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 firstconcer n 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 fishedan d 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 firstdee d 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 finallyresolve d 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. When Gardiner heard his request for an alliance, he asked Wyandanch to prove his commitment to the English by attacking the remnants of the Pequots who had fled in terror to seek refuge on Long Island. Gardiner wanted the severed heads of Pequots as proof that Wyandanch had complied. As further encouragement he offered a bounty for each one. A short time later Wyandanch delivered five grisly trophies to Gardiner, sealing one of the most celebrated "friendships" between Indian and white in the local folklore. Gardiner purchased a small island adjacent to Montauk lands from Wyandanch and soon became a regular visitor in the Indian village. Wyandanch continued to demonstrate his loyalty to the English by passing along information about Nar­ ragansett and Niantic military activities. His policy of coop­ eration was rejected by many of the other influential village headmen in the area. The Shinnecock and Manhasset bands retained more friendly relations with the southern New Eng­ land tribes who were hostile to the whites. Local settlers in Southampton were so frightened about the possibility of an Indian attack that they posted sentries around the clock and prohibited the sale of harpoons and fishingiron s lest they be used as weapons against the whites (Pelletreau 1874:27-30). Clearly Wyandanch was unable to enforce his pro-English pol­ icy on the Shinnecock during the years immediately following the establishment of Southampton. The tensions between the Shinnecock and the Southamp­ ton settlers led the Indians to open up relations with the Dutch from New Netherland (Ales 1980; Trelease 1960). The local whites were alarmed to learn that the Dutch were trading gun- 188 JOHN STRONG powder to the Shinnecock and had begun to purchase land within the eight-mile area designated in the Sterling patent. These transactions were blocked by the English, but the threat of further Dutch involvement prompted them to consolidate their claims to the rest of the land on the south fork of Long Island. In 1648 Governor Eaton of New Haven and Governor Hop­ kins of Connecticut purchased a patent for the remaining land on the south fork of Long Island from Sterling's agent. The transaction was not complete, of course, until a deed had been negotiated with the Indians. This time only four Indians were involved in negotiating for an area of land about the same size as Southampton. These Indians were represented in the deed as the sachems of four separate tribes: Poggatacut of the Man- hasetts, Wyandanch of the Montauk, Momoweta of the Cor- chaug and Nowedonah of the Shinnecock (Appendix, Doc. 2). There are a number of interesting questions raised by this doc­ ument. The first and most curious is the assertion that a man named Nowedonah was the chief of the Shinnecock in spite of the fact that his name does not appear on the 1640 deed. The identity of Nowedonah remains a mystery. His name is not found on any of the surviving documents of the period. One also has to wonder what happened to all of the Shinnecock men who did sign the 1640 deed. During the spring of 1649 tensions between the Shinnecock and the settlers were intensified by the murder of Thomas Hal- sey's wife in Southampton. The Shinnecock were accused, but they refused to respond to the demands of the whites that the murderer be handed over to them. The hostile reaction of the Indians prompted the settlers to request aid from their ally, Wyandanch. The details of the events which followed are not clear, but it seems that Wyandanch located the "murderers" with surprising ease and took them to Connecticut where they were promptly hanged. The threat of force by the English must have been a factor in these developments. The oppor­ tunity was taken to impose Wyandanch's authority upon the Shinnecock. Thomas Halsey testified that Mandush, the Shin­ necock sachem, did "... give up all his right and interest unto [Wyandanch]" (Pelletreau 1874:158). Mandush was identified here as the Shinnecock sachem. His name did appear on the 1640 deed, yet he was apparently left TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 189 out of the negotiations for the East Hampton deed. The trans­ fer of power from Mandush to Wyandanch was ignored by the Southampton settlers a few months later when they called upon Mandush to settle a conflict over land use. The Indian mis­ conceptions about the terms of the 1640 deed were clearly at the heart of this conflict. The Shinnecock continued to dig for ground nuts, a staple of their diet, on land which was sched­ uled for development by the expanding white community. The Indians believed they had given the settlers only the right to land which was not being used at the time. Now they were confronted with the full implications of the earlier deed. The language of this new agreement is condescending and arrogant.

