DOCSLIB.ORG

We, Uncass and Owoneco Sachems of the Mohegan Indians Having Had

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CABAZON, THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF AMERICAN INDIAN GOVERNMENTAL GAMING A Case Study INDIAN GAMING AND COMMUNITY BUILDING: A HISTORY OF THE INTERGOVERMENTAL RELAT IONS OF THE MOHEGAN TRIBE OF CONNECTICUT Kimberly G. Burgess Katherine A. Spilde APRIL 2004 Cabazon, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the Socioeconomic Consequences of American Indian Governmental Gaming A Case Study INDIAN GAMING AND COMMUNITY BUILDING: A HISTORY OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF THE MOHEGAN TRIBE OF CONNECTICUT KIMBERLY G. BURGESS KATHERINE A. SPILDE APRIL 2004 ©2004 The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University “Cabazon, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the Socioeconomic Consequences of American Indian Governmental Gaming” is a research project of The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (HPAIED). Funding has been provided under a grant from the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) and by The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. The voting members of NIGA are American Indian tribal governments. NIGA's funding has supported the work of Dr. Spilde and Dr. Burgess, co-authors of this study. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of any of the funding organizations or their employees, HPAIED and/or its other staff, the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy (where HPAIED is housed), the John F. Kennedy School of Government, or Harvard University. This research project is undertaken with the clear understanding that the investigators have the full right to publish any results obtained by them, without prior approval of any funding organization or individual and subject only to established safeguards for the protection of privacy or confidentiality. For further information about The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development and additional copies of this work, visit http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied or contact 617-495-1480. BURGESS & SPILDE We, Uncass and Owoneco Sachems of the Mohegan Indians having had a long friendshipp with the English, do hereby declare our fidelity to them for the future, and do engage and firmly binde ourselves and promise and engage for and in the behalfe of the Mohegans under our Command that we will not plot...any mischiefe against the English, and that ourselves and those under our Government shall behave themselves…friendly laudable and … towards the English, not suffering any abuse to be offered to them in word or deeds, and that if we shall know of any conspiracye or complotments against them, by any the Indians of this Country, we will give speedy and timely notice to the authority of the Colony of Connecticutt, and that we will be ready upon all occasions to defend the interest, estates and persons of the English when by them called there unto, to the utmost of our power…1 The Mohegan Tribe of Uncasville, Connecticut, thrives today because of its highly profitable Mohegan Sun Casino Resort. Upon achieving federal recognition as an American Indian tribe through the Bureau of Acknowledgement and Research of the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1994, the tribe negotiated a tribal-state gaming compact with the State of Connecticut, purchased property with trust funds, and began to work with the neighboring towns on future economic development initiatives. In 1996, the Mohegan Tribe opened its Earth Casino, which had immediate success. In 2002, the Sky Casino was completed; the Mohegans since have welcomed thousands of visitors to the facility on a daily basis. The Mohegans’ achievements are largely attributable to a unique set of historical circumstances, optimal geographic location, and the ability of the Mohegan Council, tribal representatives, and citizens to establish and nurture mutually beneficial relationships with their non- American Indian neighbors. This tradition of diplomacy is 1 Article of Mutual Friendship and Defense between the Mohegan Indians and the English, May 24, 1678, bearing the marks of Uncass and Owoneco as well as other Indian witnesses at Hartford, CT. 1 CASE STUDY: INDIAN GAMING AND COMMUNITY BUILDING rooted in historical precedents that date back to the Mohegan’s first contacts with non-Indians. HISTORY MATTERS The origins of the Mohegan Tribe can be traced to events preceding the Pequot War of 1636-37. The war marked a turning point in Indian-colonial relations, as it produced the near- annihilation of the powerful Pequots by the English and their newly-established Indian allies. The political climate preceding the war was tense, with much inter- and intra-tribal dissension. Epidemics exacted a devastating toll on the region’s indigenous peoples, and along with growing frictions created by the fur trade, placed inordinate stress on the social and political relations between those groups. Escalating rivalries fomented increasing disputes between indigenous groups, prompting the Pequots in particular to break apart into two