Genetic Networks, Part 7: Strategically Move from DNA Analysis to Documentary Research

You’ve done the hard work in identifying a genetic network and analyzing the matches (Part 5). Now comes the fun part — conducting documentary research. Not that the other steps were not enjoyable and were void of documentary research, but now we get to apply our prior DNA observations within new record groups and attempt to link together the discovered unlinked family clusters.

I don’t wish to mislead you that this next phase is not without its challenges, but it’s made “easier” because you now have a more focused strategy for your research efforts. While we now progress into documentary research, we don’t fully leave DNA analysis. Through a process I call “Genealogy Ping Pong“, we take newly found documentary evidence and return to our DNA and genetic network to corroborate or refute the documentary observations and guide subsequent analysis of both DNA and documentary research. It’s an iterative process and a volley between records and DNA.

In the next sections, I present my documentary research strategy for genetic networks and situate within the Hill genetic network example previously showcased in Part 5 of this blog series and visualized below.

Documentary Research Strategy

Along the way through the analysis of the genetic network, many family trees and record groups were reviewed to construct the unlinked family clusters. Now, the process becomes more systematic and applied as we attempt to construct a theory for how the sub-clusters are related, or if we’re lucky, confirming how they are actually related.

I follow a very specific three-step process when investigating the sub-clusters within a genetic network: research skimming, targeting, and probing.

1. Research Skimming. For each sub-cluster, I strategically review only a few select record groups to construct a geographically-relevant timeline for the individual or ancestral couple represented by the unlinked family cluster. I determine when each sub-cluster arrived, lived, and left a particular location. I’m looking for common migration paths, common places of residence, and common FAN Clubs (friends, associates, and neighbors) so I can link clusters together. In this skimming strategy, I rely on selectively reviewing certain record groups I call Plats, Plots, and Plants. Because it’s a skimming strategy intended to be an initial pass at research, I find it helpful to lean on FamilySearch.org’s full-text search and indexed sources to help construct the timeline in a more expeditious manner.
   • Plats refer to the piece of ground where they lived. I use census and local tax records to place them to a town or area and use land records to more precisely situate them to particular piece of land where neighbors can be readily identified.
   • Plots refer to the documented events that connect people and establish relationships. Like a plot for any good story, I use civil court and vital records (birth, marriage, death, and probate) to temporally and geographically link sub-clusters to others who might have migrated with each other.
   • Plants is a metaphor for other researchers’ family trees for an unlinked family cluster. I use these trees as possible hints to direct my research. Typically, I find that my unlinked family cluster is also many other people’s brick walls, and so others’ family trees are often riddled with errors and undocumented theories. However, a curious mind can find clues here, but one should also be skeptical and be conscious of confirmation bias.¹
     
2. Research Targeting. It is probable you have discovered several unlinked family clusters like I did. I now select one sub-cluster to research in greater depth hoping it might be the one to tie all sub-clusters together. It becomes the lead research sub-cluster. I select a sub-cluster based on two criteria: recency and familiarity.
   • Recency. I concentrate on a sub-cluster that shares larger amounts of shared DNA with me as measured by both centimorgans (cM) and the number of segments. These clusters are likely to be more closely related to me (i.e., more recent common ancestor) and hopefully easier to link into one of my genetic lines of interest than clusters who share less DNA with me.
   • Familiarity. I balance sub-cluster recency with a sub-cluster that resided in areas where I possess greater familiarity with its records. I will more readily know how to find and use the records here than in geographies to which I have little exposure. I need to balance efficiency with utility.
     
3. Research Probing. We all know the dangers of genealogical rabbit holes, but I permit myself to stray from my focused research strategy on only one potential interesting lead. Like I tell my marketing students when interviewing research subjects, permit yourself to deviate from your interview guide if you believe you’re going to discover something helpful that you didn’t anticipate learning. This is called probing, and I recommend to deviate minimally and strategically. I typically give myself about a half of a day to evaluate the potential lead to see if it is an actual rabbit hole or if it warrants further investigation.

