Ethics of Mollusk Conservation in the Chesapeake Bay

By: Autumn Roverse, Christian Roney, Emily Mon, Miriam Hughes (2026).

Arriving to Guiding Questions

Several Algonquian-speaking tribes native to the Chesapeake Bay region, including the Powhatan, Kiskiak, and Nansemond Nations, have harvested oysters and other shellfish from the Bay for thousands of years (Cuker & MacCormick, 2020). The native eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) in particular, has served as a vital food source for hundreds of generations and remains central to Algonquian lifeways and culture (Cuker & MacCormick, 2020). The eastern oyster is regarded as a keystone species and ecosystem engineer, providing numerous ecosystem services including water filtration, habitat creation, wave protection, and more (Rick, et. al., 2016). Since European contact and the displacement of Indigenous fishing communities began in the early 17th century, overfishing, habitat destruction, disease, and pollution have massively decreased mollusk populations in the Bay (Bass, 2021). Today, recent conservation research has focused on studying ancient oyster populations to understand how reefs have responded to significant climate shifts and Indigenous fishing pressures to inform baselines for modern restoration efforts and harvesting practices (Lockwood & Mann, 2019). 

To study ancestral oyster populations, archaeologists and paleobiologists began excavating shell middens. Shell middens, as defined by T.C. Rick (2024), are ‘“cultural deposit[s] of which the principal visible constituent is shell” (p. 314). Shell middens were created by Indigenous communities around the world, each containing thousands, if not millions, of shells, encompassing centuries of Indigenous history (Jenkins & Gallivan, 2020). Shell middens provide a preserving buffer to material decomposition, allowing the observation of otherwise transient food, ceramics and other bone artifacts (Maine Midden Minders – University of Maine, n.d.). Further, investigations of these shell middens can reveal contextual information on past health and practices of ecologies and human presence in these spaces (Maine Midden Minders – University of Maine, n.d.). However, the majority of existing shell midden research has been conducted by western scientists without consenting or collaborating with Indigenous peoples. A lack of inclusion or consideration of Indigenous perspectives in this excavating process opens the door to misrepresentation and misinterpretation of Indigenous practices. 

We encountered this tension throughout our literature search as we found difficulty in sourcing publications with Indigenous authorship, specifically ‘scholarly’ or peer-reviewed articles. In our individual research domains, Indigenous histories and current perspectives were disproportionately represented as compared to white or western voices, leading us to question the ethical standpoint of accessing Indigenous traditional ecological knowledges in its entirety. We strove to illuminate and reflect upon this tension with an interactive class activity. Our intention was to demonstrate that oyster midden archaeology may aid conservation initiatives, but at the cost of disrupting and appropriating Indigenous practices, further excluding Indigenous voices from restoration efforts.

Shell Midden Activity

As a part of our final project, we designed an interactive ‘Making & Doing’ activity for our class. This activity was meant to showcase both our conservation topic (Indigenous involvement in mollusk restoration along the Chesapeake Bay) and emphasize the tensions we encountered during our research (access to Indigenous knowledge vs consent, the exclusion of Indigenous voices from restoration efforts, and the misrepresentation and appropriation of Indigenous histories).

Brainstorming

While researching the multitude of ways that Mollusca have been utilized and represented by Indigenous artists, Anne was inspired to incorporate mollusk shell art into the foundation of our ‘Making & Doing’ project. Our initial approach to showcasing our academia was to prompt our classmates in constructing personalized shell mosaics or carvings, thereby fostering creative consideration and reflection around archaeological traces. While this plan touched briefly on relevant topics, it lacked a strong connection to the tensions of our research. An interactive bartering system was also considered, but was dismissed for lacking themes of conservational relevancy. Finally, our intentions shifted by reframing our approach to address shell midden archaeology and the use of mollusk shells in Indigenous storytelling. We expanded upon this concept to construct an artistic task based on shell engraving paired with an archaeological simulation. 

Preparation

Discarded oyster and mussel shells were collected from Yorktown Beach. We used air-dry clay, mod podge, and paint brushes to assemble clay-filled oyster shell canvases, and gathered wooden toothpicks for participants to engrave their artistic creation. Activity questions were designed to include personal and place-based inquiries, prompting participants to engrave pictures or symbols representing memories with family, childhood memories, memories made at William & Mary, and future aspirations. We engraved an example shell for reference, and used a variety of smaller shells and fossils to decorate the tables.

Four Distinct Discussion Prompts

• Draw a picture or symbol that reminds you of your ancestry or heritage. This could be a fond memory with an elder family member, a symbol of your heritage, or another connection to your family’s past. Questions to consider: What places, foods or objects remind you of your grandparents? What are some important traditions in your family?

• Draw a picture or symbol that represents your childhood or a fond childhood memory. Questions to consider: What were your favorite games to play as a child? Where was your favorite place to play? Did you have a favorite childhood toy?

• Draw a picture or symbol that represents or reminds you of a fond memory made during your time at William & Mary. Questions to consider: Where were your most meaningful college memories made? Were they made on or near campus? Did the place itself make the memory more special?

• Draw a picture or symbol that represents a future dream, goal or aspiration. Questions to consider: What do you picture when you think of your future? What are you hoping to accomplish or achieve? Where?

Activity

We began the activity with a brief discussion on Anne’s research on Muscogee shell engravings by Dan Townsend that inspired our presentation. Participants were divided between four tables and each table received a unique sheet of instructions to guide their artistic journeys. Each prompt sheet related to a specific time period: ancestry, childhood, present life at college, and future. Next, we provided each participant with a clay-filled oyster shell and engraving tool. Participants were asked to carve a symbol into their shell-framed clay based on their specific prompts while keeping discussion to a minimum, so as not to reveal instructional differences. We then displayed our reference piece on the projector for creative assistance.

After ten minutes of carving, we collected the artworks and created four layers in a clear plastic bin in chronological prompt order with past shells at the bottom, followed by childhood shells, present shells, and finally future shells on the surface. At this point, Mei Mei discussed her research on the archaeology of shell middens explaining what they are, some of the Algonquian Indigenous communities that made them (Powhatan, Kiskiack, and Nansemond), and their significance both to Indigenous culture and wetland conservationists. With all shells retrieved, we explained that each table had received a different prompt representing a specific time period. Thereby, our participants’ stories were stratified into our own class shell midden.

Next, we redistributed the oyster carvings, simulating an archaeological shell midden discovery. Each student received a shell that likely differed from the one they engraved, as they were passed back in reverse order. This was done intentionally to represent how an archaeologist “discovering” an art piece or shell midden is not necessarily the person for which it was originally intended. This led into our discussion about how access to sacred Indigenous knowledges and lands is considered and justified, often without Indigenous consent.

Discussion

To further explore our tension, we asked participants if anyone would be willing to share the shell they received with the class, assuming the role of a “discoverer”. We displayed the volunteered shell on the projector, then prompted the class to interpret both the art piece’s meaning and associated time period. The answers varied greatly for our participants, including a bread loaf, a local garden, and a childhood item. We then asked the original creator to share its intended meaning, who revealed it to be a flower representing a blooming future. We later asked if the creator would have willingly shared the information that we prompted, to which her response was decidedly negative. She would not have chosen for her shell or her story to be shared to the classroom because it was so personal.

This line of questioning was meant to provoke the tensions between the information “revealed” from shell midden archaeology compared to the intentions, desires, and efforts of Indigenous communities. The original creator was not considered in the process of shell redistribution, nor was she given the opportunity to ask the “discoverer” that her shell be kept private. Furthermore, the original creator did not attempt to explain the story behind her engraving until prompted. Our ‘Making & Doing’ activity ultimately represented a multitude of tensions, including the access rights to sacred Indigenous lands and knowledges to inform oyster conservation initiatives, which often supersedes the consideration and respect for Indigenous consent. We also hoped to represent the exclusion and silencing of many Indigenous groups from wetland restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay region. Finally, shell midden archaeology frequently misrepresents the significance of shell middens to Indigenous communities, which we hoped to illuminate with our group interpretation discussion. Although Indigenous knowledges “discovered” from archaeological studies may assist wetland conservation and oyster restoration initiatives, it may also bring an undesired spotlight to sacred Indigenous knowledges without prior consent or consideration while misrepresenting them in the process.

While this activity was successful in raising tension within our class, it is a simplified example of how some archaeological studies have sought Indigenous knowledges without the consent of Indigenous communities, therefore misrepresenting or appropriating Indigenous knowledges in their research. Our activity does not capture the full extent of the impacts of shell midden archaeology on Indigenous peoples. The artistic prompts we provided during our activity were not written under any cultural contexts or meant to represent Indigenous knowledges. Our clay-engraving exercise was not intended to be an accurate recreation of Indigenous shell artworks or Indigenous practices. 

Navigating Tensions

Indigenous nations of the Chesapeake Bay watershed such as the Nansemond Indian Nation have become increasingly involved in wetland conservation initiatives, including oyster restoration efforts. However, the involvement of Indigenous perspectives and priorities in ecological resource management, especially in the oyster restoration process, has a history of exclusion, appropriation and misinterpretation. Our individual research reveals different facets of these tensions, prompting inquiry such as: How are indigenous people, perspectives and histories involved in conservation? How are Indigenous knowledges and histories appropriated and misinterpreted in conservation archaeology? Who has the “right” to access Indigenous traditional ecological knowledges for potential use in conservation efforts?

Shell Midden Archaeology: Emily Mon

Shell midden archaeology is an emerging field in the conservation industry. Shell middens contain an incredible wealth of cultural, ecological, and paleontological information, which is of great interest to conservationists seeking to inform baselines for modern oyster reef restoration, understand historical ecological responses to climate change, and to devise more sustainable harvesting practices by adopting ancestral Indigenous ones (Jenkins & Gallivan, 2020). This research is also incredibly important for many Indigenous nations of the Chesapeake Bay region including the Powhatan, Kiskiak, and Nansemond as shell midden archaeology can retrace ancestral harvesting grounds, community spaces, and sacred sites from which their peoples were displaced. While some collaborations with Indigenous tribes and western archaeologists have been published in scholarly journals, the shell midden field has largely been dominated by western motives, biases, and perspectives since its beginnings around 200 years ago. One such perspective is the historic misconception that shell middens are: “piles of discarded oysters“ (Cuker & MacCormick, 2020, p. 64) when in reality, shell middens were often created with intentional placement and purpose (Rick, 2024). Archaeological misinterpretations such as these harm Indigenous sovereignties by having created the illusion that shell middens are culturally insignificant. This illusion subsequently justifies land access for shell midden archaeology without Indigenous consent.

Indigenous Shell Art: Anne Hughes

Indigenous nations have been creating elaborate and high-value shell arts for thousands of years and many artists are highly successful today as well. In Australia, Bidjigal artist Esme Timbery continues her family’s tradition of shellwork sculptures as a fine artist, bringing recognition to the working Indigenous women who transformed the way shell arts were seen several times. Her work is shown in the Australian Museum of Art, a high honor that Timbery has expressed happiness about, however it is a western institution taking Indigenous art out of cultural context and displaying it to the public. While this artist may take pride in her rightful success, would others who were not given the choice? Joanne Pillsbury, curator for the MET museum, writes about art made in ancient Peru from thorny oysters with examples of pieces in the museum’s collection. She explains that the shells were rare and more valuable than silver and gold. The intricate works reveal the culture and beliefs of a nation centuries ago and because of the museum and this article, this information is readily available for consumption. Similarly to the shell middens of the Chesapeake bay, tensions arise regarding access to this information and the artifacts in question.

