CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL › images › PDF › ... · CONTENTS...

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 405

Annapolis, MD 21403

CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL

CONNECTING TRAILS EVALUATION STUDY

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments 2

Executive Summary 3

Statement of Study Findings 5

Introduction 9

Research Team Reports 10

Anacostia River 11

Chester River 15

Choptank River 19

Susquehanna River 23

Upper James River 27

Upper Nanticoke River 30

Appendix: Research Teams’ Executive Summaries and Bibliographies 34

Anacostia River 34

Chester River 37

Choptank River 40

Susquehanna River 44

Upper James River 54

Upper Nanticoke River 56

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe are truly thankful to the research and project team, led by John S. Salmon, for the months of dedicatedresearch, mapping, and analysis that led to the production of this important study. In all, more than 35 pro-fessionals, including professors and students representing six universities, American Indian representatives,consultants, public agency representatives, and community leaders contributed to this report. Each personbrought an extraordinary depth of knowledge, keen insight and a personal devotion to the project.

We are especially grateful for the generous financial support that we received from the following privatefoundations, organizations and corporate partners: The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Clay-ton Fund, Inc., Colcom Foundation, The Conservation Fund, Lockheed Martin, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Merrill Foundation, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Rauch Foundation, The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation, Verizon, Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Wallace GeneticFoundation. Without their support this project would simply not have been possible.

Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the board of directors of the Chesapeake Conser-vancy, and to John Maounis, Superintendent of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, for theirleadership and unwavering commitment to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail.

PRINCIPAL PARTNERS

John S. Salmon, Historian, Project Coordinator

Paul Shackel, Center for Heritage Resource Studies, University of Maryland

David Gadsby, Center for Heritage Resource Studies, University of Maryland

Eric Larsen, Ph.D., Research Associate

Daniel R. Griffith, former Director of the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs, currently President of Griffith Ecological Consulting

Jeffrey L. Hantman, Associate Professor and Director of Interdisciplinary Program in Archaeology, University of Virginia

Karenne Wood, Director, Virginia Indian Heritage Program

Deanna Beacham, Weapemeoc, Staff, Virginia Council on Indians

Katherine Faull, Professor of German and Humanities, Bucknell University

Ben Marsh, Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies, Bucknell University

David Minderhout, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Bloomsburg University

Alfred Siewers, Associate Professor of English, Bucknell University

Donald Grinde, Professor and Chair of American Studies, University of Buffalo

Sid Jamieson, Bucknell University

Hannah Hardy, Program Manager, Pennsylvania Environmental Council

John L. Seidel, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies, Washington College

John Maounis, Superintendent, Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail

Stephen R. Potter, Ph.D., Regional Archeologist, National Capital Region, National Park Service

PROJECT TEAM

Charlie Stek, Chairman, Chesapeake Conservancy

Patrick Noonan, Vice-Chairman, Chesapeake Conservancy

David O’Neill, President, Chesapeake Conservancy

David Burke, Senior Advisor, Chesapeake Conservancy

Joel Dunn, Program Coordinator, Sustainable Chesapeake, The Conservation Fund

Tim Barrett, Intern, The Conservation Fund

* Please refer to the Chesapeake Conservancy website (www.ChesapeakeConservancy.org) to see the full list of advisors and supporters who contributed to the production of this report.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPresident George W. Bush signed the Captain JohnSmith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designa-tion Act (Public Law 109-418) into law on Decem-ber 19, 2006. This is the first National Historic Trailthat is also primarily a water trail. The NationalTrails System Act of 1968 that created the networkof recreation, scenic, and historic trails also author-ized the designation by the Secretary of the Interioror the Secretary of Agriculture of connecting or sidetrails as components of the principal trail. Chesa-peake Conservancy, formerly the Friends of theJohn Smith Trail, funded a professional evaluationstudy of six Chesapeake Bay tributaries to determinetheir potential for designation as connecting trails:

• Anacostia River

• Chester River

• Choptank River

• Susquehanna River

• Upper James River

• Upper Nanticoke River

Because no written criteria or standards appear toexist by which a potential connecting trail can beevaluated for designation, the Conservancy hasdeveloped criteria based on themes enumerated inthe CAJO feasibility study in cooperation with theNational Park Service (NPS). The research teamswere directed to apply these criteria as they evalu-ated the eligibility of potential connecting trails tobe components of the NHT. The themes are:

1. Commemorate the voyages of exploration ofCaptain John Smith in 1607–1609

2. Recognize the American Indian towns and cultures of the 17th-century Chesapeake

3. Call attention to the natural history of the Bay(both historic and contemporary)

These purposes or themes suggested the criterianecessary to evaluate a potential connecting trail forinclusion as a component of CAJO. The criteriadirectly support and complement the purposes ofCAJO as defined in the feasibility study. A potentialconnecting trail should be relatively closely associ-ated with at least one of the criteria listed below tobe eligible for designation; however, it is likely to bemore favorably received if more than one closeassociation is identified. A potential connectingtrail should:

1. Be closely associated with the voyages of explo-ration of Captain John Smith in 1607–1609;and/or

2. Be closely associated with the American Indiantowns and cultures of the 17th-century Chesa-peake; and/or

3. Be closely illustrative of the natural history ofthe 17th-century Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

The following standards were created to establish therelative closeness of association with each theme:

1. Substantial association with Smith’s voyages isestablished if there is data from both Smith’smap and the accounts of Smith and others;moderate association is established if there isdata from either Smith’s map or the accounts ofSmith and others; and indirect association isestablished if there is a lack of data from eitherSmith’s map or the accounts of Smith andothers

2. Substantial association with American Indiantowns and cultures is established if there is datafrom Smith’s map, the 17th-century accounts ofSmith and others, and archaeology; moderateassociation is established if there is data fromSmith’s map or the 17th-century accounts ofSmith and others, and archaeology; and indirectassociation is established if there is a lack ofdata from Smith’s map or the 17th-centuryaccounts of Smith and others, and limited or noarchaeological evidence

3. Substantial association with the natural historyof the Bay is established if there exists bothcontemporary and historic documentation ofthe natural history; moderate association isestablished if there is contemporary documen-tation but little or no historic documentation;and indirect association is established if there islittle or no contemporary documentation andno historic documentation

The teams conducted research on the rivers, sub-mitted periodic reports on their progress and pre-liminary findings, gave oral and illustrated presenta-tions, evaluated the rivers for their relative closenessof association (“substantial,” “moderate,” “indirect,”etc.) with the foregoing standards, and deliveredfinal reports. The teams’ conclusions follow:

3

4

ANACOSTIA RIVER. The main branch of the riverfrom the connection with CAJO near the river’smouth at Hains Point upstream to Bladensburgmeets the evaluation criteria for a connecting trail.This branch has substantial association with Criteria1 and 2 and indirect association with Criterion 3.The upper branches did not meet the criteria.

CHESTER RIVER. The main branch of the riverfrom the connection with CAJO near the river’smouth upstream to Millington, as well as certainbranches described in the Executive Summary anddepicted on the map, meet the evaluation criteriafor a connecting trail. The Chester River has mod-erate association with Criterion 1 and substantialassociation with Criteria 2 and 3.

CHOPTANK RIVER. The main branch of the riverfrom the connection with CAJO west of the river’smouth in the Chesapeake Bay upriver to Greens-boro, as well as certain tributaries described in theExecutive Summary and depicted on the map, meet the evaluation criteria for a connecting trail.The Choptank River has indirect association with Criterion 1 and substantial association withCriteria 2 and 3.

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER. The main branch of the river from the connection with CAJO near theriver’s mouth at Havre de Grace upstream via theNorth Branch to Lake Otsego near Cooperstown,

New York, as well as the West Branch to the vicinityof Lock Haven, as described in the Executive Sum-mary and depicted on the map, meet the evaluationcriteria for a connecting trail. The indicated seg-ments of the Susquehanna River have moderate tosubstantial association with Criterion 1 and sub-stantial association with Criteria 2 and 3.

UPPER JAMES RIVER. The main branch of theriver from the connection with CAJO at the Falls ofthe James River at Richmond west in two segmentsto Iron Gate, as described in the Executive Sum-mary and depicted on the map, meets the evalua-tion criteria for a connecting trail. The first seg-ment, which extends from the Falls upstream to thewestern extent shown on Smith’s map (to the con-fluence with the Tye River at Norwood), has sub-stantial association with all three criteria. Thesecond segment, which extends to Iron Gate, hasindirect association with Criterion 1 and substantialassociation with Criteria 2 and 3.

UPPER NANTICOKE RIVER. The main branch ofthe river from the connection with CAJO near theDelaware-Maryland state boundary upstream to afew miles east of Seaford on Deep Creek, as well asup Broad Creek to the pond east of Laurel, asdescribed in the Executive Summary and depictedon the map, meet the evaluation criteria for a connecting trail. The Upper Nanticoke River hassubstantial association with all three criteria.

5

Captain John Smith led two voyages in the Chesa-peake Bay during the summer of 1608. Their pur-pose was to implement the Virginia Company’sinstructions to explore the region for valuable min-erals, the Northwest Passage, and whatever elsecould be learned about this new world. As Smithand his crew sailed from Jamestown down the rivertoward the Bay, the fledgling colony confrontedenormous problems that threatened its survival: thebeginning of a drought, a poisonous water supply,alternately helpful and threatening Native inhabi-tants, a complex and unfamiliar Powhatan politicaland social system, strange illnesses, starvation, andfrequently inept leaders within the colony. Smith,despite these challenges, successfully completed twovoyages of discovery, forged trading alliances withseveral tribes, and brought his crew back safely toJamestown, having lost only one man during twolong journeys. And then, the second and mostimportant part of Smith’s work began: writing hisbooks and drawing his map to explain and illustratehis discoveries and promote settlement.

Smith’s writings and map powerfully influencedEnglish settlement and exploration for the nextcentury. Would-be adventurers, explorers, and set-tlers, as well as aristocrats and merchants with thepower and money to finance new undertakings,studied Smith’s map and read his books. Shipsbearing colonists were dispatched to the Chesa-peake, and slowly the settlements expanded up theBay and its many tributaries. The new colonistsfound that Smith had not exaggerated the naturalresources of the Bay, and also that he had at leastprepared them for contact with the Native inhabi-tants to whom this country belonged. For theChesapeake Indians, the influx of newcomersresulted in disruption and disaster as their delicateweb of polities, alliances, trade networks, and agri-cultural systems was torn apart. Tribes were deci-mated, forced out of their old territories, andreduced to dependency on the dominant culture.Many simply disappeared, moving away or beingabsorbed into other tribes. Large farms and planta-tions replaced their small plots of corn and beans.By the end of the century, the land had been trans-formed, the new settlers had become established,and the harvesting of the Bay’s natural resources hadbegun a slow progression to unsustainable levels.

Smith’s promotion of the Chesapeake had perhapssucceeded all too well.

Smith, of course, did not encounter a pristine Bay.The Indians had altered the environment throughvarious activities, including farming, the construc-tion of towns, and the deliberate burning of theforest understory. European visitors before Smith—the French and the Spanish—had inadvertentlyintroduced foreign plant and animal species. Thechanges to the Bay’s environment in the decadespreceding Smith’s voyages, however, were slight incomparison with those wrought by European set-tlers in the decades that followed. Despite four cen-turies of development and the inevitable changesthat have occurred, what remains to tell the story of the Chesapeake and its tributaries, of its people,and of its natural resources seems as extensive in itsway as what has been lost. Today, miles of shorelinelook much as they did when Smith first saw them.Archaeological research, combined with writtenrecords, reveal much about the Chesapeake Indiansof four hundred and more years ago. While thepopulations of certain creatures have dwindled dramatically or gone extinct around the Bay, othershave flourished despite development or havearrived to fill the niches vacated by those that aregone. The Chesapeake region also continues to bea destination for settlers and visitors and a source ofnourishment for both body and spirit as it was inthe 17th century.

The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National His-toric Trail was established to commemorate Smith’svoyages in 1607–1609 on the Bay and its tributar-ies, to recognize the American Indian towns andcultures of the 17th-century Chesapeake, and tocall attention to the natural history of the Bay. The Trail is not a mere scholarly exercise in researchand mapping but also a place that tourists can visit,boaters can explore, and naturalists can study.Books, brochures, Web sites, and interpretation onthe ground and in the water help visitors find theTrail and hear the stories that are told there. TheTrail continues Smith’s mission of promoting theChesapeake, but by attracting visitors instead ofsettlers and by encouraging learning and recreation.

STATEMENT OF STUDY FINDINGS

6

Even though visitors who have access to the watercan retrace almost every known mile of Smith’svoyages, if they confine themselves only to the Trailthey will be missing much of the story and theTrail’s educational mission will be incomplete. Thestory of Smith’s journeys, of the Indians, and of thenatural environment of the Chesapeake will bemuch fuller if it is not confined only to those placesthat Smith explored personally, or that appear on hismap. Smith depended on the Native peoples to tellhim about places that he could not reach himself,and others who came after him—from 17th-centurysettlers to 21st-century archaeologists—have con-tinued to tell the story of the rivers Smith did notsail up and Indian towns he did not see. The cul-tural connectivity of these rivers and adjoininglands is well reflected and as intimately associatedwith the purposes of the Trail as the Trail itself.

This report discusses six such rivers: the Anacostia,Chester, Choptank, Susquehanna, Upper James,and Upper Nanticoke. All have close associationswith two or more of the three primary purposes ofthe Trail, especially “recognizing the AmericanIndian towns and cultures of the 17th-centuryChesapeake.” Indeed, the names of most of therivers—Anacostia, Choptank, Susquehanna, Nanti-coke, and the James (at first called the Powhatan),as well as the Chesapeake itself—are derived fromthe names of chiefdoms or tribes or towns thatSmith encountered during his voyages and thenrecorded on his map. By doing so, Smith forevermemorialized the early Indians and their steward-ship of these rivers. The very names of these poten-tial connecting trails further reflect cultural connec-tivity between past and present.

7

Smith mapped part of the Anacostia and exploredby relation perhaps as far as today’s Bladensburg;artifacts from Indian towns and other sites in theriver’s drainage reveal a great deal about the Nativetrade with the English; and although the river hasbeen mostly developed, sites remain available tointerpret the changes. Even though Smith did notexplore or map the Chester and Choptank Rivers,his vivid descriptions of the Eastern Shore, its peo-ples, and its resources inspired traders and settlersto follow him to that part of the Chesapeake. Theshores of both rivers are dotted with Indian townsites, and much of the land is evocative of the 17thcentury and is under protective easements.

The Susquehanna River, the very source of theChesapeake Bay, arises in New York and flows souththrough Pennsylvania and Maryland. Smith himselfexplored a section of the lower part and famouslyintroduced the English world to the SusquehannockIndians, whose tribal identity survived well into the18th century. An enormous amount of archaeologi-cal research has revealed the interconnectedness ofthe Susquehannock with the Iroquois in New York,and how the great river served as a highway of trade.Although intense development has occurred alongparts of the shoreline, a significant portion retains itsability to illustrate the 17th-century natural world.

The Upper James River was terra incognita to Eng-lish explorers until 1670, and to European settle-ment until the first quarter of the next century. Itlooms over the story of the Jamestown colonistslike a cloud—the land to which Powhatan forbadethem entry, the country of the ominous Monacanand Mannahoac, the question mark in the colonists’relations with the Powhatan. And yet John Smithmanaged to record about half of the Upper James(accurately) on his map, along with several towns,by interviewing Indians. Archaeologists, beginningwith Thomas Jefferson, have learned more about theNative inhabitants by excavating sites in the river’sdrainage, and much is likewise known about theregion’s natural resources. At least ten potential sitesfor interpretation have been identified.

In present-day Delaware, Smith explored the UpperNanticoke River for part of its length, but describedsome of his voyage in tantalizingly ambiguous language. Scholars have debated, for example, justwhat he meant when he wrote of a “bay,” andwhether he could have journeyed as far up the riveras is alleged in the time he stated. These questionsseem to have been answered, and there is alsoample evidence of the Native occupation of theUpper Nanticoke from the distant past to moderntimes. Furthermore, significant portions of theriver retain characteristics of the 17th-century natural environment.

Collectively and individually, these six rivers haveclear and close associations with Smith’s voyagesand his promotion of the Chesapeake and its tribu-taries, they are clearly and closely associated withthe Chesapeake Indians of the 17th century, andthey clearly illustrate that the environment of theBay has changed since Smith’s voyages, but it fre-quently remains representative of the Bay’s appear-ance at that time. Numerous interpretive sites oneach river will tell the stories of Indian cultures andtrade routes as well as exploration and settlementand convey the significance of Smith’s achievementmore fully than the designated trail can do alone.Together, the Captain John Smith ChesapeakeNational Historic Trail and these six potential connecting trails will further enhance the visitorexperience and the ongoing efforts to preserve and improve the Bay, attract tourists, provide recre-ational opportunities, and interpret the long, richhistory of the Chesapeake.

8

West Branch

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

VIRGINIA

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

CH

ES

AP

EA

KE

BA

Y

20 mi

40 km

A T L A N T I C

O C E A N

Washington D.C.

Cooperstown

Richmond

Annapolis

Dover

Lynchburg

Scranton

Sunbury

Lock Haven

Havre de Grace

PhiladelphiaLancaster

Harrisburg

James River

AnacostiaRiver

ChesterRiver

ChoptankRiver

NanticokeRiver

Jamestown

Susquehanna River

CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NHT AND POTENTIAL CONNECTING TRAILS

Captain John Smith ChesapeakeNational Historic Trail

Potential Connecting Trail

Town or City

Potential Interpretive Site

S

9

INTRODUCTIONIn the summer of 1608, during two voyages, Cap-tain John Smith led an expedition from James Fortin Virginia to explore the Chesapeake Bay and itstributaries. Smith later produced a map based on his“discoveries” and wrote several books, profoundlyinfluencing the future settlement and developmentof the English-controlled portion of the New World.

In 2005, the four-hundredth anniversary of theestablishment of the Jamestown colony was fastapproaching. As part of the effort to commemoratethat event, two bills introduced in the United StatesCongress (entitled the Captain John Smith Chesa-peake National Historic Watertrail Study Act of2005) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to“carry out a study of the feasibility of designatingthe Captain John Smith Chesapeake National His-toric Watertrail as a national historic trail.” SenatorPaul S. Sarbanes (Maryland) introduced S.B. 336 onFebruary 9, 2005, and on May 24, Representative JoAnn Davis (Virginia) introduced H.R. 2588 in theHouse of Representatives. On August 2, 2005, Pres-ident George W. Bush authorized the National ParkService (NPS) to study the feasibility of establishingthe Captain John Smith Chesapeake National His-toric Water Trail as part of the FY 2006 Interior,Environment and Related Agencies AppropriationsAct. The study area at first included parts of threestates—Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware—and theDistrict of Columbia. On July 31, 2006, however,the Senate Committee on Energy and NaturalResources added Pennsylvania, noting thatalthough “Smith’s expeditions reached the mouthand falls of the Susquehanna River but did not ven-ture into what is now Pennsylvania, . . . Susquehan-nock leaders from present-day Pennsylvania metand traded” with Smith. The committee alsodirected NPS “to explore connecting or side watertrails where appropriate to provide additionalpoints of public access [and] interpretation” bylinking other trails to the National Historic Trail.The subsequent feasibility study concluded thatSmith’s voyages were indeed of national signifi-cance, that their influence on the settlement of thecolony and the future of the Native peoples and thenatural environment of the Chesapeake Bay wasprofound, and that the trail should be created. As aresult of the study’s findings and recommendations,Congress authorized the trail, and on December 19,

2006, President Bush signed the legislation thatestablished the Captain John Smith ChesapeakeNational Historic Trail.

