Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
113
Introduction
Marine foods, including a variety of shellfish,
finfish, mammals, and birds, were an important part
of Native North American human diets throughout
history. Along North America’s Atlantic Coast, a
series of estuaries, bays, and tidal marshes, along
with the extensive outer coast, provided access to
a diverse array of wildlife that was often a focus of
human subsistence (Bernstein 1993, 2006; Bourque
1995; Custer 1988; Thompson and Worth 2011).
With scores of estuaries flanking the Middle Atlantic
Coast, estuarine foods were of particular importance
for ancient peoples who lived on the many subestuaries,
rivers, and creeks of the Chesapeake Bay (Barber
2008, Custer 1988, Dent 1995, Gallivan 2016,
Miller 2001).
Native Americans and later Euro-American
colonists, hunted, fished, and gathered a wide variety
of organisms from the Chesapeake and its many
subestuaries. Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica)
were particularly important and are often found in
extremely high abundance in the numerous shell
middens located throughout the bay’s shoreline. A
number of projects have helped build a framework
for understanding Chesapeake Bay coastal resource
exploitation, especially through the excavation of
shell middens (Custer 1988; Custer et al. 1997; Gallivan
2016; Gibb and Hines 1997; Herbert 1995;
Holmes 1907; Lowery 2005; Monroe and Goodrich
2012; Potter 1982, 1993; Reeder-Myers et al. 2016;
Rick et al. 2011, 2015a; Walker 2003; Waselkov
1982). Most of these studies have confirmed that
these middens are generally dominated by eastern
oysters, with some middens, particularly during the
Middle (500 BC–AD 900, 2500–1100 BP) and Late
(AD 900–1600, 1100–400 BP) Woodland, containing
few shellfish taxa other than oysters (Custer
1988, 1989; Potter 1982; Rick et al. 2015a; Waselkov
1982). These sites stand in contrast to some
Early Woodland (1200–500 BC, 3200–2500 BP) and
Late Archaic (4800–1200 BC, 6800–3200 BP) middens
that contain a richer assemblage of shellfish,
though oysters are still generally the most abundant
species.
Our chronology-building work (Rick et al. 2014)
and research at 7 Rhode River sites supports a trend
noted by Steponaitis (1983) for the Patuxent River
that suggested an increase in middens during the
Early Woodland and later. Despite extensive 14C
dating, we have not yet documented a shell midden
older than 18AN308 (1250–800 BC), which could
be due to the inundation of older sites by rising sea
levels or could suggest that this part of the Chesapeake
did not yet support extensive oyster beds that
would make human exploitation feasible.
In this paper, we present the analysis of shellfish
and vertebrate faunal remains from 7 shell middens
excavated at the Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center (SERC) on the Rhode River, a subestuary
of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland (Fig. 1). We
build on previous shell midden research in the Rhode
River area at a Middle Woodland site (18AN284/285;
Gibb and Hines 1997), as well as our previous efforts
to establish a chronology for shell middens
3000 Years of Human Subsistence and Estuarine Resource Exploitation
on the Rhode River Estuary, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland
Torben C. Rick1,*, Leslie A. Reeder-Myers1, Michael J. Carr1, and Anson H. Hines2
Abstract - Chesapeake Bay is home to highly productive marine ecosystems that were a key part of Native American
subsistence for millennia. Despite a number of archaeological projects focused on Chesapeake Bay prehistory, key questions
remain about the nature of human use of the estuary through time and across space. Recent work at 7 shell middens
on the Rhode River Estuary, MD, provides insight into human subsistence and estuarine res ource exploitation from ~3200
years ago through the mid-19th century. This is an important diachronic sequence of coastal land use and subsistence for the
Chesapeake and helps fill a gap in our understanding of coastal adaptations along North America’s Atlantic Coast. Despite
climate change, fluctuating sea levels, and the likely appearance of maize agriculture in the area ~1000 years ago, Native
American exploitation of oysters and estuarine resources remained fairly consistent across the Early to Late Woodland.
These data stand in contrast to the mid-1800s assemblage, which was likely deposited by 19th-century Euro-Americans and
contains overall larger oysters perhaps obtained from deeper waters that may not have been a focus of Native American
harvest. When placed in the context of other regional data, our analysis illustrates the value of shell middens for helping
understand human subsistence strategies and the historical ecol ogy of the North American Atlantic Coast.
North American East Coast Shell Midden Research
Journal of the North Atlantic
1Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560.
2Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD 21037. *Corresponding author - rickt@si.edu.
2017 Special Volume 10:113–125
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
114
throughout the watershed (Rick et al. 2014). This
study is part of our broader research program focused
on shell middens and other sites throughout the Chesapeake
region to better understand ancient human environmental
interactions and historical ecology. The
7 Rhode River middens discussed here date from the
Early Woodland (~3200 years ago) through the 19th
century (~100 years ago), comprising mostly Native
American middens but also 2 sites that were occupied
by later Historic period peoples. These data provide
a means to understand late Holocene human subsistence
strategies and human environmental interactions
across the bay and to test previous hypotheses
about greater faunal richness in Early Woodland shell
middens compared to later times.
Background and Context
The streams, rivers, and creeks that flow into
Chesapeake Bay come from a massive watershed
that is ~166,000 km2. This watershed and the nature
of the regional topography make Chesapeake Bay
the largest estuary in the continental United States,
covering some 300 km from north to south and between
6 and 60 km from east to west. The modern
Chesapeake Bay formed during the Holocene and
is the latest iteration of many bays that formed in
the region during previous interglacial periods that
drowned the lower reaches of the Susquehanna
River Valley (Bratton et al. 2003).
SERC is located on ~11 km2 of land surrounding
the Rhode River, MD. The Rhode River forms
a Chesapeake Bay sub-estuary about 130 km from
the bay’s mouth. The Rhode River contains several
smaller creeks and tidal embayments that feed into
the larger system, including Boathouse Creek, Muddy
Creek, and Sellman Creek. This region is in the
lower mesohaline zone, where salinities are lower
and generally more variable than areas closer to the
mouth. The area contains a variety of terrestrial and
Figure 1. Location of the Chesapeake Bay and the study area in the Rhode River estuary. All dots represent sites that were
radiocarbon dated, while red dots indicate sites included in the faunal analysis reported here. Although the paleogeography
of the Rhode River estuary cannot be precisely reconstructed, the 3-m and 7.5-m bathymetric lines show how the shape of
the estuary may have changed through time.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
115
aquatic habitats providing access to estuarine and
terrestrial resources, including a variety of plant
(hazelnut, wild blueberry, tubers) and animal (deer,
oysters, blue crabs, fish) resources. These and other
factors attracted Native Americans to the region
since at least the terminal Pleistocene, with numerous
sites dating to the Archaic and Woodland periods
(Ballwebber 1990; Cox et al. 2007a, 2007b; Gibb
and Hines 1997; Rick et al. 2014). Historically, the
area was used for timber harvesting, agricultural
and grazing lands, residential housing, and scientific
research and restoration in forest and other ecosystems.