Restoring the Lost Mollusk Populations: Christian J. Roney

As it stands today, oysters in the Chesapeake Bay are facing many challenges with regards to their continued survival. These challenges that oysters are actively experiencing include, but are not limited to: overfishing, exposure to pollutants, climate change, and competition with non-native species. All of these have been seen to both reduce the size of their population and the size of the oyster shells themselves, and this has been experienced by the oyster populations for many years. Indigenous nations and tribes surrounding the Chesapeake Bay helped keep the oyster populations in check by solely harvesting nearshore and only certain sizes were harvested. This allowed deep-water oysters to flourish and grow in size, while keeping the oyster population nearshore in check. In July of 2023, the Nansemond Indian Nation, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Nansemond River Preservation Alliance worked on a project for oyster restoration efforts, where they ended up transplanting ~7,000 oysters onto a protected reef in Suffolk, Virginia, with the goal that these oysters will grow and repopulate the area. One unresolved tension is that it was not stated whether the Nansemond Indian Nation were “allowed” to use their practices in cultivating oysters or if they had to stick to the guidelines written by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation or Fish and Wildlife Services.

Influential Voices in Conservation Policy: Autumn Roverse

In researching the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in conservation initiatives, the discussion on decision-making and accessibility to influence is essential. The dialogue over conservation, specifically efforts seen in the Chesapeake Bay, is formally governed by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a collective federal-state partnership produced by the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2026). This agreement and the revisions that followed depict the societal, industrial, and legislative goals and expectations for the Bay. Within this involvement, however, a conservation guideline is drawn up by elected officials of the US government. These definitions repeatedly fail to include Indigenous voices. In the fourteen-page Chesapeake Watershed Agreement of 2025, Indigenous perspectives were mentioned in-line twice, both regarding consideration in comparison. Greater inclusion and consideration in official capacities, such as formal government agreements, is absolutely necessary. Among the initiatives to empower this effort, the Indigenous Conservation Council (ICC) of the Chesapeake Bay has established an intertribal organization to formally advocate and financially support objectives of protecting ancestral land (Indigenous Conservation Council of the Chesapeake Bay, 2022). This non-profit organization provides a platform of support for the perspectives and priorities of the seven federally recognized tribes of Virginia. It should be noted, however, that the Chesapeake Bay watershed connects to states far beyond Virginia, and covers the ancestral landscape of many Indigenous nations and communities (Yorktown & Us, n.d.; Explore By State – Chesapeake Bay Watershed (U.S. National Park Service), n.d.). The formation of organizations such as the ICC is a step taken in Indigenous advocacy, but much progress remains to bolster the inclusion and involvement of Indigenous voices in the policy and decision-making of land management, especially in the realm of conservation.

• Timbery, Esme. Shellwork Sydney Harbour Bridge. 2006, https://collectionsearch.nma.gov.au/icons/images/kaui2/index.html#/home?usr=CE. Shellwork, Sculpture.

  This work by Esme Timbery is rooted in a rich history of Aboriginal shellwork. Beginning as a woman’s craft, shellwork transformed into an industry in the 1880s, when First Nations women in Sydney began creating souvenirs like shell baskets. Today, it is seen as high art, with the National Museum of Australia acquiring this work by Timber and two others of hers in 2007. Timbery also received the inaugural Parliament of New South Wales Indigenous Art Prize for her shellwork in 2005, and has work displayed across Australia. Timbery comes from a long line of shell artists, learning the technique from her mother. Her grandmother was also a noted shellworker with wares often shown in exhibitions in the early 1900s. Esme Timbery is a valuable source who speaks from years of practice and generations of working Indigenous women who transformed the way shell arts were seen several times. Timbery is a powerful example of the vitality of not only Aboriginal people, but their culture and art as well.

• Pillsbury, Joanne. “Thorny Oysters: The Daughters of the Sea.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Perspectives, Aug. 2016. https://www.metmuseum.org/perspectives/design-for-eternity-thorny-oysters.

