Andrew and Elizabeth's marriage record
Questions: Shannon asked, “Was Andrew Stevens really an Indian?”
This has been debated by Deerfield scholars for centuries and my views will take a few posts to explain. Two of the early works on Deerfield: C. Alice Baker, TRUE STORIES OF NEW ENGLAND CAPTIVES CARRIED TO CANADA…, 1897, and George Sheldon, A HISTORY OF DEERFIELD MASSACHUSETTS…, 1896, refer to Andrew Stephens (both spellings, Stevens and Stephens, are found) as “The Indian” but they also state this is probably the only case found in the history of Puritan New England. My old professor once told me, if someone describes something that only happened once, the safe bet is that it did not happen at all.
Since both references were penned almost two centuries after the fact, we are forced to ponder: what was the primary source? An astute reader and Deerfield scholar fortunate enough to live in western Massachusetts, has gone to the archives of Deerfield and found a facsimile of Andrew and Elizabeth’s marriage record: a simple listing of names and dates, but next to Andrew’s name is a barely perceptible mark which when scrutinized seems to say INDIAN. I am attaching it. The mark is circled but doesn't show well here (take my word for it). Anyway, it is written with a different instrument and a different style, indicating it was not written at the time of the original document.
So where does this lead us? Was it written ten minutes later, or two-hundred years later??? More to come as the plot thickens—stay tuned.
This has been debated by Deerfield scholars for centuries and my views will take a few posts to explain. Two of the early works on Deerfield: C. Alice Baker, TRUE STORIES OF NEW ENGLAND CAPTIVES CARRIED TO CANADA…, 1897, and George Sheldon, A HISTORY OF DEERFIELD MASSACHUSETTS…, 1896, refer to Andrew Stephens (both spellings, Stevens and Stephens, are found) as “The Indian” but they also state this is probably the only case found in the history of Puritan New England. My old professor once told me, if someone describes something that only happened once, the safe bet is that it did not happen at all.
Since both references were penned almost two centuries after the fact, we are forced to ponder: what was the primary source? An astute reader and Deerfield scholar fortunate enough to live in western Massachusetts, has gone to the archives of Deerfield and found a facsimile of Andrew and Elizabeth’s marriage record: a simple listing of names and dates, but next to Andrew’s name is a barely perceptible mark which when scrutinized seems to say INDIAN. I am attaching it. The mark is circled but doesn't show well here (take my word for it). Anyway, it is written with a different instrument and a different style, indicating it was not written at the time of the original document.
So where does this lead us? Was it written ten minutes later, or two-hundred years later??? More to come as the plot thickens—stay tuned.