The first known human use of coastal resources
in the Rhode River occurred ~3200 years
ago when sea level in Chesapeake Bay was about
7.5 m below modern mean sea level (MSL)
(Engelhart and Horton 2012, Engelhart et al.
2011). Today the mouth of the Rhode River subestuary
is about 5 m deep (Fig. 1). It is unlikely
that the subestuary had developed by the Early
Woodland occupation, although it is not known
how much sediment has accumulated in the Rhode
River during historic times and the precise timing
of estuarine development is unclear.
Archaeological research at SERC during the
last 45 years has documented dozens of archaeological
sites, including numerous shell middens
(Ballwebber 1990; Cox 2007a; Gibb and Hines
1997; Sperling 2008; Wilke and Thompson 1977;
Wright 1968, 1969, 1973, 1975). Some of the
property’s colonial and historical sites have been
excavated (see Cox 2007a), but only a few of
SERC’s prehistoric shell middens have been studied
(Wright 1968, 1969), and quantified prehistoric
faunal data are available only from 18AN284/285,
which contains Middle (500 BC–AD 900) and Late
(AD 900–1500) Woodland deposits (Gibb and
Hines 1997). Based on the chronology reported
by Rick et al. (2014), 61 archaeological sites in
the Rhode River and adjacent watersheds have
confirmed prehistoric components. Fifty of these
contain shell middens, and the other sites include
lithic scatters and procurement sites. The chronology
of these sites spans the Woodland period, from
the Early Woodland (3200 years ago) through the
Middle and Late Woodland and into the mid-19th
century. Building on this chronology, we report on
the faunal remains from 7 archaeological sites that
cover much of the known Rhode River archaeological
chronology for shell middens. Most of these
sites, especially shell middens, are highly vulnerable
to erosion from sea-level rise, making them a
priority for research.
Field and Laboratory Methods
We excavated 7 shell middens (18AN225,
18AN285, 18AN286, 18AN287, 18AN308,
18AN839, and 18AN1323) located in different parts
of the watershed (Fig. 1). These sites were chosen
based on their location, preservation, and chronology,
with the goal being to provide a diachronic
and representative sequence of the shell middens
in the area. Test units (generally 1 m x 1 m or 1 m
x 2 m) at each of these sites were designed to provide
representative samples of the midden deposits,
especially shellfish and faunal remains, as well as
ceramic, stone, and other artifacts. These sites generally
lacked clear stratigraphy and were excavated
in arbitrary 10-cm levels. After excavating our larger
test units, 25 cm x 25 cm column samples were excavated
in the unit sidewalls at each of the sites.
All test unit sediments were poured over 0.635-
cm (¼-inch) mesh, with left oyster valves, vertebrate
faunal remains, and artifacts retained for analysis. For
the column samples, the residuals were poured over
0.318-cm (1/8-inch) or 0.159-cm (1/16-inch) mesh,
with all residuals retained for analysis. Bulk soil
samples and materials for radiocarbon dating were
also collected in situ from the unit sidewalls. Both
18AN226 and 18AN839 were waterlogged deposits
with difficult excavation conditions. Consequently,
for both of these sites we obtained bulk samples,
each from a ~25-cm-diameter area, with all materials
poured over 0.318-cm (1/8-inch) mesh. Table 1 provides
a summary of the size of each site, number and
volume of excavated samples, and other vital statistics
for the excavation of each shell midden based on
data presented in Rick et al. (2014) and herein.
All of the sites, except the historic shell middens
at 18AN839 and 18AN1323, were mapped using a
Topcon laser total station (Figs. 2–5). We also excavated
4-inch auger holes and 25-cm shovel test pits
to help determine site boundaries and the nature of
site deposits. Our maps and site boundaries differ
slightly from previous recorded site sizes and research.
After excavation, all materials were returned to
the National Museum of Natural History’s Department
of Anthropology for analysis. The analysis
of oyster size from test units, column samples, and
bulk samples is reported in the context of a large
study of Chesapeake Bay oyster size from ancient
to modern times (Rick et al. 2016). Here we examine
the entire faunal assemblage recovered from
0.318-cm (1/8-inch) and larger residuals in the
column and bulk samples (Table 1). Vertebrate faunal
remains were less abundant than shellfish, and
consequently we also report on vertebrate remains
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
116
identified in the 0.635-cm (¼-inch) and larger residuals
of our test units.
Where possible, faunal remains were identified
to genus or species using comparative collections
at the National Museum of Natural History, including
materials from the Divisions of Mammals and
Reptiles/Amphibians, and the Department of Invertebrate
Zoology. Because of fragmentation and
poor preservation, we were unable to determine the
species of mussels present in the assemblage. These
fragments may come from either hooked (Ischadium
recurvum) or ribbed (Geukensia demissa) mussels.
Similarly, we identified both Mya arenaria (softshell
clam) and Tagelus plebius (stout tagelus) hinges in
the deposits, but fragments without a hinge were
equivocal and identified as undifferentiated clam.
For vertebrate faunal remains, we followed similar
protocols including undifferentiated bone, mammal,
and fish categories for specimens that were small
and lacked diagnostic features.
After identification, all faunal materials were
weighed in grams. We calculated minimum number
of individuals (MNI) for all shellfish and vertebrate
faunal remains based on a count of non-repetitive elements,
usually sided long bones for vertebrates and
sided hinges or spires for shellfish. Number of identified
specimens (NISP) or counts were also obtained
for vertebrate faunal remains, but because of the
high degree of fragmentation and massive quantities,
counts were not obtained for shellfish. Archaeologists
have long struggled with finding appropriate ways
to compare quantified archaeological shellfish and
Table 1. Brief description, site size, 14C dated components, and total excavated volume from seven shell middens. Site size estimates and data
obtained from site data forms on file at the Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, MD, with some site depths based on more recent assessments.
14C dated time periods: EW = Early Woodland, MW = Middle Woodland, LW = Late Woodland, and H = Colonial or Historic period.
14C dated Total
Site Brief description Area (m2) component(s) volume (L)
18AN226 Woodland era shell midden with plow zone and less than 20–30 cm deep. 3782 LW 50
Excavated two 50-L bulk samples.
18AN285 A large multicomponent shell midden. We tested areas in the southern/eastern 14,400 LW, MW 550
margins. Excavated a 1 m x 1 m test unit and 25 cm x 25 cm column sample.
18AN286 Shell midden located on creek bank on surface and buried 1 m de ep. 288 LW, MW 584
Excavated a 1 m x 2 m test unit, 25 cm x 25 cm column sample, a nd a 35-L bulk
sample in a deeply buried midden in the creek exposure.
18AN287 Shell midden located on creek bank buried under 50 cm of sedime nt. 270 LW 511
Excavated two 1 m x 1 m units and two 25 cm x 25 cm column samp les.
18AN308 Shell midden located on edge of creek. Exavated 1 m x 2 m test unit and 25 cm 1365 EW 738
x 25 cm column sample.
