1911 illustration of Tisquantum ("Squanto") teaching the Plymouth colonists to plant maize.
|Died||late November 1622 O.S.|
Mamamoycke (or Monomoit)
(now Chatham, Massachusetts)
|Known for||Guidance, advice, and translation services to the Mayflower settlers|
Tisquantum (//; c. 1585 (±10 years?) – late November 1622 O.S.), more commonly known by the diminutive variant Squanto (//), was a member of the Patuxet tribe best known for being an early liaison between the native populations in Southern New England and the Mayflower Pilgrims who made their settlement at the site of Squanto's former summer village.
The Patuxet tribe lived on the western coast of Cape Cod Bay, where in 1614 Squanto was kidnapped by English explorer Thomas Hunt. Hunt brought Squanto to Spain, where he sold him in the city of Málaga. He was among a number of captives bought by local monks who focused on their education and evangelization. Squanto eventually travelled to England and from there returned to North America in 1619. He returned to his native village only to find that his tribe had been wiped out by an epidemic infection; Squanto was the last of the Patuxet.
When the Mayflower landed in 1620, Squanto worked to broker peaceable relations between the Pilgrims and the local Pokanokets. He played a key role in the early meetings in March 1621, partly because he spoke English. He then lived with the Pilgrims for 20 months, acting as a translator, guide, and advisor. He introduced the settlers to the fur trade, and taught them how to sow and fertilize native crops, which proved vital since the seeds which the Pilgrims had brought from England largely failed. As food shortages increased, Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford relied on Squanto to pilot a ship of settlers on a trading expedition around Cape Cod and through dangerous shoals. During that voyage, Squanto contracted what Bradford called an "Indian fever". Bradford stayed with him for several days until he died, which Bradford described as a "great loss".
Considerable mythology and legend has grown up around 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. Squanto was less the "noble savage" that later myth portrayed him and more a practical advisor and diplomat.
- 1 Name
- 2 Early life and years of bondage
- 2.1 The indigenous culture from which Squanto came
- 2.2 First encounters with Europeans
- 2.3 English kidnappings and Squanto's abduction
- 2.4 The great epidemic and Squanto's return to New England
- 3 Among the Mayflower settlers
- 3.1 The English search for a settlement site while the Natives warily respond
- 3.2 Mutual assistance forged
- 3.3 Squanto's role in settler diplomacy
- 3.4 The peace regime that Squanto helped achieve
- 3.5 Squanto's double dealing
- 3.6 Squanto's final mission with the settlers
- 3.7 Squanto's death
- 4 Assessment, memorials, representations, and folklore
- 5 Notes, references and sources
- 6 External links
Documents from the 17th century variously render the spelling of Tisquantum's name as Tisquantum, Tasquantum, and Tusquantum, and alternately call him Squanto, Squantum, Tantum, and Tantam. Even the two Mayflower settlers who dealt with him most closely spelled his name differently: William Bradford nicknamed him "Squanto" while Edward Winslow invariably referred to him by what historians believe is his proper name, Tisquantum. 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". Manitou was not a being. Rather it was "the spiritual potency of an object … or a phenonmenon", the force which made "everything in Nature responsive to man". Other suggestions have been offered,[a] but all involve some relationship to beings or powers that the English associated with the devil or evil.[b] 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). 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.[c]
Early life and years of bondage
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
"[T]he time and circumstances of Squanto's birth are unknown." 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, and therefore was born around 1585 (±10 years).
While records do not exist which describe his childhood or years before his abduction, a description of the social world in which he lived during his formative years may provide some insight. The interrelated societies that lived in southern New England at the time of English settlement attempts at the beginning of the 17th century referred to themselves as Ninnimissinuok, a variation of the Narragansett word Ninnimissinnȗwock, meaning roughly "people" and signifying "familiarity and shared identity". Squanto's band or 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. They spoke a dialect of Eastern Algonquian common to peoples as far west as Narragansett Bay.[d] The various Algonquian dialects of Southern New England were sufficiently similar to allow effective communications.[e] The term patuxet refers to the site of Plymouth, Massachusetts and, according to some writers (who may have misunderstood their source), means "at the little falls".[f] Politically it has been generally (although not universally) inferred that the Patuxet had been subjugated by the so-called Wampanoags (Pokanoket)[g] and made part of the so-called Wampanoag confederacy. 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". In this case the Southern New England tribes were closely related linguistically (through similar Algonquin languages), politically (by the Pokanoket suzerainty), 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) the southern New England Algonquins were "rudimentary sedentary cultivators". 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, 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.[h] 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 …" 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). To support their dependence on corn cultivation, the men cleared fields, broke the ground and fertilized the soil with fish and crustaceans, while the women tended to weeding with clam-shell hoes, with assiduity that amazed English settlers.[i] 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 sought, to relieve their distress for many years when the harvests of the English proved insufficient.
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). Sachems acquired their positions by selection from a hereditary group (perhaps matrilineal). 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 sachemship itself. Colonial writers noted that sachemships could themselves be subjected to a ruler over many sachems, a great sachem or kaeasonimoog, which the English writers referred to as "kings".[j] Sachems held dominion over specific territories marked by geographical identifiers.[k] The authority of the sachem was absolute within his domain. It was traditional, however, that for the sachem to strive to achieve a consensus in all important matters. 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. The chief functions of the sachem were to allocate land for cultivation, to manage the trade with other sachemships or more distant native societies, to dispense justice (including passing on capital punishment), to collect and store tribute from harvests and hunts in part at least for later redistribution, to aid in trade and for gifts in aid of foreign policy, and the making and conducting war. 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.
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 were 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. 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.[l] The priest class came from this order, and aside from healing powers, the shamans also acted as orators, giving them political power within their societies. Salisbury has suggested that Squanto was a pniesesock. This class may have produced something of a praetorian guard, equivalent to the "valiant men" described by Roger Williams among the Narragansett, the only Southern New England society (other than the Pokanoket) with a permanent military elite. Whether or not Squanto received special training for such a position, it is likely he underwent the initiation ordeal of Pokanoket or Patuxet youth, which required them to endure an entire winter alone.[m] 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.
First encounters with Europeans
For nearly a century before the landing of the Mayflower in 1620, the Ninnimissinuok sporadically experienced direct contact by European explorers and for decades before that the indirect consequences of European cod fishermen off the Newfoundland banks.[n] 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[o] 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. 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. 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. This was the result of the system the English employed which depended exclusively on private profiteers.[p] 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." The first goal was never seriously pursued.[q] 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
Captain Weymouth's voyage and the first kidnappings
In 1605 George Weymouth, sponsored by Henry Wriothesley and Thomas Arundell, 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,[r] 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.[s]
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 visit their homes to trade.[t] 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.[u] 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 the Natives intended mischief is not made entirely clear by Rosier.[v] 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 "savages", 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 suspicious we had discovered their plots) they should absent themselves from us.
So the next day they abducted five Natives, three by duplicity and two by violence.[w] 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". 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. The plan operated, however, 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 of the English who had been there fishing not long before and "under cover of friendship" had murdered five Natives of the area. 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. 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 ....
Circumstantial evidence makes nearly impossible the claim that it was Squanto among the three taken by Gorges,[x] and no modern historian entertains this as fact.[y] 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. 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. 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.[z] Two other of the kidnapped Abenaki were returned to Maine in connection with Gorges's plan to found a trading colony there. His idea was that the returned Abenaki would act as liaison between the English settlers and the local population. Instead of providing a safe entrée for the English escorting him, however, one of the two, Skidwarres, had to be forced to identify himself so that the Natives would stop the attack they made on the English. Skidwarres once home, did not persuade the Abenaki to trade with the English but instead 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. This experience did not deter Gorges 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 important assistance in this endeavor.
First Europeans among the Cape Cod Natives
Gosnold's settlement attempt
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.[aa] 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 with the purpose of setting up a small fishing outpost of 20 of the crew who would stay the winter. 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.[ab] 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. Continuing down the Atlantic coast of Cape Cod, pivoting on Gilbert's Point, they coasted westward observing numerous Natives on shore, many running after them to gaze.
The crew eventually saw (and named) Martha's Vineyard, which they explored but found seemingly uninhabited. 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. 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. 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,[ac] 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. Gosnold's men were interested, however, with the trade that would enrich them and their commercial underwriters in Europe so spent more time tending to the harvesting of 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. 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. Shortly thereafter, a dispute arose between those settlers who were supposed to remain and those who were returning to England, which resulted in the decision to end the settlement project. All of the settlers embarked on the return voyage on June 17.
No attempt was made by the English to learn from this encounter with the local populations. The entrepreneurs were interested only in return on investment, and viewed the Natives simply as a means to achieve European commercial goals. Over the next decade settlers would involve themselves in a series of increasingly hostile encounters, and by the time of the Mayflower landing the amiable helpfulness that Gosnold first discovered among all the Ninnimissinuok had become open hostility.
Pring's failed settlement
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 a 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 dogs Pring wrote: "when we would be rid of the Savages company wee would let loose the Mastives, and suddenly without cry they would flee away." They found sassafras in sufficient quantity in a bay,[ad] and immediately built a barricado for defense against the inhabitants. Pring insisted that they were constantly visited by groups of Natives as large as "one hundred and twentie at once". He does not explain, however, how relations with the locals deteriorated from harmony[ae] to the day when the settlers fired their cannon and set the mastiffs on 140 of them, 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.
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 unable to form any working relation with the native populations. "Instead their blustering approach, particularly their violence and their unwillingness to enter into reciprocal relationships, was fanning Indian resentment toward their nation." This as much as anything else doomed Gorges's Sagadahoc Colony among the Abenaki.
English kidnapping around Cape Cod
English kidnapping of Natives did not stop with the failure of Weymouth's abductions to achieve its purpose. In fact, by 1610 Native Americans on display in England was such a common event that Shakespeare makes a joke of it in The Tempest.[af] The following year Shakespeare's friend, Henry Wriothesley, who had already cosponsored Weymouth's kidnapping expedition in 1605, underwrote another one under Captain Edward Harlow, although it was ostensibly to discover an island around Cape Cod. Unable to find the island they reached the cape where "they detained three Salvages aboard them;" one, Pechmo, leapt overboard and got away. He brought back friends who set up a hail of arrows to cut away a boat from the stern of the vessel. Three English seamen were wounded by arrows. When they anchored at the Ile of Nohono, Natives in canoes again attacked the English until they were driven off with guns. At that place the English kidnapped another Native then proceeded to Capawe (Capawack or Martha's Vineyard) where they took two more, including the sachem Epenow. Again a Native ended up in the hands of Gorges. Gorges wrote that he obtained Epenow from Captain Henry Harley,[ag] although he denied knowing how Harley got him, except that Gorges was told that "he had been shewed in London for a wonder."
Gorges seems to have thought that his failure to obtain the loyalty of the Natives kidnapped by Weymouth was owing to not having kept them in his custody long enough. Epenow he kept for three years. In that time Epenow convinced him that Martha's Vineyard had gold mines of great wealth. In 1614 Gorges consulted with Wriothesley and determined to send Epenow back with Captain Hobson, who had been with Harlow in 1611 when Epenow was kidnapped. He persuaded Hobson to stake ₤100 of his own money on the adventure. Gorges also sent two additional Natives he had in captivity, Assacomet (from Weymouth's expedition) and Wanape, who was from southern New England (and sent to Gorges via the Isle of Wight). When they reached their destination, the principal inhabitants (including relatives of Epenow) came on board. They promised to come again in the morning to trade. But Epenow had secretly let them know that he was held captive, and the next morning they came with twenty canoes which stood their ground while Epenow went overboard. They escaped under a hail of arrows which wounded Hobson and some of the crew. Gorges ends the tale by lamenting the incompetence of Hobson's men.
In 1614 an English expedition headed by John Smith sailed along the coast of Maine and Massachusetts Bay, collecting fish and furs. Smith returned to England in one of the vessels and left Thomas Hunt in command of the second ship. Hunt was to complete the haul of cod and proceed to Málaga, Spain where there was a market for dried fish. Without authority, Hunt decided to enhance the value of his shipment by adding human cargo. So he sailed to Plymouth Harbor ostensibly to trade with the village of Patuxet. The Patuxet had not been part of the fur trade for as long as their neighbors to the north had been, but they "were producing substantial fur surpluses by the time of Smith's visit in 1614…", and from their interaction with Champlain, Smith, and other traders, the other Patuxet "had learned something of European approaches to trade, diplomacy and military conflict and had witnessed some of their technological accomplishments". Nevertheless, Hunt was able to lure twenty Patuxet, including Squanto, aboard his vessel under promise of trade. Once aboard they were confined, and the ship sailed across Cape Cod Bay where Hunt abducted seven more from the Nauset. Hunt then set sail for Málaga.
Smith and Gorges both disapproved of Hunt's decision to enslave the natives. Gorges worried about the prospect of "a warre now new begun between the inhabitants of those parts, and us", although he seemed mostly concerned about whether this event had upset his gold-finding plans with Epenow on Martha's Vineyard. Smith suggested Hunt got his just deserts because "this wilde act kept him ever after from any more imploiment to those parts." Gorges saw Hunt's comeuppance in the fact that he was unable to sell his entire lot of slaves.
Hunt, according to Gorges, took the Natives to the "Straits" where he sold as many as he could. But when the "Friers (sic) of those parts" discovered what he was doing, they took the rest to be "instructed in the Christian Faith; and so disappointed this unworthy fellow of his hopes of gaine …" What basis he had, if any, for this claim is unknown; in fact, it is likely he never met Squanto, at least before 1619.[ah] In any event, despite later fictionalized versions of Squanto's life, Gorges makes no claim that he was one of the slaves who were taken up by the friars "to be instructed in the Christian faith" and those who relate his history heard directly from Squanto's mouth (Bradford, Winslow and Pratt) do not relate such an incident.
