How Did Pelham Get Its Name?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

The precise origins of the name of The Town of Pelham in lower Westchester County, New York, are shrouded in the mists of time. Yet, after years of work by local historians and Pell family genealogists, the origins of the name may be a little clearer. 

The first written use of the term “Pelham” to describe the lands that Thomas Pell purchased from local Wiechquaeskeck Native Americans on June 27, 1654 (old style Julian calendar) appears in the October 20, 1687 patent issued to Thomas Pell’s sole legatee, his nephew John Pell. The patent, signed by New York Governor Thomas Dongan, confirmed John Pell as owner of the lands inherited from his uncle. Those lands included today’s Pelham. The 1687 patent refers to the lands as “the lordship and manner [manor] of Pelham.” 

The lands were known as the “Manor of Pelham” for more than a century until the division of Westchester County into towns on March 7, 1788. As of that date, much of the land that formed the Manor of Pelham became, officially, the “Town of Pelham.” 

For many years, local historians who considered the matter concluded that the name “Pelham” derived from an early English phrase meaning “home of the Pells.” Lockwood Barr, who published a history of Pelham in 1946, wrote that “The word ham was early English for home – so Pelham came to mean the home of the Pells.” 

Barr apparently based his conclusions on the work of earlier historians, including the work of Robert Bolton, Jr. who first published a two-volume history of Westchester County in 1848. That work included a chapter on the Town of Pelham. Bolton wrote in 1848 that “The name itself is of Saxon origin, and compounded of the two words Pel (remote) and Ham (mansion.) The former, being the ancient surname of the manorial proprietors, affords us a very good reason for its adoption in connection with the last.” 

Monumental work by Pell family genealogists in the last sixty years, however, has cast substantial doubt on Bolton’s theory. Although the matter is not free from doubt, the explanation may be simpler than Bolton supposed. 

Thomas Pell, born in 1612, and his brother, John, never knew their parents well. The boys lost their mother and, a little later, their father by the time young Thomas was about four years old. A stepmother and two of their parents’ “Trustees” reportedly raised the boys. One of the “Trustees,” also the “Overseer” of John Pell’s will, was a man named Pelham Burton. Many now believe that Thomas Pell named the area “Pelham” in honor of his father figure, Pelham Burton. 

Who was Pelham Burton? Some have described him as Thomas Pell’s “tutor.” Pelham Burton, however, was far more than a tutor. He was Thomas Pell’s family friend, benefactor, legal guardian, and surrogate father. 

Pelham Burton seems to have been the single most important figure in the life of young Thomas. Thomas Pell’s mother, Mary, died in February, 1614/15. His father remarried to Joanne Gravette, but died a short time later on April 14, 1616/17. According to PELLIANA, a genealogical publication about the Pell family: 

“The boys were orphaned when Mary, first, and then John, their father, died and were raised and educated by their stepmother Joanne Gravett Pell and John’s ‘Trustees’ or Executors, Pelham Burton and the Reverend Richard Vernon, Rector of Eastbourne.” 

Just as Pelham Burton cannot be described merely as Thomas Pell’s tutor, he likewise cannot be described as a mere “Executor” of the will of Thomas Pell’s father. Rather, Pelham Burton became, in effect, a surrogate father to Thomas. 

As the “Overseer” of John Pell’s will, Pelham Burton served as legal guardian of Thomas and his brother. According to PELLIANA, Burton “took in the boys and their widowed stepmother, made them a home at Compton Place and directed their education”. He sent them to the local “Free School” where the boys received a classic Latin education designed to prepare them to “read” for matriculation into Oxford or Cambridge. 

Pelham Burton was a member of the local gentry and an honorable and respected member of the Southwyck community. According to genealogical research by the Pell family, Pelham Burton “took a prominent part” in the affairs of the Sussex area in England in the early 17th century. In addition, he built Compton Place, the estate where he brought the boys and their stepmother upon the death of the boys’ father. That magnificent estate later became one of the residences of the Duke of Devonshire. 

There is no known documentary evidence that would prove that Pelham derives its name from Thomas Pell’s legal guardian and surrogate father, Pelham Burton. But, documentary evidence strongly suggests that Pelham Burton was an extraordinarily strong and positive influence on young Thomas Pell. This seems to provide overwhelming support for the theory that later in his adult life, Thomas paid homage to the only “father” he had ever known – Pelham Burton – and named the lands he purchased from local Wiechquaeskeck Native Americans 365 years ago “Pelham.”

