What We Know of Early So-Called "Indian Deeds" Transferring Pelham Lands

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."

Most histories of the little Town of Pelham virtually begin with the birth of Thomas Pell and, later, the execution of the Pell Deed between Thomas Pell and local Wiechquaeskeck Natives (not "Siwanoys") on June 27, 1654 (Julian Calendar).  The Town's human history, of course, extends ten thousand or more years before that date, preceded by the eons of fascinating geological history that have shaped modern Pelham and its modern history.  

One confusing and little-considered area of research regarding Pelham history involves so-called "Indian Deeds" that pre-dated the Pell Deed but may have included lands that later became part of the Manor of Pelham.  Today's Historic Pelham Blog article attempts to document a little of this early history of the little Town of Pelham.  

A 1640 Sale to the Dutch of the Lands that Became Pelham?

For two decades this author has struggled to locate an actual copy, or reliably-transcribed text, of the supposed first "Indian Deed" purportedly reflecting the sale of Manor of Pelham lands by local Natives to the Dutch in 1640.  It seems that Dutch authorities merely instructed Cornelis Van Tienhoven to acquire Wiechquaeskeck lands (likely including Pelham) in 1640.  Many believe, or have assumed, that the instructions were discharged and that the acquisition was completed, but no reliable evidence of any such transaction yet seems to have been found.  See: 

Tue., Sep. 02, 2014:  More Research on the First "Indian Deed" Reflecting the Dutch Purchase of Lands that Included Today's Pelham.

Tue., Mar. 18, 2014:  The First "Indian Deed" Reflecting a Sale by Native Americans of Lands that Became Pelham.

Tue., Nov. 06, 2007:  Is This Another Dead End in the Search for the Text of an Indian Deed to Lands That Included Today's Pelham Sold to the Dutch?

Tue., Dec. 05, 2006:  Where is Evidence of the 1640 Dutch Purchase from Native Americans of the Lands That Became Pelham?

Mon., Dec. 26, 2005:  The Dutch Acquired Lands Including Pelham From Local Native Americans in 1640.

Clearly the Dutch believed they had dominion and control of Pelham lands shortly after 1640 because they allowed Anne Hutchinson and her family, among others, to plant budding settlements in the area of today's Pelham Bay Park and Throggs Neck.  (Of course, perhaps the Dutch were more than willing to allow Anne Hutchinson, her family, and other English, to "test" what the Dutch hoped would be an ability to survive such budding settlements without clear Dutch title to the region.)  

Those settlements by New Englanders, of course, were decimated and many of their occupants murdered by Natives in 1643 during the broad and long conflict that included both the Pequot War and Kieft's War.  This suggests, of course, that local Natives believed the Dutch had no formal or recognized dominion or control of Pelham lands at the time.  It further suggests, perhaps, that there never was formalized any Dutch transaction to acquire from local Natives the lands that included a portion (or all) of the Manor of Pelham.

There is another piece of evidence that suggests that no 1640 deed exists and that the Dutch never truly formalized purchase of the lands that included today's Pelham that year.  That evidence suggests that there may have been an effort by the Dutch in 1645 to purchase some or all of the same region in a transaction that, likewise, may not have been properly documented.

Evidence of an Effort to Purchase Local Lands in 1645

As early as 1645, a Native American described as "Sauwenare, sachem of Wieckqueskeck," together with "Amenameck his brother" and "others, all owners, etc." reportedly sold lands north of Manhattan "called Wieckquaeskeck" to a man named "Wouter Van Twiller."  See Ruttenber, Edward Manning, History of the Indian Tribes of Hudson's River:  Their Origin, Manners and Customs; Tribal and Sub-Tribal Organizations; Wars, Treaties, Etc., Etc., p. 366 (Albany, NY: J. Munsell, 1872) (stating "In Albany Records, III, 379, is this entry:  'Personally appeared Sauwenare, sachem of Wieckqueskeck, Amenameck his brother, and others, all owners, etc., of lands situated on North river called Wieckquaeskeck, and declared that they had sold the same to Wouter Van Twiller in 1645.").  Significantly, "Sauwenare" is believed by a number of Munsee scholars (and by this author) to be one of many spelling variants and phonetic corruptions of the name of the "Saggamore" who was the first signer of the Pell Deed on June 27, 1654:  Shawanórõckquot.  See Fri., Jun. 15, 2018:  Who Was Shawanórõckquot, a Native American Sachem Who Signed the Pell Indian Deed on June 27, 1654?

Research has not revealed to this author any extant deed or deed transcription that reflects any such transaction by the great Saggamore of the Wiechquaeskecks selling local lands in 1645 as the entry quoted by Ruttenber suggests.  Moreover, there is evidence that the "transaction" -- if there was one -- was not properly documented.  To make matters even more muddled, a later Dutch document suggests that the 1645 transaction, if there were one, involved a sale to a local Native -- NOT the Dutch.  That later document stated that the 1645 sale was to a "blood relation" of the Native sellers known as "Pechquakor (by the Dutch called Wouter").  See immediately below.

A Possibly-Aborted Effort in 1655 to Document the Supposed Sale to Wouter Van Twiller in 1645


Ten years later, in 1655, the Director General and Council of New Netherland prepared a form of deed that seems to have been intended effectively to nullify this 1645 "transaction" (if there were such). Significantly, the form was never completed, contained blanks that were never filled in, and was designated as "canceled" in the records.  The aborted form would have provided for "Sauwenare, sachem of Wieckqeskeck, [and] Annenameck, his brother" to re-convey the property to the Director and Council.  The canceled form stated that "their deceased brother Pechquakor (by the Dutch called Wouter) and other [of] their blood relations delivered over and donated in the year 1645 to the honorable director general and council."  See New York Historical Manuscripts:  Dutch Translated and Annotated by Arnold J. F. Van Laer, Vol. III - Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648-1660, pp. 413-15 (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1974). 

