My Summer in Maryland Archeology

By Justin Warrenfeltz

As the 2016 Summer Archeology Intern with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), I have worked on a wide variety of projects, each more interesting than the last. In June, I assisted with the planning and implementation of the Archeological Society of Maryland annual Tyler Bastian Field Session in Maryland Archeology. As a former archeological crew chief, this was a perfect opportunity for me to contribute substantially to MHT’s work at the River Farm site. Under the guidance of archeologists with the Lost Towns Project, I assisted with excavation and site management.

Justin Janes Island

The author at Janes Island State Park in Crisfield

After the Field Session, State Terrestrial Archeologist Dr. Charles Hall asked me to plan and implement a research method for oyster shell analysis of artifacts recovered from the Willin Site in Dorchester County, most recently excavated by MHT archeologists in 2009. Using the MHT Library to research current literature on oyster shell analysis, I created a new shell catalog and collection forms and analyzed thousands of oyster shells recovered from the site. I learned – and practiced – valuable skills in artifact analysis, research planning, and project management.

Justin River Farm

Excavation at River Farm

Finally, working under the supervision of Dr. Troy Nowak, Assistant State Underwater Archeologist, I helped plan and implement both a marine survey, conducted by remote sensing, and a terrestrial survey of archeological sites in and around Janes Island State Park in Crisfield. This project introduced me to many different aspects of archeology with which I previously had no experience: I learned how to drive a small boat; conduct controlled archaeological surface collection and soil coring; and assist with magnetometer and side-scan surveying.

Justin with Charlie Hall

The author with State Terrestrial Archeologist Charlie Hall

My time with MHT has been an immensely rewarding experience. I learned a wide range of skills and developed important professional relationships with members of the Archeological Society of Maryland, Lost Towns Project, Maryland Archeological Conservation Lab, Maryland Historical Trust and Department of Planning, and the Maryland Park Service. I am immensely grateful to MHT and its staff for this unique opportunity.

2016 Cultural Resources Hazard Mitigation Planning Grants Awarded

With funding from the National Park Service Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief Fund, the Maryland Historical Trust has awarded seven grants throughout the state to help protect historic places and archeological sites from future storms. These grants will be supported by the Trust’s Cultural Resources Hazard Mitigation Planning Program, which was created to assist local governments to better plan and prepare for the effects of coastal storms and other hazards that impact historic places and properties. The grant projects are described below.

Anne Arundel

Early 20th century vernacular home common to Shady Side

Anne Arundel County Trust for Preservation, Inc., Phase I Hazard Mitigation Planning for Anne Arundel’s Cultural Resources: $32,000
Three areas in the county (Shady Side and Deale; Pasadena; and Maryland City, Laurel, and Jessup) face the highest risk to flooding and contain the most undocumented historic structures, as well as unsurveyed potential archeological resources. To remedy this, the Anne Arundel County Trust for Preservation will conduct a study to identify historic structures and archeological sites and evaluate the potential damages caused by flooding.

ASM

The River Farm site inundated by high tide

Archeological Society of Maryland, Inc., Sustainable Models for Sites Endangered by Natural Hazards: $32,000
The Archeological Society of Maryland will gather information about several archeological sites in Anne Arundel County, Calvert County and St. Mary’s County that are slowly being destroyed due to eroding shorelines and water intrusion from coastal storms and increased tidal flooding. In St. Mary’s County, at the possible location of the Native American village known as Secowocomoco, testing will inform future decisions about excavation and protection from ongoing erosion. Studies in the Battle Creek watershed (Calvert County) will help researchers understand the foodways and lifeways practiced by the Native Americans who lived there. At River Farm, a large Native American settlement along the Patuxent River, investigations will locate site boundaries, determine eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and inform planning against future erosion and flooding. The Society will develop a series of case studies to provide guidance for public-private partnerships engaged in survey, assessment, and protection of archeological resources threatened by natural hazards and climate change.