The National Trails System Act of 1968 that createdthe network of recreational, scenic, and historictrails also authorized the designation of connectingor side trails as components of the principal trail.The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to desig-nate connecting trails for national historic trails.Only two connecting trails have been designated,both in 1990, almost 20 years ago, by then-secre-tary Manuel Lujan. One connects the Ice AgeNational Scenic Trail to Timm’s Hill, Wisconsin’shighest point. The other connecting trail isthe Anvik Connector, which links with the IditarodNational Historic Trail in Alaska.

In the autumn of 2008, the Friends of the JohnSmith Chesapeake Trail (now the Chesapeake Con-servancy) decided to explore the designation of sev-eral Chesapeake Bay tributaries as connecting trailsto CAJO. The Conservancy contacted scholars whoare knowledgeable about the history of the region,the Indians who occupied the area early in the 17thcentury, Smith’s exploratory voyages, and the natu-ral environment and resources of the Bay. NPS pro-vided important guidance on the qualifications forprospective scholars. Over several weeks, the Con-servancy reached agreements with qualified scholarsto form research teams to investigate the potentialfor each of the rivers to qualify as connecting trails.

The Conservancy also contracted with John S.Salmon to serve as the project coordinator as rec-ommended by NPS. Salmon is the historian whowrote the statement of national significance for theCAJO feasibility study under contract with NPS,and is familiar with NPS planning processes as wellas with the history of the Bay, Smith’s voyages, andthe Native peoples who inhabited the area. Salmondrafted the standards or criteria by which a poten-tial connecting trail can be evaluated for designa-tion. The Conservancy refined the criteria and NPSreviewed and accepted them. Salmon also commu-nicated with the research teams, reviewed theirinterim reports, made suggestions, participated inconference calls as well as on-site meetings andWebinar sessions, and wrote this final report.

10

Research Team Reports

INTRODUCTION

Following are summaries of the final reports thateach research team submitted. The Conservancyasked each team to define its study area, research itsriver in light of the three criteria (relative closenessof association with Smith’s voyages, 17th-centuryIndians, and the natural history of the Bay), presentits findings and conclusions, and note any sites thathave potential for interpretation. Although theform of the reports varies somewhat from one teamto another, each contains common elementsreflected in the summations. First, the members ofeach team and their qualifications are presented.Second, the study area for each river is described.Third, the methods and results of the team’sresearch are outlined. Fourth, the team’s conclu-sions are briefly summarized. Fifth, a list of poten-tial interpretive sites is given. The bibliographiesthat list the sources that each team consulted arepresented in the appendix.

In addition, for each river, there is a map showingthe study area, the potential connecting trail, andtowns and other important sites. There are alsorepresentative images of the rivers, the artifacts, andthe natural environment.

On January 5, 2009, Salmon and the Conservancymet in Annapolis, MD, at the Conservancy’s officesto discuss the project and plan a tentative workschedule for the research teams. On March 5, theresearch teams, Salmon, and the Conservancy con-vened in Annapolis to meet face-to-face. JohnMaounis, NPS superintendent of the Captain JohnSmith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, madeintroductory remarks, and Salmon presented back-ground on the CAJO feasibility study, the goals ofthe connecting trail project, the proposed criteriafor connecting trail designation, the work schedule,and the proposed outline for the research teams’reports. During a discussion period, the workschedule was modified to allow for student assistantavailability after the school year. Interim reportswere due early in July, with responses from Salmonand the Conservancy due in the middle of themonth. The participants agreed that final reports,maps, and illustrations would be submitted toSalmon and the Conservancy in November.Salmon’s draft final report to the Conservancy (thisdocument) would be due at the end of January 2010.

Interim reports were submitted in July, and duringthe next six months the teams communicated withSalmon and made reports on their progress via several WebEx conferences with the Conservancy.Salmon made presentations on the project on Sep-tember 29, at a meeting of the Conservancy boardat the National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington, DC, and on November 12 at a meeting of the CAJO CMP advisory council at theMatthew Henson Earth Conservation Center, also in Washington.

Most of the research teams submitted final reportsby the end of November; the last was received inJanuary 2010. Salmon submitted his draft finalreport to the Conservancy soon thereafter.

11

RESEARCH TEAM

The University of Maryland Center for HeritageResource Studies (CHRS) formed a five-memberresearch team. Dr. Paul Shackel, Director of CHRSand Professor for the Department of Anthropologyat the University of Maryland, College Park, hasthirty years’ experience as an archaeologist in theMiddle Atlantic States and co-edited HistoricalArchaeology of the Chesapeake (Shackel and Little,1994). David Gadsby (M.A.), Assistant Director ofCHRS, is a Ph.D. candidate at American Universityand has worked in the Mid-Atlantic Region as anarchaeologist for more than 10 years. Eric Larsen(Ph.D.), Research Associate, has been an archivistfor History Associates, Inc., under contract to theMontgomery County Archives and has worked formore than twenty years as a historical archaeologistin the Mid-Atlantic Region. Recent projects includework in the City of Alexandria and along thePotomac River shoreline for the George WashingtonMemorial Parkway. Kyle Olin, Research Assistant,is a GIS specialist with the Department of Anthro-pology at the University of Maryland and createdthe map for this project from coverages supplied bythe District of Columbia and the Maryland Histori-cal Trust. Jennifer Carpenter, Graduate Assistant, is an archaeology graduate student in the Universityof Maryland, and helped collect information onsites in the District and the State of Maryland.

STUDY AREA

The team evaluated the Anacostia River in two segments. The first segment extends from the Ana-costia’s confluence with the Potomac River at HainsPoint up the main branch to just above Bladens-burg, where the river divides into the Northeast andNorthwest Branches. The second segment extendsupstream on each branch from that point. Therationale for thus dividing the study area is thatJohn Smith’s 1612 map shows the extent of a por-tion of the Anacostia River upstream from its con-fluence with the Potomac, which suggests that heeither explored that far himself or obtained theinformation to illustrate the river on his map “byrelation” from the Indians he encountered in thevicinity. The length of the part of the Anacostia that

Smith illustrated is not known, although the teamsuggests that he may have intended to show (as hegenerally did elsewhere) the extent of the river tothe head of navigation, present-day Bladensburg.His map does not show the upstream branches;however, because the entire river basin was impor-tant to the Native inhabitants, the team includedthe upper branches in the study area for research inrelation to Criterion 2.

RESEARCH METHODS AND RESULTS

To apply Criterion 1 (closeness of association withSmith’s voyages), the team researched the standardwritings by and about Smith and his journeys aswell as archaeological site reports for the study area.As previously mentioned, Smith’s 1612 map notes ashort stretch of the Anacostia River from its mouthto a point some distance upstream, as well as thesite of an Indian town, Nacotchtanke.

Although Smith’s writings do not describe the Ana-costia River specifically, he does mention Nacotch-tanke town and the Potomac River as far upstreamas Little Falls:

We were kindly used of these savages [fartherdownstream on the Potomac River, after first

RESEARCH TEAM REPORTS

Anacostia River

City of Washington from Beyond the Navy Yard (eastern bank of Anacostia River; Potomac River in distance on left), ca. 1833Courtesy Library of Congress

12

A N A C OS

TI A

RI V

ER

1 mi

1 km

PO

TO

MA

CR

IV

ER

Bladensburg

Hyattsville

WASHINGTON D.C.

BollingAir Force

Base

WashingtonNavy Yard

AnacostiaNaval Station

AnacostiaRiver Park

NationalArboretum Kenilworth

Aquatic Gardens

Nacotchtanke

295

395

395

50

1

29

50

29

1

ANACOSTIA RIVER



Town or City


Smith Map “King’s House” (approx.)

13

appearing to be threatened]. . . . The likeencounters we found at Patowomek, Cecoca-wonee, and divers other places, but atMoyaones, Nacotchtant [Nacotchtanke], andToags the people did their best to content us.Having gone so high as we could with the boat[to Little Falls, several miles up the Potomacfrom Nacotchtanke], we met divers savages incanoes well loaden with the flesh of bears,deer, and other beasts, of which we had part.

Smith then described the mineral and other naturalresources of the area based on his own observationsand information that the Native inhabitants gavehim. Smith’s descriptions, as well as necessity,spurred trade and occasional conflict. In 1623,future fur trader Henry Fleet was captured by theNacostians and held for five years until he escaped.Fleet learned their language during his captivity,returned to Nacotchtanke to trade in 1632, and dis-covered that the Nacostians enjoyed a monopoly onthe beaver-pelt trade with the Iroquois. He alsobecame a negotiator between the Virginia andMaryland colonies and the Indians.

With regard to Criterion 2 (closeness of associationwith the 17th-century Indians), the team consultedthe abundant archaeological site reports for theAnacostia River and vicinity relating to Late Wood-land and Contact Period sites. Much of the Anacos-tia flows through present-day Washington, DC. As the home of the Smithsonian Institution, theDistrict along with the valleys of the Potomac and

Anacostia Rivers have been surveyed extensively bySmithsonian archaeologists and others since late inthe 19th century. The upper branches of the Anacos-tia River have likewise been surveyed, although inmore recent times. Archaeologists have closely stud-ied the main part of the river in the District becausebeginning late in the 19th century the marshes near the Potomac were filled in, and because subse-quent development extended up the Anacostia.

The evidence for the presumed site of Nacotchtankeon the Anacostia River is based on Smith’s map andaccounts as well as on the artifacts recovered by19th-century antiquarians. As one of them wrote,“these fields have been under cultivation for manyyears, and are regularly visited by local collectors,yet they are to-day, in places, fairly strewn with thewreck of the old village life.” Upstream, in present-day Prince George’s County, Maryland, outside theDistrict, at least four sites have more recently beenattributed to Late Woodland and Contact Periodoccupations. Another site with pre-Colonial arti-facts has been found in Bladensburg, the first of itskind uncovered there. The archaeology and arti-facts recovered there and elsewhere to date illustratethe long history of human occupation, food pro-curement and processing, and other activities.These data present a picture of “a rich and lively use of the river’s resources by the Nacostians at thetime of Smith’s encounter with Nacotchtanke.”

USS Barry at Washington Navy Yard on the Anacostia RiverCourtesy Anacostia Watershed Society

14

In considering the Anacostia River in light of Criterion 3 (illustrating the natural history of the17th-century Bay watershed), the team found theriver to be a study in contrasts. The river, althoughfreshwater, remains tidal, and continues to beaffected by the tides of the Bay. From Smith’s timeuntil the 19th century when the river silted up, theAnacostia was navigable to Bladensburg, which waslong an upstream port town. The lower part of theriver has been developed since the 19th century andbears no resemblance to the watercourse that Smithencountered and that the Acostians of Nacotch-tanke knew so intimately. Portions of the riverupstream, however, have been preserved in analtered but still natural state in Anacostia RiverPark. In places, fragments of the once-marshy wet-lands survive. Beavers, which previously werecommon, are beginning to return in a few places.Nearby, at the Belt Woods Natural EnvironmentArea in Prince George’s County, a small enclave ofmature forest survives to exemplify the woodlandsof Smith’s and the Acostians’ time. Plentiful oppor-tunities exist, therefore, to illustrate the change inthe natural environment of the Anacostia River andvicinity between the Late Woodland and ContactPeriod and the present day.

CONCLUSIONS

The team concludes that the main branch of theAnacostia River from its connection with the NHTon the river upstream to Bladensburg substantiallymeets Criteria 1 and 2. Smith likely either exploredthat extent of the river himself or obtained informa-tion from the Nacostians, and important archaeo-logical evidence still exists to illustrate the occupa-tion of the Native peoples along the river from theLate Woodland and Contact Period; and the river’snatural history and the dramatic changes that haveoccurred to its environment can be illustrated andinterpreted. The main branch meets Criteria 1, 2,and 3 for designation as a connecting trail.

The team concludes that the Northeast and North-west Branches upstream from Bladensburg do notmeet the criteria for a connecting trail. Smith didnot show them on his map and possibly did notknow about them; the archaeological record is notas extensive for the Late Woodland and ContactPeriod. The river’s natural history has suffered from the dramatic changes that have transformedits environment; therefore, the association with Criterion 3 is indirect.

POTENTIAL INTERPRETIVE SITES

The team has identified several potential sites alongthe Anacostia River for interpretation of the river.They include Anacostia River Park, the grounds ofthe National Arboretum, and Kenilworth AquaticGardens.

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

The Anacostia River is one of most historic water-ways in America. Beginning above the city ofBladensburg, the river flows south and westward,eventually crossing into the District of Columbia.Paddlers can experience breathtaking KenilworthAquatic Gardens and the U.S. National Arboretum—our country’s garden and living museum—whichhas a floating dock that serves as one portal to theriver and the Anacostia River Water Trail.

Anacostia RiverCourtesy Anacostia Watershed Society

15

RESEARCH TEAM

Dr. John L. Seidel, Director of Washington College’sCenter for Environment & Society (CES) and Pro-fessor of Anthropology & Environmental Studies atWashington College, led the team and wrote thereport. Dr. Seidel has more than thirty years ofexperience in archaeology, historic preservation, andenvironmental assessment. Washington College,through CES, the Public Archaeology Laboratory,and the Geographic Information Systems Labora-tory, has conducted extensive primary research onthe history and archaeology of the Chester River,including archival research, field archaeology onNative American and early colonial sites, and mar-itime archaeology and remote-sensing surveys inthe river. Elizabeth Seidel, Director of WashingtonCollege’s Public Archaeology Laboratory, was thelead researcher, and has more than twenty years ofexperience in archaeology and archival research.Prof. William Schindler, of Washington College’sDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, andDarrin Lowery, a staff archaeologist with the Wash-ington College Public Archaeology Laboratory andSmithsonian Institution Predoctoral Fellow, assistedwith the assessment of American Indian associa-tions with the connecting trail. Stewart Bruce, Pro-gram Coordinator of the Washington College GISLaboratory, and Buffy Conrad, a student intern inthe GIS Lab, gave GIS support. The ten students of the 2009 Archaeology Field School assisted withassessments of the Indiantown Farms site. ChrisCerino of Sultana Projects assessed the river’s

historical and environmental significance based onhis extensive field experience on the river in canoes,small boats, and the replica schooner Sultana.

STUDY AREA

The team defined the study area as the main branchof the Chester River from its mouth and connectionwith CAJO upstream to just above Millington, aswell as all of the tributaries that are navigable byboat, canoe, or kayak. The tributaries includeGrays Inn Creek, Langford Creek, Church Creek,Corsica River, Morgan Creek, Walsey Creek,Queenstown Creek, Tilghman Creek, Emory Creek,and Island Creek. This study area was chosen tocast the widest net for accessible sites that might berelated to the three criteria.


The team researched the standard writings by andabout Smith and his journeys as well as archaeolog-ical site reports for the study area to apply Criterion1 (closeness of association with Smith’s voyages).Smith clearly depicted and described the TockwoghRiver (Sassafras River) on his 1612 map and in hiswritings. He discussed the residents of the Tock-wogh town and his interactions with them, and healso mentioned the Ozinies, who lived nearby to thesouth and who the team concluded were the peoplewhom subsequent Europeans called the Wicomiss.While Smith did not explicitly record the ChesterRiver on his map, the team observed after compar-ing the map with modern nautical charts that one ofSmith’s inlets is located approximately at the river’smouth. He did not write about the river, either, butSmith’s detailed account of his dealings with thefriendly Tockwogh and his description of the natu-ral resources of the upper end of the ChesapeakeBay influenced the first wave of English settlementin the region as personified by William Claiborne.This young entrepreneur, who was born in 1600and arrived in the Virginia colony at age twenty-one, subsequently explored the northern Chesa-peake and traded with the Susquehannock. In1631, he established a trading post on Kent Island(which Smith had included on his map) off themouth of the Chester River, and the site quickly


Chester River

Aerial view of Chester RiverCourtesy John L. Seidel

16

became the focus of settlement. Despite a long-standing story of a conversation in London betweenSmith and Claiborne, the team found no clear linkor contact between the two. It seemed obvious,however, that Smith’s map and writings were influ-ential in Claiborne’s later exploration and settle-ment of the Chester River area.

To study the area in light of Criterion 2 (closenessof association with the 17th-century Indians), theteam reviewed the ample literature concerningarchaeology and the history of the Native peopleson and near the Chester River, beginning with

Smith’s quite detailed account of the Tockwogh andtheir palisaded town. Although the site of theOzinies (Wicomiss) town has not been positivelyidentified, the location of the symbol on Smith’smap placed it close to the Chester River, and theteam speculated that Indiantown Farm on the southside of the river may in fact be the site. In addition,so many Late Woodland and Contact Period siteshave been found on the river and its tributaries thatit is apparent that the Native occupation before andduring the 17th century was substantial. Using pre-dictive modeling, and comparing the results withknown sites, the team concluded that much of the

313

CH

ES

AP

EA

KE

BA

Y

WasleyCreek

Queenstown Creek

Tilghman Creek

EmoryCreek

ChurchCreek

Gray’s InnCreek

LangfordCreek

IslandCreek

MorganCreek

20

213

213

50

213

301

3

309

C HE

ST

E

RR

I V

ER

Chestertown

Rock Hall

Queenstown

Millington

Centreville

ChurchHill

ChinoFarms

Ozinies

2 mi

5 km



Town or City



CHESTER RIVER

environment of the Chester River and its tributarieswas ideal for such occupation. The population density there, the team concluded, may well havebeen higher than other studies have predicted.Trade beads of the general time frame of the Smithera have been found at a number of sites, furtherstrengthening the association of the river with theNative peoples of the 17th century, who utilized itas a highway of commerce as well as a source of sustenance.

With regard to Criterion 3 (closely illustrative ofthe natural history of the 17th century), the teamnoted multiple contemporary descriptions of thearea’s flora and fauna, including those of Smith,Father Andrew White (1634), and various early set-tlers and their letters, diaries, and official records.From oysters to flying squirrels, from arrow arumto prairie grasslands and giant oaks, the naturalresources and wonders of the northern Chesapeakegreatly impressed the early European visitors andsettlers. The Chester River continues to sustain awide variety of wildlife and plant life today,although some species, including oysters and mostpredators, have declined or disappeared. Seasonalwaterfowl pass through the area on the AtlanticFlyway, the deer population is substantial, andnative and introduced plants vie for space along thewaterline. Despite the inevitable changes that set-tlement and development have produced, however,the team was impressed by the extent to whichmuch has remained little changed. Because somany acres of land adjoining the river and its tribu-taries are permanently protected, the team con-cluded that the natural environment as it existstoday is “representative” of the environment of the17th century to an unusually high degree. Theteamoffered detailed examples, segment by segment,of the Chester River and its tributaries. Citing theconclusions of other groups that have studied theChester River, such as the Eastern Shore HeritageArea management team, the research team con-cludes that “the Chester River retains a remarkableability to illustrate landscapes and habitats that werepresent when John Smith visited the Upper Bay.”

