The map is dated 1775 and is contemporary with the Will of Samuel. Here Pittsburgh is still called Fort Pitt still. When did Pittsburgh first become called Pittsburgh instead of Fort Pitt? I ask this because I am wondering if an error of assumption is being made. Perhaps the land referred to in Samuel's 1776 Will was actually in Fawn township. In all appearances he acquired 270 acres. He gives his brother 50 acres, his sister 100 acres and his cousin 100 acres. This is pretty close to 270 acres. Now the Samuel who later appears in the Fawn tax lists has 150 acres. This could be his and John's share. The 100 acres deeded to John McCleary could perhaps be Mary's share - perhaps he married Mary or was her son. Clearly, there is problems with the title of the land as they were only going on warrants and the whole 270 acres had to be later granted new to Joseph and Thomas. I also ask this because of the fact that Fawn township included the township of Peach Bottom. Peach Bottom was only created in 1815. Peach Bottom municipality is now on the Lancaster side at the mouth of "Peters Creek." It was originally on the York County side. I have a suspicion that the little creek on the York County side (below Muddy Creek) was also called Peters Creek. Perhaps Pitch burgh is a corruption of Peach burgh which was what Peach Bottom was known locally as at that time. Just food for thought. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <Kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:53 AM Subject: [KINCAID] Samuel Kinkead's 100 acres near Pittsburgh >I may have found where this acreage could be. His brother John Kinkead >could be the John Kinkead Jr. who applied for 300 acres of New Purchase >land in 1769. > First go to this map: > http://www.mapsofpa.com/18thcentury/1777fadenatlaspa.jpg > Find Fort Pitt, find Chartiers Creek and Saw Mill. See the description on > the application in 1769. I posted most of this information before. But I > am even more convinced that John Kinkead Jr. below is Samuel's brother. > He's the only Kinkead who makes an early application for land near > Pittsburgh. I think the 300 acres included the land named in Samuel > Kinkead's will.

I see from some of the early maps that Fort Pitt also included Pittsbourg prior to the 1776 Will. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaids@primus.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Samuel Kinkead's 100 acres near Pittsburgh > The map is dated 1775 and is contemporary with the Will of > Samuel. Here Pittsburgh is still called Fort Pitt still. When did > Pittsburgh first become called Pittsburgh instead of Fort Pitt?