Pages

▼

Thursday, August 09, 2018

Evidence that the Most Famous Native in Pelham History Was a Wiechquaeskeck, Not a "Siwanoy"


For more than 170 years, Pelham legend and lore has included the story that the most fierce and famous Native in our region during the 17th century was a Siwanoy named "Wampage" who supposedly was the Native who murdered Anne Hutchinson and most of her family in 1643 then changed his name from "Wampage" to "Anhook" to honor his murderous deed by taking the name of his prominent victim.  For example, in the first edition of his History of Westchester County published in 1848, Robert Bolton, Jr. gave the following account:

 "The Indian appellation of these lands [that became Pelham] has not been preserved.  Its early inhabitants appear to have been a tribe of the Mohegans called Siwanoys, whose possessions extended, it is well known, from Norwalk to the neighborhood of Hellgate. . . . Thither [to lands that became Pelham] the celebrated Mrs. Anne Hutchinson had retired from her persecutors in Massachusetts, but the Indians had discovered her retreat.  They appeared at first friendly, as was their wont when making their visits, but on discovering the defenceless condition of the inmates they killed her and her son-in-law, Mr. Collins, with her son Francis, and all the other members of her family, besides a number of other persons in the neighborhood belonging to the families of Mr. Throgmorton and Mr. Cornhill. . . . The residence of Anne Hutchinson appears to have been situated on Pelham neck, formerly called Ann's hoeck, literally, Ann's point or neck, hoeck being a Dutch name for a neck or point, for, up to a very late period, her farm was distinguished as the Manor of Anne hooks neck.  A small stream that separates this town from Eastchester on the west still retains her surname Hutchinson's river.  One of the principal Indian proprietors of this territory also assumed her christian surname, as we find it recorded in the early deeds, Ann-hoock alias Wampage.  This individual may have taken an active part in the destruction of Mrs. Hutchinson, for nothing was more common among the Indians than for a warrior to assume the name of his victim."

 Source:  Bolton, Jr., Robert, A History of the County of Westchester From Its First Settlement to the Present Time, Vol. I, pp. 513-15 (NY, NY:  Alexander S. Gould, 1848).

Anhook supposedly lived on the peninsula in today's Pelham Bay Park known as Rodman's Neck -- a peninsula that is referenced in many 17th century Dutch and English documents as Anhook's Neck (using various variant spellings).  Indeed, a Native used a mark to sign the Pell Deed on June 27, 1654 and is referenced in that document as "Anhõõke."  This long has been pointed to as evidence that Anhõõke was a great Siwanoy chief who sold Siwanoy lands to Thomas Pell.

I long have argued that there never were any Natives in the region that referenced themselves -- or were referenced by 17th century Dutch or English authorities -- as "Siwanoys."  I further have argued that the Natives who exercised dominion and control of the region that included the lands that later became the Manor of Pelham were known as "Wiechquaeskecks" (with, again, many variant spellings) and that the "Saggamores" and "Indyan Wittnesses" who signed the Pell Deed likewise were Wiechquaeskecks -- not Siwanoys.  See, e.g., Wed., Jan. 29, 2014:  There Were No Native Americans Known as Siwanoys; Fri., Jun. 15, 2018:  Who Was Shawanórõckquot, a Native American Sachem Who Signed the Pell Indian Deed on June 27, 1654?; Tue., Jun. 19, 2018:  What Do We Know About "Cockho," a Native American Who Signed the Pell Indian Deed on June 27, 1654?

Today's Historic Pelham Blog article presents what I believe to be some of the most compelling and fascinating evidence yet uncovered that further supports the conclusion that the Natives who signed the Pell Deed were Wiechquaeskecks -- not "Siwanoys."  In this case, it is evidence that Anhõõke, the most famous Native in Pelham history, was a Wiechquaeskeck chieftain or councilor -- not a "Siwanoy."

During the first few years of the 1660s, the so-called "Esopus Wars" raged throughout the region. Dutch settlers battled members of the Esopus tribe of the Delaware. On March 6, 1660, Dutch officials summoned several local chiefs to Fort Amsterdam to warn them against joining with or assisting the Esopus and Raritan Native Americans in the ongoing conflict. The five sachems present at the gathering agreed and the agreement was documented as a "Treaty" in the minutes of the meeting. 

 Significantly, it appears that the Wiechquaeskeck representative present that day was
Anhõõke, the Native who was among the "Saggamores" who signed the Pell Deed.  Among those listed in the treaty as in attendance that day was a Native listed as follows:

 "Achkhongh, one of the chiefs or councillors of Wiechquaeskeck."

 The reference to "Achkhongh" seems to be a phonetic variant of Anhõõke, a local Native whose name appears in a host of 17th century documents and deeds spelled in many different ways.  Indeed, I have written about Anhõõke and have collected a number of phonetic variants of his name showing that there were a wide variety of spellings as 17th century Dutch or English tried to write names based on the sounds they heard.  See Mon., Dec. 31, 2007:  Research Regarding Anhooke, One of the Native Americans Who Signed the Treaty by Which Thomas Pell Acquired Lands That Became the Manor of Pelham.  

 Examples of variant spellings of the name include, among others, the following:

 Anhõõke (the Pell Deed)
Anhoock (witness, Cornelius Seeley deed for part of Bedford, Town of Bedford Historical Records:  Land Records I, 1680-1704, and John Copps Records of the West Purchase, 1700-1740, p. 167 )
Anhook (Sep. 6, 1682 deed of "Weghqueghe," 1881 Bolton, Vol. I, p. 270)
Ann-Hook (May 27, 1692 deed selling part of West Chester; 1881 Bolton, Vol. II, pp. 290-92; Nov. 5, 1701 deed selling Great Neck; 1881 Bolton, Vol. II, p. 476)
Ann Hooke (Dec. 23, 1700 deed selling part of East Chester; 1881 Bolton, Vol. II, p. 210)

In this instance, the Dutch seem to have recorded the name phonetically as "Achkhongh."  Such phonetic variance are common in local 17th century records, both Dutch and English.  Indeed, scholars have lamented this fact for more than a century.  See "Minutes of the Executive Council" in Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York -- One Hundred and Thirty-Third Session, Vol. XXXIII, No. 67, Part 1, p. 71 (Albany, NY: J. B. Lyon, 1910) (Stating "The great variation of Indian names in the records, due to phonetic representation, is often appalling."). 

To make matters more interesting, this Dutch record of the meeting with local Natives on March 6, 1660 includes references to Sauwenaro, a recognized spelling variant of one of the Wiechquaeskeck "Saggamores" who signed the Pell Deed with his mark and is listed in that document as "Shawanórõckquot."  The March 6, 1660 record notes that the Natives present described the Wiechquaeskeck Saggamore as "their friend" arguably confirming that Anhõõke and Shawanórõckquot -- who both signed the Pell Deed -- were "friends" and were both referenced as "Wiechquaeskecks" in the March 6, 1660 Dutch record created six years after they signed the Pell Deed.

 In short, this 17th century Dutch Record is evidence not only that the most famous Native in Pelham history (Anhõõke) was a Wiechquaeskeck, not a Siwanoy, and further supports the theory that the Natives who sold Thomas Pell the lands that became the Manor of Pelham likewise were Wiechquaeskecks -- not Siwanoys.

*          *          *          *          *

"TREATY OF PEACE RENEWED WITH THE CHIEFS OF MARSEPING AND RECHKAWICK (QUEENS COUNTY) HACKINKASAKY (HACKENSACK, N.J.) THE HIGHLANDS, NAJECK (NYACK), STATEN ISLAND, RUMACHENANCK (HAVERSTRAW) AND WIECHQUAESKECK (WESTCHESTER COUNTY).