17

CONCLUSIONS

The team concludes that the Chester River and itstributaries are sufficiently closely associated withthe three CAJO themes that they meet all three criteria for a connecting trail. The association ismoderate under Criterion 1, since Smith did nothimself explore the river, note it on his map, orwrite about it. He did, however, describe the natu-ral resources and Native peoples of this part of theUpper Bay area in enough detail to influence andattract subsequent explorers and settlers such asWilliam Claiborne. The team found the associationof the river with 17th-century Indians (Criterion 2)to be substantial. Smith’s account of his encounterwith the Tockwogh, the later experiences of Clai-borne and other traders, the evidence offered by thenumerous Late Woodland and Contact Period sitesand the artifacts found there, and the likelihood of alarge number of other such sites based on the posi-tive results to date from predictive modeling, allsupport the team’s conclusion. Likewise, withregard to Criterion 3, the team found that theChester River possesses substantial potential for

Kalmar Nyckel off Chestertown, Downrigging Weekend 2007Courtesy John L. Seidel

18

illustrating the natural history of the 17th-centuryChesapeake. A high percentage of the land alongthe river and its tributaries is protected and manyother stretches of the watercourse are free of devel-opment or lightly altered, thereby visually repre-senting and illustrating the river as it appeared inSmith’s day.

The team specifically identified the followingstretches of the Chester River and its tributaries asmeeting the three criteria for a connecting trail: Themain stem of the Chester River, from its mouth andconnection with the main trail upstream to thetown of Millington; the entire length of ChurchCreek (Kent County); Grays Inn Creek from itsmouth to the fork at Skinners Neck (Kent County);the upper portion of the West Fork of LangfordCreek, on either side of Poplar Neck to RicaudsBranch Road (Kent County); Morgan Creek from itsmouth north to a point just below Rt. 213, Augus-tine Herrman Highway (Kent County); WalseyCreek from its mouth to the intersection with Rt.50-301 (Queen Anne’s County); QueenstownCreek, from its mouth up the north branch to itsend (Queen Anne’s County); Tilghman Creek,from its mouth to the end (Queen Anne’s County);Emory Creek, from its mouth to the end (Queen

Anne’s County); and Island Creek (Queen Anne’sCounty), from its juncture with Southeast Creek toSparks Mill Road (on both the east and west forks).


The team identified several public landings, wateraccess points, piers, parks, and wildlife manage-ment areas that are suitable for interpretation.These are noted on the accompanying map in theteam’s report.


The Chester River, a 46-mile-long tributary of theChesapeake Bay, features rural landscapes, pristinewetland habitats, and numerous historic sites andrecreational opportunities. The Chester River WaterTrail provides canoeists, kayakers, and small-boatenthusiasts with unique recreational opportunitieson some of America’s most scenic tidal waters.

Marsh and forest on Eastern Neck IslandCourtesy National Fish and Wildlife Federation

19

RESEARCH TEAM

Dr. John L. Seidel, Director of Washington College’sCenter for Environment & Society (CES) and Pro-fessor of Anthropology & Environmental Studies at Washington College, led the team and wrote thereport. Dr. Seidel has more than thirty years ofexperience in archaeology, historic preservation, andenvironmental assessment. Washington College,through CES, the Public Archaeology Laboratory,and the Geographic Information Systems Labora-tory, has conducted extensive primary research onthe history and archaeology of the Chester River,including archival research, field archaeology onNative American and early colonial sites, and mar-itime archaeology and remote-sensing surveys inthe river. Elizabeth Seidel, Director of WashingtonCollege’s Public Archaeology Laboratory, was thelead researcher, and has more than twenty years ofexperience in archaeology and archival research.Prof. William Schindler, of Washington College’sDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, andDarrin Lowery, a staff archaeologist with the Wash-ington College Public Archaeology Laboratory andSmithsonian Institution Predoctoral Fellow, assisted

with the assessment of American Indian associa-tions with the connecting trail. Dr. Ralph Eshel-man, a private consultant with expertise in paleon-tology, archaeology, and history, previouslysurveyed the upper Choptank River in a projectthat resulted in a water trail along the Choptankand Tuckahoe Creek. Stewart Bruce, ProgramCoordinator of the Washington College GIS Labo-ratory, and Buffy Conrad, a student intern in theGIS Lab, gave GIS support.

STUDY AREA

The team established the study area as the mainbranch of the Choptank River from its mouth andconnection with CAJO upstream to just aboveGreensboro in Caroline County, Maryland, as wellas Tuckahoe Creek and all of the tributaries that arenavigable by boat, canoe, or kayak. The tributariesat the mouth of the river, including the Tred AvonRiver and several small creeks, were not included.The study area was otherwise broadly defined toinclude accessible sites potentially related to thethree criteria.


Choptank River

Contact Period artifacts,Poplar Island, MDCourtesy Darrin Lowery,Center for Environment andSociety, Washington College

20


The team described the Choptank River as thelongest on the Eastern Shore and noted that in 1985the Maryland Rivers Study Wild and Scenic RiversProgram selected it as one of four state rivers with acomposite resource value of greater than statewidesignificance. Assessing the river under Criterion 1(close association with Smith’s voyages), the teamalso noted the observation that “no river in theChesapeake region has done more to shape thecharacter and society of the Eastern Shore than theChoptank.” The team’s research into the writingsof Smith and others appears to support this conclu-sion. Despite the river’s subsequent significance,the team acknowledged that John Smith missed theriver as he and his crew “hasted for the river Bolus[Patapsco],” probably because Sharps Island (whichwas larger in Smith’s day) concealed it from his view.Smith neither mapped nor described the river in his writings, but his map and publications focusedthe attention of subsequent explorers and settlerson the Eastern Shore. Those who followed Smithincluded John Westlock, who by 1620 was tradingwith the Manokin in present-day Somerset County,Maryland, and William Claiborne, who establisheda trading post near the Chester River in 1631.Other traders and settlers followed on their heels.

Under Criterion 2 (closeness of association with17th-century Indians), the team noted that Smithdescribed in some detail the Native inhabitants ofrivers to the south of the Choptank (the Pocomokeand Nanticoke) as well as the Sassafras (Tockwogh)to the north. Smith noted his encounter with theTockwogh in great detail, and the team presentedhis description of the people as likely being typicalof other tribes in the region. Like the Tockwogh,the Native peoples of the Choptank River and itstributaries used the watercourse as a highway ofcommerce and warfare. They also relied on it forfish and fowl, and grew crops and hunted along itsbanks. A dozen archaeological sites have beenidentified on the river and on Tuckahoe Creek thatdate to the Late Woodland and Contact Period, andmost of them contained trade beads and other arti-facts dating to early in the 17th century. One evenincluded 16th-century-dated coins. The teamapplied predictive modeling to the river based onthe data available at the Maryland Historical Trust,and concluded that it indicated “the potential for ahigher density of Native American occupation thanhas been previously uncovered along the Chop-tank.” The known Indian tribes who lived along theChoptank (which was also their collective name)were the Transquaking, the Ababco, and the Hat-sawap, and they traded with Westlock, Claiborne,

Aerial view, Kings Creek Courtesy Aloft Aerial Photography

21

and other Europeans. The Choptank signed a treatywith the Maryland colony in 1659 that established a reservation for them; it continued in existenceuntil 1799. Several Choptank archaeological siteshave been identified on former reservation land.

With regard to Criterion 3 (closely illustrative ofthe Bay’s 17th-century natural history), the teamcited the descriptions of the Upper Chesapeakewritten by Smith, Father Andrew White, and others.Like the Chester River (indeed the Bay as a whole),

the Choptank historically supported a vast array ofmarine life as well as migratory birds, deer andpredators, and trees and grasses. Because oak-hick-ory forests predominated in the upper Choptank,mast was plentiful and supplied squirrels, turkeys,and deer, which in turn supported the human pop-ulation. Today, much of the Choptank shoreline iseither protected by “critical areas” legislation (espe-cially marshlands) or is under easements held bythe Maryland Environmental Trust, the MarylandHistorical Trust, agricultural land-preservation

C H O P T A N K R I V E R

LITTLE CHOPTANKRIV

ER

TU

CK

AH

OE

RI V

ER

C H OP T A

NK

RI V E R

50

50

CH

ES

AP

EA

KE

BA

Y

Greensboro

Denton

Queen Anne

Easton

Cambridge

TilghmanIsland

KentIsland

AdkinsArboretum

TuckahoeState Park

Old HarfordTown Maritime

Center

MartinakState Park

2 mi

5 km

CHOPTANK RIVER



Town or City



districts, Rural Legacy areas, and the like. Althoughthese protected areas vary in size, in total they arelarge and help to keep the river shoreline “represen-tative” of the environment of 1608, if not “replicat-ing” it. The team explored the river and its tributar-ies by boat and the final report offers detaileddescriptions of the various segments. The teamconcluded that the Choptank River “retains aremarkable ability to illustrate natural landscapessimilar to those of the 17th century, as well as tointerpret cultural landscapes of both Native peoplesand early colonists.”

CONCLUSIONS

The team concludes that the Choptank River andseveral of its tributaries are sufficiently closely asso-ciated with the three CAJO themes that they meetall three criteria for a connecting trail. The associa-tion with Criterion 1 is moderate since Smith didnot himself explore the river, note it on his map, orwrite about it. The Smith map, however, indicatedislands at the mouth of the Choptank that includedSharps Island and Tilghman Island. It also sug-gested that interior waterways existed on the East-ern Shore behind the islands that obscured Smith’sview. Smith’s contemporaries relied on his map,which with his writings illustrated the Bay’s poten-tial as a trading region and as an area for settlement.Westlock, Claiborne, and others followed Smith’slead with trading posts and settlements. Smith’sexploratory voyages clearly had a substantial effecton the settlement of the Choptank River. The teamfound a substantial association of the river with17th-century Indians (Criterion 2). The accountsof Smith and others, as well as the outcomes to dateof predictive modeling for the likelihood of a largenumber of Late Woodland and Contact Period sites,are cited in support of this conclusion. Most impor-tant, archaeological investigations have revealedabundant evidence of interactions between Nativeinhabitants of the river and European traders. Adozen sites have yielded early glass trade beads andsome of the few Contact Period copper artifactsfrom the region. Finally, in consideration of Crite-rion 3 (close association with the natural history ofthe 17th-century Chesapeake watershed), the teamconcluded that the Choptank River has substantialpotential to illustrate the natural history of thatperiod. An unusually high percentage of the land isprotected by easements and other arrangements,and some portions of the river well represent the

22

species diversity of the period. Along much of theriver, and on certain tributaries such as TuckahoeCreek and Kings Creek, the shoreline is evocative of the 17th century.

The team concludes that the following portions ofthe Choptank River and its tributaries meet all threeconnecting trail criteria: the main stem of the riverfrom its mouth and connection with CAJOupstream to the town of Greensboro; the smallercreeks shown on the accompanying map but espe-cially such important tributaries as Hunting Creekto its fork, Hog Island and its small guts, KingsCreek to a point approximately one mile above theKingston Bridge Road, Watts Creek to Double HillRoad, and Tuckahoe Creek from the confluencewith the Choptank to Mason Bridge at the northend of Tuckahoe State Park.


The team identified numerous potential interpre-tive sites, which are shown on the accompanyingmap. They include Tuckahoe State Park and AdkinsArboretum, Martinak State Park, Old Harford Town Maritime Center and Museum, and a few historical sites.


The Choptank River, called “the noblest water-course on the Eastern Shore,” has excellent recre-ational opportunities, offering the public some ofthe Eastern Shore’s best fishing, canoeing, and bird-ing experiences. The Choptank and TuckahoeRivers Water Trail encompasses 80 miles along thetwo rivers, linking multiple public access points,state parks, and natural and historic areas.

Oyster aquaculture at Marinetics, Todds PointCourtesy Michael Hardesty, Center for Environment and Society, Washington College

23

RESEARCH TEAM

The research team’s professional staff includedKatherine Faull, Professor of German and Humani-ties, Bucknell University, Moravian–Native Americancontact studies; Donald Grinde, Professor of Ameri-can Studies andHistory, State University of NewYorkat Buffalo, Iroquois history and New York Indiancultures and history; Ben Marsh, Professor of Geog-raphy and Environmental Studies, Bucknell Univer-sity, cultural landscapes and GIS mapping expert;David Minderhout, Professor Emeritus of Anthro-pology, Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania andDelaware Indian cultures and history; and Alfred K.Siewers, Associate Professor of English, Coordina-tor of the Nature and Human Communities Initia-tive, environmental cultural studies. Donald Grindeand Sid Jamieson were the Native American advi-sors. The interns who assisted with researchincluded undergraduates Emily Bitely, BucknellUniversity, and Jessica Dowsett, Bloomsburg Uni-versity; graduates Molly Clay, Jenny Stevens, andJoseph McMullen III, of Bucknell University; andMary Kohler, Ph.D. candidate at SUNY Buffalo.

STUDY AREA

The team divided the river into four segments forthe purposes of its study: Lower Susquehanna River(Havre de Grace, MD–Harrisburg, PA); MiddleSusquehanna (Harrisburg-Sunbury); ConfluenceArea, West Branch (Sunbury–Lock Haven) andMain Branch (Sunbury–Wyoming Valley); andUpper Susquehanna Valley and Headwaters(Wyoming Valley–Cooperstown, NY). Variousmembers of the team studied specific segments.


The team examined the evidence for closeness ofassociation with Criterion 1 (John Smith’s explo-ration of the Bay and its tributaries). Smith traveledup the Susquehanna River to Smith’s Falls near thepresent-day Conowingo Dam in northeastern Mary-land, mapped the river to that point, and also wroteabout it. He obtained the locations of the Susque-hannock towns “by relation” from the Susquehan-nock whom he met near the falls and recorded theriver and towns on his map as well. These towns

include Sasquesahanough, Quadroque, Attaock,Utchowig, and Tesinigh. The best-known town isSasquesahanough (Susquehannock), the site ofwhich has been identified archaeologically nearWashington Boro. The locations of the others,which have been the subject of extensive debate andinvestigation over the years by many archaeologistsand historians, have proved elusive. The researchteam, by georeferencing modern locations ontoSmith’s map, estimates that the site of Utchowig,the farthest-northwestern town on Smith’s map,may have been located at Williamsport on the WestBranch, or perhaps as far west as Lock Haven.Tesinigh, which stood as far up the North Branch asSmith’s map extends, may have been located atpresent-day Wyoming near Wilkes-Barre. South ofthose towns and north of Susquehannock town,Attaock may have been located somewhere on theJuniata River, while Quadroque might have been atpresent-day Sunbury. Despite the uncertainty aboutthe towns’ locations, however, it is clear thatSmith’s map represents (with reasonable accuracy)Susquehannock territory from the mouth of theriver on the Chesapeake Bay north to within aboutfifty miles of the present-day Pennsylvania–NewYork border—a straight-line distance of about onehundred and thirty miles. And Smith only sawabout the first ten of those miles for himself.

Under Criterion 2 (close association with the 17th-century Indians), the team noted that the origins of


Susquehanna River

John Smith map, showing Susquehanna River and Indian towns

24

West

Bra

nch S U S Q U E H A N

NA

R I VE R

JU N I ATAR I VER

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

20 mi

40 km

Cooperstown

Scranton

Sunbury

Lock Haven

Havre de Grace

PhiladelphiaLancaster

Harrisburg

Smith’sFalls

Safe HarborIndian Steps

Museum

Susquehanna GatewayHeritage Center

State Museum ofPennsulvania

Ned Smith Centerfor Nature and Art

Conrad WeiserState Forest

Lewisburg

ShikellamyState Park

Bucknell UniversityEnvironmental Center

Williamsport

Lycoming CountyHistorical Society

EasternDelawareNations

Susquehanna RiverArchaeological Center

SUNY OneontaBiologicalField Station

Fenimore Art MuseumLake Otsego

GlimmerglassState Park

Susequehannock

Attaock

Quadroque

Utchowig

Tesinigh

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER



Town or City



25

the Susquehannock have been, like the sites of theirtowns, the subject of considerable debate amongscholars. At the present, however, there seems to begeneral agreement that the Iroquois culture ofwhich the Susquehannock were a part has beenconfirmed archaeologically to have arisen on theSusquehanna River north of today’s Harrisburg nearLiverpool. It then spread north along the river intopresent-day New York, where numerous sites (theOwasco culture) confirm the link through burialpatterns, bone technology, and ceramics. Evidenceof this culture is found as far north as Lake Ontarioand the Mohawk Valley. As the culture spreadduring a period of global warming, groups becameincreasingly isolated in terms of culture and dialect,and evolved into the tribes known as Mohawk,Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Cayuga, and Susque-hannock, who are now generally acknowledged tobe of Mohawk ancestry. About 1300 AD, the onsetof the Little Ice Age gradually resulted in the move-ment of the Susquehannock south to the lowerstretches of the river, although it was the Nativepeople who were there at least three hundred yearsearlier who created the notable Safe Harbor petro-glyphs that dot the river near Conestoga.

Late in the 17th century and into the 18th century,Iroquois and other tribes settled along the NorthBranch in the vicinity of Sunbury, where the townof Shamokin grew up. This may also have been thesite of Quadroque, according to georeferencingSmith’s map. The Iroquois Confederacy, whichconsisted of the Five Nations of upstate New York(Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, andCayuga), waged a long campaign early in the 17thcentury to conquer the wayward Susquehannockand control the full extent of the river—the primaryhighway of trade. Ultimately, the Susquehannockreunited with their northern brethren, whether bybeing “conquered” by them or by seeking refugefrom the onslaught of European frontiersmen. Thestory of their subsequent decline in Pennsylvaniaand reunification with the Iroquois in upstate NewYork is well documented.

Less well known, perhaps, is the connection of theSusquehanna with the Nanticoke River of Marylandand Delaware, which John Smith visited anddescribed. During the first half of the 18th centurymany Nanticoke, pressed by European settlers,relocated from the Eastern Shore of Maryland to the

Susquehanna River. They settled first around themouth of the Juniata River north of Harrisburg andthen moved north to the vicinity of Wyoming nearWilkes-Barre.

The team assessed the river under Criterion 3(illustrative of the natural history of the Bay and itstributaries in the 17th-century). Bone fishhooksand stone net sinkers found at many sites under-score the importance of the river’s natural resourcesas sustenance for the Susquehannock and the othercultures that lived along its shores. Oak, chestnut,and hickory forests supplied nuts and mast as foodfor deer, elk, bear, and humans. Anadromous fish such as shad, as well as local fish species andfreshwater mussels were abundant. The Susque-hanna River Valley is famously one of the richestagricultural areas in the United States today andwas likewise naturally fertile in the 17th century.Susquehannock women cultivated large quantitiesof beans, corn, and squash in their gardens.Archaeological evidence, specifically the analysis ofbones recovered from Susquehannock burial sites,confirms that the people were “robust and wellfed.” In addition, Smith described them as “giants,”but his description is generally discounted(although the Susquehannock leaders may havesent their largest warriors to meet and impressSmith). Besides being a fertile source of food, theSusquehanna River was also a major highway ofcommerce and warfare for the Native peoples.

CONCLUSIONS

The team concludes that the Lower SusquehannaRiver (Havre de Grace, MD–Harrisburg, PA) has a

Susquehanna River, Washington Boro, near site of Susquehan-nock town Courtesy Joseph McMullen, Bucknell University

26

substantial association with Smith’s exploration ofthe Bay and its tributaries (Criterion 1). This is apart of the river that, according to available evi-dence and georeferencing, Smith either visited him-self or described and mapped by relation from theNative inhabitants. In addition, it is this part of theriver that has substantial association with theSusquehannock from Smith’s contact with themuntil the massacre at Conestoga and the return ofthe survivors to New York (Criterion 2). This seg-ment also contains parts of the river reminiscent ofthe colonial settlement era, thus substantially asso-ciating it with the natural history of the Bay in the17th century (Criterion 3).

