Skip to main content

Full text of "The history and development of the early map of Maryland / thesis prepared by Robert Austin Jackson."

See other formats

This folder also contained 1 blueprint that were too large to scan. 

file:///X|/Special%20Collections/purgatory/Phi%20Mu/Jackson,%20Robert/blueprint.txt[4/19/2011 2:02:02 PM] 


Thesis Prepared by- 
Robert .austin Jaokson 

Presented to Maryland Beta Chapter of Tau Beta Pi 

January 9 , 1936 




The information for this thesis was obtained from 
the following sources : 

1. The Maps and Map-Makers of Maryland (including a History 

of Cartographic Progress in Maryland) - 

.Edward Bennett Mathews - Spec. Pub, Vol. II, pbrt 

II lb - Md. Geol. Sarv. 

2. iieport on the Resurvey of the Maryland-Pennsylvania Boundary 

part of the Mason and Dixon Line - Md. Geol. Surv. - Spec. Pub. Vol. 


2. The ^.ims and Methods of Cartography - Henry Gannett - Md. G-eol. 

Surv, - Spec. Pub. - Vol. II - part Ilia. 

4. Bibliography and Cartography of Maryland - Edward B. Mathews - 
Md. Geol. Surv. - Speo. Pub. - Vol. I - part IV. 

5. Report on the Location of the Boundary Line along the Potomao 
River between Virginia and Maryland - Edward B. Mathews and 
Wilbur A. Bel son. 

6. Records of the Washington Evening Star of various dates, 
especially of the magazine or special articles section. 

7. Records of the Washington Post of various dates, especially 
of the magazine section. 

8. "Archives of Maryland" by >Y. K. Browne 

9. "History of Maryland from 1623 to 1S60" by J. 1. Bozman 

10. "The Making of Maryland" by Elmer Green 

11. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Hew larned History, Liveryman's 

IS. collections of maps at Library of Congress, Md. Hist. Soc. 
Library, Pratt Library, and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. 


13. Interview with Mr. B. 1. Crozier - Chief £ngr. of Jity of 
Baltimore . 

14. Interview with Dr. E4war4 Bennett Mathews - State Geologist. 



In the early development of the map of Maryland, there were 
three maps which had great influence on their contemporaries. These 
were the Smith map, the Herman map, and the Fry and Jefferson map. 
■although other maps were published, these three were so much more 
accurate that others were either cribbed in whole or in part from 
them. Between the publication of these three, however, other maps 
were produced, which, though perhaps partly copied from them, added 
some small thing to the increasing knowledge of the veorraphy of 

There were two phases of the development of the map of lOary- 
Itnd. The earlier maps delineated only the region ;. round the Chesa- 
peake Bay, whereas the later maps added to cartographical knowledge 

of the western part of the Baltimore province. This development was 

preceded by the extension of settlement to the westward and by the 

desire of those settlers for a better idea of the territory about 


1. See Flar. 1 in back. 




Sinoe the discovery of America, cartography has made such pro- 
gress that one, comparing a recent and an early map of Maryland, 
would sctrcely recognize them as representing the same territory. 
Drawn with the aid of geodetic control, the modern map with its 
complexity of latitude and longitude lines, its magnetic lines of 
force, its topographic contours, and its variety of detail, bears 
little resemblance to the rough drawings of tn earlier period. And 
yet these crude sketches form the foundation upon which the present- 
lay map has been built* 

A-yl Ion's Map, 1537. (Fig. 2) 

Following Columbus' return to Spain, one of the Spaniards who 
set out for the new world seeking his fame and fortune, fortified 
by a royal patent granting title to any lands discovered, was Ayllon. 
Between 1580 tnd 15oC he sent out at least three expeditions to ex- 
plore the lands north of Florida. On one of these expeditions, be- 
ginning in June, 1526, it seems probfcble that Ayllon entered and ex- 
plored the Chesape&ke Bay in his search for a paas&ge to the Spice 
Islands. Upon Jy] Ion's return to Spain a map was drawn up which 
shows an inlet titled "tiera del licencia del Ayllon", which Kohl 
in "Die beiden altesten Ceneral-Xarten von *vmerika" gives reasons 
for believing to be the Chesapeake Bay. *s S. B. Mathews says , "This 

sketch is supposed to furnish the first representation of Chesapeake 

Bay based upon authentic information. 


Ribero's Map, 1529, (Fig. 3) 

The second map that was produced by the wave of Spanish 

exploration was drawn by Diego Ribero, a Portugese. Royal 

Cosmographer from 1522 to 1523, and one of the hydrographers 

consulted at the Badajoz conference of 1524, he was especially 

qualified to design this map, "the first graphic record of many 

of the most significant discoveries that led to a knowledge of 

the true form of the globe and a masterpiece of exact *.nd 

well-informed map construction. " 

Later investigations have shown that Ribero drew his in- 
formation from Gomez, who w^-s at one time a pilot on one of Ayl- 
lon's expeditions. He too failed to discover the much-sought 
passage, out he did leisurely explore the whole coast from Gape 
Race to Florida. £. B. Mathews says, "Shea seems to think that 

the larger bay given on the Ribero map represents the Delaware, 
although there seem to be about equal grounds for assuming that 
the Chesapeake is the bay thus vaguely represented. The Ayllon 

and Ribero maps represent the degree of information regarding 

the Chesapeake and its tributaries possessed by the highest 
authorities in Europe up to the beginning of the 17th century." 
First detailed or "Mother Maps" 

At the beginning of the 17th Century, the period of European 
colonization, especially English @ ©Ionization, of America began. 
As a result, England planted a colony at Jamestown at -the mouth 
of the Chesapeake Bay. The desire of the members of this colony 
to attract others to join them, led to the exploration and map- 
ping of Chesepeake 3ay by Captain John Smith whose map "is the 

1. B. ^uaritoh Catalogue Eo. 129, Bov. 1392, p. % 


first engraved picture of English .America and the first account 

of its real colonization." 

The Smith Map, 1608. (Fig. 4} 

The author of this map, Captain John Smith, was an Eliza- 
bethan adventurer of whom Everyman's Encyclopedia says, "The 
whole colony of Jamestown would have perished out for the energy 
and resourcefulness of John Smith, who assumed a natural leader- 
ship." Born at V/illoughby, Lincolnshire, England, in January, 1579, 
he set out at 17 to realise his ambitions. He saw war in France 
and Italy, and then served in the Austrian Army in its campaign 
against the Turks, After being captured and escaping, he reached 
England in 1605 only to set out the following year with the emi- 
grants bound for Virginia. It is interesting to note that when 
Smith landed in Virginia he w^s still a young man according to 
modern standards, being only twenty-seven years old. As he him- 
self is the main authority for the story of his life, doubt has 
often been east upon the authenticity of much that he wrote, and 
his reputation varies with the historians. But John Fiske says, 
"Smith's map is a living refutation of John Smith's detractors; 
none but a man of heroic mould oould done the geographical 
work involved in making it." 

Quoting E. B. Mathews, he says "little can be gained as to 
the amount of money expended in the preparation of this map. 
Furchas . . . . quotes Smith as saying the 'beginnings here and there 
cost me neare 5 yeares (1604-1609) worke, and more than 500 pounds 

of my owne estates, besides all the dan -era, miseries, and incum- 
Drances I endured gratis.*" 

1. ^uaritch, 1880, p. 1242 


The account of the exploration involved in the making of this 
map reads Hike a story took, and includes storms, illness, Indian 
battles, captures and thrilling rescues. 

Comparing the features ag represented by Smith's map with 
our present-day knowledge, it may be seen that he carefully ex- 
plored and sketched the necks between the Pooomoke and the Kanti- 
coke. North of Kent Island, as the shores of the bay approach each 
other, the accuracy of detail seems to be much better than that 
around the peninsulas of Dorchester and Talbot counties. The out- 
line of the western side of the head of the bay is drawn less ac- 
curately than the eastern. This inadequate representation is prob- 
ably due to a combination of bad weather, illness, discontent, and 
haste during the two journeys that were made to this region. Al- 
though the representation of the Potomac should be very good since 
Smith spent much time along its shore, the lines represent a greater 
irregularity than actually exists now. 

A dispute has existed as to when the Smith map was drawn, but 
it is now common opinion that it was drawn after June, 1608, and 
that it was ready for shipment back to England before Ho /ember of 
that year. This view is based upon a letter which Smith wrote to 
the Treasurer and Council of Virginia before Captain Newport's 
sailing at that time. 