... whereas notwithstanding plaine written Covenants between the said Indians, and the said town of Southampton concerning the land which they bought of them, there hath been some troubles with the said Indians in regard of their planting on ground that belonged not to them, But to the said town (Appendix, Doc. 3).

If Wyandanch had been given the authority over the Shin­ necock lands, one has to wonder why he was not involved. The confusion and ambiguity surrounding Shinnecock political leadership further confirms the thesis that no tribal structures existed. The whites were simply manipulating the situation by imposing an artificial legitimacy when it suited their needs. The continuing growth of Southampton and East Hamp­ ton placed increasing stress on the Indians. In 1653 settlers in East Hampton set up armed guards around the village with orders to kill any Indian who attempted to enter the town after dark (Hedges 1887:31). The trouble may have been related to a move by Southampton settlers into the lands east of their village, setting off a dispute between the two white settlements which lasted into the 19th century. The Indians may have been drawn into the conflict. It was in the village of Southampton, however, that the tensions again led to violence. During the spring of 1657 some houses were burned, and an opportunity was again taken to assert greater control over the Shinnecock. The Southampton officials appealed to the colonial authorities in Hartford to send a show of military force, which would in­ timidate the Indians and reinforce Wyandanch's control over Shinnecock affairs. Lt. John Mason, who had led the troops in the massacre of the Pequot, was the perfect choice for the job. 190 JOHN STRONG

His well-deserved reputation as a ruthless foe of the Indians had spread throughout the English and Dutch settlements. Mason was under orders to negotiate with Wyandanch (Trum bull 1850:295-296). Mandush was to be completely ignored in a clear attempt to assert Wyandanch's authority. If the Shin­ necock protested, Mason was ordered to march to their villages with a show of force. Whether or not this was necessary was not recorded, but Mason did rule that the Shinnecock were collectively guilty of the damages and imposed a fine on the whole tribe of £ 700. He did this in spite of the testimony that only a few Shinnecock had been involved in the arson and that one of them had committed suicide rather than put himself in Mason's hands (Pulsifer 1859:180). All of the Shinnecock were held responsible for the acts of a few individuals. The clear evidence that there was no centralized tribal authority was simply ignored. The fine itself was used as a mechanism to increase English control over the Indians with payment to be supervised by Wyandanch, who would be held responsible if the Shinnecock defaulted. Now Wyandanch was even more deeply ensnared in the colonial machinery. He had gained some personal power, but at the same time he was burdened with a new responsibil­ ity. Although the exorbitant fine was later reduced to i?400, the Shinnecock had no collective resources except their land. Gardiner now began to refer to Wyandanch as the "Grand Sachem" of all Long Island. The title was used by Gardiner to provide a cloak of legitimacy for his land transactions. The protests of Indians who were outraged at the audacity of these procedures were simply ignored (Ales 1980:65). In the two years which followed no less than seven deeds were signed by Wyandanch. Suspicions of fraud must have been in the air, because the deed signed on July 28, 1659 had an addendum stating that the Indians had not signed "... under compulsion" (Albany Book of Deeds, Box 453-1, page 81). This was the second document signed between Wyandanch and Gardiner within a two week period and may have aroused suspicions about the transactions. Many of these deeds were also signed by Wyandanch's son, Wiancombone, in what appears to have been an attempt to establish a form of inherited tribal authority. This transfer of power is as alien to band-level political systems as the title TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 191 of "Grand Sachem". The concern for succession was timely because Wyandanch was poisoned in the fall of 1659. The murder was never solved, but there were certainly a large num­ ber of people, both Indian and white, who had motives. In a rather unceremonious scramble following Wyandanch's death, Lion Gardiner and John Ogden, another local settler with an interest in land acquisitions, both claimed to be Wiancom- bone's guardian (Pulsifer 1859:219-220). Others ran after any promising candidate for the vacant title that they could find. The aggressive intrusion of private individuals into the compe­ tition for the purchase of Indian land alarmed the local town governments. In the midst of all this confusion, Wiancombone died of smallpox, leaving his sister Quashawam as the only surviving member of Wyandanch's immediate family. The situation dis­ rupted a number of land transactions. A particularly chaotic tangle of claims to lands directly west of the boundary set in the 1640 Southampton deed prompted the town officials to impose an elaborate system of tribal succession worthy of En­ glish royalty (Appendix, Doc. 4). In 1663 Quashawam was designated "Sunk Squaw", a title used among the tribes of New England for a female elder who served in a leadership role. Although Sunk Squaws are frequently mentioned in the ethnographic data, we have very little information about their powers. Possibly Quashawam was chosen by whites and given this title because it had some degree of credibility among the larger tribes across the sound. In order to avoid the chaos following the death of Wiancom­ bone, it was decided that in the event of Quashawam's death, her uncle's son, Awansamawage, would become sachem. If he should die without a male heir, the title of Grand Sachem would fall to the son of the Corchaug sachem. Awansamawage was to serve as Quashawam's agent at Shinnecock, remaining under her supervision until his 21st birthday. At that time he would become the official Shinnecock sachem subject to Quashawam only in "... general concernments". The ques­ tion of credibility for this hereditary structure does not appear to have troubled the English. The response of the Shinnecock to this is unknown, but the Montauk Indians were certainly in no position to enforce their will on the Shinnecock without the aid of the whites. Plague and war had reduced their numbers 192 JOHN STRONG to a small number of households encamped near the village of East Hampton for protection (Smith 1925:14-17). The imposed system of tribal authority was blatantly arti­ ficial, and without Wyandanch's presence to give it a modicum of authenticity, it soon began to collapse. Enterprising specu­ lators ignored Quashawam in their rush to obtain choice pieces of land from any Indian who would deal with them. Following the establishment of the colony of New York, the new governor attempted to bring order to the land scramble by requiring that after 1664 all land transactions with Indians had to be approved by his office. The Indian sachems had to come be­ fore the colonial authorities and testify that the deeds were legitimate. All deeds would then be entered into the colonial records. This action was a precursor to the federal law passed in 1790 prohibiting the alienation of any Indian lands without the approval of Congress. It was also an obvious strategy to squeeze out the private real estate dealers, who were continu­ ally making their own deals with selected Indians who could demonstrate any claim to authority, no matter how slim. From this point on there was to be only one fox in the chicken coop. The following year the governor himself put an end to the fictional title of Grand Sachem. He had been besieged with complaints from settlers and several Indian groups about the Wyandanch deeds. The governor responded with the following decree: that there should be no superior sachem upon Long Island, but that every sachem shall keep his particular propriety over his people as formerly (Book of Deeds 1659-1667:125-126).

