DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Julia A. King G. Anne Richardson Martha McCartney Virginia Busby Prepared For: National Park Service Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Conservancy The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland December 2016 Defining the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Julia A. King G. Anne Richardson Martha McCartney Virginia R. Busby With Contributions From: The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia G. Anne Richardson, Chief Cochise Fortune Faye Fortune Colonel John Fortune (USA, ret.) Judith Fortune Mark Fortune Dana Mulligan Barbara B. Williams Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Conservancy Annapolis, Maryland The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia Indian Neck, Virginia St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland December 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape between Port Royal/Port Conway and Urbanna, Virginia. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. The project was administered by the Chesapeake Conservancy and the fieldwork undertaken and report prepared by St. Mary’s College of Maryland. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the earliest years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept was developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes along the Smith Trail, both as they existed in the early 17th century and as they exist today. The Rappahannock River watershed was identified as a priority watershed area for ICL mapping in 2015. For this project, then, the mapping effort assembled a mix of qualitative and quantitative data, including tribal and non-tribal stakeholder input, documentary research, and archaeological, environmental, and ecological evidence. All of this material was included in a Geographic Information System (GIS) database which allowed the mapping and analysis of spatial relationships between various categories of data. Limited archaeological and documentary evidence points to the Rappahannock as serving as a borderland in the colonial period and perhaps before colonization. Before contact, limited evidence suggests that, while people were in the river valley 10,000 years ago, populations were low until ca. 200 CE. By the time Smith arrived in the Rappahannock, he found at least 43 relatively densely populated communities, indicating a rich if unknown history. After contact, the records reveal that the many groups encountered by Smith, while displaced, resisted removal from their greater homeland, eventually coalescing into two groups: the Rappahannock and the Nanzatico. The Nanzatico were ultimately deported to the Caribbean while the remaining Indians appear to have retreated into their communities. The project more precisely defined the Rappahannock ICL, found to consist of some 552 square miles. A sensitivity model based on the evidence from the Rappahannock watershed reveals the extensive and sophisticated levels of ecological knowledge of the groups Smith encountered in the river valley in 1608. A viewshed analysis suggested that ecologically-based decisions for settlements were also incorporated in indigenous systems of communication and meaning. The data analysis also forced a reconsideration of the 1608 Zúñiga map. Rappahannock tribal members noted that names of creeks crossed from one side of the river to the other, with settlement driven principally by seasonal demands and opportunities. The Zúñiga map, which shows creek names straddling the river, suggests this practice was real and stretched back at least four centuries. One important discovery concerns the distribution of Native towns along the river’s shoreline, with most towns located on the river’s north bank. Traditional explanations for this observation focused on the Rappahannock groups’ efforts to avoid Powhatan by placing a river between the two groups. The analysis undertaken for this project has found that ecological factors, not necessarily political ones, drove settlement to the north bank. Good agricultural soils, clay suitable for pottery manufacture, and access to iii marshes and transportation tributaries were found in greater numbers and more closely associated than on the river’s north bank. The north bank included most if not all of the areas first patented by the English, suggesting settlers recognized the values of the land, too. Places of contemporary significance to the Rappahannock were also identified and include their tribal center in Indian Neck, Central Point, places east toward Tappahannock, and rural farming and trading communities. In addition to the information and data found in the report, an appendix includes all Indian place names encountered in historic documents within the Rappahannock ICL. The report concludes with seven recommendations for future work: 1. Development of an oral history program for Rappahannock tribal members. 2. Development of a detailed culture history of the Rappahannock River groups, 10,000 BCE- present, including archaeological collections-based analysis and regional survey. 3. Connect modern-day places to 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century landscapes. 4. Development of educational materials for Rappahannock tribal members, including the youth. 5. Development of educational materials for non-tribal members, including local residents and visitors. 6. Conduct a gap analysis of key parcels to prioritize land conservation goals. 7. Expand the ICL study to other watersheds, including the York and extended Rappahannock rivers. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Defining the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape was possible only because of the very generous assistance received from a number of people and organizations. Foremost among them is the Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia, including Chief G. Anne Richardson and advisors Cochise Fortune, Faye Fortune, Judith Fortune, Col. John Fortune (USA, ret.), Mark Fortune, Dana Mulligan, and Barbara B. Williams. The Rappahannock shared with us information on contemporary and historic landscapes, graciously piled into vans for driving tours, put us in contact with individuals with collections and properties of significance to the tribe, and hosted meetings at their tribal center. We hope that the results of this study are useful to the Rappahannock Tribe for any number of purposes and thank them for their participation in this project. The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Conservancy provided the support necessary to propel this project forward. The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail has provided an important rallying point for recognizing the significance of the Chesapeake’s many indigenous groups in the centuries preceding and following that firt meeting with Smith. For NPS, Charles Hunt, Jonathan Doherty, Suzanne Copping, Cindy Chance, Christine Lucero, Deanna Beacham, and Carolyn Black, and for the Chesapeake Conservancy, Joel Dunn, Jeff Allenby, Joe McCauley, and Colleen Whitlock, each contributed to the success of this project through their participation in a variety of forums for assembling, analyzing, and interpreting the information available for the Rappahannock drainage. Deanna Beacham was especially helpful with making contacts and locating places to visit as part of the project. Landowners and individuals with collections in their possession heeded our call for assistance and invited us to visit their properties and/or see their collections. Mr. Hill Wellford provided a tour of his property at Beverly Marsh and showed us archaeological collections in his family’s possession. Mr. Wellford was also helpful introducing us to other property owners in the area. Mr. R. Carter Wellford provided access to the property at Sabine Hall, where we were able to tour what this study indicates is a “hotspot” for Native settlement in the centuries before Smith’s visit. Mr. Andrew Packett welcomed us to his family’s property at Accapataugh Beach, where Rappahannock tribal members had previously mined clay for making pots in the 20th century. The Menokin Foundation also welcomed us to their property, already a destination stop on the Smith Trail, sharing with us the results of recent archaeological investigations on their property. Mr. Ben Rennolds and Ms. Leslie Rennolds hosted a visit at their property where oral history recalls a Rappahannock fort may have been located. Mr. John Rennolds graciously showed us materials he had previously collected from the property. Mr. Turner Smith invited us to his property to see his impressive collection of materials and then provided a tour of his property and another farm on Totuskey Creek. Dr. GayleWertz, Mr. Miles Hastings, and Ms. C. Elena Ellis hosted on their farms in the Port Conway vicinity, pointing out landforms and sharing collections from their lands. In addition, Dr. Wertz shared the results of her own analyses of projectile point types she has recovered from her property known as Millbank. v Many other people assisted with the work of this project by helping with coordination, attending meetings, or both. Lisa Hull, the Economic Development and Tourism Coordinator for the Northern Neck Planning Commission, provided meeting space at her office and joined us on our driving tour’ her assistance
Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds

    Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds

    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water

    Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department.
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
  • Church Trends in Latin America

    Church Trends in Latin America

    A PROLADES Study, Reflection & Discussion Document DRAFT COPY - NOT FOR PUBLICATION Church Trends in Latin America Compiled and Edited by Clifton L. Holland, Director of PROLADES Last revised on 21 December 2012 Produced by PROLADES Apartado 1525-2050, San Pedro, Costa Rica Telephone: 506-2283-8300; FAX 506-234-7682 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.prolades.com 2 CONTENTS Introduction: Defining the “full breadth of Christianity in Latin America” I. A General Overview of Religious Affiliation in Latin America and the Caribbean by Regions and Countries, 2010………………………………………………………………….. 5 II. The Western Catholic Liturgical Tradition……………………………………………………. 10 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………... 10 B. The period of Roman Catholic hegemony in Latin America, 1500-1900…………………………. 18 (1) The Holy Office of the Inquisition in the Americas…………………………………………… 18 (2) Religious Liberty in Latin America after Independence………………………………………. 26 (3) Concordats……………………………………………………………………………………. 32 C. The period of accelerated religious change in Latin America, 1800 to date……………………… 36 D. Defections from the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America since 1950; the changing religious marketplace………………………………………………………………... 41 (1) Defections to Protestantism…………………………………………………………………… 42 (2) Defections to Marginal Christian groups……………………………………………………... 60 (3) Defections to independent Western Catholic movements…………………………………….. 60 (4) Defections to non-Christian religions………………………………………………………… 61 (5) Defections to secular society (those with no
  • Chapter 3 USFWS Great Spangled Fritillary