Baltimore

Historic Fells Point, a waterfront neighborhood

City of Baltimore, Integrating Historic and Cultural Considerations into Baltimore’s All Hazards Plan: $30,390
The City of Baltimore contains more than 80,000 historic properties and many of its oldest neighborhoods, such as Fells Point and Jonestown, are located on or near waterways, making them vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise, storm surge and flooding. With this grant, the City will identify high-priority historic areas and buildings that are significantly impacted by flooding, evaluate the impacts of flooding, and incorporate the results of evaluation into their Disaster and Preparedness Project and Plan (DP3), which is the City’s climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plan. The City will also identify methods for protecting vulnerable historic structures that are in accordance with the DP3 and amenable to the City’s Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation.

Dorchester

Flooding on Elliotts Island Road (credit: K. Clendaniel)

Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area, Hazard Mitigation Planning Project for Dorchester County: $44,000
Beginning in the mid-seventeenth century, Dorchester County has a long history of occupation first by Native Americans and later by English settlement along its waterways. One of the greatest periods of historic significance for the county is 1825 to 1900, during which the agricultural economy shifted to towards the canning industry. There are many properties constructed during that period of significance that are at risk to flooding due to coastal storms, sea level rise, and tidal flooding, but have not been identified and studied to understand their contribution to history. Dorchester County will conduct a survey to identify areas with historic structures vulnerable to flooding and evaluate their vulnerability to flood hazards.

Port Deposit

Flooding from Hurricane Irene (credit: Town of Port Deposit)

Town of Port Deposit, Cultural Resources Inventory and Risk Assessment for Cecil Towns: $40,000
This project encompasses hazard mitigation planning efforts in two Cecil County historic towns: Port Deposit and Elkton. The Town of Port Deposit is located adjacent to the Susquehanna River, which makes the town’s historic district susceptible to flood damage by heavy rain events, coastal storms and ice jams. An updated historic and architectural investigation will be undertaken to re-evaluate and update the National Register of Historic Places nomination as the first step in planning to protect Port Deposit’s buildings from further flood damage. Situated along Big Elk Creek, the Town of Elkton’s Main Street and Historic District has a history of flooding that dates back to the nineteenth century. Elkton’s historic properties are vulnerable to flooding from coastal storms, large rain events and snow melt. To address this, a survey will identify historic structures vulnerable to flooding and assess the potential damages that could occur.

Smith Island

Crab shanty in Ewell

Smith Island United, Inc., Smith Island Cultural Resources Hazard Mitigation Planning Initiative: $9,000
Situated in the Chesapeake Bay and accessible only by water, Smith Island is comprised of three communities — Ewell, Rhodes Point and Tylerton — which have a history of experiencing coastal storms. The historic occupation of the island dates back to the seventeenth century, although the majority of buildings on the island date to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Under this grant, an evaluation of flood mitigation measures for representative historic house types in each of the three villages will be conducted. The results will be used to develop preservation-sensitive models for flood protection for historic houses of similar construction.

Talbot

W-shaped Victorian house in Tilghman

Talbot County, Documentation and Assessment of Historic Resources in Western Water-Oriented Villages: $60,000
Talbot County contains thirteen unincorporated water-oriented villages, many of which have historic structures dating back to the eighteenth century. The four villages of Tilghman, Neavitt, Newcomb, and Royal Oak have a large number of unrecorded historic structures at high risk of flooding due to tidal events and coastal storms like Hurricane Sandy. This project will identify key historic properties that convey the history and heritage of each village, conduct a study to determine those properties’ vulnerability to coastal storms, and estimate the potential damages that could occur.

 

Prehistoric Ossuaries: A Personal Journey

by Dennis C. Curry, Chief Archeologist, Maryland Historical Trust

Theodor de Bry engraving of a John White watercolor, possibly showing an ossuary at Secotan.

Theodor de Bry engraving of a John White watercolor, possibly showing an ossuary at Secotan.

It’s funny how things work.  Some 20 years ago, in response to requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the archeology staff was compiling an inventory of human remains curated at MHT.  During that process, the extreme complexities of ossuary remains and sites led me to look at these unique features in Maryland.  The ultimate result was a book, Feast of the Dead: Aboriginal Ossuaries in Maryland.  Then about a decade ago I was asked to write a book chapter that would look at ossuaries from throughout the entire Middle Atlantic region.  Although that book project eventually died, I reworked my chapter and submitted it as an article to the journal Archaeology of Eastern North America, where it was recently published.  Below are some highlights.

