From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the 1994 film, see Squanto: A Warrior's Tale.
1911 illustration of Tisquantum ("Squanto") teaching the Plymouth colonists to plant maize.
Born 1574 – 1594 ?
(now Plymouth Bay, Massachusetts)
Died November 30, 1622
Chatham, Massachusetts Bay Colony, English America
Nationality Patuxet
Other names Squanto, Squantum, Tisquantum
Known for Guidance, advice and translation services to the Mayflower settlers

Tisquantum (c. 1585 ? – November 30, 1622), variously spelled in 17th-century documents and commonly known as Squanto today, was one of the last of the Patuxet, a Native North American people living on the western coast of Cape Cod Bay. He is known for having been an early liaison with the Mayflower settlers, who acted as a translator, guide and advisor as he lived among them for nearly a year.

Years before the Mayflower's first landing, Squanto was abducted by an English explorer/adventurer In 1614, who attempted to sell him and other kidnapped Natives in Spain. Squanto somehow made his way from Spain to England, where he resided for some time at the home of an official of the Newfoundland Company, during which time he learned the English language. In 1617 he accompanied an English explorer to Newfoundland. There he met another explorer, Thomas Dermer, who, as a result of Squanto's descriptions, became interested in the commercial possibilities of southern New England. The two returned to England to seek permission to explore the area. From there in March 1619 Dermer and Squanto took passage on a vessel that had been fitted out for voyage to New England. On his return Squanto learned of the plague which had decimated the Patuxets and many other peoples in eastern New England. Squanto proved crucial in mediating between New England Natives and Dermer. When Squanto left Dermer to search for the remnants of his people, Dermer was attacked by Natives and barely escaped to Virginia. No records exist of his activities from that time until his famous encounter with the Mayflower settlement in 1621, although it is likely he became a prisoner of the Pokanoket, the tribe that had subordinated (or attempted to) the Patuxets years before as part of the Wampanoag Confederacy.

Squanto's chief fame resulted from his efforts to bring about peaceable contact and alliance between the English Separatists who had come to the New World on the Mayflower and the Pokanoket. Owing to his facility with English, Squanto played a key role in the early meetings in March 1621. He soon became attached to the Separatists, whom he assisted in plantings of native vegetables and dealings with other native tribes. As he became more trusted by the Separatists, Squanto engaged in an intrigue evidently designed to incite hostilities between the Separatists and certain Pokanoket. When the Great Sachem of the Pokanoket requested his life, the settlers failed to turn him over, creating a rift between the Separatists and the Pokanoket sachem. In September 1622, as a result of an increasing number of settlers sent from England, severe food shortages arose. Squanto accompanied William Bradford on an expedition to Cape Cod for the purpose of trading with the native inhabitants for food. It was during this expedition that Squanto fell ill and died.

Considerable mythology and legend has surrounded Squanto over time, largely because of early praise by Bradford and owing to the central role that the "Thanksgiving" festival of 1621 plays in American folk history. Bradford's later assessment of Squanto, however, was more realistic and acknowledged the more complicated character of the man.


Documents from the 17th century variously spell Squanto's name as Tisquantum, Tasquantum, Tusquantum, Squanto, Squantum, Tantum and Tantam.[1] Even the two Mayflower settlers who dealt with him most closely spelled his name differently: William Bradford called him "Squanto" while Edward Winslow invariably called him "Tisquantum."[2] One suggestion of the meaning is that it derives from the Algonquian expression for the rage of the Manitou, "the world-suffusing spiritual power at the heart of coastal Indians’ religious beliefs."[3] Manitou was not a being. Rather it was "the spiritual potency of an object … or aphenonmenon," the force which made "everything in Nature responsive to man."[4] Other suggestions have been offered,[a] but all involve some relationship to beings or powers that the English associated with the devil or evil. It is therefore unlikely that it was his birth name rather than one he acquired or assumed later in life, but there is no historical evidence on this point. The name may suggest, for example, that he underwent special spiritual and military training (as a pniesesock, or otherwise), and for this reason was selected for his role as liaison with the English settlers in 1620 (see below).[7] Or perhaps the name was selected at the time of his 1621 encounter with the English settlers either as a defense to their cultural or religious influence or because he was entering a cultural no-mans-land.[b]

Early life and years of bondage[edit]

Almost nothing is known of Squanto's life before his first contact with Europeans, and even when and how that first encounter took place is subject to contradictory assertions.

The indigenous culture from which Squanto came[edit]

"[T]he time and circumstances of Squanto's birth are unknown."[10] But given that first hand descriptions of him written between 1618 and 1622 do not remark on his youth or old age, it has been suggested that a reasonable presumption is that he was in his twenties or thirties when he was forcibly embarked to Spain in 1614,[11] and therefore was born around 1585.

1605 map drawn by Samuel de Champlain of Plymouth Harbor (which he called Port St. Louis). "F" designates wigwams and cultivated fields. For the rest of the legend, see Pilgrim Hall Museum.

These interrelated societies referred to themselves as Ninnimissinuok, a variation of the Narragansett word Ninnimissinnȗwock, meaning roughly "people" and signifying "familiarity and shared identity."[12] Squanto's tribe, the Patuxet, occupied the coastal area west of Cape Cod Bay. Squanto himself told an English trader that the Patuxet once numbered 2,000.[13] They spoke a dialect of Eastern Algonquian common to peoples as far west as Narragansett Bay.[c] The various Algonquian dialects of Southern New England were sufficiently similar to allow effective communications.[d] The term patuxet means "at the little falls" and refers to the site of Plymouth, Massachusetts.[e] Politically it has generally (although not universally) inferred that the Patuxet had been subjugated by the so-called Wampanoags (Pokanoket)[f] and made part of the so-called Wampanoag confederacy.[26] Since the Patuxet had been decimated by disease before European settlement (see below), there are no written records of Patuxet life by first-hand observers. In such a case reasonable conclusions about a culture's organization and beliefs may be made by reference to other tribes in the same area "which may be expected to share cultural traits."[27] In this case the Southern New England tribes were closely related linguistically (through similar Algonquin languages), politically (by the Wampanoag confederacy), economically (by trade) and ethnically.

Unlike the native inhabitants living in northern Maine and Canada where the annual growing season was insufficiently long to reliably produce maize harvests (and they, as a result, were required to live a fairly nomadic existence[28]) the southern New England Algonquins were "rudimentary sedentary cultivators."[29] Although their habitations were relatively mobile, being made of striplings fixed in a circle in the ground with their tops tied by walnut bark (with hole for smoke from central fire inside), covered with mats of reed, hemp and hides,[30] the one main migration of the entire population of each tribe (including women and children) was a biannual one and took place only from winter residence (in warmer forested areas) to summer habitation (near the cornfields) and back again.[g] Maize and other cultivated vegetables made up a substantial part of the Ninnimissinuok diet. William Wood noted in his 1634 report that "to speake paradoxically, they be great eaters, and yet little meate-men …"[35] Stanford nutritionist M.K. Bennett concluded that 60% of their daily caloric intake came from grain products and only 10% from animal or bird flesh (as opposed to more than 20% in the average diet in mid-20th-century America).[36] To support their dependence on corn cultivation, the men cleared fields, broke the ground and fertilized the soil with fish and crustaceans,[37] while the women tended to weeding with clam-shell hoes, with assiduity that amazed English settlers.[h] The proficiency at horticulture allowed the southern New England Natives to accumulate enough surplus not only for their own winter needs, but also for trade (especially to northern native bands), and as the English settlers repeatedly noted, to relieve their distress for many years where their own harvests proved insufficient.[40]

Champlain's drawing of Southern New England Algonquian Natives emphasizing their pacific nature and sedentary and agricultural lifestyle.

Socially the groups that made up the Ninnimissinuok were hierarchically stratified and presided over by one (or sometimes two) sachem (ordinarily a male but women could act as sachems when male heirs were absent[41]). Sachems acquired their positions by heredity. The polity of the sachem was called a sontimooonk or sachemship. The members of this polity were those who pledged to defend not only the sachem himself by the institution of the sachem.[42] Colonial writers noted that sachemships themselves could be subjected to a ruler over many sachems, a great sachem or kaeasonimoog, which the English writers referred to as "kings."[i] Sachems held dominion over specific territories marked by geographical identifiers.[j] The authority of the sachem was absolute within his domain.[50] It was traditional, however, that for the sachem attempt to achieve a consensus in all important matters.[51] One factor limiting the despotism of sachems was the option, said to have been frequently exercised, for a subject to leave a particular sachem and live under a more congenial ruler.[52] The chief functions of the sachem were to allocate land for cultivation,[53] to manage the trade with other sachemships or more distant native societies,[54] to dispense justice (including passing on capital punishment),[55] to collect and store tribute from harvests and hunts in part at least for later redistribution,[56] to aid in trade and for gifts in aid of foreign policy,[57] and making and conducting war.[58] It was on the authority of great sachem Massasoit, for example, that Squanto was dispatched to live among and assist the English settlers in the years 1621 and 1622.[59]

Sachems were advised by "principal men" of the community, called ahtaskoaog, generally called "nobles" by the English. Sachems achieved consensus through the consent of these men, who probably also involved in the selection of new sachems (among those within the prescribed degree of kinship to the incumbent). One or more "principal men" were almost always present when sachems ceded land, perhaps suggesting that their consent was necessary.[60] In addition, among the Pokanoket, according to Edward Winslow, there was a class called the pniesesock, which collected the annual tribute to the sachem, led warriors into battle and had a special relationship with one of the gods, Abbomocho (Hobbomock) invoked in powwows for healing powers, a force that the English associated with the devil.[k] The priest class came from the order, and aside from healing powers, the shamans also acted as oratory, giving them political power within their societies.[65] Salisbury has suggested that Squanto was a pniesesock.[7] This class may have produced something of a praetorian guard, equivalent to the "valiant men" described by Roger Williams among the Narragansett, the only other Southern New England society with a permanent military elite.[66] Whether or not Squanto received special training for such a position, it is likely he underwent the initiation ordeal of Pokanoket or Patuxet youth, where they were required to endure an entire winter alone.[l] In addition to the class of commoners (sanops), there were outsiders, wanderers who attached themselves to a tribe or band; this last group had few rights except the expectation of protection against any enemy they shared with the larger group.[65]

First encounters with Europeans[edit]

For nearly a century before the landing of the Mayflower in 1620, the Ninnimissinuok sporadically experienced direct contact by European explorers[68] and for decades before that the indirect consequences of European cod fishermen off the Newfoundland banks.[m] The effect of these early encounters, though gradual and perhaps unattributable when they occurred, were profound. First, and more immediately catastrophic, Europeans brought a variety of diseases[n] for which the aboriginal population had no resistance. Mortality rates eventually rose to 90% throughout the entire continent. When the English settlers arrived, they discovered that vast swaths of Southern New England, previously prepared for cultivation and settlement by extensive deforestation and land preparation was devoid of all inhabitants.[72] Second, more gradual but equally profound for the economic and social conditions of the Natives, the trading system engaged in at first by the Newfoundland fishermen, and later, more systematically by the French and English, called, for short, the "Fur Trade," destroyed the previously existing continental intertribal pattern of exchange in which the Natives traded local products in a system of extensive and peaceful commerce. That system was replaced by an economy driven by the demand of the Europeans for one product (animal pelts). The new economy resulted in intense intertribal rivalries and hostilities, which eventually allowed the English to play one off against the other.[73] In addition to contributing to the first two causes of calamity, the English created immense ill-will and eventually hostilities by their aggressive approach to settlement, the brutality of which was apparent even before the first settlers.[74] This was the result of the system the English employed which depended exclusively on private profiteers.[o] Richard Hakluyt made plain the goals that the entrepreneurs would pursue in an "inducement" he wrote in 1585: "The ends of this voyage are these: 1, to plant the Christian religion; 2, To trafficke; 3, To conquer; Or, to do all three."[75] The first goal was never seriously pursued.[p] The 1605 voyage of George Weymouth showed how cavalierly the English entrepreneurs and their agents treated American Natives to achieve the second and third goals.

English kidnappings and Squanto's abduction[edit]

Captain Weymouth's voyage and the first kidnappings[edit]

Illustration of Captain Weymouth impressing Natives of Pemaquid Maine with a sword he magnetized by means of a lodestone

In 1605 George Weymouth, sponsored by Henry Wriothesley and Thomas Arundell,[77] set out on an expedition to explore the possibility of settlement in upper New England. A report of the voyage, written by James Rosier (hired by Arundell to make detailed observations), was published soon after the expedition's return. The pamphlet described the physical resources available to settlers on the islands and coast of Maine (harbors, rivers, soil, trees, wild fruit and vegetables, and so forth). The compelling part of the story, however, is the crew's encounters with the Natives,[q] which began eleven days after the Archangel first moored among the Georges Islands, on May 30, 1605, as the ship was anchored in Muscongus Bay and the captain and 13 men had gone off in the shallop to explore. The report tells how the remaining crew had a chance encounter that afternoon with a hunting party, developed a sign language with them, and over several days encouraged their trust with gifts and then trade.[r] On his return, as though they had agreed on how to treat the aboriginal inhabitants on arrival, Weymouth joined in the hospitality, offering the Natives bread and peas which they were unfamiliar with and amazing them with a sword magnetized with a lodestone. After three days of hospitality and trading, Rosier suggested that the crew vist their homes to trade.[s] Rosier wrote that cultivating their trust was part of the plan to colonize once they had decided that the land was prime for European settlement.[t] On June 3, as they themselves had suggested, the English set out to visit their homes. They became skittish when a large assembly came to escort them and decided not to go. Rosier claimed that they then decided to kidnap a number of Natives, although why this followed from their belief that they Indians intended mischief is not made entirely clear by Rosier.[u] No thought was given that the Natives were providing an honor guard or even that it was Rosier's own proposal the previous day that they should go to the Natives' homes. Instead, the Englishmen presumed the Natives were acting in accordance with their preconception of "salvages," and rather than simply retreat, they decided that they would kidnap some of them (later when they were not outnumbered), although Rosier never explains what this was intended to accomplish:

These things considered, we began to joyne them in the ranke of other Salvages, who have beene by travellers in most discoveries found very trecherous; never attempting mischiefe, until by some remisnesse, fit opportunity affordeth them certain ability to execute the same. Wherefore after good advise taken we determined so soone as we could to take some of them, least (being suspitious we had discovered their plots) they should absent themselves from us.[87]

Nevertheless, the next day they abducted five Natives, three by duplicity and two by violence.[v] In discussing the violence necessary to grab hold of two Natives, Rosier lets fall that the kidnapping had been long planned, saying that they would have risked greater violence to secure their victims because the capture of Natives was "a matter of great importance for the full accomplement of our voyage."[89] The idea was undoubtedly conceived by the entrepreneurs back in England as a way to become familiar with the land and inhabitants that they intended to conquer.[90] The plan operated at cross-purposes with their attempt to create good will. Not long after Weymouth's crew had left, Champlain, sailing from the north, met a man named Anaffon, a minor trader in furs, at Monhegan Island on July 31. The Native told Champlain that of the English who had been there fishing not long before and "under cover of friendship" had murdered five Natives of the area.[91] The English had not hidden their perfidy; instead, they were thought to have committed worse crimes than they did. At any rate, all five hostages were taken to England and three were given (without explanation) to Sir Ferdinando Gorges. Gorges was an investor in the Weymouth voyage and became the chief promoter of the scheme when Arundell withdrew from the project.[92] In a book published in 1658, a decade after Gorges had died, and presumably written when Gorges was quite old, Gorges wrote of his delight in Weymouth's kidnapping, and named Squanto as one of the three given over to him.

