Puckham

 

 

 

By Ned Heite, 21 Oct 1998: John Puckham, Indian, got baptised, married Jone Johnson, and became a mulatto in 1682. Okay, stick with me. This is going to be convoluted. I am intentionally juxtaposing a bunch of unrelated facts out of context. Watch what happens. There was a George Puckham at the Winnesoccum Indian cultural event in 1742. When Daniel Durham of Little Creek Hundred, Kent County, died (1785), he left his son Benjamin (d. 1810) the time of an apprentice boy named George who was to be free at age 21. Three years later Ellinor Puckham witnessed John Durham's probate record. A George Puckham was either the son or the son in law (being one of two heirs at law) of Rachel Handsor, whose intestate estate was probated in Kent County, 1815. How many George Puckhams are there? Are they related? Was the one at Winnesoccum the grandson or such of John Puckham, who got baptised and married Jone Johnson (granddaughter of Antonio) in 1682. Who says that Antonio (a.k.a. Anthony Johnson) was African? Just because his son patented a tract called Angola? Angola is a Portugese name! Let's take it from the top now. Down in Virginia we have a "Turk" named Francisco as a headright. We have a man named Rodriguez (Driggus) who takes a white wife and lives somewhere between white and black society, as do his sons. Jone Johnson marries an Indian. Indians named Francisco represent the Nanticoke in conferences with the Governor of Pennsylvania. Then there is that Spanish Indian slave with an English wife in the seventeenth century Kent County census, name unknown. That is just before Conselor (Gonsela, or whatever) comes on the scene. The name of the game is loose ends. Don't say "Game" too loud because there is a Game family who are verifiably Indians and that sure sounds like a corruption of something else. Before you dismiss this rambling as dippy old Ned smoking the wrong stuff, let's consider that in fact there really were "moors" or Spaniards, or Portugese, or other swarthy, non-protestant people who showed up, with some skills at reading, maybe farming, and so forth. They were indentured servants, since Virginia didn't recognize chattel slavery til the 1660s, and then pretty unevenly. Looking for wives, they naturally would not be looking at white landed planters' daughters, of whom there were very few. I'd guess they were about the same color as the local Indians. Questions, Questions, Questions. Why is it there are so many answers before the questions are properly stated? ---------- By Ned Heite, 11 Aug 1998: "Genealogical indistinguishability of Nanticokes, Cheswoldians & expatriates to N.J." ..."Mitsawoket to Bloomsbury" -- the main thrust is the poorly-documented period in Kent County Indian history. ...I do make the statement that the Nanticoke, the New Jersey Lenape, and the Cheswold community of today are genealogically indistinguishable. If you were to list the three communities in 1750, you would find their descendants today are about equally distributed among the three communities. Indeed, they are one and the same extended family. This is important to the argument that the Indians became a self-selecting isolate, and that an infrastructure survived during the period of invisibility. I have a feeling, just a feeling, that if you were to go up and down the coast, you would find that there is a continuous string of interrelated communities, and that the pattern of migration and marriage across the communities is duplicated in a continuous string from Florida to the Canadian Maritimes, if not all over the continent. Relatively recent attempts to define tribes and communities might have complicated this interrelationship, but I wish somebody would just work their way up and down the coast in the eighteenth-century records. It would be a great application for statistics. For example, we have the migrating Sisco family, William Handsor moving from Sussex to Kent, Griffin Bass (whoever he is) showing up here, the Sparksman family, a few migratory Puckhams, and so forth. Most of the contacts will be fairly nearby, gradually diminishing with distance. So here in Delaware we should have a handful from Virginia and the odd Tarheel, while most of the contacts were with the nearby communities. Because cousins visit one another, there should be personal contacts forty years, at least, after any move. Even without beepers and cellphones, they obviously kept in touch. ---------- From mdabrowski1@cs.com, 8 Dec 1999: "Seeking Elliott & Puckham" I am seeking information on my great grandparents: William Grayson Elliott and Mary J. Puckum Elliott. They lived in Capitola (Clara) Wicomico Co, MD from circa 1840 to 1880s. My concern is no one seems to be researching the name: PUCKUM. Was my ggrandmom a Nanticoke Indian? I have searched records endlessly, and asked many people in this area about them ---but I have had no luck. I have also searched for their buried grounds. I do know that Messick Funeral Home did bury them in this area. Mary had a brother named Algernon and her mother was Nancy Puckum (1850 census Wicomico Co). William's mother was named Caroline Elliott (father unknown). They all lived next door in Capitola (the muddy hole area). The Foxwell family name also fits into the Elliotts. If anyone can help please email me at : ---------- From Paul/Lynda Willing, 9 Dec 1999: "Seeking Elliott & Puckham" In an effort to find something for you, I checked