COVER LETTER FOR THE PETITION FOR STATE RECOGNITION FROM THE NOTTOWAY INDIAN TRIBE OF VIRGINIA, INC.
“When the English began migrating to what is now eastern Virginia, they found two families of Indian people: the Iroquoian-speaking Nottoway and Meherrin, who lived south of the upper James River, and the thirty or so Algonquian-speaking Powhatan tribes, who occupied the rest of the area”
October 16, 2006
The Members of the Virginia Council on Indians
Karenne Wood, Chairperson
Post Office Box 1475
Richmond, Virginia 23218
RE:OFFICIAL SUBMISSION OF RECOGNITION PETITION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
FOR THE NOTTOWAY INDIAN TRIBE OF VIRGINIA,INC.
Dear Chairperson Wood & Members of Virginia Council on Indians (VCI),
The citizen members of the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc ( NITOV) are pleased to submit today six (6) binders containing our formalPetition for Recognition, with supporting documents.
We also request your indulgencewith this admittedly lengthy cover letter.We recognize that most VCI Council Members will not serve directly on the review committee assigned to our petition.Thus, this cover letter is our means of introducing ourselves to the full Council, and giving an overview of matters addressed more formally in our Petition and documents.
We are descendants of a significantly larger “ Nottoway” community and culture which has survived a predominantly externally definedhistory since our first recorded contact with Europeansin the early 1600’s.
As citizen members of the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc. ( NITOV) we do not profess to be the only legitimate keepers of Nottoway culture. We are simply those who now seek a cordial and mutually supportive relationship with other Indian tribes of Virginia.
Thomas C. Paramour’s History of Southampton Countyrecounts numerousreferences toNottowayIndian life in the 1700’s. These comments were recorded in the journals of persons like Virginia’s noted diarist, William Byrd.Virtually all the makers of“historical documents” of that erawere explorers, colonists, or settlers who sought and often secured control over, or destruction of, the native peoples.Thus , understandably andregretfully, “their records and observations of natives/Indians reflected their sociopolitical goals and their own cultural biases, thereby refracting and warping to some extent what
Helen C. Roundtree, “The Indians of Virginia: A Third Race in a Biracial State”, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, February 1976. Library of Virginia, Archives Room, the Helen C. Roundtree Private Collection.
Southampton County Virginia, Thomas C. Parramore, published for the Southampton County Historical Society by the University Press of Virginia, 1978, p.8
William Byrd was no exception. Byrd’s view of the Nottoway was neither particularly admiring nor sympathetic, but his comments in 1728 referring to the Nottoway as being already “the only Indians of any consequence now remaining within the limits of Virginia”, remain useful and instructive.As fellow Virginia Indians, we appreciate that the Mattaponi, the Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Rappahannock, the Pamunkey, the Nansemond, and other tribes of Virginia would view Byrd’s 1728 assertion that Nottoway were the “only Indians of consequence” (and his further description of all Indians as living “in Stupid Idleness”) as absurdly inaccurate and offensive.Yet, as descendants of one of the most documented historical tribes of Virginia, we Nottoway descendants trust the Virginia Council on Indians and its representatives of the modern era recognized Tribes will appreciate that it is equally offensive in 2006 that Nottoway descendants have not yet been acceptedwithin this“recognized” community of Native Americans/Indians of Virginia.We would like to work jointly to correct this historical anomaly.
The Commonwealth of Virginia’s “State Recognition Resolution”, January 21, 1983, (which encompassed six of the above now recognized tribes), explicitly stated “RESOLVED FURTHER, that the General Assembly of Virginia by virtue of the United States census and other evidence (emphasis added) acknowledges the fact that members of other Indian tribes reside within Virginia”.
Two years later, on February 20, 1985, the Commonwealth of Virginia, passed House Joint Resolution No.205, recognizing the Nansemond Indian Tribe. It is particularly instructive that the final paragraph of that resolution closed by stating “ RESOLVED FURTHER, That the General assembly of Virginia , by this resolution, does not address the question of whether the tribe has been continuously in existence since 1776 ( emphasis added).”
Members of the Virginia Council on Indians adopted a procedure for reviewing other Virginia tribes’ applications for “Recognition” at their January 20, 2004 meeting.A thoughtful perusal of the public minutes of the meetings prior to adoption of the new criteria suggests that much of the discussion leading up to theformal adoption of these new criteria took place out of the public arena, and that no readily apparent opportunity was provided for formal ( or even informal) input into these criteria by the public, particularly from those tribe’s not already represented on the Council.While hopefully inadvertent, this lack of input from potential applicants has created an additional set of obstacles to “recognition”, not faced by the existing recognized tribes in their own earlier pursuit of formal acknowledgement by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These new criteria, while facially well- intentioned, constitute a virtual barrier against equitable inclusion.
We entreat the current members of the Virginia Council on Indians to recognize that disparate treatment of new applicants does not further the broad and long term interests of the citizens of Virginia generally or of the Indian communities specifically.
As stated in our January 2006 Letter of Intent to petition, the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc. seeks a continuing positive relationship with all the Indian communities of Virginia.
“ Language always ‘says’ more than it denotes, so it is a major job of the document decoder to deconstruct and decipher all of its messages, to listen as well to its silences and static, before giving credence to any one part. So-called facts always come dressed , not naked, and it behooves ethno historians to learn to read the sartorial signs as well as they interpret contemporary speech in the
Histories of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and North Carolina, William Byrd ( 1674-1744), Dover Publications ( paperback version) 1967, p.116.
Commonwealth of Virginia, 1983 Session, House Joint Resolution No:54, “State Recognition Resolution”, January 21, 1983.
contextual grammar of facial, gestural, and body language . Because we are seldom bequeathed evidence of the extra verbal envelope of historical speech, ethno historians should pay close attention to the signifying properties of their written evidence in order to maximize the usefulness of its ethnographic contents.”
We are submitting our petition for recognition using the criteria established by the currently recognized tribes’ representatives on the Virginia Council on Indians.We believe, upon reflection, any fair minded person would acknowledge that these new criteria are not historically equitable. Yet, we would rather attempt to work with the VCI… than around the VCI.It would demean the whole process for Indian descendants to become adversarial.
Since we appear to be the first Indian tribe to petition under these new criteria, we hope we can work within the VCI structure to refine them to reflect historic, cultural, racial, ethnic, economic, political, and, yes, tribal realities.
The most obvious, and sensitive, issue is disparate consideration of racial intermarriage and tribal identification.The Nottoway were described by William Byrd as people of “MehogonySkins “ or the “ Copper Colour’d Ones of Nottoway Towne”  long before any extensive intermarriage with either Europeans or Africans.Upon first contact with colonial settlers, traders and land speculators Nottoway were a dark-skinnedtribe.Over time the Nottoway, like other Virginia tribes, have intermarried with Europeans and African Americans.In the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion in Southampton County in 1831, all dark-skinned inhabitants of Virginia, particularly “free” people of color, were terrorized.Thus, free Indians and free Negroes were treated the same-badly.It is not coincidental that the sell off of 40,000 plus acres of Nottoway land began in the late 1700’s, soon after the threat to Anglo settlers from Western and Northern Indians subsided , and acceleratedafter 1800, when the slave population became more restive.
The Nottoway werecajoled and coerced by the Colonial government of Virginia to act as a buffer and early warning signal against other Indian tribes located west of what is now Southampton, Surry, Brunswick and Sussex Counties.The 40,000 plus acre Circle and Square tract reservation establishedApril 28, 1705 in Southampton and Sussex Counties was not for the benefit of the Nottoway. They previously laid communal claim to the entire region.The reservation’s sole function was containment of Indians, and protection for Anglo settlers against the more western and northern Indian tribes.
In 1808 the Anglo “Trustees” had taken it upon themselves to “apprentice” four Nottoway children to other Anglos without tribal (or parental) consent.The Nottoway complained to the Governor, who had the children returned. The Governor then suggested the trustees get the approval of the Tribe in future such efforts, and the Trusteeswrote back to the Governor that the Tribe had vetoed the idea, saying“that an Indian was never known as apprentice”. The Nottoway early recognized such apprenticeships as a first step towards involuntary servitude.Unable to totally control the Nottoway as they would like, the trustees set about another course.
While many historians suggest that the Nottoway initiated efforts in the 1800’s to accelerate the previously gradualsale of their reservation lands, a careful review of the context of this sell-off , and of
History of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia andNorth Carolina, William Byrd ( 1674-1744), Dover Publications 1967, p.113-114 ( Diary entry, April 1728 )
The Metes and Bounds in a Circle anda Square-The Nottoway Indians in Virginia, Martha Wren Briggs and April Cary Pittman, Virginia Cavalcade , Winter 1997,p.142.
State of Virginia, Executive Letter Book 1808-1810,p.245.
William P. Palmer,Ed., Calendar of Virginia State Papers (Richmond, 1875), X:47.
documents themselves, suggests another equally supported view…that the sell-off was not the Nottoway Tribe’s idea, but that of surrounding non-Indian landholders.
It is significant that the main petitioner for allotment system, and virtually simultaneoussell off, a William G. Bozeman/Boseman ( aka Billy Woodson ) , did not at the time of the submission of the petition live on the reservation.As the reported son a of an Indian female and European father ( Micajah Bozeman), he “returned” to Virginia just long enough to successfully petition, sell his allotment and disappear. His main petition ,filed December 13, 1823, did not contain the signature or marks of other Nottoway tribal members, but did include “endorsement” signatures of some eighty (82) two non-Indians , who subsequently acquired virtually all of the reservation land. Of even greater interest is that just three years earlier, using the name “William Woodson” he had signed several deeds for land made by the tribe with an “x” for a signature(1820) and others with a complete signature(1819), yet beginning in 1823 he appears in the records as “William G. Bozeman (or Boseman)” and always signs his name fully.In a Deed of Trust in 1828 (Southampton County, D.20;91-92) , this same Bozeman acted as security for another man, James Turner, for a debt Turner owed to a third party. As Virginia historian,Dr. Helen Roundtree has observed, “ This deed is one of the rare ones in Southampton County ( during that era) where the color(race) of any of the parties is noted. James Turner is described as a “free Negro”, but no description at all is attached to either Bozeman or the third party, indicating they were considered “white” ( since only “whites” could act as sureties during this period).
An objective review of the context and the documentsgives substantial support to the view that Bozeman acted more as the primary emissary for Euro-Virginians seeking valuable reservation land, than as a well-intentioned spokesman for the Nottoway people.
This land sell-off could also be seen, through the eyes of Indians, Blacks and objective Anglo-Virginians, as a concerted effort to deprive slaves and “free coloreds” of a safe haven within Southampton , Sussex and surrounding Countiesduring tumultuous times. The Nottoway had earlier provided a safe haven for those some historians have labeled (or mis-labeled) a non-Christianized segment of the Nansemond in 1744 through at least 1786 . Segments of the Weyanockes and Meherrins also sought refuge within the Nottoway community. The existence of a significant reservation under the ownership and control of non-whites was viewed as a continuing threat by a dominant segment of the Anglo-Virginian communities of Southampton and Sussex counties, indeed much of European Virginia.
Nottoway living on communal reservation land were not subject to taxes, or to “registration” as were other free people of color. Taxation of “ free coloreds” was not primarily for the purpose of revenue generation, it was a means of control. Free coloreds who did not register, and pay their “free tax” were subject to being placed in involuntary servitude with anyone the sheriff or tax collector assigned them to…It was a means of government sanctioned enslavement.After the land allotments, and virtually concurrent sell off, numerous documented instances of Nottoway becoming the involuntary servants/slaves of Anglo-
Library of Virginia, Archives, “ William G. Bozeman Petition, Dec. 1823”, Southampton County, December 13, 1823, Box 234, Folder 73 ( microfilm)
The Termination and Dispersal of the Nottoway Indians of Virginia, Helen G. Roundtree, OldDominion University, May 1977,p.34. Greenville County Historical Society, Douglas Summers Brown Collection.
Library of Virginia, Historical Archives, Southampton County, Box 234, Folder 9, October 30, 1786. Petition of Nansemonds to sell land.Also, see, “The Ethnoregenesis ofa Virginia Indian Tribe: The Nansemond Indian Tribal Association”, by Helen C. Roundtree, Old Dominion University, p.3.See also,Before and After Jamestown-Virginia’s Powhatans and Their Predecessors, Helen C. Roundtree and E. Randolph Turner III, University of Florida Press (2002), p.180.
Virginians can be found throughout Virginia.
