Samuel Gill, a captive from Haverhill MA, was taken to St Francois du Lac Indian village by the Abenakis who had seized him 10 June 1697. He was ten years old at the time of his captivity. By about 1715, at the age of about 28 years, he married another New England captive known as Rosalie James. One author has suggested that this may have been Samuel's second wife, since he was older than most newly married.
The identity of Rosalie James has never been determined. The girl's actual name is not given in the records. According to Abbé Marault, Samuel Gill was 14 years old and "Rosalie" was 12 years when both were taken from the same place, Gilltown on the Connecticut River. It would be impossible indeed to identify Rosalie from this information. She was not taken at Gilltown, nor was Samuel, and they were not captured at the same time.
What we know about the girl is found in a document that had been written in 1768 for the seven surviving children of Samuel GILL and of Rosalie. It reads as follows:
Having come together and as a consequence to have delegated one among us to make the search and inquiry for relatives of the side of our deceased father who was a native of New England. And as we never have had absolute certainty of the place where he was taken captive: we know that he was taken about 80 years ago by the Abenaki Indians of the village of St-Francois, aged about 7 or 8 years and has always made his home in the said village. His name was Same Gille; we know also that our grandfather Sagen Gille sent on two different occasions to find him ... And as we would be greatly pleased to know our relatives; we entreat those gentlemen who may have knowledge of this family to introduce our brother whom we delegate for this purpose, to some of our relatives ... Our mother was taken at Quenibanc, some time after the capture of our father, near a mill whence all the family was taken and brought to Canada with the exception of the father and the mother who were sent away from the site.
So here are the facts about the girl from her own children.
- The site of her capture was Quenibanc, most likely Kennebunk ME, no other site of Indian attack has any name resembling it.
- She was taken captive "some time after the capture of our father" not "just shortly after" or "soon after". Samuel Gill was taken on 10 June 1697, so we can roughly estimate that the girl was captured from 1700 to 1705 allowing for "some time after".
- Capture was near a mill. We can surmise that the site was near a stream, where the mill would be located. Kennebunk had many mills. Sawmills including those of Sayward, Littlefield, Frost, Hammond, Storer, Taylor and Cole were present from the early 1680's at least until the 1740's.
- "All the family was taken" would imply at least three or more children and that none were not captured.
- "... with the exception of the father and the mother who were sent away from the site" It was rather exceptional for the Abenakis to release the parents. Generally the adults were either taken captive or killed. Coleman incorrectly interpreted the french " ... furent envoyés sur le champ." for their having been killed.
A data base of about 2,000 captives was searched for some family to fit the above description. The Philip Durrell family did with the following information:
- The family lived at Cape Porpoise ME (later called Arundel then Kennbunkport).
- The date of captivity was 10 Aug 1703, making it some time (six years) after the capture of Samuel Gill.
- The family home was on the river at a site a small distance from where Durrel's bridge was later built. While no mill has been located for the site, there were many grist and saw mills in town on the river.
- The Durrell captives included Susan age 16, Rachel age 14, Benjamin age 12, Philip Jr age 2, and their mother. There were no other children, so all were made captive.
- According to Coleman, Mrs Durrell "persuaded" the Indians to release her and the baby. One of the Indians carried the baby as far as Ft Mary in Saco where he left the mother and child. The father was away from home at the time of the attack and was not a captive. While only the mother was released, the idea that both parents were taken and freed may have been a wrong impression, but it still does not conflict seriously with the information.
The circumstantial evidence matches piece by piece. Rachel who was born about 1689 or Susan who was born about 1687 would be about the same age as Samuel Gill who was born in 1687. Life at St Francois would have been conducive to putting aside their old names and taking new ones. If Abbé Marault is correct that Samuel was two years older than Rosalie, then Rachel would fit the age. The name "Rosalie" was seemingly given at baptism by a missionary and the Abenakis called her "Lolalie" & "Olalie" substitutin "L" for the "R" which is not in the Abenaki alphabet. Rosalie is not a common name and its closeness to that of "Rachel" is suggestive.
In the History of Durham the two Durrell girls are said to have married in Canada. The source of that information is not given, but deserves research. There is no way of knowing whether they married Canadians or Indians. A careful search of Jetté reveals no suggestions of their marriages, nor do the volumes of the University of Montreal by Charbonneau & Legaré.
The family name of "James" is from family tradition as well as the statement that her father was a protestant minister. I have not found any such evidence. Prof James David Butler, professor of greek at the University of Madison WI, researched, but found no minister named James graduated from Harvard before 1700, the place where all ministers received their formation at the time. Butler concluded that Rosalie either was not called "James" or that there was no minister of that surname.
Coleman says that the Philip Durrell family is from the island of Guernsey, very likely a Huguenot escaping from the religious wars. The hypothesis that one of the Durrell girls is the same person as Rosalie James is based on fairly solid circumstantial evidence. Proof probably will never be found, but the hypothesis may be strengthened by more information. The majority of the August 10, 1703 captives from Maine went for the most part to St Francois du Lac, only a few were taken to Sault-au-Recollet. The Durrell family was likely taken to St Francois.
The loss of the registers of St Francois du Lac in the attack by Rogers' Rangers was the loss of information of the Durrell family. What became of the other members of the family? The other daughter and Benjamin may have received different names and blended into the Abenaki nation, or may have died without leaving any descendants. Yet, it said that both girls married in Canada. It would be interesting to find out who the second sister married.
References:
- Gill, Charles, Notes Addditionelles a l'histoire de La Famille Gill 1889.
- Remich, Daniel, History of Kennebunk from its Earliest Settlement to 1890
Published by permission ofAmerican-Canadian Genealogical SocietyManchester NH
& American-Canadian Genealogist
Odanak Menu