The office of sachem or chief and the concept of tribal au­ thority was not completely abandoned because it was still a useful mechanism for social control. In 1670 Governor Francis Lovelace demanded that the Shinnecock elect a sachem. One can imagine the confusion this must have caused among the Indians. The result was the appointment of Quaquashawag, a Shinnecock who was one of the more enthusiastic deed signers on the whole of Long Island. He was to be aided by another Shinnecock named Cawbutt, who was made "constable" with the responsibility for maintaining "... good order among the Shinnecock" (Fernow 1883:64). The sham of self-government was exposed less than three TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 193 years later when Cawbutt was stripped of his office and accused of leading a riotous group of Indians through town, breaking windows and committing unnamed "mischievous acts". Such pranks undoubtedly reflected a continuing undercurrent of re­ sentment against the settlers. The town threatened to have them sent to New York in chains unless they reformed (Pel­ letreau 1877:202). Quaquashawag was not even consulted. The local white constable was ordered to take over Cawbutt's duties and impose good order on the Shinnecock villages. In the decades which followed, the Indians were left alone unless they threatened the lives or property of the white set­ tlers. At the close of the 17th century, however, the whites in Southampton pressed for the remaining Indian lands. In 1703 negotiations were set up with three Shinnecock headmen. Two of them were given personal gifts of money in addition to a larger sum of £20 for distribution among their fellow vil­ lagers. Several gallons of rum were provided at public expense for the negotiators (Strong 1983). The Indians were persuaded to sign away all of the tribal lands, including the area where their villages were located. Angry protests by the rest of the Shinnecock community and some sympathetic whites forced a last-minute compromise. A thousand year lease was drawn up to include the main village area and a few hundred acres of barren sand hills. The birthright was gone. The Indians were now living on rented land. The leadership system among the Shinnecock appears to have returned to the traditional egalitarianism of prehistoric times. As the century drew to a close, however, a new pat­ tern of land use presented some problems for the whites. Lo­ cal farmers began to rent land within the lease area for grazing and planting. Disagreements over the rentals often caused con­ flicts between Indians and whites which were difficult to resolve because there were no clearly designated Shinnecock leaders. Once again a system of leadership was imposed upon the Shin­ necock. This time, however, the system was in harmony with native traditions. In 1792 the Shinnecock men over 21 gath­ ered at the Southampton town hall under the supervision of the Town Clerk and elected three trustees, who were authorized to negotiate land rentals with the whites, represent the commu­ nity in its relations with outsiders and regulate the allocation of land plots (Strong_and_Holmberg 1983). The trustees served 194 JOHN STRONG for one year and were elibible for an indefinite number of re- elections. The shared leadership system was more acceptable to the Shinnecock than the others imposed on them previously. The yearly elections have continued in unbroken succession up to the present. The last major interference in Shinnecock affairs was promptec by the extension of the railroad across a portion of their land in 1859. The local whites convinced some of the Indians to abrogate the lease in exchange for a deed in fee simple to a smaller area where the reservation is located today. Two con­ flicting petitions were sent to the state legislature in Albany from the Shinnecock. One group favoured the exchange and the other was vehemently opposed. In spite of charges of fraud and forgery, the new arrangement was presented to the legisla­ ture, which promptly approved a law enabling the town officials to follow through with their plans. The ethnographic and archaeological data support the the­ sis that the local Indian communities on eastern Long Island were primarily dependent upon hunting and gathering. They lived in small villages along the coastal streams and sheltered bays. The English arbitrarily imposed a tribal system on the bands to facilitate the process of land alienation and to estab­ lish social control over them. This strategy enabled the whites to confiscate the land and undermine the aboriginal political structures. Even the well-intentioned reforms initiated by John Collier during the New Deal were a part of this same pattern. The one positive option which the Indians had was to take over the alien structure and turn it into a mechanism which could expand and protect the parameters of indigenous Indian decision making.

REFERENCES Adams, James Truslow 1918 A History of the Town of Southampton. Port Washington, New York: Ira Friedman. [Reprinted in 1962.]

Ales, Marion Fisher 1980 A History of the Indians on Montauk, Long Island. Pp. 13- 124 in The History and Archaeology of the Montauk Indians. Gaynell Stone Levine, ed. Lexington, Mass.: Ginn. TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 195

Fernow, Berthold, ed. 1883 Documents Relating to the History of the Early Settlements, Principally on Long Island. Albany: Weed, Parsons. Harrington, Mark 1924 An Ancient Village Site of the Shinnecock Indians. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 22: Pt. 5. Hayes, Rose Oldfield 1983 Shinnecock Land Ownership and Use: Prehistoric and Colonial Influences on Modern Adaptive Modes. Pp. 331-336 in The Shinnecock Indians: A Culture History. Gaynell Stone, ed. Lexington, Mass.: Ginn. Hedges, Henry, ed. 1887 Records of the Town of East Hampton (l) Sag Harbor, New York: J. H. Hunt. New York State 1659 Albany Book of Deeds. Office of the Secretary of State. Box 453-1. O'Callaghan, E. B., ed. 1850 Documentary History of the State of New York (1). Albany: Weed, Parsons. Pelletreau, William 1874 The First Book of Records of the Town of Southampton Sag Harbour, New York: J. H. Hunt. 1877 The Second Book of Records of the Town of Southampton Sag Harbour, New York: J. H. Hunt. Pulsifer, David, ed. 1859 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth. (Volume 10 includes the Acts of the Commissioners of the United Colonies, 1-2) Boston: William White. Service, Elman 1962 Primitive Social Organizations: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random House. Smith, Raymond, ed. 1926 Information Concerning Montauk. East Hampton Town Archives, Town Clerk's Office. Street, Charles, R. 1887 Huntington Town Records, 1658-1688. Published by the towns of Huntington and Babylon. 196 JOHN STRONG

