 392
2. Rt. 392 from Cokesbury Rd. to Reliance
3. Allens Corner/Reliance Rd. from Federalsburg
to Reliance

Sharps Island 1. Cambridge/Hudson Rd. (Rt. 343)
2. Hills Point Rd.

Sharptown I. Cokesbury Rd. from Eldorado to Rt. 392

Taylors Island 1. Taylors Island Rd. (Rt. 16) from Church Creek
to Smithville Rd.
2. Smi thvi 11 e Rd.
3. Robinson Neck Rd.
4. Meekins Neck Rd.
5. Hooper Island Rd. to Fishing Creek

Wingate I. Andrews Rd.
2. Wesley Church Rd.
3. Lakesville/Crapa Rd. to Toddville Rd.
4. Wingate/Bishops Head Rd.
S. Crocheron Rd.
6. Toddville Rd. from Westley Church Rd. to
Lakesville/Crapo Rd.

SOMERSET

Quad. Map Road

Deal Island 1. Rt. 363 from Manie to Deal

Dividing Creek 1. Petes Hill Rd. from Perryhawkin Rd. to Rt. 388
2. Perryhawkin- Rd.. from Petes Hill Rd. to Rt. 388
3. Cokesbury Rd.
4. Meadowbridge Rd. from Friendship Church to
Fruitland
5. New Rd. to Five Bridges Rd.
6. Rt. 388 Princess Anne to Friendship Church

Kingston 1. 07d Westover/Marion Rd. from Westover to Hudsons
Corner
2. Cornstack Rd. from Rt. 667 to Marumsco
3. Back Shelltown Rd. from Marumsco to Shell'town-
4. Rt. 13 south from Westover to Westley Church/
Greenhill Rd.
5. Rt. 13 from Greenhill Rd. to Costen Rd.
6. Rt. 361 from Old Westover/Marion Rd. to Fairmount

Marion 1. Maddox Island Rd.
2. Miles Rd.
3. Rt. 361 from Old Westover/Marion Rd. to Fairmount

Monie 1. Rt. 363 from Monie to Deal
2. Fitzgerald Rd. to Rt. 363 at Monie
3. Ebby Rd. to Fitzgerald Rd.
4. Black Rd. from Rt. 362 to Ebby Rd.
5. Whitehaven Ferry Rd. to Whitehaven
6. Rt. 362 from Princess Anne to Whitehaven Ferry
Road

Pocomoke City 1. Costen Rd. as far as Costen Branch
2. Rt. 364 from Rt. 13 to Dividing Creek Rd.
3. Courthouse Rd.

Princess Anne 1. Old Loretto Rd. (Rt. 529) from Princess Anne to
Allen
2. Rt. 388 Princess Anne to Friendship Church
3. Perryhawkin Rd.. from Petes Hill Rd. to Rt.388
4. Westover Rd. between Westover and Princess Anne
5. Rt. 362 from Princess Anne to Whitehaven Ferry Rd.

Saxis 1. Back Shelltown Rd.. from Marumsco to Shelltown

Wetipquin 1. Whitehaven Ferry.Rd.. from Rt. 362 to Whitehaven

WICOMICO

Quad. Map Road

Delmar 1. Rt. 105 (Morris-Lednard Rd.) Salisbury to Par-
sonsburg
2. Rt. 13 north from Salisbury into Delaware
3. Dagsborough Rd, from Rt. 13 to Pittsville Rd.

Eden 1. Allen Rd. from Allen to Fruitland
2. South Upper Ferry Rd. from Allen to Upper Ferry
3. Salisbury/Nanticoke Rd. from Salisbury to
Catchpenny
4. Catchpenny Rd. to Quantico Rd.
S. Quantico Rd. from Nebo Rd. to Athol Rd.
6. Nebo Rd. to Whitehaven Rd.
7. Whitehaven Rd. from Salisbury/Nanticoke Rd. to
Senkbeil Rd.

Hebron 1. Athol Rd. from Quantico Rd. to Porter Mill Rd.
2. Riggin Rd. from Porter Mill Rd. to Rt. 50
3. Barren Creek Rd.

Mardela Springs 1. Athol Rd. from Quantico Rd. to Porter Mill Rd.
2. Porter Mill Rd. from Athol Rd. to Riggin Rd.
3. Rt. 50 from Vienna to the second junction with
Rt. 475 (straightened)
4. Rt. 54 from Mardela Springs Rd. to Barron Creek Rd.

Nanticoke 1. Salisbury/Nanticoke Rd. from Cox's Corner to
Waterview

Ninepin 1. Purnell's Crossing Rd. from Libertytown to Powell-
ville
2. Rt. 354 (Whiton Rd.) from Powellville to Willards

Pittsville 1. Rt. 262 (Warren Farm Rd.) west of Cambell Ditch
2. unnamed road joining segments of Ben Davis Rd.
and Warren Famn Rd.
3. Friendship Rd. from Rt. 354 to Pittsville
4. Pittsville Rd. north of Pittsville to the Delaware
line
5. Dagsborough Rd. from Rt. 13 to Pittsville Rd.

Salisbury 1. Johnson Rd.-Bear Swamp Rd.-Laws Rd. from Powell-
ville to Salisbury
2. Rt. 12 Salisbury to Millville
3. South Division St. from Cambridge to Fruitland
4. Salisbury/Nanticoke Rd. from Salisbury to Catch-
penny

WXCOMICO (continued)

Wango 1. Johson Rd.-Bear Swamp Rd.-Laws Rd. from Powell
ville to Salisbury
2. Ben Davis Rd. west from Rt. 354 to junction with
Rt. 266
3. unnamed road joining segments of Ben Davis Rd.
and Warren Farm Rd.
4. Friendship Rd. from Rt. 354 to Pittsville
Wetipquin 1. Whitehaven Rd. from Salisbury/Nanticoke Rd. to
Senkbeil Rd.
2. Whitehaven Rd. from Green Hill Lndg. to White-
haven Ferry
3. Green Hill Church Rd. from Green Hill Lndg. to
Rt. 317
4. Head of the Creek Rd.
5. Spry Larmore Rd.
6. Salisbury/Nanticoke Rd. from Cox's Corner to
Waterview

Whaleysville 1. Rt. 354 (Whiton Rd.) from Powellville to Willards

WORCESTER

Quad. Map Road

Berlin 1. Rt. 113 Snow Hill to Berlin
2. Berlin/Libertytown Rd. from Berlin to Ninepin
Branch Rd.
3. Stephen Decatur-High School Rd.
4. Sinepuxent Rd.
5. Rt. 346 Berlin to Whaleysville
6. Rt. 113 from Berlin to Peerless Rd.

Boxiron 1. Cherrix Rd.

Dividing Creek 1. Meadowbridge Rd. from Friendship Church to Old
Furnace Rd.
2. Old Furnace Rd. to Rt. 12
3. Five Bridges Rd. to Sand Rd.
4. Sand Rd. to Creek Rd.
5. Whiteburg Rd. from Whitebur(jto Dividing Creek Rd.
6. Oakhall Rd.

Girdletree 1. Rt. 113 Snow Hill to Bethenden Church Rd.
2. Bethenden Church Rd. to Johnson Neck Rd.
3. Johnson Neck Rd. from Bethenden Church Rd. to
Pilchard Rd.
4. Pilchard Rd. from Johnson Neck Rd. to Rt. 366
5. Rt. 366 from Pilchard Rd. to Boston Rd.
6. Rt. 12 Stockton to GirdTetree to Snow Hill

Ninepin 1. Rt. 113 Snow Hill to Berlin
2. Queponco Rd.
3. Ninepin Branch Rd.
4. Patey Woods Rd.
5. Berlin/Libertytown Rd., from Berlin to Ninepin
Branch Rd.
6. Purnell's Crossing Rd. from Libertytown to Powell-
ville

Pocomoke City 1. Boston Rd. from-Rt, 366 to Sheephouse Rd.
2. Sheephouse Rd. from Boston Rd. to Buck Harbor Rd.
3. Buck Harbor Rd. from Sheephouse Rd. to Brantley Rd.
4. Brantley Rd. from Buck Harbor Rd. to Rt. 13
5. Old Pocomoke-Virginia Line Rd. (Much straightened)
6. Dividing Creek Rd. to Scotty Rd.

Public Landing 1. Ayres Lane to Pawpaw Creek Rd.
2. Taylor Rd. to Cedartown
3. Public Landing Rd.

WORCESTER (continued)

Public Landing 4. Porters Crossing Rd.
(contlnued) 5. Rt. 113 Snow Hill to Berlin

Selbyville 1. Rt. 113 from Berlin to Peerless Rd.

