This paper will deal with two historical sites of the Cape Henlopen area of Sussex County. This area has seen diverse use over approximately the past 125 years. It has contained the Delaware Breakwater Quarantine Station for the Port of Philadelphia, processing more than 250,000 immigrants. Its features included dwellings, administrative structures, crematoria, cemeteries and breakwaters. The area was also the site of the Lewes Life-Saving Station, Fifth District, administered by what is now the United States Coast Guard (USCG). This facility impacted the surrounding landscape minimally, but the men who manned the station covered approximately seven miles of coast. This area stretched north along Delaware Bay for several miles and south along the Atlantic coast to the next Life Saving Station located some distance south of Cape Henlopen.

This examination will focus, however, on Fort Miles. A World War II military installation, the fort was the most heavily fortified military base in the Western Hemisphere during the conflict (Pearson 1997; Lewis 1970). The fort was massively armed because its purpose was to defend the oil refineries of the upper Delaware Bay and River, which together supplied approximately 97% of Allied fuel during the conflict (Pearson 1997). By looking at these various uses of Cape Henlopen, the author wishes to see if archaeological methods are sound when correlated with historical documentary data about the sites.

Artillery training at Fort Miles, c. 1941. © The Lewes Historical Society.

The potential to test archaeological theory and practice at well-documented hsitoric sites such as Fort Miles is unlimited. Many areas of interest could be investigated through the application of archaeological models to the Cape Henlopen sites. One topic that could be studied would be how sites on the Cape affected the surrounding landscape and environment. The author will explore in a limited fashion the geographic and geologic elements of this relationship as well as the archaeological, although all three are intimately connected. For this analysis, the author will look at the research of Mark Leone (1989, 1992) who has done extensive work restoring the historic gardens of Annapolis, Maryland based on results of archaeological excavation. I will also examine the work of Michael Schiffer (1988), who has written extensively about site formation and how cultural and natural transforms can affect a site. These distinctions will be key in analyzing the history of Cape Henlopen. Being able to observe the differences between cultural and natural transforms will be essential in determining the development of the various structures situated at the Cape. Since all three sites were in use more or less simultaneously, it will be interesting to look at the ways in which these facilities interacted with each other.

Yet another subject that could be examined is the spatial relationships not only within an individual period of a site (i.e., Fort Miles), but between the sites as well. As Hodder and Orton state, "[These] techniques often lead to the discovery of patterns not revealed by usual archaeological analysis, and thus provide something for the archaeologist to explain" (1976:72). This subject could also be examined by employing the ideas and theories of Blankholm (1991), Camilli and Ebert (1992), Dewar and McBride (1992), Hodder and Orton (1976), Jones and Beck (1992), Schlanger (1992), and Wandsnider (1992a, 1992b). Hodder and Orton (1976) analyze site distribution and the distance that sites must be from one another in order to be considered one settlement or part of a different one. The question of whether all three sites at Cape Henlopen were only one large site might have hypothetically arisen if documentary and ethnological evidence did not exist to prove that each was a separate entity built to perform a specific task at a specific point in time. Hodder and Orton (1976) also discuss site contemporaneity and how to differentiate long-term from short-term habitation; such questions will be vital when looking at Cape Henlopen.

While most archaeological literature deals with spatial analysis in prehistoric cultures and their temporary sites, these techniques can successfully be applied to historical sites to extrapolate significant trends in archaeological data. The Cape Henlopen sites also present unique opportunities to examine the impact of the sites, including both their use and their structures, on the environment and landscape of the region. Environmental and landscape archaeology as it regards Cape Henlopen could be examined using concepts offered by Chang (1993), Leone (1989, 1992b), Rossignol (1992), Stafford and Hajic (1992), and Zvelebil, Green and Macklin (1992). Cape Henlopen presents several interesting problems in terms of its geography, however. Since it is situated on a drastically changing coastline, it would be worthwhile to compare what historical records tell and show of the changing coastline to what archaeological models regarding natural transforms predict (Schiffer 1988). Nearly a quarter of a mile south of Cape Henlopen is the site of the third largest dune system on the East Coast (Denny et al. 1979; Denny and Owens 1979). This dune system would have the greatest impact on the area of Fort Miles due to its northward migration toward the spit of the Cape. It is expected that the dunes would severely alter the state of preservation of the remains of the fort by greatly increasing the rates of decay due to wind and sea, amplified by sand friction. The author will examine Cape Henlopen in the framework of an emerging discipline, "recent archaeology." This archaeology is currently associated with World War II sites and extensively uses ideas and techniques from ethnoarchaeology, historical archaeology, and military archaeology. Recent archaeology could be defined as a branch of historical archaeology dealing not only with historical documentary evidence but also with ethnographic details as relayed by persons who actually participated in activities at the site, with results that can be correlated with the former occupants or participants.

In this paper, the analysis will focus on a population density estimate for two phases of historic occupation at Cape Henlopen. The necessary statistics for this study have been provided by the Delaware State Planning Office, the Lewes Historical Society, and Cape Henlopen State Park. Models for population estimates of Fort Miles, and the Lewes Life-Saving are primarily based on Naroll (1962) and Pringle (1981), used in an analysis of the Roman military site at Isthmia, Greece (Kardulias 1992). Additional information on population studies may be found in Hassan (1992). Looking at these problems can provide not only a unique view of several archaeological phenomena, but also of geological and historical ones as well. Cape Henlopen's diverse usage over the past 125 years offers archaeologists a unique situation to study and test many hypotheses and models which have been applied to archaeological sites, both historic and prehistoric. Examining the archaeology of Cape Henlopen, one has an extraordinary opportunity to study site development in a very restricted area over a relatively short period of time. The list of possible research topics should by no means be considered exhaustive; it simply reflects several areas of inquiry which are considered significant by scholars today.

