{"id":8087,"date":"2021-12-01T09:03:28","date_gmt":"2021-12-01T14:03:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/montgomeryplanning.org\/blog-design\/?p=8087"},"modified":"2021-11-30T09:52:20","modified_gmt":"2021-11-30T14:52:20","slug":"update-mapping-a-mystery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/montgomeryplanning.org\/blog-design\/2021\/12\/update-mapping-a-mystery\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: Mapping A Mystery"},"content":{"rendered":"

Community input sheds light on Montgomery County history<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

By Kacy Rohn, in collaboration with\u00a0<\/em>Montgomery History<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Over the summer, we published a blog post<\/a> seeking input on an unanswered question about an abbreviation used on Martenet & Bond\u2019s 1865 Map<\/a> of Montgomery County. The map frequently used the letter \u201cP\u201d following individual\u2019s names but didn\u2019t indicate what that meant. Without a key to the map, we considered several meanings: could it be \u201cplace,\u201d \u201cprincipal,\u201d \u201cplantation,\u201d or \u201cpump?\u201d\u00a0 This was a mystery even to the original mapmaking company, S.J. Martenet & Co., whose records of the map\u2019s production were\u00a0lost in the Great Baltimore Fire<\/a>\u00a0of 1904.<\/p>\n

\"Historic

Historic Preservation Office and Montgomery History staff sought public input on the meaning of the letter \u201cP\u201d on this Martenet & Bond\u2019s 1865 map of Montgomery County.<\/p><\/div>\n

In partnership with Montgomery History<\/a>, we put out a call for suggestions<\/a> and received nearly 100 submissions. Thank you to everyone who took the time to weigh in! Several of the most frequently submitted ideas are discussed below, including our pick for the most likely explanation.<\/p>\n

Guess #1\u2014<\/em>Patron: someone who paid for their name to appear on the map<\/h4>\n

This idea does have some precedent: many maps of the era were subscription-based. Martenet & Co.<\/a> knows that this map was funded in part by subscriptions, paid by both landowners and tenants, though no records remain of the process for selecting names of those who did not pay for inclusion. Original surveyor J.D. Rhodes wrote in his field notes<\/a> that Poolesville was a \u201cshabby place\u201d with \u201cnot one subscriber.\u201d On the finished map, \u201cP\u201d appears throughout Poolesville, so we ruled this out. (More on Poolesville below).<\/p>\n

\"An

Poolesville inset, 1865 Martenet and Bond Map<\/p><\/div>\n

Guess #2\u2014Pump or Pond: a place where water could be obtained from a public source<\/h4>\n

At first, this seemed potentially relevant to 19th-century map users who might need to identify a water source while traveling or for firefighting. This led us to consider the intended use of the map, which was for general reference about residents, businesses, and property ownership, rather than to serve as a navigational aid. Ultimately, we thought it unlikely that a pump or pond would be included for a map with this purpose.<\/p>\n

Guess #3\u2014Plantation: <\/em>a farm worked by enslaved laborers<\/h4>\n

The practice of slavery was widespread in Montgomery County prior to its abolition in 1864, and our research for the recent Street and Park Facilities Naming Review Project<\/a> identified many slaveholders across the county. We looked at instances of the \u201cP\u201d near known slaveholders, but the connection wasn\u2019t consistent. \u201cP\u201d also appears frequently in town settings next to non-agricultural properties, which may have housed enslaved people prior to 1864 but were not likely to be called \u201cplantations.\u201d<\/p>\n

*BEST GUESS*\u2014Property: a property owned but not occupied by the named individual \u2013 a farm, store, house, etc. that is occupied by a tenant or which serves as a secondary residence<\/h4>\n

We found this to be the most promising suggestion and tracked one instance to see if it would bear out. On the published map, a property near the center of Poolesville is labeled as \u201cStore F.S. Poole\u2019s P.\u201d Immediately next door is \u201cF.S. Poole\u2019s Res.\u201d This supports the idea that the store was Poole\u2019s property but not his residence. In fact, the store is labeled differently in Rhodes\u2019 field notes as \u201cNorris St[ore].\u201d The 1870 Census reflects John T. Norris, merchant, adjacent to F.S. Poole, farmer. And the 1879 G.M. Hopkins Atlas again labels this the \u201cJohn T. Norris Store.\u201d However, the property seems to have remained in F.S. Poole\u2019s family and never been in Norris\u2019 ownership: Poole\u2019s daughter, Frances, sold this land in 1896. She inherited the land from her father, who died in 1888.<\/p>\n

\n
\n