[Captain George Weymouth, having failed at finding a Northwest Passage], happened into a River on the Coast of America, called Pemmaquid, from whence he brought five of the Natives, three of whose names were Manida, Sellwarroes, and Tasquantum, whom I seized upon, they were all of one Nation, but of severall parts, and severall Families; This accident must be acknowledged the meanes under God of putting on foote, and giving life to all our Plantations ….[93]

Circumstantial evidence makes this claim nearly impossible,[w] and no modern historian entertains this as fact.[95] But Gorges's involvement in the abductions is an important part of Squanto's story. The abductions were an intentional policy of the English entrepreneurs and lead directly to Squanto's own abduction (although unauthorized by the London entrepreneurs). But even before that the abduction of Natives became a regular feature of the English colonial enterprise. Gorges, chief among the entrepreneurs, wanted to impress on the Natives the superiority of the English technology and military might that would back colonists, and the colonial entrepreneurs wanted to learn as much as they could from their captives about the lands and peoples of the New World. And they displayed their victims prominently to attract financing and public support for their commercial project.[96] It is difficult to understand how they did not see that the policy was destined to misfire by creating a hostility toward the English among the natives peoples of New England which would prove dangerous to those sent to man colonial outposts. It is more difficult to understand how they continued the policy after the experience with these first captives. Two of the captives, Manedo and Sassacomit, were sent back with Captain Henry Chollons in 1606, but the ship was intercepted by the Spanish. Manedo was lost, but Sassacomit, seriously injured, was lodged in a Spanish prison.[97] In an odd foreshadowing of Squanto's own fate, Sassacomit was forced to escape his bondage in Spain and make his way to England before he could be returned to his home in what is now Maine. That may not be the only coincidence uniting the two.[x] Two other of the kidnapped Abenaki were returned in Maine in connection with Gorges's plan to found a trading colony there. Instead providing a safe entrée for the English escorting him, Skidwarres had to be forced to identify himself so that the Natives would stop the attack they made on the English. Skidwarres once home, instead of advising the Abenaki to trade with the English, warned them to be wary of them. The conduct of Skidwarres and fellow abductee Tahanedo, nurtured the mistrust that would eventually doom the Sagadahoc colony.[99] This experience did not deter Gorge or other English entrepreneurs from continuing the practice of abducting local men to be transported to England. In fact it would be used in the Cape Cod area as well. But the practice of kidnapping was only part of the brutally imperious policy of the privately financed imperial enterprise which created the political and social landscape that the Mayflower settlers would have to navigate, and it would be Squanto who gave them the most imortant assistance in this endeavor.

Gosnold at Cuttyhunk, 1602 by Albert Bierstadt (Oil on canvas. 1858. New Bedford Whaling Museum.)

First Europeans among the Cape Cod Natives[edit]

English plans to colonize New England began to take concrete form in the early to mid 1590s when Edward Hayes wrote a treatise to Lord Burghley setting forth the rationale and procedure for settlement.[y] The first expedition to set out from England to southern New England was fully in accord with Hayes's principles. On May 14, 1602 Captain Bartholomew Gosnold together with a 32-man crew aboard the Concord made landfall off the southern coast of Maine. They had set off almost two months before from Falmouth[101] with the purpose of setting up a small fishing outpost of 20 of the crew who would stay the winter.[102] They were there hailed by a "Biscay shallop" containing eight men, who the English discovered were not "Christians" as they had supposed but "savages" of "swart" color who had many European accoutrements and acted boldly among the English.[z] They proceeded westward until they came upon a cape, which they called Cape Cod for the abundant fish, The captain explored the land and found a young Native boy, wearing copper ear decorations and an apparent willingness to help the Englishman.[104] Continuing down the Atlantic coast of Cape Cod, pivoting on Gilbert's Point,[105] they coasted westward observing numerous Natives on shore, many running after them to gaze, they eventually see (and name) Martha's Vineyard, which they explore but find no inhabitants on it.[106] From there they sailed about the various islands now called Elizabeth until they came upon Cuttyhunk Island (which they called Elizabeth Island), where on the 20th of May they determined to establish the proposed settlement on the western part of the island.[107] They selected the island in the middle of a large fresh water lake in the south of the island for which they made a flat-bottomed boat to transport from the island to larger island that encompassed it.[108] Each time they encountered Natives, whether on their coasting expeditions or Gosnold's separate explorations while the others were building the fort, such as his visit to the mainland on May 31,[aa] the Natives showed themselves ready to trade. Indeed, their metal ornaments and their supply of furs to offer show that they had already become acculturated to European ways and they were willing to accommodate. It became, from the Natives' point of view, the ritual that bonded the two cultures.[111] Gosnold's men were interested, however, with the trade that would enrich them and their commercial underwriters in Europe so were more interested in harvesting sassafras root and cedar wood than daily encounters with the Natives. In fact, they made a conscious effort to prevent the Natives from finding out the location of their fort.[112] It is unclear how the situation developed but by June 11 the relations had become so strained that a party of two Englishmen out hunting for shellfish for food were set upon by four Natives who shot one in the side with an arrow.[113] Shortly thereafter a dispute between those supposed to stay and those returning to England resulted in the decision to end the settlement project. They all set out on the return voyage on June 17.

No attempt was made to learn from this encounter with the local populations. Interested only in return on investment (and the proposed settlement were mainly to allow more efficient exploitation of resources to be returned to England for sale), the English entrepreneurs, who considered the Natives only in relation to their commercial goals, over the next decade would involve themselves in an increasingly hostile series of encounters which turned the amiable helpfulness that Gosnold first discovered among all the Ninnimissinuok to open hostility by the time of the Mayflower landing.[114]

The failure of this first enterprise did not dampen colonizing plans. Brereton's report of the area omitted any problems with local inhabitants and (like all exploration reports) painted at glowing picture of Northern Virginia. The following year, 1603, the 23-year-old Martin Pring was commissioned to command a second attempt to settle New England, again financing it against a return cargo of sassafras. Pring must have been anticipating hostile (or unwanted) Native activity because they brought with them "two excellent Mastives," one of which "would carrie a halfe-Pike in his mouth." Of the use of these dog Pring wrote: "when we would be rid of the Savages company wee would let loose the Natives, and suddenly without cry they would flee away."[115] They found sassafras in sufficient quantity in a bay,[ab] and immediately built a barricado for defense against the inhabitants.[119] Pring asserted that the were constantly visited by groups of Natives as large as "one hundred and twentie at once."[120] He does not explain, however, how relations with the locals deteriorated from harmony[ac] to the day when the settlers fired their cannon and set the mastiffs on 140 of them,[121] but it probably had to do with the abrupt conduct of the English, insensitivity to local customs (which they used only when convenient), and their brutal use of the dogs.[122]

English interest in exploiting northern Virginia turned northward for a while (beginning with Weymouth and his exploration and abductions), but Native antipathy toward the English was spreading widely. In contrast to the French who, under Champlain, were able to make a peaceful coasting expedition in Cape Cod Bay in 1605, the English seemed stirred up hostility in Maine and even Henry Hudson, sailing under authority of the Dutch East India Company 1609, but with half English crew, engaged in hostilities with the Mohawks in the interior of New York.

Squanto's abduction[edit]

Squanto was in fact later abducted by Thomas Hunt, one of Smith's lieutenants. Hunt was planning to sell fish, corn, and captured natives in Málaga, Spain. He transported Squanto and a number of other Native Americans to Spain, where he tried to sell them into slavery for £20 apiece. [123]

Squanto somehow reached London, where he lived with John Slany, a shipbuilder for whom he worked for a few years. Slany taught him more English. He took Squanto to Cuper's Cove, Newfoundland in 1617.[124] To get to New England, Squanto tried to take part in an expedition to that part of the North American east coast, but Thomas Dermer sent him back to London in 1618 to meet Gorges and ask for permission.[125]

In 1619, Squanto finally returned to his homeland aboard John Smith's ship, having joined an exploratory expedition along the New England coast led by Captain Dermer. He soon discovered that the Patuxets and a majority of coastal New England tribes (mostly Pokanoket and Massachusetts) had been decimated the previous year by a plague,[126] possibly smallpox. In 2010, researchers published an article suggesting that this had been an epidemic of leptospirosis.[127]

Among the Mayflower settlers[edit]

The English search for a settlement site while the Natives warily respond[edit]

The English settlers land, plunder, then winter in "a hidious and desolate wilderness"[edit]

Having been delayed two months beyond its intended departure, it was very late in the year when the Mayflower, its crew and 102 passengers sighted land on November 9, 1620 o.s.[ad] at Cape Cod.[128] This being well north of the land their patent entitled them to settle, they spent a day attempting to track southward to the mouth of "Hudson's river" (their intended destination), but dangerous shoals and breakers caused them to return and anchor in Cape Cod Harbor.[129] With no settlement site selected beforehand and no one onboard having any experience with the land in those parts (indeed, the ship did not even have soundings of the depths along the coast), and most critically the settlers' shallop having been severely battered during the storms in the crossing, the passengers were unable to disembark entirely from the Mayflower. On Saturday, November 11, after organizing themselves into something of a self-governing body,[ae] 15 armed men went ashore to gather wood and they returned with optimistic reports of the land and soil.[131] The next week expecting the repair to the shallop to take five or six days, the settlers determined to send Myles Standish, the settlers' military adviser, with a band of heavily armed and armored men, to survey the Cape.[132] Standish had the men armed and armored and marching in a military file. When they encountered their first native inhabitants, the Natives fled in terror.[af] The next day, when they were confident the Indians were out of sight, the armed band dug up Indian mounds, and upon finding winter supplies of maize and beans, they took as much as they could carry in their containers, filling their pockets as well.[ag] When they returned they had so much husked corn that two men could barely carry it. But the repairs to the shallop were taking longer than expected. A week and a half later, when it was completed, they decided to send a larger force, this time headed by Captain Jones and including members of the crew as well as settlers. On November 27, Captain Jones set off with 34 men in both the shallop and longboat. The fallen snow, freezing water and bitter winds exacted a heavy toll.[ah] Captain Jones was able to return to the ship with more than 10 bushels of husked corn, a bottle of oil and a bag of beans that the Natives had buried.[ai] Eighteen, under the command of Standish remained. Although they continued digging in mounds, they found no more food, only graves, which they disinterred to inspect their contents and took "sundry of the pret[t]iest things away with us," covering up the corpse.[140] While they were "thus ranging and searching," they came upon the summer homes of the inhabitants there, filled with utensils, mats, baskets, bits of food, hunting trophies and material for making mats. "[S]ome of the best things we tooke away with us … ."[141] Whether or not Bradford's different justifications for these thefts rings true,[aj] it is true that "[l]ooting houses, graves, and storage pits was hardly the way to win the trust of the local inhabitants."[145] Just how hostile they took these actions to be, the Natives showed when the settlers made their third expedition.

By the first week of December 1621 o.s. the settlers were becoming concerned that if they did not select a settlement site soon, the crew would simply leave them stranded, particularly if food supplies began to run low. Besides continuing coasting expeditions in the heart of winter risked the health and life of men crucial to the enterprise.[146] While there was some discussion of looking for a site north of Cape Cod Bay, it was decided to make one more effort to find the elusive river on the shores of Cape Cod. On December 6 Captain Standish took 11 settlers (six Separatists and three London adventurers and two seamen) together with eight of the ship's crew and set off. After several hours in tricky seas and bitter cold, they maneuvered to Wellfleet Harbor, notied natives busying themselves about a large "black thing," landed a league or two away where they set up their barricado for the night and noticed the Native fire about four miles away.[ak] After landing, which took some time, they tried to find the Natives, who eluded them again. After a long day of "ranging up and downe,"[al] at sundown they met up with the men from the shallop and made camp.[149] At midnight they were alarmed by cries in the dark, which stopped after several musket shot. They convinced themselves it was a pack of wolves. When they roused at 5 the next morning, some took their armor down to the shallop and returned to hear the same cries and a hail of arrows. Standish fired off his flintlock, but since only a couple men had their arms, he ordered them to wait on firing their matchlocks until they could see the attackers. When the men were able to regroup, repeated fire at the trees behind which the Natives shot their arrows eventually chased them off. The settlers chased them for a little while but gave up.[150] They named the place of he first skirmish "First Encounter."[151] The Englishmen were able to reach the shallop and continue their search for a settlement site, But after several hours of coasting westward, they fell into bad weather, and first their rudder broke and then at nightfall their mast broke into three pieces. They made it into the protection of Plymouth Bay and spent the night at Clark's Island. On Monday November 11, they landed on the mainland, the site of the now extinct Patuxets, and saw former cornfields and running brooks, :a place very good for situation." It was here they decided to settle.[152]

Short of supplies, unprepared for a winter much colder than in England or Leiden and afflicted by the diseases that come from being ship bound in those times, they endured brutal conditions in what Bradford called "a hidious and desolate wilderness." As half the settler population died that winter, they constantly feared encounters with indigenous peoples. Bradford complained that unlike the shipwrecked Paul who was refreshed by the "barbarians" they were confronted with "savage barbarians [who] … were readier to fill [our] sides with arrows, than otherwise."[153] Yet they experienced nothing but eerie silence.

The Native political landscape during the winter of 1620–21[edit]

As the English settlers struggled to survive working to build a settlement on the site of the village of Patuxet and spending nights on board the Mayflower, Native villages that surrounded them and their associated tribes farther away watched their movements all the while considering how to proceed. Both John Smith, who observed these people during his coasting expedition in 1614, and Daniel Gookin, who over a half century later interviewed old Natives who remembered or were told of the peoples who lived around the time of the Mayflower landing and thereafter, agreed that the villages were associated into loosely confederated associations. Although the confederations involved payment of tribute by the smaller villages to the dominant sachem, they were niether structured governments nor treaty alliances as the Europeans understood them (although they continued to treat them as such), for individuals or groups could leave the associations at will and join another village or different association.[154] The dominant sachem's seat was more like a center of political power, "its strength diminishing as its distance from the center increased."[155] And while the borders of these confederacies were necessarily indistinct, they nevertheless commanded such military power as the Natives could muster, and which the English feared. Both Smith and Gookin agree that there were three main associations which surrounded the area that the English planned to make their settlement.

Southern New England 1620-22 with settlement and Native confederations.

The first group, to the north of the English settlement were the Massachuset, once a large and strong confederation. Known as the People of the Great Blue Hill, they extended from south of Massachusetts Bay to Cape Ann.[156] Edward Johnson in the middle of the 17th century stated that they once numbered 30,000,[157] but this was an exaggeration to make a rhetorical point.[158] They nevertheless were substantial. Once early 20th-century antiquarian estimated that one of the sub-sachemships had a located near Concord, Massachusetts had a population of 3,000.[159] The maps that Champlain drew of villages in 1605 showed that north of the Massachuset, villages were surrounded by stockades, but the Massachuset were not, apparently unafraid of attack.[160] Before English settlement in Boston Bay, the Massachuset had been at war with both the Pokanoket and in alliance with them against the Narragansett. The pandemic of 1616–19, however, severely reduced their population., so much so that afterwards they lived in fear of their northern neighbors, who they called the Tarratines, bands of Abenaki who raided them and plundered their food supplies, which reduced their population further.[161] As a result, by the winter of 1620 they were considerably weakened and inhabited the Charles River drainage basin.[162]

The second group, the one to the west, south and east of the English settlers, were the Pokanoket, among which Squanto dwelt, whether as a prisoner, a member of the outsider class or otherwise. His people, now nearly extinct, the Patuxet, inhabited the land on which the English were preparing for settlement. Smith and Gookin seem to disagree whether the Patuxet were once tributaries of the Pokanoket sachem.[am] Because the Patuxet were not numerous to command their territory, the question has little importance with respect to the relations between the English and Pokanoket, who seem to have regarded the area as under their control. It might explain the status of Squanto, however. Among others that were affiliated with the Pokanoket as tributaries were the Nausets,[166] who lived on eastern half of Cape Cod and who were extremely hostile to the English, not only for their recent raids on their food stores and graves, but also for a decade of mistreatment. The sachem of the Pokanoket was called by the English Massasoit.[an] The principal village of the confederation and Massasoit's tribal village was Pokanoket, located about 50 miles from Patuxet (Plymouth), near modern Bristol, Rhode Island.

Sculpture of Massasoit in Mill Creek Park, Kansas City, Missouri by Cyrus E. Dallin (1920.

The third group was the farthest from the English—the Narragansett, who lived west of the Pokanoket in what is now Rhode Island. They were not touched by the pandemic,[168] and that created the complicating factor in the relations among the Natives surrounding the English.[169] The Narragansett were a very large Indian society. They may not have numbered 30,000 in 1641 as claimed,[170] they were nevertheless described by De Forest as "the densest aboriginal population in New England" owing to the abundant supply of fish easily accessible from the ample beaches in what is now Rhode Island.[171] Roger Williams claimed that he saw "many thousands" men and women in their annual semi-religious harvest dance before a 200 foot long house "upon a plaine neer the Court (which they call Kittcickan̄ick) …"[172] Gookin estimated they could put more than 5,000 men under arm, and noted that "oftentimes" waged war with the Pequots to their west and the Pokanoket and Massachuset federations to their east.[164] Winslow in 1622 heard the Narragansetts "reported to be many thousands strong …"[173]

Although the Pokanoket may not have been as severely affected by the pandemic as either the Massachuset or the Patuxets and others, they were seriously weakened. This weakened condition allowed the Narragansetts to force them from their position at the head of Narraganset Bay to and withdraw to the Taunton River drainage system.[174] Moreover, the Pokanoket, Massachuset and their affiliated tribes, lost their ability to trade for European goods, by bartering their vegetable surplus with the Abenaki in the north. The Narragansetts now monopolized all European goods by virtue of their command of the southern commerce via Long Island.[175] Given that the pandemic so thoroughly disrupted Native societies, their political relations, food supply and trade, there was great temptation for one group to commit acts of predation on a weaker neighbor. So if the Pokasets engaged the English to their east, they would expose themselves to predation by the Narragansetts on their west. On the other hand, the English were an undeniable threat. Many allies of the Pokanoket regarded Europeans with white hot hatred. The Nausets were willing to kill Europeans merely seeking to trade with them. These English, however, seemed worse. They were not interested in trade; quite the reverse, they helped themselves to plunder. And unlike the previous boatloads of Europeans, these English brought women and children, probably, the first European women and children these people had ever seen.[176] These people were also building habitations without consulting local inhabitants. Massasoit was faced with the dilemma whether to throw in with the English, who might protect him from the Narragansett, or try to put together a coalition that might oust the English. To decide the issue, according to Bradford's account (who says he learned of it later), "they got all the Powachs of the country, for three days together in a horrid and devilish manner, to curse and execrate them with their conjurations, which assembly and service they held in a dark and dismal swamp."[177] Philbrick sees this as a convocation of shamans brought together to drive the English from the shores by supernatural means.[ao] Salisbury, however, attributes the description to the English excessive fear of witchcraft and see the meeting as as the means by which the "Pofkanoket were ritually purging themselves of their hostility toward the English.[179] Whatever the purpose, out of this meeting arose the decision to approach English settlers to determine if their intentions were peaceful or not.

Mutual assistance forged[edit]

The first amicable encounter and treaty[edit]

There is no record of why Massasoit made this decision, but it is significant that he had with him two men who were familiar with the English, one intimately so. First there was Squanto, who spent a great deal of time with the English, much of it in England itself, and he already proved himself to be persuasive in preventing and ceasing hostilities by the Natives against the English. A subsequent settler at Plymouth, who joined about four months after Squanto's death, related what he heard of Squanto's influence in a declaration in 1668: "This man tould Massassoit what wonders he had seen in Eingland & yt if he Could make Einglish his friends then […] Enemies yt weare to strong for him would be Constrained to bowe to him …"[180] The second man was Samoset. Samoset was a minor Abenakki sachem (sagamore) who haled from the Muscongus Bay bay area of present-day Maine. He evidently learned his English from English fishermen who plied those waters.[ap] Massasoit chose Samoset for the initial contact.

The Plymouth settlement was on high alert at the time. On February 16, 1620/21 a settler went off fowling. As he hid himself in the reeds by a creek waiting birds about a mile and a half from the settlement, he spotted a dozen Natives "marching towards our plantation" and heard in the distance "the noyse of many more." The settler hid until there were out of sight and then hastily returned to spread the alarm. Standish and Francis Cooke, working in the woods, hastened home, leaving their tools behind them. The settlers organized a watch and began to make ready their weapons, "which by the moysture and rayne were out of temper." The Natives took the tools left in the woods[185] The next day the settlers elected Standish as their military commander. While they were thus meeting, they spied two Natives peering at them over Strawberry Hill less than a quarter of a mile away. The Natives made gestures that the settlers come to them; the settlers returned the gesture, took up arms and sent Standish and Stephen Hopkins to meet the two, but they departed. Again "noyse of a great many more" was heard in the distance, but no one was seen. This encounter seriously disturbed the settlers, and they resolved to mount their cannons.[186]

Samoset comes "boldly" into Plymouth settlement. Woodcut designed by A.R. Waud and engraved by J.P. Davis (1876).

By Friday, March 16, Captain Jones and some of the crew having brought two pieces of the ordnance from the ship, the settlers were about to continue their military organization, when to their great alarm Samoset "boldly came alone" in their midst.[187] Samoset, however, proved to be entirely guileless. With a conviviality evidently learned from the English fishermen he long knew, he even asked for a beer (they gave him "strong water" and food, instead).[188] He spent the day giving them intelligence of the surrounding peoples, and spent the night.[aq]

That Sunday, March 18, Samoset brought five men with him all bearing deer skins and one cat skin. The settlers entertained them, but, it being the Sabbath, refused to trade with them, although encouraging them to return with more furs. All left but Samoset, who, feigning sickness, lingered until Wednesday.[191] That day, after Samoset left, again Natives taunted the settlers from the hill and again disappeared when Standish and three others approached the hill.[192] It was on Thursday, March 22 that Samoset appeared again, this time with Squanto. Besides a few skins and newly caught fish, the men brought important news: Massasoit, his brother Quadrquina and all of their men were close by. After an hour's discussion, the sachem and his train of sixty men appeared on Strawberry Hill. The two sides unwilling to make the first move, it was Squanto who, shuttling between the groups, effected the simple protocol that permitted Edward Winslow to approach the sachem. Winslow, with Squanto as translator, proclaimed the loving and peaceful intentions of King James and the desire of their governor to trade and make peace with him.[193] After Massasoit ate, further protocols involving the exchanges of hostages, allowed Standish (with the protection of half a dozen musketeers) to lead the sachem to a "house then building," which was quickly furnished with pillows and a rug. Governor Carver then came. "with Drumme and Trumpet after him," to meet Massasoit. After drinking "a great draught" of strong water (enough to make Carver "sweate all the while after"), and then a repast of fresh meat the parties negotiated a treaty of peace and, significantly, mutual defense between the Plymouth settlers and the Pokanoket people.[194] According to Bradford, "all the while he sat by the Governour, he trembled for feare,"[195] and therefor the settlers probably could have made the treaty more unequal than it was,[ar] Massasoit's followers "applauded" the treaty,[195] and the peace terms were kept during Massasoit's lifetime and the settlers would be called upon to fulfill their mutual defense obligations.

Squanto as guide to frontier survival[edit]

When Massasoit and his train left the day after the treaty, Samoset and Squanto remained.[198] It was Squanto, however, whom Bradford[as] developed a relationship with and came to rely on. With the departure of the Mayflower at the beginning of April,[202] it was a great comfort to give someone with experience in the land and peoples in whom they could trust. Bradford considered him "a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation."[203] Squanto instructed them in survival skills and acquainted them with their environment: "He directed them how to set their corn, where to take fish, and to procure other commodities, and was also their pilot to bring them to unknown places for their profit, and never left them till he died."[203]

Unlike other Natives in the area, who Bradford and Winslow constantly complained of for frequently and in large numbers coming to seek food from the settlers, Squanto made himself useful from the start. The day after Massasoit left Plymouth, Squanto spent the day at Eel River, treading eels out of the mud with his feet. The bucketful of eels he brought back were "fat and sweet."[204] Collection of eels became part of the settlers' annual practice.[at] But Bradford makes special mention of Squanto's instruction concerning native horticulture.

Illustration of corn cultivation in mounds by Algonquian village in North Carolina. Watercolor by John White c. 1585

Squanto had arrived just at the time that the planters were to sow their first crops in the Western Hemisphere. Bradford said that in this regard "Squanto stood them in great stead, showing them both the manner how to set it, and after how to dress and tend it."[206] While it is true that the Plymouth settlers were primarily artisans ("printers, weavers, watchmakers, and carpenters and carpenters with little farming experience"[207]) who could use any advice on agriculture, the reference to "the manner how to set it," seems to mean more than simply how to plant the seeds. Indeed, southern New England native planting methods were quite different from northern European methods. First, fields were cleared of by burning (conifers especially) or by girdling (especially hardwood trees) to prepare for the following growing season.[208] Thomas Morton observed the native practice of biannual burning of undergrowth,[209] to which he ascribed the characteristic landscape of New England as like English parks with only occasional trees.[au] In planting season instead of plowing furrows for seed overturning a large amount of top soil, the Natives made small mounds of soil by hand or shell tools in which to place the seeds (and when the soil was depleted the fish for fertilizer).[av] When the corn sprounted, bean seeds were added to the same mounds so that they stalks could be used for support for the bean runners. Squash vines were trained along the mounds to protect the corn stalk roots and reduce weeds. The combination of the three plants was characteristic of native agriculture with the legumes fixing atmospheric nitrogen for the other plants, the maize providing support and the squash reducing the need to weed.[214] Unlike the English farmers at home, the Natives were willing to plant on hillsides (usually the southern) and tops of hills.[215] What Bradford especially mentioned was how Sqanto showed them how to fertilize exhausted soil:

he told them, except they got fish and set with it [corn seed] in these old grounds it would come to nothing. And he showed them that in the middle of April they should have store enough [of fish] come up the brook by which they began to build, and taught them how to take it, and where to get other provisions necessary for them. All of which they found true by trial and experience.[216]

Edward Winslow made the same point about the value of Indian cultivation methods in a letter to England at the end of the year:

We set the last Spring some twentie Acres of Indian Corne, and sowed some six Acres of Barly and Pease; and according to the manner of the Indians, we manured our ground with Herings or rather Shadds, which we have in great abundance, and take with great ease at our doores. Our Corn did prove well, & God be praysed, we had a good increase of Indian-Corne, and our Barly indifferent good, but our Pease were not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sowne."[217]

The method shown by Squanto became the regular practice of the settlers.[aw] This testimony by the two Plymouth plantation leaders were challenged by ethnologist Lynn Ceci in the late 20th century. She did not dispute that Squanto taught the early English settlers how to manure their corn crop with fish (which she conceded "is an excellent fertilizer for corn"[219]) but rather that Squanto was teaching them an "Indian" technology, rather than one he acquired, during his years of bondage, from European sources. Her argument rests on (i) the conclusion that in places other than southern New England the condition for fish fertilization by natives did not exist and therefore was not a "common and widespread practice in any part of Native North America,"[220] (ii) the absence of English sources that attest to Native use of fish fertilizer[ax] (iii) that some early English settlers testified that they had not seen Natives use fertilizer and that they were "too lazy to catch fish,"[221] (iv) that fertilization was an "advanced trait" and one that was unnecessary (and overly burdensome given the manpower available to Native societies and their lack of draught animals) since Natives could simply leave their fields fallow as was observed by early explorers[219] and (v) there is scattered European authority that is shows that southern Europeans used marine fertilizers for crops and occasional examples of English use of fish fertilizer, one of which Squanto may have come into contact with.[222] Various historians have challenged Ceci's analysis, showing that (i) she ignored evidence pointing to the aboriginal origins of the fish fertilization practice and failed to consider the motives of settlers who denied the native practice,[ay] In it he makes the following remark on Native fertilization techniques: "Where the ground is not very good, or hath beene long planted and worne out, the Indians used to put two or three of these forementioned Fishes [alooses] under each place upon which they planted their Corne, … and by these meanes had far greater Crops then that ground would otherwise produce, many times more than double, the English have learned this good husbandry of the Indians, and do still use it in places, where those [alooses] come up on great plenty …"[224] As for the writer who claimed the Natives were "too lazy" to catch fish and therefore did not fertilize, Ceci failed to consider that land-hungry settlers used the principle of vacuum domiciliun[225] to show that Natives never "used" their lands (in prescribed English manner) and therefore had no title. Fertilization would have disproved this assertion.[226] A particularly brazen example of was published by Robert Cushman, the Separatists' London agent who visited Plymouth at the end of 1621. As part of his plea for more settlers, he justified the taking of Native land thus:

"their land is is spacious and void & there are few and doe but run over the grasse … they are not industrious, neither have art, science, skill or facilitie to use either the land or the commodities of it, but all spoils, rots, and is marred for want of manuring, gathering, ordering, &c. As the ancient Patriarckes therefore removed from straiter places to the more roomthy, where the Land lay idel and waste and none used it, though there dwelt inhabitants by them … so it is lawfull now to take a land now which none useth, and make use of it.[227]

This essay was published in the same work, Mourt's Relation, in which Winslow explained that their corn harvest this first year was from seeds planted and manured "according to the manner of the Indians …"[228] (ii) that in speculating that it was easier for Natives to abandon fields and obtain new ones she failed to consider the considerably greater pre-pandemic population making changing plots (requiring tree-clearing) less easy and at the same time giving manpower for widespread fertilization.[229] (iii) her assumption that the English settlers could more easily fertilize fields because of the Indians lacked draft animals and even wagons showed ignorance of the fact the English had no draft animals or wagons until 1624,[230] (iv) her calculus on the amount of labor required to fertilize ignored the fact that the Natives had more available labor than the Plymouth settlers and produced crops of higher yield, and (v) that her possible, but scanty. evidence of European fertilization by fish is inapplicable because Europeans (and even Newfoundland fishermen) did not grow maize and certainly did not do so in mounds over fish deposited as manure.[231] An additional suggestive piece of evidence for aboriginal use of fish fertilizer is the use of the same Algonquian word for certain small fish and fertilizer.[az] A recent writer who has reviewed all the literature has concluded that Ceci's claim has been "authoritatively refuted."[233] However that dispute turns out, it has never been challenged that it was Squanto who showed the Plymouth settlers how to plant native foods, that his method yielded better results than their own planting of English crops and that Squanto's assistance was crucial to the fledgling settlement's survival during its first year.

