nena masthead
NENA Home Staff & Editors For Readers For Authors

Cartographic Evidence for Historical Geomorphological Change and Wetland Formation in Jamaica Bay, New York
Eric W. Sanderson

Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 23, Issue 2 (2016): 277–304

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)


Access Journal Content

Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.

Issue-in-Progress: Vol.30 (1) ... early view

Current Issue: Vol. 29 (4)
NENA 29(4)

All Regular Issues


Special Issues






JSTOR logoClarivate logoWeb of science logoBioOne logo EbscoHOST logoProQuest logo

Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 277 2016 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 23(2):277–304 Cartographic Evidence for Historical Geomorphological Change and Wetland Formation in Jamaica Bay, New York Eric W. Sanderson* Abstract - The apparent stability of urbanized portions of the coast of the northeastern US belies a much longer history of intertwined geomorphological and ecological change. Herein, I compare and contrast a set of 100 maps and charts from 1501 to 1844 of Jamaica Bay, a coastal lagoon located on the southeastern side of New York City. These documents, while requiring careful interpretation and appreciation for historical context, appear to suggest in series that Jamaica Bay was formerly much more open, without the marsh islands that are today the subject of intense scrutiny and restoration. I present a hypothesis regarding the east-to-west progression of the Rockaway Peninsula that in turn led to salt marsh formation in the interior of the bay approximately 200–230 years ago. This cartographic-driven hypothesis is supported by discussion of independent observations from soil cores taken in Jamaica Bay marsh islands. The paper concludes with brief remarks on the relevance of a long-term historical perspective for contemporary restoration and resilience efforts. Introduction Natural history, as the name suggests, is concerned with how organisms and ecosystems change through time (Anderson 2012). Coastal landscapes are particularly fascinating in this regard because their spatial and temporal dynamics require the naturalist to resolve the combined effects of climate change, geomorphological processes, and ecological interactions (e.g., Pilkey et al. 2011, Pittman et al. 2011, Thoreau 1865). For naturalists in the Northeast, those effects may be disguised, literally buried under landfill, modified by dredging, hidden by beach stabilization, or overwhelmed by creeping urbanization—factors that modify but never completely erase natural processes (Boger et al. 2011, Hess and Harris 1987b, Lentz and Hapke 2011). Unaware of the historical dynamics of their properties, millions of people now live in developed coastal zones vulnerable to natural disturbances (Horton et al. 2014, Zhang and Leatherman 2011). Maps and charts from past centuries provide a window into the dynamic history of urban coastlines prior to 20th-century development. Bromberg and Bertness (2005), for example, used 18th- and 19th-century maps to document the loss of coastal tidal wetlands in the Northeast over a 200-y period, finding losses as high as 82% around Boston Harbor. Kirwan et al. (2011) employed historical-map analysis and modeling to show that coastal changes aren’t always the results of loss; salt marshes may also be created inadvertently by human activity (though see Priestas et al. 2012). Sanderson and Brown (2007) deployed a time series of 17th- and 18thcentury maps to show that the area of Manhattan Island has grown nearly 24% since the time of Henry Hudson. *Wildlife Conservation Society - Global Conservation Programs, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460; Manuscript Editor: Glen Motzkin Northeastern Naturalist 278 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 The ability of scholars to access historical maps has been greatly enhanced by recent efforts to digitize and distribute these documents via the internet (Rumsey and Williams 2002). However, those who use these maps for the purpose of understanding natural history need to take into account cartographic history. That is, readers today need to understand who made the maps and for what reason, and have some knowledge of how they were made. Maps and charts are, in a sense, texts that must be read as representations of human perceptions of reality, which may reflect, wittingly or not, biases of method, ideology, and experience (Edney 2005, Harley 1987). For this reason, historical ecologists have tended to gravitate toward 19th- and early 20th-century sources, which were created in ways more recognizably modern than older sources, yet describe landscapes prior to large-scale development (e.g., Grossinger et al. 2005). The US Coast Survey charts, for example, have proven in multiple contexts to be useful for reconstructing historical coastal landscapes (Hess and Harris 1987b, Monroe et al. 1999, Wrayf et al. 1995). For this study, I examined a series of historical maps from the 16th century through the mid-19th century to study the barrier islands, wetlands, and general shape of Jamaica Bay, an urbanized tidal lagoon in the southeastern corner of New York City. I have compiled as complete a set of maps and charts as possible to document Jamaica Bay prior to late 19th- and 20th-century development (Black 1981). This study would have been primarily of academic interest except for an extraordinary event in late October 2012: Hurricane Sandy. This storm caused extensive coastal flooding that damaged property and led to causalities and significant economic disruption (City of New York Office of Emergency Management 2014). Locally affected areas included neighborhoods on the Rockaways, a sand spit that crosses the mouth of Jamaica Bay, and developments constructed on former tidal wetlands, including John F. Kennedy International Airport and the communities of Marine Park, Howard Beach, and Broad Channel. Even prior to Hurricane Sandy, Jamaica Bay was a focus of attention because the marsh islands in its center were rapidly disappearing, taking with them one of the largest and last stretches of tidal marsh remaining in New York City. Hartig et al. (2002) documented a 38% loss in area for some marsh islands between 1974–2001, and a study by the Gateway National Recreation Area (2007) found the rate of loss from 1989 to 2003 averaged 13.35 ha/y (33 ac/y), nearly doubling the already-high rate of ~7.28 ha/y (18 ac/y), observed from 1951 to 1989. To slow the loss, several restoration projects have been initiated to raise the surface elevation of the marsh islands and to replant salt-marsh grass species (Colangelo 2013). Cursory examination of some of the historical maps used for this study as part of the Welikia Project (, suggested that these marshes might be younger than previously supposed. Although this research began as an inquiry into the evolution of Jamaica Bay’s marsh islands, its lasting value probably lies in providing context for momentous decisions being considered now about flood protection and coastal ecology. Several large, multi-million dollar projects are proposed for Jamaica Bay, including the possible construction of flood gates (Schuerman 2015), shallowing of bay channels Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 279 (Orton et al. 2015), and restoration of marsh islands and fringing marshlands (US Army Corps of Engineers 2006). This paper makes the case that any future modifications should take into account the geomorphological and ecological factors that have shaped the bay and its ecosystems for centuries. These historical factors, rather than being made irrelevant by climate change, may in fact become even more important in the future, because coastal environments like Jamaica Bay are dependent on tides, storms, winds, and other aspects of the climate system (Swanson et al., in press). It is difficult to appreciate these long-term factors, however, if one takes a short-term perspective that only looks back a few decades. Knowledge of Jamaica Bay’s long and interesting natural history, as revealed through study of historical maps, can increase understanding of how the climate has and may continue to shape the Bay’s ecosystems. Field-site Description Jamaica Bay (centered at 40°36'1''N, 073°50'07''W) is a tidal lagoon protected by a sand beach–dune barrier system (variously termed the Rockaway Peninsula, Rockaway Neck, Rockaway Spit, and “the Rockaways”), which divides the bay from lower New York Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 1). The bay formed as Figure 1. A schematic map of the Jamaica Bay coastline in New York City. Various geographic features mentioned in the text are indicated. Data on the shoreline (ca. 2015), wetlands (ca. 2009), and streets (ca. 2012) are from the City of New York (htpps:// Northeastern Naturalist 280 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 a result of erosion, deposition, and glacial action, particularly the late Wisconsin Glacial Episode, which created a terminal moraine across Long Island. The morraine provided the outwash sediments that created Jamaica Bay some 20,000 years ago (Buxton and Shernoff 1995), possibly by a diversion of the Hudson River (Stanford 2010). The Rockaway Peninsula, Coney Island, and associated beaches are the western extension