The outrage was long remembered by the Natives around Cape Cod Bay. In 1621 the Nauset refused the advances of the first Mayflower scouting party and eventually attacked them. Even when the English settled Plymouth, far from the home of the Nausets, the Natives haunted the settlement from a nearby hill. Squanto later mediated a meeting between the Plymouth settlers and the Nauset on Cape Cod, and the English learned what deep pain still remained from the kidnapping. A woman, who they thought was at least 100 years old, came out to meet them, yet could not look at them "without breaking forth into great passion, weeping and crying excessively". She told them that Hunt had taken her three sons and now "shee was deprived of the comfort of her children in her old age." Epenow in Martha's Vineyard was not yet finished with his revenge, and the Nauset would help him.
No records show how long Squanto lived in Spain, what he did there or how he "got away for England" (as Bradford put it).[ai] Prowse asserts that he spent four years in slavery in Spain and then was smuggled aboard a ship belonging to Guy's colony, taken to Spain and then to Newfoundland but offers not authority. Smith attested that Squanto lived in England "a good time", although he does not say what he was doing there. Plymouth Governor William Bradford, the Englishman who knew him best (and most sympathetically), recorded that after Spain he lived in Cornhill in the City of London with John Slany ("Master John Slanie"). Slany was a merchant and shipbuilder who became another of the merchant adventurers of London hoping to make money from colonizing projects in America. He was an investor in the East India Company. But more importantly for Squanto he was one of the grantees of the Newfoundland patent and treasurer of the Company of Adventurers and Planters of London and Bristol who were to exploit the grant. This association may have had something to do with obtaining Squanto from Málaga.[aj] Slany's motive in housing him was probably no more disinterested than Gorges's in detaining his Natives.
The great epidemic and Squanto's return to New England
The devastation of the New England sea-coast
During the time Squanto spent in Spain and England, a virulent pestilence descended on southern New England. There is no consensus on what disease struck—if indeed it was only one disease. The testimony of the two eye witnesses who wrote about it, however, attests to the extraordinarily lethal consequences of the epidemic. Richard Vines, along the Saco River in Maine in the employ of Ferdinando Gorges to assess the nature of winters there in 1616–17, informed Gorges that he and his men lived in the same cabins with the Natives, but they did not experience the head aches that were a symptom of the plague that rendered that country "void of Inhabitants". That the English could live in close proximity to the afflicted leaves little doubt that the sickness was a virgin soil epidemic. Thomas Dermer, also in the employ of Gorges, in 1619 having dispatched to London a shipment of furs and fish from Monhegon Island, took a small bark and sailed down the coast of New England towards Virginia. He wrote Samuel Purchas in December describing the "plague" he had seen all along the coast, of seeing "the sores of some that had escaped, who described the spots of such as usually die". Aside from headaches and sores there were three other symptoms: jaundice,[ak] fever and epistaxis.[al] This evidence from contemporary and near contemporary witnesses[am] has led to diagnoses of yellow fever (generally now discounted),[an] smallpox,[ao] the plague,[ap] leptospirosis complicated by Weil syndrome[aq] and other explanations.[ar]
Whatever the nature of the infection, there is no doubt about the extent and devastating impact of the epidemic. The fury of the contagion began no later than 1617 and continued unabated until 1619, and may have continued in population pockets for years after that.[as] The sweep of the devastation was enormous. The coastal Abenaki as far north as the Kennebec were nearly wiped out. Due south on Cape Cod the three villages there numbered 100 by 1621, whereas Champlain estimated that two of them contained between 650–800. On the coast between those villages and the Kennebec there was nothing but devastation. Where Champlain and Smith found almost continual habitation and agriculture, there was nothing but empty land. The Agawam on Cape Ann were decimated, the Pawtucket (near modern Lowell, Massachusetts) were almost totally destroyed. The Pennacook, Massachuset and Pokanoket were nearly annihilated. Squanto's people were essentially wiped out, the village abandoned. Smith wrote that in three successive years "neere two hundred miles along the Sea coast, that in some places there scarce remained five of a hundred …" But the epidemic ended at the border of the Pokanoket and the Narragansett, for there was no trading between them; the Narragansett traded with the Dutch, and not part of the French network. The conclusion is almost inescapable: the infection was introduced into the pax commerce the French built up, and "the very source of the Indians' momentary prosperity and harmony–the French trade–apparently brought about their subsequent impoverishment and destruction as well. For years afterwards the signs of death would mar the landscape. Edward Winslow on his first journey inland to the village of Pokanoket saw the evidence of many towns now abandoned: "Thousands of men have lived there, which dyed in a great plague not long since: and pitty it was and is to see, so many goodly fieldes, & so well seated, without men to dress and manure the same." Not many years later Thomas Morton walked the forests around Boston harbor and saw "in a place where many inhabited, there hath been but one left a live, to tell what became of the rest, the living being (as it seemes) not able to bury the dead, they were left for the Crowes, Kites and vermin to prey upon. And the bones and skulls upon the severall places of their habitations, made such a spectacle after my coming into those partes, that, as I travailed in the forest nere the Massachusetts, it seemed to mee a new found Golgatha."
John Smith reported a story of how this calamity originated. He told of a shipwreck where two men escaped on shore, one dying and the other living among the Massachuset people. The survivor tried to persuade the Natives of the superiority of the Christian God, but the sachem mocked him showing his assembled people from a hilltop and asked the Christian "if God has so many people and able to kill all those?" The Christian assured him God did, and according to Smith, of the five or six hundred about Massachusetts, after the sickness there remained but thirty and their neighbors slaughtered 28 of them. The remaining two surrendered their Country to the English. Thomas Morton elaborated on this story, having the Christians be Frenchmen, and had the Massachusetts set on the men in the harbor, burning their vessel and bringing the survivors to Peddocks Island. They crew were distributed among five local sachem, who treated them as slaves. One of the survivors warned his tormentors of God's wrath, which warning was spurned, and the pestilence followed on the heels of that arrogance. The story was embellished to the point of becoming a Puritan parable under Cotton Mather,[at] but may have had a kernel of truth, as Dermer and Squanto would find out.
Squanto's return to New England
How Squanto came to be in Newfoundland in 1618 was not explained. Slany, associated as he was with the royal land grant there and the company who intended to settle or otherwise exploit it, doubtless had means to send Squanto there, perhaps by one of the vessels regularly in the fish and wine trade among Newfoundland, the Mediterranean and England. According to the report by the Plymouth Council for New England which Gorges authored and published in 1622, Squanto was in Newfoundland "with Captain Mason Governor there for the undertaking of that Plantation" possibly meaning he was indentured there. Also at Cuper's Cove in Conception Bay was Thomas Dermer, an adventurer in the interest of Gorges who had accompanied Smith on his abortive 1615 voyage to New England. Squanto and Dermer talked of New England while in Newfoundland, and Squanto so persuaded him that his (Dermer's) fortune could be made there (as Gorges put it Squanto "drew his affections wholly to follow his hopes that way") that Dermer wrote Gorges of his belief and requested that Gorges send him a commission to act in New England.
The next season Gorges sent Captain Rowcraft to meet Dermer at Monhegan, but through a combination of events sounding implausible, Rowcraft ended up going to Virginia (where he once lived), got into a fight and was killed.[au] Not knowing that Rowcraft had been dispatched to meet Dermer, Mason advised Dermer to sail to England to discuss the matter with Gorges rather than simply undertake the expedition without authorization. He arrived shortly after Rowcraft departed. Dermer and Gorges agreed on the New England plans. Gorges dispatched Dermer ("with his Salvage") on the next vessel ready in the fishing trade to New England, and Gorges also assigned him a group of men to join with Rowcraft. Not knowing that Rowcraft had gone to Virginia, Dermer was unsure what to do. He soon heard from the mutineers that Rowcraft had gone to Virginia. So Dermer waited until a vessel from there brought news of Rowcraft's death. He decided to take the pinnace assigned to Rowcraft the year before to continue the plans that Gorges laid out for him; namely, to travel the coast from Gorges's failed Sagadahoc Colony to Capawack (Martha's Vineyard) where Gorges's dreams of gold mines ended, taking notes of his observations of the coast and sending them to Gorges.
Dermer, Squanto and crew of a pinnace of five tons left Monhegan Island for their coasting voyage. Before sailing, Squanto probably had heard reports of the sickness; Vines, after all, had reported to Gorges that "the plague" had struck Sagadahoc in 1616. On the coast, however, the reality was probably worse than could be imagined. Dermer reported: "I found some antient Plantations, not long since populous now utterly void; in other places a remnant remaines, but not free of sickness." When they reached Squanto's village of Patuxet, Dermer did not stop for a full report ("finding all dead"); instead they moved inland. A days' journey brought them to the village of Nemasket (spelled Nummasquyt by Dermer), from which place Dermer sent a messenger (probably Squanto) to the village of Pokanoket (Poconakit), near present day Bristol, Rhode Island, seat of the sachem the English would call Massasoit. The distance from Nemasket to Pokanoket being a day's journey, it was probably two or more days later when "two kings" ("almost certainly Massasoit and his brother Quadequina") with an armed guard numbering fifty returned with Squanto to Nemasket. Dermer wrote that the kings were "well satisfied" with what Squanto and Dermer told them (the kings "being desirous of noveltie") and so complied with their wishes, one of which was to redeem a French captive at Nemasket. Dermer later also redeemed a sailor who had escaped a shipwreck three years earlier at Mastachusit (possibly around Great Blue Hill, from which the Massachuset take their name). These sailors may have been the basis of Smith's tale in 1631 or the two in the more elaborate version of Morton in 1637 (explaining the divine cause of the epidemic).
By June 11, Dermer had discovered an island in the bay and had "good quarter" with the Natives there. From there he coasted to Monhegan. The vessel that had brought him from England was about to depart for there, and Dermer sent along a report of his activities to Gorges as well as soil samples. Also there was the Sampson which had come from Virginia and was to return. Because there were no men to protect his property there, he put most of most of his provisions aboard the Sampson and manned the pinnace and supplied it with the provisions needed for his coasting expedition. It was at Saco (Dermer called it "Sawahquatooke) that Dermer left Squanto who, he wrote, "desired (in regard of our long journey) to stay with some of our Savage friends" there, later writers presuming he went to look for remaining family.[av] Dermer set out but he went only about 40 league before they ran into a severe storm which put them to the choice ("Incidit in Syllam" as he put it) to either run the rocks or enter a dangerous broad bay. They tried but failed to do the former and were eventually driven aground a furlough from shore. To avoid being "beaten to pieces", they threw their provisions, most of their apparel and almost everything else overboard and were able to weather the storm until the next high water, which allowed them to get ashore and repair the injury and leaks they sustained to the pinnace. Without Squanto, Dermer soon encountered hostility from Natives. At Manamock in the southeast corner of Cape Cod, Dermer was captured by the Nauset, who were still seething over English atrocities, including Hunt's kidnapping raid. Dermer was forced to pay ransom in hatchets, but they still would not release him. He devised an escape and captured their sachem, for whose return they repaid the hatchets and a canoe full of corn, which Dermer desperately needed. He travelled to Martha's Vineyard where he had a friendly meeting with Epenow. (Dermer was evidently commissioned for this by Gorges, still pursuing gold mines there.) From there sailed to Virginia, with assorted adventures on the way (including an attack on Long Island). At Virginia, he hoped to repair the pinnace and place a deck on her for immediate return, but he and most of his men contracted a fever and were forced to spend the winter there.
The following spring Dermer sailed back to New England. His and Squanto's itinerary after rejoining are somewhat unclear because they are recorded in only by two sources: Gorges for the statement for the Council for New England as well as his much later semi-autobiographical recollections and a letter from Dermer, evidently to Gorges, a copy of which was only partially transcribed by William Bradford in his History of the Plymouth Plantation. The two sources are hard to reconcile and leave many gaps. As Baxter reconstructed it, Dermer first came directly to Monhegan without incident and spent the summer exploring the coast. This would account for how Squanto rejoined Dermer and possibly how Samoset (a native of the Pemaquid area who was the first Native to greet the Mayflower settlers) found his way to the Plymouth area with Squanto. Adams also believed that Dermer brought Samoset to Massachusetts, but it is not in either source. Gorges writes that owing to his failure to resolve favorably the Council for New England's disputes with the Virginia Company, he had given orders by his fishing ships to retire Dermer "until all things were cleared",[aw] but this "worthy Gentleman" "resolutely resolved to pursue the ends he aimed at" and "could not be persuaded to look back, as yet ..." He set off again down the coast of Maine and into Massachusetts, where he came again to Nemasket. According to the June 30, 1620 letter transcribed by Bradford, the natives of Nemasket and the Pokanoket generally, who the year before peacefully traded with him and allowed him to redeem two French sailors, now bore "an inveterate malice to the English". This was the result of an incident the previous year in which an English vessel invited several Natives on board ostensibly to trade. When onboard the sailors using "murderers" (a ship's gun which used small bullets and slugs) and small shot occasioned "a greater slaugher". Dermer doubted that it was an English vessel, but the Natives believed it because, as Dermer put it, "the French have so possessed them." Dermer concluded by noting that "Squanto cannot deny but they would have killed me when I was in Nemask, had he not entreated hard for me." This episode is not related by Gorges.[ax]
The final episode in Dermer's career with Squanto is recorded by both Gorges (twice) and Bradford with different details in all three versions. Dermer rounded the cape, first stopping at Nantucket ("Nautican") and then to Martha's Vineyard ("Capawike") to again meet with Epenow. Bradford writes that Squanto accompanied him ("he going ashore amongst the Indians to trade, as he used to do ..."); Gorges is silent on what Squanto did. Gorges writes: "This Savage [Epenow] speaking some English, laughed at his escape [in 1614], and reported the story of it." Dermer replied that he came from Gorges, that he was one of his servants and that Gorges "was much grieved he [Epenow] had beene so ill-used, as to be forced to steal away". Epenow asked questions about Gorges and, according to Gorges, "conceived he [Dermer] was come on purpose to betray him and conspired with some of his fellowes to take the Captaine". Dermer drew his sword, and although he freed himself, received 14 mortal wounds in the process. He escaped with all possible speed to Virginia, but there contracted "the infirmity many of our Nation are subject unto at their first coming into those parts". Gorges's earlier version, officially for the Council for New England, merely reported that "he was betrayed by certaine new Salvages, who sodainly set upon him, giving him foureteene or fifteene wounds" before sailing to Virginia where he died. Bradford writes that the Natives set upon his men and killed all but Dermer and one who remained in the boat. Dermer escaped to the boat where the Natives were about "to cut off his head upon the cuddy [i.e., cabin] of the boat, had not the man rescued him with a sword". Bradford recorded that Dermer got off to Virginia and died "whether of his wounds or the diseases of the country, or both together, is uncertain". Not one of the three versions mentions what happened to Squanto.
Seventeen years after the event, however, Thomas Morton published his New England Canaan. In it he described the "Salvage" who had been "taken by a worthlesse man" (evidently Thomas Hunt) and "had been detained there [among the Pokanoket] as theire Captive". This person, Morton continued, was induced by the Pokanoket to introduce himself to the new English settlers at Patuxet (soon to be called Plymouth), for the purpose of brokering a peace between the two peoples and to give him incentive to meet these new inhabitants "which was a thinge hee durst not himselfe attempt without security or hostage, promised that Salvage freedome ..." It is on the basis of this writing that Salisbury evidently[ay] reconstructs Squanto's supposed captivity among the Pokanoket. He writes that the incident told to Dermer in Nemasket concerning the English slaughter of Natives invited onboard to trade "could only have revived the Indians' suspicion of the English that had prevailed before Squanto's return. These suspicions were now focused on Squanto himself, as Dermer's accomplice, and led to his being turned over to the Pokanoket with whom he remained until he was ransomed by the Plymouth colonists in March 1621." Salisbury concludes that after Dermer escaped "Squanto was again made a captive, this time of the Indians." But, whatever conclusions can be reached about Thomas Morton's credibility in general, (and Bradford came to think of his morals in general as very low) Morton's discussion concerning Squanto in the chapter in which he describes his captivity by the Pokanokets is hardly persuasive. Morton, who never knew Squanto, confuses him with Samoset in the very chapter, and he otherwise muddles the account. Earlier in his book he had Squanto act as ambassador from sachem Cheecatawback to the powerful Narragansett to continue a ruse by the sachem, which suggests that either the Natives who told him these stories or he himself used this famous Native as something of a stock character. In any event, Adams, who edited Morton's book and studied Morton's life (and does not regard him the reprobate that Bradford did), describes the chapter that Salisbury relies on: "This is a confused, rambling account of the familiar Indian incidents which took place during the first year after the landing at Plymouth. There is nothing of historical value in it, and nothing which has not been more accurately and better told by Bradford, Winslow, Mourt [Mourt's Relation] and [John] Smith. And none of those other sources state that Squanto was a captive of Massasoit.[az] There appears to be little reason to believe that Squanto was a prisoner of the Pokanoket. And there is no other account of what Squanto did from the time he left Dermer to the time he met the new settlers at Patuxet/Plymouth.
Among the Mayflower settlers
The English search for a settlement site while the Natives warily respond
The English settlers land, plunder, then winter in "a hidious and desolate wilderness"
Having been delayed two months beyond its intended departure, the Mayflower, its crew and 102 passengers sighted land very late in the year on November 9, 1620 o.s.[ba] at Cape Cod. 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. 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,[bb] 15 armed men went ashore to gather wood and returned with optimistic reports of the land and soil. The next week, expecting the repair to the shallop to take five or six days, the settlers determined in the interim to send Myles Standish, the settlers' military adviser, with a band of heavily armed and armored men, to survey the Cape. 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.[bc] The next day, when they were confident the locals were out of sight, the armed band dug up Native 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.[bd] They took so much husked corn that two men could barely carry it. (They would call this location "Cornhill".) At the Mayflower the repairs to the shallop were taking longer than expected. When they were completed a week and a half later, the settlers 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.[be] 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.[bf] 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. 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 … ." Whether or not Bradford's different justifications for these thefts rings true,[bg] it is true that "[l]ooting houses, graves, and storage pits was hardly the way to win the trust of the local inhabitants." 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. 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, 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, noticed Natives busying themselves about a large "black thing", landed a league or two away where they set up their barricado for the night and watched a Native fire about four miles away.[bh] 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",[bi] at sundown they met up with the men from the shallop and made camp. 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; then there began 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, their repeated fire at the trees behind which the Natives shot their arrows eventually chased them off. The settlers pursued them for a little while but gave up. They named the place of the first skirmish with the Nauset "First Encounter". 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.
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". Yet they experienced nothing but eerie silence.
The Native political landscape during the winter of 1620–21
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 neither 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. The dominant sachem's seat was more like a center of political power, "its strength diminishing as its distance from the center increased". 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.
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. Edward Johnson in the middle of the 17th century stated that they once numbered 30,000, but this was an exaggeration to make a rhetorical point. They nevertheless were substantial. One early 20th century antiquarian estimated that one of the sub-sachemships, located near Concord, Massachusetts had a population of 3,000. 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. 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 epidemic 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. As a result, by the winter of 1620 they were considerably weakened and withdrawn to the Charles River drainage basin.
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, the now nearly extinct 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.[bj] Because the Patuxet were not numerous enough 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 who were affiliated with the Pokanoket as tributaries were the Nauset band, 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.[bk] 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.
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 epidemic, and that created the complicating factor in the relations among the Natives surrounding the English. The Narragansett were a very large Indian society. While they may not have numbered 30,000 in 1641 as claimed, they were nevertheless (as De Forest writes) "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. Roger Williams claimed that he saw "many thousands" of 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) …" Gookin estimated they could put more than 5,000 men under arm and noted that they "oftentimes" waged war with the Pequots to their west and the Pokanoket and Massachuset federations to their east. Winslow in 1622 heard the Narragansetts "reported to be many thousands strong …"
Although the Pokanoket may not have been as severely affected by the epidemic as either the Massachuset or the Patuxets and others, they were seriously weakened. This weakened condition allowed the Narragansetts to force them to withdraw from their position at the head of Narraganset Bay to the Taunton River drainage system. 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. Given that the epidemic 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 Nauset were willing to kill Europeans who merely sought 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. These newcomers 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 to 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." Philbrick sees this as a convocation of shamans brought together to drive the English from the shores by supernatural means.[bl] Salisbury, however, attributes the description to the English excessive fear of witchcraft and sees the meeting as the means by which the "Pokanoket were ritually purging themselves of their hostility toward the English. Whatever the purpose, out of this meeting arose the decision to approach English settlers to find out if their intentions were peaceful or not.
Mutual assistance forged
The first amicable encounter and treaty
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 lived at Plymouth for a little while when Squanto was still alive, related in a declaration in 1668 (late in his life and decades after the events) what he heard of Squanto's influence: "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 …" The second man was Samoset. Samoset was a minor Abenakki sachem (sagamore) who hailed from the Muscongus Bay area of present-day Maine. Both Adams and Morison speculate that he was brought to the Cape Cod area by Dermer (in 1619 or 1620). He evidently learned his English from English fishermen who plied those waters.[bm] 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 awaiting 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 they 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 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 inviting 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.
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. 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). He spent the day giving them intelligence of the surrounding peoples, and spent the night.[bn]
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. That day, after Samoset left, again Natives taunted the settlers from the hill and again disappeared when Standish and three others approached the hill. 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. 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. According to Bradford, "all the while he sat by the Governour, he trembled for feare", and therefore the settlers probably could have made the treaty more unequal than it was.[bo] Massasoit's followers "applauded" the treaty, and the peace terms were kept during Massasoit's lifetime, and the settlers would be called upon to fulfill their mutual defense obligations. There would be an issue concerning the obligation to hand over criminals (it was the settlers who seemed to be in breach), one that involved Squanto, but that was a year in the future.
Squanto as guide to frontier survival
When Massasoit and his train left the day after the treaty, Samoset and Squanto remained. It was Squanto, however, whom Bradford[bp] developed a relationship with and came to rely on. With the departure of the Mayflower at the beginning of April, it was a great comfort to have 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". 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."
Unlike other Natives in the area, of whom Bradford and Winslow constantly complained 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". Collection of eels became part of the settlers' annual practice.[bq] But Bradford makes special mention of Squanto's instruction concerning native horticulture.
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." While it is true that the Plymouth settlers were primarily artisans ("printers, weavers, watchmakers, and carpenters with little farming experience") 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 by burning (conifers especially) or by girdling (especially hardwood trees) to prepare for the following growing season. Thomas Morton observed the native practice of biannual burning of undergrowth, to which he ascribed the characteristic landscape of New England as like English parks with only occasional trees.[br] 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 fish was also added for fertilizer).[bs] When the corn sprouted, bean seeds were added to the same mounds so that their 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. Unlike the English farmers at home, the Natives were willing to plant on hillsides (usually the southern) and tops of hills. 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.
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.
The method shown by Squanto became the regular practice of the settlers.[bt]
This testimony by the two Plymouth plantation leaders has been 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") 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", (ii) the absence of English sources that attest to Native use of fish fertilizer[bu] (iii) that some early English settlers testified that they had not seen Natives use fertilizer and that they were "too lazy to catch fish", (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 and (v) there is scattered European authority that 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. Various historians have disputed Ceci's analysis, arguing that she (i) ignored evidence pointing to the aboriginal origins of the fish fertilization practice;[bv] (ii) failed to consider the ulterior motives settlers had for denigrating native husbandry and work ethic; namely, that land-hungry settlers used the principle of vacuum domiciliun to claim that Natives never "used" their lands (in prescribed English manner) and therefore had no title,[bw] (iii) failed to consider the considerably greater pre-epidemic population which would have made changing plots (requiring tree-clearing) less easy and at the same time provided manpower for widespread fertilization when she speculated that it was easier for Natives to abandon established fields and obtain new ones. (iv) betrayed ignorance of the fact that the English had no draft animals or wagons until 1624, when she assumed that the English settlers could more easily fertilize fields because of the Indians lacked draft animals and even wagons, (v) ignored the fact that the Natives had more available manpower than the Plymouth settlers and produced crops of higher yield when she calculated the amount of labor required to fertilize, and (vi) did not consider the difference between native American agriculture and European (and even Newfoundland) farming (which did not grow maize and the farmers did not plant seeds in mounds over fish deposited as manure) when reviewing the possible, but scanty, evidence of European fertilization by fish. 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.[bx] A recent writer who has reviewed all the literature has concluded that Ceci's claim has been "authoritatively refuted". However that dispute turns out, neither Ceci nor anyone else has ever challenged the facts 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 also introduced the Plymouth colony to the means to reduce their financial obligation to their sponsors and fellow stockholders in London. Squanto had been familiar with the fur trade for many years. (His participation in it was in fact what caused him to be kidnapped in 1614.) Squanto showed the settlers how they could obtain pelts with the "few trifling commodities they brought with them at first". The settlers not only were unprepared to engage in the extensive network of Native bands created by the French, they knew nothing about it. In fact, Bradford reported that there was not "any amongst them that ever saw a beaver skin till they came here and were informed by Squanto".
Squanto's role in settler diplomacy
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 …" 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.[by] 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. Another has suggested, on the other hand, that it was part of a long game of self-interest he conceived while in the captivity of the Pokanoket only later to be hatched. The settlers, compelled by their own interestes, were forced to rely on Squanto because he was the only means by which they could communicate with the surrounding Natives, and he therefore was involved in every contact for the twenty months he lived with them.
Mission to Pokanoket
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 they wanted to ensure the peace treaty was still valued by the Pokanoket and to reconnoitre the surrounding country and the strength of the various villages. They also hoped to show their willingness 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 …"
Governor Bradford selected Edward Winslow and Stephen Hopkins to make the journey with Squanto. They set off on July 2[bz] 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 expressed their desire to continue and 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 attempted to justify the settlers' conduct on Cape Cod and requested he send his men to the Nauset to express the English settlers' wish to make restitution. All settled, they departed at 9 a.m., and travelled for two days meeting friendly Natives along the way.[ca] 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,[cb] Squanto was sent off to the various villages to seek trading partners for the English, and with Tokamahamon[cc] taking Squanto's place, the envoys returned to their settlement.[cd]
Mission to the Nauset
Winslow writes that shortly after he returned from Pokanoket[ce] a crisis arose that required an immediate mission to the Cape Cod Natives, the Nauset with whom he clashed at "First Encounter," and with whom they never made restitution for their takings not to mention their despoiling of graves. The crisis was this: one of the Billington children, John, had wandered off and had not returned for five days. Bradford sent word to Massasoit who made inquiry and found that the child had wandered into a Manumett village, who turned him over to the Nauset. The ten settlers that comprised the mission took along both Squanto (as a translator) and Tokamahamon ("a special friend," in Winslow's words). They 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 at 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 Nauset. 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". After their lunch, the settlers with the sachem and two of his band, took the shallop to Nauset, but the tide being such that the boat could not reach shore, the English sent on Inyanough and Squanto to meet the Nauset sachem Aspinet. While the English remained in the their shallop, Nauset men "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 many whose corn they had stolen the previous winter came out to meet them. They promised to reimburse him.[cf] 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 Nausets 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.[cg] 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.