groups, the Mohegan and the Pequots. The Mohegan group followed the sachem Uncas, while the Pequot organized around the sachem Sassacus. Causing the split was the two sachems’ differing views regarding the manner in which the Pequots should conduct business with European trading interests. While Sassacus opted for a path of outright resistance, Uncas looked to preserve his group’s relative independence by befriending the English. The separation between Uncas and Sassacus and the building tensions that followed their split soon escalated to what became known as the “Pequot War, or Massacre.” The Mohegans, led by Uncas, the Narragansetts of the Rhode Island area, and some Connecticut River and Nipmuck Indians who were embittered by the Pequots’ dominance of the area trade networks, allied with the English against the Pequots. The Pequots had their own allies, including the Western Nehantic and other Nipmuck. In the fall of 1636, the English attacked and burned two Pequot villages on the Thames River. The Pequots responded, invading Fort Saybrook and then Fort Wethersfield. The English, led by Captain John Mason and accompanied by their Native allies— 2 BURGESS & SPILDE including Mohegans and Narragansetts—then assaulted Mystic Fort on May 26, 1637, massacring over four hundred Pequots. The Pequot War officially ended with the signing of a treaty in 1638. The war considerably altered the social and political dynamics in the area. It clearly installed the English as the region’s dominant military force, subjugating the once-powerful Pequots. In addition, it enabled the Mohegans to claim former Pequot territory as their own. Intertribal conflicts continued after the Pequot War. The Mohegans fought against the Narragansetts in the Battle of the Great Plain and the Siege of Fort Shantok in what is now the Norwich area. English colonists aided the Mohegans in 1645 when the Narragansetts—seeking to avenge the murder of the Narragansett sachem Miantonomo at the hands of the Mohegan sachem Wawequa, Uncas’ brother—attempted to starve out the Mohegans at Fort Shantok. Colonists Thomas Tracy, Thomas Miner, and Thomas Leffingwell came to the Mohegans’ aid, bringing food to the site. The Mohegans, led by Uncas, maintained their tribal integrity largely through the alliances Uncas forged with colonists, particularly John Mason, the Englishman who led the Mystic massacre of the Pequots. Because of his alliance-building abilities, Uncas became known as a “friend of the English.”2 The Narragansetts and Wampanoags, meanwhile, were not so fortunate. The Mohegans again joined the English colonists to defeat the Narragansetts and Wampanoags in King Phillip’s War of 1676. During the same period, relations between the Mohegans and neighboring colonists grew bitter as the two groups struggled over land. The Mohegans became involved in a series of land claims with the colonists and, eventually, the British government. In 1659, Captain John Mason, acting as an agent of the colony, obtained a deed from Uncas and his brother for all of 2 Fawcett, Melissa Jayne. 2000. Medicine Trail: The Life and Lessons of Gladys Tantaquidgeon. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, p. 43. 3 CASE STUDY: INDIAN GAMING AND COMMUNITY BUILDING the Mohegan lands. John Mason surrendered the deed to the Colony of Connecticut in 1660. Later, Mason’s descendants questioned the validity of this transaction, arguing that Mason meant to secure the lands for the Mohegans and did not intend to take the lands from them. Consequently, the Mohegans aligned with some of Mason’s descendants in a lengthy battle against the colony for substantial tracts of land already widely settled by colonists. The lawsuit dragged on for more than seventy years. Frances Caulkins, a historian of Norwich, noted the support of Norwich residents for the Mohegans’ plight: The citizens of Norwich entered into the Mason controversy with great warmth and zeal, most of them espousing the cause of the Indians, some doubtless from an honest opinion that they had been injured and defrauded, and others from interested motives.3 Under the authority of Queen Anne, the Commissioners of all of the colonies served as representatives in court to argue the case. The aforementioned Thomas Leffingwell of Norwich, a longtime friend of the Mohegans, was one of the Commissioners and exerted considerable influence over the other members of the Commission. In 1705, the court ruled in favor of the Mohegans; however, the English government made little effort to enforce the ruling, and the Mohegans continued to suffer the loss of their lands. In 1720, the General Assembly of the Colony of Connecticut appointed a committee to hear the grievances of the Mohegans, deliberate possible reparations to the group, and “endeavor to settle all differences between them and their neighbors.”4 A subsequent meeting yielded a resolution that was “apparently successful in settling the various claims and reconciling all parties.”5 In 1721, between 4,000 and 5,000 acres of land was set aside and designated for the use of the Mohegan Indians.
Recommended publications
  • Connecticut Connections: the Places That Teach Us About Historical Archaeology

    Connecticut Connections: the Places That Teach Us About Historical Archaeology

    CONNECTICUT_CONNECTIONS_THE_PLACES_THAT 2/28/2017 4:13 PM Connecticut Connections: The Places That Teach Us About Historical Archaeology LUCIANNE LAVIN Institute for American Indian Studies To many people the word “archaeology” invokes images of Egyptian pyramids, Aztec temples, the treasures of ancient Rome. If they are aware of North American archaeology, they usually picture archaeology sites far west of New England – 10,000-year-old early man sites on the Plains or the Southwestern Pueblo cliff dwellers. They rarely consider Connecticut as a center of important archaeological activity. But it is! As the preceding articles on Connecticut archaeology aptly illustrate, our state’s rich multi-cultural heritage is reflected and informed by its archaeology sites. Connecticut contains thousands of prehistoric, historic, industrial, and maritime archaeological sites created by the ancestors of its various ethnic residents. Many are thousands of years old. Because Connecticut History is specifically an history journal, I will restrict my discussion to post- European contact archaeology sites. Archaeology sites provide insights on fascinating and important stories about Connecticut that often are not found in local history books. Domestic, commercial, and industrial archaeology sites provide clues to the diverse lifestyles of Connecticut’s residents through time, their community relationships and events, and the cultural changes that modified those lifestyles and connections. But where can one go to learn about Connecticut archaeology? The best places are the sites themselves. Plan an excursion to some of these wonderful archaeology localities where you can spend enjoyable, quality time with family and friends while learning about a specific aspect of local, regional, and even national history.
  • The Exchange of Body Parts in the Pequot War

    The Exchange of Body Parts in the Pequot War

    meanes to "A knitt them togeather": The Exchange of Body Parts in the Pequot War Andrew Lipman was IN the early seventeenth century, when New England still very new, Indians and colonists exchanged many things: furs, beads, pots, cloth, scalps, hands, and heads. The first exchanges of body parts a came during the 1637 Pequot War, punitive campaign fought by English colonists and their native allies against the Pequot people. the war and other native Throughout Mohegans, Narragansetts, peoples one gave parts of slain Pequots to their English partners. At point deliv so eries of trophies were frequent that colonists stopped keeping track of to individual parts, referring instead the "still many Pequods' heads and Most accounts of the war hands" that "came almost daily." secondary as only mention trophies in passing, seeing them just another grisly were aspect of this notoriously violent conflict.1 But these incidents a in at the Andrew Lipman is graduate student the History Department were at a University of Pennsylvania. Earlier versions of this article presented graduate student conference at the McNeil Center for Early American Studies in October 2005 and the annual conference of the South Central Society for Eighteenth-Century comments Studies in February 2006. For their and encouragement, the author thanks James H. Merrell, David Murray, Daniel K. Richter, Peter Silver, Robert Blair St. sets George, and Michael Zuckerman, along with both of conference participants and two the anonymous readers for the William and Mary Quarterly. 1 to John Winthrop, The History ofNew England from 1630 1649, ed. James 1: Savage (1825; repr., New York, 1972), 237 ("still many Pequods' heads"); John Mason, A Brief History of the Pequot War: Especially Of the memorable Taking of their Fort atMistick in Connecticut In 1637 (Boston, 1736), 17 ("came almost daily").
  • Mashantucket Pequot Tribe V. Town of Ledyard: the Preemption of State Taxes Under Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Comment

    Mashantucket Pequot Tribe V. Town of Ledyard: the Preemption of State Taxes Under Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Comment

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenCommons at University of Connecticut University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2014 Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard: The Preemption of State Taxes under Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Comment Edward A. Lowe Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Lowe, Edward A., "Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard: The Preemption of State Taxes under Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Comment" (2014). Connecticut Law Review. 267. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/267 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 47 NOVEMBER 2014 NUMBER 1 Comment MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE V. TOWN OF LEDYARD: THE PREEMPTION OF STATE TAXES UNDER BRACKER, THE INDIAN TRADER STATUTES, AND THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT EDWARD A. LOWE The Indian Tribes of the United States occupy an often ambiguous place in our legal system, and nowhere is that ambiguity more pronounced than in the realm of state taxation. States are, for the most part, preempted from taxing the Indian Tribes, but something unique happens when the state attempts to levy a tax on non-Indian vendors employed by a Tribe for work on a reservation. The state certainly has a significant justification for imposing its tax on non-Indians, but at what point does the non-Indian vendor’s relationship with the Tribe impede the state’s right to tax? What happens when the taxed activity is a sale to the Tribe? And what does it mean when the taxed activity has connections to Indian Gaming? This Comment explores three preemption standards as they were interpreted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case between the State of Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe.
  • A R I S T O N Talk March 13, 2012 Introduction Indo-European

    A R I S T O N Talk March 13, 2012 Introduction Indo-European

    A r i s t o n Talk March 13, 2012 Bryan A. Bentz [The following are the speaker’s notes] Introduction I’m going to talk about two language families, one that is to some extent familiar, one that is very likely not. The examples in the familiar context, that of the Indo-European family of languages, may help make the examples in the Algonquian family a bit clearer. My focus in within the second family will be local indian languages. I’m not sure what I should title the talk - since I’m going to start with Sanskrit and end with Pequot/Mohegan, I thought “Indian Languages”, with deliberate ambiguity, might fit. I decided to start with Indo-European because it’s interesting in its own right, and the material will be to some extent familiar. My purpose is really to lay the foundation for discussion of the Algonquian languages, by showing the sorts of analysis that may be done on a language family, and what may be learned, so I’m going to be relatively brief when it comes to Indo-European. It will be easier to see patterns and understand how holes may be filled in when discussing more familiar languages. Most people are aware that Latin is the root of the Romance languages (French, Spanish, Romanian, Italian, etc.), which evolved in geographically separate areas after the fall of the Roman Empire. Similarly, Indo-European is a common root to a much wider array of languages, including Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and German – indeed most European, Indian, and Iranian languages are rooted in it.
  • (King Philip's War), 1675-1676 Dissertation Presented in Partial

    (King Philip's War), 1675-1676 Dissertation Presented in Partial

    Connecticut Unscathed: Victory in The Great Narragansett War (King Philip’s War), 1675-1676 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Major Jason W. Warren, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: John F. Guilmartin Jr., Advisor Alan Gallay, Kristen Gremillion Peter Mansoor, Geoffrey Parker Copyright by Jason W. Warren 2011 Abstract King Philip’s War (1675-1676) was one of the bloodiest per capita in American history. Although hostile native groups damaged much of New England, Connecticut emerged unscathed from the conflict. Connecticut’s role has been obscured by historians’ focus on the disasters in the other colonies as well as a misplaced emphasis on “King Philip,” a chief sachem of the Wampanoag groups. Although Philip formed the initial hostile coalition and served as an important leader, he was later overshadowed by other sachems of stronger native groups such as the Narragansetts. Viewing the conflict through the lens of a ‘Great Narragansett War’ brings Connecticut’s role more clearly into focus, and indeed enables a more accurate narrative for the conflict. Connecticut achieved success where other colonies failed by establishing a policy of moderation towards the native groups living within its borders. This relationship set the stage for successful military operations. Local native groups, whether allied or neutral did not assist hostile Indians, denying them the critical intelligence necessary to coordinate attacks on Connecticut towns. The English colonists convinced allied Mohegan, Pequot, and Western Niantic warriors to support their military operations, giving Connecticut forces a decisive advantage in the field.
  • Learning from Foxwoods Visualizing the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