  This article by Joanne Pillsbury includes a collection of images of artworks from Andean cultures, all pertaining to the thorny oyster. This work adds visual representation to the ideas discussed in the previous text. Pillsbury also adds stories of the shell and how valuable it was to these artists, notably over silver or gold, as well as descriptions of the artworks included. She explains that the shells were rare, especially full and bright specimens, and most were important from the warmer tropical waters of Ecuador and north. Another important factor that I find interesting for my topic is that the bivalves were not good to eat as they were seasonally toxic. However, gods were able to eat them, making their importance spiritual and artistic over functional. I appreciate the example of value rooted in beauty and symbolism, as it is an important addition to rhetoric often based on basic necessities such as food sources. This article gives another perspective of a bivalve mollusk being treasured, so much that we still treasure it today in one of our leading art museums, without being edible or functional beyond art and belief

• Rick, T.C. Shell Midden Archaeology: Current Trends and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research, 32, 309–366 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-023-09189-9 

  In this article, the T.C. Rick completed an extensive survey of the common trends in shell midden research which has been an increasingly popular field of study for archaeologists and paleobiologists, originating around 200 years ago. Shell midden archaeology is used to inform ecological baselines for modern oyster restoration efforts not only in the Chesapeake Bay, but in coastal communities around the world. However, shell midden archaeologists have an outstanding history of describing shell middens as trash piles or rubbish, when in reality, Indigenous peoples were often created with intention for a multitude of purposes. Rick argues that these descriptors “lack sensitivity for descendant communities and clearly do not cover the multitude of site types and the often-sensitive context of shell middens” (Rick, 2024, p. 314-315). This research helped to illuminate our core tension of rights to Indigenous knowledges, and the rhetoric that shell midden archaeologists have produced to justify land access.

• Jenkins, J. A., & Gallivan, M. D. (2020). Shell on Earth: Oyster Harvesting, Consumption, and Deposition Practices in the Powhatan Chesapeake. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 15(3), 384–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2019.1643430 

  In this article, researchers conducted an archaeological study focusing specifically on shell middens produced by the Kiskiak people who are native to the Chesapeake Bay region. The Kiskiak people are known to have harvested oysters for thousands of years, spanning from the Late Archaic period until settlers displaced them from their lands in the 1600s. Researchers collected data to document fluctuations in oyster size in response to Kiskiak harvesting activity to inform more sustainable harvesting strategies and conservation initiatives. Although the Kiskiak people depended heavily on oysters as a staple in their diet, they did not overfish or induce significant oyster size fluctuations that were unrecoverable. This article demonstrates that one of the primary issues in the oyster industry today is over consumption of oysters, originating from settler colonialism and the subsequent increase in oyster harvesting, reef destruction, and the introduction of disease.

• Johnston, R. (2024, August 13). Nansemond Indian Nation continues its legacy of stewardship with 9,000 oyster drop. Chesapeake Bay Program. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/news/blog/nansemond-indian-nation-continues-its-legacy-of-stewardship-with-9-000-oyster-drop. 

  This website provides a more in-depth look into the events taking place, where the Nansemond Indian Nation, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Nansemond River Preservation Alliance collaborated to begin the process of restoring the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay. This source provides a brief history to the Nansemond Indian Nation and doesn’t just provide scientific information, rather its goal is to educate the general public that does not know of the land surrounding parts of the Chesapeake Bay and its original inhabitants: the Nansemond Indian Nation. It also mentions how the Nansemond Indian Nation now has reclaimed their right to cultivate their own oysters on their own land and be able to release the oysters back into the Chesapeake Bay. 

• Chesapeake Bay Program. (2026). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/what-guides-us/watershed-agreement#2014-accordion.

  This webpage is a description of the foundational agreements and policy-driven work that have facilitated government involvement and funding for much of the advocacy and conservation efforts of the Chesapeake Bay over the past 40 years. These agreements were among the first government recognition of the Bay’s pollution and opened the door to funding and policy-driven restoration critical to much of the conservation progress seen today. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a collective federal-state partnership that was directly brought by the enactment of the landmark 1983 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. In understanding the conservation-focused policy work regarding the Chesapeake Bay, this resource provides a timeline for the start of administrative involvement by the US Government.

