Background
For a discussion of the Y-DNA test results of ARTERBURN descendants, including
links to additional online reference sources, click on “Results” on the drop-down menu
under About This Group, above. For information about other websites or gatherings
for ARTERBURN descendants, click on “News.” For charts that display the Y-DNA test
results of participants, click on “Classic” or “Colorized” under Y-DNA Results. If you
have questions or comments about this project, please let me know (see “Goals”
page under About This Group).
For a discussion of ARTERBURN family history and genealogy, including active Internet
links to reference sources, see the online copy with searchable text of my book, below.
To activate links found in the book, move cursor hand over link and left-click:
Addenda2b (see bottom of page).
(***Note: In this Addenda, I have transcribed the information from the entries for
Peter and William Arterburn exactly as it appears in the photo image of the original
of Netherton’s 1775 Census of Military District #3, Dunmore County (cf. Brumbaugh,
1935: plate #9), which clearly does not specify age of the females in any household.
The age of females would have been irrelevant for this purpose, since only males were
taxed and subject to civil and military duties. The number of males “under 16” is
indicated in a single column so labeled. Males over 16 were listed as separate households,
and Peter and William are the only Arterburn households listed. There is no such
labeling for the single female column in the original document. The transcription
of this information found in The Arterburn Cousins (p. 305), which adds “under 16”
for the column of females, is an error. Confirmation of this would also be the fact that
the wives, Sarah and Nancy, must be represented in this single female column, in the
respective household of each, and both were obviously over 16. This discrepancy is
potentially most significant for Peter’s household, in which additional females were
indicated that are not presently accounted for.)
The following linked online reference sources used in the book have since been relocated
and have new Internet addresses (URL):
by A. P. Funkhouser / compiled by Oren F. Morton. See especially .pdf/pages
26-36; also, chapters 2, 5.
All of Funkhouser’s little book is worth reading for its overview of the religious
and social life of 18th-Century Virginians and of their Old World sectarian heritage.
A facsimile of Bly’s original pages can be found at Shenandoah County GenWeb,
which includes an explanatory Introduction. Bly’s original pages (from 1774)
For additional Arterburn records from Shenandoah County extracted by
Virginia GenWeb). Search/find: “Arterburn.”
(JSTOR/William and Mary Quarterly, third series, v. 44, no. 1), by Lorena Walsh.
books by Lorena Walsh about the colonial Chesapeake have also been published.
Listed below are bibliographic citations for some published (print) works that are linked as
reference sources but not cited in my book:
Writings. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2004.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.
Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.
Addenda2b (04/28/12)
In my book, Some Research Notes (7th ed.) with Addenda, I have proposed that the available
evidence strongly supports the case that Peter Arterburn was much older than previously
believed, and that Sarah was probably not his first wife. I have also proposed that William
Arterburn very likely was Peter’s son from his first marriage, and that Peter’s household in
the two surviving censuses (1775, 1785) appears to indicate other children or family members
not currently represented in The Arterburn Cousins.
An attentive reading of Peter Arterburn’s Last Will and Testament (cf. The Arterburn Cousins,
“Peter Arterburn,” p. 304) seems to support the notion that Sarah was probably a younger
woman. This would also fit the scenario, as described in my book, of Peter as an older husband
who had several children with Sarah, some of whom are known to have also lived relatively
long lives, as documented in The Arterburn Cousins. I am indebted to another Arterburn
descendant, Linda Hope, for her suggestion of reading Peter’s Will in this way. Linda did not
give her specific reasons, and what follow are solely my own.
We have, of course, no other definite clues of Sarah’s age in surviving records. We know that
Peter and Sarah were married and had children together as early as 1773. We also know
that Peter owned no real property (i.e., dwelling or land) at the time he drafted his Will in 1796
or when his Will was recorded after his death, in 1803. In his Will, Peter appoints Sarah “executrix”
of his estate, but makes no specific bequests to heirs other than Sarah, another clue that Peter
was relatively poor and that his surviving estate was modest. After providing that his funeral
expenses and outstanding debts be paid, Peter Arterburn’s Will reads:
“I give and bequeath to my loving wife, Sarah Arterburn, all my estate and
effects whatever to her only use during her widowhood only, and in case she
should marry, my will and desire is the aforementioned estate shall be equally
divided between each of my sons and daughters to them and their heirs and
assigns forever.”
Peter drafted his Will seven years before the end of his life, a clue that he was mindful of
his advancing age and the eventual inevitability of death. Peter’s Will also includes a disclaimer
revoking and disallowing any and all former Wills and declaring this to be his Last Will and
Testament, immediately after appointing his “beloved wife Sarah” as executor. Whether he
had ever drafted an earlier or different Will remains unknown to us. While such a disclaimer
is often found in Wills, it isn’t truly essential unless the testator is replacing a previous Will, or
unless some unusual circumstance prevails among prospective heirs. Wills without this
disclaimer can certainly be found in 18th-Century public records of Virginia. Peter’s choice to
use this language and to couple it with Sarah’s appointment is at least suggestive that some
unusual circumstance may have prompted Peter to make a Will, even though his estate
probably consisted only of some livestock, tools, and some household goods (cf. Shenandoah
County tax lists, 1787-1799).
If Sarah had been comparable in age, and since she had no dower rights to real property,
it seems doubtful that Peter would have considered her a prospect for remarriage. On the
other hand, if Sarah were a younger woman, we can easily imagine that both her personal
welfare as well as her desire might naturally have motivated her to remarry, if possible. Peter
was thoughtful to provide for his “beloved wife” in her eventual widowhood, but also to
recognize and plan for other contingencies. Peter’s choice of words, and of leaving his estate
in Sarah’s hands, suggest that he and Sarah must have been in harmonious agreement
about the provisions of the Will.
Peter provided that, if Sarah were to “marry” after his death, his surviving estate should
“be equally divided between each of my sons and daughters.” Such an explicit statement
certainly implies all of Peter’s children, at the very least, and “each” might possibly be
redundant for “equally.” But in light of the exclusive “widowhood only” provision, along
with other clues gleaned from Peter’s life and circumstances, this entire statement seems
oddly conspicuous and telling. This language may reveal that Peter had in mind one or
more surviving children from a previous marriage that were to be included as heirs, if
Sarah were to acquire new dower rights by remarrying after Peter’s death.
In hindsight, it seems remarkable that a man who was apparently illiterate and poor
in 18th-Century America even bothered to make a Will. That Peter Arterburn left us a
Will of above average literary quality seems equally remarkable. Almost certainly he
and Sarah had help in drawing up the document. But we have no reason to doubt that
their actual intents and purposes are represented in its provisions. Even Peter’s distinctive
personal mark, the fruit of a creative mind, surely tells us something meaningful about
who he really was.
Already we have met a man of adventuresome spirit who risked life and liberty to come
to the New World, and who persevered in the face of recurring personal loss and tragedy.
Life in Colonial America could be harsh and dangerous, especially for those without wealth,
status, or title. Despite challenges and misfortunes, Peter appears to have enjoyed a long
life and to have been a respected citizen of Shenandoah County. Local memory of Peter
and his family has been preserved there beyond public records in various ways, from the
“Peter Arterburn House” to “Otterburn School” (Precinct, today). In his Last Will and
Testament, we meet a man of benevolent character with a sense of fairness, who loved
his wife and his children, and who demonstrated initiative in providing for their welfare to
the extent of his limited fortune. Altogether, not a bad legacy for the generations of his
many descendants, all things considered.
General Fund
To donate to the general fund please
click here.
|