Can You Help, Ka Okee (Powhatan) Pettus, the Pocahontas Project and Collab. Profile of the Week.? [closed]

+16 votes
6.9k views

The Descendants of Pocahontas Project and the Collaborative Profile of the Week Present

Ka Okee (Powhatan) Pettus

Before Pocahontas went off to England, before she married John Rolfe, she and her spouse Kocoum had a child Ka Okee. This weeks challenge is to improve the profile of Ka Okee.

  1. This profile has had some discrepancies in the past, and has some still. The gender is female, the spouse is Thomas, but the bio says “his.” Is Ka Okee male or female?
  2. I’m quite certain that a written birth record does not exist, but can we analyze the data and make an educated guess as to the child’s birth?
  3. I think there may be conflicting data, maybe all we can do is list the conflicting information?
  4. There are sources on the profile.  Let’s see what more we can dig up.

Can you help us this week? Please post an answer here first. This prevents duplication of effort and it keeps the question on the front page of G2G.

             Descendants of Pocahontas

The Descendants of Pocahontas Project is a sub project of the Native American's Project. The focus of the project is to work the profiles of Pocahontas's descendants. This is a particularly important project as there have been many wild claims regarding her descendants lineage. Though not stated in the mission of the project, finding the factual profiles and information is tantamount to the health of these particular limbs. There is no princess Pocahontas, just Matoaka/Amonute/Pocahontas/Rebecca, the young native girl who helped the Jamestown settlers in so many ways.

Thank you.

 

WikiTree profile: Ka Okee Powhatan
closed with the note: Closed as this challenge is long over.
in Requests for Project Volunteers by Anne B G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)
closed by Mags Gaulden
Now featured on the main home page.

Great to see last week's collaboration on Ethan Allen went so well.

As always, thanks for leading this, Anne!
I took a DNA test and I am waiting for the results. I am hoping it will show that I am related to Pocahontas from the Rolfe side (Rolfe, Bolling, Wright, Camden). However, if the story about Ka-Okee is true and she married a Pettus, then Humphrey Camden and Cecily Pettus' families are also on my tree. Camden's on both sides. I have lots of documentation, but it gets unsure around Mary Kennon and Col. John Bolling, so i'm hoping the dna will clear up some of it. If it is true, then Pocahontas is my 10th great grandmother. Which is just far enough away to dilute pretty much any trace of it in my blood.  IF NOT, then that means I have to find the one person where I went wrong.  I will let you know what the DNA says, and if it does match up, is there a place where people want descendants to post their results for comparisons?

I know very little about DNA, but there is a Wikitree DNA project. I suggest you contact them when you get your results.

Mags, thanks for closing this thread; we'll probably still see comments added, though, since the thread remains connected to a highly controversial profile.

10 Answers

+9 votes
 
Best answer

I agree with Jeanne.

 In my opinion oral history needs to be given weight in cases like this. Particularly to the oral traditions of Algonquian-speaking Virginia Indian Tribes. 

