View Full Version : Chikamaka rolls?

vance hawkins
03-24-2003, 04:06 PM

AT the website above is a list of what are called the "Chikanaka Rolls" -- I have never heard of these rolls before. But some names on these rolls are listed as "Saponi-Cherokee".

Does anyone recognize these names?


03-24-2003, 04:30 PM
I'm not sure what, if any, basis there would be for identifying any of those folks as Saponi. The problem is that most of the names people claim as "Saponi" are simply common names found among whites and African-Americans, as well as Indian descendants.

I have to say, without making any value judgement about this particular group, that there are a number of web sites out there claiming to be tribal websites with VERY shaky historical data, that should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

vance hawkins
03-25-2003, 08:38 AM
thanks Forest --

Well, I suspected as much :).

Since several members of that group were listed as "Saponi" or "Saponi-Cherokee" I thought I'd bring it to yall's attention, maybe someone here knew some of those folks.

It seems many people who can not document themselves say they are "Chickamauga" Cherokee -- perhaps because they think the Chickamuga disappeared from history, when in fact most probably melted back into the Cherokee Nation eventually. If I'm wrong, and I admit I might be -- will somebody please show me historic documentation of it.


03-25-2003, 10:01 AM
I don't find it convincing to say that the names being mentioned as Saponi are simply common English surnames. They are certainly common, but there are HUNDREDS of common English surnames and only a couple dozen of the same names that keep being mentioned in this context. As I said earlier, when looking at the names of families I've heard from over the Blackfoot ID, they're all common English names, but it's THE SAME BATCH as those often considered SE native associated, and Siouan in particular. If you take that assortment and try to find it on another tribal list, or start to consider how huge that list of Anglo Saxon names is, you'll see what I mean.

Also, if only those names that are documented as Saponi are to have credence, then nearly everybody currently state recognized as Siouan needs to hang it up. I think it's a bit misleading to dismiss this "list" out of hand. To be fair, I would want to know if there are other reasons these people have concluded their Andersons are Piedmont Siouan.

vance hawkins
03-27-2003, 05:53 PM
Well Linda, you' re right too! I certainly don't know those people or their genealogy -- now I feel a little bad about what I said. :(

I've seen so many web sites that are just weird and so out of touch with Indian people that I am farmiliar with that well, I've become skeptical.


03-27-2003, 07:48 PM
I wasn't trying to "convince" you of anything, Linda. I said they were common English surnames, which is a fact. I'm not really interested in getting into a discussion about the whole "Eastern Blackfoot" theory. You have your beliefs about it, I have mine, and I would never think of arguing with you about it. My main purpose in reading and posting here is to add specific bits of information when it seems that someone is interested in a specific topic.

And I'm not sure what you mean about the tribes who are already recognized by the State as Siouan descendants having to "hang it up". These groups already have legal status.

Bill Childs
04-20-2003, 01:46 PM
I think they are referring to the Chickamauga-Cherokee of Arkansas - read about them at



Bill Childs
04-20-2003, 01:48 PM
Well..... that link worked just a minute ago.... try just


and look for Chickamaugas.

04-20-2003, 03:17 PM
Legal status or no, what's "documentable" and what's not remains the same, and if there are so few names that are "known" to belong to a specific historic tribe, then I guess everyone's attachment to that identifity is a matter of belief. What we believe is a matter of faith akin to religious doctrine. Wisely, in this country, religious tolerance has been the norm, since long before the alledged "founding fathers" came into power. Nobody gets uglier or meaner than when they're fighting over their beliefs. I don't know why that is, but it's true.

Yet, because they have that bit of "legality" to refer to, you'll see the humility people should have about their "beliefs" vanish and an attitude akin to the Inquisition prevail. However tiresome all the upstarts with faulty claims are, the inquisitors are MUCH worse. The one can be a nuisance, the other downright malicious.

State recognition can be granted because of political wiedling, but federal recognition won't come without the facts all in a row, which in this case, are never going to align. In the end, nobody's going to be recognized in a purely factual arena, so why all the posturing?

Bill Childs
04-21-2003, 09:06 AM
Well said. I would only add that the spectrum of opinion also includes people who don't agree with the premise that to be "Indian", one has to be recognized by the US government as part of a specific group.
With the large number of small groups in the east who didn't bother to "register" back then, [as proven by all their modern (and obviously Indian) descendants attempting "recognition" as well as all the individuals then, who just 'vanished' into white culture)] it appears to me that this idea was operating early on. And now, we have people trying to reconstitute as bands - same thing that appears to have histroically happened with us over and over again, and they have that right to attempt federal recognition but not all agree.
Yes, there are the bull-s..t claims. Yes, there are all those "new agers". Yes, there are today many millions of white and black people with Indian ancestry. We're all related. The question many people want to know is "how". (No pun intended.)
Most mixed-bloods may not know specifically which aboriginal band or nation our ancestors were a part of and some don't care. Mine made conscious choices (maybe or maybe not freely) and I do sometimes feel disrespectful in trying to narrow the possibilities based on time periods and geography, but I remain curious anyway. Proof? As one Cheyenne guy asked: "Why is it that Indians are the only ones who have to 'prove' who they are?" Maybe because it's divisive? Maybe it's our own fault of exclusivity that flys in the face of all our cultural histories - anyone want to raid the neighbors for women?

04-21-2003, 09:07 PM
Excuse me, but I've got my ire up on this issue. Blithe comments were made at a public Indian event this weekend, ridiculing how "everybody" these days is claiming an Indian grandmother. I have vast experience with bigoted people and can smell at some distance the cultural disintegration when the "good" people in a community mindlessly endorse a climate of hate. When it is "okay" to publically ridicule grandmothers, something is seriously amiss with a value system and very bad things will unavoidably follow.

What all these people are missing who are scrapping over who's good enough to be called or do this or that, is that this isn't about just us. I don't know about anybody else, but my Indian Ancestors are still here, they know who their children are, have always known, and have been, with unimaginable patience, looking after their own. They have been waiting, with equally unimaginable faith, for the day when they would receive their propers in return. This is THEIR day.

Now, if diseases didn't stop them, bullets didn't stop them, death didn't stop them, time didn't stop them, cultural extinction didn't stop them, how in the WORLD does anybody in this time/space continiuum think THEY'RE going to stop them? And why in the WORLD would they WANT to?

There are people who sat around ceremonial dinner tables once a year for two thousand years saying, "next year in Jerusalem." Then one day, after two thousand years, they picked up and went back to Jerusalem! What our Ancestors have managed to do is no less a feat. Perhaps even more of one, since it was pure spiritual energy that accomplished it, usually without a scrap of physical ceremony left intact. As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the major accomplishments of humankind. The only appropriate response is reverence.

Bill Childs
04-22-2003, 07:29 AM
Sorry to offend you, but it is indeed true that our ancestors captured people from other nations and these people were often integrated into that different band and nation, therefore I was pointing to the illogic of our excluding anyone who can't 'prove' they are one of us. I made no blithe comment and there is no ridicule in what I have written, just general statements of truth.
By speaking of a true thing, in what way do you feel that I have insulted anyone's Grandmother?

04-22-2003, 09:12 AM
I wasn't offended by what you wrote at all. I was referring to what some other folks said. Sorry for the confusion. I was speaking about a public event I attended in which remarks were made.

04-23-2003, 05:32 PM
[i]- anyone want to raid the neighbors for women?
Bill [/B]

Not me Bill, but you did give me a good chuckle! ;)