of the 161-km-long (100-mile-long) system of barrier islands that runs from Brooklyn, NY, to Montauk, NY, along the south shore of Long Island (Psuty et al. 2010). Studies at Fire Island, NY, and elsewhere along the south shore indicate that these barrier islands formed in their current location some 4000 years ago and have been continuously reworked by the prevailing east-to-west along-shore current, rising sea levels, atmospheric and tidal dynamics, and coastal storms (Lentz and Hapke 2011, Tanski 2012). Leatherman (1989) showed that tidal inlets, opened periodically by storm events, create sediment traps causing beach erosion west of the inlets. Over time, the balance of erosion and accretion leads to movement of the islands (Hess and Harris 1987a, b), which in turn creates protected lagoons suitable for the formation of salt marshes. Within Jamaica Bay, as in other parts of the Northeast coast, salt marshes form in zones protected from wave action and within intertidal elevations, between mean sea level and the highest high tide (Edinger et al. 2014). Temperate lagoon marshes like those on Jamaica Bay can be thought of as occurring in 3 distinct geomorphological settings (cf. Oertel and Woo 1994): mainland marshes, interior island marshes, and back-dune marshes. Jamaica Bay’s mainland and backdune marshes have mostly been filled by human activities over the last 100–150 years (Black 1981), leaving most of the remaining marshland in Jamaica Bay as island marshes. Methods In this study, I used historical maps and charts (hereafter, referred to collectively as maps) to examine the historical patterns of change in and around Jamaica Bay, including coastal barrier islands and peninsulas, and fringing coastal marshes and marsh islands. I searched for maps in the following secondary sources: Allen (1991, 1997), Burden (1996, 2007), Cohen and Augustyn (1997), Cumming et al. (1972), Delaney (2014), Gosselink (2009), Marshall and Peckham (1976), Mc- Corkle (1999), Suárez (1992), Schwartz and Ehrenberg (1980), and Stokes (1915, 1916). I also searched the on-line archives of the Library of Congress (www.loc. gov/maps/), Norman B. Leventhal Center at the Boston Public Library (maps., The Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal Map Division at the New York Public Library (, The John Carter Brown Map Library at Brown University (, and the David Rumsey Map Collection (www., using the search terms “New York”, “New York City”, “Long Island”, “Brooklyn”, “Queens”, and “Jamaica Bay.” I included in my analysis some of the first European maps of the region from the 16th century, up to the famous Chart of New York Harbor, prepared by the US Coast Survey under the supervision of F.R. Hassler in 1844. Hassler’s map set a new standard for scientific mapping for the New York City region (Allen 1998, Guthorn 1984) and shows a recognizably Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 281 modern form of Jamaica Bay, with the Rockaway Peninsula, marsh islands, and mainland marshes. An early 20th-century map and a modern satellite image are provided for comparison, Pritchett (1900) and Simmon (2011), respectively. To be included in the study, maps had to show Long Island, Staten Island, Sandy Hook, Manhattan Island, and/or the Verrazano Narrows. These features are of similar geographic size to Jamaica Bay, so can be considered proxies for the kinds of features a cartographer might attempt to document. This restriction generally limited the inquiry to regional and local maps and charts at scales finer than 1:4,000,000 (i.e., maps of the Northeast coast or smaller extents), except in the 19th century, from which I considered only maps with scales finer than 1:1,000,000 (Fig. 2). Historically maps were printed from plates, which might be updated over time, with new information or new decorative details; these map variants are referred to as “map states”. Not all states of all maps were considered; rather, I attempted to identify the earliest possible state of each map or chart. Although I might have missed some maps, my goal was to assemble as complete a time series of early cartographic documents as possible. Supplementary file 1 (see Supplemental File 1, available online at http://www., and for BioOne subscribers, at lists maps by the cartographer’s last name, if known, or by the publisher’s or engraver’s name, and the date of publication, title, map scale, archive and catalog number, and on-line reference (if available). I used the map scale given on the map, or if no scale was given, I used Figure 2. Scale of maps and charts of Jamaica Bay from 1614 to 1844. Note that map scales indicated by the asterisk (*) were excluded from the study. The two 16th-Century maps discussed in the text are not shown. Northeastern Naturalist 282 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 the scale estimated by the library or archive cataloger. If neither source provided a scale, I estimated the map scale by measuring the modern geographic extent of the map in an east–west direction and compared that value to the width of the manuscript or printed map. To contextualize the maps and support interpretation, I drew on the extensive scholarship of David Allen (1991, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2011), Phillip Burden (1996, 2007), Isaac Newton Phelps Stokes (1915, 1916) and others cited in the main text and in Supplemental File 1 (available online at http://www.eaglehill. us/NENAonline/suppl-files/n23-2-N1452-Sanderson-s1, and for BioOne subscribers, at Additional notes about the historical cartography of Jamaica Bay are provided in the supplemental file . I prepared detail views for each map that showed the lower harbor of New York, from the base of Sandy Hook to the terminal moraine of western Long Island in the north–south direction, and Jamaica Bay to Staten Island in an east–west direction. From these detail maps, I summarized indications of the representation of Jamaica Bay over time, including the presence of a (a) large rounded lagoon or bay along the southwestern shore of Long Island (i.e., Jamaica Bay, whether named or not); (b) barrier-island peninsula on the southern side of the bay or lagoon, to the west, east, and fronting the bay (i.e., Coney Island, Plumb Beach, Barren Island, the Rockaway Peninsula, whether named or not); (c) the presence of fringing tidal marshes along the mainland edge of Jamaica Bay; and (d) and tidal-marsh islands in the interior of the bay. When maps labeled features, I noted the name as well as tracing the possible sources of the information shown on the maps (Appendix 1). I named recurring geographic representations of Jamaica Bay as described below. Results I located 100 maps or charts of the Jamaica Bay region dated from 1502 to 1844 that putatively show Jamaica Bay and the geographic features of interest (Appendix 1). Maps ranged in scale from ~1:6,700,000 to 1:20,000, with map scale generally increasing over time. These changes in scale produced maps that were increasingly “zoomed in” over time and show more detail over a smaller area (Fig. 2). 16th-century maps: A round, open bay of uncertain identification Most 16th-century maps, while fascinating, are too coarse to be of much use for this study, with the possible exception of 2 maps that have been highlighted by others (Allen 2011, Bassett 1967, Stokes 1915). The Cantino Planisphere shows a large land-mass in its extreme northwest corner that has been variously identified as Cuba, Florida, the Yucatan, and even Asia, but Allen (1997) argued that it shows the eastern shoreline of North America (also see Harrisse 1891, Molander 1989). If that is the case, the map shows a clearly defined, open, concave bay (possibly Jamaica Bay), beside a bay or river mouth (possibly New York Harbor). If so—and it is difficult to know given the scale of the map—this map is the first one in the history of cartography to depict these features. Ramusio (1606) published the Gastaldi Map of “New France,” and reputedly based his depiction on information from Giovanni Verrazanno, who visited Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 283 the lower part of New York Harbor in 1524. The Gastaldi Map shows 2 bays, immediately adjacent to each other, divided by a narrow strait. The eastern side is labeled “Angoulsme” or Angouleme, the name Verazzano gave to Long Island, which he called “New France”, in honor of his patron. The other bay may be the lower harbor and/or Jamaica Bay. It shows a large, round, concave bay with markings that may indicate marshes, islands, rocks, or shoals. Although intriguing, these 16th-century maps cannot be given much weight because the details of the journeys are poorly known, map-making was rudimentary and evocative, and the scale is very small (i.e., details about marshes, islands, or even bays might easily have been omitted, even if observed). However, in the 17th century both technique and access to the landscape by mapmakers greatly improved. 17th-century maps: Evolving geographic representations of Jamaica Bay At least 52 different maps created by Dutch, English, and colonial cartographers in the 17th century show the western end of Long Island, including Jamaica Bay. These maps show the bay or bay-like features in at least 5 different ways, as summarized below and in Appendix 1. These representations, in rough chronological order, show improved understanding of the geography of the New York City region and suggest geomorphological change in this period. They include Jamaica Bay as: A river or inlet bisecting western Long Island; An open, more or less concave, coastline; A round bay with peninsula or barrier island system on either side of an open mouth; A rectangular or triangular bay, with a wider interior and a relatively narrow mouth or inlet; or An even coastline with no indication of a bay Figure 3 (following 3 pages). Map details showing Jamaica Bay and lower New York Harbor on selected maps, charts, and 1 satellite image created between ca. 1614 and 2011. These details are shown at a variety of different scales and oriented with north toward the top of the figure; arrows point to Jamaica Bay or its location. Bibliographic details including original map scale and catalog information for Figs. 3A–P are summarized in Appendix 1 in the supplemental text (see Supplemental File 1, available online at http://, and for BioOne subscribers, at All images are in the public domain or are licensed for non-commercial or scholarly purposes. Map reproductions are courtesy of: A—Nationaal Archief, The Hague, The Netherlands; B, C, G, J, K, I, and M—Map and Geography Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; D and I—Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library, Boston, MA; E—John Carter Brown Library at Brown University, Providence, RI; F—Map and Geographic Information Center at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT; H—Biblothèque nationale de France, Paris, France; N, O, and P—David Rumsey Map Collection (; Q—NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey Historical Map and Chart Collection (; and R—NASA’s Earth Observatory (http://earthobservatory.nasa). Northeastern Naturalist 284 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 Figure 3A–F. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 285 Figure 3G–L. Northeastern Naturalist 286 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 Figure 3M–R. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 287 The earliest 17th-century map of the New York City region is attributed to Adriaen Block, the so-called “First Figurative” Map of 1614 (Fig. 3A; Stokes 1916). Allen (1991) noted that Block captured the overall proportions of Long Island reasonably well and said that, “The precocious accuracy of his chart comes in part from the fact that Block was one of the few 17th-century Dutch cartographers of New Netherland who based his map on observations actually made on site.” That said, Block made some mistakes. For example, Block’s map (Fig. 3A) shows a river or an inlet bisecting western Long Island, a geographic misinterpretation that was repeated by copying cartographers throughout the 17th century (Appendix 1). Bassett (1967) suggested that Block possibly conflated Jamaica Bay, which he might have seen when approaching New York Harbor, and Flushing Bay, which he might have seen sailing out through Long Island Sound 9 months later. The geographic idea that Long Island was an archipelago of islands, referred to as the “Gebroken Lands” persisted long after it was discredited by facts on the ground (Allen 1997), perhaps because it was conflated with another set of “Broken Lands”, the salt marsh complex surrounding Barren Island at the western edge of Jamaica Bay (Black 1981), or possibly the system of barrier islands and inlets on the south shore of Long Island surrounding the Great South Bay. A contemporary of Block, Cornelis Hendricks, provided a different, but roughly contemporaneous, representation of the southwestern shore of Long Island on the socalled “Second Figurative Map” (Stokes 1915) from ca. 1616. This map shows only a south-facing concavity where Jamaica Bay would presumably be; in other words, there is no bay, only an extended, concave coast. Hendricks’s map clearly shows Sandy Hook, but does not show the Rockaway Peninsula, a similar kind of formation, which seems odd if the Rockaways were as prominent then as they are now. Hendricks’s “concave coast” representation is similar to 3 other maps drawn in the 1630s, by settlers or close informants from New Amsterdam, which was founded in 1624: Peter Minuit’s (1639?) map (Fig. 3C, possibly drawn as early as 1631; see Dunn 1992), the Anonymous “Manatus” map of 1639 (Fig. 3D; see Cohen and Augustyn, 1997), and Vinckbooms (1639; see Stephenson 1984). These 3 maps give place names and locations of settlements and Indian villages and were the first to identify Coney Island, labeled either as “Blommaerts Punt” or “Conye Eylant”. Jamaica Bay, its marshes, and the Rockaway spit, are not shown. Similarly coastal features appear on maps by Doncker (1665), Daniel (1679), and Lindstrom (1691), which may be derivative. Dudley (1646) and Jacobsz (ca. 1650) are more complete and show a concave coast and an inlet representation, with the inlet displaced slightly east. Jamaica Bay as a “Round Sound”. A third representation of Jamaica Bay appears in the mid- to late 17th century after first appearing on the famous, and much copied, Jansson map of 1651, the grandfather of the so-called Jansson-Visscher family of maps (Campbell 1980). Jansson’s 1636 map largely follows Gerritz (1630) and Block (1614), but his 1651 chart, while at a similar scale to Gerritiz’s, includes a much-revised version of Jamaica Bay (Fig. 3D). While still not named, the map shows a round bay with a dotted field that seems to correspond to the fringing salt Northeastern Naturalist 288 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 marshes along the shore, including 4 tidal channels draining the northern marshes; it is the first map in history to document these features as well as the inland extent of the Hempstead Plains grassland (Harper 1912). Two peninsulas curve like arms toward the bay, both trending from the northeast to the southwest, and 2 small sets of dots suggest shoals in the mouth of the bay. Campbell (1980) writes that Jannson’s map “was the most up-to-date and detailed map of the region available,” and, at least for this area, the map suggests that the cartographer had access to new, more accurate information not available to earlier mapmakers. Campbell (1980) documented 28 maps or map states that were derived from Jansson’s original, all of which show Jamaica Bay as relatively open, with fringing wetlands, no marsh islands, and a short peninsula on the eastern edge (Appendix 1). Strikingly similar to Jansson’s depiction, but independently created, is Long Iland Sirvaide by Robart Ryder from 1679 (Fig. 3E). His map is thought to be the first map of colonial America based on an actual survey (Allen 1997, Black 1970). Ryder labeled a large, round, open bay as “Jamaica Sound”, and a spit on the southeast side of the sound as “Rookoway”. Like Jansson, Ryder also indicated a shoal between “Rookoway” and the western shore. On Thornton’s maps of 1685 and 1689, and Morden’s map of 1680, Jamaica Bay is shown as more rectangular than round in shape, with curved coastal projections on either side of the mouth. Jansson’s, Thornton’s, Morden’s, and Ryder’s maps suggest an increasing level of knowledge about the barrier islands at the mouth of Jamaica Bay. Pieter Goos’ map of 1656 suggests that the mouth of the bay may have been closing because of the advance of the barrier islands. Goos, a much admired if somewhat derivative Dutch nautical chart maker (Allen 1997, Cohen and Augustyn 1997), introduced a new representation of Jamaica Bay as an inverted triangle open to the sea, wider at the interior than at the mouth—reminiscent of the shape of a whale’s tail—and repeated this depiction on a second map from 1672. The narrowing of the mouth may reflect growth of the barrier islands, though such islands are not clearly delineated. On the map, Jamaica Bay appears small relative to other features and too far east, but is identified as “Rechkewach”, a Lenape name associated with the bay, and possibly the name of a Lenape leader (Grumet 1981). The whale’s tale representation is repeated on later Dutch maps by Roggeveen (1675), van Kuelen (1682; Fig. 3F, note indications of wetlands), and Doncker (1688). Toward the end of the 17th century, the English cartographer, John Sellers (1675a, 1676) began drawing Jamaica Bay as 1 or more interior lakes or bays connected to the coast by rivers. He may have been confusing Lake Ronkonkoma, in central Long Island with Jamaica Bay, and/or his maps may represent observed changes in coastal morphology that nearly closed off Rockaway Inlet. Allen (1997) suggested Sellers may have been working in part from a manuscript in the collection of the British Library made by a Long Island settler, John Scott, around 1668, which I was unable to examine. Seller’s contemporaneous map of “New Jarsay” (Seller 1675b) depicts both versions simultaneously, showing a western bay as a “Round Sound”, beside an interior lake to the east. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 289 Philip Wells surveyed New York Harbor in the early 1680s and created a chart that shows a rounded rectangular-shaped Jamaica Bay, slightly longer in the north–south than east–west direction, and shaped somewhat like an inverted letter “U”. This rendering might be a variant on the whale’s tail representation described previously, or reflect ongoing geomorphological changes. Rather than showing an extension of the eastern Rockaway Peninsula, Wells’ chart shows an island or peninsula protruding on the west side of the mouth of the bay to the south, perhaps an early depiction of Barren Island or Plumb Beach. This representation was repeated several times over the next 50 years. 18th-century maps: A consensus on an oblong, protected lagoon emerges Mapmaking slowed in the early 18th-century in the English colony of New York; I located only 25 maps created from 1700 to 1768, even as the representation of Jamaica Bay on maps stabilized as a round bay with fringing wetlands and 1 or 2 inlets connecting the bay and ocean. Eighteenth-century English maps of Jamaica Bay prior to 1730 were largely derivative of their late 17th-century precedents. The anonymous map of 1706, and maps prepared by Homan (1716), Moll (1730), and Southack (1734; Fig. 3G) all show an inverted “U”-shaped Jamaica Bay, similar to Morden’s (1680) depiction, with greater or lesser constriction at the inlet connecting to the sea. They also showed an increasing appreciation of the barrier islands on the south shore of Long Island, marked as sandy beaches, and inclusion of backbay lagoons. Southack’s map (Fig. 3G) for example, clearly showed a south-shore beach, but not a bar across the mouth of Jamaica Bay. The enigmatic Carwitham Plan (1735; Fig. 3H) and Tiddeman’s Chart (1737; Fig. 3I) show a Jamaica Bay that hearkens back to Jansson (1651) and Ryder (1679), but with more detail and apparent knowledge than shown on those smallerscale maps. Both maps show a prominent island, “Baren Island” (as labeled on Carwitham 1735), aligned with the “Rockaway Neck”, and an oblong, elliptical bay, approximately twice as long in the east–west direction as along the north–south axis. Pre-war maps by Mead and Jeffreys (1755; Fig. 3N) and Holland (1768) show similar depictions. The most detailed maps of Jamaica Bay in the 18th-century were created during the American Revolution by British military cartographers doing remarkable work in the New York theatre (Sanderson 2009). Interpreting Des Barres (1777a; Fig. 3K), Blaskowitz (1782), and an anonymous cartographer in 1781 (Fig. 3L) demonstrates the importance of taking into account the surveyor’s intent. Blaskowitz (1782) and the map prepared anonymously (1781) were clearly prepared for the army and were intended to instruct troop movements on land, with an emphasis on topography and marshlands; whereas, Des Barres (1777a,b) was a naval hydrographer concerned with navigability in shallow coastal waters, emphasizing the coastline and subsurface features on his chart. In this case, the army and navy agreed that at the time of the Revolution, there was a large, round, mostly island-less bay, with extensive fringing marshes, 1 or more barrier islands, and the Rockaway Neck. Des Barres’ (1777a; Fig. 3K) chart from the Atlantic Neptune has a new feature in Jamaica Bay: an interior marsh island clearly drawn behind and inside of the Northeastern Naturalist 290 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 Rockaway Peninsula, the first such indication in the cartographic history of the bay. Small hachures similar to those shown on other upland areas indicate the island was high enough to be unnavigable. Notably, on a smaller-scale chart from the same volume, Des Barres (1777b) doesn’t show Jamaica Bay at all, perhaps because it was inaccessible to deeper-draft ships at the time. Revolutionary-era maps show differing degrees of closure at the mouth of Jamaica Bay. Some maps, like Bowles (1776) and Roman (1777), show an open bay with stubby protrusions on the eastern and western edges. Holland (1768), Montresor (1775), Faden (1777), Des Barres (1777a), Blaskowitz (1782), and others show a more closed bay, with an island (labeled “Plumb Island” on Faden’s map) and Rockaway Neck closing off the bay to oceanic influence, except for 2 inlets in the center and western sides of the mouth. Broadly similar if somewhat cruder representations of Jamaica Bay were shown on contemporaneous American maps like Eriskine (1779) and Norman (1789). 19th-century maps: Marsh islands appear in the interior of Jamaica Bay The pace of mapmaking slowed immediately after the Revolution, but picked up again with the publication of the important and impressively detailed map of New York State by Simeon De Witt in 1802 (Fig. 3M; see Allen 2008). De Witt’s map shows Rockaway Neck, Barren Island and a rounded outline of the bay, similar to late 18th-century maps, though in De Witt’s work, Barren Island is aligned on a north–south axis, protruding outside the general east–west front of Rockaway Neck and Plumb Beach/Coney Island, suggestive of further geomorphological change since the Revolution (compare to, e.g., Des Barres [1777a]). Within the Bay, 2 large, elongated islands are shown in the eastern interior, and 3 or 4 smaller ones near the mouth of Grassy Bay. Fifteen tributary streams, likely tidal creeks, are shown flowing into the bay. It is striking to compare De Witt’s (1802) map (Fig. 3M) with Eddy’s (1811) representation (Fig. 3N), published only 9 years later. Eddy’s map is at a much larger scale, focusing only on the area within 48.3 km (30 mi) of New York City. Eddy’s map shows 8 marsh islands scattered across the interior of Jamaica Bay, the 2 largest corresponding in general location to those shown by De Witt. These features are recognizably marshes both because the symbols that depict them are also used for nearby fringing marshes, and because a label reads “Salt marsh”. Barren Island, as shown on De Witt (1802), still protrudes into the ocean, but the map also shows a northwest–southeast-trending appendage labeled as “Pelican Bar”. “Rockaway Inlet”, to the east of Barren Island, is by far the more prominent of the 2 inlets shown, with a shallow bar crossing the inlet; “Plumb Inlet” to the west of Barren Island is also indicated. The shift between De Witt’s 1802 version of Barren Island and Eddy’s 1811 rendering almost certainly represents geomorphological evolution of the barrier-island system, hinted at on earlier maps, but here revealed clearly. The interior marsh islands shown on Eddy’s map are shown on nearly all subsequent 19th-century maps, including Damerum (1815), Randel (1821), Blunt (1827), Gordon (1828), and Burr (1829). Blunt’s (1828) chart is meant for navigational purposes and shows a continuing evolution of the Jamaica Bay barrier. On this Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 291 map, Barren Island has been eroded away except for the portion in the interior bay, and now lies behind “Pelican Beach”, which is aligned parallel to Rockaway Neck. Shoals are shown in the interior of the Rockaway Inlet, and on either side, with indications of depth. Eddy’s map was updated and reissued after his death by John Disturnell in 1839 (Fig. 3O), including an annotation of “New Inlet, Opened Jan. 1839”, beside a breach through the central portion of Rockaway Peninsula. The former “Pelican Beach” on Eddy (1811) has been reduced to a subsurface “Pelican Bar” by 1839. The marsh islands are similar but different in detail and number from those shown on Eddy (1811). As part of the efforts of the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, Renard’s (1835) manuscript map produced the most detailed survey of the marsh islands to date and included fringing marshes and back-dune marshes along the Rockaway Beach. Renard’s work and that of others culminated in Hassler’s (1844) Chart of New York Harbor (Fig. 3P), which shows a recognizably modern Jamaica Bay, with a Rockaway barrier island, back marshes, marsh islands, and extensive fringing marshes. The US Coast Survey produced several more maps showing the evolution of Jamaica Bay through the latter half of the 19th-century (discussed in Swanson et al. 2016; Hess and Harris 1987a, b), and as shown on Pritchett (1900; Fig. 3Q). In latter half of the 20th century, Jamaica Bay’s geomorphology has been influenced by addition of landfill, beach stabilization, and progressive marsh loss (Simmon 2011; Fig. 3R). Based on preliminary analysis from the Welikia Project, Handel et al. (in press) report that Jamaica Bay lost ~63% of its marshlands relative to reconstructions from the early 17th century and 76% of the areal extent observed in the late 19th century. A report by Gateway National Recreation Area (2007) predicted that all the marsh islands might disappear by 2012 if nothing was done, and though that dramatic reinstatement of the historic condition has not come to pass, serious worries remain about the future fate of wetlands in Jamaica Bay (Handel et al., in press). Meanwhile the Rockaways have been stabilized and colonized for homes and neighborhoods that face Atlantic storms like Hurricane Sandy on a barrier island. Discussion This study provides cartographic evidence that since people began making and printing maps, Jamaica Bay and its associated coastal landscape features have passed through several configurations consistent with the modern concept of barrier- island dynamics and processes of wetland formation and loss (Appendix 1). The earliest written account of the bay comes from Robert Juet, Henry Hudson’s first mate, who described entering lower New York harbor in September 1609: “At three of the clocke in the after-noone [on September 3, 1609], wee came to three great