http://www.patawomeckindiantribeofvirginia.org

http://www.pamunkey.net/

http://www.uppermattaponi.org/

http://www.chickahominytribe.org/

http://www.rappahannocktribe.org/index.html

by Marc Snelling G2G6 (8.7k points)
selected by Rahshan Colbert
I'm new, and this is my first response. Thank you for allowing me to join. There are many stories about Pocahontas's descendants, and there is always a possibility that she had other children. If she married Kacoum, she would have been 14, in 1610 or 1611. A girl became a woman in puberty, so this is a possibility, however, when she was captured, there was no mention of Kocoum or a child. This doesn't necessarily mean that one did not exist.  Powhatan had over 100 wives, so there are many descendants of Chief Powhatan.
You are so correct! This information was all hidden over, hence this discussion today, and many other days. But Kaokee was real, and was my grandmother also through Pocahontas, and Kocoum. I have my family tree with the direct link not only to them, but also to John Smith, and other ancient planters, and forefathers. I am currently trying to reach somebody that will help me bring the TRUTH to light, and not have it hidden away by the Smithsonian, etc, just to have the papers with information suddenly disappear. There has already been some effort to change some of the records. It isn't the first time they, or the government have done that either. This is far too important to be used for the wrong reasons, and must be placed into the right hands so all of the questions may be answered, because my line fills in so many of the many missing blanks, and questions. So if you want to truly help, give me some leads to contact, and please don't go messing with various profiles of other people. There could be information in there that means nothing to anyone but a family member of that person. So even though you mean well, please stop because there are many reasons why files are made and not merged.
Hello Melodee! We are probably cousins, my great grandmother was a Cox. I have them on both sides, and we go all the way back to the Mayflower, and beyond. I am related to Chief Powhatan on both sides, and Kaokee IS one of them!
+9 votes
1. Added Tribal Categories.
by Mags Gaulden G2G6 Pilot (647k points)
Thank you Mags
I just looked, one of them is red.
got it. ty
Mags, would you come back to the question. We're discussing a disconnect in the thread above this one. Would you like to express an opinion?
+9 votes
According to the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography, Thomas Pettus did not arrive in Virginia until about 1640.  He is first recorded on August 9, 1641.
by
That's interesting. That would make her marriage much later than 1631. And that child, impossible.

Complete listing of
Early Virginia Immigrants, 1623-1666
(from book published 1912 by George Cabell Greer, now copyright-free)

LAST      FIRST   RRIVAL SPONSOR          County      
Pettus Jr Thomas 1643    Capt Thomas Pettus     ???     

 

You are looking at his father Thomas.
+14 votes
The Pocahontas story can be very inflammatory. The story of her supposed Indian child even more so, so buyer beware. There is no documentary evidence to support an Indian child. There are two competing histories as follows:

1. Dan Custalow of the Mattaponi Tribe wrote that according to 'sacred oral history' Pocahontas had a son with her first husband Kocoum. He was called Little Kocoum. He was taken in by his Aunts and raised to adulthood.

2. Bill Deyo of the Patawomeck Tribe writes that Pocahontas has a daughter named Ka Okee. She married a Pettus and had descendants.

Now, which one is right? Where does sacred oral history fit into a genealogy profile. If you believe that it carries the same weight as contemporary evidence that you must also acknowledge that Pocahontas was raped by multiple white men and only after she gave birth to a son did she marry John Rolfe. According to Mattiponi sacred history Thomas Rolfe was not the son of John Rolfe.

If you look at the children of Christian Pettus on wikitree you will see the profiles of some supposed daughters; Keziah Arroyah, etc. none of these profiles make any sense, and yet people swear by them. I have written about them on my family history blog and boy do I get blasted by the believers.

I'm not sure how anyone can improve a profile for a person that no one can even prove existed.
by Jeanie Roberts G2G6 Pilot (142k points)
Bill Deyo and Leonard Custalow both came up with theories (which are different) to support their personal claims that Pocahontas had another child.  Neither man’s claims are supported by any contemporaneous records or by any of the Federally-recognized tribes who go back to the the Powhatan Confederation.
The Matoaka portrait of Pocahontas was found in the old Pettus house in England.

https://allencbrowne.blogspot.com/2015/12/pocahontas_20.html

Bob, the portrait on https://allencbrowne.blogspot.com/2015/12/pocahontas_20.html is a different portrait (and the only known portrait of Pocahontas) than the portrait referenced https://archive.org/details/pettusfamilycomp00stac/page/2/mode/2up?q=Pocahontas (the one found in a Pettus home).  THAT portrait is the one described in the article Jeanie linked to at https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/pe-o-ka-the-wife-of-osceola-the-principal-war-chief-of-the-seminoles-of-florida-and-her-son-53

In other words, the portrait described on https://allencbrowne.blogspot.com/2015/12/pocahontas_20.html Is NOT the portrait found at the Pettus home described on https://archive.org/details/pettusfamilycomp00stac/page/2/mode/2up?q=Pocahontas

The only known portrait of Pocahontas is the Matoaka portrait which was found in the old Pettus home as it says in the link I provided to archives.org 