The Middle Susquehanna (Harrisburg-Sunbury),which Smith mapped but did not write about, ismoderately associated with his exploration (Crite-rion 1) and is substantially associated with the his-tory of the Indians of the 17th century (Criterion 2).Its natural history relates to that of the Bay, andstretches of the river are evocative of conditions inthe 17th century (Criterion 3), giving it substantialassociation.

The team concludes that the Confluence Area, WestBranch (Sunbury–Lock Haven) and Main Branch(Sunbury–Wyoming Valley), is substantially associ-ated with the Indians of the 17th century (Criterion2) and the natural history of the Bay and its tribu-taries (Criterion 3). John Smith also mapped thearea by relation from the Susquehannock, althoughtoday the locations of Utchowig and Tesinigh areunknown (Criterion 1); the association is moderate.

Finally, the team concludes that the Upper Susque-hanna Valley and Headwaters (Wyoming Valley–Cooperstown, NY) segment is also substantiallyassociated with the Indians of the 17th century(Criterion 1) and the natural history of the Bay’stributaries (Criterion 3). The archaeological recordillustrates both criteria especially well, with manytown and fishing sites identified. The connectionwith Smith’s voyages (Criterion 1) is indirect, sincehe neither explored nor mapped this region.

The team concludes, then, that the various seg-ments are sufficiently closely associated with atleast two of the three CAJO themes and thereforemeet at least two of three criteria for a connectingtrail, as described above.


The team identified a large number of potentialinterpretive sites along the Susquehanna River.They include the Safe Harbor petroglyphs; Susque-hanna Gateway Heritage Center; Indian StepsMuseum; State Museum of Pennsylvania (Harris-burg); Ned Smith Center for Nature and Art;Conrad Weiser State Forest and Bucknell RoaringCreek Facility; Shikellamy State Park; LycomingCounty Historical Society; Bucknell UniversityEnvironmental Studies Center; Susquehanna RiverArchaeological Center; Eastern Delaware Nations;Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy; FenimoreArt Museum; Glimmerglass State Park; and SUNYOneonta Biological Field Station at Lake Otsego.


From its headwaters in Cooperstown, New York,south to the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, theSusquehanna River is one of the largest rivers in theUnited States and provides tremendous recreationalopportunities. The Susquehanna River Water Trailconsists of more than 550 miles of water trails onthe North Branch, West Branch, and main stem ofthe river in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York.The water trail has been recognized as an AmericanCanoe Association Recommended Trail and is part ofthe Pennsylvania Water Trail System and the Chesa-peake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

Petroglyph, Susquehanna RiverCourtesy Ben Marsh, Bucknell University

27

RESEARCH TEAM

Jeffrey L. Hantman, Ph.D., Associate Professor andDirector, Program in Archaeology, Department ofAnthropology, University of Virginia, was theresearcher. He has for decades collaborated withthe Monacan Indian Nation of Amherst County toexplore the research and interpretive areas of inter-est to the Monacan people. His research in archae-ology is concerned with regional systems and cul-tural change, especially change that resulted fromcolonialism. He also studies early relations betweenEuropean colonists and Indians, relations betweenNative peoples in the centuries before and duringEuropean colonization, and the present-day effectsof colonialism on Native peoples.

STUDY AREA

The researcher divided the Upper James River intotwo segments. The first begins at the connection toCAJO at the Falls of the James at Richmond andextends upstream to its confluence with the TyeRiver, at about the farthest distance represented onSmith’s map. This segment is located mostly in Vir-ginia’s Piedmont to the foothills of the Blue Ridge.The second segment continues west from that pointto the juncture with the Cowpasture and JacksonRivers near Iron Gate, where the James River properbegins in the Appalachian Mountains. Smith didnot map this segment of the James River.


With regard to Criterion 1 (close association withSmith’s explorations of the Bay and its tributaries),the researcher concludes that the Upper JamesRiver has an unusual connection. Although Smithnever explored it, and the paramount chiefPowhatan allowed other English colonists very lim-ited access to the region beyond the Falls, thatregion loomed large over the political and diplo-matic history of the early colony in its relationswith the Powhatan. One can speculate about whyPowhatan stymied the colonists in their attempts tovisit this country: fear of an alliance between theEnglish and Powhatan’s alleged “enemies,” theMonacan; or a desire on Powhatan’s part to engagethe English as allies against the Monacan when the

paramount chief deemed it expedient? The reasonsprobably will never be known, but the Monacanand the Upper James always seemed to lurk in thebackground of the negotiations and conversationsbetween English leaders such as Smith andPowhatan. Nonetheless, Smith was able to learnenough about the region, probably from conversa-tions with the Powhatan, accurately to depict theUpper James and several Monacan towns on hismap and write knowingly about the area in his pub-lications. Remarkably, despite the allure of theUpper James’s reputed mineral resources, Euro-peans did not explore it until John Lederer’s expedi-tions in 1670 and did not settle there until the firstquarter of the 18th century.

The researcher concludes that a good deal is knownabout the association of the Upper James Riverdrainage with the Indians of the 17th century (Cri-terion 2). “By relation” from the Indians, Smithwrote about the Monacan and their likely ethnolog-ical kinsmen on the upper reaches of the Rappahan-nock River, the Mannahoac. One of the mostremarkable conversations about the area took placewhen a wounded and captive Mannahoac,Amoroleck, answered Smith’s questions about his“world” and provided Smith with a great deal ofinformation about the inhabitants of the VirginiaPiedmont. Additional information is availabletoday from the numerous archaeological sites thathave been excavated along the Upper James River,


Upper James River

Falls of the James RiverCourtesy John S. Salmon

28

where artifacts common to the Monacan have beenidentified. The most famous of these sites isThomas Jefferson’s Monacan mound on theRivanna River near Charlottesville, which he exca-vated in 1787 in the first scientific archaeologicalstudy in the present-day United States. Other sitesincluding those of two towns that Smith recordedon his map—Monahassanaugh and Monasuka-panough—have yielded data concerning theMonacan occupation before and after Smith’s time.

Criterion 3 (closely illustrative of the natural his-tory of the 17th-century Chesapeake Bay and itstributaries) is discussed both in light of whatarchaeological studies have revealed and what isknown today about the mineral resources of the

J

AM E S R I V E

R

RA

P PAHAN

N

OC

KR

IVE

R

JA

CK

SO

NR

I VE

R

CO

WP

AS

TU

RE

RI V

ER

VIRGINIA

MARYLAND

CH

ES

AP

EA

KE

BA

Y

20 mi

40 km

Washington D.C.

Richmond

Lynchburg/Monacan Bridge

Jamestown

Columbia

Scottsville

Charlottesville

Fredericksburg

IronGate

NaturalBridge

Wingina

Point of Fork

Manakin Town

South Fork Rivanna River

Massinacack

Mowhemcho

Rassawek

Monasukapanough

Monahassanugh

Tanxsnitania HassniungaMahaskahod

StegaraShackaconia

UPPER JAMES RIVER



Town or City


Smith Map “King’s House” (approx.)Monacan/Mannahoac Territory

Archaeological site of a Monacan house at location of Monahas-sanaugh “King’s town” identified on John Smith’s map, UpperJames River, Nelson CountyCourtesy Jeffrey L. Hantman

29

17th-century arrow points fromMonasukapanough “King’s town” identified on John Smith’s map, Upper James River Courtesy Jeffrey L. Hantman and University of Virginia Center for Digital History

Upper James region. The archaeological sourcespresent evidence of familiarity with copper and itsuses among the Monacan. Clearly, the Nativeinhabitants also hunted, fished (especially duringthe seasonal migrations of anadromous species suchas shad), and farmed plots of corn in the bottoms.In addition, although parts of the Upper JamesRiver have been altered over the centuries by agri-culture and the construction of towns and dams,much of it still remains reminiscent of the river thatJohn Smith described and the Monacan peoplesknew intimately.

CONCLUSIONS

The researcher concludes that both segments of theUpper James River are substantially associated withand illustrative of the Indian inhabitants of the 17thcentury and the natural history of the ChesapeakeBay and its tributaries (Criteria 2 and 3). The firstsegment, in addition, is substantially associatedwith the exploration of the Bay and its tributariesby Smith and the other colonists, in that he learnedabout it “by relation” from the Indians and mappedand described it accurately (Criterion 1). The asso-ciation of the second segment with Smith is indi-rect. The entire Upper James River, then, from theFalls at Richmond to the juncture with the Cowpas-ture and Jackson Rivers at Iron Gate, meets at leasttwo of the three criteria for a connecting trail.


The researcher identified ten potential sites. Theyinclude the Falls of the James at Richmond; the siteof Manakin Town; Point of Forks, Columbia; site ofMonasukapanough town and site of Jefferson’sMonacan burial mound, South Fork, Rivanna River,Charlottesville; site of Monahassanaugh and site oflargest Monacan archaeological excavation on theJames River, at Wingina, west of Scottsville; Mona -can Bridge, Lynchburg; Natural Bridge; and IronGate, the junction of the Cowpasture and JacksonRivers, where the Upper James begins.


Tremendous recreational opportunities exist alongthe Upper James River, including boating, canoeing,fishing, hiking, biking, birding, and other outdoorexperiences. In addition, Botetourt County Tourismmanages the Upper James River Water Trail, whichguides visitors on the river and the adjacent lands.

30

RESEARCH TEAM

Daniel R. Griffith, M.A., the principal researcher, hasthirty-five years of experience in the study of Ameri-can Indian history and the archaeology of Delawareand served as the Delaware State Archaeologist andState Historic PreservationOfficer for sixteen yearsuntil his retirement in 2005. He participates in andadvises others on fieldwork and research on regionalAmerican Indian sites. He served for two years asthe Director of the Roosevelt Inlet Shipwreck Projectin Lewes, Delaware, and is the project director forthe Archaeological Society of Delaware for theAvery’s Rest Project (1675–1682). For ten years hehas taught archaeology andNative American historyas an adjunct professor to the Department of HistoryatWesley College in Dover, Delaware. Virginia R.Busby, Ph.D., conducted documentary researchrelated to the John Smith voyages andNative occu-pations of the study area. She hasmore than sixteenyears of experience in archival and archaeologicalresearch on the 17th-century Nanticoke River andits Native and colonial settlements. She also hasworkedwith indigenous and other local popula-

tions, conservation groups, and local municipalitiesin both Delaware andMaryland, particularly regard-ing land and historic site preservation, oral history,and historical and cultural interpretation. She nowserves as a commissioner for theMaryland Commis-sion on Indian Affairs. WilliamH. Davis, historianfor the Nanticoke Indian Association, Inc., inMills-boro, Delaware, provided an understanding of thelandscape and history as a knowledgeable descen-dant of the Indian populations that interacted withJohn Smith, his crew, and subsequent colonists.

STUDY AREA

The research team established the study area as theNanticoke River watershed, starting at the junctionwith CAJO at Broad Creek in Delaware and extend-ing upstream generally eastward on the river’sbranches and tributaries. The river drains about athird of the land in the present-day state of Delaware.To distinguish the upstream Delaware portion ofthe river from the downstream part in Maryland,the former is referred to in the report as the UpperNanticoke River.


Upper Nanticoke River

31

Kuskarawoak

1

2 mi

2 km

Craigs Mill

Laurel

Bethel

Concord

Seaford

DE

LA

WA

RE

MA

RY

LA

ND

Nanticoke ParkWildlife Area

Phillips LandingRecreation Area

BarnesWoods

Trail

Laurel River Walk

Seaford River Walkand Boat Ramp

N

A

NT

I C

OK

ER

IV

ER

B r o a d C r e e k

De e p C r e e k

24

13

28

13

20



Town or City



UPPER NANTICOKE RIVER

32


The team consulted primary and secondary sourcesincluding the map and writings of John Smith andthe proceedings of the Council of Maryland andSomerset County in the Archives of Maryland, con-ducted interviews with members of the Nanticoketribe, and made a kayak trip on the Nanticoke Riverand Broad Creek to examine and photograph thenatural environment and important archaeologicalsites. In addition, the team reviewed archaeologicalsite reports and studied artifacts at the state’s Divi-sion of Historical and Cultural Affairs.

To analyze the closeness of the association of theUpper Nanticoke with Smith’s voyages of explo-ration (Criterion 1), the team carefully reviewed theliterature and the various interpretations of Smith’sdescription of this part of his journey. Scholarshave intensely debated the location of a key Indiantown, Kuskarawoak. While there is some evidencethat the town may have been located at today’sVienna, Maryland, at the site of the Chicone Nanti-coke Indian Reservation, the team determined thatSmith’s writings as well as archaeological evidencestrongly indicates its location as being in present-day Delaware on the north side of the Upper Nanti-coke River, inland from the river’s mouth as wastypical of “King’s Houses” then. Scholars have alsoquestioned whether Smith could have reached thatsite from the mouth of the river within the daterange he gave in his writings. The team determinedthat to travel the required distance was indeedachievable in the speedy Indian canoes available toSmith. Much depends, the team decided, on areader’s correctly interpreting the 17th-centurymeanings of the words Smith used to describe hislocation and activities. The team concludes thatboth Smith’s words and archaeological researchsupport not only the location of Kuskarawoak inDelaware but also the location of the “tradingbranch” that Smith mentioned, which was likewisein Delaware, probably on Prickly Pear Island wheretrade goods such as beads and pipe fragments typi-cal of the early 17th century have been found.

The team examined the historical and archaeologicalrecord to determine the closeness of the associationof the Upper Nanticoke River with 17th-centuryIndians (Criterion 2). Smith reported that the Nan-ticoke lived in five towns, and he mapped three ofthem (Nause and Nantaquak in present-day Mary-

land and Kuskarawoak in today’s Delaware). Smithrecorded but did not map two other towns, Sarap-inagh and Arseek; probably the Indians told himabout them. The Nanticoke used the river and theBay as part of their trading network, in addition toutilizing the watercourses’ natural resources.Archaeological research identified eight sites on theUpper Nanticoke River and its tributaries that wereoccupied during the Late Woodland and ContactPeriod. Diagnostic artifacts from several of the sitesincluded early-17th-century trade beads, fine terra-cotta tobacco-pipe sherds, and Townsend ceramics.Between the time of Smith’s visit and the end of thecentury, interest in trade between the Europeansand the Nanticoke ebbed and flowed with politicalconditions and the inevitable decline in trade goodsvalued by the English, such as beaver pelts. By1700, the surviving Indians largely inhabited theChicone Nanticoke Indian Reservation and theBroad Creek Nanticoke Indian Reservation, and bymidcentury most had removed to other areas alto-gether. Many moved to the Susquehanna River inPennsylvania. Today, Delaware Nanticoke descen-dants live in eastern Sussex County in Millsboro,where they share their culture with visitors.

With regard to Criterion 3 (closely illustrative ofthe 17th-century Chesapeake watershed), the teamfound that the Upper Nanticoke River upstreamfrom the Maryland-Delaware state line had relativelyfewmodern intrusions or significant landscapemod-ifications until Butler Mill Branch on the Nanticoke

Upper Nanticoke River trade beads from Site 75H114, acrossriver from Prickly Pear Island. Group 1, 1600 AD–1700 AD;Group 2, 1690 AD–1740s AD. Courtesy Charles Fithian, Delaware State Museums, Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs

33

River and the community of Bethel on Broad Creek.Such intrusions and modifications become morefrequent upstream from those points. Historically,in addition, the relative sea level in the ChesapeakeBay watershed has risen between two feet and fourand a half feet since 1608, thereby affecting thesalinity of tributaries such as the Nanticoke and alsothe kind and distribution of aquatic and riversideplant and animal communities. Areas close to theBay that were marshland in colonial descriptions arenow shallow creeks; standing dead trees fartherinland reflect relatively recent submersions of low-lying but once-dry land. The Upper Nanticoke Riverthereforemay serve as a laboratory in which to tracethe changes to the river since Smith’s voyages fromnatural causes as well as from human activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The team concludes that portions of the UpperNanticoke River watershed in Delaware are sub-stantially associated with all three connecting trailcriteria. From the connection with CAJO at BroadCreek, one arm of the potential trail would extendfrom Phillips Landing there up Broad Creek pastBethel to Records Pond dam in Laurel. The otherarm would extend up the main branch of the Nanti-coke River to Deep Creek, and then up Deep Creekto Concord Pond dam. Although the Nanticoke

Upper Nanticoke ceramics.Roulette decorated pipe, 1640 AD–1670 AD (far left).Townsend direct cord, 1370AD–1670 AD (left and below). Courtesy Daniel L. Griffith, Griffith Archaeology Consulting

Indians occupied the entire watershed, the specifiedsegments are not only substantially associated withthe Native peoples, but are also the segments mostsubstantially illustrative of the natural history of the17th-century Bay watershed (Criteria 2 and 3). Inaddition, the segment from the CAJO connectionupriver to at least the purported site of Kuskarawoakbelow BarnesWoods is substantially associated withJohn Smith and his voyage on the river and may beclose to where Smith placed the cross that markedthe upper limit of his exploration (Criterion 1).


The team suggested Phillips Landing, Laurel RiverWalk, Seaford River Walk and Boat Ramp, andBarnes Woods Trail as potential interpretive sites.


The Upper Nanticoke River stretches approximately26 miles through Sussex County, Delaware, andincludes important tributaries such as Broad Creekand Deep Creek. Considered one of the most pris-tine watercourses in the Chesapeake, the river andthe Upper Nanticoke River Water Trail link multi-ple public access points, state parks, and naturaland historic areas.

34

ANACOSTIA RIVER

Executive Summary

The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National His-toric Trail (NHT) was created with three stated pur-poses. These included: the commemoration of theexplorations of John Smith in 1607–1609, to recog-nize associations with 17th-century Indian popula-tions, and to commemorate associations with thenatural history of the Chesapeake Bay watershed inthe 17th century. The Center for Heritage ResourceStudies (CHRS) has conducted a historical andarchaeological review of the upper Anacostia water-shed in order to evaluate the river for inclusion as aconnecting trail to the John Smith NHT. The studyexamined the entire watershed, but divided theresults into the upper tributaries of the Anacostia(Northeast Branch, Northwest Branch, and SligoCreek) and themain trunk of the Anacostia that runssouthward from Bladensburg, Maryland, throughthe District of Columbia to the confluence with thePotomac River. Both sections of the watershed wereevaluated in terms of meeting the same three crite-ria used to establish the original John Smith NHT.

The Center for Heritage Resource Studies foundthat the entire watershed can be considered asmeeting the criteria. However, it was also deter-mined that one section had a greater associationthan the other. The main trunk of the AnacostiaRiver, from Bladensburg to Hains Point (See Figure1), meets the criteria and should be considered for aconnecting trail.

Association with Smith’s Voyages: Substantial asso-ciation. This area (or at least a significant portion ofit) is included on Smith’s 1612 Map. Smith, how-ever, does not write about the Anacostia directly.Given the goals of exploration, we argue that eitherSmith explored the Anacostia himself or directlyobtained information about the river for inclusionon his map.