    Learning from Foxwoods Visualizing the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

    Learning from Foxwoods Visualizing the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation bill anthes Since the passage in 1988 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which recognized the authority of Native American tribal groups to operate gaming facilities free from state and federal oversight and taxation, gam- bling has emerged as a major industry in Indian Country. Casinos offer poverty-stricken reservation communities confined to meager slices of marginal land unprecedented economic self-sufficiency and political power.1 As of 2004, 226 of 562 federally recognized tribal groups were in the gaming business, generating a total of $16.7 billion in gross annual revenues.2 During the past two decades the proceeds from tribally owned bingo halls, casinos, and the ancillary infrastructure of a new, reserva- tion-based tourist industry have underwritten educational programs, language and cultural revitalization, social services, and not a few suc- cessful Native land claims. However, while these have been boom years in many ways for some Native groups, these same two decades have also seen, on a global scale, the obliteration of trade and political barriers and the creation of frictionless markets and a geographically dispersed labor force, as the flattening forces of the marketplace have steadily eroded the authority of the nation as traditionally conceived. As many recent commentators have noted, deterritorialization and disorganization are endemic to late capitalism.3 These conditions have implications for Native cultures. Plains Cree artist, critic, and curator Gerald McMaster has asked, “As aboriginal people struggle to reclaim land and to hold onto their present land, do their cultural identities remain stable? When aboriginal government becomes a reality, how will the local cultural identities act as centers for nomadic subjects?”4 Foxwoods Casino, a vast and highly profitable gam- ing, resort, and entertainment complex on the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in southwestern Connecticut, might serve as a test case for McMaster’s question.
  • William Bradford Makes His First Substantial

    William Bradford Makes His First Substantial

    Ed The Pequot Conspirator White William Bradford makes his first substantial ref- erence to the Pequots in his account of the 1628 Plymouth Plantation, in which he discusses the flourishing of the “wampumpeag” (wam- pum) trade: [S]trange it was to see the great alteration it made in a few years among the Indians themselves; for all the Indians of these parts and the Massachusetts had none or very little of it, but the sachems and some special persons that wore a little of it for ornament. Only it was made and kept among the Narragansetts and Pequots, which grew rich and potent by it, and these people were poor and beggarly and had no use of it. Neither did the English of this Plantation or any other in the land, till now that they had knowledge of it from the Dutch, so much as know what it was, much less that it was a com- modity of that worth and value.1 Reading these words, it might seem that Bradford’s understanding of Native Americans has broadened since his earlier accounts of “bar- barians . readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise.”2 Could his 1620 view of them as undifferentiated, arrow-hurtling sav- ages have been superseded by one that allowed for the economically complex diversity of commodity-producing traders? If we take Brad- ford at his word, the answer is no. For “Indians”—the “poor and beg- garly” creatures Bradford has consistently described—remain present in this description but are now joined by a different type of being who have been granted proper names, are “rich and potent” compared to “Indians,” and are perhaps superior to the English in mastering the American Literature, Volume 81, Number 3, September 2009 DOI 10.1215/00029831-2009-022 © 2009 by Duke University Press Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article-pdf/81/3/439/392273/AL081-03-01WhiteFpp.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 440 American Literature economic lay of the land.
  • The Wawaloam Monument