Strong, John . , . 1983 The Evolution of Shinnecock Culture. Pp. 1-52 in The Shin­ necock Indians: A Culture History. Gaynell Stone, ed. Lexing­ ton, Mass.: Ginn.

Strong, Lisa, and Frank Holmberg 1983 The Shinnecock Trusteeship System 1792-1983. Pp. 226-230 in The Shinnecock Indians: A Culture History. Gaynell Stone, ed. Lexington, Mass.: Ginn.

Trumbull, J. Hammond, ed. 1850 The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut(l). Hartford: Brown and Parsons.

Trealease, Allan 1960 Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Cen­ tury. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Document No. 1: 1/The Deed Between the Shinnecock and the Original English Settlers of Southampton (December 13, 1640) This indenture, made the 13th day of December, Anno Dom. 1640, be- tweene Pomatuck, Mandush, Mocomanto, Pathemanto, Wybbenett, Wain- menowog, Heden, Watemexoted, Checkepuchat, the native Inhabitants & true owners of the Long Island, on the one part, and Mr. John Gosmer, Edward Howell, Daniell How, Edward Needham, Thomas Halsey, John Cooper, Thomas Sayre, Edward Flaxrington, Job Sayre, George Welbee, Allen Breade, Will'm Harker, Henry Walton. On the other part, witnes- seth that the sayed Indians for due consideration of sixteene coats already received, and alsoe three score bushells of indian corne to bee payed vpon lawfull demand the last of September, which shall bee in the yeare 1641, & further in consideration that the above named English shall defend vs the sayed Indians from the unjust violence of whatever Indians shall illegally assaile vs. doe absolutely & for ever give & grant & by these presents doe acknowledge ourselues, to have giuen & granted to the partyes above men­ tioned, without any fraude, guile, mentall reservation or equivocation to them & their he ires & successors for ever, all the lands, woods, waters, wa­ ter courses, easements, proffits & emolumeents thence arisinge what soeuer, from the place comonly knowne by the place where the Indians hayle over their cannooes out of the North bay to the south side of the Island, from thence to possess all the lands lying eastward between the foresaid bounds by water, to wit, all the lands lying eastward between the foresaid bounds by water, to wit, all the land pertaining to the parteyes aforesaid as alsoe all the old ground formerly planted lying eastward from the firstcree k at the westemore end of Shinecock plaine, To have & to hold forever without any claime or challenge of the least title, interest or propriety whatsoever of TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 197 vs the sayd Indians or our heyres or successors or any others by our leave, appointment license counsel or authority whatsoever, all the land bounded as is above said. In full testimonie of this our absolute bar gaine, contract & grant indented & in full & complete satisfaction & establishment of this our act & deed of passing over all our title and interest in the premises, with all emolumonts & profits thereto appertaining or any wise belonging from sea or land within our limitts above specified without all guile wee haue set to our hands the day and yeare above sayd. Memorand. Before subscribing of this present writing it is agreed that the Indians aboue named shall haue libertie to breake vp ground for theire vse to the westward of the creek afore mentioned on the west side of Shinecock plaine.

Witnesses of the deliverie MANATACUT, X his mark, & subscribinge this writing. MANDUSH, X his mark, ABRAHAM PIERSON, WYBENET, X his mark, EDWARD STEPHENSON, HOWES, X his mark, ROBERT TERRY, SECOMMECOCK, X his mark, JOSEPH HOWE, MOCOMANTO, X his mark, THOMAS WHITEHONE, these in tho name of the rest. JOSHUA GRIFFITHS, WILLIAM HOWE.

Source: William Pelletreau, ed., The First Book of Records of the Town of Southampton. Sag Harbour: Hunt, 1874, pp. 12-14.

