- This topic has 2 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
Were the suoan tribes matrilineal? If so, would it have been likely for a white father to leave the children’s mother while taking them with him during colonial times?
Speck asserts that the Tutelo were matrilineal, so I would assume that applies to the other ‘new’ Piedmont Siouan (not the Catawba). I don’t know what the original sources were he bases this on. The Siouan in general seem to be inconsistent in this.
I would think a situation where a white father takes his kids with him would have to do with that father being particularly assertive, normally the kids would stay with the mom, even in our culture, but all the more so within a matrilineal culture.
What were the circumstances you’re aware of?
As I understand the situation, I have a european ancestor from Old Granville during the colonial period who had 2 sons with either a Saponi or Cheraw woman. The record clearly indicates that these sons were with him throughout his adult life. So, I’ve assumed that they grew up with him. But they may have been raised his their mother. I do have a couple of pieces of documentation which point to an ongoing relationship with a male member of her family. I think what I’m really looking for is cultural information that might shed light into sioun familial relationships where the father was white. I have read that it was not uncommon for white men on the Carolina frontier to have long term familial relationships with native american women without marriage. I would like to know more about this sort of thing. Also, if a native american man took a european man’s surname, what might that indicate about their relationship?
I would welcome any thoughts you have or sources that address these issues.
Is there anyway you could post that documentation? I’d be very interested in seeing it. What surname was this involving? Why do you feel that the mother wasn’t also with them?
Throughout Woodland cultures it was common for a daughter of a man in a leadership position to be encouraged to marry an important outsider — even if the union was unlikely to be long-lasting. A trader would certainly be such a person — he being the source of guns that were vital to survival. Intense ‘arms races’ were going on everywhere. The marriage may not have been considered valid in the settler culture, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered valid in hers.
In a matrilineal Woodlands culture a child was considered to belong primarily to the mother’s famiily. One interesting feature is that it relieved issues of divorce or “out-of-wedlock” childbearing. If anything disrupted the nuclear family unit, the mother’s brother would be the next in line for guardianship, and others in the mother’s family. Most of what I’m saying refers to Iroquoian customs, if just because we know more about them. The record on our Saponi ancestors is very fragmented and incomplete.
That doesn’t mean a wife wouldn’t feel it was her place to follow her husband, where he needed to go. It also doesn’t mean that a man who asserted his relationship with his sons couldn’t have gotten his way and taken them with him.
Matrilineal descent could also dictate the customs concerning inheritance. It was common to inherit your clan from your mother. In Iroquoian cultures I know that a leader was chosen from a certain clan, which came through the mother. They didn’t have inherited leadership the way Europeans do, with a son succeeding his father. Instead, with the Iroquois, the eligibility to be elected (by the grandmothers) to take on a leadership position came from the mom. So, a head man’s son wouldn’t be eligible for his father’s position, but his mother’s nephews might be.
Our people may have followed this Woodland’s pattern, or they may have followed customs more similar to the Western Sioux we’re more familiar with — or something in between the two.
One bit of info we do have, from William Byrd, is that Saponi wives were very faithful to their husbands. Likely, this existed because there were strong customs calling for the shunning of women who were not faithful.
Thanks for the great information, Linda. Very Helpful! Here’s a “condensed” version of my allusive kin.
The white ancestor I referred to in my last post was Richard Hargrove, Sr. (several alternate spellings can be found in the record), born in North Carolina around 1700, LDS indicates Bertie Co in 1690, and died in Nutbush, Granville Co., NC in 1766. He had 2 ‘natural’ sons, Richard Jr. (my line) and John Shepperd Hargrove, by an unknown woman around 1730, probably in the vicinity of the North Fork of the Haw River. (See Will below) The second individual referenced was a John Shepperd, whom I and a second researcher of this line believe, was either an uncle or close male relative. The name Shepperd (also several alternate spellings can be found) appears in the names of several male descendents of son John. We believe that the mother of the 2 sons had the surname of Shepperd.
Just to give a little context, here are a few facts we know (mixed with some speculation). Richard Sr. may have been a surveyor of the NW part of NC during his younger years. He bought almost 1000 acres around the vicinity of present-day Swepsonville, in Alamance Co., then located on the Rowan-Orange border. He later settled along Great Nutbush Creek, Granville Co. (now Vance), obtaining thousands of acres of land. His first known land grant was 100 acres on Nutbush in 1743. Tax lists show a John Shepard in Rowan from 1762-68 and in Granville in 1755 and 1769. (I have also seen a John Shepperd on a Person Co. list, but have never connected him.) A 1754 deed indicates a purchase of 700 acres on both sides of Nutbush from Richard Hargrove (Sr) “to John Shepperd alias Hargrove.” On one Granville tax list, there is an individual referenced as “John of Rich’d Hargrove”. This person is not his son, John, who is also listed by the name of John Hargrove. There is also an intergenerational pattern of illigitimate births in Richard Jr.’s line (and John’s), several of which we are certain (but cannot prove) involved interracial unions.
From Timothy Kearney, Genealogical Researcher, Raleigh NC, December 1997.
, , WILL of Richard Hargraves written 15 January 1766, probated August Court, 1766. To natural son Richard, the plantation wheron I now live and also part of a tract adjoining and running to the line this day made between the lands of my two sons Richard and John, and also a tract of “…land in Orange County known as the Upper Beaver Ponds of Haw River…”, negroes, livestock, etc. To natural son John the remainder of my land, negroes, etc., and named Executor. WIT George White, Michl. Satterwhite, Robert Gilliam.
NOTE: The Hargraves lived in the north part of the County on Nutbush Creek and District bordering Meckenburg County, Virginia, however, this Richard St. also had land in Orange County, which is enormously important! These sons were illigitimate (Shepherd).
I, regrettably, have never seen the original will, nor do I have any additional information on “(Shepherd).” Based on the circumstantial evidence mentioned above, I think it was his mother’s surname and John Shepherd was her brother.
Now, that I’ve had a chance to assimiliation a few things (with the help of your info), it actually makes sense that the sons were not with Richard until they came of age around 1750. This is about the time they begin to appear in the record. It is also the time that John Shepperd appears. If my theories on all of this are correct (???), the sons went with their father after they reached maturity. This is also when he began to settle down in Nutbush. Perhaps, John Shepperd remained close to them.
I’ve been doing some looking at William Eaton (1690-1759), from Old Granville, including some old posts on this site. I am finding it very interesting that, not only were my Richard Hargrove & William Eaton contemporaries, but they were appear to have been following similiar paths with some possible family connections. I read on one post that Memucah (sp?) Hunt was closely related by marriage to the Webb-Smith family of old Granville. Oddly enough, they were some Shepards married into that family. One that comes to mind was Thomas Shepard, who I’ve previously suspected, was the grandson of my John Shepperd. Richard & William both owned land on or very near Nutbush and had land w/in close proximity in Orange Co. William was definitely an indian trader and Richard’s lifestyle (as I understand it) was also befitting to a trader. Another twist to this is that William Eaton’s great grandson, John S. Eaton of old Granville, co-signed the bastardy bond for my great-great-grandfather in 1842.
I may never find be able to connect all of the dots, but I am seeing alot of them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