Though There is No Known Image of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell,

This Drawing by Thom Lafferty, Based on an Original by an Unknown

Artist, Depicts Pell as the Artist Imagined Him.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

17th Century Map of New Netherland Referencing Wiechquaeskecks in Pelham Region

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Sometime between 1654 and 1658 -- the precise date remains a mystery -- Arnold Colom of Amsterdam published a monumental sea atlas of the world.  Colom's "Zee Atlas" included what is believed to be the earliest Dutch sea chart of the New Netherlands.  Noted map authority Barry Lawrence Ruderman notes that "Jacob Theunisz Lootsman's chart is believed to pre-date it, but seems not to have been regularly published until later."  

Colom was a son of Jacob Colom, an Amsterdam printer, chart-maker, and bookseller.  Arnold Colom's sea chart of New Netherlands is "extremely rare on the market" according to Mr. Ruderman and sold most recently in a Swann Galleries auction on June 2, 2011 for $33,600.  A high resolution image of the map appears immediately below.

Colom, Arnold, “Pascaarte van Nieu Nederlandt uytgegeven door”

(Amsterdam, ca. 1656) (25.5 x 22 inches; hand-colored).  Source:

Ruderman, Barry Lawrence, Antique Maps Inc., Stock # 46535

(visited 24 Apr 2019).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Arnold Colom's sea chart of New Netherlands is significant for reasons other than its status as the first (or one of the first) such sea charts of the region.  Indeed, it depicts the region including today's Pelham and purports to label Natives in the New Netherland region.  It references "Manhattans," "Wickugick," and -- somewhat distant from Pelham and in the center of Long Island Sound -- "Siwanoys." 

Once again, like so many other 17th century Dutch maps of the region, this map seems merely to copy earlier references to supposed "Siwanoy" Natives in the region and places them distant from today's Pelham.  The map references "Wickugick" Natives (i.e., Wiechquaeskeck" Natives) near Pelham -- a group that, unlike "Siwanoys" is a group of Natives constantly referenced by that name in 17th century documents.

Detail from Colom, Arnold, “Pascaarte van Nieu Nederlandt

uytgegeven door” (Amsterdam, ca. 1656) (25.5 x 22 inches;

hand-colored).  Source:  Ruderman, Barry Lawrence, Antique

Maps Inc., Stock # 46535 (visited 24 Apr 2019).  NOTE:

Click on Image to Enlarge.

According to Barry Lawrence Ruderman, owner of Antique Maps Inc., this significant map may be the first sea chart of the New Netherlands (which included the region of today's Pelham).  Mr. Ruderman states, in part:

"Colom's sea chart is a landmark in the mapping of the region, depicting in a large scale the regions extending from the Dutch New Netherlands and New England in the north to South Carolina. 

Called by Koeman "the first sea chart of the New Netherlands," Colom's chart is both highly important and exceptionally rare. Along with Theunis Jacobsz' circa 1650 sea chart of the area from Nova Scotia to the Outer Banks, it is one of the two earliest sea charts showing the significant improvements resulting from the Dutch exploration and occupation of the region. Colom's map, which is the more focused of the two maps and constructed on a much larger scale than the Theunisz, is by far the more accurate of the two charts, drawing on Visscher's highly important Novii Begli, first published circa 1655. Burden observes that the Colom draws information from both Janssonius's Belgii Novi . . . map of 1651 and the first state of Visscher's significantly updated map, noting that: 

"The Delaware Bay and River and much improved . . . as is the area between Chesapeake Bay and the Outer Banks. Curiously two Jamestowns are depicted, one at the entrance to Chesapeake Bay. Remnants of [information Burden believes to have been derived from Jacobsz] survives such as the use of Bloemers kil on the west bank of Delaware Bay. There is no recognition of the Dutch victory over the Swedish colonies here. Long Island is one unified island,as Janssonius had depicted it, although like other areas of the map, it shows independent sources. A few English settlements are noted, such as Stamfoort and Nieuwer haven, but none appear in the Connecticut River Valley, only the Dutch fort of De Hoop. One large improvement . . . is the recognition of Boston as one of the three most important towns on that coast. It is not present on the Jacobsz, Janssonius or Visscher maps. 