Association with Indians of the 17th Century: Sub-stantial association. Smith writes about the villageof Nacotchtanke. Archaeology provides evidence ofNacotchtanke’s locations and further evidence ofuse of the eastern bank of the Anacostia. Identified

AppendixRESEARCH TEAMS’ EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES

The research teams for each river submitted reportsthat contained a list of the team members, executivesummaries of the team’s research and findings, andbibliographies of sources that each team consulted.Each team’s sources included certain standardworks. John Smith wrote the principal descriptionsof his Chesapeake Bay voyages: A True Relation ofsuch occurrences and accidents of noate as hathhapned in Virginia since the first planting of that Col-lony (1608), A Map of Virginia (1612), and The Gen-erall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and theSummer Isles. They are published in Philip L. Bar-bour, ed., The Complete Works of Captain John Smith,3 vols. (Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1986). Virtually everything the other Vir-ginia colonists wrote during the period is in EdwardWright Haile, ed., Jamestown Narratives: EyewitnessAccounts of the Virginia Colony: The First Decade:1607–1617 (Champlain, Va.: RoundHouse, 1998).The most recent study of Smith’s voyages is HelenC. Rountree, Wayne E. Clark, and Kent Mountford,John Smith’s Chesapeake Voyages, 1607–1609 (Char-lottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007).

35

sites (to date) are predominantly family campsitesrelating to the procurement of food or resourceswithin the area.

Illustrative of Natural History of Chesapeake Water-shed in the 17th Century: Indirect association. TheAnacostia has been significantly changed into anurban waterway. Portions of the river are beingcleaned up and portions (such as Kenilworth Park,the shoreline of the National Arboretum, and theAnacostia Park up through Bladensburg) can beplaces where the changed environment could beinterpreted. Little that resembles the natural envi-ronment of the 17th-century Anacostia remains.However, the urban waterway and its cleanup pro-vide a useful foil for interpreting the area in thetime of Smith’s explorations.

The rest of the upstream river is also related to theabove criteria; however, the association is far lessstrong. As result, CHRS concludes that it does notmeet the criteria for a connecting trail.

Bibliography

Beitzell, Edwin W. Life on the Potomac River. Abell, MD: N.p., 1968.

Biddle, John F. “Historical Geography of Bladens-burg, Maryland.” MA thesis, Catholic University ofAmerica, 1954.

Bowie, Effie Gwynn. Across the Years in PrinceGeorge’s County. Richmond, VA: Garrett andMassie, Inc., 1974.

Christopher Goodwin & Associates. “Phase IIIArcheological Data Recovery of Site 18PR119 (Sher-wood II Development), Prince George’s County,Maryland.” Prepared for South Charles Realty, 1997.

—————. “Phase I Archeological Survey of theAdelphi Manor Water Quality Project, PrinceGeorge’s County, Maryland.” Prepared for Loieder-man Associates, Inc., 1994.

Clark, Wayne E. “The Origins of the Piscatawayand Related Indian Cultures.” Maryland HistoricalMagazine 75, No. 1 (1980): 8–22.

Curry, Dennis C. Feast of the Dead: AboriginalOssuaries in Maryland. Crownsville, MD: Archeo-logical Society of Maryland and the Maryland His-torical Trust, 1999.

Dent, Richard J., Jr. Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. New York: PlenumPress, 1995.

Ferguson, Alice L., and T. Dales Stewart. “AnOssuary near Piscataway Creek.” American Antiq-uity 6 (1940): 4–18.

Fogel, Heidy, Dennis Kneper, and Michael Petraglia.“Archeological Excavations at Kettering Park Site(18PR174), Prince George’s County, Maryland.”Maryland State Highway Administration. 1994.

Gibb, James G., and Donald K. Creveling. “Phase IArcheological Survey of the Proposed AnacostiaTributaries Trail in Hyattsville-Bladensburg, PrinceGeorge’s County, MD.” Prepared for the MNCPPC.1993.

Gottschalk, L. C. “Effects of Soil Erosion on Navi-gation in Upper Chesapeake Bay.” GeographicalReview 35 (1945): 219–238.

Hienton, Louise Joyner. Prince George’s Heritage:Sidelights on the Early History of Prince George’sCounty, Maryland, from 1696 to 1800. N.p.: TheMaryland Historical Society, 1972.

—————. Items from the Maryland Gazette1745–1785 Concerning Christopher Lowndes of Bost-wick. Bladensburg, MD: N.p., 1968.

Holmes, William Henry. “Stone Implements of thePotomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province.” 15thAnnual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secre-tary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1893–1894.Washington, DC:Government PrintingOffice, 1897.

Hornum, Michael, John Clarke, Christian Daven-port, and Thomas Majarov. “Phase III ArcheologicalData Recovery At Site 18PR545, USDA BeltsvilleAgricultural Resource Center, Prince George’sCounty, Maryland.” Prepared for Meta Engineers,2000.

36

Humphrey, Robert C., and Mary Elizabeth Cham-bers. Ancient Washington: American Indian Culturesof the Potomac Valley. Washington, DC: GeorgeWashington University, 1985.

LeeDecker, Charles H. “Phase IB ArcheologicalSurvey of the WMATA Branch (F) Route, PrinceGeorge’s County, Maryland.” 1996.

—————. “Phase II Archeological Investigationof the Naylor Road Site (18PR463), Green Line (F)Route, Branch Avenue Segment, WashingtonRegional Metrorail System, Prince George’s County,Maryland. Prepared for Woodward-Clyde Consult-ants, 1996.

—————, and Brad Koldehoff. “Excavation ofthe Indian Creek V Site (18PR94), Prince George’sCounty, Maryland.” Prepared for Wallace Roberts& Todd and WMATA, Washington, DC, 1991.

Little, Barbara. “National Capital Area Archeologi-cal Overview and Survey Plan, US Department ofthe Interior, National Park Service, National CapitolArea.” 1995.

Louis Berger & Associates. “Phase I CulturalResource Survey Site 12, Patuxent Wildlife ResearchCenter, Prince George’s County, Maryland.” Pre-pared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991.

Louis Berger Group, Inc. “Bold, Rocky, and Pictur-esque: Archeological Identification and EvaluationStudy of Rock Creek Park Volume I.” Prepared forNational Park Service, National Capital Region,August 2008.

MacCord, Howard A. “Archeology of the AnacostiaValley of Washington, D.C., and Maryland.” Journalof the Washington Academy of Sciences 47 (1957):393–397.

Moore, Charles, ed. The Improvement of the ParkSystem for the District of Columbia [McMillan Com-mission]. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1902.

Munford, Barbara. “Phase II Cultural ResourcesInvestigation of Site 18PR404, the Surratts Road Site,Prince George’s County, Maryland.” Prepared forthe Maryland State Highway Administration, 1991.

Parsons Brinckerhoff. “Phase 1(a) ArcheologicalAssessment of Proposed Improvements to SouthCapitol Street Corridor, Washington, DC.” Pre-pared for the District Department of Transportation,January 2006.

Polglase, Christopher R. “Phase III ArchaeologicalData Recovery of Site 18PR119, Sherwood II Devel-opment, Prince George’s County, Maryland: FinalReport.” Christopher Goodwin & Associates, 1999.

Proudfit, S. V. “Ancient Village Sites and AboriginalWorkshops in the District of Columbia.” AmericanAnthropologist 2 (1889): 241–246.

Roller, Michael. Personal communication, 2009.

Schmidt, Susan. Landfall Along the Chesapeake: Inthe Wake of Captain John Smith. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 2006.

“South Capitol Street Phase 1(b) ArcheologicalSurvey of the South Capitol Street Corridor, Washington DC.” N.p.: 1968.

Trigger, Bruce, ed. Handbook of North AmericanIndians, Volume 15: Northeast. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978.

Van Horn, R. Lee. Out of the Past: Prince Georgiansand Their Land. Riverdale, MD: Prince George’sCounty Historical Society, 1976.

Versar. “Phase I Archeological Survey of the NavalResearch Laboratory, Washington, DC.” Draftreport prepared for US Department of the Navy, January 2006.

Virta, Alan. Prince George’s County: A Pictorial History. Norfolk: The Donning Company, 1984.

—————. “The Development of a CommercialCenter at the Fork of the Eastern Branch.” Unpub-lished paper. University of Maryland, 1972.

Watson, James Douglas. Prince George’s County:Past and Present. Washington, DC: Federal Litho-graphic Co., 1962.

Wheeler, Linda. “Beaver Continues to Dine onTidal Basin.” Washington Post. April 8, 1999, A1.

37

Williams, Brett. “A River Runs Through Us.”American Anthropologist 103 (2001): 409–431.

Williams, John Page. Chesapeake: Exploring theWater Trail of Captain John Smith. Washington, DC:National Geographic Society, 2006.

Wright, Mary Margaret. Port O’Bladensburg: A BriefHistory of a 1742 Town. Bladensburg, MD: Bladens-burg Publishers, 1977.

CHESTER RIVER

Executive Summary

The work summarized in this report was carried outunder contract to the Conservation Fund and theFriends of the John Smith Chesapeake Trail, withthe intent of providing sufficient information toassess the potential for designation of the ChesterRiver, a Maryland tributary of the Chesapeake Bay,as a “connecting trail” to the Captain John SmithChesapeake National Historic Trail, as defined bythe National Trails System Act (Public Law 90-543).The work was carried out from April throughNovember of 2009 by a team assembled by Wash-ington College’s Center for Environment & Society.

The research team consulted a variety of primaryand secondary sources, historic maps, and archaeo-logical site data held by the Maryland HistoricalTrust, the Washington College Geographic Infor-mation Systems Laboratory, and other repositories.The river and its major tributaries were examinedby boat from its mouth up to Crumpton, and bycanoe from Crumpton to beyond Millington. Basedon these and other investigations, the river’s eligi-bility as a connecting trail was assessed using threecriteria: 1) association with John Smith’s voyages;2) association with 17th-century Indians; and 3)association with the natural history of the 17th-cen-tury Chesapeake. In this executive summary, thebasic findings are reviewed in the outline below,with an accompanying map (Figure 1) that depictsthe segments of the river that we consider a poten-tial connecting trail.

Criterion 1: Significance of the River’s Associationwith the Voyages of Exploration of John Smith,1607–1609

Assessment: Moderate association

Rationale: A careful analysis of Smith’s descriptionof his voyages and analysis of his 1612 map indicatethat he did not personally visit the Chester River.Instead, he likely heard reports about the river andits inhabitants, the Ozinies. Nevertheless, Smith’sobservations and depiction of Kent Island and riverinlets in the area, and his accounts of inhabitantssuch as the Ozinies, Tockwogh, and Susquehan-nocks, made the potential of the area clear to otherEnglishmen such as William Claiborne. Smith’smap was the best depiction of the Bay until Augus-tine Herrman produced his map in 1670. The Smithmap clearly indicated several inlets in that vicinityof the Eastern Shore, one of which must have beenthe Chester. The map was relied upon heavily bySmith’s contemporaries and made clear the UpperBay’s potential, first as a trading region and later asan area for settlement. Claiborne followed preciselythis model with his 1631 settlement on Kent Islandand trading post at the mouth of the SusquehannaRiver. While Smith did not visit, his work had asubstantial impact on the river’s settlement.

Criterion 2: Association with the American IndianTowns & Cultures of the 17th-Century Chesapeake

Assessment: Substantial association

Rationale: John Smith and subsequent visitorsrecorded significant presence of American Indianson and around the Chester River, including theOzinies, the Wicomiss (possibly another name forthe Ozinies), the Monponson, and the Matapeake.Other groups such as the Susquehannock and Mas-sawomeck traded or raided in the area around theChester. Archaeological investigations haverevealed abundant evidence of Native Americanpresence along the river, including much LateWoodland and Contact Period material, includingglass trade beads at sites such as Indiantown Farms.In addition, GIS-based predictive modeling indi-cates that extensive areas along the Chester and itstributaries are high-probability areas for AmericanIndian habitation; five years of field testing sup-ports the validity of the model.

Criterion 3: Potential for Illustrating the NaturalHistory of the 17th-Century Chesapeake

38

Assessment: Substantial potential

Rationale: Using contemporary accounts of the17th-century landscape and archaeological evi-dence to establish a baseline, the Chester River wasvisually examined on land and by boat for most ofits length. Not only is an unusually high percentageof its land in conservation easements or other pro-tections, but significant portions replicate much ofthe species diversity of the period and are evocativeof the era. These range from the 2,285-acre EasternNeck National Wildlife Refuge at the mouth of theriver to unspoiled creeks, the restored grasslands ofthe 5,000-acre Grasslands Plantation (all in conser-vation easements), and to upper stretches of theriver that have wild rice and arrow arum and showhigh, wooded bluffs. In between these natural pro-tected areas are farms that mimic the early, dis-persed settlement pattern of the colonial era, andthe early town of Chestertown, which may be seenas the legacy of John Smith.

ConclusionsWe conclude that the Chester River meets all threecriteria for a connecting trail to the Captain JohnSmith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, asdefined by the National Trails System Act (PublicLaw 90-543). The river has a level of associationwith John Smith or significance relative to the stan-dards on all three criteria set forth for evaluation.

We conclude that there is a high level of significancerelated to the criteria for the portions of the river andits tributaries listed below and illustrated in Figure1. For the reasons articulated in this report, it is ourassessment that this range of inclusion offers multi-ple opportunities and experiences that will be moreattractive to the public and more likely to see wide-spread public use and enjoyment. Furthermore, theinclusive nature of these connecting segmentsensures that public enjoyment will expand beyondthe lower reaches of the river to include freshwater,inland waterways—these are important in helpingto define and evoke the range of habitats throughwhich early explorers moved and that AmericanIndians used for travel and resource extraction.The potential connecting segments are as follows:

The main stem of the Chester River, from its mouthand connection with the main trail upstream to thetown of Millington;

The entire length of Church Creek (Kent County);Grays Inn Creek from its mouth to the fork at Skin-ners Neck (Kent County);The upper portion of the West Fork of LangfordCreek, on either side of Poplar Neck to RicaudsBranch Road (Kent County); Morgan Creek from its mouth north to a point justbelow Rt. 213, Augustine Herrman Highway (KentCounty); Walsey Creek from its mouth to the intersectionwith Rt. 50-301 (Queen Anne’s County);Queenstown Creek, from its mouth up the northbranch to its end (Queen Anne’s County); Tilghman Creek, from its mouth to the end (QueenAnne’s County); Emory Creek, from its mouth to the end (QueenAnne’s County); Island Creek, from its juncture with SoutheastCreek to Sparks Mill Road (on both the east andwest forks) (Queen Anne’s County)

Bibliography

Alsop, George. A Character of the Province of Mary-land. 1666. Reprint. Newton D. Mereness, ed.Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers Co., 1902.

Bourne, Michael O. Historic Houses of Kent County:An Architectural History, 1642–1860. Chestertown,MD: Historical Society of Kent County, 1998.

Browne, William H., ed. Archives of Maryland: Pro-ceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Mary-land. Vol. V, 1667–1688. Baltimore: Maryland His-torical Society, 1883– .

Curry, Dennis. “Prehistoric Kent County.” In His-toric Houses of Kent County: An Architectural History,1642–1860. Chestertown, MD: Historical Society ofKent County, 1998.

Davidson, Thomas. “The Powhatans and the Eastern Shore.” In Helen C. Rountree, ed., PowhatanForeign Relations, 1500–1722. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993.

Dent, R. J. Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions,New Directions. New York and London: PlenumPress, 1995.

39

Eastern Shore Heritage. Stories of the ChesapeakeHeritage Area Management Plan. Chestertown, MD:Eastern Shore Heritage, Inc., 2004.

Feest, Christian. “Nanticoke and NeighboringTribes.” In Bruce Trigger, ed., Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, Volume 15: Northeast, 242–252.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1978.

Kavanagh, M. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Channel Improvements in the Upper ChesterWatershed, Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties, Mary-land. Maryland Geological Survey File Report No.147. 1979. Baltimore, MD.

Klingelhofer, Eric. “The Search for ‘Ffort Conquest’and the Claiborne Virginian Settlement: An Archae-ological Survey of Garrett Island, Cecil County,Maryland, 1984.” Unpublished paper.Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust.

Lippson, A. J. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: AnAtlas of Natural Resources. Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.

Lowery, D. L. “The 1992 Archaeological Survey ofKent Island.” Unpublished paper. N.d.Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust.

—————. “A Supplementary Report of the 1992Archaeological Survey of Kent Island.” Unpub-lished paper. 1993. Crownsville, MD: MarylandHistorical Trust.

—————. “Archaeological Survey of the ChesterRiver, the Wye River, and the Prospect BayDrainages, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.”Unpublished paper. 1993. Crownsville, MD: Mary-land Historical Trust.

—————. “Archaeological Survey of InteriorQueen Anne’s County, Maryland.” Unpublishedpaper. 1994. Crownsville, MD: Maryland Histori-cal Trust.

—————. “A Supplementary ArchaeologicalSurvey of Interior Queen Anne’s County, Mary-land.” Unpublished paper. 1995. Crownsville,MD: Maryland Historical Trust.

Marye, William B. “The Wicomiss Indians of Mary-land.” American Antiquity 4 (1938): 146–152.

Matthews, E. D., and W. U. Reybold III. Soil Survey:Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. Washington, DC:United States Department of Agriculture Soil Con-servation Service, 1966.

Pohuski, Michael. “The Underwater Search forWilliam Claiborne’s 17th-Century Settlement in theUpper Chesapeake.” In John D. Broadwater, ed.,Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Societyfor Historical Archaeology Conference. Richmond,VA: Society for Historical Archaeology, 1991.

Rountree, Helen C., and Thomas Davidson. Eastern Shore Indians of Virginia and Maryland.Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997.

Seidel, John L., Darrin Lowery, and Tom Davis. A Cultural Resource Management Geographic Infor-mation System and Archaeological Predictive Modelfor Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties, Maryland.Report Prepared for the Maryland State HighwayAdministration. Chestertown, MD: WashingtonCollege Public Archaeology Laboratory, n.d.

—————, Darrin Lowery, and Wendy Miller. A Cultural Resource Management Geographic Infor-mation System and Archaeological Predictive Modelfor Maryland’s Upper Eastern Shore: Cecil, Kent,Queen Anne’s, Caroline & Talbot Counties, Maryland.Report Prepared for the Maryland State HighwayAdministration. Chestertown, MD: WashingtonCollege Public Archaeology Laboratory, 2007.

—————, and Bill Schindler. Report on Archaeo-logical Investigations at Indiantown Farm, QueenAnne’s County Maryland. Chestertown, MD: Wash-ington College Public Archaeology Laboratory,forthcoming.

Strachey, William. “The History of Travel into Virginia Britannia: The Book of the First Decade[1612].” In Edmund Wright Haile, ed. JamestownNarratives. Champlain, VA: RoundHouse, 1998.

Torrence, Clayton. “The English Ancestry ofWilliam Claiborne of Virginia.” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography 56 (1948): Part II, pp. 431–460.

40

Virginia Colonial Records Project. MicrofilmRecords of the British Public Record Office.William Claiborne and Kent Island. Reel 93. Alder-man Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

White, Andrew. A Relation of the Sucessefull Begin-nings of the Lord Baltemore’s Plantation in Maryland.Being an extract of certaine Letters written fromthence, by some of the Aduenturers, to their friends inEngland, 1634. Shea’s Early Southern Tracts, No. 1.Albany, NY: Reprinted by Joel Munsell, 1865.

White, E. A. Soil Survey of Kent County, Maryland.Washington, DC: United States Department of Agri-culture, Soil Conservation Service, 1982.

CHOPTANK RIVER

Executive Summary

The work summarized in this report was carried outunder contract to the Conservation Fund and theFriends of the John Smith Chesapeake Trail, withthe intent of providing sufficient information toassess the potential for designation of the ChesterRiver, a Maryland tributary of the Chesapeake Bay,as a “connecting trail” to the Captain John SmithChesapeake National Historic Trail, as defined bythe National Trails System Act (Public Law 90-543).The work was carried out from April throughNovember of 2009 by a team assembled by Wash-ington College’s Center for Environment & Society.