Geology, Geography, and Climate of Cape Henlopen

The Delmarva Peninsula is a lowland plain located entirely within the Coastal Plain Zone (Custer 1989). It is situated between two estuary systems, the Chesapeake and the Delaware Bays (Owens and Denny 1979). It is still debated whether the Delmarva Peninsula is a result of erosional or tectonic processes (Owens and Denny 1979). Low, inconspicuous sand dunes are common throughout the south-central portion of the peninsula formed by the Parsonsburg Sand Complex (Denny and Owens 1979). The coast is separated from Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean by broad wetlands (Denny et al. 1979). "An extensive barrier-backbarrier system forms the Atlantic shore" of the peninsula (Denny et al. 1979). Cape Henlopen is located at the mouth of Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, at 38°45'50" N 75°4'50" W. The cape is the northern point for a lagoon-barrier system stretching south along the east coast of the Delmarva peninsula (Kraft et al. 1978). Geological as well as historical research have found that the Delaware Atlantic coast line has eroded nearly a quarter of a mile in the past 200 years (Allen et al. 1978; LHS 1997). While the Atlantic coast line has been eroding, the southern shore of Delaware Bay at Lewes has been migrating northward over the past 100 years due to two breakwater systems impeding sediment transport out of Delaware Bay (LHS 1997; USCG 1936 1977; Allen et al. 1978). Cape Henlopen is in a region of Delmarva defined by geologists as the Atlantic Coastal Bay Zone (Custer 1989). This area includes all in-land waterways: Rehoboth Bay, Indian River Bay, Little Assawoman Bay, Assawoman Bay, Chincoteague Bay and Assateague Bay. Features such as fringing islands and tidal marshes, common to the Baymouth Barrier Complex (e.g., the barrier islands of North Carolina known as the Outer Banks) are found along the central coast of the peninsula (Allen et al. 1976). The area consists of poorly drained sandy loams with better drainage occurring inland on higher elevation, although differences in elevation of Sussex County are minimal from the Atlantic and Delaware Bay coasts to the Caroline, Dorchester and Wicomico County (Maryland) lines.

Delaware Bay is a remarkably shallow estuary with most of the northern portion, between Cape May and southern New Jersey, reaching high-water depths of no more than 6 ft (NOAA 1977). The only accessible region of the mouth of Delaware Bay for ships with a draught of more than 20 ft would be within a mile from Cape Henlopen. Off the tip of the Cape, depths increase rapidly, with up to 60 ft of water approximately 20 ft off-shore. The maximum depth of the mouth is 110 ft (NOAA 1977).

Delaware's climate could be considered fair with the majority of the state experiencing an average high of 55°F while Lewes and the coastal areas are slightly warmer throughout the year with a mean of 56° (Jenner and Lins 1991; Weeks 1939). The regulating effects of the Atlantic Ocean are somewhat tempered due to the westerly direction of the prevailing winds (Jenner and Lins 1991). The state receives an average of 26 inches of snow a year while annual overall precipitation averages 42.70 inches in Delaware (Weeks 1939). Severe storms, except during hurricane season, are not common (Weeks 1939). Winter storms generally originate in the Gulf of Mexico and parallel the Atlantic coast following the Gulf Stream; these account for most of Delmarva's winter precipitation (Jenner and Lins 1991). Drought is highly unusual; in the summer "warm, moist air is circulated into the area by the Bermuda high and scattered convective showers contribute the bulk of the precipitation" (Jenner and Lins 1991:10). The temperature rarely dips below freezing and when it does is primarily due to wind-chill from the Atlantic (Weeks 1939). It is not unusual to find the majority of summer days with exceedingly high humidity (a yearly average of 64%) being tempered with late afternoon thunderstorms two to three times a week (Weeks 1939). The growing season (days between last and first killing frosts) averages anywhere from 190 days in northern Sussex County (Milford) to 196 days in southern Sussex County (Maryland line) (Weeks 1939).

Delaware Bay, while comparatively small, somewhat increases the strength of nor'easters and hurricanes and can be extremely choppy at times, occasionally more so than the adjacent Atlantic (Weeks 1939). On a whole, the Delmarva peninsula acts as climatic insulation for the Chesapeake Bay as well as western Maryland. The broad (70 miles at its greatest extent) tree covered coastal plain usually deteriorates most storms before the brunt of many of them can reach the metropolitan areas of Baltimore, Annapolis, and Washington, D.C. (Weeks 1939).

Historical Background for Cape Henlopen: History of American Sea Coast Fortifications, Particularly Those For the Port of Philadelphia

A proper discussion of American sea coast defense begins in 1794 when the American government began to protect the shores of the new nation. As Lewis (1970) points out however, there are three major phases of American coastal fortification construction, the First and Second Systems (1794-1817), Third System (1817-1865), a lull in development after the Civil War, and finally the Endicott (1917-1945). Current trends in military installations point less toward an attack by sea and instead are developed under the threat of an aerial assault against the United States (Lewis 1970). The Endicott, therefore, is the most vital period to understand when looking at the defense systems and layout of Fort Miles.

The Endicott Period marks the advent of technology capable of producing light-weight steel (as opposed to heavy iron used during the Civil War) cannons that were longer and more powerful. These cannons were able to defend wider river and bay mouths and hence allowed forts to be moved closer to the sea-board than ever before (Lewis 1970). Therefore, a fort's artillery was able to defend a wider area in terms of cannon range with more effectiveness at greater distances. This phenomenon can be seen in the forts that protected the Port of Philadelphia. Beginning with a simple array of cannons located on Society Hill within the city limits of Philadelphia (Lewis 1970), protection for the major colonial city soon shifted several miles southwest of Philadelphia on the Delaware River to Fort Mifflin. This fort served as the primary line of defense from an attack from sea by the British during the Revolutionary War. During the Third System, Philadelphia's sea-defense system was transferred even further down the Delaware River into the states of Delaware and New Jersey. This fortification system consisted of three installations, Fort DuPont (Delaware), Fort Delaware on Pea Patch Island (Delaware), and Fort Mott (New Jersey) (Lewis 1970). This line of protection was considered adequate by the Department of War until 1917 at the beginning of American involvement in World War I (Lewis 1970). At this time, Ft. Saulisbury was built east of Milford in response to the new steel technology that allowed artillery to cover a greater range than ever before. This new fort had four twelve-inch guns which could easily cover the range of navigable waters in Delaware Bay and River for ships with a draft of 35 feet (Lewis 1970).

In 1939, the United States government acquired land (1,440 acres) at Cape Henlopen for the construction of the army installation known as Fort Miles in response to the growing fear of conflict between America and Germany. According to informants interviewed by the author as well as literature produced by the Delaware Division of State Parks, Fort Miles was the most heavily armed State-side military base in the during World War II. Armaments at the fort included two 16" guns, four 12" guns, numerous smaller guns, mine fields, and a mine-thatched net stretched across the mouth of the bay that seined for German U-boats. Fort Miles' technologically superior guns had a range of nearly 31 miles, capable of hitting an enemy fleet well offshore, as far south as the Maryland line at Fenwick Island, and approximately two miles north of Egg Harbor, New Jersey. Fort Miles was a technological and military wonder at the time of its construction (Pearson 1997). Bunkers hidden beneath constructed sand dunes immediately south of Cape Henlopen provided camouflage for the most heavily armed military base per acre in the world during World War II (Lewis 1970). It should be noted that while Army Corps construction of harbor defense systems on the coasts of the contiguous 48 states varied minimally during the World War II years, Hawaiian installations, faced with the constant threat of full-out attack, were equipped with more mid-range and anti-aircraft artillery than any other American state-side fort (Lewis 1970).

History of the United States Life Saving Service

The idea of some sort of government sponsored life saving service is one of relatively recent origin (Baarslag 1937). The Chinese imperial government established the first recorded life-saving service post along the Min River in 1737 (Baarslag 1937). European life-saving societies were founded as early as 1767 in Amsterdam, with other stations quickly taking root along the coasts of the North Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean (Baarslag 1937; David 1937). Previous to these stations, shipwrecked persons were at the mercy of fortune and the sea. If shipwrecked sailors were lucky enough to make it to shore alive they were likely to be attacked by local pirates or highwaymen who would stop at nothing to rob them of any possessions still retained by the survivor—including cutting off fingers of still living individuals to take gold rings (Baarslag 1937; Shanks 1996). Organized life-saving in the United States can be traced to the Massachusetts Humane Society (MHS), founded in 1786, and that society's creation of shelters along the Massachusetts coasts for survivors of wrecks (Baarslag 1937; David 1937; Shanks 1996). In 1807 the MHS established the first life-boat station in America. In 1869 ninety-two stations of the MHS lined the Massachusetts coasts and the last station under that organization's control was functional until at least 1936 (David 1937). The United States Life-Saving Service's (USLSS) first post was located at Spermaceti Cove, New Jersey in September 1848 (Baarslag 1937; David 1937; Shanks 1996).

The Service quickly proved its usefulness in January 1850 with the wreck Ayrshire, saving all 201 persons aboard (Baarslag 1937; Shanks 1996). With this proven success, the USLSS expanded rapidly along the shores of America. At the time of its official assimilation into the Coast Gaurd in 1938, the Service included 276 stations in 12 districts. Districts 1-10 were located along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, District 11 included stations on each Great Lake and District 12 contained the stations of the entire Pacific Coast, including the territory of Alaska (LHS 1997; Baarslag 1937; Shanks 1996).

It is interesting to note differences in regional architecture of the USLSS facilities. From the Cape May, New Jersey Station north, a style of exterior design known as New Jersey was incorporated into the front facade of the main crew house. This is characterized by a plain front beam which ran the length of the front of each residence (LHS 1997; Shanks 1996). The coast stations from Cape Henlopen, Delaware Station south through the Gulf of Mexico, were influenced by the Carolina ornamental designs on the same part of the residence. In this decorative alternative, an intricate design of spokes was placed as if to support the gabled roof above (LHS 1997; Shanks 1996). Besides these decorative dissimilarities, USLSS facilities were surprisingly similar despite regional differences in architecture at the time. Some stations could contain a boat house, launch house, residence and a dock (Shanks 1996).

