The Chester River

Home , Chester River, Corsica River, Kent Island (Maryland), Kent Narrows, William Claiborne

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NOMINATION AS A CONNECTOR TRAIL IN THE CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL

REPORT PREPARED FOR THE FRIENDS OF THE JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE TRAIL

JOHN L. SEIDEL, PHD. LEAD INVESTIGATOR

November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The work summarized in this report was carried out under contract to the Conservation Fund and the Friends of the John Smith Chesapeake Trail, with the intent of providing sufficient information to assess the potential designation of the Chester River, a Maryland tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, as a “connector trail” to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, as defined by the National Trails System Act (Public Law 90‐543. The work was carried out from April through November of 2009 by a team assembled by Washington College’s Center for Environment & Society.

The research team consulted a variety of primary and secondary sources, historic maps, and archaeological site data held by the Maryland Historical Trust, the Washington College Geographic Information Systems Laboratory, and other repositories. The river and its major tributaries were examined by boat from the river’s mouth up to Crumpton, and by canoe from Crumpton to beyond Millington. Based on these and other investigations, the river’s eligibility as a connector trail was assessed using three criteria: 1) association with John Smith’s voyages; 2) association with 17th‐century Indians; and 3) association with the natural history of the 17th‐ century Chesapeake. In this executive summary, the basic findings are reviewed in the outline below, with an accompanying map (Figure 1) that depicts the segments of the river considered eligible for inclusion as a connector.

CRITERION 1: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIVER’S ASSOCIATION WITH THE VOYAGES OF EXPLORATION OF JOHN SMITH, 1607‐1609

ASSESSMENT: Moderate and indirect association

RATIONALE: A careful analysis of Smith’s description of his voyages and analysis of his 1612 map indicate that he did not personally visit the Chester River. Instead, he likely heard reports about the river and its inhabitants, the Ozinies. Nevertheless, Smith’s observations and depiction of Kent Island and river inlets in the area, and his accounts of inhabitants such as the Ozinies, Tockwogh, and Susquehannocks, made the potential of the area clear to other Englishmen such as William Claiborne. Smith’s map was the best depiction of the Bay until Augustine Herrman produced his map in 1670. The Smith map clearly indicated several inlets in the vicinity of the Eastern Shore, one of which must have been the Chester. The map was relied upon heavily by Smith’s contemporaries and made clear the Upper Bay’s potential, first as a trading region and later as an area for settlement. Claiborne followed precisely this model with his 1631 settlement on Kent Island and a trading post at the mouth of the Susquehanna River. While Smith did not visit the Chester, his work had a substantial impact on the river’s settlement.

CRITERION 2: ASSOCIATION WITH THE AMERICAN INDIAN TOWNS & CULTURES OF THE 17TH CENTURY CHESAPEAKE

ASSESSMENT: Direct and significant association

RATIONALE: John Smith and subsequent visitors recorded the significant presence of American Indians on and around the Chester River, including the Ozinies, the Wicomiss (possibly another name for the Ozinies), the Monoponson, and the Matapeake. Other groups such as the Susquehannock and Massawomeck traded or raided in the area around the Chester. Archaeological investigations have revealed abundant evidence of Native American presence along the river, including much Late Woodland and Contact Period material, such as early glass trade beads at sites such as Indiantown Farms. In addition, GIS‐based predictive modeling indicates that extensive areas along the Chester and its tributaries are high probability areas for American Indian habitation; five years of field testing supports the validity of the model.

CRITERION 3: POTENTIAL FOR ILLUSTRATING THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE 17TH CENTURY CHESAPEAKE

ASSESSMENT: Significant potential

RATIONALE: Using contemporary accounts of the 17th century landscape and archaeological evidence to establish a baseline, the Chester River was visually examined on land and by boat for most of its length. Not only is an unusually high percentage of its land in conservation easements or other protections, but significant portions replicate much of the species diversity of the period and are evocative of the era. These range from the 2,285 acre Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge at the mouth of the river, to unspoiled creeks, the restored grasslands of the 5,000 acre Grasslands Plantation (all in conservation easements), and to upper stretches of the river that have wild rice, arrow arum and show high, wooded bluffs. In between these natural protected areas are farms that mimic the early, dispersed settlement pattern of the colonial era, and the early town of Chestertown, which may be seen as the legacy of John Smith.

Figure 1. Chester River Recommended Connecting Trail (please rotate) – base mapping: NOAA Chart 12272 Chester River (1997)

INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared for the Conservation Fund and the Friends of the John Smith Chesapeake Trail, with the intent of providing sufficient information to assess the potential designation of the Chester River, a Maryland tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, as a “connector trail” to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, as defined by the National Trails System Act (Public Law 90‐543. The work was carried out from April through November of 2009 by a team assembled by Washington College’s Center for Environment & Society (CES).

The research team was led by Dr. John L. Seidel, Director of CES and Associate Professor of Anthropology & Environmental Studies at Washington College, who wrote the report. Dr. Seidel has more than thirty years of experience in archaeology, historic preservation and environmental assessment. Although he specializes in the Chesapeake and Middle Atlantic, Dr. Seidel’s work has ranged from the Middle East to Central America. Washington College, through its Public Archaeology Laboratory, the Center for Environment & Society, and the Geographic Information Systems Laboratory, had previously conducted extensive primary research on the history and archaeology of the Chester River, including archival research, field archaeology on Native American and early colonial sites, and maritime archaeology and remote sensing surveys in the river. Washington College also prepared, with Elizabeth Watson, the Management Plan for the Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area (2004), giving our staff a detailed knowledge of the area’s history and heritage tourism resources, sites and potential. Various faculty and staff of Washington College therefore were well‐positioned to contribute to the investigation.

A lead researcher for the project was Elizabeth Seidel, Director of Washington College’s Public Archaeology Laboratory. Ms. Seidel has more than 20 years of experience in archaeology and archival research, having worked with the Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology, the University of Maryland’s Archaeology in Annapolis Program, the Anne Arundel County Lost Towns Project and in additional positions such as Education Director for Londontown House & Gardens and Executive Director of the Kent County Historical Society. Assistance with the assessment of the American Indian associations was provided by Prof. Bill Schindler of Washington College’s Department of Sociology & Anthropology and Darrin Lowery, a staff archaeologist with the Washington College Public Archaeology Laboratory and Smithsonian Institution Predoctoral Fellow. GIS support was provided by Stewart Bruce, Program Coordinator of the Washington College GIS Laboratory, and Buffy Conrad, a student intern in the GIS Lab. The ten students of the 2009 Archaeology Field School assisted with assessments of the Indiantown Farms site. Finally, Chris Cerino of Sultana Projects provided valuable assessments of the river’s historical and environmental significance based on his extensive field experience on the river in canoes, small boats, and the replica schooner Sultana.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

The study area for this investigation was defined as: the main stem of the Chester River from its mouth and intersection with the Chesapeake Bay proper (and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail) to just above Millington; all tributaries of the Chester navigable by small boat (ranging in size from the Corsica River and Langford Creek, on the large end, to small creeks such as Walsey and Emory Creeks); and the upper portions of creeks that are navigable only by canoe and kayak (e.g. Morgan Creek, Island Creek). As a result, virtually all waters of the Chester that are navigable by boat, canoe, or kayak were considered.

Figure 2. Chester River (NOAA Chart 12272 – 1997)

The rationale for such an inclusive definition of the study area was in part simply to avoid pre‐judgment as to the eligibility (or lack thereof) for different sections of the Chester River. In addition, a connector trail that offers multiple opportunities and experiences seems to us to be more attractive to the public and more likely to see wide‐spread public use and enjoyment. Furthermore, the inclusive nature of the study area ensured that freshwater,

inland waterways were included – these are important in helping to define and evoke the range of habitats through which early explorers moved and that American Indians used for travel and resource extraction.