    Chapter 3 USFWS Great Spangled Fritillary

    Chapter 3 USFWS Great spangled fritillary Existing Environment ■ Introduction ■ The Physical Landscape ■ The Cultural Landscape Setting and Land Use History ■ Current Climate ■ Air Quality ■ Water Quality ■ Regional Socio-Economic Setting ■ Refuge Administration ■ Special Use Permits, including Research ■ Refuge Natural Resources ■ Refuge Biological Resources ■ Refuge Visitor Services Program ■ Archealogical and Historical Resources The Physical Landscape Introduction This chapter describes the physical, biological, and social environment of the Rappahannock River Valley refuge. We provide descriptions of the physical landscape, the regional setting and its history, and the refuge setting, including its history, current administration, programs, and specifi c refuge resources. Much of what we describe below refl ects the refuge environment as it was in 2007. Since that time, we have been writing, compiling and reviewing this document. As such, some minor changes likely occurred to local conditions or refuge programs as we continued to implement under current management. However, we do not believe those changes appreciably affect what we present below. The Physical Landscape Watershed Our project area is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a drainage basin of 64,000 square miles encompassing parts of the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The waters of that basin fl ow into the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary. The watershed contains an array of habitat types, including mixed hardwood forests typical of the Appalachian Mountains, grasslands and agricultural fi elds, lakes, rivers, and streams, wetlands and shallow waters, and open water in tidal rivers and the estuary. That diversity supports more than 2,700 species of plants and animals, including Service trust resources such as endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, and anadromous fi sh (www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/ coastpgm.htm).
  • Northumberland County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report

    Northumberland County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report

    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 12-2014 Summary Tables: Northumberland County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report Marcia Berman Virginia Institute of Marine Science Karinna Nunez Virginia Institute of Marine Science Sharon Killeen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Tamia Rudnicky Virginia Institute of Marine Science Julie Bradshaw Virginia Institute of Marine Science See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Berman, M.R., Nunez, K., Killeen, S., Rudnicky, T., Bradshaw, J., Duhring, K., Stanhope, D., Angstadt, K., Tombleson, C., Procopi, A., Weiss, D. and Hershner, C.H. 2014. Northumberland County, Virginia - Shoreline Inventory Report: Methods and Guidelines, SRAMSOE no.444, Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, 23062 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Marcia Berman, Karinna Nunez, Sharon Killeen, Tamia Rudnicky, Julie Bradshaw, Karen Duhring, David Stanhope, Kory Angstadt, Christine Tombleson, Alexandra Procopi, David Weiss, and Carl Hershner This report is available at W&M ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports/784
  • One Goal, Two Methods Belgian and Dutch CICM Missionaries in Mongolia and Gansu During the Late Nineteenth Century

    One Goal, Two Methods Belgian and Dutch CICM Missionaries in Mongolia and Gansu During the Late Nineteenth Century

    One Goal, two Methods Belgian and Dutch CICM missionaries in Mongolia and Gansu during the late nineteenth century Word count (excluding references): 25’508 Research Master Thesis: 30 ECTS Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Jos Gommans 25-12-2019 Thidrek Vossen (胡岺憧) ) Leiden University, s2095939 Motetpad 9, Nijmegen [email protected] - +31613932668 Inhoud Preface and acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Previous research ................................................................................................................................ 4 Method, sources and language ........................................................................................................... 8 Structure ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Ch. 1: The Historical and Spatial context of Scheut .............................................................................. 11 The Nineteenth Century Global Changes .......................................................................................... 11 The Chinese North-West: A Spatial consideration ............................................................................ 14 A Short Frontier History................................................................................................................
  • Acts of the Eleventh Congress of the United States