Smith's representation of the Chesapeake -Bay region was out- 
standing and influenced subsequent maps for nearly two-thirds of 
a century. All maps which wete published from 1609 until the date 
of the publication of Hermann's map were either cribbed from it or 


of a much lower standard, *a Mathews says, "Eo one oan realize 
the oonditions under which Smith made his explorations fend drew. 
his map or study the features there laid down without being im- 
pressed with the wonderful fidelity and geographical sympathy 
with which he recognized end portrayed the principal features 
of the country through whioh he traveled. If all knowledge of 
the region -vere lost it is doubtful if many, even of the highly 
trained topographers with Smith's instruments and methods, could 
spend less than a month in exploring Chesapeake Say and produce 
a sketch of the country which would be as free from distortion 
and exaggeration as the map arewn by Smith in 1608. Yet during 
all of Smith's explorations he was journeying along unknown 
shores, surrounded by a sick and discouraged company, without 
healthy food, and liable to attack from numberless and cruel 
savages. " 

The Lord Baltimore Map, 1635. (Fig. 5) 

This map, titled "Eova Terrae - Mariae tabula", is far be- 

low that of Smith's in accuracy, and tfinsor regards it as a copy. 

But if this is so, the author must have followed Smith by memory, 
for the Baltimore map has different proportions, being distorted 
and more generalized. Little care was exercised in the placing 
of the numerous mountains on the eastern shore, and those found 
in two or three pieces on the western shore, while the outlines 
of the upper bay are poor. There are, however, certain improve- 
ments over Smith. The neck of land south of the Little Choptank 
is more fully delineated, and English names are given to several 
points on the Potomac River. 

1. The Kohl Collection of Kapa relating to -famerica. Bibliographical 
Contributions Ho. 19, Harvard Univ., 1836, p. i>8 


This map is important chiefly from an historical viewpoint. 
The most interesting thing on the map is the dotted line which 
indicates the southern boundary of Lord Baltimore's grant as 
claimed by him. The line, which has entered into all the dis- 
cussions of the disputes over the southern boundary of Maryland, 
runs west from Chincote&gue inlet to somewhere below Smith's point 
and thence along the southern bank of the Potomac. 
The Farrer Map, 1651. (Fig. 6) 

Virginia Farrer, in 1651, drew a msp that was supposed to 
represent this country from a location "neer Florida" to the 
"bounds of Kew England". She was the daughter of John Farrer and 
the niece of Nicolas Farrer, who was at one time connected with 
the Virginia Oompany. She remained a spinster and died in January, 
1687. A mixture of truth, imagination, and possibly willful mis- 
representation, the map has a narrow warped condition. It is in- 
teresting to note the inscription at the top of the map which states 
that " in ten deyes march with 50 foote and SO horsmen from the head 
of Ieames River, ouer those hills and through the rich adiacent 

Vallyes beautyf ied with as proffitable rivers which necessarily 

must run into y peaoofull Indian 3ea". In comparison with Smith's 

map, the eastern shore of the Chesapeake in the Farrer map is much 
more cut up and the western shore is even more poorly drawn. As 
Dr. Mathews states, "it is hardly worth while to discuss in detail 
a map on which the Hudson empties into the sea in the same lati- 
tude as the head of the Chesapeake and rises in a mighty lake which 

empties into the Sea of China and the Indies." 
The Alsop Map, 1666. (Fig. 7} 

The fifth map of Maryland drawn from actual observations by 


the author was published in 1666. This was titled "A Land-Skip 
of the Province of Maryland or the Lord Baltimore Plantation 
neere Virginia by Greo; Algop, Sent:" Born in 1633, ALsop ser- 
ved a two year's apprenticeship to some trade in London. He was 
shipped to Maryland to serve a term as a redemptioner because of 
his outspoken oriticism of Oromwell. Having plenty of money and 
easy masters, he came to know the country in the province through 
his wanderings about it. His reputation arises principally from 
the accuracy of his descriptions of the Indians native to the Pro- 
vince of Maryland. Because of certain peculiarities of spelling, 
this map cannot be considered a cony of either the Smith or the 
lord Baltimore maps, but it is probable that ALsop was familiar 
with them. Its accuracy is below that of Smith's, having rivers 
which lack individuality and whose shore lines bear no relation 
to the natural indentations. Distributed aoout the map are fig- 
ures whioh show the dress of the type of Indians and the kinds of 
animals that might oe encounterea in the Baltimore plantation. 
But the importance of the map lies in the names which are shown 

and whioh h^ve come down to us. "This is the first work based 

on personal information which uses these terms." 