RESEARCH RESULTS

The following discussion of research results is organized by the three significance criteria for connector eligibility. Various sources are reviewed for each of these criteria, followed by a discussion of the evidence and our conclusions.

CRITERION 1: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHESTER RIVER’S ASSOCIATION WITH THE VOYAGES OF JOHN SMITH, 1607‐1609

The first line of evidence for association with Smith’s voyages must of necessity be his own writings and his 1612 map of the Chesapeake. Smith’s works have been conveniently drawn together by Philip Barbour (1986) in his three volume compilation, and Smith’s experiences in the upper Chesapeake Bay are described in several different works; they tend to follow his 1608 progress through the area both chronologically and geographically. In Smith’s Proceedings of the English Colonie in Virginia (Smith 1986a:231‐233), he indicates that he sailed up the western shore of the Chesapeake in late July of 1608. “The first night we anchored at Stingeray Ile, the nexte day we crossed Patawomecks River [the Potomac], and hasted for the river Bolus [Patapsco], wee went not much further before wee might perceive the Bay to devide in 2. heads…”, after which he sailed to the eastern side, probably near the Elk and Sassafras Rivers (Smith 1986a:230). He related an encounter with the Massawomeck Indians at the head of the Bay, followed by a meeting with the Tockwogh Indians and later the Susquehannocks. Smith entered what he called the “River of Tockwogh” and was escorted by the Tockwogh to their palisaded village.

Smith’s descriptions of the village will be reviewed in detail later, when considering regional associations with American Indian groups, but what is most pertinent for Criterion 1 are two questions: where did he go next, and which of today’s rivers corresponds with the Tockwogh River? Having spent some time with the Tockwogh, Smith eventually decided to head back south: “Thus having sought all the inlets and rivers worth noting, we returned to discover the river of Pawtuxunt [Patuxent]…” (Barbour 1986a:232). Smith makes no mention of stopping anywhere between the River Tockwogh and the Patuxent, and indeed he implies that there was not much to see. This leads us to the question of precisely where the River Tockwogh was, or rather the identity of its modern correlate. Is it the Chester River, or some other river? If not the Chester, then did Smith visit or map the Chester, or did he miss it entirely?

John Smith clearly depicts the River of Tockwogh (“Tockwogh flu”) on his map of 1612, with a “King’s House,” presumably the palisaded village he visited, shown on the south side of that river (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3. John Smith: “A Map of Virginia” (1612) – upper Bay shown in red box, see Figure 3.

Figure 4. Excerpt from Smith’s 1612 map, with Tockwogh highlighted.

Figure 4 shows the “Tockwogh flu” as fairly far north in the Chesapeake. Certainly it appears to be north of the Bolus River, which is presumably the present day Patapsco, roughly due west of the Chester River. The Tockwogh also appears to be part of a four‐river network that includes the Susquehanna. The identity of the rivers mapped by Smith may be assessed by juxtaposing his map with a current chart of the Bay, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 5. NOAA Chart 12774 “Head of Bay” (2000) on left, with Smith excerpt on the right; numbers correlate rivers between the two (see text).

In Figure 5, the rivers on Smith’s map (right side) are numbered 1‐4, with corresponding numbers placed on a modern chart of the head of the Bay (left side). River “1” is an easy match to make, with the Susquehanna being given the same name on both charts and providing a reliable starting point for map comparisons. River “2” must be the present‐day Northeast River (or creek), while “3” is the Bohemia/Elk River system (with Smith showing the fork between the two). The logical correlation for the Tockwogh River then, is with the present‐day Sassafras River. This comparison suggests that Smith visited the Sassafras River, not the Chester or another of the Eastern Shore tributaries, when he encountered the Tockwogh. Coupled with his narrative of leaving the Tockwogh and then heading directly to the Patuxent, the primary evidence argues against Smith having visited any of the Eastern Shore rivers immediately below the Sassafras. In fact, on Smith’s map the middle portion of the Eastern Shore shows much less detail than other portions of the Bay that we know Smith visited, thus supporting the conclusion that he did not visit this area.

Nevertheless, Smith clearly had some information about the area to the south of the Sassafras, presumably gleaned from the residents of Tockwogh during his visit. In Figure 4, for example, Smith depicts another “King’s House” near “Bornes point” that he labeled “Ozinies.” He may have known that there were additional rivers in the vicinity, as he shows the mouths of two. Smith also shows the northernmost of several Eastern Shore islands (“Winston Iles”),

which is most likely Kent Island. Following the above logic, “Bornes point” is probably Swan Point in present‐day Kent County, placing Ozinies on or near the Chester River.

Smith’s map provided the first chart of any accuracy for European explorers and colonizers. Widely copied, it was not improved upon until Augustine Hermann produced his more detailed map of Maryland for the Calverts in 1670. Smith’s descriptions of the beautiful country at the head of the Bay, the welcoming inhabitants (the Tockwogh, at least, were welcoming, even if the Massawomeks kept their distance), and the presence of trade goods certainly must have intrigued other Englishmen, and the map served as both a guide and a magnet to the upper Bay. The trials of Jamestown, from its political squabbling and labor problems to the high mortality rates and massacre of 1622, kept the colony on its heels for some time, so it is not surprising that the promise of the upper Bay was not immediately exploited. One of the first Englishmen to do so in a substantial way was William Claiborne. Claiborne, who was born in 1600 and arrived in Virginia in 1621 with the newly appointed governor, Sir Francis Wyatt (Torrence 1948:439‐440). From his initial appointment as a surveyor, Claiborne was promoted to Secretary of State for the Colony, and from 1626‐1629 he was given commissions to explore the northern Chesapeake and trade with the Susquehannock (Virginia Colonial Records Project reel 93:113‐115). Perhaps in an attempt to forestall the Calverts, who had their eyes on the northern Chesapeake and soon would successfully obtain a charter, Claiborne obtained a trading commission and settled an outpost on Kent Island in 1631 (Maryland State Archives V:161‐162). This became the first English settlement in what is now Maryland, with a trading station at the mouth of the Susquehanna River (Klingelhofer ND).

The precise location of Claiborne’s “Kent Fort” has never been reliably established. Pohuski (1991:6‐7) believes it to have been on the south end of Kent Island, perhaps near Kent Point. Although the Calverts moved quickly in 1634 to wrest Kent Island from Claiborne, his settlement near the mouth of the Chester River remained and became a nucleus for gradual expansion on the Eastern Shore. By 1638, the island was populous enough to become a “hundred” of St. Mary’s County, with much of its population at the north end along the Chester, and by 1642 Kent County had been carved out of the Eastern Shore (Bourne 1998:18). Trade with American Indians flourished in these early years, so that by 1640 it is likely that all of the American Indian groups on the Eastern Shore had been contacted by the English (Rountree and Davidson 1997:88‐89). Relationships between the various indigenous groups around the Chester River are more fully discussed in the next section of this report, but tensions hindered any large‐scale settlement on the mainland portion of the Upper Eastern Shore until after the 1652 cessation of hostilities. By that time, however, Puritans had moved from Virginia up the western shore to the mouth of the Severn River, around present‐day Annapolis and nearby Greenbury Point (1649). In the late 1650s, they and others began taking up patents along the Bay in what is now Kent County.

The process was fast and was not just in title, as by 1664 a ferry was established far up‐ river at the Head of Chester, today’s Millington (Bourne 1998:20). As populations grew, new counties were formed and boundaries shifted, as did county seats. In 1680, Kent County’s seat moved from Kent Island to Eastern Neck’s New Yarmouth, on Gray’s Inn Creek, only to move

up‐river to Old Town (now Quaker Beck Landing) in 1695, and again up‐river in 1706 to the site of what is now Chestertown. In less than a century after Smith and Claiborne showed the way, Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties, on the north and south sides of the Chester River, respectively, had been settled with plantations and the river teemed with commerce.