    The Wawaloam Monument

    A Rock of Remembrance Rhode Island Historical Cemetery EX056, also known as the “Indian Rock Cemetery,” isn’t really a cemetery at all. There are no burials at the site, only a large engraved boulder in memory of Wawaloam and her husband Miantinomi, Narragansett Indians. Sidney S. Rider, the Rhode Island bookseller and historian, collates most of the information known about Wawaloam. She was the daughter of Sequasson, a sachem living near a Connecticut river and an ally of Miantinomi. That would mean she was of the Nipmuc tribe whose territorial lands lay to the northwest of Narragansett lands. Two other bits of information suggest her origin. First, her name contains an L, a letter not found in the Narragansett language. Second, there is a location in formerly Nipmuc territory and presently the town of Glocester, Rhode Island that was called Wawalona by the Indians. The meaning of her name is uncertain, but Rider cites a “scholar learned in defining the meaning of Indian words” who speculates that it derives from the words Wa-wa (meaning “round about”) and aloam (meaning “he flies’). Together they are thought to describe the flight of a swallow as it flies over the fields. The dates of Wawaloam’s birth and death are unknown. History records that in 1632 she and Miantinomi traveled to Boston and visited Governor John Winthrop of the Massachusetts Colony at his house (Winthrop’s History of New England, vol. 1). The last thing known of her is an affidavit she signed in June 1661 at her village of Aspanansuck (Exeter Hill on the Ten Rod Road).
  • National Register of Historic Places Received JUL 2 5 Isee Inventory

    National Register of Historic Places Received JUL 2 5 Isee Inventory

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (3-82) Exp. 10-31-84 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use omy National Register of Historic Places received JUL 2 5 isee Inventory Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries complete applicable sections____________________________________ 1. Name___________________________ historic________N/A____*____________________________________________________ Connecticut State Park and Forest Depression-Era Federal Work Relief and or common Programs Structures Thematic Resource_______________________ 2. Location____________________________ street & number See inventory Forms___________________________-M/Anot for publication city, town______See Inventory Forms _ vicinity of__________________________ state_______Connecticut code 09_____county See Inventory Forms___code " 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district _ X_ public _ X- occupied agriculture museum _ X- building(s) private unoccupied commercial _ X-park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process _ X- Ves: restricted government scientific X thematic being considered - yes: unrestricted industrial transportation group IN/A no military other: 4. Owner of Property Commissionier Stanley Pac name Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection street & number 165 Capitol Avenue city, town___Hartford______________ vicinity of___________state Connecticut
  • Vol. 09 Mohegan-Pequot

    Vol. 09 Mohegan-Pequot

    Ducksunne, he falls down (dû´ksûnî´), perhaps cogn. with N. nu´kshean it falls down. Cf. Abn. pagessin it falls, said of a thunderbolt. Duckwong, mortar (dûkwâ´ng) = N. togguhwonk; RW. tácunuk; Abn. tagwaôgan; D. tachquahoakan, all from AMERICAN LANGUAGE the stem seen in N. togkau he pounds. See REPRINTS teecommewaas. Dunker tei, what ails you? (dûn kêtîâ´î). Dûn = Abn. tôni what; ke is the 2d pers.; t is the infix before a stem beginning with a vowel, and îâ´î is the verb ‘to be.’ Cf. Abn. tôni k-dâyin? ‘how are you,’ or ‘where are you?’ VOL. 9 Dupkwoh, night, dark (dû´pkwû) = Abn. tebokw. Loc. of dû´pkwû is dû´pkwûg. Een, pl. eenug, man (în, î´nûg) = N. ninnu, seen also in Abn. -winno, only in endings. Cf. Ojibwe inini. Trumbull says, in ND. 292, that N. ninnu emphasizes the 3d pers., and through it the 1st pers. Thus, noh, neen, n’un ‘he is such as this one’ or ‘as I am.’ Ninnu was used only when speaking of men of the Indian race. Missinûwog meant men of other races. See skeedumbork. Ewo, ewash, he says, say it; imv. (î´wó, î´wâs&). This con- tains the same stem as Abn. i-dam he says it. Cf. also RW. teagua nteawem what shall I say? In Peq. nê-îwó = I say, without the infixed -t. Gawgwan, see chawgwan. Ge, ger, you (ge). This is a common Algonquian heritage. 22 Chunche, must (chû´nchî) = Abn. achowi. This is not in N., where mos = must (see mus).
  • Fidelia Fielding