• Indigenous Conservation Council of the Chesapeake Bay. (2022). Indigenous Chesapeake. https://www.Indigenous-chesapeake.net/. 

  In 2022, members of the seven federally recognized tribes of Virginia formed the Indigenous Conservation Council (ICC) to formalize an intertribal collective of resources and initiatives. This non-profit organization advocates for protection and care of ancestral lands specific to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Their two-year strategic plan champions the idea that goals to restore the landscape and surrounding community are achieved through reinforced tribal land tenure and sovereignty. This resource demonstrates the involvement of indigenous advocacy in conservation efforts such that priorities of the represented tribal nations are promoted through both finance and policy-based initiatives. This organization is composed of officials and staff from the seven federally-recognized tribes of Virginia. This includes the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe – Eastern Division, Monacan Indian Nation (MIN), Nansemond Indian Nation (NIN), Pamunkey Indian Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe and the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (UMIT).

• T.C. Rick, L.A. Reeder-Myers, C.A. Hofman, D. Breitburg, R. Lockwood, G. Henkes, L. Kellogg, D. Lowery, M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, M.B. Ogburn, M. Southworth, J. Wah, J. Wesson, & A.H. Hines. (2016). “Millennial-scale sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay Native American oyster fishery.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 (23) 6568-6573. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600019113.

  This article provides a more scientific approach to the matter: by analyzing oyster shell size and the rate and behaviors of human harvest, the researchers were able to determine how sustainable oyster fisheries were over the course of about 3,500 years. This article highlights the adaptability and resilience in oyster populations despite the “long-term Native American harvest,” as well as sea level rise and climate change, but when modern day over-harvesting began, then it declined drastically. Modern-day harvesting is not sustainable and may even be harmful to the surrounding environment, as oysters are “influencing water quality, constructing [habitats], and providing food for humans and wildlife.”

Excavating Multigenerational Tensions

Settler colonists began displacing Indigenous peoples from their lands in the Chesapeake Bay over 400 years ago, separating them from the oysters that they had cultivated and harvested for thousands of years (Cuker & MacCormick, 2020). In recent decades, conservationists have become increasingly invested in Indigenous traditional ecological knowledges to bolster sustainable initiatives and inform ecological baselines for modern oyster restoration. In our exploration of recent wetland conservation and oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay, our group quickly noticed a lack of Indigenous representation and authorship in scholarly research articles. Centuries of displacement have produced significant gaps in the knowledge of Indigenous histories and practices of the region, while simultaneously establishing a multigenerational power imbalance and distrust between Indigenous nations and western scientists.

Our group constructed a ‘Making & Doing’ activity to discuss the emerging field of shell midden archaeology in the context of wetland conservation. Shell midden investigations have recently allowed researchers to better understand past, present, and future environmental conditions, utilizing Indigenous historical ecologies and practices to inform further ecological efforts (Rick, 2024). Indigenous knowledges that encompass traditional ecologies are often sacred, however, and therefore held from the general public. Shell midden archaeology functions by uncovering components of this knowledge. It reveals an illustration of food, lifestyle and timeline over millenia, but often without necessary cultural context or consent of Indigenous populations (Rick, 2024). Our interactive shell-midden exercise was designed to provoke thought regarding this topic. By providing the opportunity to create personalized place-based art pieces, then inviting interpretation without prior permission or understanding, we hoped to illuminate this conflict.

from left to right: Christian Roney, Autumn Roverse, Emily Mon, Miriam Hughes

This literature review and project was conducted in our Spring 2026 class: Indigenous Knowledge & Conservation (CONS410) at William & Mary. Thank you, Dr. Dicenta, for inspiring us to deepen our learning about conservation efforts through this creative project.