Our research has not discovered any clear link or contact between John Smith and William Claiborne. Nevertheless, as a surveyor and an ambitious man with eyes on the trade of the upper Chesapeake Bay, Claiborne would certainly have been familiar with Smith’s descriptions of the land and its inhabitants, and he must have used Smith’s map as he sought out the Susquehannock and their furs. Claiborne’s settlement at Kent Fort was based on that knowledge, and his followers and those who were later welcomed to the area by the Calverts were the first English settlers along the Chester River. They were joined by Puritans from nearby Providence on the western shore, who must have likewise been familiar with Smith’s work (it is worth noting that the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts were familiar with Smith’s descriptions of New England and profited from his observations and advice). Although Smith did not visit the Chester River himself, he recorded its mouth and Kent Island, he learned of and wrote about the native inhabitants of the river (the Ozinies), and he opened the way for settlement. We therefore assess the Chester River’s association with the voyages of John Smith as indirect, but moderately strong. The river has attributes that make its significance regarding the other criteria even stronger.

CRITERION 2: ASSOCIATION WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TOWNS & CULTURES OF THE 17TH C. CHESAPEAKE

John Smith’s descriptions of the Tockwogh give us our first glimpse of the Algonquian tribes of the Upper Eastern Shore. After his encounter with the Massawomek in August of 1608, Smith met up with the Tockwogh:

Entring the River of Tockwogh the Salvages all armed in a fleete of Boates round invironed us; it chanced one of them could speake the language of Powhatan who perswaded the rest to a friendly parly: but when they see us furnished with the Massawomeckes weapons, and faining the invention of Kecoughtan to have taken them perforce; they conducted us to their pallizadoed towne, mantelled with the barkes of trees, with Scaffolds like mounts, brested about with Barks very formally, their men, women, and children, with dances, songs, fruits, fish, furres, and what they had kindly entertained us, spreading mats for us to sit on, stretching their best abilities to expresses their loves.

Many hatchets, knives, and peeces of yron, and brasse, we see, which they reported to have from the Sasquesahannockes a mighty people, and mortall enimies with the Massawomeckes; the Sasquesahannocks, inhabit upon the chiefe spring of these 4. Two daies journey higher than our Barge could passe for rocks. (Smith 1986:231)

These passages yield a variety of useful information about the Tockwogh, with whom Smith stayed for several days. He does not describe any subsidiary villages, but Rountree and Davis (1997:32) think it likely that the Tockwogh territory encompassed the environs of the Sassafras and more. From Smith’s descriptions in Proceedings, one gets that sense that the Tockwogh may have been subservient to or clients of the Susquehannocks. Certainly they were less powerful. In his Map of Virginia, Smith described the strength of both the Tockwogh and the Ozinies to the south:

On the East side of the Bay is the river of Tockwogh, and upon it a people that can make 100 men, seated some 7 miles within the river: where they have a Fort very wel pallisadoed and mantelled with the barke of trees. Next to them is Ozinies with 60 men. (Smith 1986b:150)

These descriptions suggest a relatively low population for this part of the Chesapeake, especially compared to the 600 men that Smith said the Susquehannocks could assemble. The low Tockwogh population was perhaps due to the pressure from raiding Massawomeks and the steady push southward of the Susquehannocks. Feest (1978:242) puts the total number of people in what is now Kent County and the Chester River area as no more than 500 during this period, although this should be viewed with caution. Most authorities feel that the people that Smith called the Ozinies were the same as the Wicomiss (Davidson 1993:142; Curry 1998:14), and we concur. However, the Wicomiss were strong enough in the 1630s to resist the push of the Susquehannock (Rountree and Davidson 1997: 89). Although the Wicomiss eventually were subjugated (by 1648), their ability to effectively resist the Susquehannock for a time suggests that the number of fighting men they could muster was greater than the 60 reported by Smith. There is no evidence to suggest that Smith himself encountered the Ozinies, and he must have heard about them second‐hand, probably from the Tockwogh. The Tockwogh appear to have had a strong interest in allying with the English against the troublesome Massawomeks, and it might not have been to their advantage to tell Smith that a large group – or a bountiful river – lay just to the south.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the Chester River was an ideal habitat for American Indians. Relatively little archaeological survey has taken place on the Kent County side of the Chester, but the Queen Anne’s County side has been subjected to extensive surveys by Darrin Lowery (1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995). His work and that of others show an intensive presence throughout prehistory, a presence illustrated in the archaeological site files of the Maryland Historical Trust. As the State Historic Preservation Office, the Trust is the

primary repository and clearing house for archaeological data in the state, and it maintains a comprehensive library with site files, reports and data that can be accessed by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Copies of these data are held by Washington College’s GIS Laboratory, along with original survey data generated by Washington College’s Public Archaeology Laboratory. These data were utilized extensively in this investigation. Figure 6 shows the distribution of known and recorded archaeological sites along the Chester River.

Figure 6. Known archaeological sites on the Chester River shown in red. Note the high density on the Chester shoreline above Centreville.

Figure 6 shows a large number of prehistoric sites located along the south bank of the Chester River. This distribution should be viewed with caution because technical difficulties prevented a plot solely of Late Woodland and Contact Period sites, which would have been preferable. However, a substantial number of sites from the late periods cluster along the south bank north of Centreville between the Corsica River and Southeast Creek, at Indiantown Farm. Very high densities of oyster shell have been found in that area, in particular, along with

glass trade beads that date to the late 16th or early 17th centuries. Lowery conducted surveys in that area, followed with excavations by the Washington College Archaeological Field School in the summer of 2009, all of which indicate a significant Late Woodland and Contact Period presence around Indiantown Farm (Seidel & Schindler ND).

Keeping in mind the relative lack of survey work on the Kent County side, and the fact that there has not been a complete shoreline survey of the Queen Anne’s County side, it is interesting to speculate on the true extent of Native American site distributions. Washington College has been working with a predictive model for archaeological site locations that may make informed speculation possible. Using indicators such as soils, slope, access to water, and known site location patterns, Seidel et al. (2004, 2007) developed an environmentally based GIS predictive model for a five county area on the Upper Eastern Shore of Maryland, covering Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Caroline and Talbot Counties. Taking into account landscape changes over time and highlighting as high probability those areas with a high ecological diversity and correspondingly high access to resources, twelve prehistoric settlement patterns were defined as particularly attractive to Native Americans:

Point Focus – settlement on points of well‐drained land, usually surrounded by water. Cove Focus – settlement around small estuarine coves or creeks Converging Stream Focus – settlement on knolls or terraces above the confluence of freshwater streams. Springhead Focus – settlement around active freshwater springs. Interior Stream Focus – settlement on ridges or terraces along freshwater drainage systems. Sand Ridge Focus – settlement along well‐drained sandy ridges, usually aeolian in origin. Bay Basin Focus – settlement along well‐drained rims surrounding shallow, poorly drained depressions. Estuarine Wetland Focus – settlement on knolls or ridges adjacent to or within broad marshes. Rivershore Focus – settlement on high ground along the major tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay, such as the Sassafras and Chester Rivers. Bay Island Focus – settlement on islands in the Chesapeake Bay; once part of the mainland, they were separated and turned into islands through marine transgression; River Island Focus – settlement on islands in the Susquehanna River; and River Floodplain Focus – settlement on the broad floodplains adjacent to the Susquehanna River.

While the first nine of these settlement foci have wide distribution across the project area, the last three are restricted to Cecil County. Three significance levels are generated by the model: extremely high probability; high probability; and moderate probability.