The Lewes Station located on Delaware Bay was classified under the New Jersey design (LHS 1997). No buildings remain in situ from the Lewes USLSS facilities although the Lewes Coast Guard Station is now being used as the headquarters for the Pilots Association for the Bay & River Delaware (Marvil 1962). There is some debate as to which district the Lewes Station belonged. Some sources point to the Fifth District that spanned from Cape Henlopen to Cape Charles (LHS 1997). Through communication with the Historian of the United States Coast Guard, however, it appears that the Lewes Station was under the control of the Fourth District that included the entire coast of New Jersey (1997). Finally, information from the National Archives places the Lewes Station as far south as the Sixth District, which began at Cape Henry, Virginia and terminated at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (1997). By most accounts, including official USLSS maps dated 1889, the Lewes Station is counted under the Fifth District.

Theoretical Approaches: Historical Archaeology

This discipline within archaeology applies both archaeological and historical methods when looking at a site. It is able to do this by using documentary evidence along with the archaeological record (Noel-Hume 1969). Historical archaeology focuses on the period after A.D. 1415 with the Portuguese capture of the North African city of Ceuta (Orser 1996). Historical archaeology is able to grapple with problems that the scholarly world is debating today such as multiculturalism and race relations (Orser 1996). Considering the intimate tie between the past and the present, especially considering historical archaeological sites, the responsible historical archaeologists must therefore not only report their findings to their colleagues but also to the public-at-large (Noel-Hume 1969). This is done through historic preservation and the reconstruction of historic homes such as Thomas Jefferson's Monticello (Orser 1996). The emphasis of historical archaeology on the social and physical landscapes of the recent past suggests that the field will become more prominent as archaeologists continue to explore the complex relationships between the past and the present. The field will mature further as its practitioners develop their methodological tools and interpretive insights for understanding our contemporary world (Orser 1996:280).

Battlefield Archaeology Building on the ideas of historical archaeology is battlefield archaeology. Military forts have long been of interest to archaeologists. There are many reports on various sites from Fort Raleigh in North Carolina (Department of the Interior 1962) to the outposts of the western American frontier. "The investigations have often been conducted as ancillary studies to preservation, restoration, reconstruction, or interpretation efforts on the part of local, state, or national agencies" (Scott 1996:87). Military archaeology in North America is primarily concerned with battlefield sites. Knowing that Fort Miles never saw invading ground forces and saw only one enemy vessel, when a German U-boat surrendered itself at the end of the war, battlefield archaeological theory should not play a very large role in the analysis of Fort Miles.

Population Studies

When looking at Fort Miles, one should consider the population density and the impact the projected population would have had on probable site area as well as any possible changes that this structure might cause to the local environment. It will be worthy to note any differences between population estimated from models expressed below for ancient military camps that have been successfully applied to modern installations against information acquired from interviews with informants. It will also be interesting to compare the largest possible population for one of the facilities as well as the actual population recorded for the structures. Models of population estimates have been put forward for ancient military installations, such as at the Roman fortifications at Isthmia in Greece (Kardulias 1992), and these can be compared with recent plans and regulations set forth by the United States Army (Corps of Engineers 1973).

In his study of the Roman military post at Isthmia, Kardulias examined methods that were divided into seven categories by Hassan (1992). They are:

1) dwelling or floor space,
2) total site area,
3) number of dwellings per site,
4) number of rooms or dwellings per site,
5) number of persons per room,
6) the volume of site deposits, and,
7) the number of hearths per site.

In looking at the Cape Henlopen facilities, I will use the first category because it has garnered much attention (Kardulias 1992) and is most applicable to the limited data at my disposal. Kardulias examines the proportion of 10 m2/person which was first introduced by Naroll (1962). This coefficient applies basically to permanent settlements with substantial houses, but would not be an accurate estimate for temporary camp shelters (Hole and Heizer 1969). This technique has been successfully applied to several military sites including the Moroccan site of Qsar es-Seghir (Redman 1986) and the Greek site of Phylakopi (Cherry 1979). Kardulias points out that if this method is to work, "the archaeologist must be able to distinguish living space clearly from storage, ceremonial, and other kinds of space" (1992:279). Kardulias rightly warns about the danger of applying civilian population density studies to military sites due to the highly exceptional nature (i.e., crowded) of a military facility or camp (1992). It has been noted by Webster (1985) that it was not uncommon for a legion (5,000 men) to camp in an area of 8 ha.

To determine the population at the Isthmian fort, Kardulias (1992) utilizes Pringle's (1981) work at Thamugadi, where he suggests a ratio of 11m2/6 men= 1.8 m2/man, and for the larger structures a ratio of 16 m2/6 men= 2.7 m2/man. These ratios are meant to give the suggested minimal room needed for sleeping space. Examining the Technical Manual TM 5-302 (Corps of Engineers 1973), it is noted that the structural standards within the army stated therein were in place before World War II and thus are instrumental in determining the population and density of Fort Miles. Using Pringle's coefficient and applying statistical analysis of the area of the structures of the fort should yield reliable estimates of the number of soldiers deployed there. As Kardulias (1992) notes however, despite the fact that modern soldiers are more heavily equipped than their ancient (i.e. Roman) counterparts, statistical studies of modern military spatial relationships show that space allotted per man corresponds with the figure proposed by Pringle. In modern camps 3.72 m2/man seems to be the norm if Millon's (1973) model is used, however this is substantially less space per man when compared to the estimates of Naroll (10:1). Kardulias points out however, "when one considers only the sleeping space in 10 small rooms (45.336 m2), the figure drops to 1.81 m2/person" (1992). This is the expected ratio for the dwellings at Fort Miles (see Appendix A). Analysis I will focus first on the structures labeled as barracks in the Delaware state maps, and then will consider the other enclosed structures at the base (see Appendix A).

It must be noted that Naroll uses total floor space enclosed by roof when determining the population of a site. Since data is given in square feet rather than simply dimensions, it is necessary to square the conversion factor for feet to meters, 0.3048, resulting in a conversion factor for square feet to square meters of 0.0929. Thus, our original equation, Ft x (0.3048)=M, now becomes the equation used to determine the area covered in square meters: Ft2 x (0.0929)=M2. There were a total of 37 barracks at Fort Miles with 26 single-floor dwellings. Each single-floor barrack had a total of 2,080 ft2 which equals a total of 54,080 ft2 or 193.24 m2 per single-floor barrack and a total of 5,024.03 m2 for all single-floor barracks. Fort Miles also incorporated 11 two-story barracks, one of which contained 2,719 ft2 and the other ten including 4830 ft2 for a total of 51,019 ft2 in all two-story barracks. This equals 252.6 m2 in the 2,719 ft2 two-story barrack, and 448.71 m2 in each of the rest of the two-story barracks. In all barracks at Fort Miles there is a total of 105,099 ft2 which equals 9,763.7 m2 barrack space at Fort Miles. Given the slightly larger area, 2,000 ft2 (Corps of Engineers 1973) normally as opposed to 2,080 ft2, of the single floor barracks at Fort Miles, one should expect that the average space per man would be slightly higher than the expected 3.72 expected by Millon (1973).

Indeed in each single floor, 50 man barrack, a 2,000 m2 would have been a normal fifty man barrack (Corps of Engineers 1973), the floor area per man equals 3.9 m2, slightly higher than Millon's estimation. If we allow the same proportion in each barrack to be used for heaters as done by Kardulias (1992), we arrive at a total floor space of 170.44 m2 which would then provide 3.4 m2 for each man. Since no floor plans for the barracks at Fort Miles are known to exist, it will be impossible to assume that the rooms would equal the same area, 45.336 m2, as converted from information from the Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers 1973). If one could assume that the rooms at Fort Miles were proportionally larger than standard army barracks (comparing 2,000 ft2 to 2,080 ft2) detailed by the Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers 1973), then each room could proportionally have an area of 47.059 m2. This would then allow a ratio of 1.88 m2/man at Fort Miles. This estimate is very near to Pringle's (1973) approximation of 1.81 m2 and also could be seen as allowing for the slightly larger area of Fort Miles' single floor barracks. Second, the unique, smaller two-story barrack of 252.6 m2 yields 3.36 m2 per man. Excluding space provided for by heaters in this facility, total area for men would be 222.8 m2; this would allow for 2.97 m2 per man. These numbers assume however, that this is a 75-man facility. This seems a reasonable position to take considering it fits the proportional scale of Fort Miles barracks (2080 ft2 [50 men], 2719 ft2 [75 men], and 4830 ft2 [100 men]). The ratios of floor area per man are near to the respective ratios given by Millon (1973) and Pringle (1981) when considering the number of soldiers in this barrack. Assuming that the scaled estimates for men per barrack are correct, then the 100 man 4830 ft2 (448.71 m2) barrack would have allowed each man 4.49 m2, well above the estimate of Millon (1973). Allowing for heaters in each of these two-storied barracks would have left 395.8 m2 thus leaving 3.96 m2 per man. This is much closer to Millon's (1973) estimate of 3.72 m2/man, albeit somewhat larger.

It could be concluded that the greater area is due to the assumedly larger individual rooms within each structure based on the relationship of 50-man army barracks at the time (Corps of Engineers 1973), and those located at Fort Miles. It is probably safe to assume that the variations of rooms in each of the three sizes of barracks did not change, only the number, leaving the estimate of space per man at 1.88 m2 for each room at the installation. Estimating the population for the fort as a whole, by taking the total area of floor space from all barracks, 9,763.7 m2 and dividing by the assumed ratio of 3.72 m2 per man, it is estimated that 2,625 men could have lived at Fort Miles. Keeping in mind that Fort Miles' barracks are slightly larger than normal United States Army barracks at the time (Corps of Engineers 1973), one can add the total number of men from the scaled- proportions (see above) and arrive at a figure of 2,375 men able to live at Fort Miles at any one time. This figure accounts for 90.4% of the estimated population of the fort.

From records of the Delaware State Planning Office it is known that only 1,702 men served at the peak of Fort Miles' occupation. Through this statistic, Fort Miles held only 71.66% of the men it was able to according to the population figured from the scaled-proportions and only had 64.83% of its capacity according to the estimated population by Millon's ratio. Using at total roof-covered area at Fort Miles, there were 422,758 ft2 or 39,274.22 m2 (see Appendix A). Using Naroll's coefficient of 10:1 (10 m2/man), one could estimate that approximately 3,927 men could be stationed at Fort Miles. Based on documentary evidence and data explained above, this is shown not to be the fact and reinforces Kardulias' cautionary note about the Naroll approach, "the archaeologist must be able to distinguish living space clearly from storage, ceremonial, and other kinds of space" (1992:279).

Actual dimensions for the USLSS Lewes Station living quarters were not available in time for this research. Instead, only information for the onshore boathouse is used here. This structure held only the station's surfboats and would not have been used as a residence. It could be argued, however, that the station could present extraordinarily crowded conditions after a rescue analogous to situations at military sites, and Fort Miles in particular. The surfboat house includes an area of 1600 ft2 or 148.64 m2 Including external, roofed spaces. Using Millon's (1973) ratio of 3.72 m2/man, it is estimated that nearly 40 (39.9) men could have used the area as a dwelling had the need arose. It is known that there were no internal walls of the life-boat house as well as no heating mechanisms of any kind (LHS 1997). Pringle's (1981) ratio of 1.81 m2/man therefore does not apply to the life-boat house since individual rooms within the structure did not exist.