This suggested that "Wouter Van Twiller" (to whom Sauwenare, Amenameck, and others supposedly conveyed Wiechquaeskeck lands in 1645) was a "blood relation" related to Sauwenare (i.e., Shawanórõckquot) who, in the same year, reportedly "delivered over and donated in the year 1645 to the honorable director general and council" those lands. Of course, the fact that such a draft "form" was prepared suggests a lack of any meaningful documentation of the 1645 transaction. Moreover, the fact that the form was not completed and was designated "canceled" also calls into question whether the Dutch truly, formally, and effectively acquired Wiechquaeskeck at any time prior to 1655 (or thereafter).

Perhaps Thomas Pell, who paid local Natives 500 Pounds Sterling for the lands that became the Manor of Pelham, had the better title to the lands after his June 27, 1654 transaction. . . . See Fri., Sep. 29, 2006:  Intriguing Evidence of the Amount Thomas Pell Paid Native Americans for the Manor of Pelham.  See also Thu., Oct. 05, 2006:  Additional Evidence That Thomas Pell Paid 500 Pounds Sterling for the Lands That Became the Manor of Pelham.  

"Thomas Pell" by Thom Lafferty from an Original by an Unknown

Artist Who Imagined Pell as He Would Look. There Are No

Known Images of Thomas Pell.NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

Below is the text of the 1655 "form" that seems never to have been completed but addresses the purported sale of Wiechquaeskeck lands to "Wouter Van Twiller" in 1645.

"Deed from the Indians to the director general and council of New Netherland of land on the North River called Wieckquaeskeck

[134e]  On this day, date underwritten, personally appeared Sauwenare, sachem of Wieckqeskeck, Annenameck, his brother [Footnote 1:  "1  The contract is canceled and left incomplete.  It is not listed in the Calendar of Dutch Manuscripts.  1.  Other names left blank.]

all right owners and proprietors of the lands situated on the North river, called Wieckquaeskeck and all the lands appertaining thereto, beginning at [Footnote 2:  Blank space.]

being in length along the North river about [blank] miles, and declared before the honorable director general and council of New Netherland and the undersigned witnesses, although the aforesaid lands were by their deceased brother Pechquakor (by the Dutch called Wouter) and other their blood relations delivered over and donated in the year 1645 to the honorable director general and council, that they now approve of and ratify the aforesaid donation and de novo henceforth convey, transfer, cede and surrender to the Hon. Director General Petrus Stuyvesant and the council in New Netherland all their patrimonial right, authority, jurisdiction, ownership and other prerogatives; therefore constituting the said honorable director general and council and their successors in their stead, real and actual possession thereof, giving them full and irrevocable power and authority to enter upon, possess in peace and use the aforesaid land and its appurtenances thereof as they might do with other their lawfully obtained lands, without the said grantors' having, reserving or retaining any more authority over the same in the least, but the said grantors relinquishing the same forever for themselves, their descendants or those whom it might in any way concern, hereby promising to free the aforesaid parcel of land from all claims and incumbrances to be set up or to be made thereto by any one in the world.  They further declare that in compensation and in satisfaction of their right they have been fully paid and satisfied before the execution hereof by the honorable director general and council for account of the General Chartered West India Company, chamber of Amsterdam, in cargo goods, as is specified below.  All in good faith, without fraud or deceit.

In testimony and token of the truth this is signed by them and the witnesses hereto invited.  Actum in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 26th of July A o. 1655.  [Footnote 3:  "3  The original document is canceled."]

Source:  New York Historical Manuscripts:  Dutch Translated and Annotated by Arnold J. F. Van Laer, Vol. III - Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648-1660, pp. 413-15 (Baltimore, MD:  Genealogical Publishing Co., 1974). 


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."

Thomas Pell's Plantation at West Chester Petitioned New York Colonial Authorities in 1664 Seeking Understanding for their Oaths of Allegiance to the Dutch

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."

The tiny settlement of West Chester originally was an English plantation established by Thomas Pell near today's Westchester Square in The Bronx only months after Pell acquired the lands that became the Manor of Pelham from local Native Americans in 1654.  Ten years later, in 1664, the handful of West Chester residents who remained seemed to feel they were in a tight spot.  After being imprisoned and forced to swear allegiance to the Dutch in 1656 to remain in their homes, the settlers now faced a change in control of the region.  In September, 1664, England took control of all of New Amsterdam and the surrounding region from the Dutch.  The little settlement of West Chester found itself having to deal with yet another reversal of allegiance and a need to explain to the English colonial authorities who controlled the region their years of allegiance to the Dutch.  This "explanation" ripened into a "petition" to English authorities issued in 1664 that is the subject of today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog.

In late 1654, shortly after Thomas Pell purchased the region from local Native Americans, Pell arranged for 23 settlers to plant their homes at West Chester.  The Dutch promptly demanded that the English settlers remove from the area -- an area that the Dutch insisted they previously had acquired from other Native Americans.  For a more complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding the competing Dutch and Pell purchases and the early days of the settlement at West Chester, see, e.g.:

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

Wed., Aug. 12, 2015:  Significant Research on the First "Indian Deed" Reflecting the Dutch Purchase of Lands that Included Today's Pelham.  

Mon., Oct. 22, 2007:  Dutch Authorities Demand That Thomas Pell Halt His "Intrusion" at Westchester in 1656.

On April 19, 1655, Dutch Province Fiscal Cornelis van Tienhoven issued a formal protest "To you, Thomas Pell, or whom else it may concern" warning that the settlers at West Chester had settled on lands that belonged to New Netherland by virtue of "title deeds" obtained by former Director General Willem Kieft. The protest further warned the settlers that they were subject to prosecution for their actions.  The settlers seem virtually to have ignored the Dutch protest.