The model has been tested over the course of five years with comprehensive archaeological surveys in Kent County (primarily along the Sassafras, but also on Eastern Neck and the upper reaches of Langford Creek), and the results of blind surveys have been compared

with the results predicted by the model. While the last two years of survey are still under analysis, the early testing of the model showed that a remarkable 86% of the sites found were located within areas designated as extremely high to moderate probability. The predicted areas along the Chester River are depicted in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Archaeological predictive model – prehistoric site locations. Red: extremely high probability. Brown: high probability. Green: moderate probability.

The predictive model, so far demonstrated to be a robust and reliable tool, clearly indicates the potential for a higher density of Native American occupation than has been previously uncovered along the Chester. A close observer also will note the high correlation between predicted sites in the Indiantown Farm area, on the Queen Anne’s side of the river, with the known and recorded sites in that area. The comparison may be more easily seen in Figure 8. The congruence provides additional support to the notion that the model truly reflects Native American behavior. There are several reasons that this locale would have been particularly attractive to Late Woodland and Contact Period peoples, beyond the normal variables in the model. First, below this point the Chester River broadens out into Comegys Bight and the even wider stretch between the mouth of the Corsica and Langford Creek. In

addition, the salinity of the river’s water changes in this vicinity, and today oysters are not found upstream of this narrow stretch and Quaker Neck Landing.

Figure 8. Predicted site locations in the Indiantown Farm area (left arrow) compared to recorded sites in that vicinity (right arrow).

The model makes clear the predilection of native peoples for shorelines, but another cluster of extremely high probability zones lies in the upper part of the Chester, near the current boundary with Delaware. These zones correlate with Delmarva bay‐basins, which are elliptical sand ridges that encompass seasonal wetlands. In an area with rapidly changing topography and soil types, a series of ecological “edges” is created, attracting an unusually wide range of plant and animal resources – and also people.

While it is clear that the shoreline of the Chester River was occupied during the Contact Period, we are still left wondering where Ozinies itself was located. Smith’s depiction of a King’s House indicates that he believed there was a village somewhere in the vicinity. The National Geographic mapping done for the 400th anniversary of Smith’s voyage placed Ozinies in the vicinity of present‐day Rock Hall (and mistakenly suggested that Smith made landfall there). This follows the lead of Rountree, Clark, and Mountford (2007), based on archaeologist Wayne Clark’s analysis. Keeping in mind that the Ozinies, as with other peoples in the region, were seasonally mobile, a Rock Hall location seems less likely for a major village location in 1608 because of its potential vulnerability to attack. Tockogh was fortified, and with good reason. It was frequently attacked by the Massawomeck, a somewhat mysterious group that was probably Iroquoian and based to the west, perhaps near the headwaters of the Potomac. In their much lighter and maneuverable birch bark canoes, they could swiftly fall upon an enemy. Smith praised “their dexteritie in their small boats made of the barke of trees sowed with barke and well luted with gumme” (Smith 1986b:166). He further noted that the “Sasquesahanocks, the Tockwoughes are continually tormented by them [the Massawomeks]: of whose crueltie they generally complained” (Smith 1986b:166).

Had John Smith met the Ozinies and talked with them, it is likely that they too would have complained, as the Massawomek seem to have been the North American equivalent of Norsemen, striking quickly and then departing just as quickly, leaving the locals in their dugout canoes with little hope of catching them. The Ozinies would have been concerned about protecting their village, with its foodstuffs and women and children. The best vantage point from which to achieve this protection would have been some distance up a river (Tockwogh was seven miles inland). If an enemy came from the north (and this would cover both the Massawomeck and the Susquehannock), then the south side of a river would be best protected, preventing a stealthy approach over land. It would have been much easier to see and defend against an enemy approaching by water. As William Strachey noted regarding the Algonquians of Virginia, their towns were “…for the most part by the rivers…commonly upon the rise of a hill, that they may overlook the river and take every small thing into view that stirs upon the same” (Strachey 1849 [1612], in Haile 1998:635). Indiantown Farm, with its location inland on the south side of the river and the presence of period trade beads and abundant Late Woodland pottery, seems at least as likely a candidate for Ozinies as any other site.

The Tockwogh as a people seem to disappear from the record after Smith’s contact with them. As the Susquehannock sought to encourage trade with the English and force out any middlemen, the Tockwogh probably were pushed aside and forced to move elsewhere. Also fleeting in their historical visibility are the Monoponson, thought to have lived at least part of

the time on Kent Island, but seldom mentioned in documents (Marye 1938). The Wicomiss, presumably one and the same as the Ozinies, managed to stay on the Chester for several decades after Smith’s voyage, coming into frequent contact with English traders and settlers. They reportedly traded with Kent Island through the 1630s and ‘40s “and lived a ‘small days journey’ upriver” (Davidson 1993:142; see also Marye 1938), which would place them near Indiantown Farm. In 1642, ostensibly due to a Native American attack on Kent Island, Maryland went to war against the Wicomiss, the Susquehannock, and the Nanticoke. The war on the Nanticoke was soon cancelled, but hostilities with the Wicomiss and Susquehannock continued for some time. By 1648, it appears that the Wicomiss were under the control of the Susquehannock, who made peace with the English in 1652. But all references to the Wicomiss after about 1650 place them south of the Choptank River, in Nanticoke or Chicconese territory. The Susquehannock at that point controlled the region from the Sassafras to the Choptank (Davidson 1993:89‐93), including the Chester River drainage. The Susquehannock themselves were unable to hold on to the Chester for long, giving way to the English (and to some Dutch and Swedish settlers from the Delaware Valley) in the 1660s, thus ending the long American Indian presence on the river.

The association of the Chester River with American Indian towns and cultures of the Chester River is very strong and pervasive. Four groups described by Smith, three of whom he actually met, either lived in or travelled in the area at various times: the Ozinies/Wicomiss, the Tochwogh, the Susquehannock, and the Massawomek. These groups were joined by other, less well known groups such as the Monoponson. The archaeological evidence left behind by these various groups is clear and abundant. Circumstantial, documentary and archaeological evidence suggest a strong candidate for Ozinies or another Contact Period site around Indiantown Farm in Queen Anne’s County. The Ozinies, Wicomiss, and others would have used the river as a main transportation route, traveling not only out to the open waters of the Bay, but upstream to freshwater marshes and along creeks that held a wide range of abundant resources. Water travel was often most efficient, but overland trails also ran across the Chester, connecting north and south, as well as eastward, toward the Delaware Bay and the Atlantic. Based on this direct and significant association with American Indians of the period, the Chester River rates very highly on Criterion 2.

CRITERION 3: POTENTIAL FOR ILLUSTRATING THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE 17TH C. CHESAPEAKE

The Chester River and its tributaries served as a transportation route for both American Indians and colonists, but it also was a source of food and other resources for both groups due to its biological productivity. The river retains many of the natural characteristics it had in the early 17th century, thanks in part to an unusually large percentage of land in conservation easements or other forms of protection. Although water quality is impaired, oysters have been depleted, and many of the large animal species prevalent during that period have disappeared – especially large predators – the same may be said of all of the rivers of the Chesapeake.

Despite these shortcomings, however, to outward appearances much of the river will appear little changed to visitors and it does retain an impressive set of natural resources.