Squanto's role in settler diplomacy[edit]

Writing a decade and a half after the event (which he did not witness), Thomas Morton stated that as a result of the peace treaty, Massasoit was "freed and suffered [Squanto] to live with the English …"[234] If the Pokanoket ever held Squanto as a prisoner, they never treated him as such from the time of their first encounter with the Plymouth settlers.[ba] For his part Squanto proved remarkably loyal to the English. One commentator has suggested the loneliness occasioned by the wholesale extinction of his people (perhaps in conjunction with an unrecorded kindness he received in his years with the English) as the motive for his attachment to the Plymouth settlers.[236] Another has suggested that it was part of a long game he conceived while in the captivity of the Pokanoket.[237] The settlers were forced to rely on Squanto because he was the only means by which they could communicate with the surrounding Natives, and he was involved in every contact for the twenty months he lived with them.

Mission to Pokanoket[edit]

The colony decided in June that a mission to Massasoit in Pokatoket would enhance their security and reduce visits by Natives who drained their food resources. Winslow wrote that their wanted to ensure the peace treaty was stilll valued by the Pokanoket and to reconnoitre the surrounding country and the strength of the various villages. They also wanted to repay the grain they stole on Cape Cod the last winter, in the words of Winslow to "make satisfaction for some conceived injuries to be done on our parts …"[238]

Map of Southern New England in the 17th century with locations of prominent societies of Ninnimissinuok

Governor Bradford selected Edward Winslow and Stephen Hopkins to make the journey with Squanto. They set off on July 2[bb] carrying with them a present for Massasoit—a "Horse-mans coat" made of red cotton and trimmed "with a slight lace." the emissaries also took along a copper chain and a message, evidently agreed upon by the settlers at a meeting. The message explained their desire to continue nd strengthen the peace between the two peoples and also explained the purpose of the chain. Because the colonies were uncertain of their first harvest, they requested him to restrain his people from seeking entertainment as frequently as they had. But they wished always to entertain any guest of Massasoit. So if he gave anyone the chain, they would know that the visitor was sent by him and they would always receive him. The message also explained the settlers' conduct on Cape Cod and requested he send his men to the Nausets to express the English settlers' wish to make restitution. All settled they departed at 9 a.m.,[242] and travelled for two days meeting friendly Natives along the way.[bc] When they arrived at Pokanoket, Massasoit had to be sent for, and when he arrived at Squanto's suggestion, Winslow and Hopkins gave him a salute with their muskets. Massasoit was grateful for the coat and graciously assured them on all points they made. He assured them that his thirty tributary villages would remain in peace and would bring furs to Plymouth. After spending two uncomfortable nights.[bd] Squanto was sent off to the various villages to seek trading partners for the English, and with Tokamahamon[be] taking Squanto's place, the envoys returned to their settlement.[bf]

Mission to the Nausets[edit]

Winslow writes that shortly after he returned from Pokanoket[bg] a crisis arose that required an immediate mission to the Cape Cod Natives. One of the Billington children, John, had wondered off and had not returned for five days. Bradford sent word to Massasoit who made inquiry and found that the child had wondered into a Manumett village, who turned him over to the Nausets, the Natives from whom the settlers had stolen corn and household items and disturbed their graves.[249] The ten settlers that comprised the mission took along both Squanto (as a translator) and Tokamahamon ("a special friend," in Winslow's words). The sailed to Cummaquid by evening and spent the night anchored in the bay. At morning, the two Natives onboard were sent to speak to two Natives they saw lobstering. They were told that the boy was a Nauset, and the Cape Cod Natives invited all the men to take food with them. The Englishmen waited until the tide allowed the boat to reach the shore and then they were escorted to their sachem, Iyanough, who was in his mid-20s and in the words of Winslow "very personable, gentle, courteous, and fayre conditioned, indeed not like a Savage …" The colonists were lavishly entertained, and Iyanough even agreed to accompany them to the Nausets.[250] While in this village they met an old woman, "no lesse then an hundred yeeres old," wanted to see the Englishmen, and told them of how her two sons were kidnapped by the Hunt at the same time Squanto was and she had not seen them since. Winslow assured her that they would never treat Natives that way and "gave her some small trifles, which somewhat appeased her."[251] After their lunch, the settlers with the sachem and two of his band, took the shallop to Nasuet, but the tide being such that the boat could not reach shore, the English sent on Inyanough and Squanto to meet the Nasuet sachem Aspinet. While the English remained in the their shallop, Nasuets "very thick" came to entreat them to come ashore, but Winslow's party was afraid because this was the very spot of First Encounter. Indeed, the one of the very man whose corn they had stolen the previous winter came out to meet them. They promised to reimburse him.[bh] That night the sachem came with a train (of more than 100 the English estimated) and bore the boy out to the shallop. The colonists gave Aspinet a knife and one to the man who carried the boy to the boat. By this, Winslow considered "they made peace with us." The Nasuets departed, but the English there learned (probably from Squanto) that the Narragansetts had attacked the Pokanoket and taken Massasoit. This was a great alarm because their own settlement was hardly well guarded given that so many were on this mission.[bi] The men tried to set off immediately, but they had no fresh water. After stopping again at Iyanough's village, they set off again for Plymouth.[255]

This mission, which could have resulted in hostilities, instead resulted in a working relation or even peace between the Plymouth settlers and the Cape Cod Natives (both the Nasuets and the Cummaquid. Winslow attributed that outcome to Squanto.[256] Bradford wrote that the Natives whose corn had been stolen the previous winter came and received compensation and peace generally prevailed.[257]

Action to save Squanto in Nemasket[edit]

According to Winslow when the men who had rescued the Billington boy returned to Plymouth, it was confirmed to them that Massasoit had been ousted or taken by the Narragansetts.[258] They also learned that Corbitant, a Pocasset[259] sachem formerly tributary to Massasoit, was at Namasket attempting to pry that band away from Massasoit. Corbitant was reportedly also railing against the peace initiatives that the Plymouth settlers had just had with the Cummaquid and the Nausets. Squanto was an especial object of Corbitant's ire not only because of his role in mediating peace with the Cape Cod Natives but also because he was the principal means by which the settlers could communicate with the natives: "if he were dead, the English had lost their tongue,' he reportedly said.[260] Hobomok, a Pokanoket residing among them,[bj] had also been threatened before for his loyalty to Massasoit.[262] Squanto and Hobomok were evidently too frightened to try to seek out Massasoit, and instead went to Nemasket to find out what they could. Tokamahamon instead went looking for Massasoit. When there they were discovered by Corbitant, who captured both and while Corbitant was holding Squanto with a knife to his breast, Hobomok broke free and ran to Plymouth to alert them, thinking Squanto had died.[263]

Bradford's chronology is somewhat different and he makes no mention of a possible abduction of Massasoit. As he describes it the event happened sometime after the mission to the Nausets when "peace and acquaintance was pretty well established with the natives around them." Squanto and Hobomok were off on "business among the Indians" and on their return, they encountered Corbitant at Nemasket and fell into a quarrel during which he threatened to stab Hobomok. The latter escaped and informed the settlers that he feared Squanto was dead.[261] In any event, Governor Bradford organized an armed task force under the command of Standish, consisting of a dozen or so men.[bk] They set off before daybreak on August 14[266] under the guidance of Hobomok. The plan was to march the 14 miles ot Namasket, rest and then take the village unawares in the night. Hobomok lost the way, however, but Winslow of Hopkins, who had twice been to the place on their trip to Pokanoket and back, was able to navigate the group so as to arrive in time to eat before raiding the house Corbitant was stayiing according to Hobomok. The surprise was total, and the villagers were terrified. The English could not make the Natives understand that they were only looking for Corbitant, and several Nameskets were "three sore wounded" trying to escape the house.[267] At last they came to understand that Squanto was unharmed and staying in the village and that Corbitant and his train returned to Pokanoket. While the English searched the dwelling, Hobomok got on top of it and called for Squanto and Tiquantum, both of whom came. The settlers commandeered the house for the night. The next day they explained to the village that they only interested in Corbitant and those supporting him. They warned that if he continued threatening the English settlers or encouraged orthers or if Massasoit did not return from the Narragansetts or if anyone attempted harm to any of his subjects (including Squanto and Hobomok), the English would inflict retribution. That day they marched back to Plymouth with Namaskets helping bear their equipment.[268]

Bradford wrote that this action resulted in a firmer peace, and that "divers sachems" congratulated the settlers and more came to terms with them. Even Corbitant, through Massasoit, made his peace.[269] Nathaniel Morton much later recorded that on September 13, 1621 (o.s.) nine sub-sachem[bl] came to Plymouth and signed a document purporting to declare themselves "Loyal Subjects of King James, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland …"[270] Neither Bradford nor Winslow describe any such meeting, and Morton does not explain why the document does not contain any other terms as did the Treaty with Massasoit the same year. One of the signatories, "Caunbatant," is believed by Ford to be Corbitant.[271] But if he came to Plymouth that day, it would contradict Bradford who said that his peace concession was through Massasoit because he was "shy to come near them a long while after."[269]

Mission to the Massachuset people`[edit]

The English resolved to meet with the last confederation of villages on their border—the Massachuset, who the settlers heard had frequently threatened them.[272] On August 18, about a month after the return from Nemasket, a crew of ten settlers, as well as Squanto and two other Natives to interpret, set off around midnight, hoping to arrive before the next daybreak. But they misjudged the distance and were forced to anchor off shore and stay in the shallop over the next night.[273] Once ashore they found a woman coming to collect the lobsters trapped, and she told them where the villagers were. Squanto was sent to make contact. When the settlers met the sachem, they discovered he presided over a considerably reduced band of followers. His name was Obbatinewat, and he was a tributary of Massasoit. He explained that his current location within Boston harbor ("in the bottome of the Massachuset bay") it was not a permanent residence since he moved regularly to avoid the Tarentines[bm] as well as the Squa Sachim (the widow of Nanepashemet), another enemy.[275] Obbatinewat agreed to submit himself to King James in exchange for the colonists' promise to protect him from his enemies. He also took them to see the squa sachem across the Massachusetts Bay.

Engraving of a Pequot fort on Block Island in 1637 with design remarkably similar to the description of Nenepashemet's fort observed by Plymouth settlers in 1621.

On Friday, September 21 they went ashore (possibly at a place they called Squantum, Quincy, Massachusetts, near Dorchester[276]) and marched three miles to a recently harvested cornfield. A mile further they found the house of Nanepashemet, bult on a scaffod over raised poles six feet off the ground. Further on they came to a fort encircled by large poles and a trench breast-high. Inside the palisade was a house where Nanepashemet was buried.[277] A mile further on they found the place where the sachem had been killed. Here the English stayed sending Squanto and another Native to find the people. There were signs of hurried removal, but they found the women together with their corn and later a man who was brought to the settlers trembling. They assured him that they did not intend harm and he agreed to trade furs with them. Squanto urged that the English simply "rifle" the women and take their skins on the ground that "they are a bad people and oft threatned you,"[278] but the English insisted on treating them fairly. The women followed the men to the shallop, selling them everything they had, including the coats off their backs. As the colonists shipped off they noticed that the many islands in the harbor had been inhabited, some cleared entirely, but all the inhabitants had died.[279] Although they returned with "a good quantity of beaver," the men who had seen Boston Harbor expressed their regret that they had not settled there.[280]

The peace regime that Squanto helped achieve[edit]

During the fall of 1621 the Plymouth settlers had every reason to be contented with their condition, less than one year after the "starving times." Bradford expressed the sentiment with biblical allusion[bn] that they found "the Lord to be with them in all their ways, and to bless their outgoings and incomings …"[281] Winslow was more prosaic when he reviewed the political situation with respect to surrounding natives in December 1621: “Wee have found the ‘’Indians’’ very faithful in theyr Covenant of Peace with us; very loving and readie to pleasure us …" not only the greatest, Massasoit, “but also all the Princes and peoples round about us” for fifty miles. Even a sachem from Martha's Vineyard, which they never saw, but also seven others came in to submit to King James. "so that there is now great peace amongst the ‘’Indians’’ themselves, which was not formerly, neither would have in but for us …“[282]


Bradford wrote in his journal that with the fall in addition to their harvest of Indian corn, they had abundant fish and fowl, including many turkeys they took in addition to venison. He affirmed that the reports of plenty that many report "to their friends in England" were not "feigned but true reports."[283] He did not, however, describe any harvest festival with their native allies. Winslow, however, did, and the letter which was included in Mourt's Relation became the basis for the tradition of "the first Thanksgiving."[bo]

Winslow's description of what was later celebrated as the first Thanksgiving was quite short. He wrote that after the harvest (of Indian corn, their planting of peas were not worth gathering and their barley harvest of barley was "indifferent"), Bradford sent out four men fowling “so we might after a more special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labours …”[285] The time was one of recreation, including the shooting of arms, and many Natives joined them, including Massaoit and 90 of his men,[bp] who stayed three days. They killed five deer which they presented to Bradford, Standish and others in Plymouth. Winslow concluded his description by telling his readers that “we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie.”[287]

The Narragansett threat[edit]

The various treaties created a system where the English settlers filled the vacuum created by the pandemic. The villages and tribal networks surrounding Plymouth now saw themselves as tributaries to the English and (as they were assured) King James. The settlers also viewed the treaties as committing the Natives to a form of vassalage. Nathaniel Morton, Bradford's nephew, interpreted the original treaty with Massasoit, for example, as "at the same time" (not within the written treaty terms) acknowledging "content to become he Subject of our Sovereign Lord the King aforesaid, His Heirs and Successors, and gave until them all the Lands adjacent, to them and their Hears of ever.”[288] The problem of this political and commercial system was that it "incurred the resentment of the Narragansett by depriving them of tributaries just when Dutch traders were expanding their activities in the [Narragansett] bay."[289] In January 1622 the Narraganset responded by issuing an ultimatum to the English.

In December 1621 the Fortune (which had brought 35 more settlers) had departed for England.[bq] Not long afterwards rumors began to reach Plymouth that the Narragansett were making warlike preparations against the English.[br] Winslow believed that they had learned that the new settlers brought neither arms or provisions and thus in fact weakened the English colony.[293] Bradford saw their belligerency as a result of their desire to "lord it over" the peoples who had been weakened by the pandemic (and presumably obtain tribute from them) and the colonists were "a bar in their way." [294] In January 1621/22 a messenger from Narraganset sachem Caanaucus (who travelled with Tokamahamon, Winslow's "special friend") arrived looking for Squanto, who was away from the settlement. Winslow wrote that the messenger appeared relieved and left a bundle of arrows wrapped in a rattlesnake skin. Rather than let him depart, however, Bradford committed him to the custody of Standish. The captain asked Winslow, who had a "speciall familiaritie" with other Indians, to see if he could get anything out of the messenger. The messenger would not be specific but said that he believed "they were enemies to us." That night Winslow and another (probably Hopkins) took charge of him. After his fear subsided, the nessenger told him that the messenger who had come from Conanacus last summer to treat for peace, returned and persuaded the sachem on war. Conanacus was particularly aggrieved by the "meannesse" of the gifts sent him by the English, not only in relation to what he sent to colonists but also in light of his own greatness. On obtaining this information, Bradford ordered the messenger released.[295]

When Squanto returned he explained that the meaning of the arrows wrapped in snake skin was enmity; it was a challenge. After consultation, Bradford stuffed the snake skin with powder and shot and had a Native return it to Conanacus with a defiant message. Winslow wrote that the returned emblem so terrified Conanacus that he reused to touch it, and that it passed from hand to hand until, by a circuitous route, it was returned to Plymouth.[296]

Squanto's double dealing[edit]

Notwithstanding the colonists' bold response to the Narragansett challenge, the settlers realized their defenselessness to attack.[297] Bradford instituted a series of measures to secure Plymouth. Most important they decided to enclose the settlement within a pale (probably much like what was discovered surrounding Nenepashemet's fort. They shut the inhabitants without gates that were locked at night, and a night guard was posted. Standish divided the men into four squadrons and drilled them in where to report in the event of alarm. They also came up with a plan how to respond to fire alarms so as to have a sufficient armed force to respond to possible Native treachery.[298] The fence around the settlement required the most effort since it required felling suitable large trees, digging holes deep enough to support the large timbers and securing them close enough to each other to prevent penetration by arrows. This work had to be done in the winter and at a time too when the settlers were on half rations because of the new and unexpected settlers.[299] The work took more than a month to complete.[300]

False alarms[edit]

By the beginning of March, the fortification of the settlement had been accomplished. It was now time when the settlers had promised the Massachuset they would come to trade for furs. They received another alarm however, this time from Hobomok, who was still living with them. Hobomok told of his fear that the Massachuset had joined in a confederacy with the Narraganset and if Standish and his men went there, they would be cut off and at the same time the Narraganset would attack the settlement at Plymouth. Hobomok also told them that Squanto was part of this conspiracy, that he learned this from other Natives he met in the woods and that the settlers would find this out when Squanto would urge the settlers into the Native houses "for their better advantage."[301] This allegation must have come as a shock to the English given that Squanto's conduct for nearly a year seemed to have aligned him perfectly with the English interest both in helping to pacify surrounding societies and in obtaining goods that could be used to reduce their debt to the settlers' financial sponsors. Bradford consulted with his advisors, and they concluded that they had to make the mission despite this information. The decision was made partly for strategic reasons. If the colonists cancelled the promised trip out of fear and instead stayed shut up "in our new-enclosed towne," they might encourage even more aggression. But the main reason they had to make the trip was that their "Store was almost emptie" and without the corn they could obtain by trading "we could not long subsist …"[302] The governor therefore deputed Standish and 10 men to make the trip and sent along both Squanto and Hobomok, given "the jealousy between them."[303]

Not long after the shallop departed, "an Indian belonging to Squanto's family" came running in. He betrayed signs of great fear, constantly looking behind him as if someone "were at his heels." He was taken to Bradford to whom he told that many of the Narraganset together with Corbitant "and he thought Massasoit" were about to attack Plymouth. [303] Winslow (who was not there but wrote closer to the time of the incident than did Bradford) gave even more graphic details: His face was covered in fresh blood which he explain was a wound he received when he tried speaking up for the settlers. In this account he said that the combined forces were already at Nemasket and were set on taking advantage of the opportunity supplied by Standish's absence.[304] Bradford immediate put the settlement on military readiness and had the discharge fire three rounds in the event the shallop had not gone to far. Because of calm seas Standish and his men had just reached Gurnet's Nose, heard the alarm and quickly returned. When Hobomok first heard the news he "said flatly that it was false …" Not only was he assured of Massasoit's faithfulness, he knew that being a pniese meant he would have been consulted by Massasoit before he undertook such a scheme. To make further sure Hobomok volunteered his wife to return to Pokanoket to assess the situation for herself. At the same time Bradford had the watch maintained all that night, but there were no signs of Natives, hostile or otherwise.[305]

Hobomok's wife found the village of Pokanoket quiet with no signs of war preparations. She then informed Massasoit of the commotion at Plymouth. The sachem was "offended at the carriage of Tisquantum but was grateful for Bradford's trust in him. He also sent word back that he would send word to the governor, pursuant to the first article of the treaty they had entered, if any hostile actions were preparing.[306]

Allegations against Squanto[edit]

Winslow writes that "by degrees wee began to discover Tisquantum," but he does not describes the means or over what period of time this discovery took place. There apparently was no formal proceeding. The conclusion reached, according to Winslow, was that Squanto had been using his proximity and apparent influence over the English settlers to "to make himselfe great in the eyes of" local Natives for his own benefit. Winslow explains that Squanto convinced locals that he had the ability to influence the English toward peace or war and that he frequently extorted Natives by claiming that the settlers were about to kill them in order "that thereby hee might get gifts to himself to work their peace …"[307]

Bradford's account agrees with Winslow's to this point, and he also explains where the informatin came from: "by the former passages, and other things of like nature,"[308] evidently referring to rumors Hobomok said he heard in the woods. Winslow goes much further in his charge, however. claiming that Squanto intended to sabotage the peace with Massasoit by false claims of Massasoit aggression "hoping whilest things were hot in the heat of bloud, to provoke us to march into his Country against him, whereby he hoped to kindle such a flame as would not easily be quenched, and hoping if that blocke were once removed, there were no other betweene him and honour" which he preferred over life and peace.[309] Winslow later remembered "one notable (though) wicked practice of this Tisquantum"; namely, that he told the locals that the English possessed the "plague" buried under their storehouse and that they could unleash it at will. What he referred to was their cache of gunpowder.{{efn|The story was revealed by Squanto himself when some barrels of gunpowder were unearthed under a house. Hobomok asked what they were, and Squanto replied that it was the plague that he had told him and others about. Oddly in a tale of the wickedness of Squanto for claiming the English had control over the plague is this addendum: Hobomok asked one of the settlers whether it was true, and the settler replied, "no; But the God of the English had it in store, and could send it at is pleasure to the destruction of his and our enemies.”[310]

Massasoit demands Squanto[edit]

Captain Standish and his men eventually did go to the Massachuset and returned with returned with a "good store of Trade." On their return they saw that Massasoit who displayed his anger against Squanto. Bradford did his best to appease him, and he departed. No long afterward, however, he sent a messenger demanding that Squanto be put to death. Bradford responded that although Squanto "deserved to die both in respect of him [Massasoit] and us," but said that Squanto was too useful to the settlers because otherwise he had no one to translate. Not long afterward, the same messenger returned, this time with "divers others demanding Squanto. They argued that Squanto being a subject of Massasoit, the sachem was entitled to his return under the first article of the Peace Treaty. They further agued that since Bradford would not produce him for that reason, Massasoit had sent many beavers' skins for his consent. Finally, if Bradford would not send him, the messenger had brought Massasoit's own knife by which Bradford himself could cut off Squanto's head and hands to be returned with the messenger.

Governor William Bradford wrote regarding Squanto's death in Bradford's History of the English Settlement:

Here [Monomoyick Bay] Squanto fell ill of Indian fever, bleeding much at the nose, which the Indians take as a symptom of death, and within a few days he died. He begged the Governor to pray for him, that he might go to the Englishman's God in heaven, and bequeathed several of his things to his English friends, as remembrances. His death was a great loss.

The English settlers may have believed that Squanto had become a convert, but it is doubtful that he subscribed to Christianity in any orthodox way. William Wood writing a little more than a decade later explained why some of the Ninnimissinuok began recognizing the power of "the Englishmens God, as they call him": "because they could never yet have power by their conjurations to damnifie the English either in body or goods" and since the introduction of the new spirit "the times and seasons being much altered in sever or eight years, freer from lightning and thunder, and long droughts, suddaine and tempestuous dashes of rain, and lamentable cold Winters."[311] Although the English counted Squanto and later Hobomok among their first converts, the two probably "hoped to add the Christian God to their personal arrays" of deities.[312]


His name lives on in place names in Massachusetts' South Shore, most notably in the neighborhood of Squantum, Quincy, Massachusetts.


Notes, references and sources[edit]


  1. ^ Kinnicutt proposes meanings for the various renderings of his name: Squantam, a contracted form of Musquqntum menaing "He is angry"; Tantum is a shortened form of Keilhtannittoom, meaning "My great god"; Tanto, from Kehtanito, for "He is the greatest god": and Tisquqntum, for Atsquqntum, possibly for "He possesses the god of evil."[5] Finally, in contrast to all the other authority concluding that the meaning of Squanto has something to do with supernatural force, Dockstader writes that Tiquantum means "door" or "entrance."[6]
  2. ^ The other Native dispatched by Massasoit to assist the English settlers, Hobomok, also used the name of a supernatural being. Kupperman suggests that they both may have taken up these names "as they took up English association to indicate that they were entering into a liminal state with all the power and danger that that entailed."[8] Pulsipher describes a Maine shaman who spoke of God's movement from the Natives to the English (to destroy them) also used the same divine avatar Squando perhaps for a similar reason.[9] The problem with Kupperman's speculation with respect to Squanto is that he is recorded to have used the name in 1614. So if he assumed the name in his dealing with the English, he had to have done it much earlier than 1621.
  3. ^ The languages of Southern New England are known today as: Western Abenaki, Massachusett, Loup A and Loup B, Narragansett, Mohegan-Pequot and Quiripi-Unquachog.[14] The languages were spoken south of the Saco River including eastern Long Island. These languages descended from a Proto-Eastern Algonquian language (which broke off from Proto-Algonquian about 2,000 years ago[15]), concentrated in southeastern New England, From this nucleus Eastern Algonquian languages spread southward by language replacement and northward by migration. Many 17th-century writers state that numerous people in the coastal areas of Southern New England were fluent in two or more of these languages.[16]
  4. ^ In his grammar of the American languages, Roger Williams says that between the French possessions (in Canada) and the Dutch (in New York) "their Dialects doe exceedingly differ; yet not so, but (within that compass) a man may, by this helpe, converse with thousands of Natives all over the Countrey …"[17]
  5. ^ So says Adolf[18] referencing Morison.[19] Morison gives Mourt's Relation as authority for both assertions (without giving a page citation). While it is true that in that word Patuxet is equated there with "New Plymouth" (or in Dexter's transcription New Plimmoth),[20] Dexter's note on its meaning is different from Morison's conclusion: "Patuxet… is probably of different composition from Pawtucket, i.e. 'at the little falls' Petuhqui, or Puttukque, signifying 'round' is common in Indian names, as a preface of 'rock,' 'hill,' 'lake,' &c. Probably Patuxet should be resolved into Puttukq-something,—it is difficult to say what."[21] An early 19th-century historian wrote that "Indians did not name places arbitrarily, but from its peculiarities," but as to what "patuxet" signified he did not say, noting only that "the name of Patuxet was attached to many places in New England."[22]
  6. ^ Wampanoags as an ethnonym was first applied to later descendants of the Pokanoket and was not used by them to describe themselves. It seems to have been derived from a Delaware term for "easterner" and picked up by Dutch explorers who applied the term Wapanoos to Natives living near Narragansett Bay. By contrast John Smith, who visited the area in 1614, identified the Pakanokicks in association with Massasoyts, presumably kin of the Wampanoag chief sachem Massassoit, who would become allied with the Plymouth settlers (see below).[23] The tributaries of this loosely confedereated association of bands included the Wampagnoags of Bristol County, Rhode Island, the Pocassets at Rehoboth, Swansea and Tiverton, the Agawans at Wareham, the Manomets at Sandwich, the Sakatuckets at Mashpee, the Mattakees as Barnstable, the Nobsquassets at Yarmouth, the Monamoys at Chatham, the Nasuets at Eastham and the Natives in the islands to the south of Cape Cod.[24] The term Pokanoket came to be applied to all the territory and peoples presided over by Massasoit.[25]
  7. ^ So concluded Bennett,[31] chiefly based on the writing of Roger Williams, who wrote: "their great remove is from their Summer fields to warme and thicke woodie bottomes where they winter …"[32] Thomas Morton also noted annual (if not more) changes of habitation: "They use not to winter and summer in the same place, for that would be reason to make the fuell scarece; but, after the manner of the Gentry of civilized nations, remove for their pleasures…"[33] Morton suggested that they removed to hunt, fish or even for "Revelles." Williams, however, said that other than the removal of the entire village from winter and summer habitations, individual families or even the whole might move: to avoid flea infestations, to tend to multiple corn plots, when there was a death in the household, and in response to hostilities."[34] In any event these descriptions, and others, suggest the life of relatively sedentary horticulturists.
  8. ^ William Wood wrote of the women's work in tending to corn: "wherein they exceede our English husband-men, keeping it so cleare with their Clamme shell-hooes, as if it were a garden rather than a corne-field, not suffering a choaking weede to advance his audacious head above their infant corne, or an undermining worme to spoile his spumes."[38] So regular was their diligence that when a field spouted weeds the English believed the Natives were neglecting cultivation to prepare for war.[39]
  9. ^ Gookin in the passage quoted above[43] by dividing the native population into five "Nations" with subordinated groups recognized the distinction between sachem and "great sachem." Edward Winslow described the nature of a great sachem, which he called a "King" as follows:

    Their Sachims cannot bee all called Kings, but onely some few of them, to whom the rest resort for protection, and pay homage unto them, neither may they warre without their knowledge and approbation, yet to be commanded by the greater as occasion serveth. Of these sort is Massassowat our friend, and Conanacus of Nanohigganset our supposed enemy.[44]

    Wood also described great sachems: "A King of large Dominions hath his Viceroyes, or inferiour Kings under him, to agitate his State-affaires, and keepe his Subjects in good decorum. Other Officers there be, but how to distinguish them by name is some-thing difficult … ."[45] Massassoit, as Winslow pointed out, was such a great sachem or kaeasonimoog as his Pokanoket presided over other sachemships, including Squanto's Patuxet.[46]