Pocahontas (US/ˌpkəˈhɒntəs/UK/ˌpɒk-/; born Amonute, known as Matoakac. 1596 – March 1617) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas

https://archive.org/details/pettusfamilycomp00stac/page/2/mode/2up?q=Pocahontas

According to this book on The Pettus Family(https://archive.org/details/pettusfamilycomp00stac/page/n53/mode/2up?q=Makota)the Matoaka portrait of Pocahontas was found in the old Pettus home in England. The Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery calls it the "Matoaka portrait" too. https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.65.61
Give me some links to evidence because I don't accept your words alone. I don't want some link to a conversation with people who's credentials can't be verified online. I gave you the link to The Pettus Family book and the Smithsonian art gallery that says the Matoaka portrait of Pocahontas is real. You disagree. Where is the evidence to back up your disagreement? In 2012 it was said on Genealogy.com that the Matoaka portrait of Pocahontas was found in the old Pettus house - https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/pettus/890/

https://www.pallasweb.com/blog/am-i-descended-from-pocahontas.html#about

The portrait with the Seminole Indian and child isn't called a "Matoaka portrait" anywhere online and isn't said to have been in the old Pettus house from any sources I can find online.

Bill Deyo isn't confusing the Matoaka portrait found at the Pettus house which was owned by the Pettus's cousins the Rolfes who married into the Elwin family that ended up owning the Matoaka portrait for the portrait you're talking about that has that Seminole woman and the child in in. I don't see anyone online calling that portrait of the Seminole woman and child in it a 'Matoaka portrait'.

1) It is important to note that the famous Matoaka portrait of Pocahontas was found in England in a Pettus home! Col. Thomas Pettus’ uncle, William Pettus, married Elizabeth Rolfe, the daughter of John Rolfe’s own granduncle, Henry Rolfe! The compiler did not realize that such close connections between the Rolfe and Pettus families existed in England until he was compiling this article. John Rolfe took Pocahontas to his family estate in England when they visited there in 1616. She no doubt met the Pettus family and may have asked that if any of them went to Virginia to please check on her daughter, Ka-Okee. One evidently did check on her and married her. Since we do not have definite knowledge of the name of Mr. Pettis/Pettus, who married Ka-Okee, he could even have been been a son of William Pettus and Elizabeth Rolfe who were married in 1594. Col. Thomas Pettus brought his nephew, Thomas, son of his brother, William, to Virginia. Is it any wonder that Thomas Pettus’ grandson, Josias Fugate, married his own cousin, Mary Martin, a granddaughter of John Martin and Chistian Pettus and became the ancestor of the Sullivan family of Stafford

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Our_Patawomack_Ancestors

2) Owners of the Matoaka portrait - 

Provenance

Peter Elwin [1718-1798], Booton Hall, Norfolk, England; by descent to Fountain Peter Elwin in 1900; purchased by Francis Burton Harrison 1926; bought by Andrew W. Mellon 1932; transferred to The A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust; gift to NGA 1942; transferred 1965 to NPG.

https://www.si.edu/object/pocahontas:npg_NPG.65.61

3) 

Anne ROLFE married Peter ELWIN of Thurning, Norfolk, (not far from the
home of the Rolfes in Heacham). Peter was born at Thurning in 1623 and
was buried there 7 July 1695. His will was proved 14 Oct 1695.

The ELWINs go back at least to Peter (a very popular name in the family)
of Wiggenhall near King’s Lynn, Norfolk living 1167 and the descent of
many (including me) from Peter ELWIN and Anne ROLFE is well known. They
also held a number of Pocahontas “heirlooms” including her portrait
(until 1926 and now in National Art Gallery, Washington)https://soc.genealogy.britain.narkive.com/P2YV4kuV/pocahontas-and-her-grand-daughter-anne-rolfe

Oral history has been increasingly recognized in academia as a valuable contribution to the historical record.

https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/oral_traditions/

The potential of oral tradition to locate artifacts of the past, and to reveal their significance, has made Crowell into a kind of intellectual cross-athlete. He combines archaeology, anthropology, linguistics and climate science — and a commitment to open-mindedness. This mix of disciplines has proven to be especially potent in Indigenous contexts because oral tradition is often central to Native communities, which have been marginalized for centuries by Western science and society. “It’s about decolonizing anthropology,” says Crowell.“It’s part of a larger story of anthropologists and archaeologists reconnecting with Indigenous peoples on an equal basis.”