The Herman Map, 1670. (Figs. 8 and 9) 

Is has been stated before, subsequent to the publication of 
the Smith map none was published which approaohed it in faithful- 
ness of cartography until the appearance of the Herman map. But 
this map must be ranked with that of Smith's since it represents 

the highest >rrade of surveying and drafting executed in the colonies 

in the 17th century. The author of this map, Augustine Herman, 

1. "The Maps and Map-Makers of Maryland "-E. B. Mathews, p. ^68 

2. The spelling of this name used here is that adopted by E. j. i.ia thews, 
He gives eleven different spellings, the above being taken from Md. 
Archives t Vol. XV, p. 18. The Hew International Encyclopedia gives 

the name as Herrmann, or Heermans, Or Harman. 


was born in Prague, Bohemia, and after receiving an excellent 
training in modern languages and mercantile life, he entered the 
service of the Dutch ffest India Company. The exact date of his 
birth is in dispute. S. B. Mathews seems to regard 1621 as the 
year he has born, basing his view on a copy of Herman's will, 
but the Hew International Encyclopedia gives 1605, end this seems 
to be the date most commonly accepted. He settled in Hew .Amster- 
dam as early as 1645, took an important share in the civic life 
of the Dutch settlements (being s "Bellectman" of the town and a 
special ambassador of the Dutch governor on numerous occasions), 
and was of much service in regulating the relations of Eew L'ether- 
land with Rhode Island and Maryland. 

He first sesame acquainted with Maryland when he was sent 
as an ambassador of the Dutch governor, leter Btuyvesant, to 
Lord Baltimore over a territorial dispute about the land around 
the Delaware Bay. ihe Council of Mar/land had s^nt Col. Utie to 
force the Dutch to leave this region as it was claime jeing 
within Baltimore's grant. These people immediately sent to jov. 
Btuyvesant a request for aid. -As a result, Herman and Resolved 

Idron were sent to adjust the difficulty. Herman presented the 
case of his Colony with great force and the State of Delaware 
may in some measure owe its existence to the arguments estab- 
lished on that oeeasion. He then departed for Virginia in order 
to gain the good-will of that esolony in his dispute with Maryland, 
but he was unsuccessful in his attempt to stir up trouble between 
tine two. Ihilt in Maryland, however, he had written to Btuyvesant 
suggesting that a map of the head of the bay and that territory 


in dispute "be made, but this suggestion was ignored. Herman was 
so convinced of the advisability of this map that he offered to 
make it for Lord Baltimore in return for a grant of land in his 
province. His offer was accepted, and he removed himself and his 
family to his new estate which he named "Bohemia Manor", situated 
in Ceoil Jounty. 

aq cording to his own account, Herman was engaged in making 
this map over a period of ten years and expended 8 great deal of 
money because of the accuracy which Lord Baltimore expected. When 
finished the map satisfied all of the requirements and even Washing- 
ton stated years later "that it w«*s admirably planned and equally 
well executed". 

The area included in the map extends from the 40th degree of 
north latitude to Horth Carolina and from the Atlantic coast to 
an irregular line in the longitude of Washington and the Great 
Falls of the Potomac. The delineation of the map is good, al- 
though Herman criticized it, claiming that it was "slobbered over" 
by the engraver. It is possible that his criticism referred to 
the conventional and diagrammatic representation of mountains on 
his map, although this is not known, as a definite fact. light 
counties are named but no bo undaries are shown. 

A study of the map shows that the lower neck of the eastern 
shore below the Maryland- Virgin! a ooundary is too narrow and the 
sounds on the eastern side are too broad. It is possible that 
there has been a marked ammount of sedimentation since that time. 
The outlines of the rivers in Somerset county are better than 
those by Smith, although sometimes, as in the case of the Hanti- 
coke, the expression of the curves is not as true to its natural 


form as in the earlier map. The coest line of Dorchester county 
is improved over any former map and the neck between the little 
Choptank and the Chop tank ia particularly well outlined, the de- 
tails increase to such an extent that the map is darkened as the 
territory snproaches Herman's home, Bohemia Manor. The weakest 
portion of the entire delineation is the Potomac above Maryland 
Point. In this region the curves are broad and general, and the 
streams are distorted to suoh a point that they enter the Potomac 
some distance from their present mouths and often run at angles 
to their present direotion. 