  10. ^ Roger Williams noted that "The Natives are very exact and punctual in the bounds of their Lands, belonging to this or that Prince or People, (even to a River, Brooke) &c."[47] Winslow wrote that sachems were jealous of their domain: "Every Sachim knoweth how farre the bounds and limites of his own Countrey extendeth, and that is his owne proper inheritance … . The great Sachims or Kings, know their owne bounds or limits of land, as well as the rest."[48] Boundaries were well known and defined by drainage basins, streams, hills or other notable features. Even a casual trespass, such as encroachment on a deer park was grounds for hostility and even death.[49]
  11. ^ Winslow called this supernatural being Hobbamock (the Natives north of the Pokanoket call it Hobbamoqui, he said) and expressly equated him with their devil.[61] William Wood called this same supernatural being Abamacho and said it presided over the infernal regions where their enemies and "loose livers" were condemned to dwell after death.[62] Winslow used the term powah to refer to the shaman who conducted the healing ceremony[63] Wood described in detail these ceremonies.[64]
  12. ^ According to Isaack de Rasieres, on return the initiate would be required to imbibe poisonous herbs for several days. If he was able to endure the ordeal, he was rewarded with a wife and presumably obtained a certain rank among the Pokanoket.[67]
  13. ^ In June 1524 Florentine explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano under commission of Francis I sailed into Newport Harbor and, according to his published report encountered the aboriginal Narragansett with mutual exuberance and acceptance. It would be over a half century later that further direct contacts occurred, these by the English who were driven first by privateering and the desire to match Spain's colonial enterprise during the Anglo-Spanish War and later in competition with the French who were establishing entrepôts in the north in the area of Newfoundland and the Saint Lawrence River. The English adventurers who reached southern New England included Bartholomew Gosnold in 1602, Martin Pring in 1603 and George Weymouth in 1605. The French explorers Samuel de Champlain and Marc Lescarbot explored the New England coast from the French fishing and trading settlements in the north between 1604 and 1606. Dutch explorer Adrien Block encountered the peoples between Narragansett Bay and Long Island in his cartographic voyages between 1612 and 1614. And John Smith, recently active in the founding of the Colony of Virginia at Jamestown, explored the coast of New England with a view towards the prospects of settlement in 1614.[69] The fishermen off the Newfoundland banks from Bristol, Normandy and Brittany as well as the Basque provinces began making annual spring visit beginning as early as 1481 to bring salted cod for sale to Southern Europe.[70]
  14. ^ Paleopathological evidence exists for European importation of typhoid, diphtheria, influenza, measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, tuberculosis, yellow fever, scarlet fever, gonorrhea and small pox.[71]
  15. ^ The crown was unwilling to expend any money to finance exploration or settlement but was quite interested in participating in any revenue that it generated. It therefore granted monopolies to favored entrepreneurs to undertake the financing. To obtain investors the entrepreneurs had to be able to show near term profits and to do so be willing to cut expense and produce immediate income. And that's what the promoters proposed doing, regardless of the wishes of the native inhabitants.
  16. ^ Unlike the French or even the Spanish, the English never attempted any missions among the Natives until much later. Roger Williams made this point in 1643.[76]
  17. ^ Based on the Native words that Rosier listed in his report, Goddard concluded that the Natives spoke Eastern Abenaki.[78] The speakers, therefore, might have been Penobscot, Passamaquoddy or members of smaller societies like the Micmac or Maliseet.
  18. ^ At about 5:00 p.m. on May 30, the remaining 14 men on board the Archangelspied three canoes of Natives and convinced three individuals to come aboard. The English sailors intrigued them with iron knives, combs, glasses, bracelets, rings and "other triffles." "We found them then (as after) a people of exceeding good intention, quicke understanding and readie capacitie."[79] Having developed a sign language to communicate with them, Rosier persuaded them to spend the night near the ship, and the next day after providing breakfast for them, he made them to understand that if they returned with skins the English would trade knives and other desirable items for them.[80]
  19. ^ Captain Weymouth returned that morning (May 31), and shortly after noon four canoes of Natives returned with items to trade. A rain prevented commerce on land, but after it subsided the Captain invited several on board and even gave one a shirt and the rest gowns to dry in. After treating them to sugar candy and raisins (among other things), the English provided the Natives with bread and fish for their companions.[81] The next morning Rosier and five other Englishmen traded with 28 Natives. The captain and crew entertained them the rest of the day, with Rosier intriguing them by writing down their names for things and the captain slightly alarming them with his magnetized sword. That night several Natives slept aboard the ship while one sailor stayed ashore where he witnessed a two-hour pow-wow.[82] June 2 being Sabbath Rosier "signed they should depart, and at the next Sun rising we would goe along with them to their houses; which they understood (as we thought) and departed …"[83] That evening three canoes came to the vessel bearing tobacco, and another night of amicable hospitality ensued.[84]
  20. ^ "Thus because we found the land a place answereable to the intent of our discovery, viz. fit for any nation to inhabit, we used the people with as great kindness as we could devise, or found them capable of."[85]
  21. ^ Early the next morning the Natives who slept ashore prevailed upon the captain to accompany them to the mainland where they would trade (as Rosier had suggested the day before). Weymouth took 15 men with eight rowers and travelled to the mainland. Instead of disembarking, the English arranged to send a scout (holding a hostage for security). The scout reported that there were 280 men with bows and arrows and tamed wolves, but no merchandise. The English immediately suspected a trap.[86]
  22. ^ On June 3 Natives visited the vessel again, and three went aboard. Rosier and eight other men went on land to pretend to trade with the other three. One took flight, and the English "used little delay, but suddenly laid hands upon them." The two Natives struggled mightily "it was as much as five or sixe of us could doe to get them into the light horsemen" where they were borne to the ship and all five were shunted off to the lower deck, where they remained as Weymouth continued exploring.[88]
  23. ^ Weymouth took the Natives, who were Eastern Abenaki from Maine, whereas Squanto, who was Patuxet, a Southern New England Algonquin, lived in Plymouth, a place, according to Rosier's report, the Archangel neither reached nor planned to. Adams maintains that "it is not supposable that a member of the Pokánoket tribe would be passing the summer of 1605 in a visit among his deadly enemies the Tarratines, whose language was not even intelligible to him … and be captures as one of a party of them in the way described by Rosier… ." Adams 1892, p. 24 n.2 (cont'd). Rosier himself names the five Natives, and while two of them have a similar name to two of the three Gorges names, the other is not Squanto at all. Moreover, much earlier Gorges had in fact written about Squanto—this in connection with Squanto's actual kidnapping later by Thomas Hunt (described below), but he did not note that this Squanto was the same person who had lived in his house years before. Moreover, if Squanto were in England in 1605, he had to return to New England to be kidnapped by Thomas Hunt. But there is no record of any ship sailing to New England with Squanto on board, before the Hunt abduction. Moreover, although John Smith writes disapprovingly of Squanto's abduction by Hunt, he does not mention that this would have been a second abduction of him, if Gorges's much later account were true. Finally, according to an early Plymouth "joiner," when Squanto was asked how he learned English, he related the story of his abduction by Hunt in 1614, his escape from Spain to England and his stay there but not his supposed capture by Weymouth in 1605 and his stay in England with Gorges.[94]
  24. ^ Salisbury suggests that Sassacomit was in fact Samoset, whose later pairing with Squanto in Plymouth might explain Gorges's mistaking him for Squanto.[98] If this is true, and if Samoset travelled with Dermer from Permaquid to the Cape Cod area (see below), Samoset would have been a shipmate of Squanto, and thus the two of them would have had a longer acquaintance than otherwise supposed, as well as shared experiences of Sapin and England, and it would explain why the two of them were among the Pokanoket at the same time.
  25. ^ Whether the ideas were Hayes's own or Burghley's which Hayes merely justified by the report, a settlement in southern New England comported with Burghley's foreign policy objective. Hayes argued that the area's climate better comported with English comfort and produced agriculture much like England's. The area also produced a wealth of fish prized in Europe which could support a small foothold establishment with more settlers to be added later.[100]
  26. ^ Gabriel Archer's description expresses the surprise the English experienced in finding Natives so thoroughly influenced by Europeans (probably French fishermen). He remarked on the breeches, stocking, shoes and hat "made by some Christian" but worn by one of them as well as how "boldly" they boarded the Concord. They could also speak "divers Christian words" and with chalk described the coast thereabout.[103]
  27. ^ On May 31, 1602 (o.s.) Gosnold sailed the Concord toward Hap's Hill, which is now Round Hill near Dumplin Rocks[109] in Dartmouth, and came ashore. He was greeted by men, women and children willing to offer him "skinnes of wilde beasts, which may be rich Furres, Tobacco, Hempe, artificial Strings coloured, Chaines," and so forth.[110]
  28. ^ The exact spot is a matter of conjecture. Bancroft believed that it was at Old Town Harbor in Martha's Vineyard, which would be consistent with Pring's statement that it was in "the latitude of 41. degrees and odd minutes."[116] Burrage wrote that it was at Plymouth, Massachusetts, where the Mayflower settlers would later settle.[117] Salisbury thinks that it was in Provincetown Harbor.[118]
  29. ^ Pring tells the story of locals charmed by the playing of the zither ("gitterne") by a sailor, who the Natives paid tobacco, pipes and snakes skins to play, while they "danced twentie in a Ring … singing Io Ia Io Ia Ia Io …"[120]
  30. ^ The Mayflower settlers used the Julian calendar which (1) at the time was ten days 'behind" the modern Gregorian calendar (e.g., November 11, 1620 o.s. was the same as November 21, 1620 n.s.) and (2) for civil and legal purposes changed calendar years on March 25 rather than January 1 (e.g., March 1, 1620 o.s. was the same as March 11, 1621 n.s.). By that time however, January 1 had become popularly associated with "New Years day," so often dates in the period from January 1 to March 24 were written with both years, thus: March 1, 1620/21 (which was equivalent to March 11, 1621 n.s.).
  31. ^ On that day the settlers entered into their Mayflower Compact to give some legitimacy to settling outside their patent and to provide a basis for decision-making.[130]
  32. ^ Standish set off on November 15, with 16 men (including William Bradford) armed with matchlock guns and swords and wearing corslet armor. Within a mile's march along the shore, they encountered five or six Indians with a dog coming from the opposite direction. The Indians broke into the woods, and the Englishmen followed hard upon them, but the Indians ran away with "might and mayne."[133] Fearing treachery and ambush the English followed their footsteps until nightfall but saw no Natives.
  33. ^ On the second day of the first expedition, November 16, 1620 o.s., they came upon a mound of sand covered with old mats, which they soon learned was a grave and moved on. They then found fields of stubble from corn harvested earlier that year. Examining further they found planks and a kettle from a ship, next to which was a mound of fresh sand. When they dug it up they discovered fresh corn in baskets, the largest of which held three or four bushels of newly husked corn. They set up a sentinel and dug up all the corn.[134] After consultation, "we concluded to take the Ketle, and as much of the Corne as we could carry away with us … besides, they that could put any into their Pockets filled the same …"[135]
  34. ^ Along all the shore of Cape Cod Harbor tidal flats extended a considerable distance (Bradford estimated three-quarter of a mile) preventing even small boats from reaching shore.[136] That day a detachment left the boats to march along the shore. They were required to wade in dangerously cold water "to the mid[d]le of the thigh, and oft to the knees,"[137] a task more difficult for armored men. When they reached land, they found snow in drifts up to a foot high. They had to spend the night on land without the others because the boats could not find a landfall. Bradford attributes to this night the beginning of their winter dying: "some of our people that are dead tooke the originall of their death here."[138]
  35. ^ On November 29 the detachment having met up with the men from the boats, the combined force proceeded to the place from which the first expedition departed. Using their cutlasses and short swords they were able to dig through the ice and frozen ground to find the corn hidden by the men under Standish on November 17. They also found additional food stored by the Natives, which they took.[139]
  36. ^ As for the theft of food and seed, Bradford claims it was owing to "Gods good providence," otherwise they would have none.[142] And he elsewhere says they planned to pay for it when they met the Natives.[143] As for the thefts from the houses, Bradford said the men intended to leave beads and other other things as a sign of peace, but they forgot in their haste.[141] An early historian of the colony, Francis Baylies, called the theft "inexcusable" and by rationalizing that they would later repay it "they compromised with their consciences …"[144]