Snow Hill 1. Rt. 113 from Snow Hill to Bethenden Church Rd.
2. Rt.1'2Stockton-Girdletree-Snow Hill
3. Castlehill Rd.
4. Cherrix Rd.
S. Rt. 12 from Snow Hill to Furnace Rd.
6. Mt. Olive Church Rd. as far north as Colbourn
7. Snow Hill/Whiton Rd. to Whiton
8. Porters Crossing Rd.
9. Rt. 113 Snow Hill to Berlin
10. Rt. 12 Salisbury to Millville
11. Millville Rd. from Rt. 12 to Furnace Rd.
12. Old Furnace Rd, to Rt. 12
13. Sand Rd. to Creek Rd.
14. Creek Rd. to Old Furnace Rd.
15. Dividing Creek Rd. to Scotty Rd.
16. Scotty Rd. to Oakhall Rd.

Wango I. Snow Hill/Whiton Rd. to Whiton
2. Mt. Olive Church Rd. as far north as Colbourn

Whaleysville 1. Fooks Rd. east from Whaleysville to Campbelltown Rd.
2. Rt. 346 Berlin to Whaleysville

A P P E N D I X I I I

PREDICTIVE AND EXPLANATORY MODELS

One of the objectives of the Lower Delmarva Regional Center is to
develop, over a period of time, a number of models that will serve as
a theoretical basis for the organization of currently available data,
data to be systematically collected in thefuture, and special needs
defined by compliance legislation and research interests. Thus, in
attempting,to provide a stable base for effective future archaeological
work in Lower Delmarva, two general categories of models need to be con-
sidered: predictive and explanatory. Each of these, in turn, would be
expected to subsume a number of specific models that need to be gener-
ated to meet both management and research needs.

The literature on archaeological models is extensive. No attempt
will be made here to either review that literature or to evaluate the
efforts of others in pursuit of modell-ing. Rather, because the needs
of Lower Delmarva can be specified in detail, suggestions will be made
as to the type of modelling deemed appropri ate- and,curre6tly being explored.
However, three articles that may serve as the beginning of a more thor-
ough study might be briefly mentioned. "Social Archeology: The Future
of the Past" by Redman, Curtin, Versaggi and Wanser may be found in
"Social Archeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating", edited by Redman,
Berman, Curtin, Langhorne, Versaggi and Wanser (1978, Academic Press,
New York). This article reviews much of the literature directed toward
building social models. Ezra Zubrow's "Adequacy Criteria and Prediction
in Archeological Models" makes a strong case for the insufficiency of
using a measure of how successfully a particular model predicts a real
data corpus. Zubrow's article has been included as a chapter in Redman's
"Research and Theory in Current Archeology (1973, John Wiley & Sons,
New York). Finally,a provocative model for examining changes in structur-
al complexity in the transition between the Middle and Late Woodland in
the Midwest is provided by Tainter ("Modeling Change in Prehistoric Social
Systems") to be found in Binford's "For Theory Building in Archeology"
(1977, Academic Press, New York).

A primary need that may be addressed through model construction is
that of delineating those areas on Lower Delmarva that are likely to have
preserved evidence of man's past activities. The prehistoric record for
the region, as we know it, is heavily biased since it has been reconstruct-
ed from the artefactual evidence assembled by amateur collectors. Negli-
gible work of a systematic nature has been done by professional archaeolo-
gists and it is not likely that this situation will improve markedly in
the near future. We need to be able to have some device, therefore,
by which we can predict where sites are likely to occur, to what period

they may belo'ag, and to generate a model far site location that can be
field tested and continuously refined. The.proposed-use of a combination
of satellite acquired digital data of theearth's surface, high-altitude
infrared imagery, low level oblique aerial photography and ground surveys,
discussed elsewhere in thts Plan, aims toward,the-development of a model
that has a certain d'egree of mathematical rigor as weT1 as intuitive
flexibility for location and management purposes. There seems little
doubt that areas of high sensitivity may be defined@and that this data
may then be used for predicting early historic and prehistoric settlement
trends.

