>The Harmons and many of the other families from Northampton >Co. Virginia without a doubt married families of white, black, and >native American ancestry. If this were true without a doubt, there would be some evidence. They may well have some Indian relation, as does most any family that traces back 350 years in this country. But as I said, the 17th century Harmons appear to have been thoroughly integrated into colonial society, not members of an indigenous community. Of the multiracial Eastern Shore lines that survive in the region today, the Puckhams are the only surname for which I have seen evidence of Indian identity in the colonial era. >These families were called mulatto very early on. It is also more >probable that these families were not even originally African American. >But rather Portuguese. Rodriguese (Driggers)does not sound like an >African name to me. Many Africans with Portuguese names entered the colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries. Ira Berlin's recent work touches on this. I'm preparing a paper that goes into it in more detail. Although Luso-African immigration was fairly common, the immigration of Portuguese nationals was not, save for a few tiny enclaves in New England and South Carolina. Portuguese nationals were not referred to as mulattoes or Negroes in the historical records. The Eastern Shore Driggers, Francisco, and Longo families are clearly of African origin, not from Portugal. >The only way a person could find no evidence of Indian ancestry in these >families would be if they picked and choose what it is they wanted to >believe. That observation cuts in different directions. I see a lot of people desperately trying to defend their hypothetical Indian ancestry without evidence to support it, while trying to downplay the documented fact of their African ancestry. You are claiming that evidence exists for the Harmons' Indian ancestry, but you haven't cited any. Another poster claimed that they were Tuscarora--which seems extremely farfetched-- again with no citations. Meanwhile, everything I've seen in the historical record (citations easily available in Heinegg) indicates that the Eastern Shore Harmons were integrated into colonial communities as mulattos or free Negros--not Indians.

Thomas, Just for the record, I do not believe that a person's status as an "Indian" should be based on simply some marginal presence of Indian blood. Nor do I believe that tribes should be formed on some unprovable belief of that ancestry. But what I do believe is that all records should be taken into account, and not just those from a Euro-perspective of racial integrity. I believe a person can be of Indian decent but not necessarily be an Indian. I consider the Harmons, Johnsons, Driggers, and other intermarried Northampton Co. VA families to be tri-racial. I'm not an authority on the Harmon family, but what I do know is that I've been studying many of the southeast mixed race surnames for about 20 years now and can come to some reasonable conclusions without being as bias as a few writers of late. The Harmon family has a tradition of being Indian. For example, in Delaware the Sockum, Clark, and Harmon families functioned in the 1800's as Indian. They considered themselves to be Indian, even though some of the surrounding whites may not have. This is exemplified a court case in 1855 where a Sockum sold a Harmon some gunpowder. Both of these men claimed to be part Indian. The witness against them a Clark was determined by the court to be 1/2 Indian, and still spoke the Nantikote language. She testified that the men were descended form an African and white woman whose descendants married into the Natikote tribe's remnant. It is also apparent from her testimony that these people formed a community which distanced itself from the Negro population. To me, these families do have Indian ancestry, as well as other racial mixes. Other records state that:Nicholas Silvedo (Silver?), was a Portuguese servant who had an illegitimate child by an English maidservant Mary Gale. Frances Harmon had an illegitimate child by a white man Samuel Johnson in 1685 Joan Johnson married John Puckham a baptized Monie tribesman in Maryland in 1682. The second wife of Emanuel Driggers, Elizabeth, was a white woman (1661) What's even more evident is the names of many of the people given the allotments of the Gingaskin reservation, these early 1800Northampton VA. families include: Bingham Carter Collins Cross Daniel Drighouse/Driggers Francis Fisherman Jeffery Major West So as not to be confusing, not only were these families allotted the divided reservation, but they were also called Gingaskin Indians. These families lived with, married, and associated together. How can you possibly state that there is absolutely no evidence of any Indian ancestry. That is ridiculous. Let me ask you this, do you consider the black Gingaskin descendants still living in Northampton to be of Indian decent? Does this appear to be hypothetical Indian ancestry to you sir? It's all documented in Northampton co records. Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas F Brown <tombrown@jhu.edu> To: <NATIVEAMERICAN-DELMARVA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 7:56 AM Subject: Re: Harmon family > > >The Harmons and many of the other families from Northampton > >Co. Virginia without a doubt married families of white, black, and > >native American ancestry. > > If this were true without a doubt, there would be some evidence. > They may well have some Indian relation, as does most any family that > traces back 350 years in this country. But as I said, the 17th century > Harmons appear to have been thoroughly integrated into > colonial society, not members of an indigenous community. > > Of the multiracial Eastern Shore lines that survive in > the region today, the Puckhams are the only surname > for which I have seen evidence of Indian identity > in the colonial era. > > >These families were called mulatto very early on. It is also more > >probable that these families were not even originally African American. > >But rather Portuguese. Rodriguese (Driggers)does not sound like an > >African name to me. > > Many Africans with Portuguese names entered the colonies in the > 17th and 18th centuries. Ira Berlin's recent work touches on > this. I'm preparing a paper that goes into it in more detail. > Although Luso-African immigration was fairly common, the immigration > of Portuguese nationals was not, save for a few tiny enclaves in > New England and South Carolina. Portuguese nationals were not > referred to as mulattoes or Negroes in the historical records. > The Eastern Shore Driggers, Francisco, and Longo families > are clearly of African origin, not from Portugal. > > >The only way a person could find no evidence of Indian ancestry in these > >families would be if they picked and choose what it is they wanted to > >believe. > > That observation cuts in different directions. I see a lot of > people desperately trying to defend their hypothetical Indian > ancestry without evidence to support it, while trying to > downplay the documented fact of their African ancestry. > > You are claiming that evidence exists for the Harmons' Indian > ancestry, but you haven't cited any. Another poster claimed > that they were Tuscarora--which seems extremely farfetched-- > again with no citations. Meanwhile, everything I've seen > in the historical record (citations easily available in Heinegg) > indicates that the Eastern Shore Harmons were integrated into > colonial communities as mulattos or free Negros--not Indians. > > > > ==== NATIVEAMERICAN-DELMARVA Mailing List ==== > This NATIVEAMERICAN-DELMARVA list is currently available for adoption! > Interested in becoming the list manager? Go here: > http://resources.rootsweb.com/surnames/adoptrequest.html > > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/