These research notes are provided as-is and contain supplementary working research.
This page expands an Evidence link in Colonial frontier rights: the findings, sources, and qualifications behind the marked passage.
Finding
Finding: Quinapaug line = unrecorded Providence-jurisdiction frontier share
The 1663 inventory's 'estate layd out in land at Quinapaug wch we know not' is best read as an unrecorded right or share in the Providence-jurisdiction Quinapaug land speculation (Foote to Hudson to Boston men) - an unvalued frontier proprietary interest, not appraised Braintree real estate.
Why this conclusion
- Supported by Evidence Suffolk Deeds IV - Quinapaug (Providence-jurisdiction) tract, no Gurney in the recorded deedsThe Suffolk Deeds Quinapaug conveyances locate the tract in the Providence jurisdiction and show no recorded Gurney parcel, grounding the unrecorded-share reading of the estate line.
- Supported by Evidence SPR #338 - the 1663 'Quinapaug wch we know not' estate lineThe inventory's 'Quinapaug wch we know not' line is the primary evidence for the unvalued frontier interest.
- Synthesized by Analysis Analysis: proprietary right, not residence (the 1659-1663 frontier pattern)The unvalued Quinapaug interest is the third leg of the frontier-rights pattern.
Related context
- Context from Analysis Analysis: an all-movable estate with no valued real estateFraming the estate as otherwise all personalty makes the lone unvalued Quinapaug land line (frontier-rights) legible as the single land asset the appraisers could not price.
- Context from Negative result Negative: Early Providence records hold no Gurney; bounds the Quinapaug interestCross-unit: the silent Providence records bound John's unrecorded Quinapaug (Providence-jurisdiction) frontier share.
Also covered here
Technical details
- Evidence marker:
G13-PM-000012 - Primary research item:
G13-RI-000030 - Graph revision:
244 - Machine-readable JSON:
/assets/g13-graph/marker-bundles/G13-PM-000012.json