'As Our Province Depends Wholy Upon Trade':
Trade on the Eastern Shore of Maryland
During the Seventeenth Century
by Natasha Jones
The examination of settlement, social, and trade patterns in the Chesapeake region
during the seventeenth century is critical to understanding American colonial origins.
Long recognized as having followed a different settlement and community model than is
found in New England, a study of the lifestyles and activities of the Chesapeake colonists
provides an important and often surprising view of the scope and diversity of early colonial
life in North America.
The ability to study the practices, concerns, and challenges that faced the
seventeenth-century Chesapeake settlers is made possible by the probate inventories, wills, judicial records, and other documentary materials available in Maryland and Virginia dating to this early period. This wealth of primary source material has been and continues to be the backbone supporting the body of research and historical examination of the early Chesapeake colonies.
Yet there are many details about daily life, environmental surroundings, and economic
exchanges that cannot be revealed by written records alone. Archaeological excavations often uncover physical features and artifacts that serve to fill in some of the gaps in the historical record. With the excavation of numerous seventeenth-century sites, archaeology has provided physical evidence which, when coupled with documentary sources, offers a valuable contribution to the exploration of colonial life on the Chesapeake Bay.
While the Western Shore of Maryland and the Tidewater areas of Virginia have been the subjects of intense examination and excavation since the middle of the twentieth century, the Eastern Shore of Maryland has been slow to attract the same level of attention by historians and archaeologists. Comprehensive historical works on the seventeenth-century Eastern Shore are few and far between and only a handful of sites have been excavated and shared with the public and academic community.
As such, the 2002 excavation of the Thornton plantation in Somerset County presents the opportunity to analyze and compare fresh artifactual evidence with existing documentary sources in order to gain new insights into the lives and customs of early Eastern Shore residents. The Thornton site also stands to contribute to the endeavor of understanding the larger picture of colonial life in Maryland's Bay areas through an assessment of the similarities and differences between sites on both shores.
Since it is such a recent excavation and a definitive analysis of its findings is
just getting under way, the Thornton site's overall importance and contribution to colonial Chesapeake history is still largely undetermined. Yet it is possible to begin the examination of the site's historical significance by placing the artifacts from the Thornton site into a larger context to determine what the material remains reveal about the lifestyles, economic status, and trading practices of its seventeenth-century inhabitants.
The result of this initial analysis has led to certain conclusions. The historical and archaeological evidence suggests that residents on both the Eastern and Western shores of Maryland during the latter half of the seventeenth century had access to the same approximate range and quality of trade goods, particularly in the case of household items. Evidence also indicates that settlers on both sides of the Chesapeake Bay not only engaged in similar trading practices, but were also part of the same transatlantic trade network.
Since trade is built upon and critically influenced by environmental and
socio-political conditions, the first step in testing this assertion began with an
examination of settlement patterns, transportation methods, and general trade practices
in the Chesapeake region during the early colonial period. The interactive nature of
commercial exchange demands an understanding of how geographic location, available means
of transportation, and customs associated with the transfer of goods determine or dictate the parameters of the trading landscape.
Research into early seventeenth-century land patents on the Eastern Shore of Virginia
reveal distinct patterns of settlement and expansion. Settlers showed a preference for the
bay side of the peninsula and parcels of land directly on rivers and their tributaries.
This preference was grounded in practical and economic reasons, as the prevalent method of
transportation in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake region was by water. Horses were not
frequently used for travel purposes until late in the century, most likely because the costs
outweighed the advantages of keeping them. Private ownership and agricultural cultivation
created a physical and economic landscape that was not initially conducive to convenient
overland travel. Mentions of "wadeing places" in judicial records reveal that there was a
certain amount of land traffic at shallow and narrow areas of rivers, yet the most common
and efficient way of getting from one location to another was by watercraft.
Early Eastern Shore settlers also chose land tracts that were adjacent to previously established
residences, creating a gradual northward sweep of expansion along the Bay. James Perry performed an
exhaustive examination of early settlement patterns on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and suggested that
this preference could be explained by its ability to create and strengthen a social support network, with
new settlers benefiting from having established neighbors in close proximity.
An exhaustive examination of land patenting trends on the Eastern Shore of Maryland has
not yet been performed to clearly establish settlement and expansion patterns, but some
historians acknowledge that such research would likely reveal that it followed the same
general model as was found on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. This seems a reasonable
assertion because of the almost identical environmental conditions between
both areas, and because many of the earliest residents of the Eastern Shore
originally settled in Virginia before migrating into Maryland.
