VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:25:36 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
On Jun 30, 2005, at 8:34 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Many thanks to those of you who contributed your informed responses to
> my
> question about the navigability of the Chickahominy in the early years.
>
> It does seem that it may have been sufficiently navigable up to about
> the
> point of the Hanover/New Kent where a small marketing area developed
> on the south
> side of the Chickahominy.  Perhaps it was more in the nature of a
> secondary
> market to the active merchandising at Kiccoughtan (Hampton), and was
> served by
> smaller ships.

Um, not only no, but decidedly no. The Chickahominy was not navigable
by ships past the 1 mile below Providence Forge mark that is about
halfway along the county, and nowhere near Hanover. As I stated
earlier, whatever was done upstream was apparently of an ad hoc nature
and there is as yet no evidence that it extended in anything
approaching a systematic fashion downstream through the swamp that is
the Chickahominy to the Forge. Ships therefore cannot have ascended
farther than below Rt. 155 across the Chickahominy at PF.

The 100/500 year events of 1665 and 1771 did not alter the
characteristics, otherwise the Archaic sites on the banks would have
been altered.

Lyle Browning

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US