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."

John Pell and John Richbell Selected in 1671 to Assess Best Roadway to New England -- The Beginnings of Old Boston Post Road

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

In the early fall of 1670, about a year after the death of his uncle, Thomas Pell, John Pell, Jr. sailed into the harbor of Boston in the Massachusetts Bay Colony on his way to Fairfield.  There he planned to claim his inheritance of properties that included what later became the Manor of Pelham from the executors of his uncle’s estate.

Extensive research of seventeenth century records suggests that John Pell moved into a house built during his uncle's lifetime on "Ann Hooks Neck" (later known as Pelham Neck and, today, as Rodman's Neck).  He seems later to have built his own Manor Home near today's nearby Bartow-Pell Mansion.  

Given his large inheritance, John Pell immediately assumed the mantle of "gentleman" and used letters of introduction from English notables to gain prompt access to Francis Lovelace, an English Royalist who served as second governor of the colony of New York from 1668 until 1673.

"PORTRAIT OF GOVERNOR FRANCIS LOVELACE.

Courtesy of Pennsylvania-German Society."

Only months after John Pell's arrival in the Colony of New York, Governor Lovelace designated him to work with John Richbell of Mamaroneck on an important roadway project.  A new roadway recently had been laid out as a common highway near the settlement of Eastchester adjacent to the Manor of Pelham to facilitate travel from New York to New England.  

The new road was said to be "much more convenient" than the former roadway that led into New England, but some people objected to the route of the new roadway.  Governor Lovelace sought a study to determine which of the two roads would be the "most convenient to be maintained" so that the Governor could resolve the objections and designate the roadway to New England that would continue to be maintained -- likely the beginnings of the Old Boston Post Road, a portion of which still passes through the Town of Pelham where it is named Colonial Avenue.

The records of the Town of Eastchester contain an entry reflecting instructions from Governor Lovelace issued on May 17, 1670 appointing "Mr. John Pell of the Manor of Ann Hooks Neck and Mr. John Rickbell of the Moroneck [i.e., John Richbell of Mamaroneck]" either to prepare the study the Governor sought or to hire other "understanding persons" to prepare such a study.  The entry is quoted below in its entirety, followed by a citation to its source.

Portrait of John Pell.

"Whereas there is a new road laid out for the common highway into New England near Eastchester the which is said to be much more convenient than ye former as well for strangers and travellers as the inhabitants, but yet by some persons it hath been objected against.  That a right understanding may be had here upon in having ye said way viewed by knowing and in different persons, Mr. John Pell of the Manor of Ann Hooks Neck and Mr. John Rickbell [sic] of the Moroneck [i.e., Mamaroneck] are hereby appointed either by themselves or some understanding persons in such affairs who they shall employ to take a view of ye said roads or highways within three weeks after the date hereof and make report unto me which of them they shall judge most convenient to be maintained the which thereupon shall be confirmed and allowed of accordingly.

Given under my hand in New York, 17 May 1671, Francis Lovelace."

Source:  Haacker, Fred C., Records of the Town of Eastchester, Westchester-County, New-York, p. 111 (typewritten manuscript citing p. 24-1/2 of the Eastchester Records) (Ancestry.com subscription required to access electronic version of this record).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Executive Council of Province of New York Urges Settlement of John Pell's Boundary Dispute with John Richbell on January 18, 1671/72

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

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".  Many of the papers relating to the dispute that formed the basis of that lawsuit were published in 1910 as part of the "Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668 - 1673 Volume II".  The papers are fascinating for a host of reasons. 

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. 

The dispute seems to have simmered, however.  In September, 1671, John Pell arranged the issuance of a Special Warrant demanding that three men affiliated with John Richbell (including one described as Richbell's "servant") appear before the Court of Assizes to answer trespass charges.  Pell claimed that the men harvested hay from the same meadow that had been the center of the dispute between Thomas Pell and John Richbell before Thomas Pell's death.  John Richbell stepped forward and took over the defense of the three men. 

The papers are fascinating.  They recount Richbell's acquisition of lands including the area in dispute from Native Americans in the 1660s.  Significantly for students of Pelham history, close inspection of the materials shows that Richbell joined with a man named John "Ffinch" (also referenced as "Finch") to acquired the lands from Native Americans including one named "Cakoe."  

These same two individuals likely are the "John Ffinch" and the Native American "Cockho" who signed Thomas Pell's "treaty" (actually, a deed) by which he acquired the lands that became the Manor of Pelham on June 27, 1654.  

Francis Lovelace, Governor of the Province of New York, 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, quantity & quality alike".

I have written about this fascinating boundary dispute before and have transcribed many of the records relating to it.  See Tue., Oct. 24, 2006:  Thomas Pell's and John Pell's Land Dispute with John Richbell in the Late 1660s and Early 1670s.  Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog transcribes an additional record relating to the boundary dispute that began between Thomas Pell and John Richbell and that was settled by John Pell and Richbell after Thomas Pell's death.  The record consists of the minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York held on January 18, 1671/72 where Provincial Governor Lovelace urged that the matter be settled.  [Note, the "double date" results from the leap year correction of the Julian calendar resulting in the transition to the Gregorian calendar by England and British Dominions in 1752; the dual year is due to England and British Dominions beginning their numbered year on March 25 rather than January 1 until the passage of the Calendar Act of 1750 which made the start of the year January 1 and advanced the calendar by eleven days as of Wednesday, September 2, 1752.]

In essence, the dispute that began between Thomas Pell and John Richbell essentially was a dispute over a meadow and uplands that lay between two brooks.  Richbell claimed the entire meadow and uplands, contending that the brook nearest Pell's land marked the boundary between the properties.  Pell, in contrast, claimed the entire meadow and uplands, claiming that the other brook nearest Richbell's land marked the boundary between the properties.  In the end, there was a piece of evidence discovered by Commissioners assigned to mediate the matter that seemed fatal to the claims of both men.  The Commissioners found a tree in the middle of the meadow marked with "T.P." on one side and "J.R." on the other.  If a line were drawn from that tree directly to Long Island Sound, that line split the meadow exactly in half.  The matter was settled consistently with that "line," splitting the meadow and the uplands equally between the Pell and Richbell properties.

17th Century Copy of Pell Deed Signed by Thomas Pell

and Native Americans on June 27, 1654. Believed to be 

In Thomas Pell's Handwriting.  The Whereabouts of the

Original Deed Are Unknown.  This Copy is on Display in

the Thompson-Pell Research Center Located near Fort

Ticonderoga National Historic Landmark in Ticonderoga, New York.

For Another Image of this Copy of the Deed and a

Transcription of the Handwriting, Click Here.

The  Executive Council Minutes for the meeting held on January 18, 1671/72 appear immediately below, followed by a citation to their source.

"At a Councell held at ye Fort
Jan ry 18th 1671.

Present

The Governor
Mr. Delavall
Mr. Steenwijck
The Secretary.

The Matt r under Consideracon was ye difference between Mr Pell & Mr Richbell.  2 [Footnote '2' reads as follows:  '2 Collateral and Illustrative Documents, No. LXVII.  Thomas Pell, of Norfolk, was an Englishman and adherent of the royal cause, who in 1654, purchased a large tract of land, including the town of Pelham, Westchester County.  He died at Fairfield, Conn., in 1669, and made his nephew, John Pell, only son of Dr. John Pell 'of ould England,' his heir.  His plantation or manor in Westchester County was known as 'Anne Hooks Neck,' and he died while the litigation with John Richbell was in progress.  Singularly enough, Richbell was one of those who were appointed to make an official inventory of Thomas Pell's estate, on October 13, 1669. -- Brodhead, Hist. of N. Y., vol. I, p. 593; Collections of N. Y. Hist. Society, 1892, pp. 11, 12; Court of Assizes, vol. 2, p. 423a, 550, 562.  See also Bolton, Hist. of County of Westchester (1881 edition), vol. I, pp. 468-469; vol. 2, pp. 44-49.  Jacob Young, a resident of Pell's manor, was sworn in as constable, February 1, 1670/1.  -- Court of Assizes, vol. 2, pp. 639, 641.  Young later removed to Phillipsburg and was survived by his wife, who was married to John Tanke. -- Pelletreau, Westchester County Wills, p. 388.'] 

The Commission rs Papers delivered, Sealed up, were now opened and read.  

Capt Dudley Lovelace, & Capt Jaques [Cortelyou] in a manner Agree, yet referr to a Tree in the middle of the third Neck, markt on the one side w th J. R Eastward, on ye Westward with R. P. w ch would divide ye Meadow between them.  [Page 119 / Page 120]

Mr Elyas Doughty declares positively of [90] Mr Richbells Bounds by Purchase to bee Stony Brooke.

Mr Ponton saith, That ye Brooke menconed in both Patents is the same; & that hee hath known the afore named Cedar Tree or Gravelly Brooke to bee called by that name for 16 yeares.  And concerning that w ch is now called Stoney Brooke, it was formarly called Chapmens Brooke or Stoney Brooke.

ffrancis Yeates 1 [Footnote '1' reads as follows:  'Francis Yates, of Westchester.  For his will dated November 29, 1682, and proved February 3, 1682/3, see Collections of N.Y. Hist. Socieety, 1892, p. 123.'] saith that in his Judgment Mr Pells Bounds comes to Gravelly or Cedar Brooke.

An Ord r to bee referr d to.-- }

Vpon perusall & Consideracon had hereupon, two of the Commission rs making Report, That between the two Brookes now called Stoney & Gravelly Brookes, there being a Tree markt on the East side with J. R. & on the West wth T. P. from ye which if there were a Line run directly down to the Sound, 2 [Footnote '2' reads as follows:  '2  Long Island Sound.] It would divide the Meadow in difference between both Partyes, & putt an End to ye Matt r in question, & neither of the other three agreeing amongst themselves as to their Opinion of the Bounds, The Governor being very desireous of an Amicable Composure of the Matter between both Partyes, doth recommend the same unto them; However if either Party shall not seem satisfyed herew th, that then they have Liberty to proceed to a Tryall at a Speciall Co rt according to the Ord r of the Last Gen all Co rt of Assizes; of their Resolutions hereupon a speedy Answ r is expected, that Order may bee taken accordingly. 3  [Footnote '3' reads as follows:  '3  Collateral and Illustrative Documents, No. LXVII.']"

Source:  Paltsits, Victor Hugo, ed., Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668-1673 Volume I Minutes -- Collateral and Illustrative Documents I-XIX, pp. 119-20 (Albany, NY:  State of New York, 1910).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

17th Century Record Identifies One of the Native Americans Who Signed Pell's 1654 Deed as a Wiechquaeskeck, NOT a Siwanoy

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Those who follow the Historic Pelham Blog (hi, Mom!) know that I long have been skeptical of the oft-repeated story that the Native Americans who sold their lands to Thomas Pell on June 27, 1654 were a group of Native Americans who should properly be known as "Siwanoys."  For example, see:  

Wed., Jan. 29, 2014:  There Were No Native Americans Known as Siwanoys.  

The evidence contained in 17th century records (rather than second-hand historical accounts and secondary sources) strongly suggests to me that the Native Americans who sold their lands to Pell were Wiechquaeskecks -- not Siwanoys.  

One Native American whose name appears on the copy of the Pell Deed believed to be in Thomas Pell's handwriting is "Shawanórõckquot" whose signature by his mark appears as the very first of the signatures of the "Saggamores" (i.e., sachems) on the deed.  (I have included an image of the deed and a transcription of its text at the end of this posting.)

I have located a 17th century record that identifies Shawanórõckquot as one of the "Wijckerscreeke" (i.e., Wiechquaeskeck) proprietors.  I have transcribed the record below in its entirety, followed by a citation to its source.  Thereafter I have included a brief commentary on the significance of this record.

"At a Councell &c:  Fort James.

ffebry. 24th. 1670.

Present

The Governor.

Mr Mayor.

Mr. Steenwijck

The Secretary.

The first Busynesse under Consideracon was the Indyans about Wijckerscreeke. . .

The Indyans desire that ye Governor. would bee well satisfyed, who are the reall Proprietotr. of Wijckerscreeke before hee buyes the Land; They say they are the Men, & will bee ready to sell the Land to the Governor.

[45] The Names of ye Proprietor. as they say, are -- present. -- Ramaque -- Janorockets Bro: by ye Mothrs. side.

Pewachtan          Cakensickten

Nondiackwhare  Pemeckenwerecak

Careckonde         Nemandamyn

Coharnes             Perawescamen

Kewechtahem    Shapham

Pethung              Quinonckak

Macmawito        Ermachorne

Amanequun        Peppham

10. Sackapreme. Mawohondt

___________      Tomeackak

                              Tawotene

                              Nanaquene

                      13.  Chusquchaw  [Footnote] 1

[Footnote 1 States as Follows:]  1  The great variation of Indian names in the records, due to phonetic representation, is often appalling.  For example, we find above in the minutes 'Janorocket;' in Deeds, vol. 3, p. 37. 'Jano Rockett;' an Indian deed to Edward Jessup and John Richardson, March 12, 1664/5, in Deeds, vol. 2, pp. 58-59, calls him 'Shawnerockett,' whilst Bolton, History of the County of Westchester (1881 edition), vol. 2, p. 361, names him Shanarocke or Shanrockwell, sagamore of Poningoe.  These are by no means the only forms given for this Indian.

N:  Bene.  Taponque an Indyan pret. saith hee hath Land between Neperan & Wickerscreeke.

They are to consult about ye price they demand altogether; It's in the Paper No. I.

The second to bee granted if consented unto by the major part of the Inhabitants, It being within the Limitts of the Towne.  {  An Ordr. . . . ."

Source:  Paltsits, Victor Hugo, ed., Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668-1673 Volume I Minutes - Collateral and Illustrative Documents I-XIX, pp. 70-72 (Albany, NY:  State of New York, 1910) (reported to the Legislature April 5th, 1909, May 2d, 1910).  

*          *          *          *          *

The above-quoted document reflects minutes of a meeting of the Executive Council of the Province of New York held with the proprietors of Wiechquaeskeck territory on February 24, 1670/1.  Among those present was a Native American named in the minutes as "Ramaque" who is a brother of "Janorockets" on the mother's side.  There is an editor's notation that there are many different spellings of this Native American's name including Janorocket, Jano Rockett, Shawnerockett, Shanarocke, and Shanrockwell.  I, in turn, have found countless other additional spellings of Shawanórõckquot's name in 17th century records.

Important here, however, is the fact that Shawanórõckquot is referenced in the minutes of this February 24, 1670/71 Executive Council meeting as related to the Wiechquaeskeck proprietors -- not "Siwanoy" proprietors.  I submit this as a further piece of evidence that the Native Americans who sold their lands to Thomas Pell on June 27, 1654 most likely were Wiechquaeskecks, not "Siwanoys."

Copy of Thomas Pell's June 27, 1654 Deed

Believed to Be in Thomas Pell's Handwriting.

TEXT OF THOMAS PELL’S DEED

“Know all men by this present y^t we Shawanarockqúot: poquorum: Anhõõke: Wawhãmkus: Mehumõw: Beinge ye true owners & y^eonly Lawffull Heyres & proprietors off a piece of land Bounded by ye Sea to y^e South  w^th y^t  Tract off land Called by ye English Longe Island; to ye west & west & by South w^th y^e bay & River & River Diawockinge Acqueonunge (Chemaqūanaock to ye East) w^th all ye Islands y^t are in ye salt water to ye South South East & South West Against y^t Tract off Land w^ch is Beffore expres^d; w^h all trees medowes & all Land w^h in y^e tract off Land w^ch is Beffore Expressed: doo sell & deliver to Tho^s Pell now inhabitinge in Fayrffield his heyres & assignse to hould injoy improove plant as hee shall see cause to his Best to be improved ffor & to him & his heyres fforever w^h out any molestation on our p^t And doo herby ingage our Selves to make good our selves against all Claymes intayled either by Dutch or Indyans w^t ever & doo deliver it into ye posession off ye sayd Tho^s Pell & his Assignes: markinge ye  bounds to ye mayne Land w^ch is & shalbe y^e present bounds to ye mayne Land: only Liberty is ffreely graunt ffor ffeedinge offe cattle & Cuttinge off timber beyound those Bounds; & wee doo Acknowledge to have Reseved in full for it ye trou valew & just Satisfaction Accordinge to our Estimate to w^ch we sett  our hands beffore these wittnesses off English & Indyans this twenty seaventh off June 1654.

English Wittnesses                                Saggamores (Markes)
     Richard Crabb Magistrate                  +Shawanórõckquot
     Thomas Lawrence                             +Poquõrúm
     John Ffinch                                       +Anhõõke
                                                            +Wawhamkus
                                                            +Mehúmõw

Articles of Agreement

We also as lovinge neighbours & ffriends doo mutually ingage our Selves to send too men off Each y^r one Day in ye Springe every yeare to marke y^e   Bounds of y^e Land y^t a Right Knowledge may be kept w^h out injury to Either side y^t Mutuall peace & love may be mayntayned 2^nd Wee  allso doo promise Each to other if any plotts on either Side y^t may be to hurt off Either y^t we Seasonably Discover y^m as Lovinge Neighbours  & friends y^t peace & love may be mutually preserved

Indyan Wittnesses
+Marke Cockho
+Mark Kamaque
+Marke Cockinsecawa

This wrightinge was signed & wittnessed Beffore A great multitude off Indyans & many English we who are under written do testify

mark
Henry + Accorly                   This is A True Coppy off y^e
William Newman                  originall written Tho^s Pell”

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Mystery: Why Would John Pell Travel to Porte Royall in Carolina in November 1671?

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Barely a year after he first arrived in America to claim his inheritance of the estate of his uncle, Thomas Pell, John Pell received a "pass" to travel from New York to Porte Royall in Carolina. There is no indication of the purpose of any such trip if he ever made the trip. Below is a transcript of the record reflecting that the pass had been issued.

"LYST OF YE PERSONS WHO HAVE HAD PASSES TO GOE FOR PORTE ROYALL IN CAROLINA IN THE SHIPS BLESSING, CHARLES & PHOENIX; ALL BEARING DATE ABOUT YE 17th, 18th, 19th & 20th DAYES OF NOVEMBER 1671, YE SHIPS SETTING SAYLE PrSENTLY AFTER.

1. Marrynes De Voors.
2. John Pells. [sic]
3. Barent Course.
4. Jeremy Wood of Hempstd.
5. John Lawrenson. }
6. Abigaile Lawrenson}
7. Jeremy Burroughs.
8. Mr Mich: Smyth, wth 5 Negores.
9. Mr Richard Conant, wth 1 Negro.
10. Mrs Rachael Davenporte.
11. Mr. Timothy Biggs.
12. Wm Argent, wife and children.
Caleb Carman. 13.
Nathaniel Allen. 14.
Johnathan Smyth. 15.
Mr Peter Herne wth his wife, children & 3 Negroes. 16
John Rannce. 17.
Capt. Berry had a Pass to transport 8 Negroes. 18.
Edward Cocks. 19.
Elizabeth Jones had also then a pass to goe to Virginia to her Husband in Mr Quidley's Vessell."

Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIV, p. 659 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Co. 1883).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.