Reviewing population estimates for Fort Miles, the proximity with which the Millon (1973) ratios worked reinforces the validity of this method of estimation in all military sites, modern, historic or prehistoric. It should be noted that Millon's estimated sleeping space was calculated for Teotihuacan, and does not accurately portray a military situation. Naroll's overestimation should be noted and the fact that the results for total area covered by roof were so far-fetched show how tenuous estimates from his ratio could be (see above for exceptions). Conclusion In looking at Cape Henlopen, it was noted how reliable certain population estimate models could be, especially considering the extraordinarily crowded nature of Fort Miles, the Delaware Breakwater Quarantine Station, and the USLSS Lewes Station. While these facilities did not operate simultaneously, conclusions can be drawn from their unique land use in the archaeological record as their territories did eventually overlap. Several questions have been answered in this paper, especially ones concerning the validity of estimations first applied to ancient military sites when applied to modern ones; they are concluded to be relatively accurate. It has been noted above that questions concerning the cultural ecology, spatial relationships, and landscape archaeology of the site could be extremely interesting to explore considering the fragile, changing nature of Cape Henlopen and the immediate Delaware shoreline. Archaeological techniques for estimating populations are also reliable when those estimations can be cross-checked against historical documentary and ethnographic evidence indicating the maximum population for a site, particularly a military one. As for the differences noted, especially when considering the total roofed area, it should be noted that a modern army requires extensive networks of supplies and necessities (see Appendix A).

Innovations in technology and firepower require increasingly larger buildings to house these new weapons and supplies, especially if one were to consider a hanger at an air force base or a dry dock at a modern naval yard. If these facilities could not be distinguished from living space, their inclusion in a site's floor area would drastically inflate estimates for population at the site. This phenomenon can be seen in effect at Fort Miles. As noted by Kardulias (1992), and reaffirmed here, military sites do provide a patterned yet extraordinary opportunity to show that population densities of military sites are extremely crowded, even when considered against the worst urban conditions. Several models based upon civilian models of population densities should either be abandoned and not applied to military sites, or be revised according to data about the most stressed urban populations (e.g., Naroll 1962). Some are adequate for looking at modern sites and are the best models that archaeologists have today to examine the population density of ancient sites (e.g., Millon 1973; Pringle 1981). This could be done, as Kardulias (1992) notes, through the revision of ethnographic studies and attempting to locate those modern urban situations that most closely correspond to military conditions. The success of the application of contemporary army information (Corps of Engineers 1973) should also indicate to the archaeologist that modern analogies can be used to determine population and that as information from modern armies is updated according to modern needs, those changes should be noted and corresponding innovations looked for in the archaeological record.

Appendix A: Structures of Fort Miles

This appendix is not available online. Please contact the Society to request a copy or to discuss your research needs. Bibliography Adams, M.C.C.
1989 The Best War Ever: America and World War II. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Adavasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath
1977 Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47 (2-3):1-93.

Adavasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.E. Guliday, and K. Volman
1980 Yes Virginia, It Really Is That Old. A Reply to Haynes and Mead. American Antiquity 45: 588-595.

Allen, E.A., J.C. Kraft, and E.M. Maurmeyer
1978 The Geological and Paleogeomorphological Evolution of a Spit System and Its Associated Coastal Environments: Cape Henlopen Spit, Delaware. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 48:211-226.

Baarslag, K.
1937 Coast Guard to the Rescue. Farrar and Rinehart, New York.

Barker, G.
1995 A Mediterranean Valley: Landscape Archaeology and Annales History in the Biferno Valley. Leicester University Press, London.

Barrett, J.C.
1996 Post-Processual Theory. In Brian Fagan, ed., The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press, London, pp. 576-578.

Binford, L.R.
1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1992 Seeing the Present and Interpreting the Past-- and Keeping Things Straight. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 43-58.

Blaker, M.C.
1950 Pottery Types from the Townsend Site, Lewes, Delaware. Bulletin of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation 9:11.
1952 Further Comments on Simple-Stamped Shell-Tempered Pottery. American Antiquity 17:257-258.

Blankholm, H.P.
1991 Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Theory and Practice. Rosendahls Bogtrykkeri, Denmark.

Bonine, C.A.
1964a The South Bastion of the DeVries Palisade. Archaeolog. Vol. XVI, No. 2:13-19
1964b Historical and Archaeological Comparisons of the Lewes, Delaware Area with the Fort Raleigh and Jamestown Sites. Address at the Lewes Historical Society meeting January 15, 1964.

Brose, D.S. and N. Gerber, eds.
1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Monograph No. 3. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Camilli, E.L. and J.I. Ebert
1992 Artifact Reuse and Recycling in Continuous Surface Distributions and Implications for Interpreting Land Use Patterns. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp.113-133

Chang, C.
1988 Nauyalik Fish Camp: An Ethnoarchaeological Study in Activity-Area Formation. American Antiquity 53:145-157. 1993 Ethnoarchaeological Survey of Transhumance Sites in the Grevena Region, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 249-264.

Cherry, J.F.
1979 Four Problems in Cycladic Prehistory. In J.L. Davis and J.F. Cherry, eds., Papers in Cycladic Prehistory. Monograph 14, UCLA, pp. 22-47.