In the specific case of Somerset County, many of the original prominent figures in the
community had first been landowners in Virginia's Accomack and Northampton Counties.
It seems likely that they would have recognized that certain settlement methods and practices
were effective and used them when they migrated northward. Even for
those who lacked prior experience with the specific environmental conditions of
the Eastern Shore, it must have been obvious that access to waterways offered the
ability to interact with community members and to engage in commerce with seafaring traders.
Documentary sources indicate that Chesapeake-area residents interacted with a diverse group
of traders. Various European goods were funneled through ports in Ireland, Holland, and
England. Exchanges were also made with traders from Barbados, as well as with the New England
colonies. Due to the lack of town sites with large ports and merchant organizations
on both sides of the Chesapeake Bay, mariners primarily dealt with individual planters and merchants. Trade ships traveled the rivers and tributaries and visited a multitude of locations to trade domestic items of European manufacture for local tobacco and fur. As such, a mariner could spend three or four months in the Chesapeake region in this time-consuming effort to trade one cargo for another.
This lack of large commercial centers and degree of small-scale trading undoubtedly affected the availability and distribution of items. With the improbability of one local merchant acquiring large amounts of specific items from a visiting trader, it is likely that Eastern and Western Shore planters and merchants had access to a similar, if not identical, selection of items from the same visiting traders.
While there was a small degree of manufacturing in the colonies, most household goods
used by seventeenth-century settlers were imported. A look at European manufacturing offers some insight into
the likely origins of these household items, especially in the area of domestic items.
Seventeenth-century probate inventories frequently made mention of utilitarian domestic
items of ceramic, pewter, and glass. The listings in inventories reveal valuable information
about the wealth and status of the owners of these items, yet they almost always lack enough
descriptive detail to offer an indication of the precise types and origins of the goods.
Archaeological efforts prove to be helpful by providing physical fragments of the actual
items that were owned and used by individuals. Coupling historical information about manufacturing trends with identifiable artifacts from seventeenth-century sites offers the ability to trace and understand the scope of trade networks. Excavations on the Western Shore of Maryland have made it possible to confirm its participation in a large international network of trade, yet the previous lack of adequate material evidence for the Eastern Shore has made it difficult to make a similar assertion about its access to the same network. As such, the Thornton site in Somerset County offers a new opportunity to assess and draw conclusions about the goods and trade connections available to Eastern Shore settlers.
An examination of the Thornton site must start with a brief history of the property
and its inhabitants. In May of 1662, William Thorne was granted a commission to establish
and command a "Company of Foote" in the newly settled Somerset County. Early records
show that Thorne was a tailor and landowner in Virginia's Accomack and Northampton Counties
prior to being granted this distinguished position. Later that year, he and his wife,
Winifred, sold their properties in Virginia and took up residence in the Manokin area
of Somerset County, where he patented a 600-acre tract of land located on the
northern shore of the Manokin River, naming it "Thornton."
After Thorne's death, David Brown acquired Thornton when he married Thorne's widow
sometime between 1669 and 1671. Surviving his wife and lacking children to inherit his
estate, Brown willed a portion of the original tract to his nephew, Alexander, in 1697,
with the stipulation that the property be given to another individual if his nephew failed
to continue to cultivate the land. It appears that Alexander was successful in meeting this
condition, as the property was willed to his daughter, Mary Woolford, in 1713.
While Thornton has been continuously occupied since its patenting in the 1660s, the
focal point of residence on the property changed at some point during the eighteenth
century, leaving the remains of the original site relatively intact and undisturbed.
This fact became significant when an exploratory excavation of the site was performed in
the summer of 2002, as it offered the invaluable opportunity to explore the remains of
a colonial residence that was relatively free from later nineteenth- and twentieth-century artifacts. The excavation unearthed a multitude of artifacts that can be positively identified as fragments of known seventeenth-century items. This new collection of artifacts offers an unprecedented opportunity to analyze the material culture of the seventeenth-century Eastern Shore, as well as the trading patterns of the time.
Several procedures have been used while examining the Thornton collection of artifacts
to ascertain the qualities and extents of
trading patterns on the Eastern Shore of Maryland during the seventeenth century. The first
was to determine the sources of the identifiable items
found at the site, establishing when and where they were manufactured. The second was to
put the items within a local historical context through the study of the documents associated
with the Thornton site and its inhabitants. The next was to place those inhabitants within
the context of the early Somerset County community with an inspection of documents relating
to local merchants and traders. From there, the information drawn from these efforts was
compared with six other sites in the Chesapeake region in an effort to assess the
similarities and differences between locations. Lastly, the combined results were put
into the larger context of seventeenth-century patterns and practices of trade and the
place of the Eastern Shore of Maryland within them.