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 Nausets and the Cummaquid). Winslow attributed that outcome to Squanto. Bradford wrote that the Natives whose corn had been stolen the previous winter came and received compensation and peace generally prevailed.
Action to save Squanto in Nemasket
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. They also learned that Corbitant, a Pocasset sachem formerly tributary to Massasoit, was at Nemasket 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 Nauset. 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. Hobomok, a Pokanoket pniese residing among the English,[ch] had also been threatened before for his loyalty to Massasoit. 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, however, went looking for Massasoit. When at Nemasket Squanto and Hobomok 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.
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 Nauset 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. In any event, Governor Bradford organized an armed task force under the command of Standish, consisting of a dozen or so men.[ci] They set off before daybreak on August 14 under the guidance of Hobomok. The plan was to march the 14 miles at Nemasket, 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, were able to navigate the group so as to arrive in time to eat before raiding the house at which Corbitant was staying, 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 there were "three sore wounded" trying to escape the house. At last the militiay came to understand that Squanto was unharmed and staying in the village and that Corbitant and his train returned to Pocaset. 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 were only interested in Corbitant and those supporting him. They warned that if he continued threatening the English settlers or encouraged others 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 Nemasket villagers helping bear their equipment.
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. Nathaniel Morton much later recorded that on September 13, 1621 o.s. nine sub-sachem[cj] came to Plymouth and signed a document purporting to declare themselves "Loyal Subjects of King James, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland …" 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. But if he came to Plymouth that day, it would contradict Bradford, who said that Corbitant's peace concession was through Massasoit because he was "shy to come near them a long while after".
Mission to the Massachuset people
The English resolved to meet with the last confederation of villages on their border—the Massachuset, who the settlers heard had frequently threatened them. 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. 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[ck] as well as the Squa Sachim (the widow of Nanepashemet ), another enemy. 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.
On Friday, September 21 they went ashore (possibly at a place they called Squantum, Quincy, Massachusetts, near Dorchester) and marched three miles to a recently harvested cornfield. A mile further they found the house of Nanepashemet, built 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. 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," 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. 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.
The peace regime that Squanto helped achieve
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[cl] that they found "the Lord to be with them in all their ways, and to bless their outgoings and incomings …" Winslow was more prosaic when he reviewed the political situation with respect to surrounding natives in December 1621: "Wee have found the Indians very faithfull in their 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, who they never saw, and 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 bin but for us …"
Bradford wrote in his journal that come fall together with 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". 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".[cm]
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 …" The time was one of recreation, including the shooting of arms, and many Natives joined them, including Massasoit and 90 of his men,[cn] 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."
The Narragansett threat
The various treaties created a system where the English settlers filled the vacuum created by the epidemic. 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 himeself "content to become the Subject of our Sovereign Lord the King aforesaid, His Heirs and Successors, and gave unto them all the Lands adjacent, to them and their Heirs for ever". The problem with 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". 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.[co] Not long afterwards rumors began to reach Plymouth that the Narragansett were making warlike preparations against the English.[cp] Winslow believed that that nation had learned that the new settlers brought neither arms nor provisions and thus in fact weakened the English colony. Bradford saw their belligerency as a result of their desire to "lord it over" the peoples who had been weakened by the epidemic (and presumably obtain tribute from them) and the colonists were "a bar in their way". In January 1621/22 a messenger from Narraganset sachem Canonicus (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 messenger told him that the messenger who had come from Canonicus last summer to treat for peace, returned and persuaded the sachem on war. Canonicus 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.
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 Canonicus with a defiant message. Winslow wrote that the returned emblem so terrified Canonicus that he refused to touch it, and that it passed from hand to hand until, by a circuitous route, it was returned to Plymouth.
Squanto's double dealing
Notwithstanding the colonists' bold response to the Narragansett challenge, the settlers realized their defenselessness to attack. 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 within 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 of how to respond to fire alarms so as to have a sufficient armed force to respond to possible Native treachery. 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. The work took more than a month to complete.
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". 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 …" The governor therefore deputed Standish and 10 men to make the trip and sent along both Squanto and Hobomok, given "the jealousy between them".
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. Winslow (who was not there but wrote closer to the time of the incident than did Bradford) gave even more graphic details: The Native's face was covered in fresh blood which he explained 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. Bradford immediately put the settlement on military readiness and had the ordnance discharge three rounds in the hope that the shallop had not gone too 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 his 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.
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 "much offended at the carriage of Tisquantum" but was grateful for Bradford's trust in him [Massasoit]. 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.
Allegations against Squanto
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 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 …"
Bradford's account agrees with Winslow's to this point, and he also explains where the information came from: "by the former passages, and other things of like nature", 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. 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.[cq]
Massasoit's demand for Squanto
Captain Standish and his men eventually did go to the Massachuset and returned with a "good store of Trade". On their return, they saw that Massasoit was there and he was displaying his anger against Squanto. Bradford did his best to appease him, and he eventually departed. No long afterward, however, he sent a messenger demanding that Squanto is 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, was subject, pursuant to the first article of the Peace Treaty, to the sachem's demand, in effect, rendition. They further argued that if Bradford would not produce pursuant to the Treaty, Massasoit had sent many beavers' skins to induce his consent. Finally, if Bradford still would not release him to them, 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. Bradford avoided the question of Massasoit's right under the treaty[cr] but refused the beaver pelts saying that "It was not the manner of the English to sell men's lives at a price …" The governor called Squanto (who had promised not to flee), who denied the charges and ascribed them to Hobomok's desire for his downfall. He nonetheless offered to abide by Bradford's decision. Bradford was "ready to deliver him into the hands of his Executioners" but at that instance, a boat passed before the town in the harbor. Fearing that it might be the French, Bradford said he had to first identify the ship before dealing with the demand. The messenger and his companions, however, "mad with rage, and impatient at delay" left "in great heat".
Squanto's final mission with the settlers
Arrival of the Sparrow
The ship the English saw pass before the town was not French, but rather a shallop from the Sparrow, a shipping vessel sponsored by Thomas Weston and one other of the Plymouth settlement's sponsors, which was plying the eastern fishing grounds. This boat brought seven additional settlers but no provisions whatsoever "nor any hope of any". In a letter they brought, Weston explained that the settlers were to set up a salt pan operation on one of the islands in the harbor for the private account of Weston. He asked the Plymouth colony, however, to house and feed these newcomers, provide them with seed stock and (ironically) salt, until he was able to send the salt pan to them. The Plymouth settlers had spent the winter and spring on half rations in order to feed the settlers that had been sent nine months ago without provisions. Now Weston was exhorting them to support new settlers who were not even sent to help the plantation. He also announced that he would be sending another ship that would discharge more passengers before it would sail on to Virginia. He requested that the settlers entertain them in their houses so that they could go out and cut down timber to lade the ship quickly so as not to delay its departure. Bradford found the whole business "but cold comfort to fill their hungry bellies". Bradford was not exaggerating. Winslow described the dire straits. They now were without bread "the want whereof much abated the strength and the flesh of some, and swelled others". Without hooks or seines or netting, they could not collect the bass in the rivers and cove, and without tackle and navigation rope, they could not fish for the abundant cod in the sea. Had it not been for shellfish which they could catch by hand, they would have perished. But there was more, Weston also informed them that the London backers had decided to dissolve the venture. Weston urged the settlers to ratify the decision; only then might the London merchants send them further support, although what motivation they would then have he did not explain. That boat also, evidently,[cs] contained alarming news from the South. John Huddleston, who was unknown to them but captained a fishing ship that had returned from Virginia to the Maine fishing grounds, advised his "good friends at Plymouth" of the massacre in the Jamestown settlements by the Powhatan in which he said 400 had been killed. He warned them: "Happy is he whom other men's harms doth make to beware." This last communication Bradford decided to turn to their advantage. Sending a return for this kindness, they might also seek fish or other provisions from the fishermen. Winslow and a crew were selected to make the voyage to Maine, 150 miles away, to a place they had never been. In Winslow's reckoning, he left at the end of May for Damariscove.[ct] Winslow found the fishermen more than sympathetic and they freely gave what they could. Even though this was not as much as Winslow hoped, it was enough to keep them going until the harvest.
When Winslow returned the threat they felt had to be addressed. The general anxiety aroused by Huddleston's letter was heightened by the increasingly hostile taunts they learned of. Surrounding villagers were "glorying in our weaknesse", and the English heard threats about how "easie it would be ere long to cut us off". Even Massasoit turned cool towards the English, and could not be counted on to tamp down this rising hostility. So they decided to build a fort on burying hill in town. And just as they did when building the palisade, the men had to cut down trees, haul them from the forest and up the hill and construct the fortified building, all with inadequate nutrition and at the neglect of dressing their crops.
Weston's English settlers
They might have thought they reached the end of their problems, but in June 1622 the settlers saw two more vessels arrive, carrying 60 additional mouths to feed. These were the passengers that Weston had written would be unloaded from the vessel going on to Virginia. That vessel also carried more distressing news. Weston informed the governor that he was no longer a part of the company sponsoring the Plymouth settlement. The settlers he sent just now, and requested the Plymouth settlement to house and feed, were for his own enterprise. The "sixty lusty men" would not work for the benefit of Plymouth; in fact he had obtained a patent and as soon as they were ready they would settle an area in Massachusetts Bay. Other letters also were brought. The other venturers in London explained that they had bought out Weston, and everyone was better off without him. Weston, who saw the letter before it was sent, advised the settlers to break off from the remaining merchants, and as a sign of good faith delivered a quantity of bread and cod to them. (Although, as Bradford noted in the margin, he "left not his own men a bite of bread.") The arrivals also brought news that the Fortune had been taken by French pirates, and therefore all their past effort to export American cargo (valued at ₤500) would count for nothing. Finally Robert Cushman sent a letter advising that Weston's men "are no men for us; wherefore I prey you entertain them not"; he also advised the Plymouth Separatists not to trade with them or loan them anything except on strict collateral."I fear these people will hardly deal so well with the savages as they should. I pray you therefore signify to Squanto that they are a distinct body from us, and we have nothing to do with them, neither must be blamed for their faults, much less can warrant their fidelity." As much as all this vexed the governor, Bradford took in the men and fed and housed them as he did the others sent to him, even though Weston's men would compete with his colony for pelts and other Native trade. But the words of Cushman would prove prophetic.
Weston's men, "stout knaves" in the words of Thomas Morton, were roustabouts collected for adventure and they scandalized the mostly strictly religious villagers of Plymouth. Worse, they stole the colony's corn, wandering into the fields and snatching the green ears for themselves. When caught, they were "well whipped", but hunger drove them to steal "by night and day". The harvest again proved disappointing, so that it appeared that "famine must still ensue, the next year also" for lack of seed. And they could not even trade for staples because their supply of items the Natives sought had been exhausted. Part of their cares were lessened when their coasters returned from scouting places in Weston's patent and took Weston's men (except for the sick, who remained) to the site they selected for settlement, called Wessagusset (now Weymouth). But not long after, even there they plagued Plymouth, who heard, from Natives once friendly with them, that Weston's settlers were stealing their corn and committing other abuses. At the end of August a fortuitous event staved off another starving winter: the Discovery, bound for London, arrived from a coasting expedition from Virginia. The ship had a cargo of knives, beads and other items prized by Natives, but seeing the desperation of the colonists the captain drove a hard bargain: He required them to buy a large lot, charged them double their price and valued their beaver pelts at 3s. per pound, which he could sell at 20s. "Yet they were glad of the occasion and fain to buy at any price …"
Trading expedition with Weston's men
The Charity returned from Virginia at the end of September–beginning of October. It proceeded on to England, leaving the Wessagusset settlers well provisioned. The Swan was left for their use as well. It was not long after they learned that the Plymouth settlers had acquired a store of trading goods that they wrote Bradford proposing that they jointly undertake a trading expedition, they to supply the use of the Swan. They proposed equal division of the proceeds with payment for their share of the goods traded to await arrival of Weston. (Bradford assumed they had burned through their provisions.) Bradford agreed and proposed an expedition southward of the Cape.
Winslow wrote that Squanto and Massasoit had "wrought" a peace (although he doesn't explain how this came about). With Squanto as guide, they might find the passage among the Monomoy Shoals to Nantucket Sound;[cu] Squanto had advised them he twice sailed through the shoals, once on an English and once on a French vessel. The venture ran into problems from the start. When in Plymouth Richard Green, Weston's brother-in-law and temporary governor of the colony, died. After his burial and receiving directions to proceed from the succeeding governor of Wessagusset, Standish was appointed leader but twice the voyage was turned back by violent winds. On the second attempt, Standish fell ill. On his return Bradford himself took charge of the enterprise. In November they set out. When they reached the shoals, Squanto piloted the vessel, but the master of the vessel did not trust the directions and bore up. Squanto directed him through a narrow passage, and they were able to harbor near Mamamoycke (now Chatham).
That night Bradford went ashore with a few others, Squanto acting as translator and facilitator. Not having seen any of these Englishmen before, the Natives were initially reluctant. But Squanto coaxed them and they provided a plentiful meal of venison and other victuals. They were reluctant to allow the English to see their homes, but when Bradford showed his intention to stay on shore, they invited him to their shelters, having first removed all their belongings. As long as the English stayed, the Natives would disappear "bag and baggage" whenever their possessions were seen. Eventually Squanto persuaded them to trade and as a result, the settlers obtained eight hogsheads of corn and beans. The villagers also told them that they had seen vessels "of good burthen" pass through the shoals. And so, with Squanto felling confident, the English were prepared to make another attempt. But suddenly Squanto became ill and died.