Ossuaries are communal graves.  They are also secondary graves, meaning that the deceased were originally buried in individual graves before being exhumed and reinterred in a collective burial.  Early historical accounts of Huron ossuary burials (such as those by 17th century French Jesuit missionary Jean de Brébeuf) describe an elaborate burial ceremony referred to as the “Feast of the Dead.”  And while early explorers in the Middle Atlantic region do not mention ossuaries (they describe individual burials, and the deposition of “king’s” bodies in charnel houses), I think watercolorist John White inadvertently depicted an ossuary at the North Carolina village of Secotan in 1585.  There, he portrays a small plot (B) “where they assemble themselves to make their solemn prayers;” it is topped by a ceremonial fire and surrounded by wooden posts carved with human faces, and it is adjacent to a structure (A) “wherein are the tombs of their kings and princes.”  Each of these characteristics has been documented archeologically at various ossuary sites.

Today, ossuaries are typically encountered by accident, such as at this house construction site on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Today, ossuaries are typically encountered by
accident, such as at this house construction site on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

One advantage to looking at ossuary sites from a large region (the core of the Middle Atlantic runs from Cape Henlopen, Delaware to Cape Fear, North Carolina) is that trends start to appear.  One thing that I noticed throughout the region was that ossuaries consistently occur in one of three settings: in isolated locations, within village sites, and within what appear to be defined “cemetery areas.”  The latter really intrigued me.  I looked at 27 primary sites from the region, and 16 of these contained cemetery areas consisting of multiple ossuaries; these ossuaries range in number from 2 to 13, and total more than 60.  In most cases, these multiple ossuaries are fairly tightly clustered, yet they never intrude into each other.  (Similarly, in village settings, ossuaries are not disturbed by other village features or structures.)  This makes me think that ossuaries—which were sometimes re-opened and re-used—were clearly marked and maintained on the landscape, probably often visited and esteemed by the local population.  It also makes me think that there are many ossuaries that have not yet been found.  Today, most ossuaries are found by accident, usually exposed during construction activities, and when I visit such finds, I often wonder how many more ossuaries are there, just beneath my feet.  Recently, I got a partial answer to that question.  A Maryland county was looking to develop one of its properties…a property on which several ossuaries had been found in the past.  Since I was convinced there was a “cemetery area” at this location, we recommended that the county undertake a non-destructive ground-penetrating radar survey of the area.  The results obtained by geophysical archeologist Dr. Tim Horsley were spectacular: clear indication of at least 8 more ossuaries on the property!  Yes, indeed, this was a “cemetery area.”

Results of a ground-penetrating radar survey at a site with 3 known ossuaries (blue), indicating the presence of at least 8 more probable ossuaries (red).

Results of a ground-penetrating radar survey at a site with 3 known ossuaries (blue), indicating the presence of at least 8 more probable ossuaries (red).

During the course of my study of Middle Atlantic ossuaries, many other patterns emerged.  Some of these include:

  • Ossuaries vary in size from just a few individuals to more than 600; the average is around 70 people.
  • The largest ossuaries tend to occur in the tidewater Potomac region of Maryland and Virginia, where a dozen ossuaries average nearly 250 people each.
  • The earliest ossuaries contain no associated artifacts.  Later, when artifacts do appear, they are usually non-utilitarian and decorative in nature.
  • The most common artifacts are beads (initially shell, then copper, then glass and/or a combination of types).  One Virginia ossuary contained 35,000 shell and glass beads, but that is unique.
  • Notably, artifacts are often associated with the remains of children.
  • Artifacts may also indicate the social status of individuals, such as a presumed “shaman’s kit” from a North Carolina ossuary, and a possible copper headdress from one in Maryland.
  • Specific treatment of remains (for example, extended articulated burials, or cremations) may also suggest social differentiation of individuals.  In fact, I have wondered if the death of these “special” people actually triggered the periodic Feast of the Dead.
  • In any event, ossuaries are not merely jumbles of bones.  Specific individuals (as bundles, articulated burials, or cremations) can be discerned, and it is clear that their identities were maintained by family members over the years-long burial process.  In this sense, they truly represent a community of the dead.

