b. Nauset Spit-Eascham . The earliest reliable source of information on 

 Nauset Spit is a nap and written account by Samuel de Champlain in 1605. This 

 map, along with other early accounts by Gosnold (1602), Hudson (1609), and 

 Bradford (1622), is included in a shoreline diagram by Nlckerson (1931; Fig. 

 9A) , who attempted to reconstruct the Cape Cod shoreline observed by the 

 Mayflower Pilgrims in 1620. Of particular interest on this composite map Is 

 the configuration of the Nauset Harbor-Point Care area. In the past 350 

 years, there have been major adjustments of the Nauset Spit shoreline. A 

 comparison of Champlain's 1605 map (Fig. 95) and a 1964 USGS quadrangle map 

 indicates the nature and magnitude of these changes (Fig. 96). In 1605 Nauset 

 Harbor was protected by two barrier spits separated by Nauset Inlet. Between 

 1605 and 1978, the south spit moved landward approximately 0.8 kilometer at 

 a rate of 2.1 meters per year (Wright and Brennlnkraeyer , 1979). This is 

 considerably faster than the rate of shoreline recession in the area today 

 (0.9 meter per year, Marlndin, 1889; 1.5 meters per year, Zelgier, 1960; and 

 0.9 meter per year, this study). 



An inspection of Champlain's 1605 map, interpreted by Ganong (1922), gives 

 some insight into the rapid landward migration of the south spit (Fig. 95). 

 There is a notation accompanying the map that indicates there was "a nucleus 

 of upland, doubtless one of the little drumlins so plentiful on this coast" 

 with a grove of trees, which is characteristic of glacial features. The 

 southern spit of Nauset Harbor in 1605 was a tomboio (a spit connecting an 

 island to the mainland). This small glacial section had eroded at a slower 

 rate than the rest of the shoreline for many years. When the glacial deposit 

 was finally eroded by the sea prior to 1833 (Nickerson, 1931), the shoreline 

 rapidly retreated to an equilibrium position, resulting in a straightening of 

 the shoreline. Then the northern spit must have also eroded rapidly at its 

 southern end, since it would have projected seaward with the loss of the south 

 spit druinlin. 



Champlain's 1605 map indicates that much of the surface of Nauset Harbor 

 was covered with mudflats. Salt marsh was confined to the northeast corner of 

 the embayment immediately behind the barrier dunes. To determine the depth 

 and age of the present salt marsh, indicated as mudflats on Champlain's map, 

 two shallow cores were taken, using the piledriver technique. In one core 

 taken near the center of Nauset Marsh, salt-marsh peat was found in the upper 

 80 centimeters of the column. The lowest organic layer was radiocarbon dated 

 at 1485 years B.P. ± 125 years (University of Miami). In the second core, 

 taken near the southern end of Nauset Marsh, salt-marsh peat was found in the 

 top 1 meter of sediment, and a radiocarbon date of the basal peat was fixed at 

 750 years B.P. ± 85 years (Beta Analytic). Clearly, Champlain must have seen 

 salt marsh In the center of Nauset Harbor in 1605. Champlain, a noted geog- 

 rapher, was primarily interested in the Nauset Harbor area as a settlement 

 site with good anchorage. To a sailor, mudflats and salt marsh were equally 

 unnavigable. 



Although the spit has migrated a considerable distance landward, the 

 Nauset Harbor area on Champlain's map of 1605 appears quite similar to its 

 configuration in 1977 (Fig. 2). Two barrier spits with well-developed dunes 

 protected a large salt narsh with poorly navigable channels. The only major 

 difference between the maps was the drumlin in 1605 that altered the smooth 

 contour of the outer shoreline. 



154 



i.\A -.--.*. v<n «.-.:<..-. i-iV *\;«v".<." ..-._- •-._-..!• ».- *.-. •_- «.- 