The sickness seems to have greatly shaken Bradford, for they lingered there for several days before he died. Bradford described his death in some detail:
In this place Squanto fell sick of Indian fever, bleeding much at the nose (which the Indians take as a symptom of death) and within a few days died there; desiring the Governor to pray for him, that he might go to the Englishmen's God in Heaven; and bequeathed sundry of his things to English friends, as remembrances of his love; of whom they had a great loss.
Without Squanto to pilot them, the English settlers decided against trying the shoals again and returned to Cape Cod Bay.
The English Separatists may have comforted themselves by believing 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 seven or eight years, freer from lightning and thunder, and long droughts, suddaine and tempestuous dashes of rain, and lamentable cold Winters". 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. Willison suggested another reason that Squanto likely wished for heaven: "for he may well have feared what would happen if he chanced to meet Massasoit in the Happy Hunting Grounds".
Philbrick speculates that Squanto may have been poisoned by Massasoit. His bases for the claim are (i) that other Native Americans had engaged in assassinations during the 17th century; and (ii) that Massasoit's own son, the so-called King Philip, may have assassinated John Sassamon, an event that led to the bloody King Philip's War a half-century later. He suggests that the "peace" Winslow says was lately made between the two could have been a "rouse" but does not explain how Massasoit could have accomplished the feat on the very remote southeast end of Cape Cod, more than 85 miles distant from Pokanoket.
Squanto is reputed to be buried in the village of Chatham Port.[cv]
Assessment, memorials, representations, and folklore
Because almost all the historical records of Squanto were written by English Separatists and because most of that writing had the purpose to attract new settlers, give account of their actions to their financial sponsors or to justify themselves to co-religionists, they tended to relegate Squanto (or any other Native American) to the role of assistant to them in their activities. No real attempt was made to understand Squanto or Native culture, particularly religion. The closest that Bradford got in analyzing him was to say "that Squanto sought his own ends and played his own game, … to enrich himself". But in the end, he gave "sundry of his things to sundry of his English friends".
Historians' assessment of Squanto depended on the extent they were willing to consider the possible biases or motivations of the writers. Earlier writers tended to take the colonists' statements at face value. Current writers, especially those familiar with ethnohistorical research, have given a more nuanced view of Squanto, among other Native Americans. As a result, the assessment of historians has run the gamut. Adams characterized him as "a notable illustration of the innate childishness of the Indian character". By contrast, Shuffelton says he "in his own way, was quite as sophisticated as his English friends, and he was one of the most widely traveled men in the New England of his time, having visited Spain, England, and Newfoundland, as well as a large expanse of his own region." Early Plymouth historian Judge John Davis, more than a half century before, also saw Squanto as a "child of nature", but was willing to grant him some usefulness to the enterprise: "With some aberrations, his conduct was generally irreproachable, and his useful services to the infant settlement, entitle him to grateful remembrance." In the middle of the 20th century Adolf was much harder on the character of Squanto ("his attempt to aggrandize himself by playing the Whites and Indians against each other indicates an unsavory facet of his personality") but gave him more importance (without him "the founding and development of Plymouth would have been much more difficult, if not impossible."). Most have followed the line that Baylies early took of acknowledging the alleged duplicity and also the significant contribution to the settlers' survival: "Although Squanto had discovered some traits of duplicity, yet his loss was justly deemed a public misfortune, as he had rendered the English much service."
Memorials and landmarks
As for monuments and memorials, although many (as Willison put it) "clutter up the Pilgrim towns there is none to Squanto …" The first settlers may have named after him the peninsula called Squantum once in Dorchester, now in Quincy, during their first expedition there with Squanto as their guide. Thomas Morton refers to a place called "Squanto's Chappell", but this is probably another name for the peninsula.
Literature and popular entertainment
Squanto rarely makes appearances in literature or popular entertainment. Of all the 19th century New England poets and story tellers who drew on pre-Revolution America for their characters, only one seems to have mentioned Squanto. And while Henry Wadsworth Longfellow himself had five ancestors aboard the Mayflower, "The Courtship of Miles Standish" has the captain blustering at the beginning, daring the savages to attack, yet the enemies he addresses could not have been known to him by name until their peaceful intentions had already been made known:
Let them come if they like, be it sagamore, sachem, or pow-wow,
Aspinet, Samoset, Corbitant, Squanto, or Tokamahamon!
Squanto is almost equally scarce in popular entertainment, but when he appeared it was typically in implausible fantasies. Very early in what Willison calls the "Pilgrim Apotheosis", marked by the 1793 sermon of Reverend Chandler Robbins, in which he described the Mayflower settlers as "pilgrims", a "Melo Drama" was advertised in Boston titled "The Pilgrims, Or the Landing of the Forefathrs at Plymouth Rock" filled with Indian threats and comic scenes. In Act II Samoset carries off the maiden Juliana and Winslow for a sacrifice, but the next scene presents "A dreadful Combat with Clubs and Shileds, between Samoset and Squanto". Nearly two centuries later Squanto appears again as an action figure in the Disney film Squanto: A Warrior's Tale (1994) with not much more fidelity to history. Squanto (voiced by Frank Welker appears in the first episode ("The Mayflower Voyagers", aired October 21, 1988) of the animated mini-series This Is America, Charlie Brown. A more historically accurate depiction of Squanto (as played by Kalani Queypo) appeared in the National Geographic Channel film Saints & Strangers, written by Eric Overmyer and Seth Fisher, which aired the week of Thanksgiving 2015.
Didactic literature and folklore
Where Squanto is most encountered is in literature designed to instruct children and young people, provide inspiration, or guide them to a patriotic or religious truth. This came about for two reasons. First, Lincoln's establishment of Thanksgiving as a national holiday enshrined the New England Anglo-Saxon festival, vaguely associated with an American strain of Protestantism, as something of a national origins myth, in the middle of a divisive Civil War when even some Unionists were becoming concerned with rising non-Anglo-Saxon immigration. This coincided, as Ceci noted, with the "noble savage" movement, which was "rooted in romantic reconstructions of Indians (for example, Hiawatha) as uncorrupted natural beings—who were becoming extinct—in contrast to rising industrial and urban mobs". She points to the Indian Head coin first struck in 1859 "to commemorate their passing.'" Even though there was only the briefest mention of "Thanksgiving" in the Plymouth settlers' writings, and despite the fact that he was not mentioned as being present (although, living with the settlers, he likely was) Squanto was the focus around both myths could be wrapped. He is, or at least a fictionalized portray of him, thus a favorite of a certain politically conservative American Protestant groups.[cw]
The story of the selfless "noble savage" who patiently guided and occasionally saved the "Pilgrims" (to whom he was subservient and who attributed their good fortune solely to their faith, all celebrated during a bounteous festival) was thought to be an enchanting figure for children and young adults. Beginning early in the 20th century Squanto entered high school textbooks,[cx] children's read-aloud and self-reading books,[cy] more recently learn-to-read and coloring books[cz] and children's religious inspiration books.[da] Over time and particularly depending on the didactic purpose, these books have greatly fictionalized what little historical evidence remains of Squanto's life. Their portraits of Squanto's life and times spans the gamut of accuracy. Those intending to teach a moral lesson or tell history from a religious viewpoint tend to be the least accurate even when they claim to be telling a true historical story.[db] Recently there have been attempts to tell the story as accurately as possible, without reducing Squanto to a mere servant of the English.[dc] There have even been attempts to place the story in the social and historical context of fur trade, epidemics and land disputes. Almost none, however, have dealt with Squanto's life after "Thanksgiving" (except occasionally the story of the rescue of John Billington). An exception to all of that is the publication of a "young adult" version of Philbrick's best-selling adult history. Nevertheless, given the sources which can be drawn on, Squanto's story inevitably is seen from the European perspective.
Notes, references and sources
- Kinnicutt proposes meanings for the various renderings of his name: Squantam, a contracted form of Musquqntum meaning "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."
- Dockstader has a different interpretation of the name, although his source is not explained. 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".
- The other Pokanoket who came to live with 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". 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. 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, perhaps when he was abducted.
- The languages of Southern New England are known today as: Western Abenaki, Massachusett, Loup A and Loup B, Narragansett, Mohegan-Pequot and Quiripi-Unquachog. These languages were spoken south of the Saco River including eastern Long Island. They descended from a Proto-Eastern Algonquian language (which broke off from Proto-Algonquian about 2,000 years ago), 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.
- 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 …"
- So says Adolf referencing Morison. 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), 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." 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."
- 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). The tributaries of this loosely confedereated association of bands included the Wampagnoag of Bristol County, Rhode Island, the Pocaset at Rehoboth, Swansea and Tiverton, the Agawan at Wareham, the Manomet at Sandwich, the Sakatucket at Mashpee, the Mattakee as Barnstable, the Nobsquasset at Yarmouth, the Monamoys at Chatham, the Nauset at Eastham and the Natives in the islands to the south of Cape Cod. The term Pokanoket came to be applied to all the territory and peoples presided over by Massasoit.
- So concluded Bennett, 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 …" 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 …" 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." In any event these descriptions, and others, suggest the life of relatively sedentary horticulturists.
- 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." So regular was their diligence that when a field spouted weeds the English believed the Natives were neglecting cultivation to prepare for war.
- Gookin in the passage quoted, above 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.
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 … ." Massassoit, as Winslow pointed out, was such a great sachem or kaeasonimoog as his Pokanoket presided over other sachemships, including Squanto's Patuxet.
- 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." 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." 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.
- Winslow called this supernatural being Hobbamock (the Natives north of the Pokanoket call it Hobbamoqui, he said) and expressly equated him with their devil. 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. Winslow used the term powah to refer to the shaman who conducted the healing ceremony. Wood described in detail these ceremonies.
- 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.
- 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. 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.
- Paleopathological evidence exists for European importation of typhoid, diphtheria, influenza, measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, tuberculosis, yellow fever, scarlet fever, gonorrhea and smallpox.
- 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 is what the promoters proposed doing, regardless of the wishes of the native inhabitants.
- 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.
- Based on the Native words that Rosier listed in his report, Goddard concluded that the Natives spoke Eastern Abenaki. The speakers, therefore, might have been Penobscot, Passamaquoddy or members of smaller societies like the Micmac or Maliseet.
- At about 5:00 p.m. on May 30, the remaining 14 men on board the Archangel spied 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." 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.
- 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. 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. 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 …" That evening three canoes came to the vessel bearing tobacco, and another night of amicable hospitality ensued.
- "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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 captured 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.
- See, e.g., 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 Kinnicutt sets forth circumstances that he believes gives Gorges's statement some plausibility. Kinnicutt 1914, pp. 109–11. Kinnicut believes that Squanto was the same Native that Smith as the "Tantum" whom Smith writes he ""set on shore at Cape Cod" in 1614. the reference to "Tantum," however, in his accounts of 1616, 1620 or 1622, only his account of 1624. Even so, it would have been odd for Smith to have brought Squanto from England and set him down in Cape Cod when Smith had actually visited Patuxet, Squanto's village, before he reached Cape Cod. "Tantum" is therefore unlikely to be Squanto.
- Salisbury suggests that Sassacomit was in fact Samoset, whose later pairing with Squanto in Plymouth might explain Gorges's mistaking him for Squanto. 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 Spain and England, and it would explain why the two of them were among the Pokanoket at the same time.
- 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.
- 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.
- On May 31, 1602 o.s. Gosnold sailed the Concord toward Hap's Hill, which is now Round Hill near Dumplin Rocks 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.
- 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". Burrage wrote that it was at Plymouth, Massachusetts, where the Mayflower settlers would later settle. Salisbury thinks that it was in Provincetown Harbor.
- 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 …"
- Trinculo comes upon Caliban hiding under a blanket and quips that he cannot decide if it is a man or a fish. He considers that if he were in London he could paint him and exhibit him for crowds will pay to see exhibited men: "Any strange beast there makes a man [prosperous]. When they will not give a doit to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see a dead Indian." The Tempest II:ii:30–32.
- Some 19th century writers assumed that Gorges was mistaken and meant instead that he obtained Epenow from Captain Harlow, who like Harley, was from Gorges's failed Sagadahoc Colony. But Gorges writes that Epenow was part of 29 other Natives in his possession, not the five collected by Harlow, which makes it seems that Harley was something like a broker and Harlow one of his suppliers. In any event, Baxter gives reasons explaining why the often unreliable Gorges was unlikely to have confused these two men.
- In his first account, published in 1622, only three years from the event he mentions, he tells of his first learning of "Taquantum" in connection with his stay with Captain Mason and Thomas Dermer in Newfoundland, evidently not realizing that Squanto lived in London for a long while with John Slany. In fact, on the basis of Gorges's narrations, his biographer inferred that Squanto had somehow sailed from Spain to Newfoundland directly. In any event, Gorges regularly hopelessly confuses one Native for another.
- See Dunn 1993, p. 39; Salisbury 1982, p. 235. Gorges complicates the story again. In his account published in 1658, over 40 years after the event, he writes that Dermer then in Newfoundland advised him that "one of my Salvages [had been] brought from Malago in a ship of Bristol …" This unnamed "Salvage" seems to be Squanto but Gorges says that this same Native "was after employed" by him with Captain Hobson on the voyage to Martha's Vineyard which in fact took place in 1614, four years before Dermer was in Newfoundland. He thus confuses Squanto with Assocomet (which he obtain from Weymouth's Maine expedition) or Epenow (which he obtained either directly or indirectly from Captain Harlow's voyage to Matha's Vineyard. Aside from this utter confusion, the account as to how this Native arrived in Newfoundland is at odds with the nature of the trade. The regular trade in cod with the Mediterranean was not bilateral, but rather triangular with cod shipped from Newfoundland to Spain in exchange for wine, which was in turned shipped to England. The third leg was the transport of English laborers from England to Newfoundland, and this means is much more likely to be the one by which Squanto arrived in Newfoundland. See generally Pope 2004.