Apparently fed up that the English settlers at Westchester ignored their warnings and protests, on March 6, 1656, the Director General and Council of New Netherland ordered Captain Frederic de Coninck and Lieutenant Brian Nuton [i.e., Brian Newton] to lead a group of soldiers to West Chester to arrest most of the male settlers and to demolish all but three or four of the structures (leaving some buildings to store personal goods until the remaining women and children could depart). Within days the Dutch soldiers overran the tiny little settlement and took leading male settlers prisoners. They took the prisoners to a prison ship named the "De Waagh" anchored off the shores of Fort Amsterdam. 

After the women of the settlement petitioned and begged the Dutch authorities for release of their husbands, fathers, and sons, the Dutch agreed to release the imprisoned English settlers if they would leave New Netherland or take oaths of allegiance and submit to the rule of the Dutch authorities in New Netherland. Virtually all of the settlers chose the latter alternative and, on March 16, 1656, the settlers petitioned the Dutch authorities to allow them to submit to Dutch rule and re-settle on their lands in Westchester. The petition was granted. 

Eight years later, on September 8, 1664, England took control of New Amsterdam and the surrounding region from the Dutch.  Dutch Director-General Peter Stuyvesant surrendered New Amsterdam to an English naval squadron.  Colonel Richard Nicolls became the English colonial governor.  New Amsterdam was renamed New York.  

Only a few miles away, the little settlement named West Chester still stood.  Though it began as an English settlement planted by Thomas Pell, it had changed its allegiance to the Dutch under threat of force.  That tiny settlement faced a change in control in colonial government back to English authorities.  Its residents were in a tight spot and had to explain themselves.  Their explanation took the form of a petition to the new English colonial authorities.  

The petition is fascinating.  It indicates that Thomas Pell purchased his tract "for large Sumes."  (See Bell, Blake A., How Much Did Thomas Pell Pay for the Manor of Pelham?, The Pelham Weekly, Vol. XV, Issue 43, Nov. 3, 2006, p. 10, col. 1.).  The petition further suggests that Pell purchased his tract for the benefit of England, saying he bought it "under the Title of England."  The petition also detailed a little of the horrors suffered by the early West Chester settlers who were imprisoned in the prison ship "De Waagh" shortly after Pell established the plantation.  The petition reads as follows (all spelling as in original source):

"Petition of inhabitants of Westchester

To the Hono. ble his Ma. ties Com. rs for the affaires of new England, The Inhabitants of West Chester Humbly Shew.

1  That the said Tract of Land called West Chester, was purchased for large Sumes, under the Title of England by Mr Tho. Pell, of the knowne Auncient proprietors in ye yeare 1654.

2  The pretended power of the Manhatoes, did thereupon continue protesting ag. st and threating of the said Plantacon keeping the Inhabitants at continuall watch and ward, untill at length the persons of Tewnty three Inhabitants of west Chester aforesaid, were Seized under Commission from the said Powers, committed Prisoners into the Hould of a Vessel, where they continued in restraint from all friends, for the space of thirteene dayes, fed wth rotten Provision creeping wth wormes, whereby some of them remaine diseased to this day, after wch, they were carryed away in Chaines, and layed in their Dungeon at Manhatoes.

3  That the said Inhabitants, had perished wth famine in the said Imprisonm t, but for the reliefe obtained at other hands.

4  That all this suffering was inflicted on them under noe other pretence, but that they were opposers of ye Dutch Title to the Lands aforesd.

5  That when the said pr tended powers, had freed the said Prison rs and introduced their owne Governm t over the sd Plantacon, They drove away such as would not Submit to their pr tended Authority, to their greate Endaagem t, and the enslaving of Such as remained.

6  That when in May 1663.  the said Plantacon was reduced to the Kings Authority, by vertue of his Ma. ties Patent to Conecticutt, the pretended powers aforesaid, sent in hostile manner, for certaine Inhabitants of West Chester, whom they confined in Manhatoes, and the next day sent for one Mr Richard Mills,a [Footnote "a" reads:  "a  A schoolmaster who had taught school previously on Long Island."] whom they case into their Dungeon, and afterwards soe used him for thirty eight dayes space, as there are yet, strong and crying presumtions they caused his death, which followed soone after.

7  That the unreasonable damage of the Purchaser, and the low estate of this Plantacon, occasioned by the premisses, hath had no other recompense to this day, but new threatenings, and thereby an utter obstruction from the peopleing and improving of a hopefull Countrey, all which as an unsufferable abuse to his royall Ma. tie and Our English Nation, is humbly offered to the consideracon of the Hon. ble Commission rs."

Source:  "Petition of Inhabitants of Westchester" in State Library Bulletin History No. 2 May 1899 -- Colonial Records General Entries V. I 1664-65 -- Transcribed from Manuscripts in the State Library, pp. 83-84 (Albany, NY:  Univeristy of the State of New York, 1899).  

Detail from 1776 Map Showing Manor of Pelham Area

Including West Chester, Shown as "W. Chester".

Source:  Muller, Johann Carl, "Der Teufels Belt gemeiniglich

genannt der Lange Insels Sund [Long Island Sound

and Vicinity] (Leipzig Germany, 1776).

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."

Why Did Native Americans Sell Lands Including Today's Pelham First to the Dutch and then to the English?

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."

I have puzzled profusely regarding why Native Americans would sell lands that included today's Pelham at least twice:  first to the Dutch in 1649 and then to English settler Thomas Pell in 1654.  The possibilities, of course, seem endless.  

Perhaps local Native Americans, feeling the pressure of Dutch encroachment from the southwest and English encroachment from the northeast schemed to prompt a land war between the Dutch and the English.  Perhaps different groups of Native Americans (or, perhaps, the same group) sold the land twice, each time purely for personal gain.  Perhaps two entirely unrelated groups of Native Americans sold the land on two occasions, each unaware of the other's sale.  Perhaps two competing groups of Native Americans, both claiming title to the lands, sold those lands in the good faith belief that each was the rightful owner.  Perhaps two such groups of Native Americans, neither believing it held title to the lands, sold them anyway.  Nearly infinite speculation can run rampant.  

Perhaps, however, the historical context and 17th century colonial records can shed light on why there seems to have been two successive sales of the land.  Of course, we can only infer Native American intent based on available, incomplete, and admittedly ambiguous evidence.  Typically, in such circumstances, the end result is a hypothesis that may never be capable of being proved. But, evidence to support such a hypothesis should be documented.  

Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog is an effort to hypothesize how the Pelham sale could have happened twice in fairly quick succession (and to begin the process of documenting such a hypothesis, hopefully to prompt debate).

On July 14, 1649, local Native Americans sold lands including today's Pelham to Dutch authorities.  To learn more, see Wed., Aug. 12, 2015:  Significant Research on the First "Indian Deed" Reflecting the Dutch Purchase of Lands that Included Today's Pelham.  Only six years later, on June 27, 1654, different local Native Americans sold lands that also included today's Pelham to an English settler named Thomas Pell.  For a copy of the Pell deed and a transcription of its text, see Bell, Blake A., THOMAS PELL AND THE LEGEND OF THE PELL TREATY OAK, Appendix A, pp. 59 et seq. (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse 2004).  For an online image of the Pell Deed and a transcription of its text, click here.  There was no overlap among the Native Americans who signed the 1649 deed and those who signed the Pell Deed in 1654.  

The land sold to the Dutch in 1649, which included the eastern half of today's Bronx and Westchester County, was designated as "Wiequaes Keck" in the deed.  The name for the region at the time was "Wiechquaeskeck," a term that came to be associated with the Native Americans who lived in that region.  See Grumet, Robert S., The Munsee Indians:  A History, p. 309 n.6 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009) ("Like Manhattan, Wiechquaesgeck is an example of a local place name that became a general term for a larger community.").

Kieft's War, named after New Amsterdam Director-General Willem Kieft, was a conflict between the Dutch and Native Americans in the region surrounding Fort Amsterdam (today's New York metropolitan region).  Kieft's War raged between 1643 and 1645.  Shortly after the beginning of the War, local Native Americans slaughtered Anne Hutchinson and most of her family in an area that later became part of the Manor of Pelham.  

The Dutch response to Native American attacks and harassment of Dutch and English settlers throughout the region was brutal.  As a consequence, the Wiechquaesgecks fled the region.  This documented fact is important to any understanding of one possible theory for why Native Americans made two successive sales of lands including today's Pelham.

A treaty formally ending hostilities between the Dutch and many of the Native American communities in the region was not signed until July 19, 1649.  The "treaty," reflected in Dutch records and transcribed at the end of today's article, indicated that Wiechquaesgecks had fled the region and, according to one of the Native American signers, they "had no chief" in attendance at the treaty parley and, thus, had to be spoken for by a representative.  Specialists who have analyzed the treaty terms have noted that the Wiechquaesgecks had fled to an area inhabited by the Raritans and that they did not return to the Wiechquaesgeck lands until after the treaty was signed and the 1649 deed selling "Wiequaes Keck" to the Dutch had been executed (only five days before the treaty was reached).  See, e.g., Grumet, Robert S., THE MUNSEE INDIANS:  A HISTORY, p. 310 n.6:  Notes to Page 47 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009) (hereinafter “Grumet, THE MUNSEE INDIANS”).

According to Grumet, it was not precisely correct that the Wiechquaesgecks "had no chief" at the time of the 1649 treaty ending Kieft's War and the 1649 deed coveying Wiechquaesgeck to the Dutch.  Rather:  

"[T}he Wiechquaesgecks did, in fact, still have chiefs at this time.  Most of these, however, turned out to be dispossessed Marechkawicks and other Long Islanders who had also moved to Raritan country after the war [i.e., Kieft's War that essentially ended in 1645].  One of these, the Nayack sachem Mattano, signed the July 14 deed as Megtegickhama and was noted as 'Meijterma, the Chief of Neyick' at the July 19, 1649, treaty; former Marechkawick sachem Seyseychkimus witnessed the latter agreement as a chief sachem.  Although neither man signed the July 19, 1649, treaty as a Wiechquaesgeck, Seyseychkimus in particular continued to represent their communities for many years thereafter."

Source:  Id.  

The foregoing suggests at least the following possibility.  As the response of Director General Kieft and the Dutch to Native American hostilities grew increasingly brutal during Kieft's War, the Wiechquaesgecks fled the region.  In 1649, as relations between the Dutch and local Native Americans warmed sufficiently to permit both a treaty parley and a sale of the lands on the eastern shore of the mainland adjacent to Manhattan known as "Wiequaes Keck," the Wiechquaesgecks "had no chief" to participate in either the treaty parley or the sale of the ancestral homelands.  Instead, "dispossessed Marechkawicks and other Long Islanders" including Seyseychkimus and Megtegickhama purported to represent the Wiechquaesgecks in both instances; this purported "representation" included not only the treaty ending hostilities, but also the sale of the ancestral homelands of the Wiechquaesgecks to the Dutch with no evidence (at present) that any Wiechquaesgeck signed the 1649 deed or even consented in any way to the sale.  

It is only a short leap of logic to suggest that six years later, when English settler Thomas Pell sought to acquire lands from local Native Americans, actual Wiechquaesgecks were willing to ignore any previous sale by non-Wiechquaesgecks who purported to represent them and, instead, sold the lands "on their own" so to speak.  

What is the evidence that those who sold the lands to Thomas Pell were Wiechquaesgecks?  For some of the evidence, see Wed., Apr. 02, 2014:  17th Century Record Identifies One of the Native Americans Who Signed Pell's 1654 Deed as a Wiechquaeskeck, NOT a Siwanoy.  See also  Wed., January 29, 2014:  There Were No Native Americans Known as Siwanoys.  

In other words, one hypothesis, yet to be proved or disproven, is that the 1649 sale of lands including today's Pelham to the Dutch was made by Native Americans who did not have a true claim to those lands and had no consent from its Wiechquaesgeck owners to sell those lands.  Only six years later, true Wiechquaesgecks sold the same lands to Thomas Pell.  