So it is that a simple catalog compilation developed into a 20-year immersion into the study of prehistoric ossuaries, first in Maryland, then further afield.  I hope my work allows modern Native Americans to better understand the ways of their ancestors, as well as allowing non-Native Americans to appreciate other cultures.  And some 20 or 50 years down the road, I hope this work will help guide future archeologists.

A post script:  When my article appeared in Archaeology of Eastern North America, I told my wife that it had been published.  She asked to see a copy, explaining “I don’t really understand what you do.”  (I know she started reading Feast of the Dead, but I’m fairly sure she never finished it.)  Anyway, that’s a pretty big shortcoming on my part, so I decided to write this blog from a more first-person perspective in order to provide an “inside look” at how one archeologist works. — DCC

Links for further reading:

New Bald Friar Petroglyph Exhibit a Must See!

By Charlie Hall, State Terrestrial Archeologist

A close-up of one of the petroglyphs removed from its original location in the Susquehanna River.

A close-up of one of the petroglyphs removed from its original location in the Susquehanna River.

From simple pecked cups, to grooved parallel lines, to complex diamond shapes and curvilinear compositions, the Susquehanna River’s Bald Friar petroglyphs have generated interest – and mystery – for hundreds of years. Native Americans originally carved the abstract images into large, island-sized boulders between what is now the Pennsylvania line and the Conowingo Dam. In 1927, the petroglyphs were removed from their location to save them from inundation from the dam, after which the Maryland Academy of Sciences cemented together the fragmented stones for exhibition. No one knows the precise age or meaning of the petroglyphs.

Now, in the historic Rock Run Grist Mill within view of the Susquehanna River, a new exhibit at Susquehanna State Park features some of the enigmatic artifacts, coupled with interpretative text. The exhibit is not large, but it deftly covers the mysterious history of these images carved in rock, as well as the more recent journey they have taken.

The Bald Friar Exhibit at Susquehanna State Park.

The Bald Friar Exhibit at Susquehanna State Park.

Spurred in part by a desire to present a more comprehensive picture of the Bay region and Native peoples, the Chesapeake Conservancy brought together the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to house the exhibit and the Maryland Historical Trust to execute a loan for the artifacts. Financing for the design and fabrication of the exhibit was provided by Turney McKnight, a member of the Chesapeake Conservancy’s Board of Directors. Turney has a deep and manifest interest in the petroglyphs, and his generosity (and good humor) literally took this exhibit from a great idea to a terrific product.

Although no one fully understands the Bald Friar petroglyphs, they were not randomly or casually positioned on the landscape. Placed between the lowest ford and the deepest “sink” within the falls of the Susquehanna River, their meaning must have been connected to that place. We may never know who made the images or when, or for whom the message was intended.  We can be sure, however, that by bringing some of the petroglyphs to the bank of the Susquehanna River – only about 6 miles from their original location – Turney McKnight and the Chesapeake Conservancy have returned them to the place where that message resonates best.

Do You Believe in Ghosts…?

Do You Believe in Ghosts…?

By Susan Langley, State Underwater Archeologist

Do you believe in ghosts? You might if you find yourself at Mallows Bay in Charles County. Standing on its shores, a ghostly fleet of nearly 100 wooden World War I-era steamships appears to rise from the depths as the tide ebbs.  These are friendly ghosts, as they saw no battles and lost no souls.  Nevertheless, at nearly 300 feet long each the ships create an impressive sight, especially at times of extreme low water. Around a full moon, one could almost cross the water on the skeletons of these behemoths.

The "ghost fleet"

The “ghost fleet”

These ships are remnants of the civilian U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, which was established when America entered WWI on April 2, 1917 to carry men, arms and equipment to the theater of war. They were also intended to carry supplies to European Allies whose shipping had been decimated by German U-boats. Donald Shomette, who literally wrote the book on this ghost fleet, put the project in perspective when he noted that, between 1899 and 1915, the U.S. had launched 540,000 tons of ocean-going shipping and now proposed to build 6,000,000 tons in 18 months. Unfortunately, by October 1918 –a month before the end of the war—only 134 of the 1000 expected vessels had been completed, 263 were less than half completed and none had crossed the Atlantic. Within a year of Germany’s surrender 264 were in operation, though only 195 had crossed the Atlantic once.