The dating of the map has always been a mystery. In his monumental catalog of 1887, the legendary Dutch book and map seller, Frederik Muller & Cie, identified the Colom's map had being published in 1640 (item 902), while Stokes in The Iconography of Manhattan Island dated the charts as "before 1653?." Burden identifies 3 states of the map, each of which is extremely rare. Burden describes the map dated 1656 as the first state of the map, with subsequent states lacking the date. The second state includes the page number 13 in the bottom right corner, whereas the third state is number page 13."

Source:  Ruderman, Barry Lawrence, "The First Sea Chart of the New Netherlands" in Antique Maps Inc.:  Colom, Arnold, “Pascaarte van Nieu Nederlandt uytgegeven door” (Amsterdam, ca. 1656) (25.5 x 22 inches; hand-colored; Stock # 46535) (visited 24 Apr 2019).

Today's Historic Pelham article is another in a series intended to analyze 17th century maps that depict the Pelham region.  For examples of earlier such analyses, see:

Tue., Aug. 28, 2018: Seventeenth Century Maps that Depict the Pelham Region.

Thu., Apr. 18, 2019:  More Seventeenth Century Maps that Depict the Pelham Region and Local Native Americans.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

How Extensive Did Thomas Pell Believe His Land Acquisition from Local Wiechquaeskecks To Be?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

For nearly 150 years, Pelham lore held that Thomas Pell's land purchase from local Natives on June 27, 1654 (old style Julian Calendar) involved 9,166 acres.  During the late 1980s, Pelham Town Historian Susan Swanson reviewed primary sources and demonstrated that Pelham lore was flatly wrong.  Pell's purchase involved up to roughly 50,000 acres of land in today's Bronx and lower Westchester County.  What lands, however, did Pell believe he acquired from local Wiechquaeskecks?

The agreement Pell signed with local Natives that day provides some evidence of the lands Pell believed he bought in 1654.  It describes the lands as follows:

"a piece of land Bounded by ye Sea to ye South wth yt Tract off land Called by ye English Longe Island; to ye west & west & by South wth ye bay & River & River Diawockinge Acqueonunge (Chemaqūanaock to ye East) wth all ye Islands yt are in ye salt water to ye South South East & South West Against yt Tract off Land wch is Beffore expresd."

In his history of the Town of Pelham published in 1946, Lockwood Barr described the bounds of the purchase in modern terms, stating:

"This treaty [sic] conveyed to Thomas Pell the lands east of Hutchinson River to Mamaroneck, including City Island, Hunter's Island, Travers Island and all the others, large and small, bordering the Shore. On the mainland, the tract included Pells Point, all the Pelhams, and New Rochelle. West of the River it included the Town of East Chester, part of Mt. Vernon, and a portion of the Bronx."

Source:  Barr, Lockwood Anderson, A Brief, But Most Complete & True Account of the Settlement of the Ancient Town of Pelham Westchester County, State of New York Known One Time Well & Favourably as the Lordshipp & Manour of Pelham Also The Story of the Three Modern Villages Called The Pelhams, pp. 12-13 (The Dietz Press, Inc. 1946).

A variety of conveyances of portions of the property by Thomas Pell (and by his legatee nephew and nephew's wife, John and Rachel Pell) as well as lawsuits over disputed boundaries of the land Pell purchased shed fascinating light on the extent of the lands that Pell believed he purchased from the Natives and demonstrates that Pell understood his purchase to encompass lands explicitly claimed by the Dutch on which the Dutch previously had planted settlers in 1643 and, perhaps, earlier.  

Pell clearly believed his purchase to extend from Long Island Sound (while including numerous islands off the shores of the mainland) westward to the Bronx River.  Clearly he also understood it to extend southwest of Eastchester Bay to encompass not only today's Throgg's Neck but also the entire mainland from Throgg's Neck to the Bronx River and extending all the way to the mouth of the Bronx River where it enters Long Island Sound (including Cornell's Neck, an area now known as Clason Point in the Bronx).  To the north, Pell clearly believed his land holdings extended into portions of today's Mamaroneck on the coast and even as far as an area slightly beyond the northwestern tip of today's City of New Rochelle.

This, indeed, was a vast swath of land nearly six times the size of the 9,166 acres of land that most historians claim Pell purchased.  See, e.g., Bolton, Jr., Robert, A History of the County of Westchester from its First Settlement to the Present Time, Vol. I, p. 513 (NY, NY: Alexander S. Gould, 1848) (noting that Pell's purchase "originally embraced nine thousand one hundred and sixty-six acres"). 

What evidence do have that Pell understood his purchase to be that large?  First, by November 14, 1654, only months after his purchase, Pell planted a group of English settlers in a settlement that became known as "West Chester" by the English and "Oostdorp" by the Dutch.  Indeed, it appears that on November 14, 1654 (old style; Julian calendar), Thomas Pell entered into some form of agreement selling the portion of his lands that became the little settlement of West Chester to the English settlers.  Before the settlers paid (or completed payment) for the lands, there arose "some troubles which hindered the underwriters possession". That trouble, of course, was the intervention of Dutch authorities who arrested and imprisoned many of the settlers claiming that they had settled on land owned by the Dutch. Ten years later, Pell seems to have "settled" this longstanding matter by obtaining written confirmation from the inhabitants of the Town of West Chester that he remained the owner of the land because they (or their predecessors) had not paid Pell for the land. At the same time, Pell affirmed in writing that the inhabitants could continue to "enjoy the present improvements of Their labors, Their home Lotts, and planting grounds with what meadowes were in times past laid out to each man's particular". In short, he affirmed that he would not evict them from the land.  For more, see Mon., Nov. 06, 2006:  The Source of Confusion Over the Date Thomas Pell Acquired the Lands That Became the Manor of Pelham. 

Next, on June 24, 1664, Thomas Pell sold lands between the Hutchinson River and the Bronx River to Phillip Pinckney and James Eustis from Fairfield, Connecticut who, in turn, arranged for ten Puritan families to come by boat in August of that year to settle on a portion of the land previously occupied by Anne Hutchinson before her murder by local Natives in 1643.  Those lands included today's Town of Eastchester, City of Mount Vernon, and portions of the Bronx.

Two years later, in 1666, Pell became embroiled in a significant lawsuit with Charles Bridges and Sarah Cornell Bridges disputing ownership of Cornell's Neck.  The map immediately below illustrates the location of Cornell's and its relationship to Pelham Neck, the settlement of Westchester, and Throgg's Neck. 

Map Showing Location of Cornell's Neck and its Relation to the

Settlement of Westchester, Throggs Neck, and Pelham Neck.

Source:  Cornell, John, Genealogy of the Cornell Family Being

an Account of the Descendants of Thomas Cornell of Portsmouth,

R. I., Opposite p. 21 (NY, NY:  Press of T. A. Wright, 1902).

NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

Pell claimed ownership of the region including Cornell's Neck and argued, essentially, that the claims of Charles Bridges and Sarah Cornell Bridges to the land derived from a chain of title that began with an award of the land by Dutch Colonial authorities which, according to Pell, had no ownership of, or right and title to, the land.  Eventually the court rejected the positions taken by Pell.

Next, only two weeks before Thomas Pell died in late September, 1669, John Richbell of Mamaroneck started a lawsuit against him claiming that he "Doe unjustly detaine & keep from him a certain parcell of meadowe Ground lyeing & being neare unto or upon one of ye three necks of Land at Momoronock."  Pell claimed these lands as part of his original purchase.  Richbell also claimed the lands.

The death of Thomas Pell two weeks after John Richbell first demanded a hearing on the matter before the Court of Assizes seems to have brought the matter to a halt for quite some time.  In the interim, Thomas Pell's nephew, John Pell, became the principal legatee under Thomas Pell's will and succeeded to his estate including his large land interests.

Eventually, Francis Lovelace, Governor of the Province of New York, stepped into the matter and appointed a group of Commissioners to make recommendations regarding resolution of the dispute.  The Commissioners could not agree on a resolution. Interestingly, however, they reported to Governor that they had discovered a tree in the disputed meadow "markt on ye East side with J. R. [John Richbell] & on the West with T. P. [Thomas Pell]" from which, if a line were drawn from the tree directly toward Long Island Sound, would divide the meadow exactly in half.  Though the Commissioners did not resolve the dispute, Governor Lovelace ordered Pell and Richbell to consider the report and attempt to resolve the matter before a trial would be conducted.  On January 25, 1671/72, the men reportedly settled the matter and "agreed upon [the land] to bee divided equally between them, both Meadow & Vpland, quanity & quality alike."  Consequently, a portion of the lands originally claimed by Thomas Pell were confirmed as the property of John Richbell due to his purchase from "Cakoe," a local Native who sold the land to Richbell and likely was the "Cockho" who was among the local Natives who signed the Pell Deed in 1654.  See Tue., Oct. 24, 2006:  Thomas Pell's and John Pell's Land Dispute with John Richbell in the Late 1660s and Early 1670s.