“ Once the communal tribal land was divided, the Nottoway were transformed under Virginia Law into free blacks…As a result , the Indians did not rush as a group to apply for their shares. Instead, the process of parceling out the land lasted several more years…In 1878, the children of Edwin Turner, heir to Edith Turner , made the last (recorded) application , for 575 acres. Seventy five years later, in 1953, Turner descendants sold their life-interest in some inherited land.”
In spite of the destruction of our communal reservation land, many citizen members of the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc. (NITOV)still live on and own property within, or in close proximity to, the geographical confines of the original “Circle & Square” of the Nottoway Reservation.
Much is made by some historians of the 1808 enumeration as a definitive list of all Nottoway, when in reality it was merely a precursor to the dominant community’s plans to break up the reservation.We are providing in our supporting documents numerous examples of Nottoway not listed in the 1808 document, who later received allotments, or who concurrently shared households with listed Nottoway Indians.The 1808 “enumeration” was not an accurate or complete list of who the Nottoway regarded as fellow Nottoway. It was a self-serving list of who the predominant Anglo community considered to be Nottoway. In brief, it is an important and critical document in the evolution and history of the Nottoway Tribe, but is not the genealogical holy grail many suggest.For example, if a listed Indian shares a house with any Anglos, they are given a name, and later those Anglos are treated as members of the household.However, when persons of color, whom the enumerator did not feel were Indians, shared the household, they were considered mere servants or co-habitators, without names or subsequent property rights.
In 2006, it is tragically ironic that some Virginia Indians and Anglo-Virginians still have little reticence in accepting light-skinneddescendents of Indian tribes, who readily admit and celebrate their European duality, as recognized Indians; yet anguish over the darker-skinned duality of Indian-African ancestry as somehow being of less legitimate descendancy.
“ Another interesting case is afforded by the Nottoway Tribe, a reservation group in Southampton County, Virginia. In 1808 a partial census of the tribe identified, for example Littleton Scholar as an Indian ( full-blood ) with a white wife. In the 1830 US Census, however, Littleton’s sons are listed as free people of color . In 1844an ‘enumeration of free Negroes and mulattoes’ in Southampton County listed ‘certain mulatto children’ including Alex, Bob, Samuel and Gideon Scholar, all children of a white mother.”
“ Under the laws of Virginia from 1705 until at least 1785 the ‘child of an Indian’ was legally categorized as a ‘mulatto’, along with persons of one-eighth or more African ancestry. In 1785 the term ’mulatto’was applied to persons of only one-quarter or more African ancestry,thus allowing some persons to become white (or Indian) who had legally been ’mulatto’ previously. It is not clear if the 1705 definition was replaced, as regards (Indian) ancestry, and court decisions and other evidence are contradictory on this point. Nonetheless,in practice the term continued to be applied to virtually all reservation and off-reservation Indians in tax records, census enumerations, and in the “free Negro” registration book of at least one county. In 1866, after the Civil War,the following language was adopted:’Every person have one-fourth or more Negro blood shall be deemed a colored person, and every person not deemed a colored person having one-fourth or more Indian blood shall be deemed an Indian.”
The Metes and Bounds in a Circle anda Square-The Nottoway Indians in Virginia, Martha Wren Briggs and April Cary Pittman, Virginia Cavalcade , Winter 1997,p.142
“Nottoway Tribe of Indians, Advice Relative Thereto’, No.1, July 18, 1808, Southampton County Virginia Archives; US Census, Southampton County, Virginia,1830,1850; Auditor Report, No.161, Southampton County, Virginia Archives.
Africans and Native Americans-The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black People, Jack D. Forbes, 2nd Edition, 1993, University of Illinois Press, p. 257
Additionally, the notion that census records during the 1900-1960 period reflected some accurate representation of racial or ethnic identity is farcical. Enumerators ( census takers) made these subjective calls on their own… most often not asking the persons being enumerated the genesis of their cultural attachment (s) .
As an example, the enumerators’ marching orders for 1930 included the following:
They “ were instructed to return as Indians ,not only those of full Indian blood, but also those of mixed White and Indian blood ‘except where the percentage ofIndian blood is very small’ or where the individual was ‘regarded as a white person in the community where he lives’…” A person of mixed Indian and Negro blood should be returned as a Negro unless the Indian blood predominates and the status as an Indian is generally accepted in the community’. What does this mean exactly? We must keep in mind , first, that the term blood had little to do with the red fluid universally recognized as blood. It had to do with facial features and skin tone ; dress, perhaps; language, maybe; family name ( surely someone called Whitekiller is an Indian?); and the general tenor of a community. We should also bear in mind that the enumerators were overwhelmingly white. The enumerator’s perception of community acceptance is especially interesting to ponder. Given that the enumerators could hardly be expected to know when a person’s “ percentage of Indian blood is very small”- how could you tell? -the weight of judgment must have fallen on whether that person was “regarded as white”.But regarded by whom?Similarly, the status of a black Indian must have been determined largely by whether that person was “generally accepted in the community as Indian”. The fascinating thing is that the enumerators were not ordered to find out whether a black ( darker-skinned) Indian was “accepted” as black or a white ( lighter-skinned) Indian “regarded” as Indian.The Census Bureau evidently accepted an implicit racial hierarchy of community choice. It wanted to look at the faces of light-skinned Indians and ask around as to who was passing for white; lower on thisimplicit racial scale, it would look at dark-skinned Indians and ask around as to who was passing for Indian.Presumably it was whites who did the “regarding” in the first instance and Indians who did the “accepting” in the second.A dark person’s being accepted as black was of no interest or consequence, nor was a light person’s being accepted as Indian”( emphasis added)
The entire Afro-Native American cultural exchange and contact experience is a significant subject that has largely been obscured by a focus upon European activity and European colonial relations with euphemistically labeled ‘peripheral’ subject peoples.
It is further obscured by a prevailing sentiment that it is acceptable to trumpet Indian-European ancestry, but taboo to celebrate Indian-Afro ancestry.Leaving out the Indian-Afro ,or non-Anglo, side of the story destroys context, balance, and interaction, and invalidates conclusions.The resulting hazy, partial portrayal of Indians, particularly, the Nottoway, is an unjust one of a people…making them appear passive, victimized, and lacking in will…making them disappear.
Much has been written in recent years about Walter Plecker’s decades long “ Racial Integrity” activities, and how that blatant racism impacted Indian identity.The predominantly mahogany skinned Nottoway descendants, who remained in Virginia, faced not only Plecker, but virtually everyone else’s terror simply for being darker skinned.Tragically again, there was no Pocahontas exception inserted into the Racial Integrity Act of 1923 for mahogany-skinned descendants of Indians.While some of our lighter-skinned descendants could adroitly tip toe between Indianness and whiteness, those of mahogany complexion descendants had onlythe choice given to them by the predominant society…stay under the radar and stay within the relative protection of the only community where your dark skin did not stand out, and did not matter.
One Drop of Blood-The American Misadventure of Race, Scott L. Malcomson,Farrar Straus Giroux, 2000. P.110.
Dr. Helen Roundtree has added immensely to Virginians understanding of their interrelated history. While we do not always agree with her conclusions or opinions, we respect them as carefully considered.Unfortunately, ( as we believe Dr. Roundtree herself has acknowledged ) her thesis “ The Termination and Dispersal of the Nottoway Indians of Virginia “ has been repeatedly quoted, and misquoted, entirely out of context. Dr. Roundtree’s own research has affirmed that “ No Virginia governmental agency has ever used the term ( “termination”) about the Nottoway reservation, much less about Nottoway-descended individuals. “
It should also be remembered that, as early as 1646, the Virginia Colonial Government basically “appointed” tributary Indian Chieftains, choosing those who were most likely to carry out the wishes of the Colonials. The government “…sought to tighten disciplinary control over the tribes and notably by a statute of 1665 which deprived the tributary Indians ( including the Nottoway) of even so much as a semblance of a right to choose their own leaders. Their choice since 1646 had been subject to the government’s confirmation but now the Colonial Governor was authorized to select as commander
(Chief) of the respective towns such persons as he came to have confidence in. The penalty for disobedience to, or murder of, a Chieftain chosen by the Colonial government was loss of status as friendly Indians.” 
Thus,when most historical records post-1646 refer to “King”, “Queen”,“Chief” or “Great Men” of the Nottoway , they are referring to leaders essentially chosen by the Colonial government to accomplish Colonial, not Indian, goals.Acknowledging this reality does notrob these historical figures of their place in Virginia’s history, but it does provide a crucial context and balance to actions taken, or not taken…and recorded, or not recorded over time.He or she who writes history, makes history.