- Gorges's biographer speculates that Squanto, after spending four years in Spain, was taken by a Bristol to Newfoundland "laden probably with wine which was to be exchanged for fish". It might be equally or more probable that a Bristol vessel bringing wine from Málaga to England might also have speculated on the value of Native Americans in England either for exhibition or in connection with a colonial enterprise (especially given that the Newfoundland adventure was made up of Bristol partners).
- Writing in 1674 Daniel Gookin tells of interviews of Natives then old but young children during the epidemic who told him that "the bodies all over were exceeding yellow, describing it by a yellow garment they showed me, both before they died, and afterwards." Moreover, the philologist James Hammond Trumbull wrote that the Algonquin word translated by Roger Williams as "the plague" (i.e., the epidemic of 1616–19), weauashaûonck, literally means "a bad yellowing", just as weasuaashaûi (Williams: "He hath the plague") derives from "he is badly yellow."
- In 1622 Bradford watched Squanto die of what he called "the Indian fever". The chief symptom was profuse bleeding from the nose. This may or may not have been the result of a late infection from the same diseases as involved in the epidemic. But it took place in a remote corner of Cape Cod among Natives who evidenced much wariness of Europeans. Squanto, however, may have contracted the illness on the mainland around Plymouth Harbor where he had come from not many days before.
- Williams collected twenty three different authors who wrote about the epidemic from 1619 to 1677.
- Yellow fever was first suggested by Hoyt who also suggested it might have come from the West Indies. But Adams rejected this identification on the ground that the disease only affected Natives, not Europeans, and the epidemic survived frost which yellow fever could not.
- Both Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. and Samuel Abbott Green ascribed the epidemic to smallpox. But that diagnosis does not explain jaundice, head aches, lung congestion or superficial spots. Moreover, Roger Williams's lexicography of the Algonquin language lists one word for the "plague" (i.e., the 1616–1619 epidemic), weauashaûonck, and an entirely separate word for pox (which they became familiarity with during the 1633 epidemic), mamaskishashaûonck. After the 1633 pox Governor Bradford himself saw that the Natives differentiated between the former "plague" and smallpox. Concerning an outbreak at the trading post in Windsor, Connecticut he wrote: "a sorer disease cannot befall them; they fear it more than the plague." Finally, Adams makes the point that Europeans at the time had "a terrible familiarity" with smallpox: "They knew its every symptom. They were themselves liable to it." Yet, Vines and his companions slept in the same cabins as the suffering Abenaki in 1616, and neither contracted the disease or remarked on the pocks of the sufferers. Nor did Dermer observe pocks in 1619.
- Early 17th century Europeans were familiar with both bubonic and pneumonic plague, and the Mayflower settlers from London probably experience outbreaks there in the early 1600s. The early descriptions of the epidemic refer to it as "the plague", but it is unclear whether that term was applied specifically to the disease caused by the Yersinia bacterium (which is how Bradford uses the term when referring to the 1625 plague in London), all highly contagious febrile diseases or even to any widespread afflictions (as Bradford uses it quoting Proverbs 22:3). But in one case, Edward Winslow speaks of it as if it represented a known and specific disease. In late 1622 he writes of certain Massachuset who had planted corn on behalf of the settlers. "When they [the settlers] came thither, they found a great sicknesse to be amongst the Indians, not unlike the plague, if not the same." The symptoms described are largely consistent with the plague (headache in early phases, epistaxis, "sores" representing "boboes"), except for jaundice. Winter infection is possible with the pneumonic form. There were ample reservoirs in the black rats from ships on the coast that Lescarbot noted during Champlain's visits in 1603–06. Moreover, Winslow noted the presence of fleas in Natives houses when he visited the village of Pokanoket in 1621. Williams also wrote that one of the reasons that Natives might move habitations was to avoid flea infestation. Yet if Squanto died of the plague, then Bradford was unable to diagnosis it, for he called Squanto's affliction the "Indian fever".
- The advantage of this explanation is that it accounts for the same symptoms as the plague explanation does and in addition for the jaundice that Gookin wrote of. Instead of "buboes", however, this condition exhibits a rash, which may not be consistent with Dermer's observation of "sores". And since the posited contact with the free living Leptospira bacteria involves contaminated water, mud or food sources (such as buried corn), it is not clear why the English should have escaped infection, especially since they did all the same activities as the Natives, and even purchased their stored corn. In fact, the corn purchased in November 1622 was from Natives who Winslow states exhibited plague-like symptoms.
- Among the other diagnoses are influenza, chickenpox, typhus, typhoid fever, trichinosis, cerebrospinal meningitis, and syndemic infection of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis D virus (HDV). Table 1 in Marr & Cathey 2010 lists the sources for proponents and opponents of each of the foregoing suggestions and Table 2 shows which of the observations the prominent explanations account for.
- If Squanto died of this same disease, then it continued until at least November 1622. Winslow also recorded what he thought appeared just like the "plague" in Boston Harbor just after Squanto's death.
- Pratt told the story, claiming he heard it directly from the Natives around Massachusetts Bay. At the end of the century, after a war with Massasoit's son, Cotton Mather saw the epidemic, which he reported took away 19 of twenty, as the divine means by which "the woods were almost cleared of those pernicious creatures, to make room for a better growth." He modifies the story to have the Frenchman, with his last dying breath "tell those tawny pagans, 'that God being angry with them for their wickedness, would not only destroy them all, but also people the place with another nation, which would not live after their brutish manners.'"
- By this time the area around Monhegan had become a major staging area for the English fishing trade. When Rowcraft approached the shore, he discovered a French bark infringing on the exclusive fishing rights claimed by Gorges's Plymouth Company. Rowcraft seized the bark and sent the Frenchmen back to England on his vessel, retaining the bark to be used by him and a few of his men for the coasting expedition assigned by Gorges (presumably with Dermer and Squanto). For some ill explained reason, his men mutinied, and Rowcraft left them on shore near the Saco River. The bark proved unsuited for a coasting expedition, because it drew too much water. So he decided to sail directly to Virginia (without Dermer) possibly to obtain the kind of vessel to comply with his commission. Baxter untangles Gorges's turgid prose to tell the story simply at Baxter 1890, pp. I:106–07.
- For example, both Baxter and Salisbury wrote that Squanto intended to seek out his people, but Saco is 135 miles overland from Plymouth, where Squanto's village was located. Perhaps, Sawhquotooke was closer to Patuxet. An unnamed editor writing for the New York Historical Society, for example, wrote that that village was "[a]n Indian settlement in the present town of Brewster, on the peninsula of Cape Cod". He does not cite any authority for this assertion, and it is contradicted by Gorges and later writers.
- That Gorges sent his orders to Dermer by means of his fishing ships suggests that Dermer received them in Monhegan, thus supporting Baxter's supposition that he went there in 1620.
- At least one writer has this event taking place during the 1619 visit to Nemasket. It is unlikely, however, that Dermer would have omitted it from the letter he wrote to Purchas in December 1619, given that Dermer included other conflicts with the Natives. It also is unlikely that Massasoit would have allowed him to redeem two French sailors if the Pokanoket were so furious with the English, especially after it took Squanto's best efforts to prevent his own execution. Salisbury sets this event in 1620, before the next encounter with Epenow, which seems to be the sense in which Bradford intended it to be read.
- Salisbury cites no source for this reconstruction.
- The chapter also confuses Massasoit with Hobomock in connection with the story of the gunpowder and plague discussed below. Moreover, Pratt who very late in life gave a narration of the early days of the Plymouth Plantation claims to have learned, perhaps from Squanto directly, certain conversations Squanto had with Massasoit before they met the Mayflower settlers, which does not imply a captor-captive relation.
- 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 the 1620s, 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.).
- 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.
- 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 Nauset with a dog coming from the opposite direction. The Natives broke into the woods, and the Englishmen followed hard upon them, but the Natives ran away with "might and mayne". Fearing treachery and ambush the English followed their footsteps until nightfall but saw no one
- 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. 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 …"
- 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. 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", 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."
- 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.
- As for the theft of food and seed, Bradford claims it was owing to "Gods good providence," otherwise they would have had none. And he elsewhere says they planned to pay for it when they met the Natives. As for the thefts from the houses, Bradford said the men intended to leave beads and other things as a sign of peace, but they forgot in their haste. An early historian of the colony, Francis Baylies, called the thefts "inexcusable" and by rationalizing that they would later repay it "they compromised with their consciences …"
- 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 …" 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.
- They discovered a large and ornate native burying ground, but this time they did not disturb the graves.
- Smith wrote that the Patuxet, whom he called the "Accomack," were members of the Massachuset confederation. Gookin has them as part of the Pokanoket confederation. 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.
- 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.
- 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." Passaconaway was with the Massachuset, however. Moreover, Squanto reportedly had been advising Massasoit of the power of the English long before the convocation.
- Kupperman ventures the explanation that the name Samoset is a corruption of "Somerset"—a name the English fisherman used for him. 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. 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. Salisbury proposes 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.
- 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. 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 Nauset 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 settlers had with these very settlers he was speaking to.
- As it was recorded in Mourt's Relation," the treaty called for the surrender of any Native who injured any of the 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. 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.
- 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, he having been first elected the previous November, when the settlers entered into their compact aboard the Mayflower. 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- The existence of tree stumps (left by the aboriginal method of deforestation) and rocky soil 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 preventing 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."
- 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."
- Ceci discounts the testimony of Bradford and Winslow on the assumption that neither had seen Native fertilization by fish when they wrote, 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.
- 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 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 …"
- Fertilization would have disproved the assertion that the Native's left their lands vacant because it not only showed active cultivation of the land but also long-term investment in it. The supposed legal principle was asserted at the very beginning of the English colonial enterprise, right in Plymouth during its precarious first year. A particularly brazen example of its expression 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 the land of the Natives thus:
their land 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.
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 …" Later, when Puritans began settling the Massachusetts Bay Colony the principle was frequently invoked by John Winthrop (the senior) and John Cotton.
- 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."
- Salisbury follows Morton in believing Squanto a Pokanoket prisoner (despite Morton's confusion of Squanto with Samoset and discrepancies) 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." There is no direct evidence of any such arrangement, although perhaps Massasoit was grateful for Squanto's advice that the English could become an ally against the Narragansett, if what Pratt declared were true. There was, however, no sign observed by Bradford or Winslow which showed Massasoit releasing Squanto after the treaty ceremonies.
- Mourt's Relation says they left on June 10. That day being a Sabbath, Prince points out that it was therefore the unlikely day of their departure. Both he and Young therefore follow Bradford who recorded (although many years after the event) that they left on July 2.
- 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, and by dusk they reached the Indian weir near Titicut on the Taunton River where they met Nemasket men fishing for bass. They exchanged food and spent the night in the open air. 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.
- Because he was called back to the village unexpectedly, Massasoit had no food for his guests. The next day Massasoit was able to obtain two large fish, but they had to be shared among forty, because many village sachems had been invited to play games and visit the envoys. This fish, however, was the only food the Englishmen ate during their visit to Pokanoket. Winslow complained mostly about the sleeping accommodations, however. They were invited to sleep on the same planks as Massasoit, his wife and two of his chief men. Winslow also complained of the singing of the men as well as the fleas and lice within their home and the mosquitoes without.
- Winslow writes of this Tokamahamon that "we had found faithfull before and after upon all occasions," but there is no previous mention of him in either Mourt's Relation or Bradford's OPP. He does appear later, however.
- Winslow reports that six "Savages" accompanied them. They found food at the nearest village, which had fed before when they were on their 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.
- Winslow recorded 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.
- HIs name, they thought, was Maramoick (but that was probably the name of the location they were then at): "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.".
- Young believes that only seven men were left to guard Plymouth. This calculation, however, assumed that both Winslow and Hopkins were still on their mission to Pokatoket and not with the 10 men among the Nausets. But this is unlikely, not only because it contradicts the chronology Young himself endorsed, but also because it meant that Squanto would have been with Winslow and Hopkins, yet he is explicitly named among those on the mission to the Nauset.
- 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 …"
- Bradford wrote that the force was made up of Standish and fourteen men, while Winslow wrote that ten men were sent.
- Their names as provided by Morton were: Oquamehud, Cawnacome, Obbatinnua, Nattawahunt, Caunbatant, Quadaquina, Huttamoden and Appanow.
- 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 Massachusetts 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."
- 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."
- So Alexander Young put it as early as 1841.
- Humins surmises that the entourage included sachems and other headmen of the confederation's villages."
- 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. 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, bringing no provisions, no material to construct habitation and only 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.
- Winslow wrote that the Narragansett had sought and obtained a peace agreement with the Plymouth settlers the previous summer, although no mention of it is made in any of the writings of the settlers.
- 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."
- The first two numbered items of the treaty as it was printed in Mourt's Relation provided: "1. That neither he nor any of his should injure or doe hurt to any of our people. 2. And if any of his did hurt to any of ours, he should send the offender, that we might punish him." As printed the terms do not seem reciprocal, but Massasoit apparently thought they were. Neither Bradford in his answer to the messenger, nor Bradford or Winslow in their history of this event denies that the treaty entitled Massasoit to the return of Squanto.