The ability to determine where the items found at Thornton were produced and when they
were being circulated contributes information that can be applied to the effort of ascertaining
the scope of trading patterns and networks. Among the fragments found at Thornton were
multiple types of ceramic wares, tobacco pipes, bricks, iron nails, and window glass.
Prehistoric pottery and lithic materials were also collected, suggesting that Native Indians
either inhabited the area prior to colonization or were trading to some degree with the
The tobacco pipe fragments are especially valuable because the method of constructing
them altered over time. Internal bore diameters of tobacco pipe stems became smaller
through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, making it possible to put their date
of manufacture within a thirty-year time period. Pipe stems with internal bore diameters
measuring 8/64 of an inch were found in the Thornton excavation, a size that corresponds
with the years between 1650 and 1680 and confirms occupation of the site during that period.
Tobacco pipes were also often stamped with marks or decorative designs that were unique
to each maker. Three fragments found at Thornton had marks that identified Bristol as their
origin, including one pipe stem with a distinctive stamped fleur de lis motif.
Also found were fragments of red tobacco pipes with atypical bore measurements, commonly associated
with experimental attempts to manufacture these items in the colonies.
Pipe fragments from Thornton.
Rhenish Stoneware from Thornton.
The fragments of ceramics are equally valuable because of the stylistic and
construction variations that were used in crafting them. Each European pottery
center had a specific and unique method of firing, glazing, and decorating the
vessels that they produced during different time periods. Dozens of gray and
brown salt-glazed stoneware sherds with distinctive colors and etched floral
motifs on their exteriors were unearthed at the Thornton site. These are identified
as having been produced in the Rhenish region of Germany from the late sixteenth
century until 1725.
Sherds of gravel-tempered earthenware from North Devon were
also found on the site, including a large fragment of a milk pan. A multitude of
tin-glazed earthenware fragments were also recovered that are consistent with
firing and glazing practices of British seventeenth-century potters in London,
Bristol, Dublin, and Glasgow, as well as areas of France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.
Several porcelain fragments were also found, indicating access to Far Eastern goods
and the wealth to afford these costly items. 
The fragments of architectural materials found at Thornton cannot be as precisely dated as the tobacco pipe and ceramic remains, but they offer valuable information nonetheless. Pieces of yellow brick and green-glazed earthenware tiles that appear to be of Dutch manufacture are significant because they are seldom found in Chesapeake-area sites. A few fragments of burnt mortar and daub open the question of whether the original home on the property met its end in a fire or if these materials were used in the construction of fireplaces. Large amounts of window glass fragments and twisted wrought iron nails found on the site also present something of a mystery, as neither item has been found in such abundance at any other known seventeenth-century residential site near the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.
An examination of the documentary records associated with Thornton contributes something towards the solving of this mystery, however. David Brown's probate inventory listed 925 feet of pine plank, a parcel of window glass, and "1354 pound weight of Nails." A large stock of textiles, tools, wooden bowls, molasses, and feathers indicates that Brown was engaged in merchant activity, leading to the assumption that he may have been selling building supplies to community members. Yet judicial records reveal that Brown was due payment on behalf of the workers that constructed the Somerset County courthouse and jail, suggesting that he was overseeing building activities as well as providing the supplies. In that context, it is logical that an unusual amount of broken windows and damaged nails were found at the site.
Another direct connection between Brown's probate inventory and the Thornton artifacts
can be found in the parcel of earthenware located in the same area of his home as the building
supplies. As was common, no description of the shape, style, or origin of the wares was
included in the inventory. Prior to the excavation, this vague mention of the items was a
valuable piece of information because it offered evidence of Brown's wealth and trading
activities. With the ability to identify specific earthenware fragments found at the same
location dating to the same period, it is now possible to see where his stock may have
originated and what he was offering for sale to community members.
Further exploration of the documentary sources provides additional hints about the
trading connections that Brown had been able to access. His sister married Archibald Ereskin, a
trader from Limbrick in Lancashire, and resident of the sea-side of the Eastern Shore.
Civil relationships obviously existed between these
in-laws, as Brown was the executor of Ereskin's will, and administrator of his estate.