Before assessing the degree to which the Chester River is evocative of the 17th century landscape, it was necessary to establish the essential elements of that historic character. Period writers give us a good sense of both the landscape and the flora and fauna, beginning with John Smith himself. Smith’s most detailed descriptions of the landscape are probably fond in his Map of Virginia (Smith 1986b), augmented with site‐specific information in the different accounts he left of his travels. While a comprehensive review of his descriptions are beyond the scope of this report, some salient characteristics may be highlighted. In the Bay and its rivers, Smith spoke of “many Isles both great and small, some woody, some plaine, most of them low and not inhabited” (Smith 1986b:144). This certainly characterizes today’s Eastern Neck Island at the mouth of the Chester, now a 2,285 acre national wildlife refuge. He noted that the land was “not mountainous nor yet low but such pleasant plaine hills and fertle valleys, one prettily crossing an other, and watered conveniently with their sweete brookes...By the rivers are many plaine marishes containing some 20 some 100 some 200 Acres, some more, some lesse…” (Smith 1986b:145), and this is a good description of much of the Chester River today.

Smith’s treatment of forests mirrors the description given above, along with insights on their use by American Indians. He likewise lists berries of various types and a wonderful description of the native use of arrow arum: “called Tockawhoughe, It groweth like a flagge in low muddy freshes” (Smith 1986b:153). He recounts a range of game and other animals, including deer, bears, opossum, muskrat, beavers, and “a small beast they have, they call Assapanick but we call them flying squirrels, because spreading their legs, and so stretching the largeness of their skins they have bin seene to fly 30 or 40 yards” (Smith 1986b:154‐155). Smith’s vivid descriptions provide wonderful material for heritage tourism interpretation.

John Smith was not the only Englishman to write of the country’s landscape, he was merely the first and perhaps most prolific during the early period. Father Andrew White accompanied the Calverts to Maryland in 1634, and he described some of the prairie grasslands that, along with pine savannah, were an important characteristic of the Delmarva: “On the plains and in open fields there is a great abundance of grass; but the country is, for the most part, thickly wooded. There are a great many hickory trees, and the oaks are so straight and tall, that beams, sixty feet long and one half feet wide can be made of them… There are alder, ash, and chestnut trees…The woods moreover are passable, not filled with thorns or undergrowth…” (White 1899). To these accounts may be added later works such as Alsop’s Character of the Province of Maryland (1902 [1666]), other writers, and landscape details from journals, letters and deed descriptions. All of these lines of evidence work toward filling in our understanding of the natural landscape of the early 17th century and establishing a baseline for comparison.

Much of what these early observers wrote about remains in the landscape today, and the Chester retains an impressive diversity of resources along its length. The connector route

we have recommended spans several major regime changes in the river, based in large part on water salinity. The hydrologic cycle, the complexity and diversity of estuarine systems, and the specifics of the Chesapeake estuary as a system are comprehensively treated in a variety of places, and this report will not attempt to replicate that, but rather highlight some of the important assets or characteristics of the Chester River.

Beginning at the mouth of the river, the water is highest in salinity. Depending upon the season, rainfall, and other factors, the water of the Chester can be salty‐brackish or oligohaline (brackish‐fresh), up to just above Chestertown. It tends to be oligohaline to just above Crumpton, and freshwater beyond. The river historically supported blue crabs, American oysters, hard clams (quahog), and soft clams (manninose). Fish include American eel, American shad, alewife, blueback herring, Atlantic silverside, winter flounder, hogchokers, weakfish, and bay anchovy. Herring and shad spawning areas typically are located in the upper, freshwater portions of rivers, while hogchoker and bay anchovies spawn in the middle reaches and have nurseries in the upper freshwater zones. Both juvenile and adult bluefish frequent the river, with widely varying distributions from year to year. Striped bass (rockfish) spawn in parts of the Chester. Yellow perch, brown bullhead, channel catfish and white catfish concentrate in the upper reaches (Lippson 1973:32,38; Rountree and Davidson 1997).

From the standpoint of Native Americans, fresh‐brackish oligohaline waters and freshwater reaches that correspond with Matapeake and Sassafras loamy soils were particularly attractive (and soil and water type tended to correlate). In the spring, these areas provided spawning grounds for anadromous fish such as shad, herring, alewife, sturgeon, spot, croaker (hardheads)and white perch. They also support a range of important, edible plants, such as arrow arum (Tuckahoe), wild rice, duck potato and more (Rountree and Davidson 1997).

The forest cover of the region during the Contact Period was predominantly hardwood and mixed deciduous forest. Oak‐hickory was wide‐spread in the upper portions of the Chester, with some areas that were predominantly oak‐gum. Oak‐hickory forests are particularly productive from the human standpoint, having abundant mast. This in turn attracts preferred game species such as turkey and white‐tailed deer. Along freshwater streams, trees and shrubs such as birch, alder, red maple, beech, oak, witch hazel, cherry, willow and service berry historically attracted large beaver populations, which may still be seen on some of the Chester’s streams (Rountree and Davidson 1997: 9‐12).

The Chester’s position on the Atlantic flyway brings seasonal waterfowl such as Canada geese and duck. Other species, some year‐round and some seasonal, include osprey, bald eagles, kestrels, kingfishers, a variety of herons, bobwhite quail, gray squirrels, raccoon, and rabbits. Otters were (and are) present on some tributaries of the Chester, along with the endangered Delmarva fox squirrel. Introduced species today include red fox and bluebirds, as well as a variety of non‐native plants – of the latter, the most visible along the river is Phragmites australis, which is especially prolific in disturbed areas. Unlike many native plants, this species does not provide food for waterfowl. The Delmarva bay‐basins noted in the previous section, sometimes called Carolina Bays, historically extended down along the Chester,

although most have now been obliterated by plowing. Where they remain, they serve as an important breeding ground and nursery for many amphibians, including the rare Eastern Tiger Salamander (Eastern Shore Heritage 2004: 53). All of the native species listed above were present during Smith’s time and remain today.

Before embarking on a detailed examination of the river to compare the current landscape with that of earlier years, an assessment was made of land protection and preservation. Much of the land along the Chester River is permanently protected, in public ownership of some form. The extent of these lands is depicted in Figure 9. In addition, substantial land holdings along the river are protected by easements held by the Maryland Environmental Trust and the Maryland Historical Trust, agricultural land preservation districts, agricultural land conservation easements, Rural Legacy areas, and private conservation easements. As of 2003, Kent County had more than 34,000 acres in some form of protection (20% of its area), while Queen Anne’s County had almost 239,000 acres protected (25.4% of its area). As described below, this has resulted in a remarkable retention of the landscape’s natural or historic character, and it bodes well for the future of the region, an important factor in designating an historic trail in which the government holds no land strictly for that purpose.

Figure 9. Permanently protected lands (Eastern Shore Heritage 2004: Map 18).

Once a baseline for period landscapes had been established, it was necessary to set benchmarks for evaluation of the current landscape. Since there are almost no landscapes in the Chesapeake’s tidewater region that completely mirror the scene of 400 years ago (the absence of large predators and other species alone makes this impossible), it is “representation” rather than “replication” that is sought. In particular, appearances from the water were considered important for a water trail. In addition, the presence of non‐native species must be considered. Non‐native phragmites, for example, can be both widespread and obtrusive. On the other hand, most boaters might not even notice phragmites from the main channel of a wide river such as the Chester. No hard and fast rules were established for evaluating such issues, but landscapes were evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. In general, appearances from the river were assessed as to the overall extent to which they can reasonably convey to a visitor a sense of what the landscape might have looked like in 1600 or, in some cases (see below), during the early colonial period. With these parameters established, the entire river from its mouth at Love Point (Kent Island) to Crumptom was examined by boat, and

Figure 10. Chester River – areas with high association with 17th century landscapes.

all tributaries accessible by small boat were examined. The “canoeable” stretch of the river from Crumpton to above Millington, as well as the upper portions of creeks such as Morgan Creek, was assessed through review with Chris Cerino of Sultana Projects. Cerino leads frequent canoe trips in these areas; as the leader of Sultana Projects’ educational programming and member of the John Smith Shallop team, he capably assessed their representativeness. The results of these various assessments are summarized below, from the mouth of the river to upstream sections. More detailed notes and photographs of all representative portions of the river are on file with Washington College’s Center for Environment & Society.