- The events in Bradford's and Winslow's chronologies, or at least the ordering of the narratives, do not agree. Bradford's order is: (1) Provisions spent, no source of food found; (2) end of May brings shallop from Sparrow with Weston letters and seven new settlers; (3) Charity and Swan arrive depositing "sixty lusty men"'; (4) amidst "their straights" letter from Huddleston brought by "this boat" from the east; (5) Winslow and men return with them; (6) "this summer" they build fort. Winslow's sequence is: (1) Shallop from Sparrow arrives; (2) end of May 1622, food storehouse spent; (3) Winslow and his men sail to Damariscove in Maine; (4) on return finds state of colony much weakened from lack of bread; (5) Native taunts cause settlers to start building fort, at expense of planting; (6) end of June–beginning of July Charity and Swan arrive. The chronology adopted below follows Willison's combination of the two accounts. Although Bradford's rather careless use of pronouns makes it unclear which "pilot" Winslow followed to the fishing grounds in Maine (which carried the Huddleton letter) or indeed who brought the Huddleton letter, it is likely the shallop from the Sparrow and not another boat from Huddleston himself, as Willison and Adams before him conclude. Philbrick has Huddleston's letter arrive after the Charity and Swan, and only mentions Winslow's voyage to the fishing grounds, which, if it took place after the arrival of those two vessels, would have taken place after the end of the fishing season.
- The islands off the Damariscove river in Maine early on provided stages for fishermen from early times. Damariscove Island was called Damerill's Isles on John Smith's 1614 map. Bradford noted that in 1622 there "were many more ships come afishing". The Sparrow was stationed on these grounds. Morison states that 300 to 400 sails of different countries, including 30 to 40 English as well as some from Virginia, came to fish these grounds in May, leaving in the summer. Winslow's mission was to beg or borrow supplies from these fishermen.
- These were the same "perilous shoals and breakers" that caused the Mayflower to turn back on November 9, 1620 o.s.
- A marker on the front lawn of the Nickerson Genealogical Research Center on Orleans Road in Chatham states that Squanto is buried at the head of Ryder's Cove. Nickerson claims that the skeleton which washed out "of a hill between Head of the Bay and Cove's Pond" around 1770 was probably Squanto's.
- See, for example, "The Story of Squanto". Christian Worldview Journal. August 26, 2009. Archived from the original on December 8, 2013.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link); "Squanto: A Thanksgiving Drama". Focus on the Family Daily Broadcast. May 1, 2007.; "Tell Your Kids the Story of Squanto". Christian Headlines. November 19, 2014.; "History of Thanksgiving Indian: Why Squanto already knew English". Bill Petro: Building the Gap from Strategy and Execution. November 23, 2016..
- The illustration at the head of this article, for example, is one of two of Squanto in Bricker, Garland Armor (1911). The Teaching of Agriculture in the High School. New York: Macmillan Co. (Plates after p. 112.)
- For example, Olcott, Frances Jenkins (1922). Good Stories for Great Birthdays, Arranged for Story-Telling and Reading Aloud and for the Children's Own Reading. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. This book was reissued by the University of Virginia Library in 1995. Squanto is referred to as "Tisquantum" and "A Big Indian" in the stories entitled "The Father of the New England Colonies" (William Bradford), at pp. 125–139. See also Bradstreet, Howard (1925). Squanto. [Hartford? Conn.]: [Bradstreet?].
- E.g.: Beals, Frank L.; Ballard, Lowell C. (1954). Real Adventure with the Pilgrim Settlers: William Bradford, Miles Standish, Squanto, Roger Williams. San Francisco: H. Wagner Publishing Co. Bulla, Clyde Robert (1954). Squanto, Friend of the White Men. New York: T.Y. Crowell. Bulla, Clyde Robert (1956). John Billington, friend of Squanto. New York: Crowell. Stevenson, Augusta; Goldstein, Nathan (1962). Squanto, Young Indian Hunter. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill. Anderson, A.M. (1962). Squanto and the Pilgrims. Chicago: Wheeler. Ziner, Feenie (1965). Dark Pilgrim. Philadelphia: Chilton Books. Graff, Robert; Graff (1965). Squanto: Indian Adventurer. Champaign, Illinois: Garrard Publishing Co. Grant, Matthew G. (1974). Squanto: The Indian who Saved the Pilgrims. Chicago: Creative Education. Jassem, Kate (1979). Squanto: The Pilgrim Adventure. Mahwah, New Jersey: Troll Associates. Cole, Joan Wade; Newsom, Tom (1979). Squanto. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Economy Co. ;Kessel, Joyce K. (1983). Squanto and the First Thanksgiving. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Carolrhoda Bookr. Rothaus, James R. (1988). Squanto: The Indian who Saved the Pilgrims (1500 -1622). Mankato, Minnesota: Creative Education.;Celsi, Teresa Noel (1992). Squanto and the First Thanksgiving. Austin, Texas: Raintree Steck-Vaughn. Dubowski, Cathy East (1997). The Story of Squanto: First Friend to the P. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Gareth Stevens Publishers. ;Bruchac, Joseph (2000). Squanto's Journey: The Story of the Ffirst Thanksgiving. n.l.: Silver Whistle. Samoset and Squanto. Peterborough, New Hampshire: Cobblestone Publishing Co. 2001. Whitehurst, Susan (2002). A Plymouth Partnership: Pilgrims and Native Americans. New York: PowerKids Press. Buckley, Susan Washborn (2003). Squanto the Pilgrims' Friend. New York: Scholastic. Hirschfelder, Arlene B. (2004). Squanto, 1585?-1622. Mankato, Minnesota: Blue Earth Books. Roop, Peter; Roop, Connie (2005). Thank You, Squanto!. New York: Scholastic. Banks, Joan (2006). Squanto. Chicago: Wright Group / McGraw Hill. Ghiglieri, Carol; Noll, Cheryl Kirk (2007). Squanto: A Friend to the Pilgrims. New York: Scholastic.
- E.g., Hobbs, Carolyn; Roland, Pat (1981). Squanto. Milton, Florida: Printed by the Children's Bible Club. The Legend of Squanto. Carol Stream, Illinois. 2005. Metaxas, Eric (2005). Squanto and the First Thanksgiving. Rowayton, Connecticut: ABDO Publishing Co. The book was retitled Squanto and the Miracle of Thanksgiving when it was republished in 2014 by the religious publisher Thomas Nelson. The book was turned into an animated video by Rabbit Ears Entertainment in 2007.
- For example, Metaxas 2005, praised as a "true story" by the author's colleague Chuck Colson, misstates almost every well documented fact in Squanto's life. It begins with the abduction of 12 year old Squanto which the first sentence dates at "the year of our Lord 1608" (rather than 1614). When he meets the "Pilgrims" he greets Governor Bradford (rather than Carver). The rest is A fictIonalized religious parable which ends with Squanto (after "Thanksgiving" and before any allegations of treachery) thanking God for the Pilgrims.
- Bruchac 2000, for example, even names Hunt, Smith and Dermer and tries to portray Squanto from a Native American, rather than "Pilgrim," perspective.
- Baxter 1890, p. I104 n.146; Kinnicutt 1914, pp. 110–12.
- Young 1841, p. 202 n.1.
- Mann 2005.
- Martin 1978, p. 34.
- Kinnicutt 1914, p. 112.
- Dockstader 1977, p. 278.
- Salisbury 1981, p. 230.
- Kupperman 2000, p. 60.
- Pulsipher 2005, pp. 191-92.
- Salisbury 1981, pp. 228.
- Salisbury 1981, pp. 228–29.
- See, e.g., Salisbury 1981, p. 245.
- Bragdon 1996, p. i.
- 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.
- Goddard 1978, pp. passim.
- Goddard 1978, p. 70.
- Bragdon 1996, pp. 28–29, 34.
- Williams 1643, pp. [ii]–[iii]. See also Salisbury 1981, p. 229.
- Adolf 1964, p. 257 n.1.
- Bradford 1952, p. 82 n.7.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 41 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 99 and Young 1841, p. 203.
- Dexter 1865, p. 84 n.297.
- Baylies 1830, p. 63 n.‡.
- Smith 1907, p. II:12.
- Weston 1906, p. 1 n.2.
- Salwen 1978, pp. 174–75.
- Morison 1956, pp. 69–74.
- Axtell 1978, p. 119.
- Bennett 1955, pp. 370–71.
- Bennett 1955, pp. 374–75.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 12 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 35 and Young 1841, p. 144; Morton 1637, pp. 24–25 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.
- Bennett 1955, p. 375.
- Williams 1643, p. 47.
- Morton 1637, p. 26 reprinted in Adams 1883, p. 138.
- Williams 1643, p. 46.
- Wood 1634, p. 76.
- Bennett 1955, p. 392.
- Russell 1980, pp. 166-67, 169.
- Wood 1634, p. 106.
- Jennings 1976, p. 63.
- Russell 1980, pp. 120–21; Jennings 1976, pp. 65–67.
- Jennings 1976, p. 112.
- Bragdon 1996, pp. 140–41.
- Gookin 1792, pp. 147–49.
- Winslow 1624, p. 56 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 360–61.
- Wood 1634, p. 90.
- See Bragdon 1996, p. 141.
- Williams 1643, p. 93.
- Winslow 1924, p. 57 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 361–62.
- Russell 1980, p. 21.
- Wood 1634, p. 89.
- Williams 1643, p. 134.
- Gookin 1792, p. 154.
- Winslow 1924, p. 57 reprinted at Youmg 1841, p. 361.
- Bragdon 1996, p. 146.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 59–60 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 364–65; Wood 1634, p. 90; Williams 1643, p. 136.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 57–58 reprinted at Young 1841, pp. 362–63; Jennings 1976, p. 113.
- Bragdon 1996, pp. 145, 147–48; Salisbury 1982, p. 47; Jennings 1976, p. 113.
- Williams 1643, pp. 178–79; Brigdon 1996, pp. 148–50.
- Brandon 1996, p. 151; Humins 1987, pp. 58–59; Salisbury.
- Bragdon 1996, p. 142.
- Winslow 1624, p. 53 reprinted at Young 1841, p. 356.
- Wood 1634, p. 105 For more on Abbomocho, see Bragdon 1996, pp. 143, 188–90, 201–02.
- Winslow 1624, p. 54 reprinted at Young 1841, p. 357.
- Wood 1634, pp. 92–94.
- Robbins 1956, p. 61.
- Bragdon 1996, p. 143.
- Letter of Isaack de Rasieres to Samuel Bloomaert, ca. 1628, in James 1963, p. 79. See also Salisbury 1981, p. 229.
- Robbins 1956, p. 59.
- Bragdon 1996, pp. 3–6.
- Martin 1978, p. 41.
- Martin 1978, p. 43.
- Jennings 1976, pp. 15–16, 22–24, 26–31; Martin 1978, pp. 43–51.
- Jennings 1976, pp. 85–88.
- Bragdon 1996, p. 6.
- Jennings 1976, p. 76.
- Williams 1643, pp. [x]–[xii].
- Burrage 1906, p. 355.
- Goddard 1978, p. 71.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 367–68.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 367–369.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 369–71.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 371–74.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 374.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 375–76.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 371.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 367–77.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 377.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, pp. 377–79.
- Rosier 1605 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 379.
- Salisbury 1982, p. 91.
- Champlain & 1878–82, p. II:92.
- Rosier 1065 reprinted at Burrage 1906, p. 357.
- Gorges 1658 reprinted at Baxter 1890, p. II:8.
- Pratt 1858, p. 485.
- Salsubry, 1982 & 265–66 n.15.
- Salisbury 1981, p. 233.
- Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1832–37 reprinted in Brown 1897, pp. 127–39. See also Burrage 1914, pp. 56–58.
- Salisbury 1982, p. 266 n.15.
- Saluisbury 1982, pp. 92–94.
- Quinn 1960, pp. 37–39.
- Brereton 1602, pp. 3–4 reprinted in Levermore 1912, p. I:31.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1647 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 72 and Levermore 1912, p. I:43.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1647 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 73 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:44–45.
- 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.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1648 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 74–75 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:46–47
- 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.
- Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1648–49 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 75–76 and Levermore 1912, p. I:49.
- Levermore 1912, pp. I:49–50.
- Knapp 1836, pp. 39-40.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1649 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 78 and Levermore 1912, p. I:50
- Salisbury 1982, p. 88.
- Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1649–50 reprinted in Archer 1843, p. 79 and Levermore 1912, p. I:51
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1650 reprinted in Archer 1843, pp. 80–81 and Levermore 1912, p. I:53
- Salisbury 1982, pp. 87–88.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1655 reprinted in Burrage 1906, p. 348 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:63–64
- Bancroft 1862, p. 114.
- Burrage 1906, pp. 346–47 n.4.
- Salisbury 1982, p. 89.
- Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1654–55 reprinted in Burrage 1906, pp. 346–47 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:63–63.
- Purchas 1625, p. 1655 reprinted in Burrage 1906, p. 347 and Levermore 1912, p. I:63.
- Purchas 1625, p. 1656 reprinted in Burrage 1906, pp. 350–51 and Levermore 1912, pp. I:66–67.
- Salisbury 1982, p. 90.
- Salisbury 1982, p. 96.
- Salisbury 1982, pp. 93–94.
- Smith 1907, pp. II:2–3.
- Baxter 1890, p. II:20 n.310.
- Gorges 1658, p. 13 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. 20.
- Gorges 1658, pp. 14–16 reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. 22–25.
- Smith 1907, p. II:4.
- Salisbury 1981, pp. 233–34.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 233 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 186. See also Dunn 1993, p. 39 and Salisbury 1981, p. 234.
- Smith 1907, pp. II:4–5.
- Baxter 1890, p. I:211. See Salisbury 1981, p. 234.
- Baxter 1890, p. I:209.
- Gorges 1622, p. 11 reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. I:209–10.
- See Gorges 1622, p. 13 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. I:212. Kinnicut also notes that Gorges makes no mention of Squanto having lived in England at any time from 1614 to 1619. Kinnicutt 1914, p. 113.
- Baxter 1890, p. I:105 n.146 (cont'd).
- E.g. Baxter 1890, p. II:27 n.216 in addition to the accounts cited before.
