2.32 Providence Path: Woodward & Saffery Survey of 1642

The Old Connecticut Path was not the only route followed by early settlers migrating to the Connecticut valley. The Providence Path followed native trails from Providence, RI to the Connecticut valley at Windsor and Hartford. As it nears the Willimantic River, the Providence Path and the Old Connecticut Path merge and continue west through Tolland. The Providence Path diverges from the Old Connecticut Path at Poehnerts Pond in Tolland to continue north of Shenipsit Lake to reach the site of the first ferry crossing to Windsor.

The first settlement of Windsor was by the Plymouth colony to establish a trading post on the Connecticut River. The overland route from the Plymouth colony would have likely followed the approximate line of US Route 44 to Providence. The Providence Path west from Providence to Windsor followed the approximate routes of modern highways US Route 6 from Providence to State Route 101 in North Scituate, RI. Following Route 101 west, the Providence Path crossed the into Connecticut at Killingly and continued west to Pomfret where it meets US Route 44. The Providence Path continued west through Ashford to the junction of CT Route 74 leading towards Tolland and on to Windsor. The fork in Ashford leading west along US Route 44 provided a gateway west to Hartford.(Click on map to enlarge)The Providence Path became an important route for early settlement of Connecticut. Among those early settlers was my ancestor, Shubael Dimock, who traveled along the Providence Path with his family from Barnstable, MA in 1693. Shubael and his family were among the founders of what is now Mansfield, Connecticut. The descendants of Shubael Dimock continue to live in the Mansfield/Tolland/Ashford area. For more information about the Dimock family, refer to 4.0 Finding Our Family Heritage on the Old Connecticut Path.

The Providence Path was also important for travel between the Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Rhode Island and Connecticut colonies. Over time and settlement, the route of the Old Connecticut Path from the Massachusetts Bay colony shifted from the highland route followed in the earliest days of travel. The evolution of travel between the colonies lead to the route of the Old Connecticut Path fading in importance as the Mendon Path and Middle Post Road joined with the Providence Path. For more information about the evolution of the route of the Old Connecticut Path, see 2.30 Treasure Hunting in Windham County.

Woodward & Saffery: Drunken Sailors or Skillful Artists?

Connecticut had border conflicts with Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York during the early colonial era. The border conflict between Connecticut and Massachusetts became especially bitter. The rancor continues to be reported today with continued vilification the surveyors hired by Massachusetts. Connecticut Humanities retells the story from Connecticut's point of view. "The troubles started with an errant survey of the state’s northern border performed by Nathaniel Woodward and Solomon Saffery of Massachusetts in 1642. These men were sailors, not surveyors. After determining where the Massachusetts line marking the border began, they sailed around Cape Cod and up the Connecticut River instead of surveying the line on foot as they should have." See Surveying Connecticut’s Borders on ConnecticutHistory.org

Connecticut's historians characterized Woodward and Saffery variously as "drunken sailors" (Trumbull, Bowen) and who traveled by water rather than by land out of fear of the Indians. Connecticut initially accepted and then later rejected the survey commissioned by Massachusetts. Massachusetts responded that Nathaniel Woodward and Solomon Saffery were "skillful artists" and "mathematicians". While the boundary line established between Massachusetts and Connecticut was later resolved through negotiations between the two colonies, the rancor over border has been attributed to Woodward & Saffery and their survey. The underlying conflict for control of native Indian lands that were appropriated by the colonies and fortunes to be gained by land speculators has not received critical attention.

The Thayer lithograph of Woodward & Saffery map found in the Massachusetts Archives provides another view of the original survey map. The line at the top from left to right shows the route of the Providence Path from Providence, RI to Windsor, CT. Distances in miles between places are recorded along the route along with the Latitude of each point. Note that the distance from Providence to the first landmark is listed as 22 miles. This appears to be a copy error as the actual distance is 12 miles. Also note that the latitude for Providence differs from the latitude recorded on the 1821 copy of the original map.Click on the picture above to enlarge the Thayer lithograph of the Woodward & Saffery map as scanned by the Massachusetts Archive. Note that North is at the bottom of the map, East is left, West is right. A larger, high-resolution copy of the Thayer lithograph of the Woodward & Saffery survey map may be down loaded from the following links:

Medium size copy of Thayer lithograph of Woodward & Saffery Survey jpg (14 mb jpg) VIEW AND/OR DOWNLOAD

Large size copy of Thayer lithograph of Woodward & Saffery Survey tiff (50 mb) VIEW AND/OR DOWNLOAD

CLOSEUP VIEWS OF THE WOODWARD & SAFFERY MAP: PROVIDENCE TO WINDSOR

Closer examination of the Woodward & Saffery Survey map reveals surprising details that provide insight to the 1642 landscape. Harral Ayres, in his book The Great Trail of New England (1940), points out that "the map shows that Woodward and Saffery did make other observations between Boston and Providence and Windsor and that they inscribed the latitude they found: One at Providence, one at or near the Moswansicut River in Rhode Island, one in the Pomfret Hills, and one at the Willimantic River, and finally at Windsor. They also entered their mileage record between each of those observation stations, and the trail is shown on its varying courses. They showed by symbols the brooks, hills and other landmarks along the trail. Most of those landmarks can be identified."