He also willed a significant portion of his property and possessions to his nieces and their
husbands, including Thornton. Yet in spite of Ereskin's appearance in several judicial
records as a trader in Somerset County, and in a probate inventory which indicated that
he was a permanent resident of the area, there is no evidence that he patented or
purchased land on the Eastern Shore. One deposition placed him at Brown's house
"late att night" during a violent exchange between neighbors, a scenario that prompts
the suspicion that Ereskin may have lived with Brown, with the two perhaps working as
partners in the merchant trade. This idea is strengthened by the lack of references
to Brown as a merchant in the documentary materials, an unexpected fact when his
household was so obviously supplied for trading activities. Yet it is difficult to
draw conclusions about this aspect of Brown's identity, as his title of Colonel may
have precluded or superseded his lesser role as a merchant in the community.
Had Brown and Ereskin shared a merchant partnership with Ereskin transporting goods and Brown supplying a place to store and distribute them, there is no question that they were situated in an ideal location for trade. Thornton was located directly on the Manokin River, approximately a half-mile west of one of the river's main branches. The Manokin Bridge was not built until the 1690s, but records show that it was constructed at the location of the previous "wadeing place," the area where the river could be crossed without a boat. These records also show Brown and his nearest neighbors as the sponsors of the building of the bridge, suggesting that it was located on or near Brown's property. This would place Thornton near a crossroad with access to both water and overland traffic, an advantageous location for acquiring and distributing goods.
Somerset County records confirm that Eastern Shore settlers enjoyed the same
level of diversity of traders as was found elsewhere in the Chesapeake region,
reflecting the diversity of the community itself. Ereskin was from Limbrick and
Brown and his family members have been tied to Strathclyde, Glasgow, and Paisley.
Other merchants and mariners that appear in financial disputes and depositions in Somerset
County records had origins in Dublin, Belfast, London, Cashell, Ratcliffe, and Barbados.
A number of individuals from New England in general, and Boston, in particular, also appear to have been trading in the area, as well as merchants from New York, Pennsylvania, and the nearby Accomack County, Virginia.
Origins of some English traders in Somerset County.
The material findings at Thornton support the idea that Somerset County residents
had access to a diverse array of trade goods, consistent with what was available to their
Western Shore counterparts. This conclusion is drawn from of a study of six early sites
in the Maryland Chesapeake region that have been the focus of previous historical and
archaeological study and that are comparable to Thornton in several ways. Each was used as a
personal residence, was located on or near a navigable waterway, and was occupied during
the second half of the seventeenth century by individuals of a socio-economic status
similar to Brown's.
Click for larger image.
Four of the sites are located on the Western Shore of Maryland. They are Providence, Patuxent Point,
Compton, and King's Reach in Anne Arundel and Calvert Counties. The Eastern Shore sites of Bennett's Point
in Queen Anne's County and the Doncaster site on the Wye River were also included in the comparison. The
latter presents an unusual case because it is believed to have been an early town site.
All of these sites were similar to Thornton in that they contained fragments of Rhenish
salt-glazed stoneware, North Devon gravel-tempered earthenware, and white tobacco pipes.
The ubiquitous nature of these items indicates that they were likely to have been staples
in the average Chesapeake household and in the overall trading circuit of the area. Following close behind in
frequency were tin-glazed earthenwares that were found at the Western Shore
sites, as well as at Thornton. Intended to be affordable imitations of Chinese porcelain,
these items may have been perceived as having a higher status of value than the black-glazed
redwares which made up the bulk of the ceramics found at the Doncaster site, possibly
revealing a slight difference in the socio-economic rank of its inhabitants when compared
with the others. Yet these redwares were also present at Thornton and in at least five of
the other sites, suggesting that the possession of refined domestic items did not preclude
the use of coarser wares.
The differences among the sites seem even more striking and perplexing in the context
of these fundamental similarities. Fragments of locally manufactured Morgan Jones
pottery were found at Patuxent Point and have been tentatively identified in the
Thornton assemblage of artifacts, but have not been found or identified at the other
sites. The Dutch yellow brick and green-glazed tiles that were unearthed at Thornton
have also proved to be rare for the Chesapeake area. While they are commonly found
in New York settlements, (and a few pieces were uncovered in Jamestown),
Providence is the only other site in the Bay area of Maryland where these items have
Where these artifacts had at least one other common occurrence, the abundance of
wrought-iron nails and window glass found at Thornton appears to be unparalleled.