Chippendale, C.
1988 Managing for Effective Archaeological Conservation: The Example of Salisbury Plain Military Area, England. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:55-65.

Clark, J.G.D.
1952 Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis. Metheun Press, London. Custer, J.F.
1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula. Associated University Press, Cranbury, New Jersey.

Darvil, T.
1993 Identifying and Protecting Historical Landscapes: The Monuments Protection Programme for England. Antiquity 67:563-574.

David, E.J.
1937 Our Coast Guard. D. Appleton-Century Co., New York.

Deets, L.E.
1975 The Hutterites: A Study In Social Cohesion. Porcupine Press, Philadelphia.

Denny, C.S. and J.P. Owens
1979 Sand Dunes on the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
1973 Construction in the Theater of Operations Technical Manual TM 5-302. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

Department of Defense
1993 Military Bases. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service
1962 Search for the Cittie of Ralegh: Archaeological Excavations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Series, No. 6. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1991 World War II and U.S. Army Mobilization Program. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

DeVries, D.P.
1912 Korte Historiael Ende Journaels Aenteyckeninge, 1630-1633, 1644 (1655). In J.F.Jameson, ed., Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey, and Delaware, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, pp. 1-30.

Dewar, R.E. and K.A. McBride
1992 Remnant Settlement Patterns. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 227-253.

DeRoche, C.D.
1983 Population Estimates from Settlement Area and Number of Residences. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:187-192.

Dunnell, R.C.
1992 The Notion Site. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp.21-37.

Eckman, J., A. Higgins, and W.H. Connors
1938 Delaware. Stratford Press, Philadelphia.

Elia, R.J.
1995 Preserving a Cold War Legacy. Archaeology 48:48-49.

Falk, L.
1991 Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Fine, L.
1972 The Corps of Engineers: Construction In the United States. Chief of Military History, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.

Flannery, K.V.
1967 Culture History Versus Culture Process: A Debate in American Archaeology. Scientific American 217:119-122.

Glassie, H.
1995 Tradition. Journal of American Folklore 108:395-142.

Goodyear, A.C.
1984 Middle Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications. American Antiquity 49:255-258.

Gould, R.A.
1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.
1996 Ethnoarchaeology. In Brian M. Fagan, ed., The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press, London.

Griffin, J.B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175- 191.
1977 A Commentary of Early Man Studies in the Northeast. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:3-15.

Griffith, D.R.
1977 Townsend Ceramics and the Late Woodland of Southern Delaware. MA thesis, American University, Washington, D.C.
1982 Prehistoric Ceramics of Delaware: An Overview. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:46-68.

Guarsci, C.
1884 Studies On Coast Defense Applied to the Gulf of Specia. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Hassan, F.
1992 Demographic Archaeology. American Antiquity 57.2:276-287.

Haynes, C.V.
1977 When and from Where Did Man Arrive in Northeastern North America: A Discussion. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 288:165-167.
1980 Palaeoindian Charcoal from Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Is Contamination a Problem? American Antiquity 80:582-587.

Heizer, R.F. and S.F. Cook
1960 The Application of Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Quadrangle Books, Chicago Hinshaw, D.
1943 The Homefront. Putnam's & Sons, New York.

Hodder, I.
1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1995 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Routledge Press, New York.

Hodder, I. and C. Orton
1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, London.

Hole, F., and R.F. Heizer
1969 An Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Hollister, C.D.
1973 Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States-- Texture of the Surface Sediments from New Jersey to South Florida. United States Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.

Hrdlicka, A.
1916 Physical Anthropology of the Lenapes, or Delawares, and of the Eastern Indians in General. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnography 62:130-160.

Jenner, C.B. and H.F. Lins
1991 Climatic Atlas of the Delaware River Basin. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, L.L. and M. Stright
1992 Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of Methods. From the SAA Annual Meetings, 1988, in Atlanta, Georgia. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida

Jones, G.T. and C. Beck
1992 Chronological Resolution in Distributional Archaeology. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp.167-190.

Kardulias, P. N.
1992 Estimating Populations at Ancient Military Sites: The Use of Historical and Contemporary Analogy. American Antiquity 57:276-288.

Kerber, J.E.
1991 Coastal and Maritime Archaeology, A Bibliography. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey.

Knapp, A.B. (ed.)
1992 Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kolb, C.C.
1985 Demographic Estimates in Archaeology: Contributions from Ethnoarchaeology on Mesoamerican Peasants. Current Anthropology 26:581-599.

Leone, M.
1989 Power Gardens of Annapolis. Archaeology 42:34-39.
1992 Conflict In the Archaeology of Living Traditions. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:89-92.
1992b Carter's Grove. Journal of American History 79:1082-1087.

Lewis, E.R.
1970 Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory History. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Lopez, J.
1961 Pottery from the Mispillion Site, Sussex County, Delaware. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 31:1-38.

Marine, D.
1955 Duke of York Patents on Pilot Town Road. Archaeolog Vol. VII, No. 2:1-5.

Marine, W.M.
1901 The Bombardment of Lewes By the British, April 6 and 7, 1813. The Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware.

Marvil, J.E.
1962 A History of the Pilots Association of the Bay and River Delaware. Sussex Press, Laurel, Delaware.

Maschner, H.D.G.
1996 Middle Range Theory. In Brian M. Fagan, ed., The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York.

McGuire, R.H.
1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.

Mead, J.J.
1980 Is It Really That Old? A Comment on the Meadowcroft Rockshelter "Overview." American Antiquity 45:579-81.