A clue as to how the map was prepared is derived from the 
title, "Virginia and Maryland as it is Planted and Inhabited 
this present Year 15 70 surveyed and Exactly Drawne by the Only 
Labour and iiudeavour of -Augustin Herrman Bohemiensis. " i^ore time 
was spent in the preparation of this map than in that of Smith, 
and Herman was evidently a more skilled surveyor and draftsman, 
but he did not possess the geographic sense shown by Smith in 
the preparation of his map, for Herman has a much less clear idea 
of the prominent differences between the topographical features 
of the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Plateau. 

Mathews saya, "From the middle of the eighteenth century 
until after the Civil far the .American map seems to have been 
lost si-rht of, and it was only during the careful searches con- 
ducted by the Virginia Commissioners on the Southern Boundary 
question that it was learned that a copy of the Herman map was 
still extant. A photograph of this rare map was reproduced in a 
report of the /irginla Commission in 1873, but even this report is 
now quite rare, and the appearance of the Herman Map is practical! 
unknown to the inhabitants of Maryland 


The influence of Herman on later works seems to have been 
about equal to that of Smith, since in the minds of the promi- 
nent map and atlas publishers of the last of the 17th and the 
first of the 18th centuries, these two mtn stand as chief author- 
ities for the cartographic representation of the territory on 
either side of the Chesapeake -Say," 

Hoxton's Map of the Chesapeake, 1735. 

For sixty-five years following Herman's map, no important 
large map appeared until one was published by Walter Hoxton, a 
oaptain in the merchant servant between London and Virginia. In- 
scribed on the map is the following statement telling how the 
map was made : 

"In this Draught all the Principal Points, and all 
the Shoals and Soundings are Exactly laid Down, but as I have 
not had Opportunity to Survey all of ye Bays, Rivers, and Creeks, 
I have distinguisht what is my own do in;* by a Shading within the 
line, from the outer part of the Coast which to make this I*iap as 
complete as at present I an able, have borrow' d from the Old 
Map, and are Traced hy a Single line without Shading. M.B. The 
Depths of Jater are set down in Fathoms as farr up as Spes Utie 
Island, but above that in Feet." The waters of the bay are 
covered with figures indicating the results of soundings in the 
channel in several parts of the bay. The map is drawn to the 
scale oi 1 inch equals 5 miles. It is interesting to note that 
in one corner of the map is a large sketch of Herring Bay in the 
scale of 1 inch equals 2 miles. This sketch shows details such 
as houses, soundings, sailing directions, etc. The sketch is dated 
1732 whereas the large map is dated 1/35. 



ffo have been dealing so far with maps that dealt with the 
Chesapeake Bay region and went into considerable detail in the 
representation of the topozraphic festures along its shores. 
But all of these msps showed the western limits of Maryland as 
vague and the features of the tqpoc-raphy in this section were 
poorly delineated. About the middle of the 18th century, the 
settlers began pushing westward encouraged by lord Fairfax who 
placed them on his land. With this growth in the population 
came the natural desire for a more detailed knowledge of the 
country and, as a result, a number of maps were drawn which por- 
trayed the features of the western part of the colony. It is 
interesting to note, however, that most of these maps were drawn 
by Pennsylvanians and Virginians as the Marylanders, in general, 
confined their map-making activities to the Chesapeake Bay region. 
The Mayo Map, 1736-7 

In 173M5 Lord Fairfax asked the King to have his lands sur- 
veyed and their extent determined. He had received these lands 
from Lord Culpeper who had acquired title to much of the territory 
between the Rappahannock and the Potomac Rivers. Fairfax's re- 
quest was granted and six commissioners, representing both Virginia 
and the Crown were appointed. They in turn appointed in 1736 four 
men, Mr, William Mayo, Mr. Robert Brook, Mr. Winslow, and Mr. Savage, 
to survey the "main branch of the Fotowmack river called Cohungoruton 
to the head spring thereof". Their warrants directed them "to begin 
at the Confluence of that River with Sharando and from thence to run 
the Courses, and Measure the Distances thereof to its first Spring; 
And of all this to return an Exact Plat, shewing all the Streams 


running into the same on either side, together with a fair Copy 
of their Feild-Hotes. " They were also to take latitudes and to 
particularly determine where this oransh of the Potomao crossed 
the 40th degree of latitude. The party which executed this work 
was composed of the four surveyors previously mentioned, and 
thirteen a.sistants, six being chain-carriers. They were em- 
ployed at a wage of three shillings per day. .also, surveyors 
were appointed and given the same instructions with regard to 
the Rappahannock's branches. All of these surveys were consoli- 
dated by Mayo, and a map was drawn. This was presented to the 
Commissioners August 3, 1737, 