The research team consulted a variety of primaryand secondary sources, historic maps, and archaeo-logical site data held by the Maryland HistoricalTrust, the Washington College Geographic Informa-tion Systems Laboratory, and other repositories. Theriver and portions of its major tributaries were exam-ined by boat specifically for this study; the study ofother portions drew on the extensive prior experi-ence of the research team on the Choptank River.Based on these and other investigations, the river’seligibility as a connecting trail was assessed usingthree criteria: 1) association with John Smith’s voy-ages; 2) association with 17th-century Indians; and3) association with the natural history of the 17th-century Chesapeake. In this executive summary, thebasic findings are reviewed, with an accompanyingmap (Figure 1) that depicts the segments of theriver that we consider a potential connecting trail.

Criterion 1: Significance of the River’s Associationwith the Voyages of Exploration of John Smith,1607–1609

Assessment: Indirect association

Rationale: A thorough review of Smith’s descriptionof his voyages and an analysis of his 1612 map indi-cate that he did not personally visit the ChoptankRiver. Nevertheless, Smith’s observations of theportions of the Eastern Shore to the south, alongthe Nanticoke River, and to the north, from KentIsland to the Head of the Chesapeake Bay, attractedthe immediate interest of his contemporaries.Smith mapped the islands in front of the ChoptankRiver, and his work made the potential of the areafor trade and eventual settlement clear to otherEnglishmen such as John Westlock, John Nuttalland William Claiborne, who traded in the regionand provided additional information that led to set-tlement. Smith’s map was the best depiction of theBay until Augustine Herrman produced his map in1670. The Smith map clearly indicated islands atthe mouth of the Choptank that included SharpsIsland and Tilghman Island, and his map left openthe possibility of interior waterways behind theisland barrier. The map was relied upon heavily bySmith’s contemporaries and made clear the middleBay’s potential, first as a trading region and later asan area for settlement. Claiborne followed preciselythis model with his 1631 settlement on Kent Islandand a trading post at the mouth of the SusquehannaRiver. While Smith did not personally visit theChoptank, his work had a substantial impact on theriver’s settlement.

Criterion 2: Association with the American IndianTowns & Cultures of the 17th-Century Chesapeake

Assessment: Substantial association

Rationale: Archaeological and historical evidenceleave no doubt that the Choptank River was exten-sively settled by Native Americans at the time ofJohn Smith’s exploration up the Chesapeake Bay.Archaeological investigations have revealed abun-dant evidence of Native American presence alongthe river, including much Late Woodland and Con-tact Period material, such as early glass trade beadsand some of the few Contact Period copper artifactsfrom the region. GIS-based predictive modeling

41

indicates that extensive, uninvestigated areas alongthe Choptank and its tributaries are high probabil-ity areas for American Indian habitation; five yearsof field testing supports the validity of the model.From an archaeological perspective, the Choptankmay in fact be one of the richest areas on the East-ern Shore. In addition, the historical record of thelater occupation of native peoples and their adapta-tion to English incursions is remarkably rich. Oneof the nation’s earliest reservations was set aside forthe Choptank Indians, and it was occupied by themas a distinct area until 1799. Even now, theirdescendants are the heirs and stewards of a rich tradition in this region.

Criterion 3: Potential for Illustrating the NaturalHistory of the 17th-Century Chesapeake

Assessment: Substantial potential

Rationale: Using contemporary accounts of the17th-century landscape and archaeological evidenceto establish a baseline, the Choptank River wasvisually examined on land and by boat, severaldetailed descriptions of the river’s potential for eco-and heritage tourism were examined, and expertson the research team were in agreement as to thepotential of the river. Not only is an unusually highpercentage of its land in conservation easements orother protections, but significant portions also repli-cate much of the species diversity of the period andare evocative of the era. Along much of the river’slength, and that of remarkable tributaries such asTuckahoe Creek and Kings Creek, it is possible toshut out the 21st century and conjure images of the17th century and the pre–Contact Period. Storiesof species diversity, landscape resilience, and chang-ing ecosystems over space abound.

We conclude that the Choptank River meets allthree criteria for a potential connecting trail to theCaptain John Smith Chesapeake National HistoricTrail, concluding that there is a high level of signifi-cance for the portions of the river and its tributarieslisted below and illustrated in Figure 1. For the rea-sons articulated in this report, it is our assessmentthat this range of inclusion offers multiple opportu-nities and experiences that will be more attractiveto the public and more likely to see widespreadpublic use and enjoyment. Furthermore, the inclu-sive nature of these connecting segments ensures

that public enjoyment will expand beyond thelower reaches of the river to include freshwater,inland waterways—these are important in helpingto define and evoke the range of habitats throughwhich early explorers moved and that AmericanIndians used for travel and resource extraction.

The potential connecting segments are as follows:The main stem of the Choptank River, from itsmouth and connection with the main trail upstreamto the town of Greensboro.

While smaller creeks are included in this designa-tion, we suggest including the following importanttributaries:Hunting Creek to its forkHog Island and its small gutsKings Creek, to a point approximately one mileabove the Kingston Bridge Road (this bridge is visi-ble in Figure 29)Watts Creek to Double Hill RoadTuckahoe Creek from the confluence with theChoptank to Mason Bridge, at the north end ofTuckahoe State Park.

Bibliography

Alsop, George. A Character of the Province of Mary-land. 1666. Reprint. Newton D. Mereness, ed.Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers Co., 1902.

Bourne, Michael O. Historic Houses of Kent County:An Architectural History, 1642–1860. Chestertown,MD: Historical Society of Kent County, 1998.

Browne, William H., ed. Archives of Maryland: Pro-ceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Mary-land. Vol. V, 1667–1688. Baltimore: Maryland His-torical Society, 1883–.

Busby, Virginia. Personal communication to TimBarrett. June 6, 2008.

Curry, Dennis C. Feast of the Dead: AboriginalOssuaries in Maryland. Crownsville, MD: Archeo-logical Society of Maryland and the Maryland His-torical Trust, 1999.

—————. “Prehistoric Kent County.” In His-toric Houses of Kent County: An Architectural History,1642–1860. Chestertown, MD: Historical Society ofKent County, 1998.

42

Davidson, Thomas. “The Powhatans and the East-ern Shore.” In Helen C. Rountree, ed., PowhatanForeign Relations, 1500–1722. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993.

Dent, R. J. Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions,New Directions. New York and London: PlenumPress, 1995.

Eastern Shore Heritage. Stories of the ChesapeakeHeritage Area Management Plan. Chestertown, MD:Eastern Shore Heritage, Inc., 2004.

Eshelman, Ralph E., and Carl W. Scheffel, Jr. Mary-land’s Upper Choptank River and Tuckahoe CreekCultural Resource Inventory. Denton, MD: Old Har-ford Town Maritime Center, 1999.

Feest, Christian. “Nanticoke and NeighboringTribes.” In Bruce Trigger, ed., Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, Volume 15: Northeast, 242–252.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1978.

Footner, Hulbert. Rivers of the Eastern Shore. 1944. Reprint ed. Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 1972.

Kavanagh, M. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Pro-posed Channel Improvements in the Upper ChesterWatershed, Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties, Mary-land. Maryland Geological Survey File Report No.147. 1979. Baltimore, MD.

Kenny, Hammill. The Place Names of Maryland:Their Origin and Meaning. Baltimore: Museum andLibrary of Maryland History, Maryland HistoricalSociety: 1984.

Klingelhofer, Eric. “The Search for ‘Ffort Conquest’and the Claiborne Virginian Settlement: An Archae-ological Survey of Garrett Island, Cecil County,Maryland, 1984.” Unpublished paper.Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust.

Lippson, A. J. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: AnAtlas of Natural Resources. Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.

Lowery, D. L. “The 1992 Archaeological Survey ofKent Island.” Unpublished paper. N.d.Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust.

—————. “A Supplementary Report of the 1992Archaeological Survey of Kent Island.” Unpub-lished paper. 1993. Crownsville, MD: MarylandHistorical Trust.

—————. “Archaeological Survey of the ChesterRiver, the Wye River, and the Prospect BayDrainages, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.”Unpublished paper. 1993. Crownsville, MD: Mary-land Historical Trust.

—————. “Archaeological Survey of InteriorQueen Anne’s County, Maryland.” Unpublishedpaper. 1994. Crownsville, MD: Maryland Histori-cal Trust.

—————. “A Supplementary ArchaeologicalSurvey of Interior Queen Anne’s County, Mary-land.” Unpublished paper. 1995. Crownsville,MD: Maryland Historical Trust.

—————. “A Survey of Selected Prehistoric Arti-fact Collections Associated with the ChoptankRiver Watershed, Maryland.” Unpublished paper.1999. Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust.

—————. “Early 17th Century Sites in theUpper Chesapeake Bay Region: An Analysis of FiveArchaeological Sites in Queen Anne’s County andTalbot County.” Maryland Archaeology 31, No. 1–2(March–September 1995): 59–68.

Marye, William B. “The Wicomiss Indians of Mary-land.” American Antiquity 4 (1938): 146–152.

Matthews, E. D., and W. U. Reybold III. Soil Survey:Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. Washington, DC:United States Department of Agriculture Soil Con-servation Service, 1966.

McNamara, Joseph M. “Excavations on LocustNeck: The Search for Historic Indian Settlements inthe Choptank Indian Reservation.” Journal ofMiddle Atlantic Archaeology 1 (1985): 87–96.

Murray, William Vans. A Vocabulary of NanticokeDialect. Daniel G. Brinton, ed. Reprint, Proceedingsof the American Philosophical Society 21 (1893).N.p.: Evolution Publishing, 2005.

43

Papenfuse, Edward C., and Joseph M. Coale. TheMaryland State Archives Atlas of Historical Maps ofMaryland, 1608–1908. Baltimore: The Johns Hop-kins University Press, 2003.

Parker, Julia F., and Beverly R. Ortiz. It Will LiveForever: Traditional Yosemite. Indian Acorn Prepara-tion. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books, 1996.

Pohuski, Michael. “The Underwater Search forWilliam Claiborne’s 17th-Century Settlement in theUpper Chesapeake.” In John D. Broadwater, ed.,Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Societyfor Historical Archaeology Conference. Richmond,VA: Society for Historical Archaeology, 1991.

River Heritage. “Choptank and Tuckahoe CreekGuide.” Denton, MD: Old Harford Town MaritimeCenter, n.d. Online resource atwww.riverheritage.org/riverguide/

Rountree, Helen C., and Thomas Davidson. Eastern Shore Indians of Virginia and Maryland.Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997.

Schindler, Bill. “Middle Woodland Exploitation ofMigratory Fish in the Delaware.” PhD diss., TempleUniversity, 2006.

—————. “Rethinking Middle Woodland Settle-ment and Subsistence Patterns in the Middle andLower Delaware Valley.” North American Archaeolo-gist 29, No. 1 (2008): 1–12.

—————. “Location, Location, Location: TheArchaeology of Prime Fishing Site Selection.”Paper presented at the Annual Middle AtlanticArchaeology Conference, Ocean City, MD, 2009.

Seidel, John L. The Chester River: Feasibility Studyfor Nomination as a Connector Trail in the CaptainJohn Smith National Historic Trail. Report preparedfor the Friends of the John Smith Trail. Chester-town, MD: Center for Environment and Society,Washington College, 2009.

—————, Darrin Lowery, and Tom Davis. A Cul-tural Resource Management Geographic InformationSystem and Archaeological Predictive Model for Kentand Queen Anne’s Counties, Maryland. Report pre-pared for the Maryland State Highway Administra-tion. Chestertown, MD: Washington CollegePublic Archaeology Laboratory, n.d.

—————, Darrin Lowery, and Wendy Miller. ACultural Resource Management Geographic Informa-tion System and Archaeological Predictive Model forMaryland’s Upper Eastern Shore: Cecil, Kent, QueenAnne’s, Caroline & Talbot Counties, Maryland.Report prepared for the Maryland State HighwayAdministration. Chestertown, MD: WashingtonCollege Public Archaeology Laboratory, 2007.

—————, and Darrin Lowery. “Interim Reporton the Kent County Archaeological Survey and Pre-dictive Modeling.” Report prepared for the Mary-land Historical Trust. Chestertown, MD: Washing-ton College Public Archaeology Laboratory, 2008.

—————, and Bill Schindler. Report on Archaeo-logical Investigations at Indiantown Farm, QueenAnne’s County Maryland. Chestertown, MD: Wash-ington College Public Archaeology Laboratory,forthcoming.

Strachey, William. “The History of Travel into Vir-ginia Britannia: The Book of the First Decade[1612].” In Edmund Wright Haile, ed. JamestownNarratives. Champlain, VA: RoundHouse, 1998.

Torrence, Clayton. “The English Ancestry ofWilliam Claiborne of Virginia.” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography 56 (1948): Part II, pp. 431–460.

Virginia Colonial Records Project. MicrofilmRecords of the British Public Record Office.William Claiborne and Kent Island. Reel 93. Alder-man Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Walker, Jesse. “Archaeological Investigations of theHolland Point Site (18DO220), Dorchester County,Maryland.” MA thesis, Temple University, 2003.

White, Andrew. A Relation of the Sucessefull Begin-nings of the Lord Baltemore’s Plantation in Maryland.Being an extract of certaine Letters written fromthence, by some of the Aduenturers, to their friends inEngland, 1634. Shea’s Early Southern Tracts, No. 1.Albany, NY: Reprinted by Joel Munsell, 1865.

White, E. A. Soil Survey of Kent County, Maryland.Washington, DC: United States Department of Agri-culture, Soil Conservation Service, 1982.

Williams, John Page. Exploring the Chesapeake inSmall Boats. Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers,1992.

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER

Executive Summary

The three research teams working on the Susque-hanna River have each produced substantial finalreports on the connections between John Smith’svoyages around the Chesapeake Bay in 1608 andthe Susquehanna River. From these reports, it isthe opinion of the principal researchers that theSusquehanna River meets the criteria for a potentialconnecting trail to the Historic John Smith trail.Basing its conclusions on detailed investigation ofthe history of Native American settlement along theriver, archaeological evidence, natural history of theriver, and the cultural significance of the river tocontemporary Native Americans, the team con-cludes that the Susquehanna meets all three criteria:

A. The Susquehanna River shows a close associa-tion with Smith’s actual voyages, in terms of histravel to the mouth of the Susquehanna and directimportant exchanges with the Susquehannock Indi-ans who inhabited the river corridor, and his map-ping of Indian sites along the Susquhanna (Crite-rion 1 moderate to substantial);

B. The river corridor shows a strong connectionwith 17th-century Native American peoples knownto John Smith (Criterion 2 substantial);

C. It also remains importantly illustrative of thenatural history of the 17th-century Chesapeake BayWatershed, both in terms of existing landscapes andhabitats and its integral ongoing connection as thelargest source of the Chesapeake, which is in effect

geologically an ancient section of the SusquehannaValley (Criterion 3 substantial).

In our view, the above associations also require thatthe river be considered holistically, as a historicalenvironmental-and-cultural system, focusing on itsmain corridor from the existing John Smith Trailnear the Chesapeake to the Susquehanna headwa-ters at Lake Otsego. Traveling this system in thecontext of the John Smith Trail involves dynami-cally traveling through layers of time and nature,given the river corridor’s connections with the peo-ples directly encountered and mapped by JohnSmith, in their dynamic interactions with oneanother before and during his era, and with theEuro-American movement into the watershed fol-lowing Smith. In this sense, the potential designa-tion of the main corridor as a connecting trail notonly reflects historic and environmental links ofnorthern “Iroquoia” to the realms of the Susque-hannocks experienced by Smith, but also provides aneeded cultural corrective to potential Eurocentricfocus of the Smith Trail. Its name would likelyderive from indigenous language and it would linkthe Smith Trail directly with living Iroquois andEastern Delaware people who mainly live in andengage with the upper watershed and who histori-cally incorporated remnants of the Susquehan-nocks. It would also preserve and re-present his-toric perspectives of native peoples looking outfrom the heart of the Eastern Woodlands to meetand encounter Smith and his people downriver asthey in turn came up the Chesapeake.

Finally, in terms of the third criterion, the Susque-hanna watershed remains a living system integrallyrelated to the Chesapeake, preserving on largestretches glimpses of scenery experienced by kayakand land sojourners today as evocative of pre-settle-ment and early settlement landscape and naturalhistory connected with Smith’s experience. We findsignificant segments to be eminently interpretable,preservable, and (in part) restorable. Consideringthe Chesapeake-Susquehanna network as a wholein designation would support integrated recre-ational, educational, and environmental opportuni-ties while avoiding older Eurocentric paradigms.This would provide more authentic engagementwith indigenous holistic perspectives on space andnatural systems evident from Smith’s era and subse-quent reports (what one historian described as a

44

45

fluid “archipelago” of native communities on theSusquehanna), in line also with new scholarlyemphasis on the continuum of nature and culturein environmental systems (as in models of environ-mental semiospheres in biosemiotics).

In short, the potential designation of the mainSusquehanna corridor as a connecting trail wouldserve as a deserved tribute to the larger networks ofboth Native American cultures and natural environ-ments that engaged in direct exchange with JohnSmith and Anglo culture in the seventeenth century,in a foundational era and region for America, whileproviding incredible opportunities for environmen-tal, community, and cultural synergy and restora-tion in the Susquehanna-Chesapeake complextoday. It would also would enable the Hau-denosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, probably thelargest organization of historic Native Americangovernments in the northeastern U.S., and repre-senting the cultures from which the Susquehan-nock communities that Smith knew had emergedand to whom their remnants later returned, to joinif it chooses as a direct partner with the NationalPark Service in the John Smith Chesapeake Trailnetwork. As a man with Susquehannock ancestry,living today in the potential Susquehanna connect-ing trail corridor in Pennsylvania, put it to one ofour researchers regarding his cultural connectionsto the river, “You know, in the native way of think-ing, something that has movement is alive, and ifit’s alive then it is a spiritual being. That includesnot just animals and birds and things, but also theriver. I grew up along the Susquehanna River. Mygrandmother, who taught me most of what I knowabout being native, always used to say to me, ‘Thatriver is you. Without that river, our people wouldnot be who they are.’ So, it is important to care forthe river for the Seven Generations to come.”

Bibliography

Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R.Stuckenrath. “Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retro-spective 1976.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47(1977): 1–93.

Aquila, Richard. The Iroquois Restoration: IroquoisDiplomacy on the Colonial Frontier, 1701–1754.Detroit, MI: Wayne University Press, 1983.

Barton, Edwin M. Columbia County: A History.Bloomsburg, PA: Edwin M. Barton, 1984.

Bartram, John. “Journal.” In Journals: Shamokin,The Indian Capital, 1737–1755. Vol. 11. Sunbury,PA: The Northumberland County Historical SocietyArchives.

—————. Travels in Pensilvania and Canada.Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1966.

Beauchamp, William Martin. Moravian JournalsRelating to Central New York, 1745–66. New York:The Dehler Press, 1916.

Becker, Marshall J. “A New Haven for Some Accul-turated Lenape of Pennsylvania During the IndianWars of the 1760’s.” Pennsylvania History 60(1993): 322.

—————. “The Stature of a SusquehannockPopulation of the Mid-16th Century Based onSkeletal Remains from 46HM73.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 61, No. 2 (September 1991): 73–88.

Bomboy, Robert P. Danville: The Bicentennial His-tory. Danville, PA: The Danville Bicentennial Com-mittee, 1991.