Two decades after Thomas Pell's death, on September 20, 1689, Pell's principal legatee and nephew, John Pell, and John Pell's wife (Rachel) conveyed to Jacob Leisler of New York City 6,100 acres of land that had formed portions of the northeastern part of Thomas Pell's original land acquisition in 1654.  See Fri., Apr. 06, 2007:  The Deed Reflecting John Pell's Sale of the Lands that Became New Rochelle.  

Finally, of course, in 1895, New York City annexed a large part of the Town of Pelham including Pelham Bay Park, City Island, and other islands nearby.  All of these lands likewise were part of Pell's original purchase.  Out of roughly 50,000 acres that Pell believed comprised his original purchase from local Natives, only slightly less than 1,570 acres of remain within the boundaries of today's Town of Pelham.

During the 1980s, then Town Historian Sue Swanson reviewed material and crafted a map that serves as a powerful visual aid to understand the magnitude of the lands that Thomas Pell believed he bought from local Wichquaeskecks in 1654.  An image of the map appears immediately below.

Map of Pell's Purchase from the Indians and Pelham Today

by Susan Swanson, Former Town Historian of the Town of

Pelham.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Another such map sheds similar light on the monumental scope of Pell's original purchase.  Although the map does not purport to depict the entire area acquired by Pell, it is an early map that helps understand the size of the purchase.  It is a map prepared in 1708 in connection with efforts begun in 1704 to have John Drake, Henry Fowler, Joseph Drake, Edmund Ward and Jeremiah Fowler act on behalf of the freeholders of the town of Eastchester in connection with procuring a patent for local lands as they sought to clarify a land dispute with the settlement of Westchester.  The map was entitled "A Draft of the Lands in Controversy Between the Inhabitants of East Chester Joynd with William Pear Tree & Surveyed & Laid Down 1st August - Graham Lell."  An image of a later copy of the map appears immediately below.

"A Draft of the Lands In Controversy Between the Inhabitants of

Westchester & the Inhabitants of East Chester Joynd with William

Pear Tree & Surveyed & Laid Down 1st August - Graham Lell" prepared

by Colonel William Peartree in 1708. NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Why Did the Settlement at West Chester Planted by Thomas Pell Reportedly Display the "Parliament's Arms"?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

The story of the first English settlement planted on the lands acquired by Thomas Pell from local Native Americans on June 27, 1654 is fascinating.  The settlement was known as West Chester by the English.  It was known as Oostdorp (East Village) by the Dutch. It was located near today's Westchester Square in The Bronx.  I have written about this settlement on many, many occasions, given its importance to the history of our town.  Here are a few of many examples.

Tue., Apr. 24, 2018:  Important New Scholarship on the Men to Whom Thomas Pell Sold Part of the Manor of Pelham in 1654.

Wed., Aug. 19, 2015:  Dutch Records Regarding Thomas Pell's Settlement at Oostdorp, Known by the English as the Village of West Chester.

Fri., Apr. 24, 2009:  Dutch Authorities Remove the Settlers At West Chester in March, 1656.

Fri., Jan. 02, 2009:  An Account of the Dutch Capture of Westchester in 1656.

Thu., Oct. 18, 2007:  April 19, 1655 Dutch Protest Against Thomas Pell's Efforts To Settle Englishmen on Lands the Dutch Called VreedLandt.  

Mon., Oct. 16, 2006:  17th Century Papers Relating To Westchester County Published in 1849 Contain References Important to Pelham.

Thu., Apr. 13, 2006:  Rumors in 1657 That Thomas Pell Manipulated Local Native Americans To Protect His Land Acquisition From Incursions by the Dutch.  

Mon., Aug. 17, 2015:  Buyer's Remorse:  After Thomas Pell Bought Pelham From Native Americans, He Wanted His Money Back!

For a general history of the English plantation once known as Westchester, West Chester, Oostdorp, Oost-Dorp, East-Town, East-Towne, Easttowne and by many more names, see the following: 

The Borough Towne of Westchester -- An Address Delivered by Fordham Morris, on the 28th Day of October, 1896, Before the Westchester County Historical Society, in the Court House at White Plains, N. Y. (White Plains, NY:  Privately Printed, Ca. 1896).  