    Acts of the Eleventh Congress of the United States

    ACTS OF THE ELEVENTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Passed at the first session, which was begun and held at the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on Monday, the twenty- second day of May, 1809, and ended on the twenty-eighth day of June, 1809. JAMES MADISON, President; GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate; ANDREW GREGG, Pre- sident of the Senate pro tempore, on the 28th of June; J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. STATUTE I. CHAPTER I.--.n AcJt respecting the ships or vessels owned by citizens or subjects May 30, 1809. of foreign nations with which commercial intercourseis permitted. [Obsolete.] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Act of March States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the 1,1809, ch. 24. Ships and ves- passing of this act, all ships or vessels owned by citizens or subjects of sels of foreign any foreign nation with which commercial intercourse is permitted by nations with the act, entituled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse be- which inter- course is per- tween the United States and Great Britain and France, and their depen- mitted by the dencies, and for other purposes," be permitted to take on board cargoes act of March 1, of domestic or foreign produce, and to depart with the same for any 1809, shall be permitted to foreign port or place with which such intercourse is, or shall, at the take cargoes time of their departure respectively, be thus permitted, in the same man- and depart for ner, and on the same conditions, as is provided by the act aforesaid, for any port with which inter.
  • TIPERS BRIDGE (Great Wicomico River Bridge) Spanning the Great

    TIPERS BRIDGE (Great Wicomico River Bridge) Spanning the Great

    TIPERS BRIDGE HAER No. VA-58 (Great Wicomico River Bridge) Spanning the Great Wicomico River at Virginia State Route 200 at Glebe Point Kilmarnock Vicinity Northumberland County Virginia PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service Northeast Region Philadelphia Support Office U.S. Custom House 200 Chestnut Street © Philadelphia, PA 19106 tL HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD TIPERS BRIDGE (Great Wicomico River Bridge) HAER No. VA-58 Location: Spanning the Great Wicomico River on Virginia State Route 200 at Glebe Point Kilmarnock Vicinity Northumberland County Virginia USGS Reedville Quadrangle, Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: 18.378360. 4189550 Fabricator: Virginia Bridge and Iron Company of Roanoke, Virginia Date of Construction: July through December 1934 Present Owner: Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Present Use: Vehicular Bridge Significance: Built in six months during the depth of the Depression, the Tipers Bridge is a well preserved example of a once standard bridge type that was commonly used to economically span a large number of major river crossings in the Virginia Tidewater. It is located at a crossing that has a long history of some economic importance in Northumberland and Lancaster Counties. This is the second oldest of ten remaining swing- spans dating from between 1930 and 1957 currently listed in the Virginia Department of Transportation bridge inventory. Project Information: This documentation was undertaken in May 1991 under contract with the Virginia Department of Transportation as a mitigative measure prior to the removal and disposal of the bridge. Luke H. Boyd Architectural Historian Archaeological Research Center Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia Tipers Bridge (Great Wicomico River Bridge) HAER No.
  • Citations Year to Date Printed: Tuesday April 17 2018 Citations Enterd in Past 7 Days Are Highlighted Yellow

    Citations Year to Date Printed: Tuesday April 17 2018 Citations Enterd in Past 7 Days Are Highlighted Yellow

    Commonwealth of Virginia - Virginia Marine Resources Commission Lewis Gillingham, Tournament Director - Newport News, Virginia 23607 2017 Citations Year To Date Printed: Tuesday April 17 2018 Citations Enterd in Past 7 Days Are Highlighted Yellow Species Caught Angler Address Release Weight Lngth Area Technique Bait 1 AMBERJACK 2017-09-09 ROBBIE BRYAN VIRGINIA BEACH, VA Y 50 SOUTHERN TOWER (NAVY JIGGING LURE(UNSPECIFIED) 2 BLACK DRUM 2017-10-22 MCKENZIE LEWIS GLOUCESTER, VA Y 52 BACK RIVER ARTIFICIA BAIT FISHING CRAB, UNSPECIFIED 3 BLACK DRUM 2017-10-09 WALTER SCOTT, JR. SMITHFIELD, VA Y 49 664 BRIDGE TUNNEL; M BAIT FISHING CRAB, PEELER OR SOFT 4 BLACK DRUM 2017-10-09 LEWIS RICHARDSON NEWPORT NEWS, VA N 81 lbs 664 BRIDGE TUNNEL; M BAIT FISHING CRAB, PEELER OR SOFT 5 BLACK DRUM 2017-10-09 WALTER E. SCOTT, SR. SMITHFIELD, VA Y 48 664 BRIDGE TUNNEL; M BAIT FISHING CRAB, PEELER OR SOFT 6 BLACK DRUM 2017-09-17 CURT SELLARD LANCASTER, PA Y 46 CHESAPEAKE BAY - UNS BAIT FISHING CRAB, UNSPECIFIED 7 BLACK DRUM 2017-07-08 TIM DAVIDSON POWHATAN, VA Y 47 CBBT HIGH LEVEL BRID BAIT FISHING CLAM 8 BLACK DRUM 2017-05-23 WILLIAM JAMES PAPPAS VIRGINIA BEACH, VA Y 49 OFF VA BEACH, INSHOR BAIT FISHING BAIT (UNSPECIFIED) 9 BLACK DRUM 2017-05-22 RICHARD RANG BLOXOM, VA Y 50.5 HOG ISLAND BAY BAIT FISHING BAIT (UNSPECIFIED) 10 BLACK DRUM 2017-05-19 RAY WILLETT PARKSLEY, VA Y 50 OFF FISHERMAN ISL. S BAIT FISHING CRAB, UNSPECIFIED 11 BLACK DRUM 2017-05-16 SAMUEL R.
  • Colonial Theodicy and the Jesuit Ascetic Ideal in José De Acosta's