He isn’t alone in this mission. “It’s very powerful for Native peoples’ point of view to be respected, to see that our knowledge is just as valid as Western science,” says Judith Ramos, a member of the Yakutat Tlingit clan and an anthropologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. She has worked alongside Crowell as a co-investigator on the Yakutat Bay project. “Indigenous knowledge can enrich scientific knowledge. They can be mutually enriching."

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-indigenous-oral-tradition-is-guiding-archaeology-and-uncovering-climate

Another thing here to consider in your criticism of the sacred oral tradition involving Ka Okee is Dr. Linwood "Little Bear" Custalow wrote a book in English and the abuse of the Native Americans. The Patawomecks were slaughtered and the survivors did their best to keep their sacred oral tradition intact. There could have easily been an error regarding Ka Okee being a male of female child. Translating from one language to another isn't as easy as you might think. For example, many people in America would consider the King James Bible the only good translation of the Bible. That isn't true because the King James Bible has an error in it. The translators of the King James Bible made the error of translating the word for Passover as Easter. Maybe the word in Patawomeck for Ka Okee's gender wasn't properly translated into English or couldn't be.
+7 votes
This is a great discussion on this profile. One of the reasons it was chosen was because of it's issues.

Working on the profile to improve it can encompass more than just diggin' up the truth. It can be, adding a yellow warning about the possibility of the person never existing, it can be someone adopting it (THANK YOU Jeanie) AND it can be just making the profile look good.

I love this collaborative thing we got goin' on round here!

Mags
by Mags Gaulden G2G6 Pilot (647k points)
Ka-Okee would have to be real, since my Husbands Family just passed a DNA test as direct descendants of Pocahantas through the Sullivan side, so if you look up the Pocahantas lineage through Sullivans, that may help your questions. Their Lineage comes through the Sullivan's and Ka-Okee is listed as a direct ancestor and to pass a DNA test, she's real.
Hello Mrs. Sullivan,

It would be great to have a direct lineage confirmed with DNA testing, but to do so we need to know a little more information about the type of DNA test taken, and the information regarding the confirmation. Assuming it was an aurosomal confirmation, who are  the triangulated DNA testers, what chromosome, what and how many shared segments. Also the paper trail for all three in the triangulated group, showing linieage back to Ka-Okee.

We have the ability here on WikiTree to record this information. If your husband joined he could enter his DNA test information and use the DNA confirmation tool (or get help from our community) to get this informaiton posted so others can also follow the lines back.

Mags
That's wonderful! I would be interested in sharing information "as" family that you may find very fascinating. Are you also related through the Martin's?
I hope that when I find the proper researcher, journalist, or whomever is a certified specialist in this field that can help me, that I will be able to contact you as a relative to bring our story to the world, and not have to waste our time trying to convince people on a blogsite. What we have to tell needs to be taken seriously, without us having to be grilled like hamburgers. This has actually become absurd, and we deserve to be taken seriously because we obviously have missing links that have not been previously found on purpose. And if your husband is Scottish, there is also another tie, and fascinating family link that I have also discovered. Happy 4th of July to you and your family, and God bless "our" Kaokee, and grandparents Pocahontas and Kocoun <3
+8 votes
The profile for Christian Pettus, daughter of Ka Okee is actually a combination of two daughters. One who supposedly married Wahanganouche, first name unknown, and the other is Christian who supposedly married a man named John Martin.

Question: do I separate Christian and give her her own profile, creating yet another questionable profile or do I keep them together and write one bio for all the supposed children of Ka Okee? There is also said to be  a son named Stephen. I hate the idea of creating more bogus ancestors. What do you think?
by Jeanie Roberts G2G6 Pilot (142k points)
I thought that Christian Pettus was a real person (was I mistaken) and that the question was, Is her mother the alleged Ka Okee?

And in answer to the question, yes I think it would be ok to include more than one bio on the profile. I do that sometime when I just don't feel like creating a profile. That way the material is there whenever someone needs that profile.

Or better yet put the information for the other siblings on Ka Okee's profile under a questionable children heading.
Reviving this thread as more attention is needed.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pettus-268 represents a duplicate of the Christian (Unknown) that Jeanie is discussing in this answer. Pettus-268 was just created in August. Only source "ancestry.com." She has a Martin son suggesting she's a duplicate of Unknown.  But we need to protect Unknown before doing a merge.

This raises the issue of the Native American project protecting profiles of people claimed to be Native American who are not. PGM runs into this from time to time -- needing to protect parents of PGM immigrants who have in the past been claimed to be Magna Carta surety descendants but have been disproven. We protect them to prevent parents from being added to them. We protect them even though they were not themselves immigrants.

Stretching this practice a bit, I think the NA project needs to PPP profiles of people where Native American descent has been claimed but unproven or disproven. That way, Jeanie's hard work won't get merged away.
I proposed a merge with the new profile. These mythical ancestors are such a headache.
I hope the merge goes in the right direction.
I've requested that Unknown be protected.  

Does she also need to be detached as spouse and mother of those listed on the profile?
I hope Jeanie has the answer, because I'm lost.
If we remove parents, how likely is it that a new Christian Pettus will spring up? I think it's will happen. Maybe better to leave them and maybe PPP the bunch.
Jeanie,

Over at PGM, we detach the inaccurate relations, but created a "Disputed [or Disproven] Relations" section where we link to the profiles that have been disconnected.

And yes, protect the bunch! ;-)
Please leave other pages with information alone. There could be even one bit of info that somebody was looking for, and people like you that mean well, actually may prevent somebody from learning. I know this has happened to me in the past. Sometimes you cannot merge pages for various reasons, and is not up to any one of us to play internet librarian to these websites. So even though you mean well, please stop deleting, and merging pages on various sites.
Anonymous,

Please clarify your message. We are only working here on WikiTree not other sites.  WikiTree's Native American project does act something like a librarian. The project seeks to align WikiTree profiles of Native Americans (and those associated with them) with accurate documentation and research, correcting errors and dispelling myths and frauds that have arisen over the decades. We also seek to ensure that there are no duplicates as it is part of wikitree's overall goal to have one profile per individual.

 If there is something specific that you'd like to see changed, please clarify and share your sources.  Many thanks.
+3 votes

[Allison Kessinger, Rooted Heritage Genealogy: January 30, 2022 at 9:21 PM]

               I can personally trace my ancestry back to Christian Pettus Martin using primary source documents. Patawomeck tradition has long said that Christian's mother was a Native American woman named Ka-Okee - long before the Mattaponi oral history of Pocahontas' first child was known outside of the Mattaponi tribe. It was historian William Deyo who was able to connect the dots between the two. This theory will probably never be able to be "proven" by traditional standards; but at the same time, many a commonly accepted theory has been based on less.”

 [Allison Kessinger, Rooted Heritage Genealogy: Sunday, May 20, 2018 - Ka-Okee: Daughter of Pocahontas or Genealogy Legend?]

               The internet is now full of stories about Ka-Okee, the supposed lost daughter of Pocahontas and her first husband, the warrior Kokoum. While many people embraced the story immediately, others have been quick to immediately dismiss it as the stuff of genealogical fairy-tales.

               I first found the story of Ka-Okee when researching a line of my own family. I am descended from Ka-Okee through her daughter, Christian Pettis, and her granddaughter, Ann Martin, who married Edward Watts. In searching for the two names together,  I came across the book Shawnee Heritage IV by Don Greene, who connected the couple to Ka-Okee via Christian Pettis, and the original Patawomeck Tides newsletter where the story of Ka-Okee made its debut.