The situation described above for the prehistoric record applies
to the historic record as well, except that because of the publication of
maps, atlases, and tax records, among others, the data base is somewhat
less biased. Nevertheless Lower-Delmarva's early historic record is
filled with gaps and documented inconsistencies. Attempts to reconstruct
the record for even well known structures has involved countless hours
of work and resulted more often than not in the discovery that the written
record is by no means without inherent errors. Economic, rather than eco-
logic, models may be more appropriately developed for the early historic
period.

A second major need that may be addressed through model construction
is to attempt to go beyond a description of artefact types and-dates and
to focus interpretive efforts on an attempt to reconstruct social systems.
It is clear that the apparently continuous record of habitation on Lower
Delmarva reflects a successful pattern of sociocultural adaptation that
has involved both native and Euro-American peoples for many millennia.
Socio-cultural interpretation of archaeological data is a recurring theme
in archaeology. V. Gordon Childe advocated this approach in "Man Makes
Himself" (1951), Grahame Clark called for interpreting archaeology in a
social mode in "Archaeology and Society" (1957), Lewis Binford founded
the "new archaeology" by insisting on treating archaeology as anthropology
(1962), and in an exceptional example of a plea for interpreting the basis
of human behavior through a careful examination of empirical evidence we
may cite Osborn's "Strandloopers, Mermaids, and Other Fairy Tales (Binford
1977:157-205).

Lower Delmarva is ideally suited to explanatory model building based
on several related lines of inference because the peninsula has, as we have
noted, a rather long continuous record of habitation and because its geog-
raphy is well suited to intensive investigation owing to the natural barriers
presented by the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay. Work already
completed by biologists,,geographers, geologists, and economists can
serve as an important basis for generating a multi-component model. The
first ethnographic study of marine life exploitation should be published
shortly, allowing ethnographic analogies to be made to the archaeological
record. Studies of technology from St. Mary's City may be referenced for
more detailed reconstruction of the early historic period on the Eastern
Share. The work of Kraft and others in Delaware may serve as an important

basis for environmental reconstruction. Thus even with a relatively
weak data base which is strongly biased and varies considerably in
quality, it is possible to look at Lower Delmarva in a. formal way,
construct models that tentatively expl-ain or at least seek to explain
the nature of culture change on the Eastern Shore,,and develop the
data base in a constructive fash-ion.

If the management of the archaeological resources of the Lower
Eastern Shore is to include models, then, there needs to be an accept-
ance of the mundane as well as the esoteric. Predictive models applied
to management goals may be I-argely oriented toward policy dectsion making
by state and local agencies. Predictive models of this type would be
deterministic, provide for quantized estimates of such factors as degree
of potential. damage to the cultural record in a given locale, and limit
the number of variables to a small set for which reasonably accurate
measures may be achieved. By contrast, explanatory models, whether
prediAtive or causal, attempt to organize data and provide for multivar-
iate explanations of cultural phenomena. MathematicaT models that are
explanatory in nature have continued to gain in popularity over the past
two decades. For Lower Delmarva these have included a commitment toward
the development of trend surface analyses and computer simulation studies.
Finally, because they need not necessarily quantize variables, explanatory
models need not be restricted to numerical data analysis. Ethnoarchae-
ological research should therefore be supported as another means of
providing explanatory models that serve to go beyond the artefacts.

The degree to which the development of models succeeds in Lower
Delmarva will, to a large extent, depend on the ability to continue
the collection of data against which those model.s.may be tested. Further-
more, the relationship of model's to.the type of data being investigated
needs to be reviewed periodically. Two separate purposes may be served
by modelling: the reduction of a 1-arge data set and the construction of
a coherent framework around which uneven and fragmentary data may be
organized. It is clear that the archaeological record of Lower Delmar-
va does not as yet suffer from being too voluminous. Therefore the
purpose of modelling for the present must be to provide a coherent frame-
work for what data there exists. For this reason we need not only seek
more data, but the kind of data that will help to flesh out our ideas of
what Delmarva's cultural past was like. In pursuing the collection of
additional data it is also important to remember that the existing resources
need to be protected to the greatest extent possible. Models will aid
in making determinations as to what areas are most sensitive to data loss
through either natural or man-induced destruction.