18AN839 Shell midden on edge of creek. Excavated 20-L bulk sample. 3233 H 15
18AN1323 Shell midden located on edge of creek. Excavated 25 cm x 25 cm column sample. 27 H 59
Figure 2. Picture of 18AN226 from the water looking east and a map of the site.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
117
vertebrate faunal remains (see Spiess and Lewis 2001
for a review of the topic), a challenge we also faced in
our study. Consequently, we generally compare shellfish
to each other and vertebrates to each other with
limited comparison between these classes. Shellfish
vastly outnumber vertebrate faunal remains, but we
caution that a single deer or large fish can provide far
more meat than individual shellfish.
Finally, we also measured the height in mm for all
whole oyster shells (see Rick et al. 2016). Our previous
study of oysters from sites in the Rhode River
and elsewhere in the Chesapeake did not include juvenile
oysters smaller than 35 mm in height to make
these data more comparable to modern and fossil
assemblages. Here we include all oyster sizes including
specimens smaller than 35 mm. We note that the
inclusion of these data had little effect on our average
sizes or previous interpretations (Rick et al. 2016).
Radiocarbon Dating and Site Chronologies
Rick et al. (2014) reported on the chronology
of shell middens in the Rhode River watershed and
provided details on dating procedures, correction,
calibration, and interpretation. Here, we focus on the
chronologies for the 7 sites (Table 2). All of the samples
were removed from excavated contexts in stratigraphic
position in unit sidewalls after excavation.
Figure 3. Photo of field work at 18AN286 and site map for 18AN28 6 and 18AN285. Site 285 excludes an area that is cur -
rently developed and previously excavated by Gibb and Hines (19 97).
Figure 4. Photo of Fieldwork at 18AN287 and site map. The deposits appear to be considerably smaller than when the site
was originally recorded, which could be from erosion, overestim ation of the original site size, or a combination.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
118
Figure 5. Photo of fieldwork at 18AN308 and map of site and exca vations.
Table 2. Radiocarbon data from seven shell middens on the Rhode River Estuary, MD. Provenience: c.s. = column sample, cmbs = cm below
surface , cmbd = cm below datum. Material: C.v.= Crassostrea virginica. C.v. t.= Crassostrea virginica shell temper. Char = charcoal.
All dates calibrated using OxCal 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009, 2013; Reimer et al., 2013) and applying a standard ΔR of 97 ± 18 years for all
marine shells. 18AN285 listed here is from recent work by Rick on the far southern edge of the site not tested by Gibb and Hines (1997).
All samples were analyzed by the National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility.
Site Provenience Material Lab # (OS-) δ13C 14C age Calibrated age (AD/BC, 2σ)
18AN226 Bulk sample 1, ~20 cmbs C.v. 90147 -3.76 1030 ± 40 AD 1330–1480
Bulk sample 2, ~20 cmbs C.v. 90143 -3.57 1100 ± 30 AD 1300–1430
Probe, 32–34 cmbs base of midden C.v. 84252 -5.07 1180 ± 20 AD 1250–1390
18AN285 Unit 1 c.s., 41–44 cmbs C.v. 90323 -3.67 910 ± 30 AD 1440–1590
Unit 1 c.s., 5 cmbs C.v. 90153 -3.27 930 ± 25 AD 1430–1540
Unit 1 c.s., 70–71 cmbs C.v. 90145 -3.56 1890 ± 25 AD 550–680
Aug 3 C.v. 90148 -3.66 2210 ± 25 AD 150–360
18AN286 Unit 1 c.s., 30 cmbs C.v. 90154 -3.91 950 ± 25 AD 1430–1520
Unit 1, Level 4 C.v. t. 92581 -5.03 950 ± 25 AD 1430–1520
25 cm, base of deep exposure C.v. 90146 -3.54 1000 ± 35 AD 1350–1500
Unit 1, Level 4 C.v. t. 92433 -3.83 1040 ± 25 AD 1340–1470
Creek exposure, 25 cmbs C.v. 86708 -3.19 2020 ± 25 AD 400–570
18AN287 Unit 2, 66 cmbs C.v. 90141 -3.4 985 ± 25 AD 1400–1500
Unit 1, 55–58 cmbd C.v. 90144 -4.22 990 ± 30 AD 1360–1510
20 cmbs in creek exposure C.v. 86704 -3.86 1110 ± 25 AD 1300–1420
Unit 1, 65 cmbd C.v. 90142 -4.1 1120 ± 30 AD 1290–1420
Unit 1 South, Level 1 C.v. t. 92432 -4.91 1390 ± 25 AD 1040–1200
Unit 1 South, Level 1 C.v. t. 92908 -4.54 1510 ± 45 AD 860–1110
18AN308 Unit 1, 35 cmbd, pair 1 Char 98286 -25.65 2760 ± 20 970–840 BC
Unit 2, 31 cmbd, pair 2 Char 98285 -24.81 2900 ± 20 1190–1010 BC
C.S. 1, 42–43 cmbd, bottom of deposit C.v. 98202 -2.81 3150 ± 20 950–800 BC
Unit 1, 35 cmbd, pair 1 C.v. 98206 -3.17 3210 ± 20 1030–840 BC
Unit 2, 31 cmbd, pair 2 C.v. 98207 -3.96 3230 ± 20 1060–870 BC
20 cmbs in creek exposure C.v. 92427 -3.54 3240 ± 25 1090–880 BC
STP2, 33 cmbs C.v. 98204 -1.83 3250 ± 20 1090–890 BC
C.S. 1, 16-18 cmbd, top of deposit C.v. 98203 -3.74 3250 ± 20 1090–890 BC
Creek bed exposure, in situ C.v. 90320 -2.23 3360 ± 30 1250–1020 BC
18AN839 Eroding exposure, 10 cmbs C.v. 90150 -3.53 510 ± 25 AD 1840–modern
Bulk sample 1, 12–14 cmbs C.v. 98205 -5.03 605 ± 25 AD 1710–modern
18AN1323 Base of unit 69–70 cmbs C.v 84217 -3.98 465 ± 30 AD 1850–modern
Top of Unit, 10–13 cmbs C.v. 84216 -4.97 550 ± 25 AD 1770–modern
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
119
mented in 7 samples from 18AN287. The earliest
dates from 18AN287 were on shell temper from
pottery, which were slightly older than the oysters
we dated from the site and may derive from the use
of older oysters as shell temper (Rick and Lowery
2013). The midden deposits at 18AN287, however,
likely date to ca. AD 1290–1510. A small bulk
sample from 18AN839 appears to date primarily to
the 18th century, although a date from another area
of the site dated to the 19th century, but we suspect
this may be primarily a small, badly eroded mid- to
late-18th-century shell midden. Finally, historic nails
and 2 radiocarbon dates indicate a mid- to late-19thcentury
occupation for 18AN1323.