 To-day, the 6th of March 1660 appeared at the City-Hall before the Honorable Director-General in presence of the Council and the Burgomasters of this City the following Sachems or chiefs of the savages in this neighborhood, to-wit:

 Meautinnemin, alias Tapousagh, chief of Marsepingh and Rechkawyck,

 Oratam, chief of Hackinkasacky for himself and the chief of the Highlands,

 Mettano, former chief of Najeck, now chief of Staten-Island,

 Corruspin, brother and representative of the chief Rumachenanck alias Haverstroo,

 Achkhongh, one of the chiefs or councillors of Wiechquaeskeck.

 The aforesaid chiefs were asked, why the other chiefs and especially the chief of the Wappings had not come with them, whereupon Oratamy, chief of the Hackinkasacky, answered that the chief of the Wappings did not come, because he had no dispute with us and that the chief of the Wappings interpreted the return of the child and the presents made to him for it so, as if at that time the treaty of peace had been renewed and consolidated and that he and they altogether were willing to continue the peace formerly concluded.

 Whereupon they were answered through the interpreters Claes de Ruyter, Claes de Norman and Waeringh, an Indian understanding and speaking the Dutch and Indian languages,

 That we, too, are willing to continue in peace with them and the Wappings under the following conditions:

1.

That Meautinnemin, alias Tapousagh, chief of Marsepingh should be included, because neither he nor his people had ever done much harm to the Dutch and if it should happen, that any harm was done to him or his people, it should be considered as having been done to me.

 This having been said to them, they answered that they were well satisfied with it and that they jointly promise to keep the peace, but that they did not speak for the Indians of Esopus nor for the Raretanys, with whom they declared, they would have nothing to do.

2.

To prevent, that no more mishaps or murders should in future take place between our people and them, no Indian should come with his arms into our fort or villages, but they must deliver them at the gate or at the first house of the village or settlement, to which they came and they would be returned to them, when they left.  They answered, that this was very good.

3.

Since it has been notice, that some Dutchmen surround and press hard and occasionally inconvenience the savages, who come here to market with peltries, fish and other wares, they shall, to prevent this, come henceforth to no other places, than to near the former beaver-path and to the neck (hoold) near the weigh-house, except if coming with firewood, with which they may go, where they please.  Suitable houses shall be built at the aforesaid places.  They were well pleased with this.

4.

That henceforth no war should be commenced for any private action, but if a Dutchman should happen to kill an Indian he shall again be punished with death and if an Indian happened to kill a Dutchman he should be delivered to the Dutch and also be punished with death and if any cattle are killed, they shall be paid for with double their price.

5.

In order that the peace may be the better kept, all the savages, comprised in this treaty, shall be held to assist in hunting and surrendering a murderer, if such a murderer, be he a Dutchman or a savage, should fly and run away after having committed the murder.  The foregoing 4th and 5th points having been communicated to them, they declared themselves perfectly satisfied with it.

6.

Whereas our descendants for many years can see and know what we now talk over with them and conclude, which their descendants cannot do, because they can neither read nor write, it would be good and necessary, that they leave some of their children with us to be educated.

They answered hereto, that they would leave one child here immediately, which they had with them, and would bring more upon some other occasion.

After the foregoing had been agreed upon with them to their satisfaction, they were asked, whether they had anything more to say, whereupon they answered with a counter-question, why Sauwenaro was not also present, whereas he was also a chief and their friend.  They were told, that on account of some charges made against him, he had been imprisoned, but that he should be brought and released, if the Sachems Tapousagh, Oratam and Mattano and the others would engage themselves, that he or his people should do no more harm to us or to ours or in case it should happen, that they would then deliver the evil-doer into our hands, to which they all answered:  Yes.

Sauwenar was brought up and informed of the foregoing, whereupon he answered that he was glad, that the peace was renewed, that his heart would henceforth be that of a Dutchman and he would live with them like a brother.  Thus they left satisfied and the Sachems engaged themselves, to inform all their savages and it was made known to the neighboring villages by the firing of a cannon.  Done at Amsterdam in N. Netherland, date as above."

Source:   Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, pp. 147-49 (Albany, NY:  Weed, Parsons & Co., 1881).



at

No comments:

Post a Comment