the Somerset County Marriage Records 1796 - 1871, but found no record of an Elliott-Puckum union. Furthermore, I found no record of the name Puckum - male or female - in the book. The closest was a lady named Hetty Pucham. This brings to mind several possibilities. I wonder if this means that perhaps the marriage was (a)-not registered or (b)-a common law marriage. Likewise, if Mary Puckum was indeed a Nanticoke Indian is it possible that marrige to a Native American was not recognized in those days? Do you know where in the area they are buried? The LDR "Cemtrekkers" have recorded many of graveyards / cemeteries in the area. The Messick Funeral Home was started by my GGrandfather, A.D. Messick, and is still in the same family - now 5th generation. Unfortunately, the early records of burials, if found at all, are sketchy at best - often consisting of notes written on scraps of paper without any sort of organization. Yours is an interesting project. Good luck. Wish I could help more. ---------- From John Lyon, 9 Dec 1999: "Seeking Puckham" Torrence mentions in his "Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland" (pp. 142-3) the baptism of "John Puckham, an Indian" by the Rev. John Huett on 25 Jan 1682/3. Torrence goes on to infer that Puckham was a member of the native community at Monie, and offers as well the marriage of Puckham on 25 Feb 1682/3 to "Jone Johnson, negro", probably a member of the family of free blacks that lived south of the Wicomico R. a few miles from the Monie Indian town. The Puckham name is often seen in Somerset colonial records. I'd suggest starting with Leslie Dryden's files at the Nabb Center at Salisbury State to get a good handle on previously extracted material on the Puckham line. ---------- From Ned Heite 9 Dec 1999: "Seeking Puckham" With apologies for digressing, here is some more material on the Puckham family. Apparently John Puckham, "Indian," got baptized and became a "mulatto," because it was not possible for a Christian to be an Indian. He married Jone (Joan) Johnson, apparently the granddaughter of Anthony Johnson, one of the first people of color to be imported into the Chesapeake, not as a slave but as an indentured servant. Anthony (or Antonio as he first was known) probably was of Iberian origin, at least culturally if not racially. Frankly, nobody knows what his ethnicity was. We do know that the Johnson family married both whites and non-whites, including Indians. They clearly were not "negro" in the sense of a person of wholly sub-Saharan origins, as the term would be used today. The story of Anthony Johnson has been adopted by some black history organizations who want to hold him up as an important figure in black history. Since he clearly was not your ordinary black slave, it's a stretch to hold him up as an example for the average slave who came to America. A recent series of articles in the William and Mary Quarterly have been interpreted to identify the 1619 shipment of "servants" to Virginia with specific events in Angola, and even specific shipments from there. Unfortunately, the articles in question were so hedged with assumptions and conjecture that they actually demonstrated nothing whatever that sheds light on Chesapeake history. Although Joan Johnson Puckham is identified as "negro" in that document, we really don't know what she was. Clearly John wasn't a "mulatto" in the sense of a person of African/European origins. He and Joan had sons who were indentured as apprentices to a white man, and the internal evidence of their indenture documents is indistinguishable from the form of a white boy's indenture. Their descendants are identified in some cases as Indians. In fact, the term "mulatto" applied more often to Christian Indians than to mixed-race individuals. I have had occasion to examine racial designations in several blocs of the 1800 census, and found that consistently families of Indian descent were identified as "mulatto," while most, but not all, African descendants were identified as Negro. Some blacks, in fact, were identified without race designation, which I found curious. ---------- From Ned  Heite, 18 Mar 1998: This book just arrived today from Amazon.com: Helen Rountree and Thomas E. Davidson Eastern Shore Indians of Virginia and Maryland University Press of Virginia 1997 Paperback, list price $16.95; total from Amazon.com $17.51 ISBN 0-8139-1801-4 Helen Rountree is best known for her work on the postcontact Indians of the western shore of the Chesapeake in Virginia. Davidson perpetrated the "Free Black" study for the Maryland Historical Trust, where all his free blacks were Indians. The book does not deal with the Indians after the dissolution of the villages and reservations, so it really doesn't deal directly with the problems we are addressing. It seems to be pretty authoritative as far as it goes, but the authors clearly state that they will not deal with the post-reservation history of these people, or with any of the revived tribal organizations. I have not had a chance to critically read it, but it should be in the library of anyone who deals with Indians on the Delmarva Peninsula (that's us). Of great value will be the lists of known proper names of Indians mentioned in the Virginia and Maryland records. Only John Puckham rings a bell in connection with my work at Cheswold, but those who are working in Sussex will recognize some other names that are found in connection with the Sussex groups. I am struck by the absolute lack of Norwoods, Harmons, Franciscos, etc. The authors also stressed that they were not doing Delaware, either. They did list the Williams at Locust Neck mentioned earlier. They do describe one James Scokem, who in 1757 was almost certainly an Indian but was classified as free black. They concede the loss of Indian identity into the two-race system of classification during the period in question, but they don't go deeply into it. At first glance it looks like a pretty good book.   ---------- From Ned  Heite, 17 Jun 1998: "A Rosetta Stone: Contemporary ethnic identity" Today in the state archives, I ran across a remarkable document that I should have found earlier, if only I knew what I was doing. We have been struggling with those blanket "Free Negro" identities for all nonwhites in the record. The Little Creek Hundred 1797 assessment is different. It clearly identifies people as either "mulatto" or "negro" and every entry in the assessment is signed, so we are able to tell who was literate. Moreover, all the tenants are listed, so we know where the non-landowning farmers lived. All the people listed below were identified as mulattoes. All signed with a mark unless there is an asterisk (*) after the name. Isaiah Durham, tenant of Benjamin Stout Daniel Songs John Farmer Thomas Conselor* William Durham, Jr., tenant of John Hamm on 136.5 acres John Cott* Thomas Butcher Peregrine Jehanna* Rachel Williams (one of two by this name, see below) William Durham, Sr., tenant of Robert Holliday and George Wilson Thomas Hughes James Dean managed the land of Elijah Conselor Elijah Conselor John Saunders, no signature John Johnson, cooper* Peter Cook Benjamin Sisco, tenant on 350 acres of Walter Williamson George Sisco Stephen Sparksman The following are listed without race, usually meaning that they were regarded as white: Charles Sisco* Minors of John Starling Rachel Williams, widow of Solomon, 90 1/3 acres Minors of Solomon Williams, their guardian being rachel, 180 2/3 acres Again in the 1819 reassessment, the assessor identified mulattoes in Little Creek Hundred, but he didn't require signatures. Here are the mulatto entries: Benjamin Conselor Elijah Conselor Elias Bucher John Cott George Colbert Jesse Dean Daniel Farmer William Holston David Hutt John Johnson William Muntz Robert Muntz James Songo Benjamin Sisco John Sanders The 1790 delinquent list for Dover, Little Creek, and Duck Creek includes people who have moved away. Basically, it was a list of people who had not paid their taxes, but the tax collector was excused by the court from attempting to tax them. Here are some names on that list: Thomas Butcher Ephraim Cambridge Benjamin Cambridge Jehu Sammons Charles Cambridge Henry Sammons Ephraim Puckham Benjamin Durham In the 1804 Duck Creek assessment, Benjamin Sisco was tenant of William Killen on a tract with a log dwelling, 200 acres clear, 52 wooded, and 100 marsh. There are only "n" suffixes in this list for that year. ----------   By Ned  Heite, 21 Oct 1998: "George Puckham" John Puckham, Indian, got baptised, married Jone Johnson, and became a mulatto in 1682. Okay, stick with me. This is going to be convoluted. I am intentionally juxtaposing a bunch of unrelated facts out of context. Watch what happens. There was a George Puckham at the Winnesoccum Indian cultural event in 1742. When Daniel Durham of Little Creek Hundred, Kent County, died (1785), he left his son Benjamin (d. 1810) the time of an apprentice boy named George who was to be free at age 21. Three years later Ellinor Puckham witnessed John Durham's probate record. A George Puckham was either the son or the son in law (being one of two heirs at law) of Rachel Handsor, whose intestate estate was probated in Kent County, 1815. How many George  Puckhams are there?  Are they related?  Was the one at Winnesoccum the grandson or such of John Puckham, who got baptised and married Jone Johnson (granddaughter of Antonio) in 1682. Who says that Antonio (a.k.a. Anthony Johnson) was African? Just because his son patented a tract called Angola? Angola is a Portugese name! Let's take it from the top now. Down in Virginia we have a "Turk" named Francisco as a headright. We have a man named Rodriguez (Driggus) who takes a white wife and lives somewhere between white and black society, as do his sons. Jone Johnson marries an Indian. Indians named Francisco represent the Nanticoke in conferences with the Governor of Pennsylvania. Then there is that Spanish Indian slave with an English wife in the seventeenth century Kent County census, name unknown. That is just before Conselor (Gonsela, or whatever) comes on the scene. The name of the game is loose ends. Don't say "Game" too loud because there is a Game family who are verifiably Indians and that sure sounds like a corruption of something else. Before you dismiss this rambling as dippy old Ned smoking the wrong stuff, let's consider that in fact there really were "moors" or Spaniards, or Portugese, or other swarthy, non-protestant people who showed up, with some skills at reading, maybe farming, and so forth. They were indentured servants, since Virginia didn't recognize chattel slavery til the 1660s, and then pretty unevenly. Looking for wives, they naturally would not be looking at white landed planters' daughters, of whom there were very few. I'd guess they were about the same color as the local Indians.