Collectively, the radiocarbon dates from these
sites indicate that we have acquired a large sample
of Early Woodland faunal remains from 18AN308; a
small Middle Woodland assemblage from 18AN285;
large Late Woodland assemblages from 18AN226,
18AN286, and 18AN287; and moderate assemblages
from Historic period samples from the 18th and
19th centuries at 18AN839 and 18AN1323 (Table 1).
Shell Middens and Human Subsistence on the
Rhode River
Based on our field and laboratory work at the
7 sites, we found that the 7 shell middens are all
relatively well-preserved and dominated by the remains
of eastern oysters. Five of the shell middens
(18AN226, 188AN286, 18AN287, 18AN839, and
18AN308) contain relatively thin midden deposits
that are less than about 25 cm thick and appear to
be from relatively short-term occupations (a few
centuries or less). As noted on our site maps and
in Table 1, these 5 sites do not cover very large areas,
with all of these sites less than about 3800 m2.
18AN285 is unique for the large area that it covers
(>14,000 m2), with our work focusing on a dif ferent
part of the site than Gibb and Hines (1997). This
site also contains one of the longest occupations
for the shell middens we studied, covering both the
Middle and Late Woodland. The deposits in Unit 1
at 18AN285 were relatively well preserved except
for a ~20-cm plow zone in the upper portion of the
deposits. The lack of clear stratigraphy at 18AN285
also made it difficult to determine the depth at
which the Middle Woodland occupation ended and
the Late Woodland occupation began. Based on
our observations and radiocarbon dating, we argue
that only the deepest deposits date to the Middle
Woodland, and in previous analyses we were careful
to eliminate some of the middle levels because of
possible mixing (Rick et al. 2016). 18AN1323, the
Eastern oysters from each site were radiocarbon dated
because these samples have proven to be suitable
for dating in the Chesapeake and elsewhere along
the Atlantic Coast where reliable reservoir corrections
(ΔR) have been established (Rick et al. 2012,
Thomas 2008, Thomas et al. 2013). Nonetheless, as
with any material used for radiocarbon dating, there
are potential challenges in dating marine shell, including
reservoir corrections (ΔR), 13C/12C isotopic
fractionation, and other factors. We have taken care
in our analysis to account for these variables as best
as possible and believe we have built the most accurate
chronologies for the sites possible.
Although recent studies suggest that the Chesapeake
and other Atlantic estuaries have more limited
intra-shell variability than specimens from
the Pacific Coast with strong marine upwelling
(Rick and Henkes 2014, Thomas et al. 2013), we
obtained oversized (~7–10 mm) oyster fragments
near the ligament area that crossed over multiple
growth bands to minimize these problems. All of
our samples were sent to the National Ocean Sciences
AMS (NOSAMS) Facility at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution for analysis. Details of
the radiocarbon dating procedure can be found at
http://www.whoi.edu/nosams. All of the radiocarbon
dates on shellfish obtained in this study were
calibrated using the OxCal 4.2 calibration program
(Bronk Ramsey 2009, 2013) and the Marine13 calibration
curve (Reimer et al. 2013) with a ΔR of 97
± 18. This procedure is based on corrections from
the Rhode River area (Rick et al. 2014). Charcoal
samples from 18AN308 were calibrated using the
Intcal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013).
Thirty-one 14C dates from the 7 sites document
occupation spanning the Early Woodland to mid-
19th century. 18AN308 is the oldest of the sites with
9 calibrated radiocarbon dates suggesting an occupation
from 1250 to 840 cal BC, entirely within
the Early Woodland. 18AN285 contains multiple
components that span the Middle to Late Woodland
between cal AD 550 and 1590, with a slightly
earlier component dated to ca. AD 150–360 identified
in an auger on the northern site boundary and
not represented in our faunal samples from Unit 1.
Most of the deposits included in this study date to
the Late Woodland, including 18AN226, 18AN286,
and 18AN287. At 18AN226, three dates document a
sequence from cal AD 1250 to 1480. At 18AN286,
four dates document an occupation between about
cal AD 1340 and 1520, with an earlier date obtained
in a creek exposure that suggests the site may also
have a Middle Woodland component. A slightly
longer sequence from cal AD 860 to 1510 was docuJournal
of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
120
19th-century site we excavated, was unique in that
it covers a small area of less than 30 m2, but it had
dense and thick midden deposits that extended some
70 cm below the surface. All of the sites are located
along the shoreline, with 18AN226, 18AN839, and
18AN1323 partially submerged at high tide.
The archaeological faunal data from the 7 Rhode
River shell middens show remarkable consistency
in the types of shellfish that were exploited across
time and through space. Oysters dominate all assemblages,
making up 96 to 100 percent of the weight
and 56 to 100 percent of the MNI of all shellfish
(Table 3). Clearly, most of the assemblages reflect a
focus on harvesting oysters, and many of these sites
were likely specialized oyster-processing localities.
Besides oysters, the other shellfish are generally
small, undifferentiated mussels and barnacles that
were likely deposited incidentally in the site when
harvesting oysters. Stout tagelus and softshell clams
were both identified in low quantities but were likely
eaten by people and are most common at 18AN308
and, to an extent, at 18AN285 and 18AN287. Land
snails are found in low abundance throughout the deposits
and were likely deposited naturally rather than
as part of the human diet. One unique taxa identified
only in the 18AN1323 historical assemblage is Mytilopsis
leucophaeta (dark falsemussel) that often live
on oysters (Kennedy 2011a). At 18AN308, we also
recovered a few hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
shells in our units but not in the bulk samples. Hard
clams require much higher salinities (>25 ppt) than
are known to have occurred in the Rhode River and
were likely traded or transported from higher salinity
areas of the bay.
Vertebrate remains are relatively rare in the
midden assemblages. Despite the generally small
numbers of diagnostic bone fragments, we identified
white -tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus),
turtle, and beaver (Castor canadensis), and moderate
amounts of undifferentiated fish and mammal
bones (Table 4). Deer and raccoon were the most
common vertebrates. Although these vertebrate remains
are found in lower abundance than shellfish
remains, as noted earlier a single deer can produce
far more meat than dozens of oysters.
Rick et al. (2016) reported on oyster size changes
from archaeological sites throughout the Chesapeake
Bay as part of a larger analysis of Chesapeake
oyster historical ecology from the Pleistocene to
modern times. Table 5 presents the average sizes,
specimen counts, and standard deviations for the
sites discussed here. Because of small sample size,
18AN839 was excluded from our analysis. These
data show relatively consistent sizes across the prehistoric
samples. However, we note that oysters in
Table 3. Summary of shellfish data from seven Rhode River shell middens. Note: Only oyster shell was recovered from the 18AN839 bulk
sample, with 2705.3 grams from 50 individuals, and it was excluded from analysis due to small sample size. Note: for 18AN285 column
sample 1, the undifferentiated clam fragments found are likely stout tagelus, and thus have been included in the MNI count and percentage
for that sample.