Thomas Pell’s successful negotiation of the so-called "Indian Deed" with local Native Americans for the purchase of the land that subsequently became known as the Manor of Pelham had enormous implications for the dispute between the English and the Dutch over control of the area. The tract was vast -- about 50,000 acres. The Dutch claimed some of it.   Effective dominion over the lands could block any further northward movement of Dutch settlers – at least along the shore of the Long Island Sound westward to an area just beyond the Hutchinson River.   As one judicial authority has said in examining the acquisition, Thomas Pell’s purchase was “a bold attempt to extend English hegemony in the New World at the expense of the Dutch.”

Pell soon arranged settlement of a portion of the area near its western / southwestern border directly on the fault line between the feuding Dutch and English colonies.  The Dutch called the larger tract within which the settlement was located "Vreedland” (among other spellings including Freedlant, Vreedlandt, Vreelant, and Vreedlant).  Indeed, the lands that later became today's Pelham were first called "Vreedlandt."

Within months after Thomas Pell obtained his so-called "Indian Deed" to the land, he made land available to English settlers who planted a settlement at the mouth of today’s Westchester Creek in what is known now as The Bronx.  The Dutch and others later called the little settlement “Oostdorp” or “Easttowne”.

The enormity of Pell’s move was not lost on Dutch authorities.  Almost immediately they took steps to halt it.  At a meeting of the director general and council of the New Netherlands, it was resolved:

“that whereas a few English are beginning a settlement at a great distance from our outposts, on lands long before bought and paid for, near Vreedlant, to send there an interdict, and the attorney general, Cornelius van [Thienhoven], and forbid them to proceed no farther, but to abandon that spot. . . .”

On April 22, 1655, Dutch authorities served a formal protest dated April 19, 1655 on the settlers at Vreedland.   According to Lockwood Barr, who wrote a popular book on the history of Pelham and its surrounding area, the protest was served on Thomas Pell.  That is unlikely since it seems to have been served on leaders of the community in which Pell never resided.  Written in Dutch, the protest laid claims to the lands Pell had bought.

The response, reportedly delivered on behalf of the settlers at Vreedland, suggests both their strength of character and resolve on behalf of the Commonwealth and, presumably, for personal gain. The Dutch official named Claes van Elslant who delivered the protest returned to the Dutch authorities with the following reply ascribed to the settlers:

“Why doth not the Fiscal write English?  Then we could answer in writing; we expect a settlement of the boundary between Holland and England; until then, we abide under the State of England.”

The Dutch were unwilling to ignore such a dismissal of their demand.  They invaded the settlement and removed many of the Englishmen to a prison ship near Fort Amsterdam.  Eventually, the settlers were released and forced to pledge allegiance to the Dutch in order to be permitted to settle in the area under Dutch authority.  In March, 1656, however, the Dutch Fiscal presented a statement to the Director-General and the Council of New Netherland summarizing Thomas Pell’s “intrusion” at West Chester and asking that he be ordered, once again, to quit the area.

When the Dutch official (the official "Court Messenger") named Claes van Elslant appeared at the newly-planted settlement at West Chester on April 22, 1655 to deliver a warning from the Dutch Director General and his Council, he observed a number of things according to his later report of the incident.  He observed "houses" near where he could "land" his boat.  He was met by four "armed men" who tried to stop him from landing and stepping onto the land of the settlement.  He stepped out anyway to read the Dutch protest.  He then was held there until the "leader" of the group of New Englanders was brought forward, armed with a pistol and accompanied by eight to ten armed men "more."  Claes van Elslant was with a colleague referenced as "Albert the trumpeter" who accompanied him presumably to call an assembly with a horn if necessary.  

The two Dutch men were, for a time, placed under guard in a "hut on the shore well guarded by men."   The English told the two men that if they had any wine they would have shared it, but they had none.  The English then, in an apparent show of force, "discharged their guns all round."

In his subsequent report of the events, Court Messenger Claes van Elslant reported that he tried to gain some intelligence about the little settlement against which the Dutch planned to take actions to expel the settlers.  He reported as follows:  "I had also inclined to see their houses and fixtures; also, the Parliament's arms, which the English say hang on a tree, carved on a plank; but they left us standing in a hut on the shore well guarded by men.  Done as above."  Immediately below is van Elslant's brief report to Dutch authorities, in its entirety.  


