Rachel Maker, of the Wampanoag

---

"RACHEL b. abt. 1664. She m. James Maker b. Abt. 1650, d. Harwich, Ma 8 July 1731."[2]

James and Rachel had the following (4) children:[1]

1. Lydia, born about 1684
2. Rachel, born about 1685
3. James, Jr., born about 1686
4. John, born about 1692

James Makef married second Mercy Smith on 15 February 1703/04 in Eastham.[2] No children with his 2nd wife.

---

Information Added by Elwin C. Nickerson About my Great Grandmother-

Rachel was Indian, more sense can be made out of the fact that James was living on or bordering the Indian reserve in Chatham, and on the Potonumecot Reserve in East Brewster. With Josiah Paine's( Noted Harwich Historian Author and Genealogist) assertion that the Makers were Indians, it is logical that the source of the Indian blood would be wife Rachel. Rachel was the mother of James Maker's children, and she was dead before February 15, 1703/4 . Mayflower Descendant, Vol. 9, p10. The Nickerson Family, Parts 1-3}{, 1997, pgs 40,41. Mayflower Families Through Five Generations: Stephen Hopkins, 1992, p65. Mayflower Descendant, Vol. 3, p181. The children of James and Rachel Maker exists. The following are the children. Lydia, b. c1684; mentioned in her husband's will of September 15, 1760; m. Eastham, by Capt. Jonathan Sparrow, November 4, 1703, William Nickerson (b. Harwich, c1678; s/o Joseph Nickerson & Ruhamah Jones; will written September 15, 1760, proved March 12, 1765). They were residents of East Harwich in 1726. Of their children, one was named Rachel. b. c1685 in Eastham or Harwich, by Nathaniel Freeman, January 20, 1714/5, Josiah Nickerson (b. Harwich, c1685; son of Joseph Nickerson & Ruhamah Jones; d. bef. July 1737), the brother of her sister Lydia' s husband. Josiah was a householder in that part of Harwich, now South Orleans, in 1726, in that area of the Potenumecot Reserve . Rachel m(2) Eastham, 6 July 1737, as wife, John King (b. England; d. Harwich, about Spring 1753, aged 105). Rachel had five children by her first husband, Josiah Nickerson. {James Jr. b. c1686-7, probably in Harwich (Brewster); estate proved in Harwich 1725; m. Eastham, by Mr. Samuel Treat, 17 Apr 1706, Mary Taylor (b. c1686; prob. daughter of Richard tailor Richard Taylor & Hannah of Yarmouth). Bunnelle places him as living just north of Baker's Pond, stating that he was in the whaling trade. Several children, including Abigail, b. March 5, 1707, and Jane, b. 1714, who married Silas Nickerson. A probable son was James Maker, who, with Nathaniel Rogers, purchased land in Middletown, CT, in 1738. Benjamin owned land to the southeast of James Sr. Left descendants, including a son Benjamin. John b. c1692, probably in Brewster; m. Harwich, November 5, 1714, Mary Hopkins (b. Eastham, April 15, 1692; daughter of Stephen (Giles, Stephen) & Mary Merrick. John was resident of Brewster where his children were baptized, and a member of the Brewster Church from 1720.Married Second wife- Smith- no Children in that Marriage on record! Mayflower Families Through Five Generations: Stephen Hopkins, 1992, p99. PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF WAMPANOAG NATIVES

MEN

A number of early European observers were quick to admire the physical appearance of the male natives. Giovanni de Verrazano, the earliest of the European observers recorded his observations of the New England Indians as follows: “This is the goodliest people and of the fairest condition that we have found in this voyage; they exceed us in bigness, they are the color of brass, some of them incline to whiteness, others are of a yellow color, with long black hair which they carefully turn and deck up: they are of a sweet and pleasant countenance.” He described the female Indians to be “comely to behold: very graceful and well formed: of a sweet and pleasant countenance” and well mannered. Other observers described them as tall, straight, muscular and well-proportioned. Obesity and deformities were rare indeed. Their cheekbones were high and prominent - the eyes widely separated. William Wood, in 1634, described the natives as: “...amiable to behold,” and“...high foreheaded, black ey'd, black haired, broad shouldered, brawny armed, long and slender handed, out-nosed, out-breasted, small waisted, lanke bellied, well thighed, flat kneed, handsome growne leggs, and small feet…” The skin was a light and tawny or bronzed color and remarkably clear. They seem to have had gleaming white teeth which were sound and regular. John Josselyn also made note of the whiteness of their teeth, “which the natives account the most necessary and best parts of man. The teeth of the elderly might be worn down from much eating of stone-ground cornmeal, but were seldom missing. Samuel de Champlain called them handsome, adding, “They exceed us in size.” [Remains from a burial site have been measured and it was found the average height to be about five feet, ten inches.] John Smith considered them well-proportioned and goodly people. Few or none were cross-eyed, blind, lame or hunchbacked. Observers in the years that followed described the Indian women as attractive, well-proportioned, physically well favored, of middle height and with finely cut features. All observers agreed as to their erect carriage and ability to bear great burdens without stooping. The girls and young women, not yet bent by their burdens, were likely to have been every bit as attractive as their colonial counterparts. The women kept their skin smooth with fish oil and eagle fat. As with men, red pigment was mixed to give a reddish coloration. In addition, bright red was applied to the forehead, temples and cheeks. Young women favored a black pigment around the eyes and on the forehead. The body also received its share of decorative paints.

CHILDREN

The youngsters' physical qualities seem to have drawn special praise. Roger Williams reported: “Their children are never Rickety nor shall you ever see a Bandy-leg'd or Crooked Indian.” “No fools among Indians, but some are born deaf and so dumb.” The general good health among the young Indians was in marked contrast to the misery of children reported in the Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries. /ECN/

---

Rachel was Native American, more sense can be made out of the fact that James was living on or bordering the Indian reserve in Chatham, and on the Potonumecot Reserve in East Brewster. With Josiah Paine's( Noted Harwich Historian Author and Genealogist) assertion that the Makers were Indians, it is logical that the source of the Indian blood would be wife Rachel. Rachel was the mother of James Maker's children, Its not clear when she died. James Maker re-married, his second wife, Mercy Smith. Mayflower Descendant.

---

References

1. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Wampanoag-12
2. Supplement to Torrey's New England Marriages before 1700. #https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/51270985?cid=mem_copy MAKER, James & Rachel __; m bef 15 April 1692 Eastham [Higgins]
3. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L8T4-8KN
4. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/collaborate/L8T4-8KN !Nickerson Family Assoc., Inc., Annual Newsletter & Report - pg. 20-24 - THE MAKER FAMILY - (Many of us decend from Josiah NICERSON & Rachel MAKER. And there are many other connections between the NICKERSON & MAKER families in Harwich and Brewster. It has long been contended that the 1st James MAKER was an Indian, and it is well known that there has been a long line of Native blood in the MAKER family to the present day. One of our members, seeking proof of this ancestry, prompted the research which went into the following article. This article was published in the BULLETIN OF THE CAPE COD SOCIETY, Summer 2000. ....
5. PILGRIM HOPKINS HERITAGE SOCIETY: Rachel "Wampanoag" https://pilgrimhopkins.com/images/PHHSFiles/AC_Dec13.pdf