18AN226 bulk 1 and 2 18AN285 column sample 1 18AN286 column/bulk sample
Taxon Wt. (g) % wt. MNI % MNI Wt. (g) % wt. MNI % MNI WT. (g) % wt. MNI. %MNI
Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) 20,707.2 99.9 840 98.6 22,815.3 99.7 571 85.7 19,051.8 99.9 568 95.9
Stout tagelus (Tagelus plebeius) - - - - 27.9 0.1 8 1.2 - - - -
Undifferentiated clam 0.5 less than 0.1 1 0.1 22.9 0.1 0.0 - - - -
Land snail 1.4 less than 0.1 10 1.2 8.7 less than 0.1 85 12.8 1.4 less than 0.1 15 2.5
Barnacle 0.8 less than 0.1 1 0.1 1.6 less than 0.1 1 0.2 0.1 less than 0.1 1 less than 0.1
Undifferentiated mussel - - - - 0.4 less than 0.1 1 0.2 0.5 less than 0.1 5 0.8
Misc. gastropods - - - - 0.4 less than 0.1 4 0.7
Undifferentiated shell 0.4 less than 0.1 - - - - - - - - - -
Total 20,710.3 852 - 22,876.8 - 666 - 19,054.2 - 592 -
18AN287 column samples 1 and 2 18AN308 column sample 1 18AN1323 unit 1
Taxon Wt. (g) % wt. MNI % MNI Wt. (g) % wt. MNI % MNI WT. (g) % wt. MNI. %MNI
Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) 12,356.1 99.9 334 95.7 6032.7 98.2 157 56.3 16,577.6 99.9 339 71.4
Stout tagelus (Tagelus plebeius) - - - - 1.6 less than 0.1 5 1.8 - - - -
Softshell clam (Mya arenaria) 2.0 less than 0.1 1 0.3 13.4 0.2 23 8.2 - - - -
Dark falsemussel (Mytilopsis leucophaeata) - - - - - - - - 8.2 less than 0.1 125 26.3
Marsh perwinkle (Littorata Irrorata) - - - - 1 less than 0.1 1 0.4 - - - -
Undifferentiated clam 5.1 less than 0.1 4 1.1 85.8 1.4 1 0.4 - - - -
Land snail 1.6 less than 0.1 7 2.0 3.9 0.1 59 21.1 0.5 less than 0.1 8 1.7
Barnacle 1.1 less than 0.1 1 0.3 1 less than 0.1 1 0.4 0.5 less than 0.1 1 0.2
Undifferentiated mussel 0.8 less than 0.1 2 0.6 2.7 less than 0.1 15 5.4 1.4 less than 0.1 2 0.4
Misc. gastropods - - - - 0.5 less than 0.1 17 6.1 - - - -
Total 12,366.7 - 349 - 6142.6 - 279 - 16,588.2 - 475 -
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
121
the estuary was a focus of human subsistence by the
Early Woodland and Archaic as evidenced at other
sites in the region (see Waselkov 1982). These data
likely reflect 2 variables: human food preference
and, perhaps more importantly, the abundance and
ease of acquiring oysters from the bay. Despite this
intensive level of harvest, our study documents no
signs of overexploitation or major human-induced
size declines as have been documented at a number
of other sites around the world (e.g., Erlandson et al.
2008, Mannino and Thomas 2002), including during
the Colonial/Historic period on the Chesapeake
Bay (Miller 1986). This includes both a dearth of
the 18AN1323 sample are significantly larger than
those in the prehistoric samples. This may reflect
new technologies (tonging, dredging, etc.) for acquiring
larger, subtidal oysters that may have been
subjected to more limited human harvesting in the
past. All of the prehistoric sites have average sizes
just below the modern 3-inch limit and appear to be
slightly smaller on average than oysters from sites in
higher salinity zones (Rick et al. 2016). While inclusion
of oysters smaller than 35 mm did not have an
effect on our interpretations, we note that 3% of our
oysters were from oyster spat including individuals
as small as 10.4 mm. These data suggest that people
were collecting all size ranges, including spat, and
returning to the sites for deposition. This finding
matches previous patterns at Fishing Bay where
oysters less than 35 mm were recovered, including
numerous very small spat that were not measured
because the valve side could not be determined
(Reeder-Myers et al. 2016).
Discussion and Conclusions
The 7 Rhode River shell middens provide
insight into the nature of Woodland period shell
middens and human exploitation of a Chesapeake
Bay subestuary for about 3000 years. Like previous
discussions of Chesapeake Bay estuarine resource
exploitation (e.g., Custer 1988, 1989; Dent 1995;
Reeder-Myers et al. 2016; Rick et al. 2015a, 2016;
Waselkov 1982), these studies document the extreme
abundance of oysters almost to the near exclusion
of other species. They also demonstrate that
Table 5. Oyster shell heights in mm from Rhode River Shell Middens.
Measurements differ slightly from those reported in Rick
et al. (2016) because measurements less than 35 mm were excluded from
that study.
Sample Height (mm) Std.
size Avg. Min. Max. dev.
Early Woodland
18AN308 489 60.01 10.41 111.80 16.11
Middle Woodland
18AN285 414 61.48 23.00 189.16 17.23
Late Woodland
18AN226 203 53.28 24.00 112.30 16.16
18AN285 765 65.61 16.90 114.78 15.03
18AN286 1383 63.36 12.90 134.68 15.12
18AN287 887 70.20 21.18 134.00 13.77
Total 3238 65.14 12.90 134.68 15.37
Historic
18AN1323 201 79.92 22.80 155.50 21.01
Rhode River Total 4342 64.89 10.41 189.16 16.38
Table 4. Summary of vertebrate faunal remains from Rhode River Shell Middens (all units combined). No vertebrates were recovered from
18AN839.
18AN226 18AN285 18AN286
Taxon Wt. (g) % wt. Wt. (g) % wt. Wt. (g) % wt.
Undifferentiated bone 5.3 100.0 72.6 87.4 8.7 9.0
Mammal bone - - 9.7 11.7 56.4 58.1
Fish bone - - 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1
Turtle humerus - - 0.4 0.5 - -
White -tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) - - - - 31.4 32.4
Beaver (Castor canadensis) - - - - 0.4 0.4
Total 5.3 - 83.1 - 97.0 -
18AN287 18AN308 18AN1323
Taxon Wt. (g) % wt. Wt. (g) % wt. Wt. (g) % wt.
Undifferentiated bone 5 4.1 1.4 63.6 0.2 66.7
Fish bone 3.4 2.8 - - 0.1 33.3
Mammal bone 52.9 43.6 0.8 36.4 - -
White-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 54.8 45.2 - - - -
Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 5.1 4.2 - - - -
Undifferentiated rodent 0.1 0.1 - - -
Longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) - - - - - -
Total 121.3 - 2.2 - 0.3 -
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
122
and time periods in the Rhode River assemblages
reflect an abundance of oysters, the Early Woodland
materials at 18AN308 do have the greatest abundance
of M. arenaria and T. plebius, providing some
support for this hypothesis. The greatest range of
vertebrate remains, however, comes from 18AN287
dated to the Late Woodland. After the Early Woodland,
all of our assemblages are dominated by oysters,
which suggests an almost singular focus on this
taxa and following trends documented throughout
the bay for the Late and Middle Woodland (Custer et
al. 1997, Reeder-Myers et al. 2016, Waselkov 1982).