Bradsby, H.C. History of Bradford County, Pennsylva-nia. Chicago: S. B. Nelson & Co., 1891.

—————. History of Luzerne County. Chicago:S. B. Nelson & Co., 1893.

Brandão, José António. “Your Fyre Shall Burn NoMore”: Iroquois Policy Towards New France and ItsNative Allies to 1701. Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press, 1997.

Brashler, Janet. “A Middle 16th Century Susque-hannock Village in Hampshire County, West Vir-ginia.” West Virginia Archaeologist 39 (1987): 1–30.

Bressler, James. “The Ault Site (36LY120): A Multicomponent Site Including a Fortified ShenksFerry Village.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 79(2009): 30–53.

46

—————. “Excavation of the Bull Run Site36LY119.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 50 (1980):31–63.

—————. “Excavation of a Shenks Ferry Habitation Complex on Canfield Island, LycomingCounty, Pennsylvania (36LY251).” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 63 (1993): 77–89.

—————. “Indian Occupations of the BrickFarm Area: Susquehannock Occupation, 1600–1650.” Now and Then 11 (1955): 93–101.

—————. Prehistoric Man on Canfield Island.Williamsport, PA: Lycoming County HistoricalSociety, 1989.

—————, Ricki Maietta, and Karen Rockey.Canfield Island Through the Ages. Williamsport, PA:Lycoming County Historical Society, 1983.

—————, and Harry D. Rainey. Excavation of theSnyder Site. Williamsport, PA: Lycoming CountyHistorical Society, 2003.

—————, and Karen Rockey. Tracking theShenks Ferry Indians at the Ault Site. Williamsport,PA: Lycoming County Historical Society, 1997.

Brubaker, John H. Down the Susquehanna to theChesapeake. University Park, PA: Penn State Uni-versity Press, 2002.

Bushnell, David I. Native Villages and Village SitesEast of the Mississippi. Bulletin 69. Washington,DC: Government Printing Office, 1919.

Cadzow, Donald. Archaeological Studies of theSusquehannock Indians of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg,PA: Pennsylvania Historical Commission, 1936.

Cajete, Gregory, ed. A People’s Ecology: Explorationsin Sustainable Living. Santa Fe, NM: Clear LightPublishers, 1999.

Calloway, Colin G. New Worlds for All. Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Carmer, Carl. The Susquehanna. New York: Rinehart & Co., 1955.

Carter, John H. Allummapees, King of the Delawaresat Shamokin. Sunbury, PA: The NorthumberlandCounty Historical Society, 1998.

—————. Early Events in the SusquehannaValley. Millville, PA: Northumberland County Historical Society.

—————. “Indian Tribes of Shamokin.” In History of Sunbury, 70–83. Sunbury, PA: TheNorthumberland County Historical Society, 1995.

—————. The Shamokin Indian Traders. Sun-bury, PA: The Northumberland County HistoricalSociety, 1995.

Chapman, Isaac. History of Wyoming. NewOrleans: Polyanthos Press, 1971.

Clark, John S., and Louise Welles Murray, eds.Selected Manuscripts of General John S. Clark Relat-ing to the Aboriginal History of the Susquehanna.Wilkes-Barre, PA: E. B. Yordy Co., 1931.

Cobb, Charles R. “From Frontier to Border Along the Iroquois Southern Door.” Archeologies:Journal of the World Archeological Congress 1 (2008):110–128.

Cooper, James Fenimore. The Deerslayer. 1841.New York: Bantam Classic, 2008.

Cooper, William. A Guide in the Wilderness. New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1970.

Custer, Jay F. “Archaeological Excavations at theWest Water Street Site, Lock Haven, ClintonCounty, Pennsylvania.” Journal of the LycomingCounty Historical Society 18 (1997): 24–33.

—————. “Pennsylvania Profile No. 12: An Un -usual Indian Land Claim From Lancaster County.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 65 (1995): 41–47.

—————. Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsyl-vania. Series 7. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania His-toric andMuseumCommission Anthropology, 1996.

47

—————, and E. B. Wallace. “Patterns ofResource Distribution & Archaeological SettlementPatterns in the Piedmont Uplands of the MiddleAtlantic Region.” North American Archaeologist 3(1982): 139–172.

—————, Scott C. Watson, and Daniel N. Bailey.“A Summary of Phase III Data Recovery Excava-tions at the West Water Street Site (36CN175),Lock Haven, Clinton County, Pennsylvania.” Penn-sylvania Archaeologist 66 (1996): 1–53.

Dennis, Mathew. Cultivating a Landscape of Peace:Iroquois-European Encounters in the Seventeenth-Cen-tury America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,1993.

Donehoo, George P. A History of the Indian Villagesand Place Names in Pennsylvania. Lewisburg, PA:Wennawoods Publishing, 1928; 1999.

—————. The Indians of Pennsylvania. Sunbury,PA: The Northumberland County Historical Society,1999.

—————. Pennsylvania: A History. New York:Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1926.

Edmonds, Margot, and Ella E. Clark. Voices of theWinds: Native American Legends. New York: CastleBooks, 2003.

Egle, William H. History of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. Philadelphia: E. M. Gardner, 1883.

Englebrecht, William. Iroquoia: The Development ofa Native Nation. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UniversityPress, 2003.

Eshleman, H. Frank. Annals of the Susquehannocks& Other Indian Tribes of Pennsylvania, 1500–1763.Lewisburg, PA: Wennawoods, 2000.

—————. Lancaster County Indians: Annals ofthe Susquehannocks and Other Indian Tribes of theSusquehanna Territory from About the Year 1500 to1763, the Date of their Extinction. Lititz, PA: ExpressPrinting Co., 1909.

Ettwein, John. “Reverend John Ettwein’s Notes ofTravel from the North Branch of the Susquehannato the Beaver River, Pennsylvania, 1772.” Pennsyl-vania Magazine of History and Biography 25, no. 2(1901): 208–219.

Fenton, William. The Great Law and the Longhouse:A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy.Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.

Fenton, William N., and John Witthoft. “IroquoisAnthropology at the Mid-Century.” Proceedings ofthe American Philosophical Society 95 (1951): 102–110.

Frost, James Arthur. Life on the Susquehanna: 1783–1860. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951.

Funk, Robert E. Archeological Investigations in theUpper Susquehanna Valley, New York State. NewYork: Persimmon Press, 1993.

Gardner, Eugene. “An Archaeological Study ofIndian Village Sites in the Lower Wyoming Valley.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 9 (1939): 21–34.

Gardner, William. “Early & Middle Woodland inthe Middle Atlantic: An Overview.” In RogerMoeller, ed., Practicing Environmental Archaeology:Methods & Interpretations, 53–86. New York: Amer-ican Indian Archaeological Institute, 1982.

Garrahan, Francis. “Airport II Site: A Clemson/Island/Oswasco Settlement on the North Branch ofthe Susquehanna River.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist60 (1990): 1–31.

Gearhart, Herbert G. “Journal of Etienne Brule,Interpreter and Guide to Champlain, the FrenchGovernor of Canada; and who was perhaps the firstwhiteman to descend the Susquehanna River, 1615.”In Shamokin: The Indian Capital of the Province ofPennsylvania to 1755. Vol. 17. Sunbury, PA: North -umberland County Historical Society Archives.

Geidel, Richard, Kenneth W. Robinson, Thomas W.Neumann, and R. Christopher Goodwin. An Archae-ological and Historical Overview of the WyomingValley Flood Protection Study Area. Vol. 1. Frederick,MD: R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Final Report, 1988.

48

Godcharles, Frederic. “Large Andaste VesselRestored by Dr. Stewart—Found Near McElhattan.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 8 (1938): 81–82.

—————. “Valuable Recoveries at Fort Augusta:Work Done by WPA Project.” Pennsylvania Archae-ologist 8 (October 1938): 75–78.

Graybill, J. “The Shenks Ferry Complex Revisited.”In Fred Kinsey and Roger Moeller, eds., NewApproaches to Other Pasts, 51–60. Bethlehem, CT:Archaeological Services, 1989.

Graymont, Barbara. The Iroquois. New York:Chelsea House Publishers, 1988.

Griffin, James B. “The Athens Excavations.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3 (1931): 3.

Grinde, Donald A., Jr., and Bruce E. Johansen.Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolu-tion of Democracy. Los Angeles: American IndianStudies Center, 1991.

Grumet, Robert S. Historic Contact: Indian People &Colonists in Today’s Northeastern United States in the16th Through 18th Centuries. Norman, OK: Univer-sity of Oklahoma Press, 1995.

Grzybowski, Susan D. Phase I Cultural ResourceInvestigation and Historic Architectural AssessmentSR 0029 and 0006, LR 1013, Section E 10. EastOrange, NJ: Louis Berger and Associates, 1995.

Halsey, Francis Whiting. The Old New York Fron-tier. New York: Ira J. Friedman, Inc., 1901.

—————. A Tour of Four Great Rivers: TheHudson, Mohawk, Susquehanna, and Delaware in1769. Richard Smith, ed. New York: Ira J. Fried-man, Inc., 1964.

Hamilton, Kenneth. “John Ettwein’s Visit toFriedenshutten on the Susquehanna in 1768.” Set-tler 4 (1957): 56–62.

Hanlon, Edward F. The Wyoming Valley: An Ameri-can Portrait. Woodlands Hills, CA: Windsor Publi-cations, 2003.

Hanna, Charles A. “The Shamokin Traders and theShamokin Path.” In The Wilderness Trail, Or theVentures and Adventures of the Pennsylvania Traderson the Allegheny Path, 192–222. New York: TheKnickerbocker Press, 1911.

Harvey, Oscar Jewell. A History of Wilkes-Barre,Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Wilkes-Barre, PA:Wyoming Historical & Geological Society, 1909.

Hatch, James W., and Ira C. Beckerman. An Archae-ological Reconnaissance of North Central Wyoming &South Central Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania.University Park, PA: Penn State University Press,1979.

Hayes, D. R., D. C. Roper, J. Schuldenrein, and W. R. Stinson. Archaeological Investigations at theSusquehanna SES: The Susquehanna SES Floodplain.Jackson, MI: Commonwealth Associates, 1981.

Heckewelder, John. “History, Manners & Customsof the Indian Nations Who Once Inhabited Penn-sylvania & Neighboring States.” Memoirs of the His-torical Society of Pennsylvania 12 (1876).

Heisey, Henry W., W. Fred Kinsey, Jeffrey R. Gray-bill, et al. “Shenks Ferry Culture: A View from1971.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41, no. 4(December 1971), 1–70.

Heisey, Henry W., and J. Paul Witmer. “Of HistoricSusquehannock Cemeteries.” Pennsylvania Archae-ologist 32 (1962): 99–130.

—————. “The Shenks Ferry People: A Site andSome Generalities.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 36,no. 1 (April 1964), 8–34.

Heverly, Clement. History and Geography of Brad-ford County. Towanda, PA: Bradford County Histor-ical Society, 1926.

Higgins, Robert M. “An Indian Site in the Boroughof Montoursville.” Journal of the Lycoming CountyHistorical Society 13 (1986): 28–34.

Hill, Ronald B. “A Brief History of the AndasteNation.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 6 (1936): 35.

49

Hodge, Frederick Webb, ed. “Susquehanna.” InHandbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Vol.2, pp. 653–658. Bulletin 30. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1910.

Hollister, Horace. History of the Lackawanna Valley.Baltimore: Heritage Books, 1998.

Howard, J. Smoker. “The Chronological Placementof the Hershey Site and Implicationson a DynamicSocio-Cultural Landscape.” Pennsylvania Archaeol-ogist 73, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 16–30.

Hsiung, David C. “Death on the Juniata: Delawares,Iroquois, and Pennsylvanians in a Colonial Who-dunit.” Pennsylvania History 65 (1998): 445.

Hultkrantz, Ake. Native Religions of North America:The Power of Visions and Fertility. Prospect Heights,IL: Waveland Press, 1987.

Hunter, Charles E. “A Susquehanna Indian Townon the Schuykill.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 53,No. 3 (September 1983): 17–18.

Hyde, Marcella M. Bradford County: The Story of itsPeople. Canton, PA: Marcella Hyde, 1985.

Inskip, Gregory A. “Safe Harbor Petroglyphs—Carved by the Shawnee?” Pennsylvania Archaeolo-gist 60, no. 2 (September 1990): 71–74.

Jameson, John Franklin. Narratives of New Nether-land, 1609–1664. New York: Scribner, 1909.

Jennings, Francis. The Founders of America. NewYork: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993.

—————. “Glory, Death, and Transfiguration:The Susquehannock Indians in the SeventeenthCentury.” Proceedings of the American PhilosophicalSociety 112 (1968): 15–53.

—————. “The Indian Trade of the Susque-hanna Valley.” Proceedings of the American Philo-sophical Society 110 (1966): 406–424.

—————. “‘Pennsylvania Indians’ and the Iroquois.” In Daniel K. Richter and James H. Mer-rell, eds. Beyond the Covenant Chain: The Iroquoisand Their Neighbors in Indian North America, 1600–1800, 75–91. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UniversityPress, 1987.

Johansen, Bruce E., and Barbara A. Mann, eds. TheEncyclopedia of Native American Legal Tradition.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998.

Keith, Charles P. “The Red Neighbors.” Chroniclesof Pennsylvania: 1681–1776 1 (1917): 90–122.

Kent, Barry C. Susquehanna’s Indians. Harrisburg,PA: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commis-sion, 1984.

—————, Janet Rice, and Kakuko Ota. “A Mapof 18th Century Indian Towns in Pennsylvania.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 51, no. 4 (December1981): 1–18.

—————, Ira F. Smith III, and CatherineMcCann,eds. Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory.Anthropological Series 2. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsyl-vania Historical & Research Commission, 1971.

Kerber, Jordan E., ed. Archeology of the Iroquois:Selected Readings & Research Sources. Syracuse, NY:Syracuse University Press, 2007.

Kie, Elwyn V. Pictorial & Written History of BradfordCounty, Pennsylvania. Vols. 1–2. Towanda, PA:Bradford County Historical Society, 1992.

Kinsey, W. Fred, and Jay F. Custer. “LancasterCounty Park Site (36LA96): Conestoga Phase.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 52, no. 3–4 (September1982): 25–56.

Kinsey, W. Fred, III, and Jeffrey R. Graybill.“Shenks Ferry Culture: A View from 1971.” Penn-sylvania Archaeologist 41 (1971): 1–44.

Klein, Philip S., and Ari Hoogenboom. A History ofPennsylvania. University Park, PA: Penn State Uni-versity Press, 1973.

50

Kuhn, Robert D., and Martha L. Sempowski. “ANew Approach to Dating the League of the Leagueof the Iroquois.” American Antiquity 66 (2001):301–314.

Leder, Lawrence H., ed. The Livingston IndianRecords, 1666–1723. Gettysburg, PA: The Pennsyl-vania Historical Association, 1956.

Littell, Walter R. A History of Cooperstown (Includ-ing “The Chronicles of Cooperstown” by James Feni-more Cooper, “The History of Cooperstown” bySamuel M. Shaw, “The History of Cooperstown” byWalter R. Littell). New York: The Freeman’s JournalCompany, 1921.

Lloyd, Norman. History of Lycoming County. Indi-anapolis, IN: Historical Publishing Co., 1938.

Lucy, Charles L. “Notes on a Small Andaste BurialSite and Andaste Archaeology.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 20 (1950): 55–62.

—————. “Pottery Types of the Upper Susque-hanna.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 29 (1959): 28–37.

—————. “The Tioga Point Farm Sites 36 BR3and 36 BR52: 1983 Excavation.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 61 (1991): 1–18.

—————. “An Upper Susquehanna Mixed Site.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 22 (1952): 95–97.

—————, and Ted Keir. “36 BR81: A Multicom-ponent Site Near Wyalusing, Pennsylvania.” Penn-sylvania Archaeologist 72 (2002): 1–16.

—————, and Richard J. McCracken. “TheBlackman Site (36BR83): A Fortified Susquehan-nock Village in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 55 (1984): 5–29.

—————, and Leroy Vanderpoel. “The TiogaPoint Farm.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 49 (1979):1–12.

Lyon, Norman. The Drama of Early Wyalusing.Wyalusing, PA: The Rainbow Club, 1938.

Macauley, James. The Natural, Statistical, and CivilHistory of the State of New-York. Vol. 1. New York:Gould & Banks, 1829.

Macdonald, Douglas H. “Historic Settlement Pat-terns and Lithic Usage in the Upper Juniata RiverBasin.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 76, no. 1 (Spring2006): 48–62.

McCracken, Richard. “The Trojan Site (36 BR149).”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59 (1989): 1–21.

McCracken, Richard J. “Susquehannocks, Bruleand Carantouanais: A Continuing Research Prob-lem.” Bulletin and Journal of Archaeology for NewYork State 91 (1985): 39–51.

—————, and Charles L. Lucy. “Analysis of aRadiocarbon Date from the Blackman Site, An EarlySusquehannock Village in Bradford County, Penn-sylvania.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59 (1989):14–18.

Meginness, John. Otzinachson: A History of the WestBranch Valley. Williamsport, PA: Lycoming CountyHistorical Society, 1889. Reprint. Baltimore: Gate-way Press, Inc., 1991.

Merrell, James. “ ‘The Cast of His Countenance’:Reading Andrew Montour.” In Ronald Hoffman,Mechal Sobel, and Fredrika J. Teute, eds. Through AGlass Darkly: Reflections on Personal Identity inEarly America, 13–39. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1997.

—————. “Indian History during the EnglishColonial Era.” In Daniel Vickers, ed. A Companionto Colonial America, 118–135. Oxford: BlackwellPublishing, 2003.

—————. Into The American Woods: Negotiatorson the Pennsylvania Frontier. New York: W. W.Norton & Co., 1999.

—————. “The Other ‘Susquehanna Traders’:Women and Exchange on the Pennsylvania Fron-tier.” In Robert Olwell and Alan Tully, eds. Culturesand Identities in Colonial British America, 197–219.Baltimore: The JohnHopkins University Press, 2006.

51

—————. “Shamokin, ‘the very seat of thePrince of darkness’: Unsettling the Early American Frontier.” In Andrew R. L. Cayton andFredrika J. Teute, eds. Contact Points: AmericanFrontiers from the Mohawk Valley to the Mississippi,1750–1830, 16–59. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1998.

—————. “Shikellamy, ‘A Person of Conse-quence.’” In Robert S. Grumet, ed. NortheasternIndian Lives,1632–1816, 227–257. Amherst, MA:University of Massachusetts Press, 1996.

Miller, Randall M., and William Pencak. Pennsylva-nia: A History of the Commonwealth. UniversityPark, PA: Penn State University Press, 2002.

Minderhout, David J., and Andrea T. Frantz. Invisi-ble Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania.Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2008.

—————. “Native American Horticulture in theNortheast.” General Anthropology 16 (2009): 1–7.

Miner, William Penn. History of Wyoming.Philadelphia: J. Crissy, 1845.

Mithun, M. “The Proto-Iroquoians: CulturalReconstruction from Lexical Materials.” In M. K.Foster, J. Campisi, and M. Mithun, eds. Extendingthe Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to IroquoianStudies, 259–281. Albany: State University of NewYork Press, 1984.

Moorehead, Warren K. A Report of the SusquehannaRiver Expedition. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania His-torical and Museum Commission, 1936. Reprintedin The Museum of the American Indian. Andover,MA: The Andover Press, 1938.

Morgan, Christopher, and E. B. O’Callaghan, eds.The Documentary History of the State of New York. Vols.1 and 4. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons & Co., 1850.