Figure 10 delineates segments of the river that are of particular interest due to the landscape and may help the reader in following the ensuing descriptions. For a more detailed understanding of the shoreline and landmarks, reference to a larger version of the base map used in Figure 10, NOAA Chart 12272 “Chester River”, is more informative.

River mouth to the Corsica River and Grays Inn Creek: On approach to the mouth of the Chester from the Bay, the river is wide, with Love Point to starboard and Rock Hall and Swan Creek to port and north. Eastern Neck, on the Kent County side, is agricultural and Eastern Neck Island is preserved as a national wildlife refuge. If one keeps the eye focused there, it is easy to imagine what John Smith might have seen. As the eye wanders south, however, the development of Kent Island and Kent Narrows becomes apparent. On Figure 10, therefore, the preferred approach is along the Eastern Neck Island side, where the shoreline from Wickes Beach all the way around the island past Hail Point and the entrance to Church Creek is marred by only the occasional glimpse of a building through the trees. This preserved view prevails almost to the mouth of Grays Inn Creek. Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge preserves 2,285 acres that gradually are being phased out of agriculture, as wooded buffers are increased. By water or by land, the refuge protects a landscape that is full of wildlife. It provides a truly remarkable entry point to the Chester River as connector trail, with countless opportunities to slip back in time to an earlier landscape.

Figure 11. Marsh and forest on Eastern Neck Island.

At Hail Cove, around the southernmost point of Eastern Neck Island, an erosion control project provides interpretive opportunities focused on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), oysters, and the loss of low‐lying islands. The shallow flats around the island were until recently a prolific place for blue crabs, especially “peelers” (shedding blue crabs), which found refuge in the abundant grasses. Grasses have retreated and then made some recent gains in this area, but at Hail Cove a breakwater has been installed (in late 2009) to reduce wave energy that threatened to break through to Hail Creek. SAV has been planted inside the breakwater to retain sediment, in a partnership run by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Aquarium in Baltimore. At the mouth of the breakwater, oysters raised in the Washington College Center for Environment & Society Oyster Program were planted in partnership with USFWS and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Focal points such as this offer many opportunities for comparing the environments of today and Smith’s time, and for illuminating the processes at work in the Bay and its rivers. Moving farther upstream, Eastern Neck Narrows is no longer deep enough to accommodate boats, but paddlers can cut through this area, which also provides access to Church Creek, a long and undisturbed paddle. Although phragmites are abundant, the east bank of the creek is particularly evocative of an earlier period. From Church Creek upstream to the mouth of Grays Inn Creek there is similarly little development.

On the starboard, or Queen Anne’s County, side of the river entrance, the Kent Island development does offer one spot of real interest for a connector trail. The Chesapeake Exploration Center, run by the Queen Anne’s County Office of Tourism, provides a useful introduction to the region’s history, with early artifacts and other items of interest. From the Exploration Center, visitors can walk up to a point overlooking the Chester, crossing wetlands, marsh and a Native American archaeological site to gain a beautiful view across the river to Eastern Neck Island. After passing the Narrows, the development is again left behind momentarily along Black Beard’s Bluff, evocative of a turbulent period when piracy reached the Chesapeake. The bluff is cut by Walsey Creek, which provides canoers and kayakers a scenic paddle. At Queenstown, the north branch of Queenstown Creek also provides a scenic paddle, although evidence of modern agriculture can be seen. From Queenstown Creek upstream all the way to Gordon Point, there are few modern intrusions visible on the landscape from the river, particularly in the summer when the vegetation is full. A side trip into Tilghman Creek (requiring shallow draft) opens up a site that was typical of the locales sought by the first English settlers: a sheltered anchorage with a spring and a house site back from the water on rising land. On the north side of the creek is the Hermitage, family home of the Tilghman family. The original house, built by Dr. Richard Tilghman shortly after his arrival in Maryland in 1662, is no longer there, nor is its 18th century replacement, which burned. But the more recent house is joined by many outbuildings, including a restored 18th century slave quarter visible from the water, and the 17th century family cemetery, which is not. From Tilghman Creek north past Piney Point, recently planted pines are visible, along with glimpses of fringe marsh. While Reed and Grove Creeks, just above Gordon Point, offer sheltered and scenic anchorages, there is simply too much 20th century development for inclusion as focal points in the connector. The same may be said of neighboring Corsica Neck and much of the Corsica

River, which therefore has not been recommended for inclusion in the connector. One creek worthy of inclusion is Emory Creek, which lies on the north side of the Corsica, less than two nautical miles from its mouth. Once past the opening of the creek, there are only two docks that intrude, one of them a 19th century boathouse that has collapsed into the water. Beyond the boathouse and the wreckage of an abandoned wood barge (Figure 12), the creek is placid and quiet, with overhanging trees and fringing grasses. The water becomes quite shallow, but at an easterly turn the outbuildings and main house of Poplar Grove may be seen – Poplar Grove is another 17th century land grant and the original home of the Emory family.

Figure 12. Emory Creek and shipwreck remains.

Grays Inn and Langford Creeks (Kent County): Grays Inn Creek has few modern intrusions along its lower segment, limited to a house that goes in and out view to the starboard on Piney Neck near Grays Inn Point, and a large house and dock at Little Gum Point. Otherwise, it is well preserved until the creek forks at Skinners Neck. The marinas of the Neck have their own interest as a last refuge of working boats on the Chester, but the areas evocative of the 17th century lie downstream. On the west side of the creek, Joiners Cove and Lucy’s Cove are particularly suggestive, and lying somewhere in this vicinity are the undiscovered remains of New Yarmouth, the Kent County seat of 1680. Opposite Brown’s Cove, on the east side of the

creek, deer frequently come down to the water in a scene played out for centuries and no doubt witnessed at some point by John Smith and his contemporaries.

Between Grays Inn Point and the opening of Langford Creek, there are extensive stretches of hardened shoreline and other landscape intrusions. The development is extensive up the main stems of both the West and East Forks of Langford Creek, and although there is landscape degradation, archaeological potential is still high. Boaters nevertheless will find these creeks pretty, and those who persist past the houses and piers of the West Fork eventually will come to a fork at Chesapeake Farms, a DuPont experimental farm of 3,300 acres. Recent archaeological surveys have revealed numerous prehistoric sites in the area, and the upper stretches are accessible by canoe and kayak. Farther upstream lies St. Paul’s Church (ca. 1696), with a cemetery containing some of the earliest marked burials and headstones in the area. The upper portion of the East Fork is also of interest, to just below Langford Road.

Nichols Point/Corsica River to Chestertown: The main stem of the Chester River from the Corsica to Chestertown offers a variety of preserved landscapes, ranging from natural landscapes to views that are evocative of the early colonial period. Nichols Point itself, at the mouth of Langford Creek, has a shoal that extends well into the river. This shoal is the remnant of a point inundated by rising sea level, and American Indian burials have occasionally been uncovered by clam dredgers –once on dry land, these remains have been inundated over the centuries by rising sea levels. Cliff City and Comegys Bight on the Kent side have many modern intrusions such as houses and docks, but the view up‐river is less cluttered. This view is particularly important past Spaniard Neck and Cliff City, where one can see the river begin to narrow. A short distance up the narrow stretch, on the Queen Anne’s County bank, lies Indiantown Wharf, a 19th‐20th century steamboat landing, and Indiantown Farm, the possible site of Ozinies. A short distance farther along the river is Quaker Neck Landing, the short‐lived 1695 Kent County seat. From Comegys Bight to Quaker Neck Landing on the Kent side, few houses are visible, and trees line much of the bank. On the Queen Anne’s County side, fields gently roll up in elevation to large plantation houses, in scenes evocative of the early dispersed settlement pattern of the colonial Tidewater. These different scenes would have great storey‐ telling and educational power if woven together in the right way, illustrating the changing uses of the land from the Ozinies and Wicomiss to the English planting of the river. At the same time, fisheries can be brought into focus, using as foils the many pound nets that line the shore (based on an old native model depicted first by John White in his sketches of Roanoke) and the upper limit of oysters at Quaker Neck.