Munsee Family Like Wiechquaesgecks Who Once

Inhabited the Region Including Today's Pelham.

*          *          *          *          *

"PROPOSITIONS MADE BY THE CHIEFS OF THE SAVAGES LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE MANHATTANS, NAMELY SEYSEGECHKIMUS, ORATAMIN, WILLEM OF TAPPAKEN AND PENNEKES FROM 'BEHIND THE COL' IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT FORT AMSTERDAM IN PRESENCE OF Do. JOHANNES MEGAPOLENSIS, MINISTER OF RENSSELAERSWYCK, ARENT VAN CURLER AND JOHANNES VAN TWILLER.

1.

Pennekeck, the chief 'behind the Col' made a speech in the Indian tongue, which was translated and said, the Southern Miquas had asked them to live in friendship with the Dutch, which they were willing to do and for that purpose they had brought a present to the Hon ble Director.

2.  An Indian of Mechgachkamic had involuntarily or unknowingly lately done mischief at Paulus Hook, which they requested us to excuse.

3.  Pennekeck said the tribe called Raritanoos, formerly living at Wiquaeskeck had no chief, therefore he spoke for them, who would also like to be our friends and sent through him their greetings to the Hon ble General.  Throws 3 beavers to the ground as a present.

4.  Meijterma, the Chief of Neyick, was included with his people into this agreement and would be, like them, our friends.  They throw 3 beavers down.

5.  He speaks for the tribe of Remahenonc as for the above with a like present.

6.  Pennekeck threw down 2 beavers declaring in the name of all, that their heart was sincere and that they desire to live in friendship with us, forgetting on either side, what was past.

7.  Pennekeck said:  'I wish you could see my heart, then you would be sure, that my words are sincere and true.'  He threw down two beavers, saying That is my confirmation.

8.  The Hon ble Director had in former times desired to speak with them; it was done now and they had shown their good intentions; they are now waiting to see, what he would do, laying down two beavers.

9.  Pennekeck said, although the Hon ble General could not understand them, they did not doubt his good intentions.

10.  In conclusion Pennekeck said:  It is the wish of the Minquas, that we and you should be and remain friends, we are ready for it.

The Hon ble Director-General first expressed his thanks to the chiefs, that they had come to visit him with offers of neighborly friendship, and he then told them that he was pleased to hear such a request.  He promised, that nothing whatever should be wanting on our part and that he was willing to live with them in mutual friendship and intercourse.  No cause for complaints should be given and if somebody injured them, they should themselves report it to the Director, in order that they should receive justice in accordance with the case.  In token of his good will he accepted their presents on the foregoing propositions with thanks and in due time he would return the compliment.

A small present worth about 20 guilders was then given to the common savages and some tobacco and a gun to the chief Oratamin, and so the savages departed well please.

(July 19th 1649.)"

Source:  Fernow, B., "Documents Relating to the History and Settlements of the Towns Along the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers (With the Exception of Albany), From 1630 to 1684 and Also Illustrating the Relations of the Settlers with the Indians" in DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Vol. XIII, p. 25 (Albany, NY:  Weed, Parsons and Company, 1881).

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."  

Seyseychkimus, The Native American "Chief" and Signer of 1649 Indian Deed Encompassing Pelham

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."

The earliest so-called "Indian Deed" yet discovered conveying lands that later became Pelham was a deed signed on July 14, 1649.  See Wed., Aug. 12, 2015:  Significant Research on the First "Indian Deed" Reflecting the Dutch Purchase of Lands that Included Today's Pelham.  That deed conveyed to the Director General and Council of New Netherland lands identified as "Wiequaes Keck" on the east bank of the Hudson River between the Byram and Mianus Rivers along Long Island Sound.  These lands encompassed all of today's Town of Pelham.  The deed was signed by several Native Americans including one named Seyseychkimus who was designated as "the chief" and who signed the deed as "witness."

Who was Seyseychkimus?

Seyseychkimus was a Munsee who, specialists believe, first appeared in colonial records in 1637 with his name spelled as "Heyseys."  He appeared as "one of two Mareychkewikingh (Marechkawieck) sachems in the July 16, 1637 sale of two islands in the Hell Gate between Queens, Manhattan, and the Bronx (Book GG:28-29).  The Marechkawieck inhabited the downtown Brooklyn area."  Grumet, Robert Steven, "ON THE IDENTITY OF THE RECHGAWAWANCK" in The Bulletin and Journal of Archaeology for New York State, No. 83, p. 4 (Spring 1982).  

Seyseychkimus was considered a "lower River Indian leader" who spoke the Munsee dialect, not the Mahican language.  Grumet, Robert S., The Munsee Indians:  A History, p. 296 - Notes to Page 14, n.16 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009).  According to Grumet, the Marechkawieck sachem who resided on Long Island in the Brooklyn area in about the mid-1630s sold all of his remaining Brooklyn lands to the Dutch in two separate deeds dated September 10, 1645 (a deed that later was canceled) and November 1, 1650.  See supra, Grumet, ON THE IDENTITY OF THE RECHGAWAWANCK, p. 4.  

Clearly Seyseychkimus was an important Munsee leader in the lower Hudson River area.  He appears to have departed Brooklyn at about the time of the sale of his Brooklyn lands and next was located, apparently, in the Wiechquaeskeck region on the mainland northeast of Manhattan -- an area that included today's Town of Pelham.  On July 14, 1649, he witnessed the Indian Deed that conveyed lands including today's Pelham and Northeast Bronx to the Dutch.  (For a full transcription of a translation of that deed, see below.)

