The Coopers of Long Hill

Document B.42 · map · transcription: partial

Manuscript map of the Long Hill ridge, Revolutionary period (provenance unidentified) — a “Wind Mill” is labelled on the eastern slope, and a NAME-SHAPED LABEL sits with it inside the same marked oval.

repository
UNKNOWN — see coverage.the_provenance_is_the_central_problem.
collection
A north-up hand-drawn manuscript map; hatched-ridge convention; period spelling “Pasaic”.

What is transcribed: The central labels. Most of the sheet is untranscribed.

People named

As writtenRoleIdentified asWhat this document says
Daniel Cooper Sr referenced Daniel Cooper Sr 1695–1795 unproven

What this document records

The wind mill label has a companion label

CORRECTED 2026-09-02. The entry stated flatly that “the map itself does NOT identify the windmill's owner by name.” That is wrong as written. A pencil oval on the sheet encloses TWO lines: the lower reads “Wind Mill” clearly; the upper is a separate word of roughly six letters, in the same hand, shaped like a surname and ending in a flourish. It is [illegible] in this reproduction. At 12× the strokes are a merged toner mass — the limit is the copy, not the magnification, exactly as at [A.143]. No reading is offered, and “Cooper” is NOT claimed. A further name-shaped label sits just above the oval, also unread. The correct statement is: a name-shaped label is paired with the Wind Mill label and has never been read — which turns a closed question into an acquisition target.

The provenance is the central problem

PROVENANCE UNKNOWN, AND THAT IS THE ENTRY'S CENTRAL LIMIT. The maintainer's note (2026-05-08) is “I have it … but don't know where it came from”; the file is dated 5 August 2008 on disk. An unprovenanced image cannot be cited as a source — it can only be described. Stylistic features suggest a published reproduction rather than a direct archival scan: hatched-ridge convention, the period spelling “Pasaic”, and horizontal photocopy banding across the whole sheet. Candidate origins named in the body remain candidates.

What it does and does not corroborate

The sheet shows a “Wind Mill” on the Long Hill ridge in a Revolutionary-period hand — which is the first cartographic sighting in the catalog of the structure behind the family tradition worked at [pr.7]. But an unprovenanced, undated photocopy corroborates nothing at source grade. Its value is as a pointer to an original, not as evidence.

The other labels

“Long Hill” along the hatched ridge; “Pasaic” along the meandering river to the west. Several further labels are partly legible only — “Wagstaff's[?]” or “Wadsworth's[?]”, and a settlement label at top centre.

Transcription and notes

A correction and a find in one: the entry said the map does not name the windmill's owner. A pencil oval on the sheet encloses two labels — Wind Mill, and above it a name-shaped word that is illegible in this reproduction. Cooper is not claimed.

Provenance, the 5×/12× re-read, and what an unprovenanced photocopy can and cannot corroborate are in the source: and coverage: headers and are not repeated here.

Data — Visible labels (verbatim, with reading uncertainty notes)

The map is rendered as a north-up hand-drawn manuscript map with hatched-ridge convention along a NE-SW running ridge that bears the label "Long Hill", and a snake-meandering river on the western side labeled "Pasaic" (= Passaic).

Critical label

"Wind Mill" — written in cursive on the eastern slope of the Long Hill ridge, approximately mid-panel.

This is the single most catalog-relevant inscription in the document. It corroborates the family-tradition / Long Hill Township History 1984 / project pr.7 Daniel Sr unsubstantiated notes 2026-05-08.md claim of a Cooper-family windmill on Long Hill at primary-source-cartographic level — though the map itself does NOT identify the windmill's owner by name.

Other visible labels (less central to Cooper-line scope)

Horizontal banding lines visible across the entire image are photocopy / fold-line artifacts, not part of the original manuscript.


Cross-references


Caveats and follow-up