Document No. 2: The East Hampton Deed 1648

APRILL the 29th, 1649. This present writing testifieth an agreement between the worship'll Theo- philus Eaton, Esquire, Governour of the Colony New Haven, And the worship'll Edward Hopkins, Esquire, governour of the Colony Connecti­ cut, and their astoyats on the one parte, And Poggatacut, Sachem of Munhansett, Wayandanch, Sachem Meuntacut, Momowetow, Sachem of Corchake, Nowedonah, Sachem of Shinecoke, and their asotyts, the other Part. The said Sachems having sould unto the foresaid Mr. Eaton and Mr. Hopkins, with their asotyats, all the Land lyinge from the bounds of the Inhabitants of Southampton, unto the East side of Napeak, next unto Me­ untacut high Land, with the whole breadth from Sea to Sea, not Intrench­ ing uppon any in length or breadth, which the Inhabitants of Southampton, have and do possess, as they by Lawfull right shall make appeare, for and in consideration of twentie Coates, twentie-four looking-glasses, twentie four hoes, twentie-four hatchets, twentie-four knives, One hundred muges, all- ready Received by us, the forenamed Sachems, for ourselves and asotyats; and in consideration therof, we doe give upp unto the said Purchasers, all our right and Interest in the said Land, to them and their heirs forever. 198 JOHN STRONG

AUsoe doe bind ourselves, to secure their right from any claims of any others, whether Indians, or other Nation whatsoever, that doe, or may hereafter, challenge Interest therein. Allsoe, we, the said Sachems, have Covenanted to have Libertie, freely to fishi n any or all the cricks and ponds, and hunt up and downe in the woods without Molestation, they giving the English Inhabitants noe just offence, or Injurie to their goods and Chattells. Likewise, they are to have the fynns and tails of allsuch whales as shall be cast upp, to their proper right and desire they may bee dealt with in the other part. Allsoe, they reserve libertie to fishi n all convenient places, for Shells to make wampum. Allsoe, if the Indyans, hunting of any deare, they should chase them into the water, and the English should kill them, the English shall have the body, and the Sachem the skin. And in Testimony of our well performance hereof, we have sett to our hands, the Day and year above written.

Witnesses to this, RICHARD WOODHULL The marke of POGGATACUT, Munhansett, Sachem. THO STANTON, The marke of WAYANDANCH, Meantacutt Sachem. ROBERT BOND, The marke of MOMOWETA, Corchake Sachem. JOB SAYRE, The marke of NOWEDONAH, Shinecok Sachem. Chectanoo, X his marke, their Interpreter,

Source: Hedges. Records of the Town of East Hampton 1887:2-4.

Document No. 3: THE 1649 LAND USE AGREEMENT

Articles of Agreement: Indented and concluded Between the Town of Southampton on the one part and Seponark Indians on the other part: In the presence of the Meantauk Sachem Thomas Stanton of Hartford being call for them and there present as interpreter. December 28, 1649. l8t, whereas, notwithstanding plaine written Covenants between the said Indians, and the said Towne of Southampton, concerning the land which they bought of them, there hath been some trouble with the said Indians in regard of their planting on ground that belonged not to them But to the Towne. At a overall meeting of, both the Townes men of Southampton aforesaid, and the said Indians as about said, It is now fully consented unto, and determinately agreed upon betweene the said parties, concerning the bounds of the said Indians their land as followeth. They the said Indians are to have as their right and all the planting lands lying westward from the head of the Long Creek beyond the great plains toward Shonecock, but the Long Creek at Seponack aforesaid, where a warehouse, belonging unto the said English did formerly stand. 2ly, It is agreed upon between the said parties, that they the said Indians shall make a sufficient fence against all sorts of cattle between the said Creeks or what else may be found necessary for them thereby to secure their corn and if they do not make such said sufficient provision by farming, TRIBAL SYSTEMS AND LAND ALIENATION 199 that then they are to to what damage they shall suffer. 3r ly, The said Indians do hereby promise to see to the safety of the said English theire cattle, By stoping or fillingsufficientl y their corn barnes, and all other pitts, or holes that they have digged, or may digg within the circumference of their said limits. 4thly, It is concluded that as the said Indians are quietly to possess the said planting land, for all anything the said English shall do or truly to be done (without instance) for the said English are to have all the meadow and mowing ground within the said cowpass of the Indians their said bounded. 5ly, The said English shall have free liberty without molestation to put any of cattle (hoggs only excepted) within the said Indians their said boundaries, at the expiration of ten days after the Indian corn shall bee gathered, and so from year to year and for prevention of all future difference, it is concluded that the said English shall have free Liberty, to make highways within the said bounds of the said Indians onto any part or parcel of the said meadow or mowing grounds, as all for highways to the watersides, as formerly they have had by virtue of purchase In witness whereof the parties aforementioned, liave Interchangesbly fell to their hands the day and year before mentioned.