"This day, 22d April, 1655, have I, Claes van Elslant, Court Messenger, by order of the Hon ble Fiscal, Cornelis van Tienhoven and the Supreme Council of New Amsterdam, in New Netherland, protested against those who were building the new village on the Company's land called Vreedlant; four armed men came to meet me at the ill, demanded what I was after?  I said, Where best could I land; near the houses?  They answered, You shall not land.  I said, Let me land, I am cold; and I sprung ashore.  Whereupon I and Albert the trumpeter, were placed under a guard and warned not to advance a foot further, until he who had the command came to us with a pistol, holding the barrel forward in his hand, accompanied by 8 @ 10 armed men more, to whom I read the Protest, word for word, and handed him the same, who gave for answer:  I cannot understand Dutch; why did not the Fiscal send it in English?  If you send it in English, then shall I answer in writing.  But, said he, that's no matter; we expect the ships from Holland and England which are to bring the settlement of the boundary.  Whether we are to dwell here under the States or under the Parliament, time will tell; furthermore, we abide here under the States of England.  Whereupon we took our departure.  They said, if we had a sup of wine we should offer you some; but we have not any.  And they discharged their guns all round.  I had also inclined to see their houses and fixtures; also, the Parliament's arms, which the English say hang on a tree, carved on a plank; but they left us standing in a hut on the shore well guarded by men.  Done as above.

(Signed), 

CLAES VAN ELSLANT."

Source:  O'Callaghan, E. B., ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York; Procured In Holland, England and France by John Romeyn Brodhead, Esq., Agent, Vol. II,  p. 161 (Albany, NY:  Weed, Parsons and Co., 1858).   

I have indicated on the 1868 map of the Town of Westchester immediately below roughly where I believe this tiny little settlement stood in 1654.

1868 Map of the Town of Westchester With Red Outline of Area

Where This Author Believes the First Huts Were Built in Late 1654

to Plant the Settlement of West Chester Begun by Thomas Pell.

Source:  Beers, Frederick W., "Town of Westchester, Westchester

Co., N.Y." in Atlas of New York and Vicinity from Actual Surveys By

and Under the Direction of F. W. Beers, Assisted by A. B.

Prindle & Others, pg. 14 (Philadelphia, PA: James McGugan,

1868). NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

The brief report of Claes van Elslant to the Director General and his Council in Fort Amsterdam is fascinating for a host of reasons.  It affirms that on April 22, 1655, only six or seven months after the settlement was planted, there were at least fourteen to sixteen armed settlers present and that they already had built "houses" and a "hut on the shore."  It further demonstrates that the houses were "near" a shore where a boat could have landed.  It affirms that the settlers knew they were on disputed land and even recognized that they believed that news from England would arrive any day with an indication of precisely where the disputed boundary between New Netherland and New England would be settled.  Thus, the leader of the settlers reportedly stated:  "we expect the ships from Holland and England which are to bring the settlement of the boundary.  Whether we are to dwell here under the States or under the Parliament, time will tell."

In short, the settlers understood that Thomas Pell had planted them on lands claimed by the Dutch.  They also recognized that depending on where their nations, through negotiations, settled on the boundary between their colonial holdings known as New Netherland and New England, they might eventually be subject to local Dutch rule or local English rule.

The reference to Parliament by the leader of the New England settlers is also important.  Oliver Cromwell (a "Roundhead" or Parliamentarian) had played a significant role in the defeat of the Royalists during the English Civil War and, on December 16, 1653, became the "Lord Protector" of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland.  In short, there was no English King to which the New Englanders could profess allegiance -- hence the references to whether they would "dwell here under the States [i.e., Dutch dominion] or under the Parliament."

Even more fascinating is Claes van Elslant's report that while he was present in the tiny settlement he tried to see "the Parliament's arms, which the English say hang on a tree, carved on a plank."  What were these "Parliament's arms" and why did they convey such significance that van Elslant felt compelled to report to Dutch authorities in New Amsterdam that he had tried to determine whether they, in fact, had been carved on a plank and were hung in the settlement by the English?

The concept of marking territory with Royal Arms almost like a boundary or no trespassing sign was important to the Dutch.  In the case of the English at that particular time, however, they had no King (rather, they had a Lord Protector).  Thus, they had no "Royal" Arms as previous English Kings had had.  It seems likely that the reference to "Parliament's arms" is a reference to the "Arms of His Highness By the Grace of God and Republic, Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland" that represented the dominion of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.  

Those arms are described as follows:  

Crest:  "A demi lion issuant argent, holding in his paws a broken spear proper" 

Escutcheon:  "Quarterly of six: first, sable, a lion rampant argent; second, sable, three spear-heads argent imbrued proper; third, sable, a chevron between three fleurs-de-lis argent; fourth, gules, three chevrons argent; fifth, argent, a lion rampant sable; sixth, argent, on a chevron sable a mullet of the field."  