                The basic premise of the Patawomeck tribal historian, Bill Deyo, seemed to be simple enough: he knew of several families who claimed descent from Pocahontas according to their family traditions, but none of them descended from the Bollings, the family from which all of Pocahontas' documented descendants come (via her granddaughter Jane Rolfe, who married a Bolling). They did, however, all descend from the Martin and Pettus families. There was already a long-standing oral tradition in the Martin family that one of their early colonial ancestors had married a Native American girl named Ka-Okee. Deyo knew that Ka-Okee must connect to Pocahontas, but he did not know how.

               Deyo subsequently discovered the book The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History by Dr. Linwood "Little Bear" Custalow and Angela L. Daniel "Silver Star." In this book, Angela L. Daniel recorded the sacred oral history of the Mattaponi tribe, as told by Dr. Custalow, their chief. The oral history had been passed down from generation to generation for hundreds of years, and had never before been recorded in writing. The Mattaponi people were the tribe of Pocahontas' mother. The book confirmed that there must have been another child besides Thomas Rolfe, the child of Pocahontas and John Rolfe.

               Deyo concluded that as all lines led back to the Martin family, the child must have married into the family at some point, and that this child must have been Ka-Okee, the Native American ancestor that had been part of their family traditions for generations. In the timeline at the end of the book, the authors state that between 1610 and 1612, Pocahontas came of age. She was about thirteen years old. Pocahontas fell in love with and married Kokoum, an elite Patawomeck warrior and a guard at Werowocomoco. They eventually moved to the Patawomeck tribe and had a child. Because the baby's name is not known, he is referred to in the manuscript as "Little Kokoum." If the name of the child was not known, it is reasonable to speculate that the gender of the child might also have been unknown; the child could just as easily have been a daughter as a son

               Here is my interpretation of the information found, and my opinion on Ka-Okee:

  • The book The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History should be considered a credible source, and the assertion that Pocahontas and Kokoum had a child together should be taken as fact. The book was originally a dissertation, written as the final step in Angela Daniel's requirements to earn a Ph.D. in anthropology from the College of William and Mary, an Ivy League institution. This manuscript had to go through a rigorous processes of review from a dissertation committee made up of experts in the field, and everything in the manuscript that could be confirmed via documentation was in fact documented. If a committee of experts in the field accepted these assertions from the Mattaponi tribe as fact, so should we.
  • William Strachey, a member of the Virginia Company, wrote in 1612 that Pocahontas was married to Kokoum for at least two years. Two years is plenty of time in which to have a child. Yes, the couple would have been very young; but during the early 17th century, young girls were frequently married in their early teenage years and bore children soon thereafter.

               Based on the available information, I absolutely believe that Pocahontas and Kokoum had a child. I believe that it is very likely that this child was female, and that this is a huge part of the reason why this story has not been known until now. I believe that it is very possible that this child was the Native American woman known as Ka-Okee who married Thomas Pettus.

by Doug Shannon G2G4 (4.3k points)

This answer above is a copy / paste from:

http://www.rootedheritagegenealogy.com/2018/05/ka-okee-daughter-of-pocahontas-or.html

All of this has been addressed on the current WikiTree profile of Ka Okee and associated profiles.

Also worth noting that the Custalow book, like the claims of Bill Deyo, was his personal theory, not actual “sacred history of the Mattaponi,” as he claimed.  There is NO document that connects Christian, the wife of John Martin to any parents or birth location.  She appears in no record until the age of fifty.  There is no record that places Thomas Pettus in America before 1641.

Your answers continue to focus on written records, which is extremely Eurocentric, and was exactly the point of my post!

What Thomas Pettus are you referring to that doesn't appear until 1941? 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pettus-8, of Littletown, married Elizabeth, fathered Thomas.  

None of these claims about any Pocahontas connection existed until the late 20th century and no Federally-recognized tribe in Virginia makes these claims.  Linwood Custalow did not speak for either of the Mattaponi tribes, he came up with his own story.   The Mattaponi chief has stated that it is not tribal history.  It was not Angela Daniel’s dissertation, she was a graduate student who assisted Custalow. No reputable researcher of the Powhatan period gives it any credibility.  