If you followed me along in this 7-part series, then I think you owe it yourself to see how and what I discovered about my Hill genetic network. It’s a case study worth reading, and one I’m very excited about.

Research Skimming: Hill Genetic Network Timeline

In Part 5 of this blog series (see image below), I identified five unlinked family clusters using the EGGOS search strategy focusing on those shared matches representing the ancestors of my four-times great grandfather, William Hill (1775-1836).

Because I am more familiar with Pennsylvania research, I prioritized the sub-clusters who had origins here, namely, the Hills, Keels, and Clarks. These clusters were also larger both in the number of total matches and shared cM. The clusters for Linn and Harris were smaller and were in the Southern U.S. where I have disproportionately less research experience.

Based on my research spanning two months, I was able to construct a basic timeline, which I graphically present in the map below. After the map, I briefly present the key pieces of information that permitted the development of the timeline. I then conclude with a theory for how the groups are related to one another.

William Hill (1775-1836) Sub-Cluster

My 4x great grandfather, William Hill, first appeared in Nippenose Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania in 1805 where he received a warrant for 400 acres of land along the west branch of the Susquehanna River.¹ He left prior to the 1810 census and arrived Harrison County, Ohio by 1812.² He removed to neighboring Tuscarawas County, Ohio by 1828 and died there in April 1836.³ His place of birth is not known, but his children’s 1880 and later censuses, which indicate their parents’ birthplaces, suggest he was born in Pennsylvania.

Joseph M. Keel (1777-1864) Sub-Cluster

Interestingly, Joseph M. Keel appears to have been born Joseph McKeel but later changed his name by dropping the “Mc” prefix and moving it to a middle initial. Early census and tax records in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and Stark County, Ohio, where he later removed, list him as McKill, McKeel, Kiel, Keel, etc.⁴ Joseph’s inconsistent use of the Mc prefix is unknown, but his later records and his children adopted the spelling as “Keel”. The 1800 census may hint to a potential reason for the name change. He and two other unnamed individuals were listed here in the column, “All other persons except Indians not taxed”.⁵ It begs the question, ‘why was he not taxed?’

Joseph resided in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania between 1800 and 1814 and then removed to Stark County, Ohio where he later died in 1864.⁶ Joseph had three children, but only the two youngest were found within the genetic network suggesting the possibility for two different mothers for the three children.⁷

Clark Brothers Sub-Cluster

There appears to have been several Clark brothers who resided in an area that was at times claimed by Virginia (Ohio County, West Virginia) and Pennsylvania (Washington County, Pennsylvania). The supposed brothers include Hezekiah, John, and Benjamin. For the DNA matches I have identified, it has been difficult to sort out who was the father of these individuals. Other researchers have been similarly stymied. However, based on where my matches’ Clark ancestor resided and the migration routes traveled, it appears my DNA connections are more closely tied to John and Hezekiah.

One of the earliest confirmed records for any of the brothers is from 1777 where Hezekiah’s wife, Sarah, asked for financial assistance for her and her two young children while her husband was enlisted in the 13th Virginia Regiment during the Revolutionary War.⁸ John also served in the Revolutionary War but from Donegal Township in neighboring Washington County, Pennsylvania as part of the Continental Pennsylvania Line 3^rd Battalion. In John’s 1833 application for a pension, he stated he was born in 1759 in Pennsylvania and resided on Buffalo Creek at the time of his enlistment.⁹ Nothing much is known about Benjamin Clark. The last confirmed records for Benjamin are from 1798 and 1800 where he and John Clark are shown renting land in Donegal Township, which would later become Buffalo Township.¹⁰

All three brothers were found among the earliest taxed in Donegal Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania in the 1780s.¹¹ Around 1807, Hezekiah and John removed to Fayette County, Ohio where Hezekiah had obtained bounty land for his service.¹² Hezekiah died about 1815 in Green Township, Fayette County, Ohio.¹³ Members of Hezekiah’s and John’s families later removed from Fayette County to Scott County, Indiana. John died 14 April 1846 in Lexington, Scott County, Indiana.¹⁴

Compared to where the Clarks migrated, an interesting observation is made about where they might have originated prior to the Washington County, Pennsylvania and Ohio County West Virginia area. Other family trees, and an 1886-published county history¹⁵ indicate the Clarks may have originated from Kent County, Delaware in the mid-1700s.

Asa Linn (1777-1868) Sub-Cluster

Less is reliably known about Asa Linn because he resided in a burned county where there is great record loss, i.e., courthouse fire. Asa married Elizabeth Hawkins about 1805 probably in Jackson County, Tennessee where he resided as an adult. Asa was born about 1777 in North Carolina, and his wife was reportedly born about 1790 in Burke County, North Carolina.

Clay Harris (1858-1895) Sub-Cluster

Clay Harris, also reportedly known as Cassius Marcellus Clay Harris, married Rachel Brown on 15 August 1886 in Independence County, Arkansas.¹⁶ Family trees suggest that Clay Harris was born in Jefferson County, Kentucky and Rachel Brown in Meigs County, Tennessee. It’s unclear whether the DNA connection to the Hill genetic network is on the Harris or Brown side.

Research Targeting: Clark Sub-Cluster

After reviewing the initially collected data, which was selectively presented within the preceding Sub-Cluster summaries, I decided to lead the research with the Clark sub-cluster. The other sub-clusters were more problematic, and I discovered a few hints for the Clarks that made it more feasible for it to take the research lead.

To compare, Hill is my line, and I had long been brick-walled with a common surname and no other hints. The Keel/McKeel cluster, despite it’s unique surname, equally presented no helpful clues to its origin prior to its Cumberland County, Pennsylvania debut in 1800. Linn was from a burned county, and I could see other researchers struggled to connect Asa Linn to another Linn family. Despite the Harris sub-cluster being closer to present day, it too was fraught with dead ends. As such, Clark appears to be the better option.

Clarks in Kent County, Delaware

As mentioned previously, the Clark brothers are suggested to have been related to Mascal Clark, who died in Kent County in 1755. Mascal Clark is reportedly the son of John Clark, although this could not be confirmed. In Mascal Clark’s will, he listed his children, including the following sons: Nehemiah, Hezekiah, Joshua, David, Race, and Benjamin.¹⁷ The reader should take note in the similarity of the names of the previously mentioned Clark brothers and their children associated with my DNA matches as presented in the Hill genetic network image, i.e., John, Hezekiah, Benjamin, Joshua, and David.

A review of probate and land records in Kent County indicate that the Clark brothers found in Washington County, Pennsylvania are not likely the sons of Mascal Clark. These records suggest that Mascal Clark’s children were at least a generation older than the Clark brothers found in Washington County, Pennsylvania and serving in the Revolutionary War. It is more likely that the brothers were the grandsons of Mascal Clark.

Mascal Clark resided on 468 acres of land called Mascal’s Choice, which he received in 1735 from the Proprietors of Pennsylvania,¹⁸ in an area of Kent County referred to as St. Jones Hundred (later called Dover Hundred). According to his 1755 will, Mascal Clark also owned land in Worcester County, Maryland that he received from his father.¹⁹

Research Probing: Mackeel in Dorchester County, Maryland

Because Mascal Clark owned land in Worcester County, Maryland, I expanded my search for the Clarks to Maryland as well as Delaware. Using FamilySearch’s full text search feature, I discovered a 1733 record mentioning a Hezekiah Clark in a Maryland Calendar of Wills online book.²⁰ It was too early to be “my” Hezekiah, but I scanned the book’s index and noticed several entries for Mackell and Mackeel in the early 1700s. It seemed similar to the McKeel surname associated with one sub-cluster — an opportunity for probing given the uncommon surname in a geographically appropriate location.