    Fidelia Fielding

    Fidelia Fielding Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with he met up with several Mohegan young men---Burrill unknown parameter “box_width” (this message is shown Tantaquidgeon, Jerome Roscoe Skeesucks, and Edwin only in preview). Fowler---who introduced him to Fielding. This encounter sparked a lifelong friendship with the Tantaquidgeon family. Speck interviewed Fidelia, recording notes on the Fidelia Ann Hoscott Smith Fielding (1827–1908), also known as Dji'ts Bud dnaca (“Flying Bird”), was the Mohegan language that he shared with his professor, John Dyneley Prince, who encouraged further research. Fi- daughter of Bartholomew Valentine Smith (c. 1811- 1843) and Sarah A. Wyyougs (1804-1868), and grand- delia eventually allowed Speck to view her personal day- daughter of Martha Shantup Uncas (1761-1859).[2] books (also called diaries) in which she recorded brief observations on the weather and local events, so that he She married Mohegan mariner William H. Fielding could understand and accurately record the written ver- (1811-1843), and they lived in one of the last “tribe sion of the Mohegan language. houses,” a reservation-era log cabin dwelling. She was known to be an independent-minded woman who was This material that Speck collected from Fidelia Fielding well-versed in tribal traditions, and who continued to inspired four publications in 1903 alone: “The Remnants speak the traditional Mohegan Pequot language during of our Eastern Indian Tribes” in The American Inventor, her elder years.[3] Vol. 10, pp. 266–268; “A Mohegan-Pequot Witchcraft Tale” in Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 16, pp. 104– 107; “The Last of the Mohegans” in The Papoose Vol.
  • Working Together to Preserve the Past

    Working Together to Preserve the Past

    CUOURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT information for Parks, Federal Agencies, Trtoian Tribes, States, Local Governments, and %he Privale Sector <yt CRM TotLUME 18 NO. 7 1995 Working Together to Preserve the Past U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Cultural Resources PUBLISHED BY THE VOLUME 18 NO. 7 1995 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Contents ISSN 1068-4999 To promote and maintain high standards for preserving and managing cultural resources Working Together DIRECTOR to Preserve the Past Roger G. Kennedy ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR Katherine H. Stevenson The Historic Contact in the Northeast EDITOR National Historic Landmark Theme Study Ronald M. Greenberg An Overview 3 PRODUCTION MANAGER Robert S. Grumet Karlota M. Koester A National Perspective 4 GUEST EDITOR Carol D. Shull Robert S. Grumet ADVISORS The Most Important Things We Can Do 5 David Andrews Lloyd N. Chapman Editor, NPS Joan Bacharach Museum Registrar, NPS The NHL Archeological Initiative 7 Randall J. Biallas Veletta Canouts Historical Architect, NPS John A. Bums Architect, NPS Harry A. Butowsky Shantok: A Tale of Two Sites 8 Historian, NPS Melissa Jayne Fawcett Pratt Cassity Executive Director, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Pemaquid National Historic Landmark 11 Muriel Crespi Cultural Anthropologist, NPS Robert L. Bradley Craig W. Davis Archeologist, NPS Mark R. Edwards The Fort Orange and Schuyler Flatts NHL 15 Director, Historic Preservation Division, Paul R. Huey State Historic Preservation Officer, Georgia Bruce W Fry Chief of Research Publications National Historic Sites, Parks Canada The Rescue of Fort Massapeag 20 John Hnedak Ralph S. Solecki Architectural Historian, NPS Roger E. Kelly Archeologist, NPS Historic Contact at Camden NHL 25 Antoinette J.