Past Quaker Neck Landing, the Chester makes two turns in an “S” pattern. The shoreline is fringed with trees, occasionally yielding glimpses of the fields beyond, which could be easily mistaken for the grasslands that were once in the area. Beyond the curves, Browns Creek and Broad Creek on the Kent side reveal fringing marshes, and the tree‐lined shore continues, with more farm buildings visible on the Queen Anne’s County side. Before the river curves again, the opening into Southeast Creek is visible. Just inside the opening, to the left past Deep Point, the water is indeed deep at 17 ft, but the creek then becomes exceptionally shallow. Staying in the channel can be a challenge, but by following stakes to the south, boaters can find their way

into Island Creek and a small marina. Even for shallow draft boats, there is not much room to move around in Island Creek, so this waterway is best suited to paddling by canoe or kayak. Although narrow in places, it is fairly deep and more wooded than the Chester’s main stem. Around the headwaters are very high quality marshes, with few houses. This offers a good example of the smaller creeks that provided American Indians access into the interior.

At Southeast Creek, the main river curves past Rolph’s wharf, a marina on the Queen Anne’s County side. Just past Rolph’s, the river’s two sides offer different, but equally attractive views. On the Kent side, there are high, wooded bluffs with only two docks intruding along Devil’s Reach. On the Queen Anne’s side, the land rises more gradually from the water, with several large plantation houses set well back from the shoreline, on top of a substantial rise. This setting is more evocative of colonial settlement.

At the end of Devil’s reach, the river makes a turn to the east, passing a yacht club and increased development into Chestertown. The 1706 town was a designated port of entry during much of the 18th century and has a remarkable collection of Georgian and early Federal buildings. Home‐port of the replica schooner Sultana and the John Smith shallop, and home to Washington College, the nation’s tenth oldest college, Chestertown retains its colonial feel and is in a very real sense the legacy of John Smith. During events such as the annual tea party and Downrigging Weekend, with a remarkable collection of tall ships, the feeling is only enhanced.

Figure 13. Kalmar Nyckel off Chestertown, Downrigging Weekend 2007.

Chestertown to Millington: Once under the Chester River Bridge and past the few old subdivisions at the town’s edge, the Kent County side of the river to Roundtop Wharf and Grasslands Plantation (Chino Farms) is characterized predominantly by fringing marsh. A few short stretches of houses intervene, as does a long pier for the Heron Point retirement community, but the view is otherwise largely of grasses and phragmites. Phragmites choke the initial tight turns of Morgan Creek on the Kent side, but halfway up the creek and well into the interior of Kent County (requiring canoes or kayaks for access), the vegetation gives way to native marsh. This creek also nicely illustrates the interior access that Native Americans had with canoes, and it stretches well into what would have been the territory of the Tockwogh in 1608. The Queen Anne’s County side of the river from Chestertown to Roundtop Wharf is more developed, with individual houses often located close to the water with their docks.

At Roundtop Wharf, however, Grasslands Plantation begins, preserving several miles of shoreline and 5,000 interior acres. Several pairs of bald eagles nest along the shoreline, along with many osprey. Both sides of the river are only lightly touched by people. Above the river bank past Roundtop, however, lie several fields that are the subject of an interesting experiment with remarkable interpretive power. Researchers led by ecologist Doug Gill of the University of Maryland and landowner Henry Sears have restored 240 acres of prairie, bringing back not only a wide variety of native plants that had all but disappeared, but an increasing number of scarce birds, ranging from bobwhite quail to grasshopper sparrows and dickcissels. There are multiple stories here, ranging from the importance of conservation to the resilience of habitats when they are given a chance to come back. The interpretive stories also include the use of fire today to control woody species in the grasses, in the same fashion that American Indians used fire as a tool to shape the landscape. Researchers from Washington College and the Smithsonian also are experimenting with early domesticated plants used by Native Americans. The farm retains several intact bay‐basins, and on its east side lies a pine forest undisturbed since before World War II, a relatively rare habitat in the region.

Figure 14. Grasshopper sparrow at Grasslands Plantation (2009).

Figure 15. Fire as a tool to manage landscapes (Grasslands Plantation 2009).

Figure 16. Chester River above Grasslands Plantation.

Figure 17. Creek emptying into the Chester opposite Grasslands Plantation.

From Grasslands Plantation to Crumpton, the river becomes increasingly shallow, with wide flats and dense fringing marshes, and winding creeks (replete with arrow arum, wild rice, and other marsh foods) joining the main stem (Figures 16 and 17). Although several small developments and a landing intrude, the view is largely undisturbed. Beyond Crumpton, the water depths become increasingly shallow, with a hidden channel that requires care and a very shallow draft boat. Canoes and kayaks eventually become the best choice, with good water for paddling extending beyond Millington. Between Crumpton and Millington, however, is some exceptional kayaking, with clear water and gravel bottoms that startle the unprepared and make clear the differences in water quality and salinity. These types of habitat, while not generally thought of as integral or prominent parts of the Chesapeake Bay, are just as important now as they were at contact in 1608.

Other assessments: As is already clear from the Executive Summary and the preceding descriptions, it is our assessment that the Chester River retains a remarkable ability to illustrate landscapes and habitats that were present when John Smith visited the Upper Bay. In addition, the Chester has the power to illustrate early colonial settlement, which was the legacy of Smith, in some unique ways. This is not solely the conclusion reached by our team. Washington College led an intensive project over several years to create a management plan for a four county, state certified heritage tourism area, with the management plan being completed in 2004. As part of that project, outside experts were brought in to evaluate resources and to assess cultural landscapes and natural habitats that could support heritage and eco‐tourism. Their conclusions, while arrived at through a very different process, mirror our own (Eastern Shore Heritage 2004). Figure 18 illustrates their assessment of the magnitude, distinctiveness, and intactness of the areas scenic resources. The length of the Chester River from Queenstown and Grays Inn Creek to Millington was rated as “high,” the top rating.

Figure 18. Scenic resources assessment, Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area (Eastern Shore Heritage 2004:Map 28).

Figure 19. Natural resources assessment, Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area (Eastern Shore Heritage 2004:Map 5).

Figure 19 conveys the assessment that the significance of the river’s natural resources is high, while Figure 20 indicates that its potential for illustrating colonial and early national history is likewise high, the top rating. Finally, Figure 21 demonstrates a reasonable range of public access points to the river. The conclusions of the heritage tourism consultants, the Eastern Shore Heritage Area management team, and the Maryland Heritage Areas Board, all concurred in rating the Chester River as remarkable in its potential. These independent evaluations give greater confidence that the conclusions reached in this study are not arbitrary or misplaced.

Figure 20. Natural resources assessment, Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area (Eastern Shore Heritage 2004:Map 5).

Figure 21. Public access to the Chester River, Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area (after Eastern Shore Heritage 2004:Map 9).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the Chester River is eligible for designation as a connector trail to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, as defined by the National Trails System Act (Public Law 90‐543). The river has a level of association with John Smith or significance relative to the standards on all three criteria set forth for evaluation.