Very quickly within this segue, I discovered two very important items: 1) an undocumented marriage in a family tree for Sarah Mackeel and William Hill probably in the early 1700s²¹ and 2) that the Hills and McKeels were neighbors sharing residency on a small peninsula now called McKeil Point, which extended out into the mouth of Choptank River on the Chesapeake Bay in Dorchester County, Maryland.²² The mentioned William Hill had two brothers: Richard and John.²³

The Hills and McKeels arrived Dorchester in the late 1600s and patented several pieces of land as shown in the map below.²⁴ Besides sharing a property line, there were several other records of note. The two families sold land to one another,²⁵ and when William Hill and Sarah McKeel’s son (William Jr.) died in 1760, one of William Jr.’s son (John) chose Thomas McKeel as his guardian.²⁶

John Hill: From Dorchester County to Kent County

Perhaps of more importance was a 1741 land sale where John Hill (brother to William Hill Sr.) sold his land to Thomas McKeel.²⁷ The record stated that John Hill was now of Kent County, Pennsylvania (now Delaware). The previous year in 1740, John Hill acquired land in Murderkill Hundred, Kent County near the present town of Camden and just south of Dover.²⁸ As shown in the map below, John Hill lived in three different locations between 1740 and 1762.²⁹ All locations were within five miles of the land inherited by Mascal Clark’s sons.

John Hill and the Clarks appeared to be part of the same community. In 1753, when John Hill sold a portion of his land, David Clark was a witness.³⁰ In 1762, John Hill was the administrator for the estate of Richard Manwaring, and within the estate papers, Nehemiah Clark was mentioned.³¹ Across several land sales, some of the following names of non-governmental individuals were either witnesses or grantees/grantors on records relating to both John Hill and several children of Mascal Clark, including Thomas Nixon, John Clayton, and Vincent Lockerman.³² Indeed, Nixon, Clayton, and Lockerman were listed in the final accounts within Mascal Clark’s probate.³³

A modest amount of information on John Hill’s family was discovered. Land records in Kent County and probate records for John’s mother in Dorchester County indicate John’s wife was named Margaret and he had at least two children, namely John Jr. and William.³⁴ John Sr. was likely born in the 1600s given that he patented his Dorchester land grant in 1709.³⁵ He probably married in Dorchester. John’s father was William Hill, who patented land called Cherry Point in 1675³⁶ on what is now called McKeil Point (see above map for Dorchester). John’s mother was Agatha Hill, who died in 1730 naming her children as Hannah, John, William, Richard, and Amy.³⁷

A Theory for the Hill Genetic Network

Based on the collected research, I have constructed two competing theories for the ancestors of my 4x great grandfather William Hill (1775-1836) and how the McKeel (Keel), Clark, Linn, and Harris families connect. I realize that much more documentary research and DNA analysis is needed, but I believe the discovered genetic network has illuminated a path forward. While speculative, the image below visualizes how I believe the families are connected.

It is probable that my 4x great grandfather William Hill (1775-1836) descends from John Hill Sr. of Dorchester and Kent Counties through one of his known sons, either John or William. Indeed, the naming conventions are similar between the two families. My great grandfather William had only two adult sons who were named William and John. A male child of my ancestor, whose name is unknown, died as an adolescent. The last identified record for John Sr. of Kent County or his sons William and John was in 1763. It is probable that one or all of them migrated to Pennsylvania shortly thereafter, which might explain how my great grandfather ended up in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania by 1805.

The McKeel genetic connection likely originates from John Hill Sr.’s time in Dorchester County where the families were neighbors. As previously mentioned, John Hill’s brother William was reported to have married Sarah Mackeel. As depicted above as Theory 1, it is possible then that John Hill Sr. also married a McKeel thereby facilitating the genetic connection to Joseph McKeel of Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, whose ancestors also likely migrated out of Maryland to Pennsylvania. As an alternate Theory 2, it is possible that one of the male McKeels in Dorchester County married a Hill producing the Joseph McKeel line. However, no records have been found in Dorchester confirming a marriage between the Hills and the McKeels, but records of this type and this time are sparse. However, the Hill and McKeel families were neighbors, sold land to one another, and were involved in each others probates.