The Nottoway signed at least two treaties with England, The Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677( jointly with several other tribes)and The Spotswood Treaty of 1713-14 ( singularly ).
The Commonwealth of Virginia continued to recognize the Nottoway’s treaty status well into the 1800’s.In 1837 Parsons Turner, a Nottoway who had received and previously sold part of his share of Nottoway Tribal land in Southampton County ,was tried for assault in a court of oyer and terminer. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. The next year Turner wrote to the Governor of Virginia , asking for a pardon on the grounds that his tribal rights had been violated in the way he had been tried. As an Indian under Treaty status ,Turner argued he should have received justice as though he were white and given a jury trial. The Governor granted his pardon, thus upholding Turner’s assertion of treaty status in 1838. It is significant to point out that the Tribe authorized the sale of additional tribal land to pay for Parson Turner’s appeal to the Governor of Virginia.The Tribe appreciated the importance of asserting their Treaty rights. Parsons Turner was merely a symbolic instrument of those tribal tights.
Whether the Treaties of 1677 and 1713remain in force, or not, is not the focus of ourpetition for recognition. These Treaties are, however,important Anglo-generated documents reflecting the significant role ofNottoway Indians in Virginia’s evolution.
The Nottoway Indians of Virginia were never terminated, and never disappeared.We were simply no longer needed as a buffer against other tribes, and thus there was no need for European historians, politicians, and land speculators to write about us as a continuing tribal culture.It was simpler for European-Virginians to blend these “Mahagony” skinned Native Americans/ Indians into the “ free colored” or “free indentured” category, subjecting us to the same harsh laws and treatment as “full blooded“ blacks.
Minutes, “ Meeting of Nottoway Descendants and Others, Feb.2, 2002, at the cottage of Francis and Mary Kello, Courtland, Va.”, Helen C. Roundtree, acting as recording secretary.
Craven, Red, White and Black, p.57; Hening Statutes, v.2,p219
Southampton County, Order BookLaw and Chancery, 1831-1841, p.231; Order Book County Court 18:328,329.
Once we lost our communal land, we were subject to the “free colored” taxes and registration statutes…and if unable, or unwilling, to pay these assessments, we were “contracted out” by the Sheriff and tax collector as indentured slaves. Historical obscurity has colored the Nottoway, yet we have quietly and proudly survived despite these challenges.
2006-2007 is an appropriate moment in history for the Virginia Council on Indians to further advance an accurate and truly balanced cultural exploration of these relationships.It is our wish to be a friend and an ally in this effort.There is no bitterness, no anger, no self-righteousness or antagonism reflected in our hearts.We all have much to gain from reaching out to share our cultures, and much to losein shallow contentions about whosehistory is richer.All of us, and all of our cultures, have made Virginia a betterhome today ,than it was in centuries past.
Tribal Council Member,Archie Elliott, will be our designated legal liaison during your review process.Tribal Council Member, Lynette Lewis Allston, be our contact person in responding to historical and genealogical questions raised during your review.
We request that formal correspondence be directed to :
The Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc.
Attn: Tribal Council
Post Office Box246
E-Mails directed to the full tribal entity should go to NottowayofVa@aol.com .
Cordially on behalf of our entire Council and Members,
Lynette Paige Lewis Allston,Tribal Chairperson
“ It frequently happens that the historian, though he professes more humanity than the trapper, mountain man, or gold digger, who shoots (an Indian) as a wild beast, really exhibits and practices a similar inhumanity to him, wielding a pen instead of a rifle.”Henry David Thoreau, 1843
“The ethnic identity of all people is a contrast conception ( i.e. “we” versus “they”) . While nearly all definitions of an ‘ethnic group’ depend upon factors such as common descent, language, beliefs, and cultural practices, in fact much of an ethnic group’s consciousness of ‘peoplehood’ stems from perceiving differences between their descent, language, and so forth, and those of other people.” 
See discussion of Gingaskins and Nottoway in“ The Indians of Virginia: A Third Race in a Biracial State”, Helen C. Roundtree, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, February 1976, located at Library of Virginia, archives, the Helen Roundtree Collection.
“Pocahontas’s People-The Powhatan Indians of Virginia Through Four Centuries”, Helen C. Roundtree, University of Oklahoma Press 1990, p. 269, quotingBarth, Frederick “Ethnic Groups and Boundaries”, London, 1969, p.10