100

A P P E N D I X I V

LANDSAT DATA APPLICATION TO ARCHAEOLOGY' SURVEYING. AND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT: A DISCUSSION OF TECHNIQUES

ABSTRACT

A new technique is suggested for the monitoring of management
areas and archaeological surveying in the state of Maryland,
Through the use of a Publicly available set of alsorithas, (ASTEP
II) it is Possible to classify and analyze the spectral charac-
teristics of digitized data from orbiting Landsat satellites. The
following discussion gives a brief overview of the functions and
capabilities of the multi-spectral scanner system of the landsat
satellites and comments on specific archaeological applications of
the digitized data generated by the satellite scanning system.
Additional comments are made concerning the integration of other
sources of remotely sensed data with the mss data and Possible
strategies that may be Profitably employed by archaeologists to
utilize this data in testing and evaluating specific locational
models.

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

Satellite acquired data is only one of a variety of techni-
ques for collecting data representing land form variations and
their meaning. Collectively these techniques are referred to as
remote sensing techniques. Although work with other sensors will
be referred to briefly below, it is important to recognize that
all current remote sensors measure some aspect of the electromag-
netic spectrum. A review of techniques, equipment, and applica-
tions of remote sensing as they apply to the archaeologist may be
obtained by referring to 'Remote Sensing** A Handbook for Archeolo-
gists and Cultural Resource managers' (Lyons & Avery 1977). In
the discussion below I will focus primarily on data sensed from
spacer rather than attempting to review all Possible sensors.

101

On July 23, 1972, the, first in a series of satellites now
designated Landsat was launched from Vandenbur Air Force Base in
California. There are currently three satellites in orbit,
although only two are actively transmitting data to Earth. Each
landsat is wholly dedicated to acquiring Earth-resources data by
means of two instruments, The first of these, and the one used
most commonly is a multispectral scanner (MSS) which measures
reflected light from the Earth's surface in four separate bands of
the electromagnetic spectrum* . Two of these bands are in the
visible Portion of the spectrum the remaining-two in the infrared
Portion. The second instrument is a return beam vidicon (RBV) and
is similar to a television comers. This device has not worked
reliably in the Past and little work has been done with rbv data
to date#

Each Landsat satellite is in a circular, near-polar,
sun-synchronous orbit so that any Portion of the Earth's surface
is scanned every eighteen days. Data. is returned to one of
several ground stations where it is recorded and interpreted.
Soon thereafter Landsat signals are further Processed at Goddard
Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt Maryland and converted
into imgery or digital forms* Imagery has the appearance of
high-altitude aerial Photography and standard techniques of Photo
interpretation maw be used to analyze the Landsat created scene.
Digital data from Landsat are available on computer compatible
tapes which Permit the application of risorous statistical techni-
ques for more detailed analysis of -the recorded light values

Archaeologists have not used remotely sensed data as much as
many other earth scientists+ Most Landsat demonstration, Projects
have been carried out by geographers and geologists (or specia-
lists from allied fields) in conjunction with land cover mapping
for forest and crop inventories wildlife habitat mapping flood
damage assessment geological mapping and similar studies. The
failure of archaeologists to take full advantage of remote sense
technology in surveying and planning work is slowly being recti-
fied. An excellent reference source is AERIAL REMOTE SENSING
TECHNIQUES IN ARCHEOLOGY (Lyons and Hitchcock, 1977).

Among the compelling reasons for archaeologists to make
better use of remotely sensed data, including landsat data, is
that new methods for archaeological surveying and planning need to
be developed in the face of rising costs and shrinking funds.
There is also the need for more precise datea than currently avai-
lable in many areas of the mid-Atlantic to permit the formulation
and testing of rigorous predictive and analytical archaeological
models. One such new method, employing data provided by orbiting
Earth satellites is described here.

The work being carried out at Salisbury derives its impetus

102

from studies at Chaco Canyon, in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico,
In that pioneering effort, carried out in the mid-1970's, remote
sensing techniques, including Landsat analysis were intensively
evaluated for their archaeological potential (Lyons, 1977).
National Park Service archaeologists located and mapped approxima-
tely 400 miles of Anasazi roadways using both conventional and new
remote sensing techniques (Lyons, Ebert, and Hitchcock, 1976).
Half of the road network was identified an the basis of archaeolo-
sically demonstrated occurrences; the other half by reference to
maps produced by law and high level aerial photography in planime-
tric and oblique form. A map with this data was then overlaid off
a Landsat photo image which revealed that the major road branches
lead to identifiable resource areas presumed to have also existed
in the past.