  37. ^ It took them two hours to get out of Cape Cod Harbor before they could unfurl their sail. The water was bitter and "frose on our on our clothes, and made them many times like coats of Iron …"[147] They sailed past Billingsgate Point into Wellfleet Harbor where they saw Natives stripping the blubber off of what they later discovered was an orca, which they called grampus.[148]
  38. ^ They discovered a large and ornate Native burying ground, but this time they did not disturb the graves.
  39. ^ Smith wrote that the Patuxet, whom he called the "Accomack"', were members of the Massachuset confederation.[163] Gookin has them as part of the Pokanoket confederation.[164] Most historians have followed Gookin, but Salisbury suggests that Gooking was "reinforcing the rewriting of local Indian history" first done by the English settlers in order to justify their land treaty with the Pokanoket in 1621.[165]
  40. ^ Massasoit was a titular name (meaning "great king or sachem"). His given name was Osamequin (which he used on the Sowams' deed), otherwise spelled Ousamequin or Woosamequin, and meant "yellow feather." The English uniformly refer to him as Massasoit.[167]
  41. ^ See Philbrick 2006, pp. 95–96. In his death speech in 1660 the most celebrated of New England shamans Passaconaway told his people that he had attempted to drive the English out by spiritual powers: I was as much an Enemy to the English at their first coming into these Parts, as anyone whatsoever, and did try all Ways and Means possible to have destroyed them, at least to have prevented them sitting down here, but I could no way effect it; … therefore I advise you never to contend with the English, nor make War with them."[178] Passaconaway was with the Massachuset, however. Moreover, Squanto reportedly had been advising of the power of the English long before the convocation.
  42. ^ Kupperman makes the suggestion that the name Samoset is a corruption of "Somerset"—a name the English fisherman used for him.[181] Earlier S.G. Drake suggested that Samoset tried to explain that he was from the "Somerset" part of Maine (named by Gorges) and the Plymouth settlers misunderstood him, thinking he was telling them his name.[182] Matthews, however, disproved the latter suggestion and makes a convincing case that Samoset was his original Native name and that he later became known among the English as "Capt. John Sommerset, a Sagamore Indian of Pemaquid," (and variations), who deeded land along Muscongus Bay to John Brown in 1625.[183] Salisbury suggests that Samoset may have been one of the Natives captured by Weymouth in 1605 and given over to Gorges—the one mistaken by Gorges in his old age for Squanto.[184]
  43. ^ On first seeing him the settlers immediately stopped Samoset before he could reach the "Randevous" evidently fearing that he would discover how sickly and depleted their numbers were.[189] Unperturbed, he greeted them in English with "well-come." He explained that he came from Monhegan Island where he learned English from the English fishermen that regularly used the island for settlements when they made their voyages to the Maine fishing grounds. He was even able to recite the names of captains and other officers of the regular vessels. Speaking openly, Samoset told the settlers of the surrounding natives, their leaders and strength. He told them of the peoples that inhabited the land they settled on and how the "extraordinary plague" had carried them off, meaning, as Winslow noted, "there is none to hinter our possession, or lay claim unto it …." He spent the entire day with them, spent the night and left the next morning, telling them that their nearest neighbors, the "Masasoits" numbered "sixtie stronge." Samoset also warned them the Nausets on Cape Cod, those from whom the settlers stole, were a hundred strong and had already killed Englishmen less than a year before. He was also aware of the hostile encounter the setters had with these people.[190]
  44. ^ As it was, the treaty called for the surrender of any Native who injured and English for punishment by the latter but not vice versa. The treaty also required Massosoit to bind his "Confederates" to the terms of the treaty.[196] The terms, however, were considered fair by Massasoit, and he even applied to the Plymouth court in 1639 to have the treaty ratified and renewed.[197]
  45. ^ With a view to their government for the new year, which began on March 25 under the Julian calendar then in use, the settlers again chose John Caver as their governor,[199] he having been first elected the previous November, when the settlers entered into their compact aboard the Mayflower.[200] Some time in April, while working in the fields Carver developed a headache and several hours later fell into a comma from which he never recovered, dying several days later. The settlers elected Bradford to replace him.[201]
  46. ^ Two years later John Pory reported to Henry Wriothesley, then treasurer of the Virginia Company: "In March the eels come forth out of places they lie bedded all winter, into the fresh streams, and there into the sea, and in their passage they are taken in pots. … In winter the inhabitants dig them up, being bedded in gravel not above two or three foot deep … They are passing sweet, fat and wholesome, having no taste at all of the mud, and are as great as ever I saw any."[205]
  47. ^ Despite frequently comparing their situation to living in the "howling wilderness" of Deuteronomy (32:10), the English found vast stretches of cleared land, so much so that they enacted laws to prevent deforestation and regulated tree cutting.[210]
  48. ^ The existence of tree stumps (left from their method deforestation)[211] and rocky soil[212] made plowing difficult, even if the Natives had iron plows and beasts of burden. But the native method of creating seed mounds had the beneficial result of the soil erosion that resulted when European methods were adopted, which methods involved "stirring the soil over the entire field." As a result, "it appears that the Indians were able to grow corn on the same field longer than the white settlers."[213]
  49. ^ Pory reported two years later: "In April and May come up another kind of fish which they call herring or old wives in infinite schools, into a small river running under the town, and so into a great pond or lake of a mile broad, where they cast their spawn, the water of the said river being in many places not above half a foot deep. Yea, when a heap of stones is reared up against them a foot high above the water, they leap and tumple over, and will not be beaten back with cudgels. … The inhabitants during the said two months take them up in hogsheads. And with those they eat not, they manure the ground, burying two or three in each hill of corn."[218]
  50. ^ Ceci discounts the testimony of Bradford and Winslow on the assumption that neither had seen Native fertilization by fish when they wrote,[207] although she offers no support for this conclusion, despite that Bradford's testimony must have been written much later than 1621 and that Winslow's letter was dated after he spent nearly a year in the Plymouth area, during which he went on several journeys to different Native villages.
  51. ^ Governor John Winthrop the Younger, shortly after being the first American elected to the English scientific association, the Royal Society, was asked by Robert Boyle to submit a treatise on American maize (possibly to help revitalize English agriculture after the devastation of the Civil War). Winthrop provided a detailed essay on the cultivation, use and value of maize[223]
  52. ^ The Narragansetts used mannawhatteaûg to designate several types of fish including the herring-like marine menhaden as well as "fertilizer" which "indicates that this fish … received its name from the fact of its being used as manure for cornfields."[232]
  53. ^ Salisbury follows Morton in believing Squanto a Pokanoket prisoner (despite Morton's confusion of Samoset and Squanto) and writes that as an exchange for his services in connection with the treaty with the English "the Pokanoket now freed him to become guide, interpreter, and diplomat for the colony."[235] There is no direct evidence of any such arrangement, although perhaps he was grateful for Squanto's advice that the English could become an ally agains the Narragansett, if what Pratt declared were true.[94] There was, however, no sign observed by Bradford or Winslow which showed Massasoit releasing Squanto after the treaty ceremonies.
  54. ^ Mourt's Relation says they left on June 10. That day being a Sabbath, Prince points out that it was therefore unlikely they left then.[239] Both he and Young[240] therefore follow Bradford who recorded (although many years after the event) that they left on July 2.[241]
  55. ^ En route they were accompanied by Natives who had been at the bay lobstering. At 3 p.m. they arrived at Nemasket, where the villagers fed and entertained them. At Squanto's suggestion they set off again where by dusk they reached the Indian weir near Titicut on the Taunton River where they met Nemaskets fishing for bass. They exchanged food and spent the night in the open air.[243] The next morning they set off again following the Taunton River, which promised to take them to Massasoit's seat. Again they encountered Natives many of whom offered to carry their baggage and even carry them across streams. The English would occasionally offer bead bracelets in gratitude.[244]
  56. ^ Because he was called back to the village unexpectedly Massasoit had no food for his guests. The next day, when with many village sachems invited to play games and visit the envoys, Massasoit was able to obtain two large fish, but they had to be shared among forty, and this represented the only food they had during their visit to Pokanoket. Winslow complained mostly about the sleeping accommodations, however. They were invited to sleep on the same planks that Massasoit, his wive and two of his chief men. Winslow also complained of the singing of the men and the fleas and lice within their home and the mosquitoes without.[245]
  57. ^ Winslow writes of this Tokamahamon that "we had found faithfull before and after upon all occasions,"[246] but there is no previous mention of him in either Mourt's Relation or Bradford's OPP. He does appear later, however.
  58. ^ Winslow reports that six "Savages:" accompanied them. They found food at the nearest village, which had fed them on the way to Pokanoket. They continued on to the weir, where they found a Native who provided half his catch to them. Winslow sent Tokamahamon on to Nemasket to see if he could have food waiting for them, while they spent the night at the weir. A thunderstorm began at 2 a.m. which continued until they reached Nemasket where they were fed (as they were during their outward journey). The envoys continued on in the rain and reached Plymouth so that they could observe Sabbath the next day.[247]
  59. ^ Winslow write that the mission began on June 10, under his dating this would have been the Monday after the Saturday that he and Hopkins returned. Prince finds this date inconsistent with certain details preceding and following the account of this mission and therefore holds that the trip took place sometime between the end of July and August 13.[248]
  60. ^ HIs name, they thought, was Maramoick (but that was probably the name of the location they were then at[252]): "we promised him restitution, & desired him either to come Patuxet for satisfaction, or else we would bring them so much corne againe, he promised to come, wee used him very kindly for the present.".[253]
  61. ^ Young believes that only seven men were left to guard Plymouth.[254] This calculation, however, assumed that both Winslow and Hopkins were still on their mission to Pokatoket and not with the 10 men among the Nasuets. But this is unlikely not only because it contradicts the chronology Young himself pendorsed, but also because it meant that Squanto would been with Winslow and Hopkins, but he is explicitly named among those on the mission to the Nausets.
  62. ^ This is the first mention of Hobomok in any of the settler records. Bradford describes him as "a proper lusty man, and a man of account for his valour and parts amongst the Indians …"[261]
  63. ^ Bradford wrote that the force was made up of Standish and fourteen men,[264] while Winslow wrote that ten men were sent.[265]
  64. ^ Their names as provided by Morton were: Oquamehud, Cawnacome, Obbatinnua, Nattawahunt, Caunbatant, Quadaquina, Huttamoden and Appanow.
  65. ^ Hutchinson writes that the Abeneki known as "Tarrateens" or "Tarrenteens" lived on the Kennebec and nearby rivers in Maine. They traded frequently with the French who disposed them against the English. Within the first year of the Massachusetts Bay colony they murdered several settlers who went to trade with them. After the murderers were hanged, there was tentative peace between them and the English for forty years, but not with the Massachuset. "There was great enmity between the Tarrentines and the Alberginians, or the Indians of Massachusets Bay, who although they had been formerly a great people, yet were so reduced, that, upon alarms, they wouly [sic] fly to the English houses as to asylums, where the Tarrenteens durst not pursue them."[274]
  66. ^ Bradford quoted Deuteronomy 32:8, which those familiar would understand the unspoken allusion to a "waste howling wilderness." But the chapter also has the assurance that the Lord kept Jacob "as the apple of his eye."
  67. ^ So Alexander Young put it as early as 1841.[284]
  68. ^ Humins surmises that the entourage included sachems and other heademn of the confederation's villages."[286]
  69. ^ According to John Smith's account in New England Trials (1622), the Fortune arrived at New Plymouth on November 11, 1621 (o.s.) and departed December 12.[290] Bradford described the 35 that were to remain as "unexpected or looked for" and detailed how they were less prepared than the original settlers had been with no provisions, no material to construct habitation and the poorest of clothes. It was only when they entered Cape Cod Bay, according to Bradford, that they began to consider what desperation they would be in if the original colonists had perished. The Fortune also brought a letter from London financier Thomas Weston complaining about holding the Mayflower for so long the previous year and failing to lade her for her return. Bradford's response was surprisingly mild. They also shipped back three hogshead of furs as well as sasssafras, and clapboard for a total freigt value of ₤500.[291]
  70. ^ Winslow wrote that the Narragansett had sought and obtained a peace agreement with the Plymouth settlers the previous summer,[292] although no mention of it is made in any of the writings of the settlers.