Using Garmin topographic mapping software, the route of the 1642 Woodward & Saffery survey team from Providence to Windsor can be placed onto maps with modern place names. Distances between points can be measured to identify places that were likely points for observations by Woodward & Saffery. Latitudes recorded by Woodward & Saffery can be placed on the topographic maps to establish the relative accuracy of their observations.

The Woodward & Saffery 1642 survey map segments between observation points are presented below for comparison with the modern maps. The original survey maps have been annotated with some of the place names known today.

Reconsidering the 1642 Woodward & Saffery Survey

Connecticut historians have largely dismissed Nathaniel Woodward and Solomon Saffery as frauds and drunken sailors. The border dispute between Massachusetts and Connecticut has been attributed to the incompetence of of Woodward and Saffery as "artists" and "mathematicians". The vilification of Woodward and Saffery by Connecticut historians continues to this day. Some day, Connecticut historians may reconsider the 1642 survey and discover what may be a priceless piece of heritage.

1. Woodward and Saffery never traveled overland from Providence to Windsor

2. Latitude measures were inaccurate and reflected incompetence by Woodward & Saffery.

The record of latitudes taken along the route followed from Providence to Windsor does provide another indicator of the approximate route that Woodward and Saffery traveled across the wilderness of Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using distances between points, it was possible to identify likely places related to their observations.

3. Woodward and Saffery were incompetent "artists" and "mathematicians".

Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts referred to Woodward and Saffery as "artists" and "mathematicians" who had a record of competence conducting surveys in Massachusetts while Connecticut historians have derisively questioned the "artists and mathematicians".

While the errors of measurement of latitude appear understandable given the technical limitations of the time, the blame for "imprecision" appears to have been placed on Woodward and Saffery as incompetents whose poor work lead to the Connecticut-Massachusetts border conflict. The border conflict would have occurred without the survey by Woodward and Saffery.

The precision of distance measurements by Woodward and Saffery using reliable technology of the time (chain measures) has not received credit. The distance record by Woodward and Saffery between Providence and Windsor of 64 miles was virtually equal with distance found using modern GPS map software. Considering that their survey was conducted in the winter of 1642 across unsettled wilderness that had not been previously mapped, the precision of their measurements is extraordinary.

An unanswered question is how they were able to obtain such accurate "straight line" distances between points along the route. The distances Woodward and Saffery recorded were not those which would be found following a winding course. They were straight line distances between points.

If the survey team conducted the measures following a straight line, their task must surely have been considerably more difficult traveling off-trail through the woods. As anyone who has attempted orienteering would understand, the survey by Woodward and Saffery under these conditions would be a remarkable achievement.

If Woodward and Saffery used triangulation or other methods to determine distances between points while following the native Indian trail overland, then they truly would be artists and mathematicians to obtain such precise distance measurements.

The methods used by Woodward and Saffery in 1642 to obtain a high level of precision in measurement of distances along the route from Providence to Windsor provide a challenge for civil engineers and surveyors of our time to provide a coherent explication of the techniques required using 17th century technology.

4. Hidden motivations?

Massachusetts commissioned the survey of the border between Massachusetts and Connecticut. Woodward and Saffery could have simply determined the latitudes 3 miles south of the source of the Charles River in Massachusetts and then corresponding latitude and place on the Connecticut River. As noted above and source of much dispute at the time, errors of measurement using latitude would occur given the technology of the time. The survey by Woodward and Saffery initiated a long, heated dispute over political control the the land and rights to ownership of the land. The conflict was likely to occur with or without Woodward and Saffery. Their survey only focused attention on defining the boundaries of political control and rights to settlement of the land.

The job of Woodward and Saffery could have been completed by simply determining the latitudes. However, the survey map shows that substantial effort was made to record the route from Providence to Windsor. The later testimony in 1672 from Richard Callicott indicated that their was a survey team that accompanied Woodward and Saffery. Why send a survey team with the manpower necessary to collect detailed record of the route from Providence to Windsor? The route of the native Indian trail was not likely to be the Massachusetts-Connecticut boundary. What other reason could their be for the expense and effort to send a survey team with Woodward and Saffery?

