PACE-L Archives

Archiver > PACE > 2003-05 > 1053522105


From: "Larry" <>
Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Chanco/Chauco??? More info from Native Amercan site on Mariners Musuem URL
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 07:01:45 -0600
References: <002301c31c1e$3121c840$ecf50e0c@compaq>


Below is an excerpt from the website listed below lending info to the name
Chauco versus Chanco stories. Two story versions are mentioned.
The wesite is for the Mariners Museum and the URL for that is
http://www.mariner.org/index.html
From here you can click on "Native Americans" at the top and click on "Post
Contact"
or go directly to
http://www.mariner.org/chesapeakebay/native/nam023.html to get the specific
page below.

(Begin)
"Why was Openchancaough determined to get rid of the English?
Openchancanough was a powerful and aggressive weroance whose land centered
around present day West Point, Virginia at the headwaters of the York River.
He had a strong dislike and distrust of the English. Opechancanogh's
resentment can probably be traced to a time when John Smith seized him, put
a pistol to his chest, and "led the trembling king (near dead with feare)
amongst all his people"; an unforgivable insult to a warrior of royal
status.

Smith and his living shield
Opechancanogh knew that the Jamestown settlement was just the beginning of
the English invasion, even though Powhatan had been assured that Jamestown
was merely a temporary settlement. Time had shown him that the English would
stay if he didn't do something about it.
Before the attack on March 22, 1622, the Powhatan people were free to come
and go in the English settlements. They were free to borrow tools and even
boats. George Thorpe, an English minister and new governor, believed that
the Powhatans were "of a peaceable and vertuous disposition" and treated the
Powhatans kindly. This attitude spread to other colonists, giving the
Powhatans mixed feelings.
Opechancanough expected help from every warrior in every tribe in the
planned attack. He did not anticipate that some of his people had developed
mixed loyalties and would warn the English of the attack. The Powhatans who
were torn in their loyalties werepersonified in a legendary figure known as
"Chanco." There are two different stories telling of the legendary hero.
One story tells of a young, unnamed, Powhatan man who worked for an
Englishman, William Perry. While this young man was visiting a neighbor,
Richard Pace he learned of the intended assault and then spread the warning.
The second story tells of another young man, named Chauco, who was also
caught between his own people and the English.
On the morning of March 22, 1622, with the normal workday underway, the
attack began. In the areas where surprise was still on the Powhatan's side,
the Indians continued to work side by side with the colonists until the
appointed time of the attack. The Powhatans working beside them killed many
of the colonists with their own tools. Within just a few hours,
Opechancanough and his warriors had killed 347 English settlers. They also
killed livestock and destroyed houses, hoping to leave the plantations
useless to any survivors" (End)

This site has lots of info, early history, Indian Language Dictionary, maps
of the Early Chesapeake Bay area, and lots on the Native Americans, that
will keep you busy for sometime.

Larry Pace


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Johnson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 8:44 PM
Subject: [PACE-L] Chanco/Chauco???


> As a history teacher, I often heard remarks like "well, at least you don't
have to update your lesson plans all the time; history doesn't change. Oh,
but it does--for you see, history is NOT the past--history is what we THINK
the past was like. History writing is "part science and part art". The
science part is in careful verification and use of sources. The art part is
selecting the most important sources and weaving them into a story, which is
the historian's INTERPRETATION of what the past was like.
>
> I am currently reading POCAHONTAS'S PEOPLE: THE POWHATAN INDIANS OF
VIRGINIC THROUGH FOUR CENTURIES by Helen C. Rountree, which I purchased on
Amazon.com. This book is going to shake up some general history and some
Pace history if the conclusions are accurate, especially regarding the story
of Chanco.
>
> First, I must say that this lady is a BEAR for sources. The book contains
23 pages of bibliography and 80 pages of footnotes. When possible, she went
to the original documents in the court houses and local archives, rather
than relying on microfilm in the Library of Congress or University of
Virginia library. I am tremendously impressed by this.
>
> The original story of Chanco seems to have gotten into the history books
in the following manner: John Smith, and someone named Waterhouse before
him, wrote the story of Richard Pace in Chanco in a dramatic fashion,
stating that this one Christianized Indian's warning was all that saved the
colony from being wiped out. John Smith, of course, had not been in
Virginia since 1609 and was therefore a secondary source. However, most
historians have relied heavily on his interpretation. He does not name
"Perry's Indian" nor do any of the other sources reporting the incident.
Bruce Howard has remarked on this and has stated that he cannot find
documentaion that the Indian's name was Chanco.
>
> Rountree clears that up. She cites a Virginia Company document telling of
a visit to the colony by an Indian named Chauco (not Chanco; she says she
has examined the original document closely and the "u" was taken for an "n"
and this error has been repeated every since). That Indian came as a
representative of Opencanchanough, then the chief of the Powhatans, and was
warmly welcomed by the English as one who had been living among them and who
gave warning of the attack. Therefore, it has been assumed that this was
the same person who informed Richard Pace.
>
> Rountree disagrees. She cites copious evidence that several Indians, not
just one, warned the whites at different settlements, and gives direct
quotes to show that the plural "Indians" was used in several of the original
documents. Opencanchanough assumed that all the Indians living among the
whites (there were several) would be loyal to their heritage, but numbers of
them had become acclimated and were more likely to side with the whites.
She points out that John Smith loved to be dramatic; there are several
historians who doubt his Pochontas story. She further shows how that those
plantations who had warning were ready and fared better than the others.
She also says the eyewitnesses do not agree on just when "Perry's Indian"
warned Pace. Most writere have chosen the more dramatic midnight version.
>
> As to whether Chauco was "Perry's Indian", she points out that the Indian
who gave the warning was a Christian, which means that he would have been
given a "Christian" (i.e., English) name, and they were expected to forsake
their old name. Therefore, Chauco could not have been "Perry's Indian" but
was one of the others who also gave warning.
>
> I thought of the possibility that Chano/Chauco, in returning to his own
people, might have reverted to his Indian name and religion, as some did,
but then I realized that the colonists would probably have recorded him
under his Christian name if they knew him as such--so it seems she may be
correct.
>
> This is an important part of Pace history and should be examined by Pace
historians. I intend to check the abstracts of the Virginia Company records
when I get back to St. Louis in the fall and get the exact wording of this
mention of Chauco. Perhaps Bruce Howard or Ruth Clark would like to do the
same. The citation is Kingsbury, Myra, comp. 1906-1935, Records of the
Virginia Company of London, vol. 4 p. 98.
>
> I strongly suggest purchase and close perusal of this book by all
interested in this story in Pace history. Pernaps Jane would also want to
publish this email or a synopsis in the next Bulletin.
> Roy Johnson
> -- summer email address


This thread: