One of the most frequent questions directed to our enrollment office involves a specific 18th-century document and the core genealogical question it inspires: Was the wife of John Austin, an 18th century North Carolina man, a Susquehanna Indian?

The short, clear, and historically verified answer is no. The more complex answer will be addressed in this article, which shares the original source document, sheds light on the historical context, and provides an explanation as to why descendants of John Austin are not considered Conestoga-Susquehannock people.

The Lineage Claim

In recent years, having been disconnected, descendants of John Austin and his wife, Mary Mcbee, applied for enrollment in the Conestoga-Susquehannock Tribe based on a 1755 court record. A transcription of this document, preserved in the court minutes of Rowan County, North Carolina, has been circulated widely on the internet as follows:

“Whereas John Auston a Saponia Indian and Mary a Susquhanah Indian and Thoms a Cattaaba applied for a pass to the Cataba Nation being now on their Journey to conclude a Genl Peace with ye Catabas in behalf of the Sd Nation and also presented 3 Belts of Wampum to Sd Court by which the sd Treaty is to be concluded.”

From this document, descendants concluded that “Mary” was the wife of John Austin, and that this John Austin was the same who married a Mary Mcbee, and had a well known family in Colonial America. Therefore his descendants should be entitled to enrollment in the Conestoga-Susquehannock Tribe, as they would have a documented “Susquhanah Indian” ancestor. However, the widely circulated transcription is not accurate and descendants of John Austin were determined to be ineligible for enrollment based on the contents of the original source document, which was retrieved directly from the North Carolina archives.

Note: These descendants were not rejected for lack of blood quantum, or for having been historically disconnected from the tribe. The Conestoga-Susquehannock Tribe offers enrollment to anyone with a documented ancestral claim to our community, regardless of blood quantum. We would welcome the return of any lost arrows, and actively seek out reconnections to families that have been displaced from our community.

Correcting a Mistranscription: The Source Document

As highlighted above, the original document from the courts of North Carolina clearly states “Harry” not “Mary”. Therefore the correct transcription reads:

Whereas John Auston a Saponia Indian and Harry a Susquhanah Indian and Thoms at Cattaaba applied for a pass to the Cataba Nation being now on their Journey to conclude a Genl Peace with ye Catabas in behalf of the Sd Nation and also presented 3 Belts of Wampum to Sd Court by which the sd Treaty is to be concluded.

The name "Mary" stems from the circulation of secondary abstracts during the first wave of online genealogy in the 1990s, including transcriptions published by Jo White Linn, which contained the mis-transcription of “Harry” as “Mary”.

The fact that a single transcription error has fueled significant, persistent genealogical claims in families with no conversational kinship with our tribe underscores the importance of seeking out the original source material in determining tribal identity. In this case, the demand for a traceable, tribally-specific Indigenous ancestor provided fertile ground for the transcription error to take root and be widely accepted as fact, largely because it supported a desired lineage. This phenomenon is common in colonial era claims to Indigenous ancestry and highlights the risks in relying on secondary sources without verification against the original source documentation.

Who was Harry (Tee-Kau-ley) ?

This mistranscription issue may have also been addressed by having awareness of our tribe’s story, as Harry (Tee-Kau-ley) is a very well known figure in our history, and began serving as a diplomat for Conestoga town as a young man, when he was recorded as an Indian interpreter. He was a known resident of Conestoga town and was listed on the final census there in the years following his trip to North Carolina, which produced this 1755 court record. He was tragically murdered in the initial attack on Conestoga Indian town on December 14, 1763, after a lifetime of serving as envoy to tribal and colonial governments.

Erasure of his identity and his diplomatic service to the tribe must be understood. Tee-Kau-ley was a real person, a Conestoga/Susquehannock Indian, who lived and died in the service of his community. Mary, the Susquehanna Indian, never existed. She is a modern invention caused by a simple transcription error, and we could find no evidence to suggest that the Mary McBee who married a John Austin was Indigenous. Even if we missed something, and she was, she is still not the person named in this 1755 court record as a Susquehanna Indian.

What this Document Actually Tells Us:

To our knowledge, the only documented tribal affiliation for the descendants of John Austin is Saponi, and only the Saponi people can arbitrate those claims of kinship. It is not immediately clear that the John Austin named in this court record is the same John Austin who married Mary Mcbee, and only Saponi tribal enrollment offices are positioned to answer that question.

We encourage those who believe they descend from the Saponi man mentioned in this document to seek validation from the Haliwa-Saponi, the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi, or other legitimate Saponi communities who are able to speak on the specific issue of whether or not the descendants of John Austin are considered part of their communities, and why or why not. This record is incredibly unique, and marks a very interesting time in Native American history. Anyone-regardless of tribal affiliation or racial identity- should be very proud to have a connection to it.

This article is not intended to create discord, but rather to provide crucial context on why these applications were rejected and make publicly available a genealogical record that one would otherwise have to pay to retrieve. Our tribal enrollment office retrieved this public record from the original source material, and has the permission of the applicant to share this article. At this time there is no evidence to support that the wife of John Austin was a Susquehanna Indian. The court record does not even mention a woman, and the person named was a real diplomat on the census of Conestoga Indian Town, and killed in the massacre of 1763.