Riuers. We stood along to the Northermost, thinking to haue gone into it, but we found it to haue a very shoald barre before it, for we had but ten foot water” (Juet 1609 quoted in Purchas 1625). Northeastern Naturalist 292 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 It appears that as he sailed around Sandy Hook in 1609, Hudson saw Jamaica Bay, the Verrazanno Narrows, and Raritan Bay as 3 great “rivers” emptying from the coast, north to south, respectively. He tried the northernmost, but “a very shoald barre” (i.e., a very shallow bar) prevented their passage into what we now call Jamaica Bay. This same “river” was probably mistaken by Adrian Block in 1614 as an inlet that cut across Long Island, a mistake that was propagated in derivative maps throughout the 17th century. Interpretation of historical maps, especially early ones, is always difficult because one needs to try to envision the landscape as seen through the eyes of the explorer and/or cartographer; often those 2 people are not the same. Many of the maps I examined for this study represent composite representations of geographic features, which is why it is important to trace the inter-relatedness of maps as information moves between people and changes through the process. Mapmakers clearly had different sources, and better sources, over time. Map scales varied dramatically over the period examined (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, it appears that despite problems of scale and interpretation, one can construct a narrative of change from the time of the Hudson and Block expeditions to Hassler’s landmark map in 1844 and beyond. It appears Juet, Hudson, and Block saw not a narrow inlet into Jamaica Bay as we know it today, but rather a much more open bay, as shown on the map made by the cartographer of the Cantino Atlas (1500), Gastaldi (1556), and Hendricks (1616). Hendricks observed an open, curved coast that was mapped similarly on early manuscript maps by Minuit (1639?), Vinckbooms (1639), and the anonymous “Manatus” map of 1639. These early 17th-century maps appear to have been produced by people living in New Amsterdam who had reason to know the local coastline (Dunn 1992), yet failed to map the Rockaway Peninsula or marsh islands in the interior of the bay. These maps consistently note Sandy Hook and wetlands near Manhattan, indicating that these kinds of features were within the cartographic vocabulary of those who created them. By the mid-17th century, the Dutch were well established in the New York City region and along Jamaica Bay. Property agreements with the Native Americans testify to the settler purchases in “Flat Lands” in 1636 and the presence of nearby salt meadows or marshes fringing the bay (Black 1981). These agreements appear to refer to the same fringing wetlands shown on the mainland shore of Jamaica Bay on Jansson’s map (1651), which also shows several streams entering the bay from the east, north, and west. Jansson’s (1651) map provides the first suggestions of the westward advance of Rockaway Neck. Modern studies have suggested that the prevailing east-to-west current along shore on the south side of Long Island is important for geomorphological change (cf., Lentz and Hapke 2011), expressed here as westward extension of the Rockaway Peninsula (Black 1981; Hess and Harris 1987a, b). By the time of the Ryder surveys in the 1670s, “Rookaway” neck appears to have stretched nearly halfway across the mouth of Jamaica Bay. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 293 The advance of the Rockaways, and perhaps separately the formation of barrier islands and/or beaches, to the west, around Barren Island and Coney Island, may explain the “whale’s tail” representation of Jamaica Bay on Goos (1666) and other late 17th-century maps, where a round bay with marginal islands and/or peninsulas is transformed into a triangular or rectangular bay with a constricted entrance. Over time the “whale’s tail” becomes more like an inverted “U”, with the width of Jamaica Bay is shown as generally narrower than the length of the bay’s north–south axis. By the time the Carwitham and Tiddeman charts were produced in the 1730s, Jamaica Bay had changed again. By that time, there were 2 inlets, 1 on each side of Barren Island, and the Rockaway Neck/Barren Island/Plumb Beach/Coney Island structure can be clearly read as an extension of a barrier-island system that continues eastward. Jamaica Bay is depicted as an elliptical oblong, longer in the east–west direction than the north–south. A consensus representation of Jamaica Bay developed in the mid-18th century that was repeated by naval hydrographers and army cartographers associated with the British military. Maps produced between 1775 and 1783 show the fringing mainland marshes, and the barrier islands and beaches, but no interior islands, with the exception of 1 small island or sand bar suggestively shown on Des Barres chart from 1777 (Des Barres 1777a). Des Barres’s bar or island presages the cartographic appearance of marsh islands in the interior of the bay on early 19th-century maps, beginning with De Witt (1802) and Eddy (1811) and continuing on Hassler (1844), other US Coast Survey maps, and modern representations. De Witt (1802) shows a few islands in the east, Eddy (1811) shows them in the center bay, and Hassler (1844) shows them occupying most of the central portions of bay, behind an extensive Rockaway Peninsula that extends seaward of Barren Island. What could explain as rapid an expansion of wetlands in the early 19th century as suggested by the map series? The null hypothesis would be there was no expansion, but rather that the wetlands were always there and were missed or ignored by previous mapmakers over a 300-year period. Indeed, the difficulties of historical cartography make it fairly easy to explain why any one of the maps from 1500 to 1802 fail to show islands. Cartographers may have been indifferent to internal marsh islands (or indeed any salt marshes, despite their economic uses; see Casagrande 2006). Many 16th–18th-century maps are drawn at a scale where one would not expect ecosystem features like marshlands to be shown, though there is not a clear-cut relationship between map scale and map age (Fig. 2). Two maps from the 17th century (Anonymous 1639, Hubbard 1666) and 5 from the 18th century are drawn at scales greater than 1:100,000. Moreover, Jansson (1651) drawn at ~1:1,800,000 demonstrates that fringing wetlands can be included even at scales associated with large regions. An alternative hypothesis for the formation of interior marsh islands can be derived by considering the ecology of salt marsh formation. Broad areas in the intertidal zone protected from erosive waves, which can wash away the substrate into which marsh-plants root, are needed for salt marsh formation (Schwimmer 2001). Jamaica Bay was probably quite shallow in the period considered. Juet’s journal Northeastern Naturalist 294 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 mentions a sand bar, and a bay on the south shore of Long Island would be a trap for sediments (Leatherman 1989). Those sediments, deposited by the alongshore current, could have driven the expansion of the Rockaway spit to the west, associated with the formation and/or expansion of Barren Island/Plumb Island (Hess and Harris 1987a). In turn, these structures would have created a barrier to oceanic wave action in Jamaica Bay. We lack quantitative evidence of the bathymetric depths in the interior of Jamaica Bay until the 2nd-half of the 19th century, so it is difficult to assess sediment supply and dynamics before 1844. There are only 2 possible sources of sediment: marine-derived sediments coming in through the tidal inlets (Leatherman 1989, Roman et al. 2007), and terrestrially derived sediments, which may have increased with the introduction of European-style agriculture in the 1630s, including the harvesting of salt hay from mainland marshes (Kirwan et al. 2012). Distinguishing between the null hypothesis and the hypothesis of linked geomorphological change and wetland formation is problematic using only the cartographic records at hand. However, an independent line of evidence comes from the sediment cores taken in the Jamaica Bay interior marsh-island marshes, described briefly here. In 2000, Dorothy Peteet and colleagues from Columbia University took soil cores in JoCo Marsh, in the eastern part of Jamaica Bay near John F. Kennedy Airport, and at Yellow Bar Marsh in the west-central part of the Bay (see Fig. 1; Peteet and Lieberman 2000, Peteet et al. 2008). Although core results are preliminary (D. Peteet, Columbia University, New York, NY, pers. comm.), they appear to be broadly consistent with the cartographic evidence presented. Pollen, foraminifera, and organic material (as indicated by loss-onignition studies, which show a 3- to 6-fold increase in organic material from bottom to top of the cores), suggest the development of the JoCo and Yellow Bar marsh islands occurred sometime after European settlement, which contrasts with salt marshes on Staten Island that have been dated back to 11,000 ybp (Peteet et al. 2007). The ancient Staten Island marshes are clearly shown on Eddy (1811), various Revolutionary era maps, and the Carwitham Plan (1737). Dating of more recent parts of the Jamaica Bay cores is less certain, but the