Up to this point the Pueblo road system had been seen princi-
pally as a means by which interdependent communities were integra-
ted. Now, however, through the use of Landsat and aerial photo-
srammetric evaluations, the road network can also be demonstrated
to have been a necessary development providing reliable and easy
access to vital resources located outside areas of primary occupa-
tion. For example, some branches of the network were shown to.
lead to timbered mountainous zones which may have provided wood
and hunting, others lead to areas which may have served as
possible sources of fish, and still others lead to locations which
can be shown to be load sources of pottery clay.

In applying Landsat data analysis techniqes developed for
the Southwest to the investigation of archaeological sites in the
mid-Atlantic region, new problems needed to be solved. Standing
crops and forest canopies (such as are common in the Middle Atlan-
tic region) prevent viewing the ground directly satellite
during much of the year. Urban and suburban development,
man-induced alterations (such as strip-mining and reclamation),
river dredging with associated spoil heaping, and effluent dispo-
sal mask or obliterate evidence of man's Past cultural activities.
Finally, even in ideal areas, sites are likely to be small and
scattered, especially for the Prehistoric Period.

It is the Purpose of this report to show how Landsat data may
be used in the investigation of both large scale and small scale
archaeological study units. Application of Landsat imagery to the
definition of gross ecological zones has been described by Schalk
and Lyons (1977) for the Southwest. It will be shown that similar
work needs to be undertaken in the mid-Atlantic region. Recent
work at Shenandoah National Park (Ebert and Gutirerrez, in Press)
appears to be a major step in extending the Chaco experience to
the Eastern Woodlands. Studies of this nature indicate that
fixing the field of study well beyond the individual site effecti-
vely circumvents most of the Problems associated with the inter-

103

pretation of satellite data as noted by Ebert (1977), Lyons (1977)
and others. However, as will be seen shortly, this occurs not
without a significant loss of data needed for potentially impor-
tant research applications.

Utilizing this macro appr0oa8chr it is Possible to gain a s0wno-
Ptic- overview of surface 0geolo6g0wv topographic 0featur0esp and soil
differentiation, For -exampley non-linear 0Patternst, including
those of Potential interest to archae4ol4o0gistsp maw be detected.
B0w using the derived reflectance characteristics of known 0se4ol4o4tic
features it is Possible to extract discernible Patterns that h4aver
a high Prob0abilit0v of being culturall0v, significant from the total",
data set which would be expected to include n4atur0all0w occurring
arcuate and circular Patterns. It is also Possible to deduce
Paleo-sedimentation Patterns from modern satellite derived 0an4a-
lo6gsp to delineate large geologic lineament trends and smaller
fault zones and to define larster rock alteration zones; all with
reference to Landsat data. Such information has obvious impor-
tance to the stud0w of Prehistoric land form changes and the loca-
tion of lithic sources used for tool manufacture, These data maw
also. be tested against a model of resource exploitation and serve
as a basis for an ecological approach toward the interpreta2eion of-
Past human activitw+

The shortcomings inherent in this approach are- as suggested
abover a Product of scale. Site-specific information cannot be
obtained and locall variations within regional trends are easilv
lost. Neverthelessr the extensive experience of geographers and
geologists mav be drawn upon bw the archaeologist in his attempt
to incorporate land cover and geologic data in his work*

A second approach that would Provide a solution to the Prob-
lems Posed bv the dispersed nature of archaeological remains and
the limitations of scale and resolution of satellite data is to
focus on improved technimues of map registration and Pixel analv-
sis. This would necessitate acouirin6g computer software to reduce
locational error to a five Pixel field and to anal0w4ze the spectral
characteristics of each Pixel for each 0of the four spectral bands
in considerable detail* Landsat date could then be used bw the
archaeological communitL-i for specific site locatio6nr critical area
assessmentr and temporal monitoring of selected areas of arch00aeo-
logical significance. Management of arc,ae04ologic00al resources
wou8id also become Practical on a regional or state-wide basis with
the creation of detailed computer-directed site inventories deve-
loped with the aid of anal0ws6es derived- from Landsat data.
Furthermor00er these data would be sufficientl00v refined to Permit
inclusion in a s6wstems model of cultural interpretation*

A Prelimi2nar2v report on work. completed at Salisbur@j State College
has been recentl-::@ rer-6ort6ed b0-_ 28t24he author i6n a Paper given at t4h2e