As further evidence of the prominence of Seyseychkimus as a Munsee leader in the region, only five days after witnessing the July 14, 1649 Indian Deed, Seyseychkimus "participated as Seysegeckkimus in the treaty that ended hostilities between the Dutch and unreconciled elements of the Wiechquaeskeck and Raritan groups who did not sign the August 30, 1645 treaty ending the Governor Kieft War."   See supra, Grumet, ON THE IDENTITY OF THE RECHGAWAWANCK, p. 4 (citing "NYHM(4):607-609)").  Seyseychkimus was among the only representatives not assigned to a specific group at the time the treaty was executed.  Although we will never know why, we can speculate that his recent move from the Marechkawieck section in Brooklyn to the Wiechquaeskeck region on the mainland northeast of Manhattan left his designation -- but not regional prominence -- somewhat in question.

By 1651 (three years before English settler Thomas Pell acquired much of the same lands conveyed to the Dutch on July 14, 1649), Seyseychkimus seems to have moved northward to, or to have asserted his influence as far north as, northwestern Connecticut.  He "signed a deed to land in northwestern Connecticut as Sasskum on February 15, 1651 (Bolton 1848(1):392) and was mentioned as Sasse in an incomplete manuscript dated March 25, 1652 (NYCM(5):32)."  See supra, Grumet, ON THE IDENTITY OF THE RECHGAWAWANCK, p. 4.  

After analyzing the various deeds, the treaty, and the incomplete manuscript mentioning Seyseychkimus, Robert S. Grumet summarizes as follows:

"The collective weight of this documentation supports the identification of this man as a Marechkawieeck chief from Brooklyn who moved to the mainland east of the Hudson River following the sale of his land holdings on Long Island.  These data would thus place both Sesekimu and Seyseychkimus in Westchester and Fairfield Counties."  See supra, Grumet, ON THE IDENTITY OF THE RECHGAWAWANCK, p. 4. 

The colonial documentation seems to provide a partial glimpse of the life of the Munsee leader of the lower Hudson River region known as Seyseychkimus.  Seyseychkimus, a Marechkawieck sachem who resided on Long Island in the Brooklyn area in about the mid-1630s, apparently exercised influence over or served as a Munsee sachem representative in connection with lands extending from Brooklyn through today's Westchester and Fairfield Counties.  For about a sixteen-year period from 1637 until 1652, Seyseychkimus participated in successive sales of lands located successively northeastward as local Native Americans slowly deeded their lands to Dutch and, later, English settlers.  In at least one such instance he was designated as "chief" and also participated in an important treaty with the Dutch by which "unreconciled elements of the Wiechquaeskeck and Raritan groups who did not sign the August 30, 1645 treaty ending the Governor Kieft War" ended their hostilities with the Dutch. 

View of Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, 1651.  Note

The Native Americans in a Variety of Canoes.  Source:

Hartger, Joost, Befchrijvinghe Van Virginia, Nieuw Nederlandt,

En d’Eylanden Bermudes, Berbados, en S. Christossel

(Amsterdam, 1651) (Original in The Lenox Library, The

New York Historical Society, The Andrews Collection).

NOTE:  Click on Image To Enlarge.

Below are transcriptions of a wide variety of research items relating to the identity of, and the life of, Seyseychkimus.  Each is followed by a citation to its source.  Given that some materials are available only in print format, links are provided only when available.  Research so far has revealed a variety of spellings of the name "Seyseychkimus."  Those are listed immediately below, followed by some of the research on which this brief article is based.  


ALTERNATIVE NAMES / SPELLINGS

Heyseys
Sasham
Sasse
Sassian
Sasskummu
Seiseis
Ses-Segh-Hout
Seseke
Seysegeckkimus
Seyseychkimus
Segseychkimus
Seysey
Seyseys

*          *          *          *          *

Seyseychkimus was considered a "lower River Indian leader" who spoke the Munsee dialect, not the Mahican language.  Grumet, Robert S., The Munsee Indians:  A History, p. 296 - Notes to Page 14, n.16 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009).

"Originally from Long Island, Seyseychkimus moved to Wiecquaesgeck and later farther upriver to Wappinger country after selling his lands in Brooklyn."  Id.

"This brings us to the primary Haverstraw sachem and the problem of the identification of the Rechgawawanck sachem Sesekemu.  A man named Sessikout was identified as the sachem of Haverstroo and the brother of an Esopus leader in a document dated March 15, 1664 (NYCD (13):363-364).  If saccis was Sessikout, then he signed the January 30, 1658 sale of the Bayonne Peninsula as Saghkaw (Liber 1:34) and the May 19, 1671 conveyance of the Palisades to the south of Haverstraw, New York as Saghtow (Liber 1:115-116).  He was far more recognizable as Sessikout when he appeared as the signatory Seskiguoy in the June 8, 1677 sale of land to the west of the Palisades (Liber 1:254(85-253)86).  Next listed as Sakaghkemeck, 'Sachem of Averstraw' in the July 13, ,1683 conveyance of land directly south of the Hudson Highlands and the Catskill Mountains as Sackewagzein, 'Sachem of Heardstroo' (Liber N:  folio 86-88:23).  These documents strongly support the assertion that Sessikout was the most important Haverstraw sachem of the period.  They themselves do not, however, establish that Sesekemu was Sessikout.