In presence of Cartegue Nansepootayans Pomeboy Owasayno Weeganaw Marthemohomank Mandush Pam—bock Source: Indian Papers, 1640-1670, p. 2. Southampton Town Archives. Transcribed by Toby Papageorge, July, 1983.

Document No. 4: The Agreement Imposing a System of Inherited Leader­ ship on the Shinnecock [PAGE 49.] An agreement betweene the great Sunk squa Quashawam, and the Indians of Shinecock as folloueth, viz that ye said Indians from tyme to tyme, and at all tymes hereafter strictly observe this firm league never to bee broken on either side, and that it bee maintained by the authority of ye Long Island. And in order therevnto it is determined, ffirst. That Shenecock Indians as now doe ever hereafter owne Quashawam to bee their supreame, and pay her all honour according to the custome of the Indians. And that they maintain her in all prerogatives according to former customes, in relation to other Indians, to their power. 2 That Quashawam doe not Authorize any Indians of Mantacut to plunder the Shinecock Indians until the chiefe English namely the authority, bee first acquainted with the neglect of those her Indians of Shinecock above said, and not findeing relief to proceed as formerly. 3d That after the death of Quashawam, Awansamawge her unchles son have the sole power, and after his decease hee not haveing an heyre male to the son of 200 JOHN STRONG

Corchaug Sachem. And after his death to Ponoqt son of Sasagatacco whoe is the meantime to bee looked vpon as a Sachem. And for want of heyres male from him, to the children of Quashawam, and for want of ishue from them to ye nearest of blood to Wyandank then to bee found. 4th That Awansamaug bee placed at Shinecock this next summer, 1664, and there remain in subordination to Quashawam vntil hee bee one and twenty yeares of age, and then to bee the chief Sachem of Shinecock, and subordinate to the said Quashawam only in general! concernments. 5th That if Meantacutt Indians shall not pay tribute to Quashawam, true heyre of their master Wyandanch, that then the said Shenecock Indians and ye authority of the Long Island (or without ye said Authority if Quawhawam desire it), cause them ye said Meantacutt Indians to pay their obedience in every respect. And soe all other Indians on Long Island afore said. 6th That there bee from this time a vniversall forgetfulness in relation to any hostility on either side. 7th and lastly. That the Indians of Shinecock paying fourty pounds to the English of Southampton on Long Island aforesaid, and fully cleare Mr Ogden of the said debt, of fourty pounds, as premised that then [PAGE 50.] they shall bee acquitted for ever of their part of the fire money. To every of these Articles Clauses and Agreements the sunk squa Quashawam, and fowre of ye Shenecock Indians, in the name and by the consent of the rest, as being impouered, before the English of Southampton that are here subscribed as witnesses.

Signed sealed and delivered The mark of QUASHAWAM for the end premised, the 11 day of Feb. 1603 Sunk Squa John Howell ye mark of X QUAQUASHAUG Thomas Baker ye mark of X IASKHONSE James Herrick ye mark of X AOOABACO

Joseph Rainer. ye mark of X APPANOH Source: William Pelletreau, ed., The Second Book of Records of the Town of Southampton. Sag Harbor: John Hunt, 1877, pp. 36-37.