104

1981 Middle Archaeological Conference and will not be repeated
here, However the general-operational framework in which this
work is being conducted needs to be referred to since an under-
standing of the Procedures advocated elsewhere in this report
depends on a familiarity with this framework. Preliminaru work
completed at Salisbury State College and the Lower Delmarva
Regional Center for Archaeological Research. The Present efforts
are directed toward integrating the efforts of the Department of,
Sociology and Anthropology and the Department of Geography and
Regional Planning in implementing the integrated set of computer
Programs (ASTEP II) used for the Processing of satellite data.'
The final objective of the work is to Provide the archaeological
community in Marwla and with the operational capability to use
satellite data for both research and functional resource manage-
merit. Toward that end our work is, being staged to allow testing
of the Programs and analsis technioues to be described below
during the development and implementation of the Lands at analwsis
capability.

Use of the ASTEP II Programs at Salisbury in the Pursuit of a
research objective involves a standard sequence of steps. It is
first necessary to select an appropriate scene (available- from-
EROS on standard tape reels recorded at 1600 bits Per inch)*
Using the Programs' data extraction rolitinesy a subfield.of speci-
fic interest is defined deskewedr leoqcorrectedr and scaled# For
archaeological Purposes it is desireable to foci-is on river
drainage sywstems because these Provide not oril.i excellent topogra-
hic references for map reaistration but also conform to a stan-
dard stud unit for archaeological research#-
Acauisition of a black and white Photographic image showing the
full Landsat scene is a useful method helpful in locating areas of
interest. The full scene covers approximately 34PO8O2O km with a
ground resoluton of 80 meters. In order to develop computerized
maps the data is corrected for lineprinter Print characteristics
and one or several channels are examined. A set of arttitrary
symbols (usually no more than 125 different symbols are customarily
used) is then chosen where each symbol represents a ranger or
slicer of reflected light values. -Water and dry sand in ridges are
easily distinguished in the infrared and a map generated from
channel 4 data alone has Proven useful in looking at the study
area in a Preliminary fashion# More information contained within
the data may be extracted by emploving a variety of statistical
techniques for Pattern recognition.

Pattern recognition techniques mew be divided into two broad
classes*' Unsupervised classifications and supervised classifica-
tions* The former unsupervised classifications allow the compu-
ter to generate clusters of Pixels with similar Properties in each
of the four spectral bands. These clusters may then be evaluated
statistical1y by examining interclass distances sismas and a

105

table of Euclidean and angular distance relationships,* Once,
refined the signatures for each of the clusters are shotord* -Each
signature represents four means and associated covariance matrix
of,the reflectance values for each multispectral band* These,
signatures are then, supplied to other subroutines which build an
.image that-maw be graphicallu displaed# The advantage to unsu-
Pervised classifications lies in the ability to proceed with an ?
Analqwsis of a Landsat scene without anw foreknowledge of the
terrain features* Decisions concerning the Placement of Pixels
into groups are made Purelw on mathematical grounds* The disadr
vantage lies in the Possibility that the computer-generated clur
sters maw be difficult to relate to ground features and maw in
fact not accurately reveal de sired features# In the case of
archaeological site location low site density maw result in their
elimination as a significant cluster#

The second class of techniouest supervised classification
reqauires that the researcher select training areas@ representing
known ground features. These training areas are likely to include
water agricutlural land urban areas bare soil forests and
hopefully archaeological sites# Each training area once,selec
ted is analwzed bw the computer and signatures are developed for-
these areas. The evaluation of these signatures Proceeds as above
and an the basis of successive evaluation and refinement a final
set of signatures is sought which when supplied to image building
subroutines will reveal the extent to which the traning areas
represent the entire field under study The advantage to super-
vised classifications lies in the Potential to identify man 0Pqre-
viousl unidentified features such as archaeological sites. The
disadvanaga lies in the fact that only known features are identi-
fied and in the case of small training are as as are inevitable in
archaeology the signatures maw be Poorly defined statistically.

Usuall a combination of supervised and unsupervised techni-
GU0qes vield the best results# The success of the enterprise is
larlelw a function of ePerience in using' the various technioues.
Some expertise in data Processing and inferential statistics is
also desirable* Howevery success maw be achieved bw the novice
especially in, the Production of base maps and simple classifica-
tion. The more subtle research objectives? especially those invo-
lving the identification of small archaeological targets in
temporal aqauencey reauire greater familiarity with Principles of
remote sensing and the reflectance characteristics of ground
objects as measured by Landsat's multispectral scanner.