World War I shipping poster

WWI shipping poster

With diesel engines and metal hulls now dominant, the ships were obsolete by the time they were completed and the U.S. Shipping Board determined to sell the fleet. A few – sold into private service and eventually abandoned in Curtis Bay – are still visible while traversing the Key Bridge. In September of 1922, a firm purchased 233 ships for $750,000 (approximately the cost to build a single ship) and moored the majority in the Potomac to be taken to Alexandria, VA and broken for scrap.  After the vessels in the Potomac caught fire, broke loose in storms, and created other problems, the company corralled them in Mallows Bay. Small-scale salvage operations took over the bay during the Great Depression, providing 15% of the per capita income for Charles County residents at that time. With the outbreak of WWII, Bethlehem Steel attempted to renew salvaging the vessels and constructed a gated burning basin at the back of Mallows Bay. Ultimately, the company determined it was not cost effective and abandoned the effort.

As the years wore on, the slumbering fleet became part of the maritime landscape, providing roosts and nesting sites for osprey and eagles, a nursery for bass that has made it a prime fishing ground, and shelter for many rare, threatened and endangered species.  The bay and its denizens are best viewed from the water and the shelter provided by the vessels creates prime conditions for kayaks and canoes. Numerous State and local government agencies, environmental organizations and private citizens have long wanted greater recognition of Mallows Bay’s many merits but no single program existed that provided the right fit.

Benzonia in Mallows Bay

Benzonia in Mallows Bay

Last year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced it would consider community-driven nominations for new National Marine Sanctuaries; the first in more than 20 years. The steering committee, consisting of State and County agencies, environmental organizations, tribal representation, fishing organizations, education and outreach specialists, and citizens-at-large, developed a nomination for Mallows Bay and a portion of the Potomac River in 2014, to coincide with the initiation of global commemorative activities for WWI. The application was submitted by the Governor and included letters of support from nearly 100 groups. In January 2015, the Committee received word that the nomination was accepted into the NOAA Inventory for consideration as a viable candidate for the establishment of a National Marine Sanctuary. If the decision is positive, NOAA will solicit public comment and the steering committee will initiate public scoping meetings. If all goes well, we might cut the ribbon on a National Marine Sanctuary close to the Nation’s capital in time to commemorate the 100th anniversary of America’s entry into World War I.

Additional Reading:

Ghost Fleet of Mallows Bay and Other Tales of the Lost Chesapeake.  Donald G. Shomette.  1996.  Tidewater Publishers: Centerville.

Don is currently working on two new volumes about Mallows Bay so stay tuned for these too.

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Inventory:

http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/nominations/

Read the nomination and see the letters of support for this endeavor.

Heater’s Island and the Piscataway Indians

by Dennis C. Curry,  Chief Archeologist, Maryland Historical Trust

Vandercastle and Harrison meet the Piscataway in 1699 (painting by William Woodward).

Vandercastle and Harrison meet the Piscataway in 1699 (painting by William Woodward).

In 1608, Captain John Smith mapped the Indian village of Moyaons near the confluence of the Potomac River with Piscataway Creek.  Smith did not describe the people of this village in his journal, but twenty-five years later Governor Leonard Calvert met with this Indian nation—the Piscataway.  When Calvert met the Piscataway, their village had moved from Moyaons to the head of Piscataway Creek.  Over the years, their principal village would move to Zekiah Swamp (1680) and then to the foothills of Virginia (1697).  In 1699, the Piscataway returned to the Maryland side of the Potomac, settling on what is now known as Heater’s Island.

Thanks to colonial documents preserved in modern archives, we have a surprisingly good picture of the Piscataway Fort on Heater’s Island.  In April of 1699, two emissaries of the Virginia governor—Giles Vandercastle and Burr Harrison—journeyed to the island where they observed a nearly completed fort (50-60 yards square) containing 18 cabins, with 9 cabins outside the fort.  Based on the Natives they observed, Vandercastle and Harrison estimated there to be 80 to 90 bowmen, which would indicate a total population on the island of around 300 people.  In December of 1704, the Maryland Council dispatched Col. James Smallwood and his men to the island seeking a nominee for the new “Emperor” so the Governor could approve that person as required by law.  Smallwood found the fort nearly abandoned, and learned that a smallpox epidemic had recently taken the lives of 57 men, women, and children (presumably including Emperor Ocotomaquath).  The Piscataway rebounded, however, and in 1712 the Swiss adventurer Baron Christoph von Graffenried encountered a vibrant population on the island, which he called “Canavest.”  Shortly after von Graffenried’s visit, the Piscataway left Heater’s Island to settle in Pennsylvania and later in New York.