And here's an extensive analysis of Custalow's work:

https://www.pocahontaslives.com/on-custalows-true-story.html

+2 votes

  [Descendants of Thomas Pettus of England and Virginia, By William Pettus October 05, 2013 at 08:49:21]

               The first two volumes of my book on the Pettus Family were written on the basis that immigrant Thomas Pettus from Norwich, England and wife Elizabeth Freeman Durrent were the progenitors of the Pettus family in Virginia. However, readers of Volume II of my book will find good evidence in “Appendix S” that the immigrant Thomas was first married to Ka-Okee, daughter of Pocahontas and Kocoum, after Thomas settled in the colony. Whether Thomas's first marriage was recognized by the Church of England depends upon whether or not Ka-Okee converted to Christianity, but the name of Thomas and Ka-Okee's daughter, Christian, suggests that Ka-Okee had been baptized into the Church. After Ka-Okee's death ca 1637, Thomas married Elizabeth Freeman Durrent, widow of Richard Durrent, deceased.

               Once the new evidence for Thomas's marriage to Ka-Okee came to my attention in the summer of 2012, I thought at first that Thomas had descendants by both wives. In particular, Thomas and Elizabeth had a son Thomas II, who was an orphan in 1672. Thomas II may have married twice. Assuming that was the case, nothing is known about his first wife. His only wife of record was Elizabeth Burgh of Nansemond County. At the time I originally wrote my book, I had concluded that the children of Thomas II (probably by his first wife) were Elizabeth, who died before 1700, and Stephen, who married Mary Dabney.

               The problem was that known male descendants of Stephen and Mary Pettus have Y-DNA that matches the Y-DNA of known descendants of Powhatan. The only way for this to work is that Stephen could not be the son of Thomas II and grandson of Elizabeth Durrent Pettus. It is more likely that Stephen was the son of an earlier Stephen Pettus who was settled in New Kent County by 1662. These circumstances lead me to believe that most likely, Stephen II was the son of Stephen I and Stephen I was the son of Thomas I and Ka-Okee. This explains why Stephen II got that name. Another result is that Elizabeth, the orphaned daughter of Thomas II who died underage and unmarried, was his only child. If this theory is correct, then Thomas Pettus II of Littletown plantation was the half-brother of Stephen Pettus I and Christian Pettus.

               The line through Thomas Pettus, Virginia immigrant, probably goes as follows:

  • Thomas Petyous and (?)
  • John Pethous and Jone (?)
  • Thomas Pettus and Christian DeThick
  • Thomas and Cecily King
  • Thomas Pettus (immigrant) and Ka Okee (daughter of Pocahontas)
  • Stephen Pettus (landowner in New Kent Co. in 1662) and (?)
  • Stephen Pettus II (grantor in the sale of the Pettus estates in 1700) and Mary Dabney

by Doug Shannon G2G4 (4.3k points)

This appears to be a copy / paste from a genforum discussion board by William Pettus, although I cannot find a post exactly like this; the closest appears to be:

https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/pettus/933/

William Pettus provides no supporting documentation for the DNA claims. Perhaps they are in his book. Anyone have a copy? Or is there a Pocahontas DNA project somewhere?

+2 votes

  [Doug Shannon, 30 Apr 2022]

The following are data points that could be updated on WikiTree, but unfortunately, they are all fictional:

