New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesArea and date of appearance for Samantha
In their book, Tanet and Hordé state that Samantha was created in the South of the US (not clues about the state) in 17th c., but Withycombe states the apparition of Samantha in 18th c. in New England. Since Tanet & Hordé's book is from a more recent year than Withycombe's one, perhaps there are new data to site the origin in 17th c. in the South.
Does anybody have information about the specific area and date of appearance of the name Samantha?
Thanks.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
Does anybody have information about the specific area and date of appearance of the name Samantha?
Thanks.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
1
Replies
Here is what I found from records available on Ancestry.com.
The earliest Samantha I can find in their records is a Samantha Purdy who was born in Greenwich, Connecticut on July 20, 1749.
The earliest Samantha record in the South is of the marriage of Susan Samantha Griffin to James Mattison Bannister in Abbeville, South Carolina, in October of 1774.
Before 1850 the United States Census only listed heads of household, so most women were not listed by name unless they were widows or single women living alone or with small children, which was of course rare. There are no Samanthas in the 1790 census (the first), and just one in the 1800 census: Samantha Blackman, age between 26 and 44, living in Fairfield, Connecticut.
In the 1850 census, there were 34 Samanthas born in 1790 or before listed in Ancestry.com. The oldest two were Samantha Fox, born in New York, and Samantha Parkinson, born in Ohio, both around 1771. The states where these 34 women were born:
12 in New York
9 in Connecticut
6 in Vermont
3 in Ohio
2 in Massachusetts
1 in Pennsylvania
1 in Rhode Island
So it certainly looks to me like Samantha was first used in what's now the USA around the middle of the 18th century, and it probably originated in Connecticut.
The only Southern example is from a marriage record which does NOT give the birthplace of the bride, and which only exists in Ancestry.com as a transcript, so I can't look and see if it's possible that the person who made the transcript misread the handwriting on the original record.
So unless more evidence turns up, it looks to me like Withycombe is more correct than Tanet and Hordé.
The earliest Samantha I can find in their records is a Samantha Purdy who was born in Greenwich, Connecticut on July 20, 1749.
The earliest Samantha record in the South is of the marriage of Susan Samantha Griffin to James Mattison Bannister in Abbeville, South Carolina, in October of 1774.
Before 1850 the United States Census only listed heads of household, so most women were not listed by name unless they were widows or single women living alone or with small children, which was of course rare. There are no Samanthas in the 1790 census (the first), and just one in the 1800 census: Samantha Blackman, age between 26 and 44, living in Fairfield, Connecticut.
In the 1850 census, there were 34 Samanthas born in 1790 or before listed in Ancestry.com. The oldest two were Samantha Fox, born in New York, and Samantha Parkinson, born in Ohio, both around 1771. The states where these 34 women were born:
12 in New York
9 in Connecticut
6 in Vermont
3 in Ohio
2 in Massachusetts
1 in Pennsylvania
1 in Rhode Island
So it certainly looks to me like Samantha was first used in what's now the USA around the middle of the 18th century, and it probably originated in Connecticut.
The only Southern example is from a marriage record which does NOT give the birthplace of the bride, and which only exists in Ancestry.com as a transcript, so I can't look and see if it's possible that the person who made the transcript misread the handwriting on the original record.
So unless more evidence turns up, it looks to me like Withycombe is more correct than Tanet and Hordé.
This message was edited 7/30/2008, 1:52 PM
1
Thank you very much
1