Sign In

The Iconic Catesby Map of the Southeast, Bahamas, etc.

One of the Earliest Maps to Delineate and Name the Colony of Georgia.

Stunning full original color example of Mark Catesby's 1734 map of the Southeastern part of North America, one of the most sought-after maps of the region from the 18th century. The map was a vital component of Catesby's groundbreaking magnum opus, The Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands. This monumental work, initially published between 1729 and 1747, represents the first comprehensive illustrated natural history of North America, setting a new standard for scientific observation and artistic representation in the 18th century. Catesby's map, which extends from the Eastern Seaboard to the Mississippi River and north to southern Virginia, provided crucial geographic context for his studies of American flora and fauna. Moreover, it offers an excellent representation of British knowledge of the American Southeast and Florida in the 1730s, notably including the newly founded Colony of Georgia. Today, both the map and the larger work are held in high esteem by naturalists, historians, and collectors alike, prized for their historical significance, artistic merit, and role in one of the most important early works on American natural history.

Catesby's map draws heavily from his contemporary and collaborator Henry Popple's 1733 20-sheet Map of the British Empire in America. The map was derived from the Fourth State of the Popple (see Babinski) and adheres closely to its model. The Catesby map adds borders for the Colonies of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, which are not present on the Popple map. This is particularly noteworthy in the case of Georgia because the Catesby map is among the earliest to name the Colony, providing the most expansive delineation of the new colony produced at that time. Following Popple's lead, Catesby extends Georgia's territory south of the Altamaha River ("Alatamaha R."), surpassing even the untitled promotional map of 1732 (Cummings & De Vorsey 211) in its generous allocation of land to the colony. This contrasts with other contemporary maps that used the Altamaha as Georgia's southern boundary. However, Catesby aligns with these maps in depicting the colony's northern border along the northern bank of the Savannah River, a detail not present on the Popple.

To view a short video on this map by map collector Thomas Touchton, click here.

Issues in Dating the Original Publication of the Map

Mark Catesby's map has been the subject of considerable cartobibliographic debate, particularly regarding its date of origin. This confusion stems largely from the complex publication history of Catesby's Natural History, which took over 15 years to complete its first edition.

The book was published in fascicules - individual sections or installments released periodically - rather than as a complete volume. This piecemeal approach to publication has led to a wide range of dates being attributed to the map's original production, with various sources citing years from 1729 to 1743.

Initially, the issue seemed straightforward to some scholars. Cummings, in the first edition of The Southeast in Early Maps, pointed to the 1731 title page of the first volume of the Natural History, which explicitly mentions "a new and correct Map of the Countries Treated of." However, this simplistic view overlooks the nuanced timeline of the work's release.

The first fascicule was presented to Queen Caroline in 1729 and made available for general sale in February 1730. The fifth and final fascicule of volume one wasn't released until June 1733. This extended publication schedule complicates efforts to pinpoint the exact date of the map's creation and inclusion in the work.

De Vorsey (page 229, map 210) summarizes the issue thusly:

The apparent contradiction of Catesby's use of a map published in 1733 [the Popple map], or two years after the first volume of his Natural History appeared, has been a source of puzzlement, if not confusion. Nor has that confusion been lessened by the sometime placement of the map in volume II rather than volume I. The clue to the explanation of the placement and dating of Catesby's map is provided in the changed wording found on the title pages in later editions of Natural History. The title page of the 1731 edition includes the statement, "To the Whole is Previxed a New and Correct Map of the Countries Treated of" (emphasis added). In later editions the statement has been changed to "To which is Prefixed, a New and Correct Map of the Countries; with Observations on Their Natural State, Inhabitants, and Productions." What appears to have occurred is that original subscribers to Catesby's Natural History were assured of a map with the whole, or completed, work and received their maps bound in volume 2 when it finally appeared in 1743. Later purchasers were in turn provided with "a New and Correct Map" properly "Prefixed" at the beginning of their first volume of Catesby's Natural History. In some cases where the volumes have been rebound the map may, of course, be found at the beginning of the first volume of the early edition.

Babinski (page 32, note 22) cites De Vorsey, as well as Frick & Stears (Mark Catesby: The Colonial Audubon) and Mengel (A Catalogue of the Ellis Collection of Ornithological Books in the University of Kansas Libraries) in concluding that the map was likely produced in 1734 or 1735. Babinski points out that the Catesby map, because of its configuration of Georgia and inclusion of the dotted trail connecting Fort Argyle to the Combahee River, was based on State 4 of the 20-sheet Popple. Indeed, he points out that the watermarks in the first edition of volume one are the same as those found in states 1, 2, and 4 of Popple's map but not later.