Given that Clark descendants match both McKeel and Hill descendants within the genetic network and John Hill moved to Kent County where the Clarks are presumed to have resided, it seems more probable that a Clark married a Hill in Kent County. Perhaps John Hill Sr. had a daughter who married one of Mascal Clark’s sons. There is no evidence that any McKeels moved from Dorchester County to Kent County suggesting the Hill-McKeel connection is from Dorchester County, which is earlier in the timeline.

An interesting observation is that the forename Joseph prominently appears in both the Clark and McKeel lines. While Joseph is not an uncommon name, it is also not so common as to be found in most families. Joseph was not found in the Clark lines prior to the Clark brother’s generation. So, if a Clark married a Hill, it seems quite possible that the introduction of the Joseph name is from whomever John Hill married in Dorchester County.

The Southern members of the Hill Genetic Network are more difficult to connect into the Hill line, namely Linn and Harris. These two families appear to have some origins in North Carolina that later moved into Tennessee. Searching land records in North Carolina using FamilySearch.org’s Full-text search indicate there were a number of families who moved from Kent and Dorchester Counties to several counties in North Carolina in the mid-1700s. It is possible a child of John Hill Sr. married into a family that moved to North Carolina with a descendant later intermarrying with Linn and/or Harris.

Conclusion

Using the three-step strategy for analyzing documentary research, I constructed a geographically relevant timeline for each sub-cluster (research skimming), selected one sub-cluster to take the lead in the documentary research (research targeting), and permitted one tactical detour in the research plan (research probing).

While the amount of time spent finding, constructing, and analyzing the genetic network cannot be understated, the efficiency and efficacy of that time was maximized, and the number of dead ends and rabbit holes minimized. I now have a theory for who the potential ancestors are for my 4x great grandfather William Hill (1775-1836). My research plan moving forward is more focused and structured.

The next step is to select a different “B” match (see Part 1), who is a member of one of the newly discovered sub-clusters (e.g., Clark, Keel, etc.) rather than a known descendant of William Hill as was done in Part 5 of this blog series. The selection of a new “B” match is called viewed match switching and will produce a new but related genetic network of matches to evaluate. Most matches will likely be the same, but hopefully a few new matches will be found offering greater insight into how the unlinked family clusters are connected.

This is the last post in the seven-part blog post series. Review all previous posts in the Genetic Network series by starting with Part 1.