    Colonial Theodicy and the Jesuit Ascetic Ideal in José De Acosta's

    chapter 6 Colonial Theodicy and the Jesuit Ascetic Ideal in José de Acosta’s Works on Spanish America Bryan Green This chapter aims to demonstrate the centrality of the problem of theodicy in José de Acosta’s (1540–1600) scientific, ethnographic, and historical writings on Spanish America.1 Based on Acosta’s experience as the Jesuit provincial of Peru and his active participation in the political and ecclesiastical reforms initiated under the viceroy Francisco de Toledo (1515–82), these works bear witness to the moral evils running rampant among his fellow Spaniards and the concomi- tant suffering inflicted upon the indigenous population.2 While Acosta recog- nizes the moral evil at the root of Spanish sovereignty, namely greed in the ruthless pursuit of precious metals, his colonial theodicy nevertheless main- tains that this evil is a means to the greater good of the Amerindian’s salvation. In his guidelines for missionary conduct, Acosta offers a response to this ethi- cal impasse through the performance of a distinctly Jesuit ascetic ideal, which 1 This chapter was written at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso with the sup- port of a research grant from the Chilean government (fondecyt Iniciación en Investigación no. 11140527, 2014–17). 2 The son of a prosperous merchant from Medina del Campo in Spain, Acosta entered the Society in 1552 and completed the first years of his studies at the Jesuit college in his home- town. Having distinguished himself as a student and grammar teacher in several Jesuit schools throughout Iberia, Acosta moved on to study philosophy and theology at the renowned University of Alcalá de Henares in 1557.
  • The Founders of Maryland As Portrayed in Manuscripts, Provincial

    The Founders of Maryland As Portrayed in Manuscripts, Provincial

    U( ',3^ p^ THE FOUNDERS OF MARYLAND AS PORTEAYED IN MAmJSCRIPTS, PROYESTCIAL RECORDS AI^J"D EARLY DOCUMENTS, REV. EDWARD D. NEILL, A. B., Author of "English Colonization op America," "Virginia Compant op London," "Terra Marlb," " Fairfaxes of England and America," "History of Minnesota," etc. \J "Ifec falsa dicere, nee vera reticere." ff ALBANY: JOEL MIJNSELL. 1876. THE FOUNDERS OF MARYLAND. PEEFACE. Every year, the citizens of ancient Padua crowd the costly church, dedicated to their townsman, the Italian Saint Anthony, and hang upon its walls, or around the shrine, sketches in oil, or water colors, commemorative of important events in their lives. One of the many good results of the centennial year of the American Republic j is the taking down from the garrets, the neglected portraits of our forefathers, the removal of the stains and dust, the substitution of new frames, for those battered and worm eaten, and in remembering their labors for posterity. With the aid of manuscripts, brought to light during the last decade, and access to the papers of the British Kecord Office, we can now portray more accurately, and hang in a better light, the Founders of Maryland. The object of this little book, is to state facts, which had become obscured or forgotten, concern- 6 Preface. ing the first European settlers on the shores of the Potomac River, and Chesapeake Bay. Bearing in mind, the sentiment of Hieronymus " in a letter to Epiphanius : Malem aliena vere- cunde dicere, quam jura imprudenter ingerere," I have recorded facts, gleaned from the manuscript Provincial Records at the capital of Maryland, and other documents of the Provincial period, rather than obtruded my own opinions.