This is probably the first time that a map had been drawn 
of the entire Potomac and it is from this fact, together with 
the names used on the map, that its importance arises. Mathews 
says, "This sketch likewise embodies the first accurate represent- 
ation of the mountains of Sarrett and Allegany counties." The 
scale of the map is about 1 inch eoutils 12 miles, and includes 
all the territory aetween 37 degrees 45 f-flfrt and 40 decrees . . 
lat. No longitude Is indicated. 

Col. Byrd, one of the commissioners appointed by the King, 
issued a long reoort on the "Dividing line" controversy. Be- 
cause of this, the map has sometimes been called the "Byrd Map". 
The Fry and Jefferson Map, 1751. 

In studying the early maps of Maryland, it con be seen that 
there are three m&ps which exerted great influence; the Smith map, 
the Herman map, and the Fry and Jefferson map. The last was the 
joint produot of Mr. Peter Jefferson and Professor Joshua Fry, 
two Virginia surveyors. 


Born February 23, 1708, Peter Jefferson acquired, an edu- 
cation by studying and reading. He settled in Albemarle oounty 
in 1738 and soon became an important member of the community. He 
was appointed a Justice of the Peace and County Surveyor; and 
between 1745 and 1750 both he and Fry were engaged in surveying 
government grants and the western limits of the "northern neck", 
and in extending the boundary line between Tirginia and Korth 
Carolina. During these surveys they acquired considerable know- 
ledge of this territory. 

Joshua Fry was born in England in the latter part of the 
seventeenth century, and in 1728 became a master in the grammar 
school at Williams burg (later William and Mary College). He 
possessed considerable wealth and a high social position. In 
1745 he was appointed Justice of the Peace and County Surveyor 
of Albemarle County. He died May '61, 1754 on his march against 
Fort Duquesne at which time his command fell to George Washington 
who was his chief militar/ subordinate. 

The map which these two men prepared waa the product of 
their various surveys and, although dated 1751, was probably 
finished in 1749. It includes the territory between Berth 
Carolina and Kew York, Ohio and Maryland. There are many in- 
accuracies in the work and because of a lack of information 
there are many generalizations. In spite of this, however, it 
is a fine achievement and lewis Evans, in oom»enting on his 
own map which appeared at a later date, wrote, "As that Perform- 
ance (Fry and Jefferson's) is very valuable, I contrived mine 
to interfere as little as possible with it." 

The map, a copy of which appeared in "The idmerican Atlas, 


london, 1775", is to a scale of about 1 inch equals 10 miles. 
The excellent character of it cannot be determined from the 
Maryland portion as little appears except names and a few roads 
while the Virginia portion is carefully delineated. In the 1775 
copy two interesting things can be seen: 

1. The simultaneous representation of Baltimore 
on the Bush river and the Baltimore Iron Works 
on the Patapsco; and 

2. The location of a coal mine on the left bank 
of the Potomac not far above the mouth of the 
lavage River. 

The relief is mechanical but the ridges run in a H.S.-3.W. di- 
rection. Of this map, Dr* Mathews says, "From the similarity 
In scale and draughting, as well as the close friendship be- 
tween the authors of this map and the surveyors of the Fairfax 
lands, it is evident that considerable credit should be given 
to William Mayo and his colleagues of the survey of the Northern 
lie ok. Wherever the credit for it should be placed, this map 
has exerted a ?reat influence on the cartographic representation 
of Maryland, and in a irreater degree on that of Virginia, from 
the time of its first publication in 1751 till the work of £Lex- 
ander (1834-40) in Maryland and the survey of Virginia during 

Cresap's Map, 1754. 