existing results are not inconsistent with the cartographic evidence presented here suggesting that the establishment of visible marshes occurred concurrently with the extension of the Rockaway Peninsula to the west (Black 1981; Hess and Harris 1987a, b). More work is needed, however, on the sedimentary evidence for landscape change in Jamaica Bay, including analysis of sources and amounts of sediment derived from terrestrial and marine sources. If the Rockaways provide a protective environment for salt marsh formation, then why have marshes been progressively lost in the 20th century (Hartig et al. 2002), with the Rockaways intact? The exact mechanism remains unknown, but there are several hypotheses, all connected with the massive urbanization and industrialization of the Jamaica Bay watershed in the 20th century (Handel et al., in press). These factors include dredging of the bay for navigation purposes and landfill, bulkheading of the shoreline, channelization and sewerage of the freshwater Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 295 tributaries, increased motorboat traffic, sea-level rise, and changes in water quality and marsh chemistry as the result of effluent from 4 water-treatment facilities (see summaries in Gateway National Recreation Area 2007; Sanderson et al., in press). Although we cannot trace their existence back to a time before European contact, salt marshes in the New York City region provide ecosystem services and wildlife habitat which has been rendered more critical due to past destruction and continued threats to these systems. These features, like the city surrounding them, should be considered novel ecosystems (sensu Hobbs et al. 2006), created to satisfy social agendas and ambitions, including our goals for nature. Conclusion Natural history study can remind us that the world as we know it has not ever been so. For densely inhabited coastal communities in the Northeast, ignorance of the ways that nature shapes the land where they occur can lead directly to tragedy (Stutz and Pilkey 2005). In Jamaica Bay, the assumption has been that the enclosed seascape that we know in the early 21st century, with a broad, deep, single inlet to the ocean, an elongated east–west Rockaway Neck, and interior marsh islands, is much as it has always been. The evidence presented here suggests that the story is much more interesting and dynamic, while placing into context efforts to restore marsh islands, which may have had their origins only a few hundred years ago and may disappear again without human intervention. Acknowledgments This work was supported by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal and Ocean Climate Applications #NA13OAR4310144 in collaboration with the Stevens Institute of Technology and Columbia University. I would like to thank Graham Arader III, Joy Cytryn, Kim Fisher, Mario Giampieri, John McLaughlin, Kytt McManus, Philip Orton, Adam Parris, Dorothy Peteet, David Rumsey, William Solecki, Christopher Spagnoli, and John Waldman for useful discussions leading to this paper. Literature Cited Note: Full citations to maps and charts referred to the text are provided in Supplemental File 1, available online at Sanderson-s1, and for BioOne subscribers, at Allen, D.Y. 1991. Dutch and English mapping of 17th-century Long Island. Long Island Historical Journal 4:45–62. Allen, D.Y. 1997. Long Island Maps and Their Makers: Five Centuries of Cartographic History. Amereon Limited, Mattituck, NY. 153 pp. Allen, D.Y. 1998. The enigmatic topographic maps of the US Coast Survey, 1834–1861. Meridian 13:42–60. Allen, D.Y. 2008. How Simeon De Witt mapped New York State. New York Map Society, New York. Available online at HTM. Accessed 2 February 2015. Northeastern Naturalist 296 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 Allen, D.Y. 2011. The mapping of New York State: A study in the history of cartography. Published online at newyorkstatemaps/id/46. Accessed 22 November 2015. Anderson, J.G.T. 2012. Deep Things out of Darkness: A History of Natural History, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 366 pp. Bassett, P.R. 1967. A history of Long Island maps. Journal of Long Island History 7:1–24. Black, F.R. 1981. Jamaica Bay: A history. Cultural Resource Management Study No. 3. Gateway National Recreation Area, National Park Service, Washington, DC. 104 pp. Black, J.D. 1970. The Blathwayt Atlas: A Collection of 48 Manuscript and Printed Maps of the 17th Century Relating to the British Overseas Empire in That Era, Brought Together about 1683 for the Use of the Lords of Trade and Plantations. Brown University Press, Providence, RI. 255 pp. Boger, R., J. Connolly, and M. Christiano. 2011. Estuarine shoreline changes in Jamaica Bay, New York City: Implications for management of an urban national park. Environmental Management 49:229–241. Bromberg, K.D., and M.D. Bertness. 2005. Reconstructing New England salt marsh losses using historical maps. Estuaries 28:823–832. Burden, P.D. 1996. The Mapping of North America. A List of printed maps, 1511–1670. Raleigh Publications, Rickmansworth, UK. 568 pp. Burden, P.D. 2007. The Mapping of North America II. A List of printed maps, 1671–1700. Raleigh Publications, Rickmansworth, UK. 540 pp. Buxton, H.T., and P.K. Shernoff. 1995. Ground-water resources of Kings and Queens Counties, Long Island, New York (No. Open-File Report 92-76). US Geological Survey, Albany, NY. Campbell, T. 1980. The Jansson-Visscher Maps of New England. Pp. 279–294, In R.V. Tooley (Ed.), Mapping of America. W. Graham Arader III, King of Prussia, PA. 519 pp. Casagrande, D.G. 2006. The full circle: A historical context for urban salt marsh restoration. Yale Forestry and Environmental Studies Bulletin 100:13–40. City of New York Office of Emergency Management. 2014. Hurricane Sandy retrospective analysis. Pp. 201–212, In City of New York Office of Emergency Management (Ed.). 2014 New York City Hazard Mitigation Plan. New York, NY. 542 pp. Cohen, P.E., and R.T. Augustyn. 1997. Manhattan in Maps 1527–1995. Rizzoli, New York, NY. 164 pp. Colangelo, L.L. 2013. State pumps money into salt marsh restoration at Jamaica Bay. NY Daily News, 16 April 2013. Cumming, W.P., R.A. Skelton, and D.B. Quinn. 1972. The Discovery of North America. American Heritage Press, New York, NY. 304 pp. Delaney, J. 2014. Nova Caesarea: A Cartographic Record of the Garden State 1666–1888. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 250 pp. Dunn, S.W. 1992. Interpreting the little-known Minuit maps of ca. 1630. Hudson Valley Regional Review 9:26–38. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (Eds.) 2014. Ecological communities of New York State. 2nd Edition. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 173 pp. Edney, M.H. 2005. Putting “cartography” into the history of cartography: Arthur H. Robinson, David Woodward, and the creation of a discipline. Cartographic Perspectives 51:14–29. Gateway National Recreation Area. 2007. An update on the disappearing salt marshes of Jamaica Bay, New York. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Gateway National Recreation Area. Available on-line at JBAC_NPS_SaltMarshReport_080207.pdf. Accessed 11 October 2013. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 297 Gosselink, M. 2009. New York New Amsterdam, the Dutch Origins of Manhattan. Nieuw Amsterdam Uitgevers/Nationaal Archeif, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 223 pp. Grossinger, R.M., R.A. Askevold, and J.N. Collins. 2005. T-Sheet user guide: Application of the historical US Coast Survey Maps to environmental management in the San Francisco Bay Area. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. 41 pp. Grumet, R.S. 1981. Native American place names in New York City. Museum of the City of New York, New York, NY. 79 pp. Guthorn, P.J. 1984. United States Coastal Charts, 1783–1861. Schiffer Publishing, Exton, PA. 224 pp. Harley, J.B. 1987. The map and the development of the history of cartography. Pp. 1–42, In J.B. Harley and D. Woodward (Eds.). The History of Cartography, Volume 1: Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 599 pp. Harper, R.M. 1912. The Hempstead Plains of Long Island. Torreya 12:277–287. Harrisse, H. 1891. The Discovery of North America. N. Israel, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 32 pp. Hartig, E.K., V. Gornitz, A. Kolker, F. Mushacke, and D. Fallon. 2002. Anthropogenic and climate-change impacts on salt marshes of Jamaica Bay, New York City. Wetlands 22:71–89. Hess, L., and W.H. Harris. 1987a. Effect of storm energy and shoreline engineering on the sediment budget of a barrier each, Rockaway, New York. Northeastern Geology 9:110–115. Hess, L., and W.H. Harris. 1987b. Morphology and sediment budget during recent evolution of a barrier beach, Rockaway, New York. Northeastern Geology 9:94–109. Hobbs, R.J., S. Arico, J. Aronson, J.S. Baron, P. Bridgewater, V.A Cramer, P.R. Epstein, J.J. Elwel, C.A. Klink, A.E. Lugo, D. Norton, D. Ojima, D.M. Richardson, E.W. Sanderson, F. Valladares, M. Vilà, R. Zamora, and M. Zobel. 2006. Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:1–7. Horton, R., G. Yohe, W. Easterling, R. Kates, M. Ruth, E. Sussman, A. Whelchel, D. Wolfe, and F. Lipschultz. 2014. Chapter 16: Northeast. Pp. 371–395, In J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (Eds.). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assesment. US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC. 827 pp. Kirwan, M.L., A.B. Murray, J.P. Donnelly, and D.R. Corbett. 2011. Rapid wetland expansion during European settlement and its implication for marsh survival under modern sediment delivery rates. Geology 39:507–510. Leatherman, S.P. 1989. Role of inlets in geomorphic evolution of the south-shore barriers of Long Island, New York, USA. Environmental Management 13:109–115. Lentz, E.E., and C.J. Hapke. 2011. Geologic framework influences on the geomorphology of an anthropogenically modified barrier island: Assessment of dune/beach changes at Fire Island, New York. Geomorphology 126:82–96. Marshall, D.W., and H.H. Peckham. 1976. Campaigns of the American Revolution: An Atlas of Manuscript Maps. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 138 pp. McCorkle, B.B. 2009. A carto-bibliography of the maps in 18th-century British and American geography books. University of Kansas Libraries, Lawrence, KS. Available online at Accessed 5 June 2015. Molander, A.B. 1989. The mystery of the Cantino Map. The Portolan 15:15–25. Northeastern Naturalist 298 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 Monroe, M., P. Olofson, J. Collins, R. Grossinger, J. Haltiner, and C. Wilcox. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. US Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA. 328 pp. Oertel, G.F., and H.J. Woo. 1994. Landscape classification and terminology for marsh in deficit coastal lagoons. Journal of Coastal Research 10:919–932. Orton, P.M., S.A. Talke, D.A. Jay, L. Yin, A.F. Blumberg, N. Georgas, H. Zhao, H.J. Roberts, and K. MacManus. 2015. Channel shallowing as mitigation of coastal flooding. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 3:654–673. Peteet, D., and L. Lieberman. 2000. Paleoenvironmental history of Jamaica Bay marshes, New York. Pp. 41–45, In A. Gordon (Ed.). Integrated Reconnaissance of the Physical and Biogeochemical Characteristics of Jamaica Bay. Columbia University, New York, NY. 127 pp. Peteet, D.M., D.C. Pederson, D. Kurdyla, and T. Guilderson. 2007. Hudson River paleoecology from marshes: Environmental change and its implications for fisheries. Hudson River Fishes and Their Environment A.F.S. Symposium 51:112–128. Peteet, D., L. Lieberman, P. Higgiston, S. Sritraitrat, and T. Kenna. 2008. Yameko to JFK: Paleoenvironmental change from Jamaica Bay marshes. State of the Bay: Jamaica Bay Scientific Symposium, City of New York Department of Environmental Protection, New York, NY. Available online at jbaysymp-Dorothy_Peteet_Palaeoecology.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2014. Pilkey, O.H., W.J. Neal, J.A.G. Cooper, and J.T. Kelly. 2011. The World’s Beaches: A Global Guide to the Science of the Shoreline. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 283 pp. Pittman, S., R. Kneib, and C. Simenstad. 2011. Practicing coastal seascape ecology. Marine Ecology Progress Series 427:187–190. Priestas, A.M., S. Fagherazzi, C.A. Wilson, and D.M. FitzGerald. 2012. Rapid wetland expansion during European settlement and its implication for marsh survival under modern sediment delivery rates: COMMENT. Geology 40:e284–e285. Pritchett, H.S. 1900. New York Bay and Harbor, New York. Coast Chart No. 120. Scale: 1:80,000. US Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, DC. Psuty, N.P., P. Dennehy, T. Silveira, and N. Apostolou. 2010. Coastal geomorphology of the ocean shoreline, Gateway National Recreation Area: Natural evolution and cultural modifications, a synthesis (No. Natural Resource Report NPS/NERO/NRR - 2010/184). National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. Roman, C.T., J.W. King, D.R. Cahoon, J.C. Lynch, and P.G. Appleby. 2007. Evaluation of marsh-development processes at Fire Island National Seashore (New York): Recent and historic perspectives. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2007/089. US National Park Service, Northeast Region, Boston, MA. 62 pp. Rumsey, D., and M. Williams. 2002. Historical Maps in GIS, Pp. 1–18, In A.K. Knowles (Ed.). Past Time, Past Place: GIS for History. Esri Press, Redlands, CA. 250 pp. Sanderson, E.W., and M. Brown. 2007. Mannahatta: An ecological first look at the Manhattan landscape prior to Henry Hudson. Northeastern Naturalist 14:545–570. Sanderson, E.W. 2009. Mannahatta: A Natural History of New York City. Abrams, New York, NY. 352 pp. Sanderson, E.W., W.D. Solecki, J.R. Waldman, and A.S. Parris (Eds.), In press. Prospects for Resilience: Insights from New York City’s Jamaica Bay. Island Press, Washington, DC. Schuerman, M. 2015. Inside or outside? Two ways to protect Jamaica Bay. Available online at bay. Accessed 21 April 2016. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 299 Schwartz, S.I., and R.E. Ehrenberg. 1980. The Mapping of America. Harry N. Abrams, New York, NY. 363 pp. Schwimmer, R.A., 2001. Rates and processes of marsh shoreline erosion in Rehoboth Bay, Delaware, USA. Journal of Coastal Research 17:672–683. Simmon, R. 2011. Irene’s sediment in New York Harbor: Natural hazards. USGS/NASA, Washington, DC. Available online at view.php?id=51975. Accessed 5 May 2016. Stanford, S.D. 2010. Onshore record of Hudson River drainage to the continental shelf from the late Miocene through the late Wisconsinan deglaciation, USA: Synthesis and revision. Boreas 39:1–17. Stephenson, R.A. 1984. The Henry Harrisse collection of publications, papers, and maps pertaining to the early exploration of America. Terrae Incognitae, the Journal for the History of Discoveries 16:37–55. Stokes, I.N.P. 1915. Iconography of Manhattan Island. Volume I. Robert H. Dodd, New York, NY. 452 pp. Stokes, I.N.P. 1916. Iconography of Manhattan Island. Volume II. Robert H. Dodd, New York, NY. 473 pp. Stutz, M.L., and O.H. Pilkey, 2005. The relative influence of humans on barrier islands: Humans versus geomorphology. Reviews in Engineering Geology 16:137–147. Suárez, T. 1992. Shedding the Veil: Mapping the European Discovery of America and the World. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore. 203 pp. Swanson, L., M. Dorsch, M. Giampieri, P. Orton, A. Parris, and E.W. Sanderson. In press. Dynamics of the biophysical systems of Jamaica Bay. In Prospects for Resilience: Insights from New York City’s Jamaica Bay. Island Press, Washington, DC. Tanski, J. 2012. Long Island’s dynamic south shore: A primer on the forces and trends shaping our coast (Revised). Sea Grant New York, Stony Brook, NY. 27 pp. Thoreau, H.D. 1865. Cape Cod. Princeton University Press (republished in 1988), Princeton, NJ. 452 pp. US Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Jamaica Bay marsh islands, Jamaica Bay, NY, integrated ecosystem restoration report, environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. US Army Corps of Engineers, New York, NY. Wrayf, R.D., S.P. Leatherman, and R.J. Nicholls. 1995. Historic and future land loss for upland and marsh islands in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA. Journal of Coastal Research 11:1195–1203. Zhang, K., and S. Leatherman. 2011. Barrier-island population along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Journal of Coastal Research 272:356–363. Northeastern Naturalist 300 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 Appendix 1. Summary of geographic features of western Long Island around Jamaica Bay, NY, depicted on maps and charts from 1502 to 1844, organized chronologically. If a feature is shown and named, then a name is given. + = feature is shown but not named. ? = feature may be shown, but it is not clear what was intended; see text for discussion; - = feature is not shown. NA = feature is outside the extent of the map or chart. Additionally, the form of Jamaica Bay, if positively indicated, is identified by a letter code: I = inlet, CC = concave coast, RS = round sound, WT = “whale’s tail”, L = lake, Ω = inverted “U”, O = oblong bay, and X = other. See main text and Supplemenal File 1 for details. CBI = coastal barrier isalnd, CBP = coastal barrier peninsula, JB = Jamaica Bay, JBFM = Jamaica Bay fringing marshes, and JBII = Jamaica Bay interior islands. CBI CBI CBP CBI west in mouth in mouth east Notes about source Map or chart Date depicted of JB of JB of JB of JB JB JBFM JBII for Jamaica Bay region Cantino (1502) ca. 1500–1501 - - - - + [RS] - - Corte Real brother expeditions? Gastaldi (1606), based ca. 1524 “Angoulsme” ? - - + [RS] - - Verrazzano expedition on 1557 map now lost Velasco (1610) ca. 1609 ? ? - - - - - Hudson expedition? Block (1614) 1613–1614 ? - - - ? [I] - - Own survey Hendricks (1616) 1613–1616 - - - - ? [CC] - - Own survey Gerritsz (1630) ca. 1630 ? - - - ? [I] - - Derivative of Block (1614) Champlain (1632), ca. 1603–1629 - - - - - - - Own survey (Champlain) Boisseu (1643) Blaeu (1635?) ca. 1630–1635 - - - - ? [CC] ? - Hendricks (1616)? Minuit (1639?) ca. 1631? “Blommaerts Punt” - - - ? [CC] - - Own survey? Jansson (1636) ca. 1635 - - - - ? [I] - - Derivative of Gerritsz (1630) Anon. (1639), i.e., ca. 1625–1639 “Conyne Eylant” - - - ? [CC] - - Own survey? “Manatus Map” Vinckeboons (1639?) ca. 1625–1639 “Blomarts Punt” - - - ? [CC] - - Own survey? Dudley (1647) ca. 1639-1646 + - - ? ? [CC/I] - - Unknown Jacobsz (ca. 1650) ca. 1636–1650 - - - - ? [CC/I] - - Derivative of Jannson (1636) Hartgers (1651) ca. 1630–1650 - - - - ? [I] - - Derivative of Gerritz (1630) Jansson (1651) ca. 1630–1650? + ? “Bloemarts Punt” - +[RS] + - Unknown de Vries (1655) ca. 1632–1644 - - - - +[CC] - - Own survey Visscher (ca. 1655) ca. 1651–1653 + ? “Bloemarts Punt” - +[RS] + - Derivative of Jansson (1651) Colom (ca. 1656) 1650s? “Bloemers punt” - ? - - - - Derivative of Jacobz (ca. 1650) Goos (1656) ca. 1650–1656 “Knÿnen Eylandt”; - + - +[WT] “Rechkewach” - - Unknown Nieuwenhof (1656) ca. 1650–1656 + - - - +[RS] - - Derivative of Visscher (ca. 1655) Doncker (1660) ca. 1650s “Bloemers punt” - - - ?