The accuracy of maps generated from the satellite data must be
evaluated by comparison to other sources of similar information
that can be independently related to specific areas on the ground.
This Process of Iroundtruthing may be achieved in a variety of
Ways+ The most obviousy biit alo the -most time-consumingy of

106

these is to walk the area A more difficient but less accurate
way is to overly the study area by Plane This is most commonly
done from an approximate altitude of 1OO0O feet. Photoposphs in
color and color-infrared are taken at an oblieue angle* it isr
however still difficult to relate a satellite map to the aerial
Photographs# A bridging Platform is Provided by NASA's high alti-
tude aircraft* U-2 cover qate is at 60,0OO feet and ideally should
be matched to the season of the Landsat overflight and the
low-level over flight. Each frame of the U-2 coverage-is a color
infrared Product which can be compared'successfully at full scale
to the Landsat maps and at enlarged scale to the low altitude'
aerial Photographs*

Thus far discussion has largely been concerned with site iden-
tification and location, The development of strategies for
resource management can also Profit from the-inclusion of Landsat
data. Landsat analyses are among the most cost-effective for the
Production of thematic maps when applied to larger geographic.
areas* Landsat data maw be used in several ways to facilitate the
management of archaeological resources and are currently being
incorporated into a management Plan for lower Delmarva. The first
of these ways of applwing Lands at data to the managemet of-
archaeological resources is to Provide uniform maps indicating the
distribution and nature of archaeological and natural *features.
Monitoring the interaction between the two (the effect of erosion
on sites for example) and ee-.amirting the relationship between site
occurrence and topographic features is a Primary goal. A second
was is to allow for updating of the data base bw acouiring, data
tapes from Landsat overflights at frequent intervals# A third was
is to evaluate the effect of' cultural stress (construction and
land development) and natural stress (erosion and Pollution) on
alchaeolo gicall sensitive resources bv computer 0qanalwsis of
Landsat digital imagery.

This report has tried to suggest a number of ways in which
Landsat may Provide date suitable for investigating specific
research questions management decisions and site identification
based on work being carried out at Salisburo Marwland is in an
ideal Position to develop the Landsat Program for archaeological
application in the mid-Atlantic in that its academic institutions
have a common computer capability. The landsat interpretative
computer Programs are accessible by, all state colleges and univer-
sities as well as other state agencies such as the Dept of State
Planq;0q;in12qg. Further? Maryland's varied landscape and archaeological
record Permit the testing of Predictive models derived from satel-
lite data. Future work. in the Pocomoke drainage and elsewhere on
the Eastern Shore Salisbury Regional Center will attempt to
contribute to the more general evaluation of this new technique.

107

SOURCES CITED

EBERTP JAMES R.
1977 REMOTE SENSING WITHIN AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FRAME-
WORK1 METHODSP ECONOMICSP AND THEORY. In AERIAL REMOTE
SENSING TECHNIQUES IN ARCHEOLOGYP Thomas 0qR* Lwons and
Robert K, 6qHitch4qc4qo4qckp 0qeds,

LY0qON-6qSp THOMAS R.
1977 REMOTE SENSING EXPERIMENTS IN CULTURAL RESOURCE
STUDIES## NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL
EXPLORATION SURVEY AND ANALYSISY Chaco Centery
National Park Service#

LYONSP THOMAS R. And THOMAS E+ AVERY
1977 remote sensing#* A handbook. for archeolozists
AND CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGERSP National
Park Service.

LYONP THOMAS R Arid ROBERT K4 HITCHCOC2qK eqds#
1?7*7' AERIAL REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES
IN ARCHEOLOGY, REPORTS OF THE CHACO
CENTE8qRY no 2@ National Park.
Servicey Cultural Resources
Management Division washinton

SCHALKY RANDALL F# And THOMAS R. LYONS
1977 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF LANDSAT IMAGERY IN ARCHAE-
OLOG)' AN EXAMPLE FROM THE SAN JUAN BASIN NEW MEXICO#
REMOTE SENSING EXPERIMENTS IN CULTURAL RESOURCE
STuDIES Thomas R. Lyons, assembler.

14 .@
0

3 6668 00000 8732