  1. ^ Baxter 1890, p. I104 n.146; Kinnicutt 1914, pp. 110–12.
  2. ^ Young 1841, p. 202 n.1.
  3. ^ Mann 2005.
  4. ^ Martin 1978, p. 34.
  5. ^ Kinnicutt 1914, p. 112.
  6. ^ Dockstader 1977.
  7. ^ a b Salisbury 1981, p. 230.
  8. ^ Kupperman 2000, p. 60.
  9. ^ Pulsipher 2005, pp. 191-92.
  10. ^ Salisbury 1981, pp. 228.
  11. ^ Salisbury 1981, pp. 228–29.
  12. ^ Bragdon 1996, p. i.
  13. ^ Letter of Emmanuel Altham to his brother Sir Edward Altham, September 1623, in James 1963, p. 29. A copy of the letter is also reproduced online by MayflowerHistory.com.
  14. ^ Goddard 1978, pp. passim.
  15. ^ Goddard 1978, p. 70.
  16. ^ Bragdon 1996, pp. 28–29, 34.
  17. ^ Williams 1643, pp. [ii]–[iii]. See also Salisbury 1981, p. 229.
  18. ^ Adolf 1964, p. 257 n.1.
  19. ^ Bradford 1952, p. 82 n.7.
  20. ^ Young 1841, p. 203 and Dexter 1865, p. 99.
  21. ^ Dexter & 1865 p84 n.297.
  22. ^ Baylies 1830, p. 63 n.‡.
  23. ^ Smith 1907, p. II:12.
  24. ^ Weston 1906, p. 1 n.2.
  25. ^ Salwen 1978, pp. 174–75.
  26. ^ Morison 1956, pp. 69–74.
  27. ^ Axtell 1978, p. 119.
  28. ^ Bennett 1955, pp. 370–71.
  29. ^ Bennett 1955, pp. 374–75.
  30. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 12 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 35 and Young 1841, p. 144; Morton 1637 in Adams 1883, pp. 134–35; Letter of Philaret (John Dunton) to Rev. Samuel Annesley, n.d. (1686) in Whitmore 1867, pp. 207–46, 217.
  31. ^ Bennett 1955, p. 375.
  32. ^ Williams 1643, p. 47.
  33. ^ Morton 1637, p. 138.
  34. ^ Williams 1643, p. 46.
  35. ^ Wood 1634, p. 76.
  36. ^ Bennett 1955, p. 392.
  37. ^ Russell 1980, pp. 166-67, 169.
  38. ^ Wood 1634, p. 106.
  39. ^ Jennings 1976, p. 63.
  40. ^ Russell 1980, pp. 120–21; Jennings 1976, pp. 65–67.
  41. ^ Jennings 1976, p. 112.
  42. ^ Bragdon 1996, pp. 140–41.
  43. ^ Gookin 1792, pp. 147–49.
  44. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 56 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 360–61.
  45. ^ Wood 1634, p. 90.
  46. ^ See Bragdon 1996, p. 141.
  47. ^ Williams 1643, p. 93.
  48. ^ Winslow 1924, p. 57 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 361–62.
  49. ^ Russell 1980, p. 21.
  50. ^ Wood 1634, p. 89.
  51. ^ Williams 1643, p. 134.
  52. ^ Gookin 1792, p. 154.
  53. ^ Winslow 1924, p. 57 reprinted at Youmg 1841, p. 361.
  54. ^ Bragdon 1996, p. 146.
  55. ^ Winslow 1624, pp. 59–60 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 364–65; Wood 1634, p. 90; Williams 1643, p. 136.
  56. ^ Winslow 1624, pp. 57–58 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 362–63; Jennings 1976, p. 113.
  57. ^ Bragdon 1996, pp. 145, 147–48; Salisbury 1982, p. 47; Jennings 1976, p. 113.
  58. ^ Williams1643, pp. 178–79; Brigdon 1996, pp. 148–50.
  59. ^ Brandon 1996, p. 151; Humins 1987, pp. 58–59; Salisbury 1982.
  60. ^ Bragdon1996, p. 142.
  61. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 53 reprinted at Young 1841, p. 356.
  62. ^ Wood 1634, p. 105 For more on Abbomocho, see Bragdon 1996, pp. 143, 188–90, 201–02.
  63. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 54 reprinted at Young 1841, p. 357.
  64. ^ Wood 1634, pp. 92–94.
  65. ^ a b Robbins 1956, p. 61.
  66. ^ Bragdon 1996, p. 143.
  67. ^ Letter of Isaack de Rasieres to Samuel Bloomaert, ca. 1628, in James 1963, p. 79. See also Salisbury 1981, p. 229.
  68. ^ Robbins 1956, p. 59.
  69. ^ Bragdon 1996, pp. 3–6.
  70. ^ Martin 1978, p. 41.
  71. ^ Martin 1978, p. 43.
  72. ^ Jennings 1976, pp. 15–16, 22–24, 26–31; Martin 1978, pp. 43–51.
  73. ^ Jennings 1976, pp. 85–88.
  74. ^ Bragdon 1996, p. 6.
  75. ^ Jennings 1976, p. 76.
  76. ^ Williams 1643, pp. [x]–[xii].
  77. ^ Burrage 1906, p. 355.
  78. ^ Goddard 1978, p. 71.
  79. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 367–68.
  80. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 367–369.
  81. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 369–71.
  82. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 371–74.
  83. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 374.
  84. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 375–76.
  85. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 371.
  86. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 367–77.
  87. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 377.
  88. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 377–79.
  89. ^ Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 379.
  90. ^ Salisbury 1982, p. 91.
  91. ^ Champlain 1878–82, p. II:92.
  92. ^ Rosier 1065 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 357.
  93. ^ Gorges 1658 reprinted at Baxter 1890, p. II:8.
  94. ^ a b Pratt 1858, p. 485.
  95. ^ Salisbury 1982, pp. 265–66 n.15; Shuffelton 1976, p. 109; Adolf 1964, p. 247; Adams 1892, p. 24 n. 2 (cont'd) ("there can be no doubt that Gorges was mistaken in his statement, and that the Patuxet savage was not kidnapped at Pemaquid."); Burrage 1906 ("erroneously introduced [in Briefe Narration] by Gorges writing many years afterward."); Deane 1885, p. 37 ("In saying that the name of one of these three natives was "Tasquantum," he errs."). On the other had Kinnecutt sets forth circumstances that he believes gives Gorges's statement some plausibility. Kinnecutt 1914, pp. 109–11.
  96. ^ Salisbury 1981, p. 233.
  97. ^ Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1832–37 reprinted in Brown 1897, pp. 127–39. See also Burrage 1914, pp. 56–58.
  98. ^ Salisbury 1982, p. 266 n.15.
  99. ^ Saluisbury 1982, pp. 92–94.
  100. ^ Quinn 1960, pp. 37–39.
  101. ^ Brereton 1602, pp. 3–4 reprinted in Levermore 1912, p. I:31.
  102. ^ Purchas 1625, p. IV:1647 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 72 and Levermore 1912, p. I:43.
  103. ^ Purchas 1625, p. IV:1647 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 73 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:44–45.
  104. ^ Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1647–48 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 73–74 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:45–46. See also Brereton 1602, p. 4 reprinted in Levermore 1912, p. I:32.
  105. ^ Purchas 1625, p. IV:1648 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 74–75 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:46–47
  106. ^ Brereton 1602, p. 5 reprinted in Levermore 1912, p. I:33; Purchas 1625, p. IV:1648 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 75–76 and Levermore 1912, p. I:47.
  107. ^ Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1648–49 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 75–76 and Levermore 1912, p. I:49.
  108. ^ Levermore 1912, pp. I:49–50.
  109. ^ Knapp 1836, pp. 39-40.
  110. ^ Purchas 1625, p. IV:1649 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 78 and Levermore 1912, p. I:50
  111. ^ Salisbury 1982, p. 88.
  112. ^ Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1649–50 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 79 and Levermore 1912, p. I:51
  113. ^ Purchas 1625, p. IV:1650 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 80–81 and Levermore 1912, p. I:53
  114. ^ Salisbury 1982, pp. 87–88.
  115. ^ Purchas 1625, p. IV:1655 reprinted in Burrage 1906, p. 348 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:63–64
  116. ^ Bancroft 1862, p. 114.
  117. ^ Burrage 1906, pp. 346–47 n.4.
  118. ^ Salisbury 1982, p. 89.
  119. ^ Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1654–55 reprinted in Burrage 1906, pp. 346–47 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:63–63.
  120. ^ a b Purchas 1625, p. 1655 reprinted in Burrage 1906, p. 347 and Levermore 1912, p. I:63.
  121. ^ Purchas 1625, p. 1656 reprinted in Burrage 1906, pp. 350–51 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:66–67
  122. ^ Salisbury 1982, p. 90.
  123. ^ Winslow, Edward; Bradford, William. Caleb Johnson, ed. "Mourt's Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, 1622, Part I". The Plymouth Colony Archive Project. Retrieved 2008-11-25.  (Uses modern spelling.)
  124. ^ Mann, Charles. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, New York: Random House, 2005.
  125. ^ Kinnecut 1914, p. ?.
  126. ^ Alan Axlerod, Little-known Wars of Great and Lasting Impact, p. 101, Fair Winds Press; 1st edition (October 1, 2009); ISBN 1592333753; ASIN: B005UVWT94
  127. ^ Marr, J.S.; Cathey, J.T. (2010). "New hypothesis for cause of an epidemic among Native Americans, New England, 1616–1619". Emerg Infect Dis. 16 (2): 281–6. doi:10.3201/eid1602.090276. PMC 2957993Freely accessible. PMID 20113559. 
  128. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 1 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 1–2 and Young 1841, p. 117.
  129. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 60, Davis 1908, pp. 94–95 and Young 1841, pp. 102–03; Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 1–2 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 2–3 and Young 1841, pp. 117–18.
  130. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 2–3 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 5–8 and Young 1841, pp. 120–22.
  131. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 3–4 reprinted in Dexter, pp. 8–11 and Young 1841, pp. 122–24.
  132. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 64 and Davis 1908, pp. 97–98; Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 4 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 11–14 and Young 1841, pp. 125–26.
  133. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 4–5 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 13–16 and Young 1841, pp. 125–27. See also OPP in Morison 1952, pp. 64–65 and Davis 1908, p. 98.
  134. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 5–7 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 18–22 and Young 1841, pp. 129–34.
  135. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 7 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 22 and Young 1841, p. 134.
  136. ^ Young 1841, p. 120 n.2.
  137. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 8 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 27 and Young 1841, p. 138.
  138. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 9 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 28 and Young 1841, p. 139.
  139. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 10 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 30–31 and Young 1841, pp. 140–41.
  140. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 11 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 34 and Young 1841, p. 143.
  141. ^ a b Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 13 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 37 and Young 1841, p. 145.
  142. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 10 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 31 and Young 1841, p. 141.
  143. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 66 and Davis, p. 100. See also Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 7 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 22 and Young 1841, p. 134.
  144. ^ Baylies 1830, p. 54.
  145. ^ Philbrick 2006, p. 69.
  146. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 13 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 38 and Young 1841, pp. 146–47.
  147. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 16 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 46 and Young 1841, p. 151.
  148. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 16–17 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 46–48 and Young 1841, pp. 151–53. See also Young's note at p. 152 n.5.
  149. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 16–18 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 46–51 and Young 1841, pp. 151–55.
  150. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 18–20 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 52–55 and Young 1841, pp. 156–58.
  151. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 20 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 55 and Young 1841, p. 159.
  152. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 20–21 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 55–59 and Young 1841, pp. 159–62.
  153. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 60, Davis 1908, pp. 96 and Young 1841, p. 105.
  154. ^ Chase 1883, pp. 882-83.
  155. ^ Robbins 1956, p. 65.
  156. ^ Russell 1980, p. 22.
  157. ^ Johnson1654, p. 23.
  158. ^ Russell 1980, p. 26.
  159. ^ Tolman 1902, p. 15.
  160. ^ Russell 1980, pp. 51–52.
  161. ^ Russell 1980, pp. 187–88.
  162. ^ Robbins 1956, p. 64.
  163. ^ Arber 1910, p. I:192.
  164. ^ a b Gookin 1792, p. 148.
  165. ^ Salisbury 1982, p. 250 n.31.
  166. ^ Hutchinson 1765, pp. 459–60.
  167. ^ Bicknell 1908, p. 12.
  168. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 87 and Davis 1908, p. 118.
  169. ^ Robbins 1956, pp. 64–65.
  170. ^ Brinley 1792, pp. 216–17. See also Young 1851, p. 280 n.1.
  171. ^ De Forest 1851, p. 62.
  172. ^ Williams 1643, p. 172.
  173. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 1 reprinted at Young 1841, p. 280.
  174. ^ Salisbury 1982, p. 107; Testimony of Roger Williams relative to the purchase of lands at Seekonk and Providence, December 13, 1661 (o.s) in Bartlett 1963, pp. 316–17; "Indian Testimony about Pawtucket and Narragansett River," taken August 15, 1679 in Trumbull 1859, pp. 274–276.
  175. ^ Salisbury 1981, pp. 237–38.
  176. ^ Philbrick 2006, pp. 94–95.
  177. ^ Bradford 1952, p. 84 and Davis 1908, p. 114.
  178. ^ Hubbard 1677, p. 9 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. I:48-49.
  179. ^ Salsibury 1981, pp. 239–41.
  180. ^ Pratt 1858, p. 485. Ellipsis in brackets indicates lacuna in manuscript.
  181. ^ Kupperman 2000, p. 185.
  182. ^ Drake 1865, p. II: 81 n.95.
  183. ^ Matthews, pp. 61, 65, passim.
  184. ^ Salisbury 1982, pp. 265–66 n.15.
  185. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 30–31 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 79–80 and Young 1841, p. 180.
  186. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 31 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 80–81 and Young 1841, pp. 180–81.
  187. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 31–32 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 81–83 and Young 1841, pp. 181–82.
  188. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 33 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 84 and Young 1841, p. 181.
  189. ^ Young 1841, p. 182 n.3.
  190. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 32–33 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 84–87 and Young 1841, pp. 182–86.
  191. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 33–35 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 87–89 and Young 1841, pp. 186–89.
  192. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 35 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 90 and Young 1841, pp. 189–90.
  193. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 35–36 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 90–92 and Young 1841, pp. 190–92.
  194. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 36–37 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 92–94 and Young 1841, pp. 192–93.
  195. ^ a b Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 37 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 94 and Young 1841, p. 194.
  196. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 37 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 93–94 and Young 1841, p. 193.
  197. ^ Morton 1669, pp. 112–13.
  198. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 38–39 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 95–97 and Young 1841, pp. 195–97.
  199. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 39 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 97 and Young 1841, pp. 196–97.
  200. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 76 and Davis 1908, p. 107.
  201. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 86 and Davis 1908, p. 116.
  202. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 85 and Davis 1908, p. 113.
  203. ^ a b OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 81 and Davis 1908, p. 111.
  204. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 39 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 97 and Young 1841, p. 196.
  205. ^ Letter of John Pory to the Earl of Southampton, January 13, 1622/23 in James 1963, p. 7.
  206. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 85 and Davis 1908, pp. 115–16.
  207. ^ a b Ceci 1990, p. 71.
  208. ^ Russell 1980, p. 140.
  209. ^ Morton 1637, p. 172.
  210. ^ Russell 1980, pp. 121–22.
  211. ^ Bragdon 1996, p. 108.
  212. ^ See Letter of Isaack de Rasieres to Samuel Bloomaert, ca. 1628, in James 1963, p. 77 ("Their farms [around Plymouth] are not so good as ours [in New Netherlands], because they are more stony, and consequently not so suitable for the plow.").
  213. ^ Herndon 1967, p. 187.
  214. ^ Bragdon1996, pp. 107–10.
  215. ^ Russell 1980, p. 141.
  216. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 85 and Davis 1908, p. 116.
  217. ^ Letter from E.W. to [George Morton?], dated December 11, 1621 in Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 60 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 131–42, at 132–33 and Young 1841, pp. 230–38, at 230–31.
  218. ^ Letter of John Pory to the Earl of Southampton, January 13, 1622/23 in James 1963, pp. 7–8.
  219. ^ a b Ceci 1975, p. 28.
  220. ^ Rostlund 1957, p. 228 cited at Ceci 1975, p. 26.
  221. ^ Ceci 1975, p. 27.
  222. ^ Ceci 1975, pp. 28–29.
  223. ^ The essay was first published in Mood 1937, pp. 125–33.
  224. ^ Mood 1937, p. 128.
  225. ^ Jennings 1976, pp. 81-84, 135–38.
  226. ^ Warden 12975, p. 976.
  227. ^ Cushman 1622b, p. 68.
  228. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 60 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 132 and Young 1841, pp. 230–31
  229. ^ Nanepashemet 1993, pp. 47–49.
  230. ^ Nanepashemet 1993, p. 49.
  231. ^ Russell 1980, p. 167.
  232. ^ Chamberlain 1902, p. 248.
  233. ^ Philbrick 2006, p. 381.
  234. ^ Morton 1637, p. 104 in Adams 1883, p. 245.
  235. ^ 1981, p. 240.
  236. ^ Adolf 1964, p. 249.
  237. ^ Salisbury 1981, pp. 240, 242–43.
  238. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 40 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 98 and Young 1841, p. 202.
  239. ^ Prince 1826, p. 191 n.*.
  240. ^ Young 1841, p. 204 n.3.
  241. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 87 and Davis 1908, pp. 117–18.
  242. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 40–41 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 98–101 and Young 1841, pp. 202–04.
  243. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 41–43 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 100–03 and Young 1841, pp. 204–06.
  244. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 43–44 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 103–06 and Baxter, pp. 206–09.
  245. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 45–46 reprinted in (Dexter 1865, pp. 45–47) and Young 1841, pp. 210–211
  246. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 46 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 46.
  247. ^ Mourt's Relation: Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 46–48 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 109–11 and Young 1841, pp. 211–13
  248. ^ Prince 1826, p. 192 n.*.
  249. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 87–88.
  250. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 49–50 reprinted in Dexter & 186, pp. 112–13 and Young 1841, pp. 214–15.
  251. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 50 reprinted in Dexter & 1865 PP113–14 and Young 1841, pp. 215–16.
  252. ^ Dexter 1965, p. 115 n.371.
  253. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 51 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 115 and Young 1841, p. 217
  254. ^ Young 1841, pp. 217–18 n.4.
  255. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 50–52 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 114–17 and Young, pp. 216–18.
  256. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 119 and Young 1841, p. 219.
  257. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 88 and Davis 1908, pp. 118–19.
  258. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 118 and Young 1841, p. 219.
  259. ^ Bradford 1952, p. 88 n.4.
  260. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 118–20 and Young 1841, pp. 219–20.
  261. ^ a b OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 88 and Davis 1908, p. 119.
  262. ^ Mount's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 118–19 and Young 1841, p. 219.
  263. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 118–19 and Young 1841, pp. 219–20.
  264. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 88 and Davis 1908, p. 119.
  265. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 54 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 120 and Young 1841, p. 220.
  266. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 89 and Davis 1908, p. 120.
  267. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 89 and 120}},
  268. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 54–56 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 121–23 and Young 1841, pp. 220–23.
  269. ^ a b OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 89 and Davis 1908, p. 120.
  270. ^ Morton 1669, p. 29.
  271. ^ Ford 1912, p. 227 n.1.
  272. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 57 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 124 and Young 1841, p. 224.
  273. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 57 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 124–25 and Young 1841, pp. 224–25.
  274. ^ Hutchinson 1765, pp. 456–57.
  275. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 57–58 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 125–26 and Young 1841, p. 225.
  276. ^ See Young 1841, p. 226 n.3.
  277. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 58 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 127–28 and Young & 1841 pp226–27.
  278. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 59 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 129 and Young 1841, p. 227.
  279. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 58–60 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 127–30 and Young 1841, pp. 226–29.
  280. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 89 and Davis 1908, p. 120.
  281. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 90 and Davis 1908, p. 120.
  282. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 61 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 133–35 and Young 1841, pp. 232–33.
  283. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 90 and Davis 1908, p. 121
  284. ^ Young 1841, p. 231 n.3.
  285. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 61 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 133 and Young 1841, p. 231.
  286. ^ Humins 1987, p. 61.
  287. ^ Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 61 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 133 and Young 1841, pp. 231–32.
  288. ^ Morton 1669, p. 24.
  289. ^ Salisbury 1981, p. 241.
  290. ^ Arber 1910, p. I:260.
  291. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 90–96 and Davis 1908, pp. 121–25.
  292. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 1 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 280.
  293. ^ Winslow 1624, pp. 1–2 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 280–81.
  294. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 96–97 and Davis 1908, p. 125.
  295. ^ Winslow 1624, pp. 2-3 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 281–83.
  296. ^ Winslow 1624, pp. 3–4 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 283–84.
  297. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 4 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 284.
  298. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 97 and Davis & 198, p. 126.
  299. ^ OPP: Bradford, p. 96 and Davis 1908, p. 125; Winslow 1624, pp. 4–5 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 284–85.
  300. ^ OPP: Bradford, p. 96 and Davis 1908, p. 125.
  301. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 5 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 285.
  302. ^ Winslow 16245, p. 6 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 286.
  303. ^ a b OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 98 and Davis 1908, p. 127.
  304. ^ Winslow 1624, pp. 6–7 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 287.
  305. ^ OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 98 and Davis 1908, p. 127; Winslow 1624, p. 7 reprinted in Young 1941, pp. 287–88.
  306. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 7-8 reprinted in Young 8141, pp. 288–89.
  307. ^ Winslow 1624, p. 8 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 289,
  308. ^ Bradford 1952, p. 99 and Davis 1908, p. 128.
  309. ^ Winslow reprinted in Young, pp. 289–90.
  310. ^ Winslow 1624, pp. 10–11 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 292–92.
  311. ^ Wood 1634, p. 94.
  312. ^ Simmons 1988, p. 40.




External links[edit]