---

---

Sources

1. In genealogy, confirmation bias refers to selectively choosing information that confirms a previously held theory while ignoring or rejecting other equally relevant information because it goes against your previously held theory. ↩︎
2. Pennsylvania, U.S., Land Warrants and Applications, 1733-1952, William Hill (1805), Nippenose, Lycoming County, No. 3, image 15-16 of 26; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 13 October 2024); citing Warrant Applications, 1733-1952, Pennsylvania State Archives, Land Warrants, Harrisburg, PA. ↩︎
3. 1820 U.S. census, Harrison County, Ohio, population schedule, Cadiz, William Hill, p. 16, image 15 of 24; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 15 October 2024); NARA series M33, roll 93, p. 28. ↩︎
4. Ohio, Wills and Probate Records, 1786-1998, William Hill (1836), Tuscarawas County, Nos. 1-2-3-4, p. 87, image 76 of 561; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 15 October 2024). ↩︎
5. For example, Stark Count, Ohio, Tax Records, Joseph McKeel (1834), Bethlehem Township; database with image, FamilySearch (www.familysearch.org, accessed 13 October 2024), Family History Library Film 4849277, image 319 of 417. And 1830 U.S. census, Stark County, Ohio, population schedule, Cadiz, Joseph Keil, p. 330, image 1 of 12; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 15 October 2024); NARA series M19, roll 140.  ↩︎
6. 1800 U.S. census, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, population schedule, West Pennsboro, Joseph McKill, p. 118, image 4 of 7; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 15 October 2024); NARA series M33, roll 93. ↩︎
7. Ohio, U.S., MOLO Obituary Index, 1865-2012, Joseph M. Keel (1864), Massillon Independent, 3 November 1864; database, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 15 October 2024). ↩︎
8. “Public Member Trees,” database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com, accessed 15 October 2024), “Wilson Family Tree” family tree by rwilson7135, profile for Joseph McKeel. ↩︎
9. Carnegie Museum (1904). “Minute (or Order) book of the Virginia Court held for Ohio County, Virginia : at Black’s Cabin (now West Liberty, W. Va.), from January 6, 1777, until September 4, 1780, when its jurisdiction over any part of Pennsylvania had ceased” in Annals of the Carnegie Museum, Vol. III, No. 1., Holland, W.J., ed., Pittsburgh, PA: Board of Trustees of the Carnegie Institute. ↩︎
10. Pension Application, John Clark, Private, Revolutionary War, “Declaration of John Clark in order to obtain the benefit of the Act of Congress passed June 7, 1832”, dated 26 February 1833, Pension Application W.9789, Pension Office, War Department, Washington, DC; online database with images, Fold3 (www.fold3.com, accessed 13 October 2024). ↩︎
11. Pennsylvania, U.S. Direct Tax Lists, 1798, Benjamin Clerk [Clark], Donegal, image 405 of 872; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 13 October 2024); citing National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. And 1800 U.S. census, Washington County, Pennsylvania, population schedule, Buffalo, p. 705, image 1 of 5, Benjamin Clarke; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 13 October 2024); Family History Library Film 363347, series M32, roll 44. ↩︎
12. Crumrine, Boyd (1882). History of Washington County, Pennsylvania with Biographical Sketches of Many of Its Pioneers and Prominent Men. Philadelphia, PA: L.H. Leverts & Co. ↩︎
13. Smith, Clifford Neal (1982). Federal Land Series, Vol. 4 Part 1, Grants in the Virginia Military District of Ohio. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, p. 178. ↩︎
14. Fayette County, Ohio, land deed, Hezekiah Clark to David Clark (1810), Vol. A, p. 35-36, Recorder of Deeds, Washington Court House, database with an image (www.familysearch.org, accessed 16 October 2024), image 36-37 of 655, film 8141883. And Fayette County, Ohio, land deed, David Clark to Mildred Barlow (1815), Vol. A, p. 444-445, Recorder of Deeds, Washington Court House, database with an image (www.familysearch.org, accessed 16 October 2024), image 263 of 655, film 8141883. ↩︎
15. IBID, Pension Application, John Clark. ↩︎
16. Inter-state Publishing Company (1886). Biographical and Historical Record of Wayne and Appanoose Counties, Iowa. Chicago, IL: Inter-state Publishing Company, p. 469. ↩︎
17. Arkansas, U.S., County Marriages Index, 1837-1957, C. C. Harris and Rachel Brown (1886), Independence County; database, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 13 October 2024). ↩︎