It remains possible that the map was produced somewhat earlier, as Catesby and Popple exchanged materials prior to the publication of either work. It is also possible that the map was not published until the 1740s when the printing of volume two was underway. Some contend that the later dating is supported by surveys of "early" versus "late" copies of the first edition.

Beyond the issue of dating the first production of the map, the map's subsequent printings have caused substantial confusion. The following is an attempt to bring clarity to the issue of printing differentiation.

Printings

Catesby's map was published in four printings between 1731 (but circa 1734) and circa 1815. The first edition of his book was completed between 1729 and 1747, with title dates of 1731 and 1743. The second edition was printed in 1754. The third was printed in 1771. The fourth printing took place at the beginning of the 19th century, around 1815.

Despite this, the copperplate for this map was not changed, and the map is known in only one state. Traditionally, different printings of the map were differentiated by two factors: their coloring and their paper.

We have not seen a definitive treatment of the watermarks on Catesby's plates and maps, which can be used to determine the printings from which individual items were extracted. What follows is an attempt to bring some clarity to the issue, helped considerably by Mark Babinski's work on the Popple map watermarks.

1. First printing. Circa 1731-1743, but probably first in 1734. On laid paper with "crowned shield" watermarks. This is the standard language used by previous catalogers when discussing first-edition paper, but unfortunately, it leaves quite a bit of ambiguity in the case of this work. The watermark associated with the earliest printing is probably Babinski's crowned shield "4+" watermark with countermark "IV". The "4+" watermark appears on Popple map states 1 (printed December 1733), 2, 4a-c (the last printed late 1734), and problematically, state 8 of circa 1746. Because of its association with the earliest 1733 and 1734 printings of the Popple, this mark must be associated with similarly-dated printings of the Catesby. Historically, the "4+" watermark has sometimes conflated with the Strasburg Lily LVG paper, which can be more readily associated with the second edition. Given the protracted production of the first edition of Catesby's Natural History, which lasted for 18 years, it must be contemplated that his map could have been printed for well over a decade (ca. 1734-1747) while still falling into the "first edition" timeframe.
2. Second edition (second printing?). 1754. Confusingly, the watermarks we associate with Catesby's second edition of 1754 are first seen by Babinski in the Popple state 4c, printed in late 1734. Among these, he includes the Strasbourg lily over "LVG" with countermark "JW," a James Whatman paper (W. A. Churchill, Watermarks in Paper in Holland, England, France, etc., in the XVII and XVIII Centuries and Their Interconnection. Amsterdam: Menno Hertzberger & Co., 1935, page 40 indicates this was produced at Lubertus van Gerrevink's mill in Holland. However, it is also the case that in the middle of the 18th century "LVG" was a byword for quality paper and was adopted by unassociated makers, in much the same way the Whatman name would be copied later in the century); and "IHS" "IVILLEDARY", a watermark of Jean Villedary.
   
   We cannot help but think at least the Whatman watermark is erroneously associated with the 1734 date; James Whatman I entered the papermaking business in 1740 when he married Ann Harris, the widow of the previous papermaker at Turkey Mill, Richard Harris (see Harris, Theresa Fairbanks, and Scott Wilcox. Papermaking and the Art of Watercolor in Eighteenth-Century Britain: Paul Sandby and the Whatman Paper Mill. Yale University Press, 2006, pp. 78-79.)
   
   Do these watermarks represent secondary printings that took place during the production of the first edition, which were in some cases remainered and included in the second edition? That seems distinctly possible.
3. Third printing. 1771. Watermarks unexamined.
4. Fourth printing. circa 1815 or later. On wove paper with Whatman watermarks, often dated.

Babinski's illustration of the various Popple watermarks, useful in differentiating Catesby watermarks as well:

We expect these conclusions to be revised, especially with respect to the second and third editions, as further copies are examined. The obvious conclusions are that the earliest printings are probably those with the "4+" watermark and that the latest are those on wove Whatman paper of circa 1815 or a bit later.

In the first color variant (1734-54), French Louisiana, on both sides of the Mississippi, was colored green. In the second color variant (1771-c.1815), the territory east of the Mississippi is colored green, showing the part of Louisiana that had been acquired by Britain; the territory to the west, which now belonged to Spain, is colored blue.

We extend our thanks to Ashley Baynton-Williams for his assistance in cataloging this map.