Morgan, Lewis H. League of the Ho-Dé-No-Sau-Neeor Iroquois. New York: Burt Franklin, 1902.

Murray, Louise Welles. “Aboriginal Sites NearTeaoga, Now Athens, Pennsylvania.” AmericanAnthropologist 23 (1921): 183–214.

—————. Clark Manuscripts: Aboriginal Historyof the Susquehanna. Lewisburg, PA: WennawoodsPublishing, 2008.

—————. A History of Old Tioga Point and EarlyAthens, Pennsylvania. Wilkes-Barre, PA: The RaederPress, 1908.

Myers, James P., Jr. “The Reverend Thomas Barton’sAuthorship of the Conduct of the Paxton Men,Impartially Represented.” Pennsylvania History 61(1994): 155.

Myers, Richard. The Long Crooked River. Boston:The Christopher Publishing House, 1949.

Neff, George H. “How the Indians Lived atShamokin.” In John H. Carter, ed. History of Sun-bury, 515. Sunbury, PA: The NorthumberlandCounty Historical Society, 1995.

Nelson, Melissa K., ed. Original Instructions: Indige-nous Teachings for a Sustainable Future, The IroquoisConfederacy. Rochester, VT: Bear&Company, 2008.

Newman, Walter S., and Bert Salwen, eds. Amerindsand their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern NorthAmerica. New York: New York Academy of Sci-ences, 1977.

Orlandini, John. The Ancient Native Americans ofthe Wyoming Valley: 10,000 Years of Prehistory.Shavertown, PA: John Orlandini, 1996.

—————. Indians, Settlers, and Forgotten Placesin the Endless Mountains. Shavertown, PA: JohnOrlandini, 2008.

—————. “The Passenger Pigeon: A SeasonalNative American Food Source.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 66 (1996): 71–77.

—————. The Papers of Sir William Johnson. InDocumentary History of New York State. Vol. 4.Albany: The University of the State of New York,1921.

Parker, Arthur C. The Archeological History of NewYork. New York State Museum Bulletin, Nos. 237–238, 668–670. Albany: The University of the Stateof New York, 1920.

52

—————. The Constitution of the Five Nations.New York State Museum Bulletin, No. 184, p. 42.Albany: The University State of New York, April1916.

—————. The Influence of the Iroquois on the His-tory & Archaeology of the Wyoming Valley, Pennsylva-nia. Wilkes-Barre, PA: Wyoming Historical andGeological Society, 1911.

—————. “The Origin of the Iroquois as Sug-gested by Their Archeology.” American Anthropolo-gist New Series 18 (1916): 479–507.

Parucha, Leonard F. The Last of the Susquehannocks.Lock Haven, PA: Leonard F. Parucha, 2006.

Pearce, Stewart. Annals of Luzerne County.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott & Co., 1866.

Peck, George. Wyoming: Its History, Stirring Inci-dents & Romantic Adventures. New York: Harper &Bros., 1858.

Pendergast, James F. “Susquehannock Trade North-ward to New France Prior to AD 1608: A PopularMisconception.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 62(1992): 1–11.

Perkins, Mrs. George A. Early Times on the Susque-hanna. Binghamton, NY: Malette & Reed, 1870.

Petrillo, Charles, and John Orlandini. Indians of theSusquehanna & Wyoming Valleys: Selected Readings.Wilkes-Barre, PA: Wyoming Historical & Geologi-cal Society, 1992.

Purdy, Truman H. “Shikellamy.” In Legends of theSusquehanna, and Other Poems, 7–32. Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott Company, 1888.

Richter, Daniel. “A Framework for PennsylvaniaIndian History.” Pennsylvania History 57 (1990):236–261.

—————. Native Americans’ Pennsylvania. Uni-versity Park, PA: The Pennsylvania Historical Asso-ciation, 2005.

—————. The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peo-ples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Col-onization. Chapel Hill: The University of NorthCarolina Press, 1992.

—————. “War and Culture: The IroquoisExperience.” William and Mary Quarterly. 3rd Ser.,40 (1983): 528–559.

Runkle, Stephen A. Native American Waterbody andPlace Names Within the Susquehanna River Basin.Harrisburg, PA: Susquehanna River Basin Commis-sion, 2003.

Schoff, Harry L. “Report of the ArchaeologicalExcavations Carried On at the J. T. Roberts Property,Montoursville, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 7 (1937b): 8.

—————. “A Report of the Excavation of theAncient Indian Burial Mound near Muncy,Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 7 (1937a): 3–5.

Schrabisch, Max. “Aboriginal Shelters of WyomingValley & Vicinity.” Proceedings of Wyoming Histori-cal & Geological Society 19 (1926): 47–218.

Shaffer, Gary D. “An Examination of the Bead HillSite in the Wyoming Valley.” Pennsylvania Archaeol-ogist 68 (1998): 18–41.

Shutt, Amy C. “Tribal Identity in the Moravian Mis-sions on the Susquehanna.” Pennsylvania History66 (1999): 378.

Sipe, C. Hale. The Indian Chiefs of Pennsylvania.Lewisburg, PA: Wennawoods, 1927.

Smith, Ira F., III. “The Parker Site: A Manifestationof the Wyoming Valley Culture.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 43 (1973): 1–56.

—————. “Schultz Site Settlement Patterns andExternal Relationships.” Bulletin of the New YorkState Archaeological Association 50 (1970): 27–34.

Snow, Dean R. The Iroquois. Malden, MA: Black-well Publishing, 1994. Reprint, Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing, 1996.

53

Sorg, David J. “Lost Tribes of the Susquehanna.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 74 (2004): 63–72.

—————. “Problematic Tribal Names of Penn-sylvania.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 76, No. 2(Fall 2006): 48–53.

Spittal, W. G., ed. Iroquois Women: An Anthology.Ontario: Iroqrafts, Ltd., 1990.

Staats, F. Dayton. “Susquehannock Schultz IncisedBowl.” Pennsylvania Archaeologist 49 (1979): 81–82.

Stewart, R. Michael. “Clemson Island Studies inPennsylvania: A Perspective.” Pennsylvania Archae-ologist 60 (1990): 79–107.

—————. “Comparison of Late Woodland Cultures: Delaware, Potomac and SusquehannaRiver Valleys, Middle Atlantic Region.” Archaeologyof Eastern North America 21 (1993): 163–178.

—————. “Trade & Exchange in MiddleAtlantic Prehistory.” Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 17 (1989): 47–78.

Stewart, T. B. “The Andaste Camp Site at Pine,Clinton County, Pennsylvania.” Now and Then 4(1930): 76–78.

Sugrue, Thomas J. “The Peopling & De-peopling ofEarly Pennsylvania: Indians and Colonists 1680–1720.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biog-raphy 116 (1992): 3–32.

Taylor, Alan. “Wasty Ways: Stories of AmericanSettlement.” Environmental History 3 (July 1988):291–310.

Thieme, Donald M. “Hands Washed in a MuddyStream: Corrections & Further Thoughts onWyoming Valley Landscape Evolution.” Pennsylva-nia Archaeologist 69 (1999): 45–52.

—————, and Joseph Schrildenrein. “WyomingValley Landscape Evolution and the Emergence ofthe Wyoming Valley Culture.” Pennsylvania Archae-ologist 68 (1998): 1–17.

Tioga Point Museum. Summary of Sites Representedin Native American Collections. Athens, PA: TiogaPoint Museum, 1997.

Tooker, Elizabeth. “The Demise of the Susquehan-nocks: A 17th Century Mystery.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 54, Nos. 3–4 (September–December1984): 1–10.

Town of Hartwick Historical Society. Hartwick: TheHeart of Otsego County, NY. Hartwick, NY: SyllablesPress, 2002.

Turnbaugh, William A., and Donald R. Schmidt.“Interpreting Finds from a Small Disturbed Site.”Pennsylvania Archaeologist 49 (1979): 1–8.

Twigg, Deb. “Revisiting the Mystery of ‘Caran-touan’ and Spanish Hill.” Pennsylvania Archaeolo-gist 75, No. 2 (2005): 24–33.

—————. Spanish Hill and Carantouan: The His-tory, the People, and the Politics. Sayre, PA: Susque-hanna River Archaeological Center of Native IndianStudies, 2007.

U.S. Census Bureau. The American Indian andAlaskan Native Population. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Commerce, 2004.

Waldman, Carl. Atlas of the North American Indian.New York: Checkmark Books, 2000.

Wallace, Paul. “Historic Indian Paths of Pennsylva-nia.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History: Journal ofthe Historical Society of Pennsylvania 76 (1952): 1–29.

—————. Indians in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg,PA: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commis-sion, 1981 [1993].

—————. “We came out of the Ground.” InPennsylvania: Seed of a Nation, 8–19. New York:Harper & Row, 1962.

Wallower, Lucille. Indians of Pennsylvania. StateCollege, PA: Penn’s Valley Publishers, 1956.

54

Weiser, Conrad. “Journey to Onondago.” In Jour-nals: Shamokin, The Indian Capital, 1737–1755. Vol.11. Sunbury, PA: The Northumberland County His-torical Society Archives.

Wellenreuther, Herman. “White Eyes and theDelaware’s Vision of an Indian State.” PennsylvaniaHistory 68 (2001): 139.

Weslager, C. A. The Delaware Indians: A History.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,1972.

Witthoft, John. “Ancestry of the Susquehannocks.”In John Witthoft, ed., Susquehannock Miscellany(Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Historical andMuseum Commission, 1959), 19–60.

—————. “Pottery from the Stewart Site, Clin-ton County, Pennsylvania.” Pennsylvania Archaeolo-gist 24 (1954): 22–29.

—————, ed. Susquehannock Miscellany. Harris-burg, PA: Pennsylvania Historical and MuseumCommission, 1959.

—————, and W. Fred Kinsey III. Susquehan-nock Miscellany. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania His-torical and Museum Commission, 1959.

Wooley, Charles. “A Two Years Journal in New Yorkand Part of Its Territories in America.” In HistoricChronicles of New Amsterdam, Colonial New Yorkand Early Long Island. New York: Ira J. Friedman,Inc., 1968.

Wren, Christopher. Aboriginal Pottery, SusquehannaRiver Region, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania. Wilkes-Barre, PA: Wyoming Historical & GeographicalSociety, 1905.

—————. “Some Indian Graves at Plymouth,Pennsylvania.” Proceedings of the Wyoming Histori-cal & Geological Society 12 (1912): 199–204.

—————. A Study of North Appalachian IndianPottery. Wilkes-Barre, PA: E. B. Yordy, 1914.

Wykoff, M. W. Iroquoian Prehistory and ClimateChange. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Young, Robert Kennedy. Tales of Tioga, Pennsylvania,and Its People. Philadelphia: Lippincott&Co., 1916.

Zinzendorf, Nicholas. “Journey to Shamokin.” InJournals: Shamokin, The Indian Capital, 1737–1755.Vol. 11. Sunbury, PA: The Northumberland CountyHistorical Society Archives.

UPPER JAMES RIVER

Executive Summary

This report summarizes the potential for the UpperJames River of Virginia as a connecting trail to theCaptain John Smith Chesapeake National HistoricTrail. A summary of research of historic documen-tary and archival data, as well as limited field recon-naissance, are presented to support the summary.

The scope of work outlined for the project identi-fied three themes of potential significance to beevaluated for the connecting trails. This reportpresents conclusions for the Upper James in light ofthe criteria for evaluation based on the themes anddeveloped by the Friends of the John Smith Trail,the Conservation Fund, and John Salmon, as sum-marized by Salmon in a memo to projectresearchers of September 30, 2009. The themes are: a) associations of the Upper James with CaptainJohn Smith’s 1607–09 voyages of exploration; b) associations of the Upper James with 17th cen-tury Indians of the Chesapeake; and c) areas which are illustrative of 17th century natu-ral history and/or events shaped by natural historyin the region.

Based on the research that has been completed, andto better explain the conclusions that are presentedhere, the data for the Upper James are described interms of association with two segments or sectionsof the study area. The first section begins at thecurrent boundaries of the Trail, near Richmond,and extends to the location of the westernmost edgeof John Smith’s 1608 map. The second sectionextends from that point to the juncture of the Jack-son and Cowpasture Rivers, near the headwaters ofthe James. Figure 1 identifies the location of theUpper James River study area with the locations ofsections 1 and 2 identified by shading. Figure 2identifies the James River within the larger Chesa-peake watershed of Virginia and Maryland.

55

The report summarizes the ethnohistoric andarchaeological data for both sections and assessesthat data relative to the thematic associationsdescribed above. The report concludes that Section1 has substantial association with all three criteriaand Section 2 has substantial association with Criteria 2 and 3, i.e., all of the Upper James River,meet at least two if not all three of the criteria for apotential connecting trail. Justification for thatconclusion for each section is provided in the mainbody of the report. Jamestown-era documentationsupporting the conclusions can be found in Appendices A, B, and C.

This report also identifies and briefly describes 10potential interpretive sites for the Upper James, andoutreach organizations that may have an interest inthe Upper James River Connecting Trail.

Bibliography

Alvord, Clarence W., and Lee Bidgood. The FirstExplorations of the Trans-Allegheny Region by the Vir-ginians, 1650–1674. Cleveland, OH: Arthur H.Clark Co., 1912.

Briceland, Alan Vance. Westward from Virginia: TheExploration of the Virginia-Carolina Frontier, 1650–1710. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press,1987.

Bushnell, David. “Discoveries Beyond theAppalachian Mountains in September, 1671.”American Anthropologist 9 (1907): 45–56.

Cumming, William P., ed. The Discoveries of JohnLederer. Charlottesville: University of VirginiaPress, 1958.

Egloff, Keith, and Stephen Potter. “Indian Ceramicsfrom Coastal Plain Virginia.” Archaeology of East-ern North America 10 (1982): 95–117.

—————, and Deborah Woodward. First People:The Early Indians of Virginia. 2nd ed. Char-lottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006.

Gallivan, Martin. James River Chiefdoms. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press, 2003.

—————. Early Horticultural Settlement in theJames River Piedmont: Excavations at the PartridgeCreek Site (44AH193), Stapleton, Virginia. ResearchReport Series No. 12. Richmond: Virginia Depart-ment of Historic Resources, 2003.

Gold, Debra. Bioarchaeology of the Virginia Mounds.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2003.

Hantman, Jeffrey. “Between Powhatan andQuirank: Reconstructing Monacan Culture and His-tory in the Context of Jamestown.” AmericanAnthropologist 92 (1990): 676–690.

—————. “Monacan Archaeology of the VirginiaInterior, A.D. 1400–1700.” In D. Brose, C. W.Cowan, and R. C. Mainfort, Jr., eds. Societies inEclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indi-ans, A.D. 1400–1700, 107–123. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001.

Hodges, Mary Ellen. “The Archaeology of NativeAmerican Life in Virginia in the Context of Euro-pean Contact: Review of Past Research.” In T. R.Reinhart and D. Pogue, eds. The Archaeology of Sev-enteenth Century Virginia, 1–66. Richmond, VA:Dietz Press, Special Publications of the Archeologi-cal Society of Virginia No. 20, 1993.

Ingram, Bruce. The James River Guide: Fishing andFloating on Virginia’s Finest. Lakeville, MN: Eco-press, 2007.

Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia.William Peden, ed. New York: W. W. Norton andCo., 1982.

Lapham, Heather. Hunting for Hides. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press, 2005.

Lewis, Clifford M., and Albert J. Loomie. The Span-ish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570–1572. ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953.

MacCord, Howard. The Lewis Creek Mound Culturein Virginia. Richmond, VA: Special Publication ofthe Archaeological Society of Virginia, 1986.

Moore, Clarence. “Sheet Copper from the MoundsIs Not Necessarily of European Origin.” AmericanAnthropologist 5 (1903): 27–41.

56

Mouer, L. Daniel. “A Review of the Archaeologyand Ethnohistory of the Monacans.” In J. MarkWittkofski and Lyle Browning, eds. PiedmontArchaeology. Richmond: Special Publication of theArcheological Society of Virginia No. 10, 1983.

Quinn, David Beers. Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyagesand Colonies, 1584–1606. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1985.

—————. The Roanoke Voyages, 1584–1590.Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Dover Publications, 1991.

Sweet, Palmer, Richard Good, James Lovett, Eliza-beth V. M. Campbell, Gerald Wilkins, and LesleyMeyers. Copper, Lead and Zinc Resources in Virginia.Charlottesville: Virginia Division of MineralResources Publication 93, 1989.

Whyte, Thomas, and Steven Thompson. “Archaeo-logical Investigations at the Bessemer Site: A LateWoodland Period Dan River and Page ComponentVillage Site on the Upper James River, Virginia.”Unpublished report. 1989. Virginia Department ofHistoric Resources, Richmond.

Wood, Karenne, ed. The Virginia Indian HeritageTrail. 3rd ed. Charlottesville: Virginia Foundationfor the Humanities, 2009.

UPPER NANTICOKE RIVER

Executive Summary

The research team concludes that the Upper Nanti-coke River watershed in Delaware has substantialassociation with all three criteria for a potentialconnecting trail to the Captain John Smith Chesa-peake National Historic Trail.

Segments of the watershed meet the criteria differ-ently. The segment of the river system that connectsto the existing trail and is most closely illustrativeof the natural history of the Chesapeake Bay water-shed is the area downstream from Butler Mill Branchon the main channel of the Nanticoke River andfrom the Town of Bethel, just upstream of PhillipsLanding on Broad Creek, to its confluence with theNanticoke River. To this area we would add thesegment of the Nanticoke River north of Butler MillBranch up to and including Deep Creek to Concord

Pond dam. The archaeological sites upstream onthe Nanticoke River and Deep Creek appear to beassociated with the town of Kuskarawoak and otherupstream Nanticoke Indian towns, as well as pro-viding one option for where John Smith may haveplaced a cross marking his limit of exploration. OnBroad Creek the potential trail is extended upstreamfrom Bethel to the “wadeing place” at Records Ponddam in Laurel, one boundary of the Broad CreekNanticoke Indian reservation in 1711. The poten-tial connecting trail is the area in which the water-shed best represents the voyage of John Smith andthe 17th-century Indians of the Chesapeake.

The Nanticoke Indians of the entire watershed wereaffected in direct and significant ways by JohnSmith’s voyage, the leading edge of English colo-nization. In fact, the same people who met JohnSmith were the same people who, during certainseasons of the year, hunted, trapped, gathered, andlived in the upper reaches of the watershed andbeyond. Nanticoke Indian history and the effect ofEuropean colonization on the changes in and per-sistence of the Nanticoke Indian culture is a signifi-cant theme for interpretation in relation to the voy-ages of Captain John Smith.

Bibliography

Busby, Virginia Roche. “Transformation and Per-sistence: The Nanticoke Indians and ChiconeIndian Town in the Context of European Contactand Colonization.” PhD diss., University of Vir-ginia, 2009.

Dent, Richard J., Jr. Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. New York: PlenumPress, 1995.

Feest, Christian F. “The Nanticoke and Neighbor-ing Tribes.” In Bruce Trigger, ed. Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 15: Northeast. Wash-ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978.

Griffith, Daniel R. Townsend Ceramics and the LateWoodland of Southern Delaware, MA thesis, TheAmerican University, 1977.

—————. Townsend Ceramics and the Late Wood-land of Southern Delaware. In Maryland HistoricalMagazine 75, No. 1 (March 1980): 23–41.

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL › images › PDF › ... · CONTENTS...

Documents