Among the Compton, Patuxent Point, King's Reach, and Bennett's Point sites, a total of
248,055 artifacts were recovered, yet the number of window glass fragments numbered at
only thirty among the four sites. In comparison, out of Thornton's approximately
3,000 artifacts, at least 400 have been identified as window glass.
Just as the examination of the documentary sources provided one possible explanation
for this latter anomaly with the discovery of architectural supplies in Brown's inventory
and his recorded involvement in the construction of public buildings, further research may
explain the other unexpected parallels among sites. Captain John Odber and William
Stevens lived at Patuxent Point prior to relocating to Somerset County; perhaps they acted
as connecting points in a local trade network that could explain the presence of Morgan
Jones pottery at both sites.
David Brown was a Scotsman who did not come to the area until approximately 1670, making
it possible that his lack of involvement in earlier local conflicts with the Dutch did not
influence his willingness to exchange goods with them after trade prohibitions had been lifted.
The local Indian groups also freely engaged in trade with the Dutch, presenting the
possibility that the items were acquired through the middlemen of the Native Indians.
Since the unusual Flemish bricks and tiles were part of architectural features, it is also possible that they were acquired prior to the tensions between English and Dutch settlers in the 1650s.
These sorts of questions are both the frustration and the joy of historians and
historical archaeologists. For as much as can be determined through a study of written
records and artifactual evidence, there are always blind spots, weak points, and the
necessity-- and promise-- of further exploration. In the ongoing endeavor of
understanding this nation's collective origins and past, this brief examination of
the new Thornton site and initial foray into placing it within a larger historical
context is far from momentous. Yet it scratches upon new ground by offering the
first tentative synthesis of historical and archaeological evidence provided by one
of the few known seventeenth-century sites on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
Altogether, the common and disparate elements of all of the sites that were surveyed
in comparison with Thornton convey the existence of a web of trade that left residents
on both shores of Maryland with access to the same quality and selection of goods from
visiting traders, assuming they had the means to afford them. While the concept of mass
production and distribution of relatively homogenous goods seems a modern idea, evidence shows
that seventeenth-century residents on the Chesapeake had the ability to develop a
collection of domestic possessions that were similar to their counterparts in other areas of the state, the whole of the North American colonies, and even the English-speaking world at large. And while the notion of diversity in commercial and economic exchanges is also commonly regarded as a quality unique to contemporary life, it is clear that the early settlers of Somerset County were a part of a truly international trade network.
1. There is debate surrounding the proper way of referring to the western shore
of Maryland. James Horn deemed it deserving of recognition as a corporate entity and
capitalized the phrase in his work Adapting to a New World: English Society in the
Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: North Carolina Press, 1994). This
paper will follow his example; Michael A. Smolek, Historical Archaeology of the
Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake: A Guide to Sources (St. Leonard: Jefferson Patterson
Park and Museum Occasional Paper, 1984), 12-22; Paul G. E. Clemens, The Atlantic Economy
and Colonial Maryland's Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1980), 26n.
2. James R. Perry, The Formation of a Society on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1615-1655
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990) 36-46; Atwood S. Barwick, trans.,
Archives of Maryland Online: Somerset County Judicial Records [database on-line] (Lakeville,
CT: Maryland State Archives, 1999, accessed 20 April 2004); available from
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/; 106:10, 57:254, 1:531, 106:74.
3. James R. Perry, The Formation of a Society on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1615-1655
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), 55-90.
4. Lorena Walsh, "Community Networks in Early Maryland," in Colonial Chesapeake Society,
Lois Green Carr and others, eds. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 200;
James P. Horn, Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century
Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 186.
5. Raphael Semmes, Captains and Mariners of Early Maryland (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1937) 50; Lorena Walsh, "Community Networks in Early Maryland," in
Colonial Chesapeake Society, Lois Green Carr and others, eds. (Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1988), 201, 218.
6. Paul G. E. Clemens, The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland's Eastern Shore: From
Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980), 42.
7. Michael A. Smolek, Historical Archaeology of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake:
A Guide to Sources (St. Leonard: Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Paper,
8. Atwood S. Barwick, trans., Archives of Maryland Online: Somerset County Judicial
Records, 1692-1696 [database on-line] (Lakeville, CT: Maryland State Archives, 1999,
accessed 20 April 2004); available from http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/; 3:453;
Somerset County Land Office, Patent Record, 6, 19-20(microfilm, SR7348, Edward H.
Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury,
Maryland); Howard Mackey and Marlene A. Groves, eds., Northampton County Virginia
Record Book : Orders, Deeds, Wills &c (Rockport, ME: Picton Press, 2002), 99, 157.