The most likely candidate for that role is a man name[d] Seyseychkimus.  He first appeared as Heyseys, one of two Mareychkewikingh (Marechkawieck) sachems in the July 16, 1637 sale of two islands in the Hell Gate between Queens, Manhattan, and the Bronx (Book GG:28-29).  The Marechkawieck inhabited the downtown Brooklyn area.  He was next mentioned as Sassian in a document dated September 11, 1642 (NYHM(3):325-326).  He subsequently sold his remaining land holdings in Brooklyn as the chief Seysey on September 10, 1645 (Book GG:60) and as Sasham on November 1, 1650 (MacLeod 1941).  He evidently moved to the mainland to the east of the Hudson River sometime before 1649.  On July 14th of that year he appeared as Seyseychkimus, a chief who witnessed the sale of land identified as Wiequaes Keck on the east bank of the Hudson River between the Byram and Mianus Rivers along Long Island Sound (Book GG:323-324).  Five days later, on July 19, 1649, he participated as Seysegeckkimus in the treaty that ended hostilities between the Dutch and unreconciled elements of the Wiechquaeskeck and Raritan groups who did not sign the August 30, 1645 treaty ending the Governor Kieft War (NYHM(4):607-609).  Although not listed as such, it can be inferred that he represented the Remahenonck at these proceedings, as both he and the latter group were the only individuals or groups not assigned leaders or corporate identities in the document.  He subsequently signed a deed to land in northwestern Connecticut as Sasskum on February 15, 1651 (Bolton 1848(1):392) and was mentioned as Sasse in an incomplete manuscript dated March 25, 1652 (NYCM(5):32).  The collective weight of this documentation supports the identification of this man as a Marechkawieeck chief from Brooklyn who moved to the mainland east of the Hudson River following the sale of his land holdings on Long Island.  These data would thus place both Sesekimu and Seyseychkimus in Westchester and Fairfield Counties.  They would also support the possible location of the Remahenonck in the same area.  Together by themselves they would seem to validate Ruttenber's assertion that the Rechgawawanck lived along the east banks of the Hudson River.  Data contained within the May 15, 1664 treaty ending the Esopus Wars seriously challenges this assertion."

Source:  Grumet, Robert Steven, "ON THE IDENTITY OF THE RECHGAWAWANCK" in The Bulletin and Journal of Archaeology for New York State, No. 83, p. 4 (Spring 1982).

Seyseychkimus was consanguineal or blood kin of Mamanuchqua, the prominent female Esopus leader who appeared among sachems representing the Mahicans, Catskills, and Esopus in July 1682 in Albany to hear complaints against them, to renew the famed "Covenant Chain bonds," and to present a beaver pelt "in token of a promise to travel farther westward beyond Maryland and Virginia when again 'going out a hunting beaver.'"  

Source:  Grumet, Robert S., First Manhattans:  A History of the Indians of Greater New York, pp. 128-30 & p. 130 Figure 4 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2011).

"Mattano tried to manipulate suspicions that divided rival Dutch and English claimants to Indian lands in Brooklyn.  His first efforts to exploit this rivalry in Brooklyn met with limited success.  The Dutch claimed what amounted to nearly all his people's lands on Long Island under the terms of both Tackapousha's broad conveyance of November 13, 1643, and Seyseychkimus's later cancelled September 10, 1645, deed to the most westerly portion of lands within the bounds covered by the 1643 deed.  A small patch in this latter area was also claimed by yet another group of New England exiles led by Lady Deborarh Moody, who settled at Gravesend with Dutch permission during Kieft's War.  After the war, English settlers there secured their claim in a sale, again arranged with Dutch approval, concluded with Seyseychkimus and Mattano's father, Emerus, on November 1, 1650. 31  [Footnote "31" states in part as follows:  "Emerus signed the first state of the November 1, 1650, deed in the GTR Patent Book 1:15 as Arremathanus, perhaps the fullest transcription of his name; later states of the same deed (in GTR Patent Book 1:43, 45, and 47) spell the name as Arremackanus; Seyseychkimus's name is the last in the list of sachems, appearing in the form of Sasham, a variant of Sassian, Seiseis, and other forms documented in transactions concluded on Long Island."].

Source:  Grumet, Robert S., The Munsee Indians:  A History, p. 100 & p. 338 n.31 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009).

"Two deeds came out of these get-togethers.  The first, bearing a date of April 13, 1671, gave Bedloe and De Harte title to all land between the Hudson River and Overpeck Creek 'on the north side of the Sir Governor Philip Carteret's' from Hespatingh in present-day Jersey City to Tappan.  The second, finalized on May 19, 1671, gave De Harte a still larger tract taking in all lands north of the April purchase line from Tappan to Haverstraw between the Hudson and Hackensack Rivers.  Together, these deeds turned the whole of the Palisades into the property of buyers from New York, who promptly registered their new purchases, written in Dutch, in Manhattan. [Footnote omitted]

As they had in Staten Island a year earlier, New Yorkers had purchased land coyly referred to in both deeds as 'under the jurisdiction of the province of New Jersey,' but not necessarily within its charter borders.  With patience and perhaps some well-placed payoffs, De Harte and Bedloe might use these deeds to help Lovelace extend New York's sovereignty over the desired land.  They certainly seemed to have the support of the Indians.  The list of sachems who signed the deeds for the New Yorkers included leaders from every major Indian community between the lower Hudson and upper Delaware rivers below the Highlands.  The primary signatory was Aroohikan, who identified himself in both documents as a Tappan sachem.  Like Seyseychkimus, whose interest in land at Haverstraw was represented in the May 19, 1671, deed, Aroorhikan was another expatriate from Brooklyn.  New York's faithful ally Pierwim also signed both deeds.  Tomachkapay put his mark on the April 13 conveyance as sachem of Minisink.  Among other signatories were Memshe, Waerhinnis Couwee, and a man  new to colonial records, who had a talent for languages named Towakhachi (Munsee for 'Mudpuppy'). [Footnote omitted]"

Source:  Grumet, Robert S., The Munsee Indians:  A History, p. 126 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009).

"GG 222 INDIAN DEED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE WEST INDIA COMPANY FOR LAND IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY

On this day, the date underwritten, appeared before us, the Honorable Lords, the Director-General and Council, Megtegichkama, Oteyochque, and Wegtakochken, the rightful owners of the land located on the east bank of the North River of New Netherland called Wiequaes Keck; extending in breadth through the woods until a stream called Seweyruc [Byram River], with a boundary line running north and south from Greenwich on the East River to a stream called Kechkawes [Mianus River].  This same land is located between the two streams, dissecting the woods between the North and East River, so that the western half remains with the aforesaid owners; while the other eastern half, which is divided by a north-south line through the woods, the aforesaid owners acknowledge in the presence of the chief Seyseykimus and all the remaining friends and blood relatives to have sold the aforesaid parcel of land to the honorable Petrus Stuyvesant, Director-General of New Netherland, for a certain amount of merchandise, which they acknowledge to have received  and accepted before approval of this document, namely 6 fathoms of duffels, 6 fathoms of seawant; 6 kettles, 6 axes; 6 adzes, 10 knives, 10 awls, 10 corals, 10 bells, 1 gun, 2 staves of lead, 2 lbs. of powder; 2 cloth coats.  