LATER INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WOODWARD & SAFFERY SURVEY MAP

Harral Ayres provides a reformatted copy of the Thayer lithograph of the Woodward & Saffery map with corrections based on his explorations in his book The Great Trail of New England, 1940. Direct comparison of Ayres' copy of the map with the map found in the Massachusetts Archives showed it to be an accurate reproduction of the Thayer lithograph. Ayres' reformatted map shows north at the top with the route of the Providence Path displayed in the lower half of the map.Note that the diagonal line from Springfield to Boston in the upper half of the map does not reflect a route followed by Woodward & Saffery. There is no record of their following a "Bay Path" from Springfield to Boston. The line and landmarks included by Woodward & Saffery appear to reflect second hand descriptions of the route and landmarks found along the Bay Path. The actual placement of the landmarks do not accurately reflect actual positions (Latitude/Longitude).

Levi Badger Chase sought to describe the route of the Bay Path from Boston to Springfield in his book The Bay Path and Along the Way (1919). A copy of Chase's book may be found at http://archive.org/details/baypathandalong00chasgoog

Chase examined the Woodward & Saffery map found at the Massachusetts Archives. In 1901, he published "Interpretation of Woodward's and Saffery's map of 1642, or the earliest Bay Path" in the New England Historic Genealogical Society. Chase's article included a map based on the Woodward & Saffery map. While Chase's realignment of landmarks across Massachusetts displayed on the Woodward & Saffery original map may be questionable, the route from Providence to Windsor displayed on Chase's map appears faithful to the original. Note that the map has been reoriented to show North at the top.Chase believed that Thomas Hooker followed the Bay Path from Cambridge to Springfield, and then down the Connecticut River to Windsor and Hartford. This view was adopted by William DeLoss Love in his book The Colonial History of Hartford. However, this view of the route followed by Thomas Hooker has not been supported by other scholars.

Northeast Connecticut Indian Trails

Matthias Spiess compiled a map of "Connecticut Indian Trails, Villages and Scahemdoms" published in 1930. While Spiess was well aware of the Providence Path and the route mapped by Woodward & Saffery, the Providence Path was a remarkable omission in the map of Indian trails. The Providence Path was clearly a native path prior to English settlement in the 1630s. The map has been annotated to include the approximate routes of the Providence Path and the Old Connecticut Path, along with landmarks.Note that the Providence Path (shown in Purple) meets with the Old Connecticut Path (shown in Red) at the Willimantic River crossing between the towns of Willington and Tolland, CT. The routes of the two Paths travel together in Tolland. Spiess described the route along the Providence Path from East Willington through Tolland and on to Windsor in a letter to Harral Ayres dated August 6, 1940. Spiess stated, “Assuming Woodward and Saffery went by land and not by water (I would not denounce them to that extent), their course show that they went north-westward over a well known foot path from East Willington to Tolland. After leaving Tolland, the trail led through the north portion of what is now Shenipset (Snipsic) pond, then westward past Scanticook fort, into what is now Windsorville, to Scantic and to what is now known as ‘Phelp’s Corner’ where the ancient ferry road can be seen today.” The route described by Spiess can be followed today from Tolland to Windsor (web page and video to be added Spring 2013).

Harral Ayres revised his description of the route of the Old Connecticut Path in 1944 to follow the "Nipmuck Path" as mapped by Matthias Spiess. This was in response to feedback provided by Spiess who stated that if the Old Connecticut Path went through Tolland, then it would have followed the Nipmuck Path to the ferry at Hartford in the vicinity of what is now the Interstate 84 bridge across the Connecticut River. See Ayres' revision in Approach to the Connecticut River.

Matthias Spiess disputed the route of the Old Connecticut Path described by Ayres. The map of "Connecticut Indian Trails, Villages and Scahemdoms" compiled by Spiess shows the Old Connecticut Path traveling through Bolton Notch and Manchester. In his "History of Manchester Connecticut", Spiess stated that the Old Connecticut Path "may have" come through the center of Manchester. His position was based on the view that there was only one way to get to Hartford at that time. Spiess' heated criticism of Ayres' work failed to acknowledge the possibility that there could be many native paths from which travelers might select a route best suited to the conditions. The route that Spiess labeled as the "Old Connecticut Path" closely follows the wagon road as mapped by 1796. The route of the Old Connecticut Path mapped by Ayres branched west in Woodstock to Crystal Pond and crossed the highlands of Eastford, Ashford and Willington to meet the Providence Path at the Willimantic River crossing.

Although Spiess never appeared to reach resolution of his difference with Ayres, the letters between Ayres and Spiess found at the Connecticut Historical Society along with letters and papers by Ayres found at the Woodstock Historical Society provide insights that Ayres and Spiess were closer to agreement that either could acknowledge at the time.

BACK TO 2.001 Guide to Crossing the Last Green Valley: West Sutton, MA to Tolland, CT