Tribal Systems and Land Alienation: a Case Study

Tribal Systems and Land Alienation: A Case Study JOHN STRONG Long Island University The use of deceit, force and manipulation by whites to di vest Indians of their ancestral lands is generally acknowledged, although local historians will often argue that in their areas things were different. Their ancestors treated Indians honestly, buying land from the chief of the tribe fairly and squarely. In deed, most local histories celebrate a "chief" who was a special friend of the first settlers, protecting them in time of trou ble, providing them with food and signing the inevitable peace treaty, which included large chunks of real estate. This chief generally had a beautiful daughter who played a dramatic role in local folklore. She was either kidnapped by the bad Indians and rescued by whites or married to a white settler. Fanciful variations of this tale are told over and over as evidence of good relations between "our" Indians and our ancestors. The assertion repeated in so many accounts, which said that a tribal chief who spoke for his people negotiated away the land in a legitimate transaction, was nearly always sup ported by a written document bearing the signature or sign of the chief. Although questions were often raised about the na ture of the chief's authority by the Indians themselves and by rival groups of whites who were defending conflicting land ti tles, the office proved remarkably resilient. The reason for this resilience becomes clearer when we examine the deed process more closely. The process of land alienation on eastern Long Island provides an excellent case study. The first concern is to determine whether tribal systems of government existed on eastern Long Island when the whites arrived. 184 JOHN STRONG The search for patterns of political organization in tradi tional societies is a continuing challenge for the anthropologist, but there are some fairly solid areas of consensus in the pro fessional literature. Most anthropologists have accepted the four categories outlined by Elman Service (1962). He divided political systems, on the basis of complexity, into band, tribe, chiefdom and state. The criteria established by Service for band-level political systems can be summarized as follows: 1. 1. There are no established leadership positions that are inher ited. 2. Decisions are generally made by the elders and must be en dorsed by the whole community. 3. The elders gain their authority by force of their personality, by their individual talents, or simply by growing old. 4. Young men may assume temporary authority in situations which call for a particular skill or experience. Leadership is situational rather than permanent. 5. There is no status hierarchy. Material possessions are held in common. 6. The population base for the band ranges from 20 to 50 peo ple living in close proximity. This group will generally have close kinship ties to several nearby villages. These groups will frequently join together for religious festivals, hunting, fishing, trading or raiding expeditions. 7. These communities produce little surplus beyond the needs for winter survival. Trade is generally limited to a local net work and involves few luxury items. By contrast, tribal systems have a much larger population with more clearly defined political and religious hierarchies. The kinship network which unifies a tribe is rigorously struc tured and enforced by many taboos and mutual obligations. These societies generally rely on agriculture to feed their ex panded population base. Even here, however, leadership is fre quently divided among war chiefs, peace chiefs and holy men. Few of these traditional chiefs ever had the power on their own to sell tribal land with a simple stroke of the pen. The archaeological and ethnographic data on Long Island Indians clearly indicate that they were living in small bands from Archaic times until the arrival of the whites (Strong 1983). The Indians here share a culture area with the southern New England tribes. The Shinnecock, Montauk, Corchaug and Manhasset bands were scattered in small villages over the east- TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 185 em end of Long Island when the first English settlements were established at Southampton and Southold. The Shinnecock appear to have lived in several small villages along the streams feeding into the bays where they fished and gathered shell fish. An archaeological site excavated by Mark Harrington in 1902 is located about a mile from the Shinnecock reservation (Har rington 1924). The small settlement area contained Archaic, Woodland and Post-contact components, indicating a conti nuity of residence for several thousand years. The excavation also revealed a fairly stable pattern of adjustment to the envi ronment over the centuries. The residents of the small villages lived in dome-shaped wigwams on the western bank of Sebonac Creek where it emptied into Bullhead Bay. Remains of oysters, hard and soft-shelled clams, scallops, crabs and a variety offish were found in abundance, but there was little evidence of tools associated with plant cultivation. Nothing in the data suggests the existence of tribal institutions. The ethnographic sources which have survived from the colonial period tend to support the conclusions drawn from the archaeological reports. The earliest accounts by Dutch ob servers frequently mention the absence of real authority vested in a sachem by his own people (O'Callaghan 1850 (l): 281- 282). The most convincing evidence, however, comes from the early deeds and "agreements" signed by both Indians and whites. The first deed negotiated on eastern Long Island was the purchase of land for the village of Southampton (Appendix, Doc. 1). The settlers arrived in the spring of 1640 with a patent for eight square miles of land which they had purchased from the agent of Lord Sterling. Sterling had been given title to enormous portions of southern New England by the King and had decided to turn his grant into liquid assets (Adams 1918). The settlers completed their planting, harvested their first crop and prepared their shelter for the winter before turning their attention to the question of Indian land title. The reasons for the delay are not clear, but it may have been because there was no Indian leader with whom they could negotiate in their accustomed manner. They may also have been a bit reluc tant because of a feeling that the land had already been paid for when the patent was purchased. There was probably very little genuine concern for this second purchase from the local Indians. The patent stated in a rather casual manner that the 186 JOHN STRONG settlers must ... make purchase in their own name and at their own leisure from any Indian that inhabit or have lawful right to any of the aforesaid land or part thereof and thereby assume it to themselves and their heirs as their inheritance forever (Pelletreau 1874:11). Governor John Winthrop's endorsement of the patent expressed outright annoyance that Indian land rights had to be consid ered at all. "The land within granted being a mere wilderness and ye natives of ye place pretending some interest which ye planters must purchase ..." (Adams 1918:262). The matter was finally resolved by calling in 12 Shinnecock Indians to negotiate for the land. These men may have been spokesmen for the villages located in the eight mile area. Sur face collections of archaeological materials suggest that there may have been as many as five small villages clustered around the streams and tidal bays here. The absence of a single In dian who could wield authority over such a small area of land clearly indicates that there were no tribal chiefs among the Shinnecock. Another indication of the level of complexity of Shinnecock social institutions was also revealed in the same document. The deed calls upon the whites to provide the In dians with "... three score bushells of Indian come to bee payed upon lawfull demand the last of September in the yeare 1641..." (Appendix, Doc. 1). Clearly the Shinnecock had not developed an agricultural system equivalent to that of the New England tribes. Anthropological research on the historic Shin necock by Rose Oldfield Hayes (1983) led her to conclude that the absence of an agricultural tradition was a consistent theme from prehistoric to contemporary times. We have no way of knowing what was in the minds of the Shinnecock during the discussions about the deed. The land, of course, was not viewed as a commodity which could be bought or sold. It was a sacred part of nature to be used for the common benefit of the community. The settlers simply ignored this cultural gap and proceeded as if they were buying land from other Englishmen who fully understood the nature and consequences of property sales. This cumbersome procedure was probably a factor in the decision to find a less awkward means of clearing Indian land title to the rest of eastern Long Island. TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 187 A new strategy was soon developed. The groundwork had been laid about three years before the settlers arrived at South ampton. Lion Gardiner, an English engineer who was super vising the construction of Fort Saybrook at the mouth of the Connecticut River, formed an alliance with a young Montauk village headman named Wyandanch, whose village was located to the east of the Shinnecock lands on the southern fork of Long Island. During the bloody Pequot War soon after the massacre of Pequot men, women and children in the village near Mystic, Connecticut by troops under the command of Lt. John Mason, Wyandanch visited Gardiner at Fort Saybrook. Wyandanch had decided that an alliance with the English might protect his people from a similar fate.

Load more