QUAKER-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 2009-01 > 1232811965


From: CarolynChappellNelson <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Shattuck
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:46:05 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <13CE6F5091F6479EAAA9B34F8637BC97@toshibauser>


Sorry, I guess I was taking for granted that everyone knows that things online and in ANY place that early, can only be taken with a grain of salt, knowing that records that early are scarce. But, hey, we've gotta start somewhere and if we have little clues, well, that may just help us along the way a bit more.
Carolyn


----- Original Message -----

From: Suzanne Brayer

To:

Sent: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 05:54:32 +0000 (UTC)

Subject: Re: [Q-R] Shattuck



We need to be aware and suspicious of the misinformation on the web

regarding "Samuel" and "Sibley."



The available resources do not tell us the first name of Mr. Shattuck.

Samuel is a possibility, of course, as that name is carried down through

generations. And, William is a specualtion by Lemuel Shattuck. But, there

are no contemporary records providing that information.



"Memorials of the Descendants of William Shattuck", Appendix

Lemuel Shattuck,

Boston, MA, 1855, p. 57

"Similarly, this Samuel Shattuck - Damaris Sibley marriage should be treated

as speculative.

The extreme old age of this Samuel Shattuck is also highly suspicious. "



The best we can know at this point is the following:

"New England Marriages Prior to 1700"

Clarence A. Torrey, Baltimore, MD, 1985

p. 664

"SHATTUCK, ? & Damaris ? (-1674), m/2 Thomas GARDNER; in Eng, b 1620; Salem"





> Here is one website that says that Isaac Page married >Damaris Shattuck,

> dau of Samuel Shattuck and Damaris >Sibley.





-------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: