Historic Pelham

Presenting the rich history of Pelham, NY in Westchester County: current historical research, descriptions of how to research Pelham history online and genealogy discussions of Pelham families.

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Evidence Suggesting the Pelham Legend of Wampage Murdering Anne Hutchinson Then Changing His Name Is Untrue


One of the local Natives who signed the Pell Deed on June 27, 1654 (Julian Calendar) was a Native referenced in the document as "Anhõõke."  Many legends have arisen regarding Anhõõke.  

Anhõõke has been described as a famed Siwanoy warrior who murdered Anne Hutchinson in 1643.  At the time he supposedly was known as "Wampage" and allegedly took the name "Anhõõke" to pay homage to his notorious deed of murdering Anne Hutchinson by adopting a version of her name.  Today's Historic Pelham Blog article presents evidence to dispel this legend in an attempt to reveal it for what it is:  an apocryphal piece of fiction with no basis in fact.  Indeed, it appears that Wampage was an Algonquian Patriot and that Anhõõke was an entirely different Native. 

This fanciful story can be traced back to Robert Bolton, Jr.  In his history of Westchester County first published in 1848 and reissued in a second edition (1881) and a third edition (1905), Robert Bolton, Jr. seems to be the first author to claim in print that Anhõõke and Wampage were one and the same.  Bolton wrote: 

"The residence of Anne Hutchinson appears to have been situated on Pelham neck [sic; it was near today's Co-op City Complex], 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. 1, p. 515 (NY, NY: Alexander S. Gould 1848). 

Other historians have questioned portions of this fanciful legend.  See, e.g., Ultan, Lloyd, The Bronx in the Frontier Era, p. 196 (Bronx, NY: Bronx Historical Society 1994) ("Wampage was also known as Ann-Hooke. Several authors assume that he was the man who killed Anne Hutchinson and took her name. Without documentary evidence, this must remain speculation.").  What follows is evidence that the Pelham legend of Wampage changing his name to Anhõõke after murdering Anne Hutchinson is untrue.

In mid-September, 1656 (about September 17, 1656, Julian Calendar), the Commissioners for the United Colonies of New England met in "New Plymouth."  The Commission was a confederation among the colonies of Connecticut, New Haven, Massachusetts, and Plymouth established to enhance protections against attacks by Natives in the region.  There were two Commissioners from each of the colonies with at least six votes required to approve any decision by the Commission.  

The Commission met periodically to address and, when possible, resolve disputes over trade, boundaries, and religion.  Its decisions were merely advisory with the political authorities of each of the colonies retaining sovereignty and authority to make final decisions.  Consequently, the Commission had little weight or influence and was dissolved in 1684.  

During the Commission's meeting in mid-September, 1656, the Commissioners had to deal with, among other things, a dispute arising among Natives over who was responsible -- and, thus, likely to be held accountable -- for the recent murder of several English settlers. Oddly, the issue arose after a separate complaint by Natives was referred to the Commission claiming that a Montauk Sachem had hired "a witch" to murder famed Mohegan Sachem Uncas.   

The Montauk Sachem appeared before the Commissioners and denied any such plot to hire anyone to kill Uncas.  During the meeting, however, another local Native described as "a cuning and bould Narragansett Indian" asserted to the Commissioners that he had evidence that the Montauk Sachem was responsible for the recent murders of the English settlers.  The Narragansett claimed that he and others had heard a Native who "lived under" the Montauk Sachem confess that he was hired to commit the murders in exchange for a payment of one hundred fathoms of wampum paid through an English settler named Eaton.  The Narragansett provided the name of the hired assassin.  It was "Wampeage" (also referenced in the record as "Wampeag").

Wampage was not present to address the accusation.  As the Commissioners looked into the matter, the "bold and cunning" Narragansett's story fell apart.  The final straw was when the Commissioners had Eaton testify and he denied ever seeing Wampage or ever even possessing one hundred fathom of Wampum.  The pertinent excerpt of the record states:

"Notice whereof being giuen to the said Montackett Sachem and hee Required to attend the Comissioners att this meeting att Plymouth  The said Sachem with fiue of his men came over from longe Iland towards the latter end of Augut in Captaine Younges Barque whoe was to cary the Newhauen Comissioners to Plymouth but the Wind being contrary they first putt in att Milford  The Sachem then desiring to Improve the season sent to speak with Ausuntawey or any of the westeren Indians to see whoe or what could bee charged vpon him but none came but such as professed they had nothing against him:  The Comissioners being mett att Plymouth; The said Sachem presented himselfe to answare but neither Ninegrett nor Vncas nor the Milford Sachem appeared, onely Newcom a cuning and bould Narragansett Indian sent by Ninnegrett as his Messenger or deputy charged the long Iland Sachem first with the murther of Mr. Drake and other Englishmen affeirming that one Wampeag had before seuerall Indians confessed that hee liueing vnder the Montackett Sachem did it being thervnto hiered by the said Sachem which the said Sachem absolutly deneyinge and capt:  Young professing that both English and Indians in those partes thought him Innocent; Necom was asked why himselfe from Ninnegrett haueing layed such charges vpon the long Iland Sachem before the Massachusetts court hee had not brought his proffe; hee answared that wampeage was absent but some other Indians were present whoe could speake to the case; whervpon an Indian afeirmed that he had heard the said wampeage confesse that being hiered as above hee had murthered the said English men; though after the said murther with himselfe that now spake the Muntackett Sachem and some other Indians being att Newhauen hee deneyed itt to Mr. Goodyer and one hundred fathome of Wampam being tendered and deliuered to Mr. Eaton the matter ended; Mr. Eaton professed as in the presence of God hee Remembered not that hee had seen Wampeage nor that hee had Received soe much as one fathom of wampam  Nor did hee believe that any at all was tendered him; whervpon the Comissioners caled to the Indian for proffe Mr. Eaton being present and deneying it the Indian answared there were two other Indians present that could speake to it; they were were called forth but both of them professed that though themselues and som other Indians were then att Newhauen yett the former afeirmin Indian was not there and that there was noe wampam att all either Receiued or tendered; so that the long Iland Sachem for what yett appeerec stood free from this foule Charge".

Care is warranted in considering this 17th century record in the context it is here presented.  In the 17th century, there was a group of Natives known as Wampanoags that consisted of a loose confederacy of several tribes.  A number of 17th century records refer to the Wampanoags as "Wampeages."  Indeed, in his Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico:  N-Z published in 1912, Frederick Webb Hodge wrote that "Wampeage = Wampanoag."  See  "SYNONYMY" in Hodge, Frederick Webb, ed., Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Part 2, pp. 1021, 1169 (Washington, DC: Gov't Printing Office, 1912) (stating "Wampeage = Wampanoag").  Thus, such references must be considered regarding whether they reference a people known as Wampeage or an individual whose name was Wampage (or Wampeage or Wampeag or another phonetically-similar variant).

Admittedly, several of the references in the quote set forth above seem, at best, ambiguous and might be read as referencing a member of the Wampeage people, one of the references does not seem ambiguous at all and seems to make clear that it is the name of the individual.  It is the reference that reads "Mr. Eaton professed as in the presence of God hee Remembered not that hee had seen Wampeage nor that hee had Received soe much as one fathom of wampam."  

Such a reference to "Wampeage" in this 17th century record is significant in the context of Pelham lore.  It arguably shows that two years after Thomas Pell bought lands from local Natives including "Anhõõke" and thirteen years after local Natives murdered Anne Hutchinson and most of her family, Wampage was still being referenced by his name and not by the name "Anhõõke."  This record repeatedly refers to Wampeage and Wampeag without including "alias Anhõõke" (or "Anhõõke alias Wampage") as so often appears in references to Wampage published by local Pelham historians.  Indeed, this 1656 record seems to support the view that Wampage and Anhõõke were entirely different people and that the Native known as Wampage did not change his name due to some now-unknown reputed Native "custom" to change a name to adopt the name of a notable murder victim -- a "custom" for which there also is no known evidence in the region.

In short, the Wiechquaeskeck Saggamore and counselor Anhõõke was neither a "Siwanoy" nor did he change his name from "Wampage" after murdering Anne Hutchinson.  This 17th century record supports the argument that Wampage was an entirely different person.



"Massacre of Anne Hutchinson"
NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.


*          *          *          *           *

"A Note of the persons in the Indian worke and theire Sallaries per Annum;

Imprimis Mr. John Elliot.................................50    00    00
Mr. Francis Elliot his Brother.........................30    00    00
Sofaman        }
Momquason   } three Indian Interpreters }....30    00   00
Job                 } Imployed by Mr. Eliott
To Mr. Thomas Mayhew...............................50    00    00
To Peter Forlger Imployed by Mr. Mayhew..30    00    00
Hiacombs     }
                     }  Imployed by Mr. Mayhew.....20    00    00
Panuppaqua }  as Interpreters
Mr. Elliot and Mr. Mayhew to distribute
     to sick Indians.........................................20    00    00
To Mr. Weld for diett and for teaching eight
    Indian boyes and one gerle    }................85    00    00
For clothing the said boys and gerle about.50     00    00
For diett clothing and teaching of John
     the Son of Tho: Stanton whoe spake
     the Indian language well to further
     him for the worke about.........................20    00    00
To Mr. Abraham Person..............................15    00    00
To Mr. Rawson our Agent for his 
     salary and wharfhousrome....................30    00    00

Besides what is usefully expended in gifts and gratuities to well deserving Indians

To Indian plantations in theire beginning in stocke of Cattle and tooles &c Charges about buildings meeting houses and boates and other accidentall Charges and and expences

The yearly vallue is uncertaine and may bee abated or encreased as there shalbee occation

The Sallaries generally end in September the fixt the time of the Comissioners meeting

In answare to a motion made by Mr. Chaunceye Presdedent of the Colledge in a letter dated the 28th august (56) to make use of the Indian Buildings;

The Commissioners are willing that the presedent with the advise of the Commissioners of the Massachusetts and Mr. Elliott may for one year next ensuing Improve the said building to accomodate some English Students provided the said building bee by the Corporation cecured from any dammage that may befall the same through the use thereof

In Answare to a motion made by mr. Elliott in his letter of August 30. 1656 for some agents to bee appointed in the Massachusetts to promote and forward the worke among the Indians; both in Respect of their gouerment and Incurraging meet Instruments for theire further healp and Instruction;

The Commissioners doe conceiue the the said Indians doe belong to the Jurisdiction of the Massachusetts and therfore doe Refer it to the wisdome and care of that Gouernment, and for Incurrageing the Indian worke as wee haue formerly foe att present wee doe Authorise the Comissioners of the Massachusetts whose care and fidelitie wee haue noe cause to suspect to doe or cause to bee done that which in theire Judgments may most conduce to the advancing of the Indian worke;

Whereas it was presented to the Comissioners by Mr. hollihock of Sprinkfeild that Mastiffe Doggs might bee of good use against the Indians in case of any desturabance from them which they Reddily apprehending thought meet to comend the same to the seuerall generall Courts to take care and make provision therof accordingly

Coushawshett and Cushasimmon were continued in theire Respectiue places of gouerning the Pequots for one year Insueing according to the orders and Instructions set downe by the Comissioners the last yeare att Newhauen; and were further ordered to bring in theire Tribute to Tho. Stanton three monthes before the yearly meeting of the Commissioners in September; and vpon theire Information that divers Pequots are stuburne and Redy to mannefest theire disobeidience to the orders of the Commissioners and that theire authoritie is not sufficient to containe them; and therfore did desire they might bee assisted by some English dwelling near them:  The Commisioners haue desired Mr. John Winthorpe Major Mason and Capt: Denison or any of them by theire Counsell or Countenance aiding and asisting to the said deputed Gouernors in the execution of all our orders and Instructions and containing the Pequots in obeidience to the same;

Vpon a complaint made by Ninnegrates messengers to the Generall court of the Massachuetts in May last against the Montackett Sachem for murthering Mr. Drake and some other Englishmen vpon ours near the long Iland shore and seiseing theire goods many yeares since and for Trecherously assaulting Ninnegrett vpon block Iland and killing many of his men after a peace concluded betwixt them certifyed to Newhauen by the Massachusetts Comissioners by a complaint made by Awsuntawey the Indian Sagamore near Milford and two other western Indians against the said Montackett Sachem for hiering a witch to kill Vncas with the said Milford Sachem and his son giueing eight fathom of wampam in hand promising a hundred or an hundred and twenty more when the said murthers were comitted; Notice whereof being giuen to the said Montackett Sachem and hee Required to attend the Comissioners att this meeting att Plymouth  The said Sachem with fiue of his men came over from longe Iland towards the latter end of Augut in Captaine Younges Barque whoe was to cary the Newhauen Comissioners to Plymouth but the Wind being contrary they first putt in att Milford  The Sachem then desiring to Improve the season sent to speak with Ausuntawey or any of the westeren Indians to see whoe or what could bee charged vpon him but none came but such as professed they had nothing against him:  The Comissioners being mett att Plymouth; The said Sachem presented himselfe to answare but neither Ninegrett nor Vncas nor the Milford Sachem appeared, onely Newcom a cuning and bould Narragansett Indian sent by Ninnegrett as his Messenger or deputy charged the long Iland Sachem first with the murther of Mr. Drake and other Englishmen affeirming that one Wampeag had before seuerall Indians confessed that hee liueing vnder the Montackett Sachem did it being thervnto hiered by the said Sachem which the said Sachem absolutly deneyinge and capt:  Young professing that both English and Indians in those partes thought him Innocent; Necom was asked why himselfe from Ninnegrett haueing layed such charges vpon the long Ilsnad Sachem before the Massachusetts court hee had not brought his proffe; hee answared that wampeage was absent but some other Indians were present whoe could speake to the case; whervpon an Indian afeirmed that he had heard the said wampeage confesse that being hiered as above hee had murthered the said English men; though after the said murther with himselfe that now spake the Muntackett Sachem and some other Indians being att Newhauen hee deneyed itt to Mr. Goodyer and one hundred fathome of Wampam being tendered and deliuered to Mr. Eaton the matter ended; Mr. Eaton professed as in the presence of God hee Remembered not that hee had seen Wampeage nor that hee had Received soe much as one fathom of wampam  Nor did hee believe that any at all was tendered him; whervpon the Comissioners caled to the Indian for proffe Mr. Eaton being present and deneying it the Indian answared there were two other Indians present that could speake to it; they were were called forth but both of them professed that though themselues and som other Indians were then att Newhauen yett the former afeirmin Indian was not there and that there was noe wampam att all either Receiued or tendered; so that the long Iland Sachem for what yett appeerec stood free from this foule Charge;

2cond.  The said Newcome charged the Montackett Sachem with breach of Couenant in asaulting Ninnegrett and killing divers of his men att Block Iland after a conclusion of peace the Treaty whereof was begun by a Squaw sent by Ninnigrett to the said Sachem to tender him peace and the prisoners which the said Ninnigrett had taken from the long Iland Sachem vpon condtion the said Sachem did wholly Submitt to him and yeild his countrey to claime  The Montackett Sachem acknowlidged the said message but afeirmed hee Refused to accept the Conditions which hee could not without adviseing with the English whervpon the Squaw Returned and came backe from Ninnigrett with an offer of the prisoners for Ransom of wampame which hee saith hee sent and had his prisoners Releiued Newcome affeirmed the agreement between the said Sachems was made att Pesacus his house by two long Iland Indians Deligates to to [sic] the Montackett Sachem in presence of Pesacus and his brother and others two English men being present one wherof was Robert Westcott; Pesacus his brother testifyed the agreement as abovesaid, The Muntackett Sachem acknowlidged hee sent the said Delligates but neuer heard of any such agreement and deneyed hee gaue any such Comission to his men Newcome afeirming Robert Westcott would Testify the agreement aforsaid and desiring a writing from the Comissioners to Lycence the said Westcott to come and give in his Testimony which was graunted and Newcome departed pretending to fetch Westcott but Returned Not; The Comissioners finding much Difficulty to bring theire thoughts to a certaine Determination on Satisfying grounds yett concidering how Proudly Ninnigrett and how peacably the Monthackett Sachem hath carryed it towards the English ordered that a message the contents whereof heerafter followeth bee by Tho: Stanton deliuered to Ninnigrett; and that for the securitie of the English plantations on long Iland and for an Incurragement to the Montackett Sachem thw two first particulars of the order to hinder Ninnigretts Attempts on long Iland; made last year att Newhauen bee continued; Notwithstanding the said English are Required to Improve those orders with all moderation and not by any Rashnes or vnadvisednes to begin a broile unlesse they bee Nessesitated thervnto;

The Montackett Sachem being questioned by the Comissioners concerning the paiment of his Tribute professed that hee had payed it att hartford for ten yeares but acknowlidged theire was four yeares behind which the Comissioners thought meet to respett in respect of his present Troubles;

Instructions for Thomas Stanton

YOU are to informe Ninnigrett the Nyanticke Sachem that the Commissioners with much patience and in the vse of meanes to them chargable haue minded him of his couenants made in 1645 and by him confeirmed both in the yeare 1647 and 1649 that hee hath Ingaged himselfe not to goe to warr with any of the Indians Subjects to or in frindshp with the English; and that vpon his complaint by his messengers in May last to the honered court of the Massachusetts they sent to the Montackett Sachem to attend theire meeting att Plymouth which accordingly hee hath done; but neither Ninnegrett himselfe came nor hath his messenger beene able to make any proffe of what hee charged soe that the Comissioners not willing to take advantage of some former and some latter Rash and prouoking expressions of Ninnegrett and his messengers doe aduise and expect that for the future hee better attend his Ingagement that hee neither himselfe begin nor procecute any warr first in any hostile Invaysion against the said Montackett Sachem or any others whoe are frinds to the English till first his complaints bee fully heard and ordered by the Comissioners and they shall lay the like charge vpon the Montackett Sachem that hee without further prouocation desturbe not the peace of Ninnigretts or the Nyanticke Indians; 

You are to acquaint the two Narraganssett Sachems of what the Comissioners haue told Mixam that the Comissioners are as reddy to heare theire greivances against Vncas as his against them; they allow not any dareing challenges to fight; nor that hee or any of his should take away from the Narragansett any thinge belonging to them though but a gun; that vpon complaint they haue caused aboue nine fathom of wampum belonging to Vncas to bee deposited in Mr. Thomas Stantons hands till the matter of the gun bee heared and cleared; The Comissioners expect from the Narragansett Sachems that according to theire Couenants made 1645 they neither directly nor indirectly attempt or begine any warr against Vncas or any other Indian or Indians subject to or in frindship with the English nor any that shall begine or proceed in any such warr till first theire hath been a full hearing of all such Differences and vpon Satisfying proffe a determination by the Comissioners with damages ordered to such as haue been wronged; and they shall lay the like charge vpon Vncas not to wrong or any way desturbe the peace of the Narragansetts; 

1.  You are to Informe Vncas of sundry Complaints made against him all tending to desturbe both his owne peace and the peace of the countrey; as that hostile assault made vpon the Poducke Indians near hartford and contrary to the advise giuen him by the Majestrates and court there to Revenge which (wee heare) some Mohegin blood hath been sheed and some captiues taken

2cond.  After an Agreement made and those Captiues Returned Vncas or his brother haue in an hostile manor Invadid the Nowootucke Indians which may draw on mischeivous effects aboue his power to Issue;

3.  That hee seuerall wayes prouoakes the Narragansett Indians obraiding them with theire dead Sachems which hee knowes they cannot beare; somtimes challenging them to fight which is both strange and very offenciue to the Comissioners; and wee heare that Vncas hos son hath taken a gun from a Narragansett Indian which Foxon not deneying hee hath deposited betwixt nine and ten fathom of wampam in Thomas Stantons hands till the question about the gun bee cleared;

4.  After a peace lately made or renewed by the montackett Sachem and a considerable sume of wampam receiued by Vncas hee by Fauxon &c. Chargeth the Montackett Sachem to hier a witch a western Indian to kill Vncas and others about Millford but without any proffe, and the Montackett Sachem bing lately att Milford hath nothing there charged against him; 

5.  Lastly they are informed that Vncas knowes what the English haue done for his defence against Ninnegrett &c. and how proudly and prouockingly Ninnigrett hath since carried towards the English yett he hath made a peace or some agreement with Ninnigrett without the advise or knowlidge of the English all which passages beinge strange and if true very offenciue yett the Comissioners being loth to Neglect or forgitt former freindship and Ingagements they cannot but expect that some conuenient time and place bee appointed to heare and determine these strange passages that both the Comissioners and offended Indians may receiue due Satisfaction and in the mean time that noe further prouocations bee giuen to any of the Indians in freindship with the English much lesse that any challeng bee made or any begining or assistance giuen to any warr without the Comissioners concent the like charge being layed vpon the Narragansetts not to desturbe his peace

Captaine Gorge Denis is desired to be present with and asistance to Thomas Stanton in deliuering the forgoeing messages. . . . ."

Source:  Hazard, Ebenezer, ed., Historical Collections; Consisting of State Papers, And Other Authentic Documents; Intended as Materials for an History of the United States of America, Vol. II, pp. 358-63 (Freeport, NY:  Books for Libraries Press, 1969) reprinted from original 1794 edition).

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."

Labels: , , , , ,

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).



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, December 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


Eight Native Americans signed the document known as Thomas Pell's "Treaty" on June 27, 1654. Five of those Native Americans signed that portion of the document by which Thomas Pell acquired the lands that became known as the Manor of Pelham using their "marks". Listed as "Saggamores" (sachems), the five were: Shawanórõckquot, Poquõrúm, Anhõõke, Wawhamkus, and Mehúmõw. (For an image of the treaty and its transcription, click here). Three additional Native Americans signed that portion of the treaty labeled the "Articles of Agreement" whereby the parties agreed mutually to preserve "peace & love", to reveal to each other any plots intended to harm the other and to send men out one day each Spring to re-mark the boundaries of the lands acquired by Pell. Those three Native Americans were designated "Indyan Wittnesses" and were: Cockho, Kamaque and Cockinsecawa.

Little is known about these eight Native Americans. Many legends have arisen regarding one of them: Anhõõke. After years of inquiry and research, I have come to the firm conclusion that many of these legends are unfounded.

Anhõõke has been described as the Siwanoy who murdered Anne Hutchinson in 1643. At the time he supposedly was known as Wampage and allegedly took the name "Anhõõke" to pay homage to his notorious deed of killing Anne Hutchinson. It appears to me that Wampage was an Algonquian Patriot and that Anhõõke was an entirely different Native American.

In his history of Westchester County first published in 1848 and reissued in a second edition (1881) and a third edition (1905), Robert Bolton, Jr. seems to be the first author to claim in print that Anhõõke and Wampage were one and the same. (I am not convinced that the two were one and the same. I recognize, however, that several academics have concluded that the two were the same.) Bolton wrote:

"The residence of Anne Hutchinson appears to have been situated on Pelham neck [sic], 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. 1, p. 515 (NY, NY: Alexander S. Gould 1848).


Other historians have questioned portions of the legend. See, e.g., Ultan, Lloyd, The Bronx in the Frontier Era, p. 196 (Bronx, NY: Bronx Historical Society 1994) ("Wampage was also known as Ann-Hooke. Several authors assume that he was the man who killed Anne Hutchinson and took her name. Without documentary evidence, this must remain speculation.").

The tradition that Anhõõke and Wampage were the same person has become ingrained, although there seems to be conflicting evidence regarding whether they were, in fact, the same person. Today's Historic Pelham Blog posting begins the process of assembling research on the Native American known as Anhõõke. Manny have researched this before. Now I hope to document such research so others will not "reinvent the wheel", so to speak.

References Purporting to Provide General Information About Anhõõke

Robert Bolton, Jr.'s second edition of the history of Westchester County was published in 1881, shortly after the author's death. In it, Bolton described Anhõõke as follows:

"One of the principal Indian proprietors of this territory, who sold to Thomas Pell in 1654, just eleven years after the above mentioned massacre, assumed Mrs. Hutchinson's Christian name ; for he constantly styled himself in the early deeds 'Ann-hoock,' alias Wampage. This [image of "An hoock AH his mark"] individual may have taken an active part in the destruction of Anne Hutchinson, for nothing was more common among the Indians than for a warrior or brave to assume the name of his victim -- material traces of his existence still linger around the scene of this bloody tragedy, for his grave or mound is still pointed out, and there is also a rock upon the south side of the neck bearing the same name, which is said to have been a favorite fishing place of the above mentioned sachem. Towards the extreme point of the neck, sometimes called Rodman's Point (after Samuel Rodman who married Mary, grand-daughter of Thomas Pell, third proprietor of the manor) quite near the waters' edge is located an ancient burying ground, said to have been used by the Indians ; but a thorough examination, conducted in the presence of Thomas Pell, fifth in descent from John Lord Pell, proved it to be a place of sepulture for the white race only -- how far back it is impossible to say. The first mound opened contained the skull and larger bones of a female skeleton in a horizontal position."

Source: Bolton, Jr., Robert, The History of the Several Towns, Manors and Patents of the County of Westchester, From Its First Settlement to the Present Time Carefully Revised by Its Author, Vol. II, p. 33 (C.W. Bolton, ed., Chas. F. Roper pub. 1881) (hereinafter "Bolton 1881").

Early References to "Anne Hook's" Neck (or Other Such References)


There are a number of late 17th century references to the area known today as Rodman's Neck suggesting that the area was associated with, visited by, or once owned by Anhõõke. [More here]

According to Bolton in his 1881 edition, there was a very early reference to "Ann Hook's Neck" recorded in connection with an order to inventory Thomas Pell's estate following his death in late September 1669. Bolton wrote:

"This 3d of ------ [Must be October], in his Majestie's Colony of Connecticut, September, 1669, a [Footnote a states "a This will may be found in the Probate Rec. of Fairfield Co., 1665 to '75, vol. ii, p. 43-44. Also Surrogates office N. Y. Wills and Adm., 1665 to 1683, vol. i9., p. 83."]

Upon the 13th of October, A. D. 1669, the Court of Assize issued the [Page 45 / Page 46] following order, authorizing and appointing Mr. John Richbell, Mr. William Leyden, and mr. Samuel Drake, to take an inventory of the estate of Thomas Pell, deceased:

'Whereas Mr. Thomas Pell, of Ann Hook's Neck, is lately deceased, and having left a considerable estate in this government, of which no inventory is as yet returned.' a [Footnote a states "a Assize Rec. Albany, vol. ii. 78."]".

Source: Bolton 1881, Vol. II, pp. 45-46.

Bolton also wrote in his 1881 edition about events on "Anne Hook's Neck" in 1675. He wrote:

"In 1675 the Indians must have been still residing on the neck in considerable numbers for at a General Court of assize held the same year in New York, it was resolved, 'that the Indyans at Mr. Pell's or Anne Hook's Neck, be ordered to remove to their usual winter quarters, within Hell Gate, upon this island ; and further, that all canoes belonging to Christians or Indyans on the north side of Long Island to the east of Hell Gate shall be (within three days from the publication of this order) brought to the next towns and delivered to the constables to be secured near the Hook house ; any canoes found upon the sound after that time to be destroyed.' 'This order is said to have ben made to prevent the Indians of Long Island joining King Philip against New England.' b [Footnote b cites "Dunlap's Hist. of N. Y., vol. ii., appendix cxxiii."]

Near the entrance of Pellam [sic] neck, is situated the favorite burying ground of the Siwanoy's tribe, to which the Indians were in the habit of bringing their dead over from Greenwich for interment. Numerous mounds are still visible near the water's edge, on the Rapelyea estate. Two of the largest mounds are pinted out as the sepulchres of the Siwanoy's sachems, Ann-hook and Nimham ; both of whom are said to have lived to advanced ages. c [Footnote c cites "Nimham, sachem of Miereckacky occurs in 1669."]

The former was opened some years since, and found to contain a large sized skeleton, by the side of which lay the stone axe and flint spear head of the tenant of the grave. We have carefully examined several mounds near the waters edge; one of these held the remains of an Indian boy about twelve years old, in a sitting position, together with a beautiful specimen of native pottery formed by the hand alone, rudely ornamented with zigzag lines, in which we discovered an arrow head of [Page 36 / Pag3 37] quartz and the bones of a small animal. This practice of burying their favorite utensils and weapons with the deceased, is known to be an ancient Indian custom. By way of accounting for the numerous mounds which occur so close to the waters edge, on the north-east side of the neck, it is said that the small-pox was introduced among the Indians through the medium of blankets, and that when they applied for a remedy they were told to bathe in the salt water which proved almost instant death to hundreds. Near the residence of the late L. R. Marshall, the remains of an Indian were found in a very perfect state of preservation with a gun by his side. On the extreme point of this beautiful neck which commands the magnificent scenery of Hutchinson's Bay, lies another Indian cemetery."

Source: Bolton 1881, Vol. II, pp. 36-37.

Anhõõke Allegedly Confirmed the Ownership Rights of Inhabitants of the Town of East Chester in 1666

In the second edition of his History of Westchester County published in 1881, Bolton claimed that in 1666 "Anhooke" and other Native Americans confirmed the ownership rights of the inhabitants of the Town of East Chester. Bolton wrote:

"Upon the 14th of November, 1654 [sic], Thomas Pell obtained a second grant from the aboriginal proprietors, which also embraced the present township. Twelve years later we find the inhabitants of East Chester confirmed in all their rights by the Mohegan Sachems, Gramatan, Woariatapus, Annhooke, (alias Wampage,) and Porrige."

Source: Bolton, Jr., Robert, The History of the Several Towns, Manors and Patents of the County of Westchester, From Its First Settlement to the Present Time Carefully Revised by Its Author, Vol. I, p. 201 (C.W. Bolton, ed., Chas. F. Roper pub. 1881).

Bolton also wrote later in the same book as follows: "In 1666, the inhabitants of Eastchester obtained a further grant from the native Indians, Ann-hooke and others. This sale was confirmed by royal patent the same year". Id., p. 205.


See also Jenkins, Stephen, The Story of the Bronx from the Purchase Made by the Dutch from the Indians in 1639 to the Present Day, p. (NY, NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons 1912) ("The settlement became known as the 'Ten Farms,' and later, as Eastchester, because it lay to the eastward of Westchester. In 1666, the settlers bought more land from the Indians, who confirmed, at the same time, the previous sale of 1654 to Pell. The Mohegan sachems who signed the deed were Gramatan, Woariatapus, Annhooke (alias Wampage), and Porrige. The sachem Wampage, or Annhooke, was probably the slayer of Mrs. Hutchinson, as it was not unusual among the aborigines to assume the name of the slain, due probably, to a superstitious belief that by so doing the dead would be propitiated or that the good qualities of the slain, especially courage, would enter into the slayer.").

Wampage, Who Some Have Said Was the Alias of Anhõõke, Conveyed Land East of Bronx River in 1684

Robert Bolton, Jr. included an unsupported reference in his second edition of the History of Westchester County published in 1881 suggesting that Wampage (whom many claim was also known as Anhõõke) conveyed lands lying to the east of the Bronx River in 1684. The reference reads:

"Upon the 14th of November, 1654 [sic], Thomas Pell of Fairfield, Connecticut, obtained a second grant from the aboriginal proprietors, which also embraced the present town. Thirty years later we find the sachems Maminepoe and Wampage conveying to the inhabitants of Westchester all that tract of land lying on the east side of Bronckses river.' [sic]"

Source: Bolton 1881, Vol. II, p. 263.

Wampage, Who Some Have Said Was the Alias of Anhõõke, Conveyed a Tract on May 27, 1692


Robert Bolton, Jr. included an unsupported reference in his second edition of the History of Westchester County published in 1881 purporting to quote what he described as an "INDIAN DEED OF WESTCHESTER". The reference reads:

"Upon the 27th of May, 1692, we find the Indian proprietors, Maminepoe and Wampage, conveying the following tract of land, to the trustees of [the Town of] Westchester.

INDIAN DEED OF WESTCHESTER.

'To all Christian people to whom this deed of sale shall come, greeting: Know ye, that wee, Maminepoe and Wampage alias Ann-hook, Indian proprietors of a certain tract of land lying within the limits and bounds of the patent of the county town of Westchester, in the province of New York, for a valuable consideration, and other considerations us thereunto moving, and having taken the advice and approbation of several native Indians here underwritten, to us in hand paid by John Palmer, William Barnes, William Richardson, Joseph Palmer, Samuel Palmer, Robert Huestis, John Ferris, John Hunt, Joseph Hunt, Josiah Hunt, Thomas Baxter, and Edward Collier, trustees of the freehold and commonality of the town of Westchester aforesaid, the receipt whereof we do hereby acknowledge and therewith to be lawfully satisfied, contented, and paid, and thereof do acquit, exonerate, and release, and discharge the said trustees, their heirs, successors, and assignees forever, have given, granted, bargained, sold, enfeoffed, [Page 290 / Page 291] released, and confirmed, and by these presents do fully, clearly, absolutely, give, grant, bargain, sell, enfeof, release, and confirm unto the said trustees, their heirs, successors and assignees forever, all that tract of land lying on the east side of BRUNXS'S river, beginning at the pine trees and so compassing all the land which we the said Maminepoe and Wampage layes claim to, until they come to the head of Rattle Snake brook, and from thence north-east to Mr. Pell's land, so north by saidPell's marked trees by Brunx's river, together with the woods, underwoods, timber, trees, waters, rivers, runs, brooks, and all and singular the emolluments, hereditaments, rights, privileges, and appurtenances, thereunto belonging or appertaining, (only reserving to ourselves the privelege of making use of white wood trees for our particular use,) to have and to hold the before recited premises, with all and every of its appurtenances, unto the said trustees, their heirs, successors, and asssignees [sic] to the only proper use and benefit and behoof of them the said trustees, their heirs, successors and assignees forever; and it shall and may be lawful for the said trustees, their heirs, successors, and assignees, from henceforth and forever, to have and to hold, use, occupy, and enjoy the siad tract of land, free from all incumbrances whatsoever, unto the said trustees, their successors and assignees for ever, without any manner of claime, challenge, or demand of us, our heirs, executors or administrators, or any other native Indians or Christian people, by, from, or under us, or any person or persons whatsoever; and we the said Maminepoe and Wampage, alias Ann-hook, shall and will forever warrant and defend the said tract of land unto the said freeholders of the corporation of Westchester, their heirs and assignees forever. In witness whereof we the said Maminepoe and Wampage, alias Ann-hook, shall and will forever warrant and defend the said tract of land unto the said freeholders of the corporation of Westchester, their heirs and assignees forever. In witness whereof we the said Maminepoe and Wampage, alias Ann-hook, have put to our hands and seales this 27th of May, the fourth year of their of their majesties reign, and A. D. 1692.

The mark of [Sideways "V", base to the Left] MAMINEPOE,
The mark of [Sideways "V", base to the Right] WAMPAGE, alias ANN-HOOK.
The mark of [Sideways "X"] CROHAMANTHENE,
The mark of [Sideways "P", base to the Left] MAMERTEKOH.

Signed, sealed, and deliver [sic] in presence of us,

ABRAHAM HAWKER,
ISAAC ARENS,
The mark of [Sideways "T" base to the Left] JOHN GARRETSON,

Native Indians witnesses to the above deed.
The mark of [Sideways "P" base to the Left] WEENETONAH,
The mark of <>

The following entry in the town books refers to this sale: --

'At a meeting of the inhabitants held the 27th 9f May, 1692, this day, the [Page 291 / Page 292] land on the east side of Broncks's river, till we come to Mr. Pell's line, was purchased of Mamineoe and Ann-hook for: --

2 gunns,
2 kettles,
2 coats,
2 adzes,
2 shirts
1 barrel of cider,
6 bitts of money.

DISBURSEMENTS UPON THE INDIAN PURCHASE.

WILLIAM BARNES, 1 kettle, . . . . . . £2 . . 2 . . 0
To expenses to ye Indians, . . . . . . . . . . 0. . 6 . . 0
JOHN HUNT, 1 coate,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . 12. . 0
For money, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . 1. . 6
To Indian supper and other expences, .0 . . 3. . 0
WILLIAM RICHARDSON, 2 shirts,. . . 0 . .12. .0
JOHN FERRIS, sen, 1 coate, . . . . . . . . . 0 . .12. .0
To one day with the Indians, . . . . . . . . . 0. . . 3. .0
JOSEPH HUNT, 2 adzes, and 3s. 8d. in money. . .0 . 15. .0
SAMUEL PALMER, 1 gun. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 0. . 0
THOMAS BAXTER, 1 gun. . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . .2. . 0
JOSEPH HUNT, 1 barrel of cider, . . . . . 0. . 3. . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .£8 . . 4. . 6
ROBERT HUESTIS and THOMAS BAXTER, 1 gun. a [Footnote a reads "a Alb. Rec. gen entries. See also Town Rec. 27th of March, 174, Joseph Hunt was directed to go to the clerk of the county and see the Indian deed recorded."]"

Source: Bolton 1881, Vol. II, pp. 290-92.

Anhõõke Allegedly Confirmed the Ownership Rights of Inhabitants of the Town of East Chester Again in 1700

In the same volume, Bolton contends that "Ann Hooke" was among the Native Americans who confirmed the ownership rights of inhabitants of the Town of East Chester again in 1700. Bolton wrote:

"Upon the 23d day of December, A. D. 1700, we find the Indians confirming the inhabitants of Eastchester in their possession.

INDIAN DEED.

Be it known unto all to whom these presents may come, or concern; whereas the inhabitants of Eastchester did formerly purchase a certain tract of land of the natives, in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred sixty and six, and part of the same being not as yet satisfied, the said tract of land being butted and bounded as is hereafter expressed, viz. : east and south-east, by a certain river commonly called Hutchinson's river, which runs in at the head of the meadows, on the west bounds of Mr. Pell's patent, and southerly to Hutchinson's brook, and from the head thereof, north-west to Brunckses his river, and so all the land betwixt Hutchinson's and Brunckses his river, and so from the head of Hutchinson's river, northwest west to Brunckses river, and so all the land betwixt Hutchinson's and Brunckses rivers, according as aforementioned, NOW KNOW YE, that we, Woariatapus Annhook and Porrige, do owne, that we have received full satisfaction of Richard Shute, John Drake, and Henry Fowler, in the behalf of the rest of the inhabitants of Eastchester aforesaid, for the said tract of land, and we the abovesaid Woariatapus, Annhook and Porrige, do by these presents confirm unto the said Richard Shute, John Drake and Henry Fowler, in the behalf of the rest of the inhabitants of Eastchester aforesaid, their heirs and assigns forever, and we the above said Woariatapus, Annhook and Porrige, will warrant and defend the same from all incumbrances whatsoever, of any person or persons laying claime, right, title or demand, unto any part or parcel of the abovesaid tract of land, above mentioned, in witness whereof, we the said Woariatapus, Annhook and Porrige have hereunto put to our hands and seals, this third day of Dec., in the 12th year of his majestie's reign, A. D. 1700.

Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of us, Robert Bloomer, George Copping, David Whitlock.
Gramatan Sachem,
The mark of [Sideways "X"] Woariatabus
The mark of AH Ann Hooke,
Porrige"

Source: Bolton, supra, id., p. 210.

Anhõõke Allegedly Sold Land to George Booth and Others in 1705

In the same volume, Bolton wrote as follows:

"On the 6th of April, 1705, Patthunck, Sagamore, Hopesco alias Porrige, Anne Hook, and Elias, Indian proprietors, sold to George Booth, joiner of the city of New York and his associates,

'All that our right of land which is not yet lawfully purchased, lying and being from the land which is now in dispute betwixt Westchester and Eastchester, and so running along by Bronck's river, to Hutchinson's river, and bounded on the north by Eastchester lyne, to have and to hold, &c.'"

Source: Id., p., 211.

Carefully scrutiny of other early records likely will reveal more about Anhõõke. These research notes are only the beginning.

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

Labels: , , , , , , , ,