Therefore, the aforesaid owners transfer, cede and convey the aforesaid land to the Lord-General or his successors in true and lawful ownership, renouncing for themselves and their descendants now and forever all claims thereon, and resigning herewith all rights and jurisdiction, transferring it to the aforesaid Lord-General and his successors, to do with as they please, without being molested by them, the conveyors, or anyone of them, whether it be person or property.  It is further agreed that the western most half may be purchased for the same amount as above whenever the Director-General desires to pay for it; and they, the grantors, promise to sell the part still in their possession on the North River for that price and not to sell it to anyone without informing the Director-General.  They further promise to maintain and uphold this conveyance firmly and inviolably under the penalty prescribed by law.  Thus was this signed in the presence of the witnesses below on 14 July 1649 at New Amsterdam in New Netherland.

This is the mark

[Signed]

of Pomipahan, made himself.

This is the mark

[Signed]

of Meytehickhama.
This is the mark

[Signed]

of Wegtakachkey.

This is the mark made by

[Signed]

the chief, Seyseychkimus, as witness."

Source:  Gehring, Charles T., ed. & trans., New York Historical Manuscripts:  Dutch Volumes GG, HH & II Land Papers, pp. 62-63 (Baltimore, MD:  Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1980) (Published under the direction of The Holland Society of New York).

For another earlier translation of the same record, see:   

O'Callaghan, E. B., ed., History of New Netherland; Or, New York Under the Dutch, Vol. II, pp. 96-97, n. 1 (NY, NY:  D. Appleton and Company, 1848) (citing "Book of Patents, G. G. 507.").

"What with its hills and dales, once covered with dense woodlands, time was when Ward's Island, on the hither side of Hell Gate, was one of the loveliest spots in America, and it is yet so beautiful as to compel  the praise of all visitors.  It was called Tenkenas when Wouter Van Twiller bought it from the Indian chiefs Heyseys and Numers, and giving it the name of Great Barent's Island, convereted its two hundred and forty acres into a pasturage for his cattle."

Source:  Wilson, Rufus Rockwell, New York:  Old & New - Its Story, Streets, and Landmarks, Vol. II, pp. 354-55 (2d Edition - Philadelphia & London:  J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903).  

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."

The First "Indian Deed" Reflecting a Sale by Native Americans of Lands that Became Pelham

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."

The mystery remains. . . . 

The story of how Pelham came to be includes the well-documented story of how Thomas Pell and Native Americans signed a deed on June 27, 1654 by which Pell acquired a vast swath of land including today's Pelham and much of the northeast Bronx.  Indeed, a copy of that deed believed to be in Pell's own handwriting was recently displayed at the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum.

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.

It appears, however, that there was an earlier deed .by which Native Americans sold the same lands as part of a larger parcel to others. . . . 

The Dutch purportedly acquired lands including precisely those acquired by Pell some fourteen years before Pell bought them.  I have spent more than a dozen years, however, trying to locate this deed or an actual transcription of its contents.  I have documented many of my efforts.  For example, see:

Mon., Dec. 26, 2005:  The Dutch Acquired Lands Including Pelham From Local Native Americans in 1640.

Tue., Dec. 5, 2006:  Where Is Evidence of the 1640 Dutch Purchase from Native Americans of Lands That Became Pelham?

 Tue., Nov. 6, 2007:  Is This Another Dead End in the Search for the Text of an Indian Deed to Lands that Included Today's Pelham Sold to the Dutch? 

Today's Historic Pelham Blog posting transcribes references to this supposed deed contained in the text of the 1881 edition of Bolton's History of Westchester County as part of my continued efforts to document my research in this area.  Immediately below is a transcription of the relevant excerpt, followed by a citation to its source.

"Like the greater part of Westchester County, [Pelham] formed originally a portion of the Indian territory of Wykagyl, as laid down in the Dutch carte of 1614.  Its early inhabitants were a clan of the Mohegans or 'Enchanted Wolf Tribe,' called Siwanoys, whose possessions extended, it is well known, from Norwalk to the neighborhood of Hell gate.  The latter place being their winter quarters.  From the Indians this tract of land, with others adjacent, passed to the Dutch West Indian Company in 1640, as appears by the following:  'In order to maintain the charter of this company, Kieft, the Dutch governor, dispatched Secretary Van Fienhoven [sic - Tienhoven], on the 19th day of April, 1640, with instructions to purchase the 'Archipelago' or group of Islands at the mouth of the Norwalk River, together with all the adjoining territory on the main land,' 'and to erect thereon the standard and arms of the high and mighty Lords States General; to take the savages under our protection, and to prevent effectually any other nation encroaching on our limits.'  These directions, we are assured, were fully executed; and the West India Company thus obtained the Indian title to all the lands between Norwalk and the North River. [Fn. "a"] [Footnote "a" at foot of the page reads "a Hist. State of N.Y., by Broadhead, 1st period, 1609-1664.  Alb. Rec. ii, 78, 147; De Lact viii; Hazard ii, 213; O'Call. i, 215."]  This sale was confirmed on the 14th of [Page 28 / Page 29] July, 1649, when the Director General, Peter Stuyvesant, in behalf of the same company, purchased 'WECHQUAESQEECK" -- which, like the former grant, comprehended much of the present County of Westchester -- from the three Indian sachems 'Megtegichkama, Oteyschgue, and Wegtakkockken.'"

Source:  Bolton, 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, pp. 28-29  (NY, NY:  Chas. F. Roper, 1881).  (Edited by C.W. Bolton).

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."