An example of an image of the arms is depicted immediately below.

 

Coat of Arms of Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658).  English Military

and Political Leader and Later Lord Protector of the Commonwealth

of England, Scotland and Ireland.  Source:  Wikipedia.  NOTE:  Click

on Image to Enlarge.

One scholar recently has emphasized the importance to the colonial Dutch authorities and to the West India Company of affixing the Arms of the States General "in prominent places along the coast" in the region over which the Dutch exercised dominion in New Netherland.  Thus, of course, for settlers from another nation to affix the arms of their nation along the coast in an area claimed by the Dutch as part of New Netherland would have been viewed as a direct slap in the face of Dutch authorities and, indeed, a hostile action.  

As Professor Andrew Lipman recently wrote in his important study entitled "The Saltwater Frontier:  Indians and the Contest for the American Coast":  

"To establish the bounds of their trading zone Dutch colonists affixed 'the Arms of the States General' in prominent places along the coast.  Soon these shield-shaped plates of metal adorned spots from Cape Cod to the current site of Philadelphia.  The historian Patricia Seed points out that since the Middle Ages Dutch market towns used 'municipal arms as equivalent to modern 'No Trespassing' signs.'  Posted around the outskirts of town, they allowed a city to assert 'its freedom from the local lord, warning revenue, judicial, and military officers to 'keep out' for the town administered these functions.'  These metal plaques served as warnings that any violation of Dutch commercial territory would be answered with force.  Amsterdam's emblem, adorned with three diagonal crosses in a kind of triple-X shape, is the most famous of these medieval seals.

The exact appearance of the States Arms is unknown, but most were likely fashioned from copper, and they almost certainly featured De Nederlandse leeuw (Dutch lion) holding seven arrows in its right paw, representing the seven provinces united against Spanish tyranny.  As the historian Simon Schama points out, this heraldic climbing leeuw was a ubiquitous symbol in seventeenth-century Dutch visual culture.  Lions appeared in relief on silver coins, pressed into sealing wax, etched in woodcuts, and traced on maps that arranged the seven provinces into the form of the iconic leeuw, while the animal itself was shown holding raised swords, bounding from the sea or surrounded by a stockade wall in defiance of Spanish sieges.  Perhaps a few centuries-old leonine images are still scattered somewhere deep in the soil near Manhattan; in 1972 an excavation at the footprint of Fort Amsterdam unearthed a finely made clay pipe dating to the 1660s with a maker's mark on the heel featuring the triumphant great cat.

The copper lions the West India Company affixed to trees were subject to frequent vandalism.  'Mischievous savages' from the Delaware Bay had pilfered one of these arms near the Swanendael settlement in 1631, possibly as a protest against an act they recognized as staking out territory or perhaps to reuse the valuable copper.  The furious Swanendael colonists demanded that the Indians bring them the head of the thief.  The Natives obliged the request, but the Dutch remained suspicious:  a colonist later assumed the incident was the cause of the eventual destruction of the settlement by Indians.  Colonial competitors were likewise known to have defaced the arms on multiple occasions.

The West India Company's belief that marking their trading zones with metal seals would reify the borders of New Netherland was just as compromised and self-serving a ploy as the opportunistic claims of vacuum domicilium by the English.  There was a basic ideological chasm between the rivals on the topic of possession.  The Dutch tended to believe that trafficking where Indians were still present would grant them ownership and authority over the territory, while the English gained a purchase on the mainland by opportunistically repopulating and replanting the ruins of a devastated Native landscape.  To put it in the most simple terms, the Dutch leadership presumed that American territory could be theirs through commerce, while the English liked to think their chosen corner of the continent was a gift given by God."

Source:  Lipman, Andrew, The Saltwater Frontier:  Indians and the Contest for the American Coast, pp. 119-121 (New Haven, CT and London:  Yale University Press, 2015) (endnotes omitted).

Thus, on April 22, 1655, Claes van Elslant looked for the "Parliament's arms" that he had heard had been carved on a plank and hung by the New Englanders in the tiny little settlement of West Chester.  Though there is no evidence he saw such arms, he noted that he was held in a hut near shore and was not allowed to look around.  Clearly van Elslant understood that if such arms were present and he reported that fact back to the Dutch authorities, it would incense them even further -- though they already were furious that the New Englanders had settled on Thomas Pell's lands that the Dutch claimed as theirs.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

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

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

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).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."