Millon, R.
1973 The Teotihuacan Map. Urbanization at Teotihuacan. University of Texas, Austin, Austin, Texas.

Mixon, R.B.

1985 Stratigraphic and Geomorphic Framework of Uppermost Cenozoic Deposits in the Southern Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia and Maryland. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Munroe, J.A., ed.
1979 Papers Given at the Lewes Historical Society's Cultural and Historical Seminar of Lewes, 1978 and 1979. Lewes Historical Society, Lewes, Delaware.

Murray, P. and P.N. Kardulias
1986 A Modern Site Survey in the Southern Argolid, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:21-41.

Mustard, E.L.
1949 The Middle Field of Pasture Neck. Archaeolog 2: 1-7.

Naroll, R.
1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27:587-589. NOAA

NOAA
1927 Region 26; Depths and Signals from Cape May, New Jersey to Fenwick Island, Delaware. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
1977 Region 26; Depths and Signals from Cape May, New Jersey to Fenwick Island, Delaware. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

Noble, D.
1975 United States Life-Saving Service Annotated Bibliography. Public Affairs Division, Washington, D.C.

Noel-Hume, I.
1969 Historical Archaeology. Knopf, New York.

O'Brien K.P. and L.H. Parsons (Eds.)
1995 The Homefront War: World War II and American Society. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

Omwake, H.G. and T.D. Stewart
1963 The Townsend Site Near Lewes, Delaware. Archeolog 15:1-72.

Oostdam, B.L., and R.R. Jordan
1972 Suspended Sediment Transport in Delaware Bay. In Bruce W. Nelson, ed., Environmental Framework of Coastal Plain Estuaries. The Geologic Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 143-149.

Orser, C.E.
1996 Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. Plenum Press, New York.

Owens, J.P., M.M. Hess, C.S. Denny, and E.J. Dwornik
1983 Postdepositional Alteration of Surface and Near-Surface Minerals in Selected Coastal Plain Formations of the Middle Atlantic States. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Owens, J.P. and C.S. Denny
1979 Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Pilkey, O.H. and K.L. Dixon
1996 The Corps and the Shore. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Rathje, W.
1974 The Garbage Project. Archaeology 27:236-241.

Redman, C.L.
1986 Qsar es-Seghir: An Archaeological View of Medieval Life. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn
1991 Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Rodgers, J.D. and S.M. Wilson (Eds.)
1993 Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas. Plenum Press, New York.

Rona, P.
1980 NOAA Atlas 3. The Central North Atlantic Ocean Basin and Continental Margins. United States Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Rossignol, J.
1992 Concepts, Methods and Theory Building: A Landscape Approach. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp.3-14.

Scharf, J.T.
1888 History of Delaware, Vol. 1-2. L.J. Richards & Co., Philadelphia.

Schiffer, M.
1988 Structure of Archaeological Theory. Antiquity 53:461-485

Schlanger, S.H.

1992 Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Systems. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space,Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 91-111.

Schuyler, R.L.

1970 Historical and Historic Sites Archaeology as Anthropology: Basic Definitions and Relationships. In M.P. Leone, ed., Contemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Contributions. Southern Illinois University Press

Feffer and Simons, Inc., 1972, pp. 118-124.
1978 Historical Archaeology: A Guide To Substantiative and Theoretical Contributions. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, New York.

Scott, D.D.
1996 Battlefield Archaeology of North America. In Brian M. Fagan, ed., The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 87-88.

Shanks, R.C.
1996 United States Life-Saving Service: Heroes, Rescues and Architecture of the Early Coast Guard. Costano Books, Petaluma, California.

Stafford, C.R. and E.R. Hajic
1992 Landscape Scale: Geoenvironmental Approaches to Prehistoric Settlement Strategies. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp.137-158.

Trigger, B.G.
1978 Time and Traditions. Columbia University Press, New York.

United States Coast Guard, Public Information Division
1955 United States Coast Guard Ships, Planes, and Stations. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

United States Geologic Survey
1990 Region 26; Cape Henlopen, Delaware. United States Geologic Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

United States Life-Saving Service

1881 Annual Report of the Operations of the United States Life-Saving Service for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1881. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Wandsnider, L.
1992a The Spatial Dimension of Time. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 257-280
1992b Archaeological Landscape Studies. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 285-291.

Wasch D.S., P. Bush, Landreth, K., and J. Glass
1992 World War II and the U.S. Army Mobilization Program: A History of 700 and 800 Cantonment Construction. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

Watson, P.J.
1979 The Idea of Ethnoarchaeology. In C. Kramer, ed., Ethnoarchaeology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 277-278.

Webster, G.
1979 The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. Barnes and Noble Press, New York.

Weeks, J.R
1939 Our Climate, East of the Rockies With Special Consideration of Maryland and Delaware. Maryland State Weather Service, Baltimore.

Weissner, P.
1974 A Functional Estimator of Population from Floor Area. American Antiquity 39:343-350.

Weslager, C.A.
1991 The Siconese of Lewes, Delaware. Lewes Historical Society, Lewes, Delaware.

Wilson, D.
1974 The New Archaeology. Knopf, New York.

Zeskind, L.M., and E.A. LeLacheur
1926 Tides and Currents in Delaware Bay and River. Department of Commerce, United States Coastal and Geologic Survey, Special Publication No. 123, Washington, D.C.

Zvelebil, M., S.W. Green, and M.G. Macklin
1992 Archaeological Landscapes, Lithic Scatters, and Human Behavior. In J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds., Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 193-224.

©2002-2005 The Lewes Historical Society