This continuity in oyster use across the Woodland
period is interesting and suggests that, despite
changes in other aspects of Native American subsistence—
especially hypothesized maize agriculture
during the Late Woodland around 1000 years ago
(see Gallivan 2011, 2016), oysters remained a fairly
consistent and reliable resource. This pattern seems
to follow broad trends noted by Gallivan (2016) for
other parts of the Chesapeake where, despite new
domesticates, people continued to exploit a wide
variety of wild foods, especially oysters. Beyond
the Chesapeake, this finding is similar to patterns
of long-term continuity in coastal resource use in
southern New England despite other societal or subsistence
changes (Bernstein 2006, Tveskov 1998).
The occurrence of dark falsemussels in the Historic
period assemblage at 18AN1323 is unique for
all sites. The dark falsemussel is a small bivalve
that can live on oysters and is often found in larger
clusters of hooked mussels which may help protect
it from predators, with the hooked mussels generally
significantly outnumbering dark falsemussels (Kennedy
2011a). This species is found primarily in the
mesohaline zone of Maryland and is rare in Chesapeake
Bay today, though in other parts of the world
it is an invasive species capable of significant expansion
(Kennedy 2011a, 2011b). This species was likely
harvested incidentally while collecting oysters, but
our undifferentiated mussel category, which likely
contains hooked mussels, is rare at this site, especially
compared to dark falsemussels. Kennedy (2011a)
documented a massive short-term increase in the dark
falsemussel population in Chesapeake Bay in 2004. It
is possible that a similar historical event may explain
the abundance of dark falsemussels at 18AN1323, but
for now this remains speculative.
Almost as interesting as what we found is what
we did not find. Two resources in particular are
either absent or recovered in very low abundance.
The first of these are the remains of blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus), which were absent from all of our
samples except for trace amounts found at 18AN285
in flotation samples by Gibb and Hines (1997). Blue
clear human-induced size declines across multiple
sites and through time, as well as in individual
deposits (see Rick et al. 2016), a proposition that
agrees with previous discussion of Native American
environmental interactions on the Chesapeake (Miller
2001).
We have hypothesized that the Native American
oyster fishery was largely sustainable on the broad,
regional level and on long time scales (centuries to
millennia). As noted above, the only major change
during the late Holocene was an increase in average
oyster size during the Historic period which may
reflect new technologies (tongs and dredges) and
nutrient enrichment that caused greater oyster size
and increased growth rates (Kirby and Miller 2005).
Although people undoubtedly had localized impacts
on oysters, several factors may have helped make
the Native American fishery sustainable on long
time scales and across broad spatial settings (Reeder
Myers et al. 2016, Rick et al. 2016). For example,
although people harvested oysters from a wide
variety of areas and depths, the oyster fishery may
have focused primarily on nearshore oysters with
smaller amounts of deep-water oysters being taken,
which could have left significant deep-water populations
for recruitment. Subsistence rounds that also
included domesticated plants and other foods may
have reduced some pressure on oysters, as could
using only the hands or relatively simple harvesting
technologies to take oysters (see Kent 1992, Rick
et al. 2016). Some researchers have speculated that
Native Americans in the Chesapeake had used specialized
technologies for obtaining oysters. Holmes
(1907:122–123), Gallivan (2016:93), Monroe and
Goodrich (2012:79), and others have suggested that
people may have used rakes or other similar objects
to take oysters. Direct support for these assertions,
however, is limited or speculative (e.g., Hulton
1984) and requires additional research. One point to
make clear is that while the fishery may have been
sustainable on long time scales and across broad
spatial areas, this does not mean that people did not
have an influence on oysters in deep time.
Many scholars have suggested that, compared to
the Middle and Late Woodland, Archaic and Early
Woodland peoples harvested a greater number of
shellfish species (Custer 1988, Potter 1982, Rick et
al. 2015a, Waselkov 1982). The reason for this pattern
is unclear, but it may be due to a more mobile
subsistence strategy and greater use of a diversity of
habitats. It may also be due to changes in environmental
conditions, as rising sea level may have created
more abundant oyster habitats as it inundated
smaller river mouths feeding into Chesapeake Bay
during the last 1500–2000 years. Although all sites
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
123
crabs have been recovered in numerous Chesapeake
shell middens, though they are usually found in low
abundance (Rick et al. 2015b). The absence in our
excavations is surprising and could be the result
of either season of occupation (e.g., colder months
when crabs are not active), or a lack of human exploitation.
Similarly, finfish bones are rare in our
samples, especially diagnostic bones, suggesting
that people did not target fish at these sites, despite
their presumed local abundance. Both of these findings
again support the fact that people at these sites
were largely focused on oysters, supplemented by
deer and other resources.
Although Wright (1968, 1969) excavated several
Rhode River shell middens, the only other previous
study of a prehistoric shell midden in the Rhode River
with quantified faunal remains is from the Smithsonian
Pier site (18AN284/285) adjacent to our work
at 18AN285 (Gibb and Hines 1997). That analysis
included macrobotanical and microbotanical remains,
faunal remains, and artifacts from a Middle
Woodland deposit. Deer dominated the vertebrate
assemblage, followed by terrapin and undifferentiated
bird and mammal bones. Like the samples in our
assemblage, oysters were the dominant shellfish, but
trace amounts of softshell clam and blue crab claw
were identified. The botanical samples included common
forest species for the area, but macrobotanical
remains also suggested the use of walnut, hickory,
and sunflower. The microbotanical remains contained
maize pollen, though this occurred in the subsoil
precluding its confirmation as prehistoric (Gibb and
Hines 1997). Ultimately, our data confirm the earlier
work at 18AN284/285, which suggested opportunistic
foraging focused on oysters.
Our work indicates that ancient peoples in the
area had limited impacts on local estuarine resources.
People were active players in the land- and
seascapes that they occupied and undoubtedly influenced
and shaped local ecosystems around them.
Moreover, intensive harvests may have caused some
localized declines, but these were likely short lived
and we have no clear sign of human-induced size
declines or major resource depression. In fact, the
remains indicate that shell richness declined through
time as people increasingly specialized on oysters
over other shellfish species. Additional analyses are
necessary to further test ancient human impacts on
local resources and ecosystems, especially plants
and terrestrial ecosystems as those were not a focus
of our analysis. When compared to later human land
use in the Rhode River area, we note that the Colonial
and Historic periods ushered in a time of introduced
domesticated animals and plants, significant
land clearance, and other processes (Cox and Sharpe
2003; Cox et al. 2007a, b; Gibb and Hines 1997).
As noted above, one of our historic sites actually
exhibited an increase in oyster shell size compared
to earlier-dated sites.