[CC] - - Derivative of Colom (ca. 1656) van Loon (1661) ca. 1630s–1650s ? ? + - +[RS] “Rechkawack” - ? Derivative of Jansson (1651) Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 301 CBI CBI CBP CBI west in mouth in mouth east Notes about source Map or chart Date depicted of JB of JB of JB of JB JB JBFM JBII for Jamaica Bay region Allard (ca. 1662) ca. 1650s + ? + - +[RS] + - Derivative of Visscher (ca. 1655) Colom (1663) ca. 1650s–1663 “Blommearts - - - ?[CC] - - Derivative of Colom (ca. 1656) Punt” Goos (1666a) ca. 1630s–1660s ? ? + - +[RS] “Rechkawack” - - Derivative of van Loon (1661) Goos (1666b) ca. 1630s–1660s “Knÿnen - + - +[WT] “Rechkewach” - - Derivative of Goos (ca. 1656) Eylandt” Hubbard (1666) ca. 1660s NA “Sand Hills”? “Sand Hills”? NA +[X] “Canarsie Baye” - - Own survey? Fake? Montanus (1671), ca. 1630–1670 ? ? + - +[RS] + ? Derivative of Visscher (1655) Ogilby (1671) Blome (1672) ca. 1644–1672 - - - - - - - Lynch and Modyford in Jamaica, West Indies Danckerts (1673) ca. 1630–1673 - ? + - +[RS] - - Derivative of Visscher (1655) Roggeveen (1675a, b) ca. 1660–1670 “Knÿnen Eylandt” ? - + +[WT] “Rechkawack” - - Earlier Dutch and Spanish sources Seller (1675a) ca. 1660s “Conny Island” - ? ? +[L] - - Scott (1668) Seller (1675b) ca. 1674–1675 ? - ? - +[RS] - - Unknown Seller (1676) ca. 1660s - - ? ? +[L] - - Derivative of Scott (1668)? Morden and Berry (1676) ca.1670–1676 ? ? ? + ?[CC] - - Unknown, possibly Minuit (1639?) Speed (1676) ca. 1630–1676 - - + - +[RS] - - Derivative of Visscher (ca. 1655) Thornton et al. (1677) ca. 1630 – 1677 - - - - +[RS] - - Unknown Thornton and Greene ca.1660s–1670s “Conny Island” - - - +[CC/RS] - - Unknown, possibly Morden and (1678) Berry (1676) Ryder (1679) ca.1660s–1670s + ? “Rookoway” + “Jamaica Sound” - - Own survey Daniel (1679) ca.1670s “Coney Isle” - - - ?[CC] - - Derivative of Morden and Berry (1676) Morden (1680) ca.1670s - - ? + ?[CC/RS] - - Derivative of Daniel (ca.1679) Seller (1682) ca.1670s - - - - +[RS] - - Derivative of Morden (1680) van Keulen (1682) ca. 1630–1670s “Konynen Eyl.” ? + - +[WT] + ? Derivative of Goos (1666b) Thornton et al. (1685) 1682–1683 “Conny Island” ? - + +[ Ω] - - Unknown Reid (ca. 1687) ca.1687 + + ? - +[Ω] - - Own survey Wells (ca. 1687) ca. 1684–1686 “Conie” + + + +[Ω] - - Own survey Thornton (ca. 1687) ca. 1684–1686 “Coney I.” - + + +[Ω] - - Derivative of Wells (ca. 1687) Northeastern Naturalist 302 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 CBI CBI CBP CBI west in mouth in mouth east Notes about source Map or chart Date depicted of JB of JB of JB of JB JB JBFM JBII for Jamaica Bay region Doncker (1688) ca.1670s–1680s “Konynen Eyl.” ? - ? +[CC/RS] - - Derivative of Roggeveen (ca. 1675) Morden (1688) - - + + +[Ω] - - Derivative of Wells (ca. 1687) Wolfgang (1688) ca. 1670–1680s “Conynan Eyl.” - - ? +[I] - - Unknown Robijn (ca. 1689) “Conynan Eyl.” + - + +[Ω] “Rock Bay” - - Derivative of van Keulen (1682) Lindstrom (1691) 1654–1655 - - “Blommerst punt” - ?[CC] - - Own survey Williams et al. (ca. 1698) ca. 1680s–1690s + - - + +[Ω] - - Derivative of Thornton et al. (ca.1685) Worlidge (ca. 1698) ca. 1687–1691 “Coney I.” ? + “Beach” +[Ω] - - Own survey Wells (1700) ca. 1690–1700 - - - - - - - Unknown Anon. (1706) - ? + “Sand Beach” +[WT/ Ω] - - Unknown Homann (1716) + ? ? + +[ Ω] - - Likely derivative of Dutch or English sources Moll (1730) ca. 1720s + ? ? + +[WT/ Ω] - - Accounts from English colonial governors Popple (1733) ca. 1727–1733 - ? ? - +[Ω]/I? - - Contemporary surveys Southack (ca. 1734) 1710 – 1723 “Coney Is.” ? ? “Sand and Stoney +[Ω] - - Own survey Beach” Carwitham (1735) ca. 1730s? “Cuny I.” “Baren I.” “Rockaway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Unknown Neck” Tiddeman (1737) ca. 1730s? “Cunny I.” + + NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Deriviative of Carwitham (1735)? Grierson (1749) ca. 1730s? “Coney I.” ? ? “Sand Beach” +[WT/ Ω] - - Derivative of Tiddemann (1737) Bowen (1747) ca. 1720–1740s “Coney Island” + NA NA +[Ω] - - Derivative of Popple (1733) Mead and Jeffreys (1755) ca. 1750s ? + + + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - “Actual surveys” Pfister (1758) ca. 1750s “Coney I.” + “Rockway” + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey Terreni (1763) ca. 1720s–1760s “Coney Isola” ? ? NA +[O?] - - Derivative of Popple (1733) Bellin (1764) + + NA NA +[O?] - - Unknown Holland (1768) ca. 1764–1768 “Coney I.” “Barren I.” “Rock way “Beach” +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey Neck” Montresor (1775) ca. 1765–1775 “Coney Island” “Barren I “Rock way “Beach” +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey sland” Neck” Bowles (1776), ca. 1776 “Coney Island” ? NA NA +[O] - - Con-temporary accounts Le Rouge (1776) Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 2 E.W. Sanderson 2016 303 CBI CBI CBP CBI west in mouth in mouth east Notes about source Map or chart Date depicted of JB of JB of JB of JB JB JBFM JBII for Jamaica Bay region Enyon (1776) ca. 1776 “Coney I.” “Barren I.” “Rockway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - “By mercht. who resided in Neck” “Shallow Water” America” Holland (1776) 1776 “Coney Island” “Plumb I.” “Rockaway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey Neck” Sauthier (1776) 1771–1776 “Coney I.” “Plumb I.” “Rockaway” NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey Blaskowitz (ca. 1777) 1776–1777 “Coney I.” + ? NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey Des Barres (1777a) 1776–1777 “Coney Island” - - NA +[CC] - - Own survey Des Barres (1777b) 1776–1777 + + + + +[O], “Jamaica Bay” ? ? Own survey Faden (1777) 1769–1777 + “Plumb I.” “Rockway + +[O], “Jamaica Bay” - - Contemporary accounts Neck” Romans (1777) “Coney I.” “Barren I.” + NA +[O], “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey Erskine (1779) 1778–1779 - - + + +[O] - - Own survey Sauthier (1779) 1771–1779 “Coney I.” “Plumb I.” “Rockaway + +[O], “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey (Sauthier 1776) Neck” Anon. (ca. 1780) 1776–1790 “Coney Island” “Barren “Rockaway Beach” + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + - British military survey Island” Lodge (1781) 1776–1781 “Coney Island” + NA NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - British military surveys? Anon. (ca. 1782) 1781–1782 “Coney Island” “Barren NA NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + - British military survey Island” Blaskowitz (1782) 1776–1782 NA “Barren + + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + - Own survey Island” Norman (1789) 1780s “Coney Island” “Warren or + + +[O] “Jamaica B.” - - Own survey Plumb I.” Osgood (1798) 1780s “Coney Island” “Warren or + + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Derivative of Norman (1789) Plumb I.” De Witt (1802) 1796–1802 + “Barren “Rockaway + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - + Own survey Island” Neck” Eddy (1811) 1811–1812 “Coney I.” “Barren I.”, “Rockaway + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + “Salt Own survey “Pelican Bar” Beach” marsh” Watson (1812) 1807–1812 + + “Rockaway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Own survey Neck” Northeastern Naturalist 304 E.W. Sanderson 2016 Vol. 23, No. 2 CBI CBI CBP CBI west in mouth in mouth east Notes about source Map or chart Date depicted of JB of JB of JB of JB JB JBFM JBII for Jamaica Bay region Damerum (1815) ca.1815 “Coney I.”, “Barren I.”, “Rockaway Beach” + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - + Own survey “Schryer’s Hk.” “Pelican Bar”, “Armstrong Pt.” Allen (1816) 1780s “Coney I.” “Warren or + + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - - Derivative of Norman (1789) Plumb I.” Eddy (1818) 1811–1818 “Coney I.” “Barren Id.” + NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + + Own survey Randel (1821) ca. 1811–1821 “Coney I.”, “Barren + + +[O] “Jamaica Bay” - + Unknown, probably derivative “Schryer’s Hook” Island” Blunt (1827) 1816–1827 “Coney I. Point” “Barren + NA +[O] - + Own survey Island”, “Pelican Beach” Gordon (1828) 1822–1828 “Coney Island” “Barren I.” “Rockaway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + + Own survey Beach” Burr (1829) 1822–1829 “Coney I.” “Barren I.” “Rockaway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + + Own survey Neck” Renard (1835) 1832–1835 “Coney Island” “Barren “Rockaway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + + Own survey Island”, Beach” “Pelican Beach” Disturnell and Eddy 1810–1839 “Coney I.” “Barren I.”, “Rockaway” “Beach” +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + “Salt Derivative of Eddy (1811) (1839) “Pelican Bar” mash” though new features shown Hassler (1844) 1832–1844 “Coney Island” “Barren Id.”, “Rockaway NA +[O] “Jamaica Bay” + + Derivative of Renard (1835) “Pelican Beach” Beach”