The author of this map, Col. Thomas Oresap, was a typical 
frontier settler in the western portion of the Maryland province 
and w^s familiar with the territory through hunting and exploring, 
In 1754 he undertook at the request of the Maryland Council, to 
make a survey of the branches ,of the Potomao but was unable to 
make a satisfactory one because of the outbreak of the French and 


Indian war. However, the little information that was ootained 
during this survey and that obtained through personal knowledge 
of the country were conjoined into a sketch on the scale of about 
1 inch equals 20 miles. It showed a general outline of the north 
and south branches of the Potomac but its importance lies in the 
fact that it settled the question as to whether or not the northern 
bend of that river was north of the Mason and Dixon line. The 
original draft wbs deposited in the Land Office in 1771. 
Evans' Map, 1755. 

lewis Evans, a Pennsylvanian, published in 1755 one of the 
best maps of the latter part of the 18th century. It consisted 
of a compilation of existing information supplemented by personal 
observation and interesting meteorological information which has 
been credited to Benjamin Franklin, Ivans' publisher. The author 
credits Fry and Jefferson and Gapt. Hoxton for the Maryland por- 
tion of the map but adds certain corrections such as the "Breadth 
of the Peninsula from Fenwick's Island to the South Side of little 
Choptank". In addition to this, Evans was enabled through an 
actual survey to correct errors in the position of the great oend 
of the Potomac. It is this fact which serves as a means of dis- 
tinguishing maps based on Evans' work from those based on Fry and 

Griffith's Map, 1794. (Fig. 10) 

This map, drawn by Dennis Griffith, a Philadelphian, is per- 
haps the outstanding map published between that of Fry and Jeffer- 
son and the work of J. H. Alexander about 1840. Hardly any bio- 
graphical information exists about the author. 

Although it is stated in the title that the map was drawn from 


an aotual survey, Mathews thinks it doubtful that more than cer- 
tain portions of the State were visited by him. However, consid- 
erable skill was exercised in the making of the map and as a con- 
sequence it can be very favorably compared with any map yet pub- 
lished of the northern boundary of Maryland. The scale is between 
four and five miles to the inch. There is also a large scale sketch 
on the map of the Federal territory! Distriot of Oolumoia) and this 
is the earliest map of Maryland with which 1 have come in contact 

that contains such a drawing. 


Ho discussion of the maps of Maryland can oe complete without 
some mention of that State's boundary disputes. Although the Bal- 
timore charter was the first that gave definite boundaries, there 
is no other State that has had more arguments over them ( and lost 
more territory through those arguments) than has Maryland. 
The Pennsylvania and Delaware Boundaries. 

The dispute between the Baltimores and the Penns , although 


ver' interesting, is somewhat outside the scope of this thesis, 

which is concerned primarily with the maps of Maryland. Although 

no new maps arose out of this argument, several were of distinct 

Importance in the quarrel. The first was that ^yy 7isschertFig. 11) 

which showed the position of Jape Henlopen incorrectly although 

the Privy Council in 1685 settled the existing dispute between lord 

Baltimore and V/illiam. Penn on the basis of this map,' 

The second of importance is Smith's map which placed the 40th 

parallel ao far south that there was an unallotted strip of land 

between that parallel and the southern boundary of Pennsylv&nia 

1. The detailed discussions of these disputes can be found in the 
reports of the various special committees appointed to settle them. 


if that were placed twenty miles north of Hew Castle. 

ittien Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon ran their line between 

1763 and 1763 no map was published so far as is know as the result 

of that work, which, however, was recorded in very detailed field- 
notes. Gol. Graham's resurvey in 1849-50, which established the 
accuracy of the former work, resulted in a map showing the ^location 
of the points under discussion but no new information was incorpor- 

The Virginia(Southern )Boundary. 

In 1668 Edmund Soarbrough, Surveyor-General of Virginia, and 
Philip Calvert, Chancellor of Maryland, were appointed to establish 
the Virginia-Maryland )oundtry. Ho map was published by them as 
a result of their survey, but several maps were 3t ter drawn which 
showed where this line was established. The most important of these 
was that by John de la Ctrnp, who compiled his from the original maps 
of the survey made in 1858 by ideut. Michler, U. S. Topographical 

ineer. Michler, himself, prepared a duplicate set of maps of his 

worK. Ihe final a-rreement on the boundary, following the Jivil far, 

resulted in no new map but was flatted upon the charts of the U. S, 

Coast Survey. 

Although few maps were drawn because of the southern boundary 

dispute, it did result in the rediscovery of the Herman map and much 

information regarding the preparation and publication of the early 

colonial maps. "I\ T o other subject has caused such an extensive 

searching of the documents relating to Maryland now deposited in 

Europe and iimeric-i." 

Th e 'tfe s t e rn Bo und a ry . 