CRITERION 1: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIVER’S ASSOCIATION WITH THE VOYAGES OF EXPLORATION OF JOHN SMITH, 1607‐1609

ASSESSMENT: Moderate and indirect association

RATIONALE: A careful analysis of Smith’s description of his voyages and analysis of his 1612 map indicates that he did not personally visit the Chester River. Instead, he likely heard reports about the river and its inhabitants, the Ozinies. Nevertheless, Smith’s observations and his depiction of Kent Island and river inlets in the area, as well as his accounts of inhabitants such as the Ozinies, Tockwogh, and Susquehannocks, made the potential of the area clear to other Englishmen such as William Claiborne. Smith’s map was the best depiction of the Bay until Augustine Herrman produced his map in 1670. The Smith map clearly indicated several inlets in that vicinity of the Eastern Shore, one of which must have been the Chester. The map was relied upon heavily by Smith’s contemporaries and made clear the Upper Bay’s potential, first as a trading region and later as an area for settlement. Claiborne followed precisely this model with his 1631 settlement on Kent Island and trading post at the mouth of the Susquehanna River. While Smith did not visit the Chester River, his work had a substantial impact on the river’s settlement.

CRITERION 2: ASSOCIATION WITH THE AMERICAN INDIAN TOWNS & CULTURES OF THE 17TH CENTURY CHESAPEAKE

ASSESSMENT: Direct and significant association

beads at sites like Indiantown Farms. In addition, GIS‐based predictive modeling indicates that extensive areas along the Chester and its tributaries are high probability areas for American Indian habitation; five years of field testing supports the validity of the model.

CRITERION 3: POTENTIAL FOR ILLUSTRATING THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE 17TH CENTURY CHESAPEAKE

ASSESSMENT: Significant potential

We strongly recommend the designation of the Chester River as a connector trail to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, concluding that there is a high level of significance for the portions of the river and its tributaries listed below and illustrated in Figure 1. For the reasons articulated in this report, it is our assessment that this range of inclusion offers multiple opportunities and experiences that will be more attractive to the public and more likely to see wide‐spread public use and enjoyment. Furthermore, the inclusive nature of these connector segments ensures that public enjoyment will expand beyond the lower reaches of the river to include freshwater, inland waterways – these are important in helping to define and evoke the range of habitats through which early explorers moved and that American Indians used for travel and resource extraction. The recommended connector segments are as follows:

The main stem of the Chester River, from its mouth and connection with the main trail upstream to the town of Millington; The entire length of Church Creek (Kent County); Grays Inn Creek from its mouth to the fork at Skinners Neck (Kent County); The main stem of Langford Creek, the West Fork of Langford Creek, to Ricauds Branch Road and the East Fork to a point just below Langford Road (Kent County); Morgan Creek from its mouth north to a point just below Rt. 213, Augustine Hermann Highway (Kent County);

Walsey Creek from its mouth to the intersection with Rt. 50‐301 (Queen Anne’s County); Queenstown Creek, from its mouth up the north branch to its end (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); Island Creek, from its juncture with Southeast Creek to Sparks Mill Road (on both the east and west forks) (Queen Anne’s County).

REFERENCES

Alsop, George 1902 A Character of the Province of Maryland. Reprint of the 1666 edition, Newton D. Mereness, ed. Burrows Brothers Company, Cleveland.

Barbour , Philip (ed.) 1986 The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580‐1631). 3 volumes. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Bourne, Michael 1998 Historic Houses of Kent County: An Architectural History1642‐1860. Eugene Johnston, ed. Historical Society of Kent County, Chestertown, Maryland.

Curry, Dennis 1986 Prehistoric Kent County. Historic Houses of Kent County: An Architectural History1642‐1860. Eugene Johnston, ed. Historical Society of Kent County, Chestertown, Maryland.

Davidson, Thomas 1993 The Powhatans and the Eastern Shore. Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500‐1722, Helen C. Rountree, ed. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Dent, R. J. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York and London.

Eastern Shore Heritage 2004 Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area Management Plan. Eastern Shore Heritage, Inc., Chestertown, Maryland.

Feest, Christian 1978 Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15: Northeast. Bruce Trigger, ed., pp. 242‐252. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Haile, Edmund Wright 1998 Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony – The First Decade 1607‐1617. Roundhouse, Champlain, Virginia.

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

Klingelhofer, Eric ND The Search for ‘Ffort Conquest’ and the Claiborne Virginian Settlement: An Archaeological Survey of Garrett Island, Cecil County, Maryland, 1984. Manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland.

Lippson, A. J.

1973 The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of Natural Resources. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Lowery, D. L. 1992 The 1992 Archaeological Survey of Kent Island. Manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Trust. Crownsville, Maryland.

1993a A Supplementary Report of the 1992 Archaeological Survey of Kent Island. Manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Trust. Crownsville, Maryland.

1993b Archaeological Survey of the Chester River, the Wye River, and the Prospect Bay Drainages, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. Manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Trust. Crownsville, Maryland.

1994 Archaeological Survey of Interior Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. Manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Trust. Crownsville, Maryland.

1995 A Supplementary Archaeological Survey of Interior Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. Manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Trust. Crownsville, Maryland.

Marye, William B. 1938 The Wicomiss Indians of Maryland. American Antiquity 4 (1938):146‐52.

Maryland State Archives 1667‐1688 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland. Vol. V, 1667‐ 1688. William H. Broune, ed., Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore.

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

Pohuski, Michael 1991 The Underwater Search for William Claiborne’s 17th‐Century Settlement in the Upper Chesapeake. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference. John D. Broadwater, ed. Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond, Virginia.

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

Rountree, Helen C., Wayne E. Clark, and Kent Mountford 2007 John Smith’s Chesapeake Voyages, 1607‐1609. University Press of Virginia. Charlottesville.

Seidel, John L., Darrin Lowery and Tom Davis

2004 A Cultural Resource Management Geographic Information System and Archaeological Predictive Model for Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties, Maryland. Report prepared for the Maryland State Highway Administration by Washington College Public Archaeology Laboratory, Chestertown, Maryland.

Seidel, John L., Darrin Lowery and Wendy Miller 2007 A Cultural Resource Management Geographic Information System and Archaeological Predictive Model for Maryland’s Upper Eastern Shore: Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Caroline & Talbot Counties, Maryland. Report prepared for the Maryland State Highway Administration by Washington College Public Archaeology Laboratory, Chestertown, Maryland.

Seidel, John L., and Bill Schindler ND Report on Archaeological Investigations at Indiantown Farm, Queen Anne’s County Maryland. Report in preparation. Washington College Public Archaeology Laboratory, Chestertown, Maryland.

Smith, John 1986a The Proceedings of the English Colonie in Virginia. Philip L. Barbour (ed.), 3 vols. 1:199‐289. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

1986b A Map of Virginia. In The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580‐1631), Philip L. Barbour (ed.), 3 vols. 1:119‐190. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

1986c Generall Historie of Virginia, New‐England, and the Summer Isles. In The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580‐1631), Philip L. Barbour (ed.), 3 vols., 2:25‐488. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Strachey, William 1848 The History of Travel into Virginia Britannia: The Book of the First Decade [1612]. Jamestown Narratives, Edmund Wright Haile, ed. Roundhouse, Champlain, Virginia.

Torrence, Clayton 1948 The English Ancestry of William Claiborne of Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of History & Biography 56(4) Part II. Virginia Historical Society, Richmond.

Virginia Colonial Records Project ND Microfilm records of the Public Records Office ‐ William Claiborne and Kent Island. Reel 93. Alderman Library of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

White, Andrew 1899 A Relation of the Sucessefull Beginnings of the Lord Baltimore's Plantation in Maryland. Being an extract of certaine Letters written from thence, by some of the Aduenturers, to their friends in England. The Calvert Papers, volume 3, Maryland Historical Society Fund Publications 28, 34 ‐ 35, Baltimore.

White, E. A. 1982 Soil Survey of Kent County, Maryland. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D. C.