18. Kent County, Delaware, Register of Wills, Maschal Clark (1755), will, Vol. K1, p. 116-117; database with an image (www.familysearch.org, accessed 16 October 2024), image 124-125 of 666, film 7652920. ↩︎
19. Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, Mascal Clark to William Shimmer and John Misslin (1742), land deed, Forest of Dover, Vol. M1, p. 205, image 501 of 639; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 779. ↩︎
20. IBID, Kent County, Delaware, will, Maschal Clark. ↩︎
21. Baldwin, Jane, and Roberta Balling Henry (1925). The Maryland Calendar of Wills: Wills from 1732 to 1738, Vol. VII. Baltimore, MD: Kohn & Pollock, Inc., Publishers. ↩︎
22. “Public Member Trees,” database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com, accessed 24 August 2024), “Phillips Family Tree” family tree by William Phillips, profile for Sarah MacKeel. ↩︎
23. Mowbray, Calvin W, and Mary I. Mowbray (1992). The Early Settlers of Dorchester County and Their Lands, Volume 1. Family Line Publications. ↩︎
24. Maryland, U.S., Calendar of Wills, 1635-1743, Agathia Hill (1730), Dorchester, Book 20, p. 150; database, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 13 October 2024); citing Jane Baldwin Cotton, Maryland Calendar of Wills. Vol. I-VIII, Baltimore, MD, USA, Kohn & Pollock, Inc., 1904-1928. ↩︎
25. IBID, Mowbray et al., Vol. 1. And, Mowbray, Calvin W, and Mary I. Mowbray (1992). The Early Settlers of Dorchester County and Their Lands, Volume 2. Family Line Publications. ↩︎
26. Dorchester County, Maryland, Recorder of Deeds, John Hill to Thomas Mackeel (1741), land deed, Old Book 10, p. 349. ↩︎
27. Dorchester County, Maryland, Recorder of Deeds, John Hill and Thomas Mackeel (1767), appointment of guardian, Old Book 21, p. 451. ↩︎
28. IBID, Dorchester County, Maryland, John Hill to Thomas Mackeel (1741). ↩︎
29. Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, John Hill from Andrew Caldwell (1740), land deed, land called “Bracknock”, Vol. M1, p. 89-90, image 384-385 of 639; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 779. ↩︎
30. Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, John Hill from James Darling (1753), land deed, Murderkill Hundred, Vol. O1, p. 166, image 361 of 632; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 780. And, Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, John Hill from Henry Miller (1761), land deed, Murderkill Hundred, Vol. Q1, p. 31 image 208 of 649; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 781. ↩︎
31. Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, John Hill to Joseph Powell (1753), land deed, Murderkill Hundred, Vol. O1, p. 171, image 366 of 632; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 780. ↩︎
32. Kent County, Delaware, Register of Wills, Richard Manwaring (1762), final account; database with an image (www.familysearch.org, accessed 16 October 2024), image 331 of 863, film 104426476. ↩︎
33. For example, Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, John Hill from John Clayton (1749), land deed, Murderkill Hundred, Vol. O1, p. 1, image 194 of 632; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 780. And, Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, Joshua Clark, Ezekia Clark, Sarah Clark (1762), land deed, St. Jones Hundred, Vol. Q1, p. 116-117, image 294-295 of 649; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 781.  ↩︎
34. Kent County, Delaware, Register of Wills, Maskal Clark (1761), final account; database with an image (www.familysearch.org, accessed 16 October 2024), image 786 of 907, film 104399921. ↩︎
35. IBID, Maryland, U.S., Calendar of Wills, Agathia Hill. And, Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, John and Margaret Hill to Conrad Miller (1762), land deed, Vol. Q1, p. 109-110, image 287-288 of 649; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 781. And, Delaware, U.S., Land Records, 1677-1947, William Hill et al. to Abraham Parnel (1763), land deed, Vol. Q1, p. 156-157, image 335-336 of 649; database with image, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com, accessed 16 October 2024); citing Delaware Public Archives, Delaware Land Records, roll 781. ↩︎
36. Dorchester County, Maryland, Patent Records, John Hill (1709), certificate, land called “John Delight”, 41 acres, Book DD5, p. 564; Dorchester County Circuit Court (www.plats.msa.gov, accessed 16 October 2024). ↩︎
37. Dorchester County, Maryland, Patent Records, William Hill (1674), certificate, land called “Cherry Point”, 50 acres, Book 15, p. 268; Dorchester County Circuit Court (www.plats.msa.gov, accessed 16 October 2024). ↩︎
38. IBID, Maryland, U.S., Calendar of Wills, Agathia Hill. ↩︎