9. William Thorne, Maryland Prerogative Court Wills, 1635-1674, 1, 368 (microfilm,
SR4396). Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury
University, Salisbury, Maryland); Atwood S. Barwick, trans., Archives of Maryland Online:
Somerset County Judicial Records, 1670-1671 [database on-line] (Lakeville, CT: Maryland
State Archives, 1999, accessed 20 April 2004); available from
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/; 86:115; David Brown, Maryland Prerogative Court
Wills, 1688-1700, 6, 150 (microfilm, SR4402, Edward H. Nabb Research Center for
Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland); Alexander
Brown, Maryland Prerogative Court Wills, 1710-1714, 13, 508 (microfilm, SR 4407,
Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University,
10. Elizabeth Ragan, “Thornton 2002” (Salisbury, MD: Salisbury University, 2004, photocopied).
11. Peter Davey, ed., The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe (Oxford: B.A.R., 1979), 229; Ivor NoŽl Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (New York: Knopf, 1970), 296-313; Elizabeth Ragan, “Thornton 2002” (Salisbury, MD: Salisbury University, 2004, photocopied).
12. Elizabeth Ragan, “Thornton 2002”
(Salisbury, MD: Salisbury University, 2004, photocopied);
Ivor NoŽl Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (New York: Knopf, 1970),
13. Elizabeth Ragan, “Thornton 2002” (Salisbury, MD: Salisbury University, 2004,
photocopied); Richard Neve, Neve's The City And Country Purchaser and Builder's Dictionary
(Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1969), 40, 131, 269.
14. David Brown, Maryland Prerogative Court Inventories, 1692-1698, 16, 221 (microfilm,
MSA SM13, Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury
University, Salisbury, Maryland); Atwood S. Barwick, trans., Archives of Maryland Online:
Somerset County Judicial Records, 1675-1677 [database on-line] (Lakeville, CT: Maryland
State Archives, 1999, accessed 20 April 2004); available from
15. Atwood S. Barwick, trans., Archives of Maryland Online: Somerset County Judicial
Records [database on-line] (Lakeville, CT: Maryland State Archives, 1999, accessed 20
April 2004); available from http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/; 92-96 535:74, 535:14, 89:107.
16. Atwood S. Barwick, trans., Archives of Maryland Online: Somerset County Judicial
Records [database on-line] (Lakeville, CT: Maryland State Archives, 1999, accessed 20 April 2004); available from http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/; 89-90 106:10.
17. The Commissariot Record of Glasgow: Register Of Testaments, 1547-1800. Register of Burials in the Chapel Royal or Abbey of Holyroodhouse, 1706-1900
(Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1994), 15, 17, 63; Atwood S. Barwick, trans., Archives of
Maryland Online: Somerset County Judicial Records [database on-line] (Lakeville, CT: Maryland State Archives, 1999, accessed 20 April 2004); available from http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/; 87: 579,87:581, 89:20, 89:79, 106:17, 106:26, 405:109, 405:212, 405:214, 406:85, 535:5, 535:15, 535:29, 535:67, 535:69, 535:74, 535:78, 535:131.
18. Kit W. Wesler, “An Archaeologist’s Perspective on the Ancient Town of Doncaster,” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 80 No. 4 (Winter 1985): 383-391.
19. Julia King, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Archaeological Collections
[database on-line] (St. Leonard, MD: Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, 2004,
accessed 20 April 2004); available from
Ivor NoŽl Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (New York: Knopf, 1970), 105-107, 133-134, 296-313.
20. Julia King, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Archaeological Collections [database on-line] ( St. Leonard, MD: Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, 2004, accessed 20 April 2004); available from http://www.jefpat.org/NEHWeb/Assets/Documents/HomePage/Final20Introduction.htm.
21. Elizabeth Ragan, “Thornton 2002” (Salisbury, MD: Salisbury University, 2004, photocopied).
22. Julia A. King and Douglas H. Ubelaker, eds., Living and Dying on the 17th Century
Patuxent Frontier (Crownsville: The Maryland Historical Trust Press, 1996), 15-32.
23. Al Luckenbach, Providence 1649, The History and Archaeology of Anne
Arundel County Maryland’s First European Settlement (Annapolis: The Maryland State
Archives and Maryland Historical Trust, 1995), 1-28; James P. Horn, Adapting to a New
World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1994), 156; J. Frederick Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds:
Anglo-Indian Interest Groups and the Development of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake”
in Colonial Chesapeake Society, Lois Green Carr and others, eds. (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 84.