  • I’m claiming that my ancestry runs through John Martin, Jr. and Christian Pettus, who married ca 1652, with Christian Pettus being the daughter of Ka-Okee Powhatan (b. 1612) and Thomas Pettus (b. 1598). The WikiTree entry for John Martin, Jr. (Martin-39994) lists no spouses at all and no children at all, which hardly disproves my claim.
  • Christian Pettus could have a WikiTree profile created. She was born in Passapatanzy, Charles River Shire, Virginia, in 1636. Her mother was Ka-Okee Powhatan (Powhatan-239) and her father was Thomas Pettus (Pettus-8).
  • Christian Pettus could be added as a spouse for John Martin (Martin-39994). They married in 1652, and had children Rebecca Martin (b. 1654), Christian Martin (b. 1655), Martha Martin (b. 1655), Francis Martin (b. 1657), John (b. 1659), Christian Martin (b. 1660), Mary Martin (b. 1660), Anne Martin (b. 1663).
  • Thomas Pettus (Pettus-8) should have his WikiTree profile updated. His birth date is 19 Feb 1598, and his death date is 20 Sep 1663.
  • Ka-Okee Powhatan (Powhatan-239) could have her WikiTree profile updated. She was born ca 1612 in Passapatanzy, Tsenacommacah, Virginia, and died ca 1637 in James City, Virginia. Her mother was Matoaka Powhatan (Powhatan-3) and her father was Kocoum Patawomeck (Powhatan-173).
  • Ka-Okee Powhatan (Powhatan-239) could be added as a spouse for Thomas Pettus (Pettus-8). They were married ca 1631, and their daughter Christian Pettus was born ca 1636.
  • Matoaka Powhatan (Powhatan-3) and Kocoum Patawomeck (Powhatan-173) could have their WikiTree profiles updated to reflect their marriage to each other, ca 1610.

by Doug Shannon G2G4 (4.3k points)

All of this has been addressed on the current WikiTree profile of Ka Okee and associated profiles.

WikiTree's Native Americans project has no plans to change the relationships of the pertinent profiles.

And, as Kathie Forbes wrote above, "There is NO document that connects Christian, the wife of John Martin to any parents or birth location.  She appears in no record until the age of fifty.  There is no record that places Thomas Pettus in America before 1641."

Doug, re point 4 - the English calendar had the new year on 25 March before 1752. This is known as Old Style New Year. From 1752, New Style New Year is 1 January. You may wish to read this Help Page about English Calendars

All dates between 1 January and 24 March in the Old Style new year should be double dated in the Biography text (which I have done) and entered in the date fields as though they were in the New Style year. Hence 19 February 1598 as written in a baptism register is 19 February 1598/9 in the text and 19 February 1599 in the date fields. Note that this was his baptism date and Not a birth date.

+3 votes

This is an interesting excerpt from an excellent website on Pocahontas. I'll add the link so you can read the entire paper. 

Nevertheless, one prominent expert who knew Custalow, and who has written many volumes on the Powhatan Indians, did choose to weigh in. Anthropologist Helen C. Rountree wrote in a personal email:
"I don’t believe Linwood’s 'sacred tradition' stuff was either accurate or passed down through the Mattaponis. … Linwood didn’t get any of his stuff from his ancestors."9
Here is the link:Pocahontas Lives The author is  college professor, Kevin Miller. Helen Rountree is a noted anthropologist who has studied and written extensively on the Powhatan Confederation and Pocahontas. 
 
by Jeanie Roberts G2G6 Pilot (142k points)

Thanks for adding a link to this review of the Custalow/Daniels book. I'm struck by the revelation that even Custalow changed his claims over the course of a few years:

" Dr. Custalow’s own account of the story had evolved over the years. In 2003, he shared the speculation of Forbes on the poisoning of Pocahontas, but he characterized it then as his personal opinion. Speaking to Bobby Whitehead of Indian Country Today, he said, “I find it difficult to believe she died of natural causes. I think she was poisoned.”25 Like Forbes, he did not state that the story came from “sacred Mattaponi oral history.” Perhaps it had not yet occurred to him that claiming so would give it more traction."

And this:

"However, one of the ways ethnohistorians evaluate accounts of oral history for authenticity is to take note of how the accounts change or remain the same in subsequent retellings. On this point, Linwood Custalow’s account prompts doubt. In 2003, Custalow was quoted by Bobbie Whitehead in Indian Country Today:

“As far as Pocahontas saving [John Smith’s] life, I don’t have any facts on that. This was not something in our oral history,” Custalow said.41

Just a few years later, Custalow’s “sacred Mattaponi oral history” revealed clearly in True Story that Pocahontas would not have been present at the ceremony and John Smith was never in danger and needed no rescue.42 One would not think 400-year old sacred history could change so much in four years."

Related questions

+2 votes
1 answer
+12 votes
1 answer
+10 votes
3 answers
+3 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...