Despite this continuity in resource exploitation
across the late Holocene or Woodland period, our
previous work at 5 of these sites suggests that the
presence of shell middens significantly enhanced the
nutrients in the soils, even when directly compared
to adjacent non-midden soils (Cook-Patton et al.
2014). This study also demonstrated that these midden
soils harbor higher plant biodiversity and more
native and rare species than adjacent non-midden
soils. Collectively, these data demonstrate that
Native Americans had significant effects on landscapes
and ecosystems that continue to influence
present-day patterns. These impacts may not always
be apparent on resource size, abundance, and other
common metrics for ancient human environmental
impacts, but may manifest in soils, plants, and other
long-term legacies of human land-use (see Cook-
Patton et al. 2014). These are patterns that were
likely operating throughout North America’s Atlantic
Coast and beyond and deserve greater attention
from archaeologists working throughout the region.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the
National Geographic Society Committee for Research
and Exploration (#8960-11) and a small grant from the
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.
Previous work at SERC by the Lost Towns Project
was supported by the Maryland Historical Trust. We thank
Midge Kramer, Rob Aguilar, Matt Ogburn, and other researchers
at the SERC Crab Lab for help with accessing
sites. Edgar Alarcon, Sarah Dickey, Elaine Hall, Courtney
Hofman, Sean McCanty, and Dan Weller helped in the
field and lab. We also thank Ellen Strong for her help in
identifying difficult shellfish specimens and for accessing
the Smithsonian’s Invertebrate Zoology Collections. Finally,
we thank Matt Betts and Gabe Hrynick for organizing
this special journal issue and for inviting us to be a part
of it, and 2 anonymous reviewers for important comments
on an earlier version of our manuscript.
Literature Cited
Ballweber, H.L. 1990. Preliminary archaeological reconnaissance
of the Java History Trail, Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center, Anne Arundel County,
Maryland. Unpublished manuscript. Maryland Historical
Trust, Crownsville, MD, USA.
Barber, M.B. 2008. Chesapeake Bay fauna during the
early seventeenth century: Differential utilization
systems—Aboriginal versus immigrant. Quarterly
Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia
63(2):58–68.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
124
Bernstein, D.J. 1993. Prehistoric Subsistence on the
Southern New England Coast: The Record from Narragansett
Bay. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
Bernstein, D.J. 2006. Long-term continuity in the archaeological
record from the coast of New York and
southern New England, USA. Journal of Island and
Coastal Archaeology 1:271–284.
Bourque, B. 1995. Diversity and Complexity in Prehistoric
Maritime Societies: A Gulf of Maine Perspective.
Plenum, New York, NY, USA.
Bratton, J.F., S.M. Colman, E.R. Thieler, and R.R. Seal II.
2003. Birth of the modern Chesapeake Bay estuary 7.4
and 8.2 ka and implications for global sea-level rise.
Geo-Marine Letters 22:188–197.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon
dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2013. OxCal 4.2. Available online at
http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/. Accessed 2015.
Cook-Patton, S.C., D. Weller, T.C. Rick, and J.D. Parker.
2014. Ancient experiments: Forest biodiversity and
soil nutrients enhanced by Native American middens.
Landscape Ecology 29:979–987.
Cox, C.J. 2007a. Survey and limited assessment of archaeological
resources in the Rhode River Region, Anne
Arundel County, Maryland. Unpublished manuscript.
Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, MD, USA.
Cox, C.J. 2007b. Assessment and evaluation of select
archaeological resources in the Rhode River region:
Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Unpublished manuscript,
Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, MD,
USA.
Cox, C.J., and S. Sharpe. 2003. View from the top of the
hill: The early 18th-century homesite of the Talbott
family. Maryland Archaeology 39(1 and 2):1–16.
Custer, J.F. 1988. Coastal adaptations in the Middle Atlantic
region. Archaeology of Eastern North America
16:121–135.
Custer, J.F. 1989. Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva
Peninsula. University of Delaware Press, Newark,
DE, USA.
Custer, J.F., K.R. Doms, K. Walker, and A. Allegretti.
1997. Archaeological investigations at 18KE128,
Kent County, Maryland. Maryland Archeology 33(1
and 2):45–58.
Dent, R.J., Jr. 1995. Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions,
New Directions. Plenum, New York, NY, USA.
Engelhart, S.E., and B.P. Horton. 2012. Holocene sea-level
database for the Atlantic coast of the United States.
Quaternary Science Reviews 54:12–25.
Engelhart, S.E., W.R. Peltier, and B.P. Horton. 2011.
Holocene relative sea-level changes and glacial isostatic
adjustment of the US Atlantic coast. Geology
39:751–754.
Erlandson, J.M., T.C. Rick, T.J. Braje, A. Steinberg, and
R.L. Vellanoweth. 2008. Human impacts on ancient
shellfish: A 10,000-year record from San Miguel Island,
California. Journal of Archaeological Science
35:2144–2152.
Gallivan, M. 2011. The archaeology of Native societies
in the Chesapeake: New investigations and interpretations.
Journal of Archaeological Research 19:281–325.
Gallivan, M. 2016. The Powhatan Landscape: An archaeological
history of the Algonquian Chesapeake. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Gibb, J.G., and A.H. Hines. 1997. Selby Bay subsistence
strategies at the Smithsonian Pier Site, Anne Arundel
County, Maryland. Maryland Archeology 33:59–76.
Herbert, J.M. 1995. Thomas Point (18ST570): Emerging
Late Woodland traditions in southern Maryland. Jefferson
Patterson Park and Museum, Occasional Papers
No. 4. Maryland Department of Housing and Community
Development, Crownsville, MD, USA.
Holmes, W.H. 1907. Aboriginal shell-heaps of the Middle
Atlantic Tidewater Region. American Anthropologist
9:113–128.
Hulton, P.H. 1984. America, 1585. The Complete Drawings
of John White. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kennedy, V.S. 2011a. Biology of the uncommon Dreissenid
bivalve Mytilopsis leucophaeta (Conrad 1831) in
central Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Molluscan Studies
77:154–164.
Kennedy, V.S. 2011b. The invasive dark falsemussel,
Mytilopsis leucophaeta (Bivalvia: Dreissenidae): A
literature review. Aquatic Ecology 45:163–183.
Kent, B.W. 1992. Making Dead Oysters Talk: Techniques
for analyzing oysters from archaeological sites. Maryland
Historical Trust, Crownsville, MD, USA.
Kirby, M.X., and H.M. Miller. 2005. Response of a benthic
suspension feeder (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin)
to three centuries of anthropogenic eutrophication in
Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science
62:679–689.
Lowery, D.L. 2005. Archaeological survey of the Fishing
Bay and Fairmount State Wildlife Management
Areas, Dorchester and Somerset counties, Maryland.
Washington College Public Archaeology Laboratory,
Chestertown, MD, USA.
Mannino, M.A., and K.D. Thomas. 2002. Depletion of a
resource? The impact of prehistoric human foraging
on intertidal mollusc communities and its significance
for human settlement, mobility, and dispersal. World
Archaeology 33:452–474.