Brass points, gunflints, glass beads, ceramics, and nails from Heater’s Island.

Brass points, gunflints, glass beads, ceramics, and nails from Heater’s Island.

Fast forward to the summer of 1970, when Heater’s Island – then privately owned, but now owned and managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources –  served as the focus of the University of Maryland–College Park’s first archeological field school.  From late June through August, several dozen students, under the overall supervision of Dr. Robert Schuyler and the general field direction of Ivor Gross, excavated 113 5- by 5-foot squares at the site of the 17th-century Piscataway fort.  Their excavations revealed a corner bastion of the fort structure (marked by a trapezoidal soil stain), a number of pit features containing evidence of what the Piscataway ate (mostly corn and deer), and an incredible collection of artifacts.  Unfortunately, a report on the excavations was never prepared.

In 2004, Dr. Schuyler (now at the University of Pennsylvania) transferred the collection and records to the Maryland Historical Trust and staff began analysis and report preparation.  Readily apparent in the artifact collection is the material culture shift that occurred among the Piscataway: European goods (glass beads, iron nails, glass bottles, and more) had clearly replaced Native-made items.  Stone arrowpoints are virtually absent, but triangular brass arrowpoints are plentiful.  The Piscataway also adopted another European weapon—the firearm.  The presence of guns on the site is marked by an abundance of gun parts, gunflints, and pieces of lead shot.  Similarly, Indian ceramics and Native tobacco pipes were largely replaced by those of European manufacture.  But this adoption of European goods seems to have resulted more from practicality than from assimilation.  Metal knives were sharper and more durable than chipped-stone versions, and wine bottle glass could be flaked into scrapers more quickly than quartz.  So while the Piscataway may have chosen more efficient European wares and materials, they did so while maintaining their Indian identity.  This is evident in their self-governance and in their dealings with the colonists.  The Piscataway strove to define their destiny.

Modern Piscataway in traditional garb.

Modern Piscataway in traditional garb.

When the Piscataway from Heater’s Island left Maryland around 1712, their documentary presence began to fade.  In Pennsylvania, this group of Piscataway settled, and eventually merged, with Nanticoke groups.  The Piscataway (or Conoy, as they were later known) appear as signatories on a handful of treaties as late as 1758.  The last official mention of the Conoy tribe is on correspondence they signed in 1793.  Yet this is not the entire story.  When the main group left Heater’s Island for Pennsylvania, there were other Piscataway Indians still living in southern Maryland.  These people may have been less visible, but they did exist.  Documentary evidence appears in several court cases: in a 1707 case (not resolved until 1712), Queen Nannsonan and a group from Choptico sought restitution for a plundered Indian grave; and in 1736 “George Williams, an Indian” petitioned the legislature for title to the land he had long occupied in Prince George’s County.  Certainly, many other Piscataway remained in southern Maryland but left no written record.  In the 1920s and 1930s, chief Turkey Tayac began a Piscataway resurgence that reached a crescendo in the 1970s.  Today, many in southern Maryland identify as Piscataway.  That Indian presence—300 years after the main group of Piscataway left Heater’s Island—led Governor Martin O’Malley in 2012 to grant state recognition to three Piscataway groups: the Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy, the Piscataway Indian Nation, and the Cedarville Band of Piscataway.

Links for further reading:

 

Join Us at the Annual Field Session in Maryland Archeology

By Charlie Hall, State Terrestrial Archeologistbiggs1

You are cordially invited to join the archeology staff of the Maryland Historical Trust in the investigation of two overlapping Late Woodland Native American village sites along Glade Creek in Walkersville, Maryland.  Mark your calendar now:  the Field Session begins on Friday May 22nd and ends on Monday June 1st, including weekends and the Memorial Day holiday.  You may choose to attend for half a day, a whole day, or any combination up to the entire 11 days.  Pre-registration is available through the Archeological Society of Maryland (www.marylandarcheology.org, click on Field Session).  We hope to see you there!

Continue reading