The earliest contr oversies regarding this boundary resulted 
1. E, B. Mathews - "Maps and Map-makers of Maryland" - p. 429 


in the Cresap map while the Mc-yo map introduced certain geographio 
points whioh have "been in dispute since then. One map has arisen 
from this argument which Wds very accurate and is the best represent- 
ation of the territory involved. This map was the product of the 
work of Lieut. K. Michler, with the assistance of John de la Campe 
and 1. Daser, in 1859-60. The scale of the map is 1 inch equals 
5000 feet and the region represented extends north and south from 
the Fairfax stone to the Meson and Dixon line. The Brown-Bauer sur- 
vey of 1897 showed that the head of the lotomao is not at the Fairfax 
stone but at the head of- laurel Run in lotomao Spring. Assuming 
the lotomsc Spring as the starting point instead of the Fairfax Stone, 
the territory traversed by the line of 1897 is west of that run by 
Michler. This new information was incorporated in a manuscript pre- 
pared for use in court in the Maryland-i/est Virginis dispute. 

As one traces the development of the Map of Lfryland, it can be 
seen that most of the early maps dealt exclusively with the represent- 
ation of the territory surrounding the Chesapeake Say. The first maps, 
those by Ayllon and Ribero, pictured the bay as mere indentations of 
the Atlantic shore line, and no detailed work was attempted. It re- 
mained for Smith, three quarters of a century later, to execute the 
first detailed work of the Chesapeake region. His wag such an excellent 
piece of work that it was not superseded in accuracy for fifty yetrs, 
when Herman's map was published. In the interim between the publication 
of these, several maps were produced 'jvhioh were less accurate but which 
derived their importance from several sources. The Lord Baltimore map 
made certain minor improvements over Smith's and added several iinglish 
names. The Farrer map was the first to je drawn in this country and 


the Alsop map's significance lies in the uae of certain names which. 
have been handed down to us. The influence of the Herman map wss 
felt for three-quarters of a century until the publication of the 
Fry and Jefferson map. It was not until the issuance of the Mayo map 
that any advance was made in the knowledge of the country in the wes- 
tern part of the province, and the Fry and Jefferson map extended this 
knowledge. 3ut even in these maps the territory in the west was 
sketchily represented and it remained for the Griffith map to render 
the slowly acquired knowledge available. This work, too, lacked many 
details which later maps have been gradual], y filling in. 

As one reads between the lines in this development, one sees a 
picture of increased settlement, extending gradually westward, re- 
sulting in a desire for increased knowledge of the ^:eo ;raphy of this 
new territory in which they lived, ^nd it was this uesire coupled 
with the urge for exploration and discovery, which produced the early 
cartographic works of the Jtate of Maryland. 

Map showing extent of settlement when charter of Pennsylvania 
was granted. Settled areas shaded. 

Fig. I 

fc^-^v-W.- '" " 


A Vl ^> 

V\ "Vv \ 


5\ ** 

*\ \ \ — - — -" — JksOvf 

tWw /A 

ipA. V/e\ fi/V /# / 
/\W\ J /A /.? 


rtion of Ayllon's Map, 1627. 





Smith's Map 1608 ( Reduced). 

GHpyt-^rr** if Q>w™fa&m*r RJNouaTERRA-MARL'ttabula 

k , Id A&fnf ytfer-tedfer the, fettfr dtftrvpfisnef 
the entreiy^e oifa (hr 23<sy tf tA^apM^t 

The Lord Baltimore Map, 1635, reduced. 
Shows relation of 40° N. LaL and Chesapeake Bay as held in 1635 by Lord Baltimore. 

fvg. -5 



, 5k T 

37 Occi ,dcn.s S|S 

.HLl , flt lis ^ig 3W I «ib 

- ■ ■ ■ ^ — — i- g--— n — y- i i « — *"* ~™* — ™" '"* MB M **- 




Tlie Sea of China 
and me Indies, 



F'aniC -Jkba cftft. 

Mart land 

Or the 
TfarztatMw- ntere, 
Mfvp Qint: 

Alsop's Map, 1666. 


Herrmann M&p 
Fig. <5 



HEKBMAif's Mai" of Vibginia ahd Maryland, 1670 (Reduced). 

Portion of Herman's tfap, 1070. Orisriiial Scale. 

F/g- 9 

(iriflltV,- Mail i.f Maryland, 1 704, reduced. 

Ft?. /O