Miller, H.M. 1986. Transforming a “splendid and delightsome
land”: Colonists and ecological change in the
Chesapeake 1607–1820. Journal of the Washington
Academy of Sciences 76:173–187.
Miller, H.M. 2001. Living along the “Great Shellfish
Bay”: The relationship between prehistoric peoples
and the Chesapeake. Pp. 109–126, In P.D. Curtin, G.S.
Brush, and G.W. Fisher (Eds.). Discovering the Chesapeake:
The History of an Ecosystem. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Monroe, E.J., and K. Goodrich. 2012. “… They live much
upon oysters getting vast quantities of ’em and so roast
’em in a fire”: Archaeological data recovery at the
Gouldman Oyster Shell Midden Site (44WM0304) in
Westmoreland County, Virginia. Report on File at William
and Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Williamsburg, VA, USA.
Potter, S.R. 1982. An analysis of Chicacoan settlement
patterns. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, M.J. Carr, and A.H. Hines
2017 Special Volume 10
125
Spiess, A.E., and R.A. Lewis. 2001. The Turner Farm
Fauna: 5000 Years of Hunting and Fishing in Penobscot
Bay, Maine. The Maine Archaeological Society,
Augusa, ME, USA.
Steponaitis, L.C. 1983. An archaeological survey of the
Patuxent Drainage, volume I. Maryland Historical
Trust Manuscript Series, No. 24, Anappolis, MD,
USA.
Thomas, D.H. 2008. Chapter 13. Radiocarbon dating on
St. Catherine’s Island. Pp. 345–371, In D.H. Thomas
(Author). Native American landscapes of St. Catherines
Island, Georgia II. The data. American Museum
of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Number
88, New York, NY, USA.
Thomas, D.H., M.C. Sanger, and R.H. Hayes. 2013. Revising
the 14C reservoir correction for St. Catherine’s
Island, Georgia. Pp. 25–46, In V.L. Thompson, and
D.H. Thomas (Eds.). Life Among the Tides: Recent
Archaeology on the Georgia Bight. Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural History
98, New York, NY, USA.
Thompson, V.D., and J.E. Worth. 2011. Dwellers by the
sea: Native American adaptations along the southern
coasts of eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological
Research 19:51–101.
Tveskov, M.A. 1998. Maritime settlement and subsistence
along the southern New England Coast: Evidence
from Block Island, Rhode Island. North American
Archaeologist 18:343–361.
Walker, J.O. 2003. Archaeological investigation of the
Holland Point Site (18DO220), Dorchester County,
Maryland. M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology,
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Waselkov, G.A. 1982. Shellfish gathering and shell midden
Archaeology. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Wilke, S., and G. Thompson. 1977. Prehistoric archaeological
resources in the Maryland coastal zone. Unpublished
manuscript. Maryland Historical Trust,
Crownsville, MD, USA.
Wright, H.T. 1968. A report on an archaeological survey
of the Chesapeake Bay Center for Field Biology of
the Smithsonian Institution. Unpublished manuscript.
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater,
MD, USA.
Wright, H.T. 1969. Archaeological investigations at the
Chesapeake Bay Center for Field Biology: 1968.
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater,
MD, USA.
Wright, H.T. 1973. An archaeological sequence in the
Middle Chesapeake region, Maryland. Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological
Survey, Archaeological Studies 1, Baltimore, MD.
Wright, H.T. 1975. Further archaeological investigations
on the West River: 1969–75. Unpublished manuscript.
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater,
MD, USA.
Potter, S.R. 1993. Commoners, tribute, and chiefs: The
development of Algonquian culture in the Potomac
Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA, USA.
Reeder-Myers, L.A., T.C. Rick, G. Henkes, D. Lowery,
and J.S. Wah. 2016. Human ecology and coastal
foraging at Fishing Bay, Maryland, USA. Journal of
Ethnobiology 36:595–616.
Reimer P.J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, P.G. Blackwell,
C. Bronk Ramsey, C.E. Buck, H. Cheng, R.L.
Edwards, M. Friedrich, P.M. Grootes, T.P. Guilderson,
H. Haflidison, I. Hajdas, C. Hatte, T.J. Heaton,
D. Hoffman, A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen, K.F. Kaiser,
B. Kromer, S. Manning, M. Niu, R.W. Reimer, D.
A. Richards, E.M. Scott, J.R. Southon, R.A. Staff, ,
C.S.M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht. 2013. IntCal13
and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves,
0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869–1888.
Rick, T.C., and G.A. Henkes. 2014. Radiocarbon variability
in Crassostrea virginica shells from the Chesapeake
Bay. Radiocarbon 56:305–311.
Rick, T.C., and D.L. Lowery. 2013. AMS 14C dating and
the antiquity of shell-tempered ceramics from the
Chesapeake Bay and Middle Atlantic. American Antiquity
78:570–579.
Rick, T.C., D.L. Lowery, G.A. Henkes, and J.S. Wah.
2011. A late Holocene radiocarbon chronology for the
shell middens of Fishing Bay, Maryland. Archaeology
of Eastern North America 39:153–167.
Rick, T.C., G.A. Henkes, D.L. Lowery, S.M. Colman,
and B.J. Culleton. 2012. Marine radiocarbon reservoir
corrections (ΔR) for Chesapeake Bay and Middle
Atlantic coastal North America. Quaternary Research
77:205–210.
Rick, T.C., L.A. Reeder-Myers, C. J. Cox, S. T. Sperling,
A. Jansen, and A. H. Hines. 2014. Shell middens,
cultural chronologies, and coastal settlement on the
Rhode River sub-estuary of Chesapeake Bay, Maryland,
USA. Geoarchaeology 29:371–388.
Rick, T.C., M. Barber, D. Lowery, J. Wah, and M. Madden.
2015a. Early Woodland coastal foraging at the
Savage Neck Shell Midden (44NH478), Chesapeake
Bay, Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America
43:23–38.
Rick, T.C., M.B. Ogburn, M. Kramer, S.T. McCanty, L.
Reeder-Myers, H.M. Miller, and A.T. Hines. 2015b.
Archaeology, taphonomy, and historical ecology of
Chesapeake Bay Blue Crabs (Callinectes sapidus).
Journal of Archaeological Science 55:42–54.
Rick, T.C., L.A. Reeder-Myers, D. Breitburg, C.A. Hofman,
R. Lockwood, G. Henkes, L. Kellogg, D.L. Lowery,
M. Luckenbach, R.L. Mann, M.B. Ogburn, M.
Southworth, J. Wah, J. Wesson, and A.H. Hines. 2016.
Millennial-scale sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay
Native American oyster fishery. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA 113:6568–6573.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1600019113.
Sperling, S.T. 2008. Limited Phase III investigations at
18AN339: The Java Plantation and 18AN1285: Camp
Letts. Rhode River Region, Anne Arundel County,
Maryland. Unpublished manuscript. Maryland Historical
Trust, Crownsville, MD, USA.