- Mourt's Revelation 1622, p. 50 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 215.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 81 and Davis 1908, p. 112.
- Gorges 1658, pp. 17–18 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. II:26.
- Prowse 1895, p. 104 n.2.
- Smith 1907, p. II:62.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 35 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 191. In his history Bradford simply notes that he "was entertained by a merchant in London". OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 81 and Davis 1908, p. 112.
- The Patent, April 27, 1610, which lists the grantees and extent of the grant, is printed in Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1876–77 and reprinted in Purchas 1905, pp. 19:405–09.
- Dean 1887, p. 135. See Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1877–80 reprinted in Purchas 1905, pp. 19:410–18.
- Gorges 1658, p. 12 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. 19.
- Crosby 1976, pp. 289–90.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1778 reprinted in Purchas 1905, p. 19:129.
- Gookin 1792, p. 148.
- Letter from J.H. Trumbull to Samuel Abbot Green, Hartford, July 25, 1881, published in Green 1881, pp. 129–30.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 114 and Davis 1908, p. 141.
- Williams 1909, p. 21.
- Hoyt 1824, p. 89 & n.*.
- Adams 1892, p. 2. See also Cook 1973, pp. 487–88 ("no mosquito-borne infection can survive the New England winter.").
- Holmes 1891, pp. 314–15.
- Cook 1973, pp. 488–89.
- Williams, p. 188.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 270 and Davis 1908, pp. 312–13.
- Adams 1882, p. 3.
- OPP: Bradfod 1952, p. 177 and Davis 1908, p. 207.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 24 and Davis 1908, p. 45.
- Winslow 1624, p. 18 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 302.
- Cook 1973, p. 489.
- Marr & Cathey 2010.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 45–46 reprinted in (Dexter 1865, pp. 45–47) and Young 1841, pp. 210–211.
- Marr & Cathey 2100.
- Cook 1973, p. 487.
- Salisbury & 1981982, p. 103.
- Cook 1973, p. 490.
- Smith 1631, p. 9 reprinted in Arber, 1910 & II:933.
- Salsibury 1982, pp. 102–03.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 42–43 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 206.
- Morton 1637, p. 23 reprinted in Adams 1883, pp. 132–33.
- Smith 1631, p. 9 reprinted in Arber 1910, p. II:933.
- Morton 1637, pp. 22–23 reprinted in Adams 1883, pp. 130–32.
- Pratt 1858, pp. 479, 489.
- Mather 1855, p. 51.
- Pope 2004 discusses this trade.
- Gorges 1622, p. 13 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. I:212.
- D. eane 1887, p. 134.
- Gorges 1622, pp. 14–16 reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. I:212–15; Gorges 1658, p. 18 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. II:27.
- Gorges, 1622 & pp13–14 reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. I:212–13.
- Gorges 1622, p. 16 reprinted in Baxter, p. I:215; Gorges 1658, p. 19 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. II:28.
- Gorges 1622, pp. 16–17 reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. I:216; Gorges 1658, p. 19 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. II:28.
- Letter of Thomas Dermer to Samuel Purchas, December 27, 1619 in Purchas 1625, p. 1778 reprinted in Purchas 1905, p. 19:129.
- Salisbury 1881, p. 232.
- Dunn 1993, p. 40.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1778 reprinted in Purchas 1905, pp. 19:130.
- Adams 1883, p. 131 n.2.
- Purchas 1625, p. IV:1779 reprinted in Purchas 1905, p. 19:131.
- Baxter, 1890 & I:109.
- Salisbury 1881, p. 237.
- "Letter of Thomas Dermer, Describing his passage from Maine to Virginia, A.D. 1619. From Purchas's Pilgrims, London 1625". Collections of the New-York Historical Society. 2. 1: 343–45, at 351 n.*..
- See Gorges 1622, p. 15 reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. I:123–14: Rowcraft's mutineers were put at "Sawaguatock" and got to Monhegan, "an Island lying some three leagues in the Sea, and fifteen leagues from that place ..."
- E.g., Baxter 1890, p. I:214 n.267 (who notes that French traders transliterated the native name as "Choüacoet"); Dunn 1993, p. 40.
- Dunn 1003, p. 40.
- Purchas 1625, pp. IV1778–79}} reprinted in 1905, pp. 130–34.
- Baxter 1890, p. I:110.
- Morison 1952, p. 80 n.8.
- Adams 1883, p. 244 n.2.
- Gorges 1622, p. 19 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. I:219.
- Bradford 1952, p. 82 n.6.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 82 reprinted in Davis 1908, pp. 112–13.
- Salisbury 1981, p. 237.
- Gorges 1658, pp. 19–20 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. II:29.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 83 and Davis 1908, p. 209.
- Gorger 1658, p. 20 reprinted in Baxter 1890, p. II:29.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 83 and Davis 1908, pp. 113–14.
- Adams 1893, p. 244 n.1.
- Morton 1637, p. 104 reprinted in Adams 1883, p. 244.
- See generally Kupperman 1977; Major 1970; Adams 1883, pp. 6, 15, 19, 20–21, 30, 32, 37, 46–47, 79.
- Morton 1637, pp. 44–47 reprinted in Adams 1883, pp. 162–6.
- Adams 1883, pp. 243–44 n.1.
- See Pratt 1858, p. 485.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 1 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 1–2 and Young 1841, p. 117.
- 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.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 2–3 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 5–8 and Young 1841, pp. 120–22.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 3–4 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 8–11 and Young 1841, pp. 122–24.
- 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.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 4–5 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 13–16 and Young 1841, pp. 125–27. See also OPP in Bradford 1952, pp. 64–65 and Davis 1908, p. 98.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 5–7 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 18–22 and Young 1841, pp. 129–34.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 7 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 22 and Young 1841, p. 134.
- Young 1841, p. 120 n.2.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 8 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 27 and Young 1841, p. 138.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 9 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 28 and Young 1841, p. 139.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 10 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 30–31 and Young 1841, pp. 140–41.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 11 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 34 and Young 1841, p. 143.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 13 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 37 and Young 1841, p. 145.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 10 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 31 and Young 1841, p. 141.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 66 and Davis 1908, p. 100. See also Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 7 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 22 and Young 1841, p. 134.
- Baylies 1830, p. 54.
- Philbrick 2006, p. 69.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 13 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 38 and Young 1841, pp. 146–47.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 16 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 46 and Young 1841, p. 151.
- 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.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 16–18 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 46–51 and Young 1841, pp. 151–55.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 18–20 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 52–55 and Young 1841, pp. 156–58.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 20 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 55 and Young 1841, p. 159.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 20–21 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 55–59 and Young 1841, pp. 159–62.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 60, Davis 1908, pp. 96 and Young 1841, p. 105.
- Chase 1883, pp. 882-83.
- Robbins 1956, p. 65.
- Russell 1980, p. 22.
- Johnson 1654, p. 23.
- Russell 1980, p. 26.
- Tolman 1902, p. 15.
- Russell 1980, pp. 51–52.
- Russell 1980, pp. 187–88.
- Robbins 1956, p. 64.
- Arber 1910, p. I:192.
- Salisbury 1982, p. 250 n.31.
- Hutchinson 1765, pp. 459–60.
- Bicknell 1908, p. 12.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 87 and Davis 1908, p. 118.
- Robbins 1956, pp. 64–65.
- Brinley 1792, pp. 216–17. See also Young 1851, p. 280 n.1.
- De Forest 1851, p. 62.
- Williams 1643, p. 172.
- Winslow 1624, p. 1 reprinted at Young 1841, p. 280.
- 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.
- Salisbury 1981, pp. 237–38.
- Philbrick 2006, pp. 94–95.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 84 and Davis 1908, p. 114.
- Hubbard 1677, p. 9 reprinted in Drake 1865, pp. I:48–49.
- Salsibury 1981, pp. 239–41.
- Pratt 1858, p. 485. Ellipsis in brackets indicates lacuna in manuscript.
- Adams 1883, p. 244 n.2; Bradford 1952, p. 80 n.8
- Kupperman 2000, p. 185.
- Drake 1865, p. II: 81 n.95.
- Matthews, pp. 61, 65, passim.
- Salisbury 1982, pp. 265–66 n.15.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 30–31 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 79–80 and Young 1841, p. 180.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 31 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 80–81 and Young 1841, pp. 180–81.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 31–32 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 81–83 and Young 1841, pp. 181–82.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 33 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 84 and Young 1841, p. 181.
- Young 1841, p. 182 n.3.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 32–33 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 84–87 and Young 1841, pp. 182–86.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 33–35 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 87–89 and Young 1841, pp. 186–89.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 35 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 90 and Young 1841, pp. 189–90.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 35–36 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 90–92 and Young 1841, pp. 190–92.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 36–37 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 92–94 and Young 1841, pp. 192–93.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 37 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 94 and Young 1841, p. 194.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 37 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 93–94 and Young 1841, p. 193.
- Morton 1669, pp. 112–13.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 38–39 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 95–97 and Young 1841, pp. 195–97.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 39 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 97 and Young 1841, pp. 196–97.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 76 and Davis 1908, p. 107.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 86 and Davis 1908, p. 116.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 85 and Davis 1908, p. 113.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 81 and Davis 1908, p. 111.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 39 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 97 and Young 1841, p. 196.
- Letter of John Pory to the Earl of Southampton, January 13, 1622/23 in James 1963, p. 7.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 85 and Davis 1908, pp. 115–16.
- Ceci 1990, p. 71.
- Russell 1980, p. 140.
- Morton 1637, pp. 52–53 reprinted in Adams 1883, p. 172.
- Russell 1980, pp. 121–22.
- Bragdon 1996, p. 108.
- 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.").
- Herndon 1967, p. 187.
- Bragdon1996, pp. 107–10.
- Russell 1980, p. 141.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 85 and Davis 1908, p. 116.
- 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.
- Letter of John Pory to the Earl of Southampton, January 13, 1622/23 in James 1963, pp. 7–8.
- Ceci 1975, p. 28.
- Rostlund 1957, p. 228 cited at Ceci 1975, p. 26.
- Ceci 1975, p. 27.
- Ceci 1975, pp. 28–29.
- The essay was first published in Mood 1937, pp. 125–33.
- Mood 1937, p. 128.
- Jennings 1976, pp. 81-84, 135–38.
- Warden 1975, p. 976.
- Cushman 1622b, p. 68.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 60 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 132 and Young 1841, pp. 230–31
- Tomlins 2010, pp. 148–51.
- Nanepashemet 1993, pp. 47–49.
- Nanepashemet 1993, p. 49.
- Russell 1980, p. 167.
- Chamberlain 1902, p. 248.
- Philbrick 2006, p. 381.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 94 and Davis 1908, p. 123.
- Morton 1637, p. 104 reprinted in Adams 1883, p. 245.
- 1981, p. 240.
- Adolf 1964, p. 249.
- Salisbury 1981, pp. 240, 242–43.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 40 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 98 and Young 1841, p. 202.
- Prince 1826, p. 191 n.*.
- Young 1841, p. 204 n.3.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 87 and Davis 1908, pp. 117–18.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 40–41 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 98–101 and Young 1841, pp. 202–04.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 41–43 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 100–03 and Young 1841, pp. 204–06.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 43–44 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 103–06 and Baxter, pp. 206–09.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 46 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 46 and Young 1841, pp. 211.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 46–48 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 109–11 and Young 1841, pp. 211–13
- Prince 1826, p. 192 n.*.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 87–88 and Davis 1908, p. 118.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 49–50 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 112–13 and Young 1841, pp. 214–15.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 50 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 113–14 and Young 1841, pp. 215–16.
- Dexter 1865, p. 115 n.371.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 51 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 115 and Young 1841, p. 217
- Young 1841, pp. 217–18 n.4.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 50–52 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 114–17 and Young, pp. 216–18.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 119 and Young 1841, p. 219.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 88 and Davis 1908, pp. 118–19.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 118 and Young 1841, p. 219.
- Bradford 1952, p. 88 n.4.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 118–20 and Young 1841, pp. 219–20.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 88 and Davis 1908, p. 119.
- Mount's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 118–19 and Young 1841, p. 219.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 53 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 118–19 and Young 1841, pp. 219–20.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 88 and Davis 1908, p. 119.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 54 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 120 and Young 1841, p. 220.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 89 and Davis 1908, p. 120.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 89 and Davis 1908, p. =120,
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 54–56 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 121–23 and Young 1841, pp. 220–23.
- Morton 1669, p. 29.
- Ford 1912, p. 227 n.1.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 57 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 124 and Young 1841, p. 224.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 57 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 124–25 and Young 1841, pp. 224–25.
- Hutchinson 1765, pp. 456–57.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 57–58 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 125–26 and Young 1841, p. 225.
- See Young 1841, p. 226 n.3.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 58 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 127–28 and Young, 1841 & pp226–27.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 59 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 129 and Young 1841, p. 227.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, pp. 58–60 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 127–30 and Young 1841, pp. 226–29.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 90 and Davis 1908, p. 120.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 61 reprinted in Dexter 1865, pp. 133–35 and Young 1841, pp. 232–33.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 90 and Davis 1908, p. 121
- Young 1841, p. 231 n.3.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 61 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 133 and Young 1841, p. 231.
- Humins 1987, p. 61.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 61 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 133 and Young 1841, pp. 231–32.
- Morton 1669, p. 24.
- Salisbury 1981, p. 241.
- Arber 1910, p. I:260.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 90–96 and Davis 1908, pp. 121–25.
- Winslow 1624, p. 1 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 280.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 1–2 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 280–81.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 96–97 and Davis 1908, p. 125.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 2–3 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 281–83.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 3–4 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 283–84.
- Winslow 1624, p. 4 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 284.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 97 and Davis 198, p. 126.
- OPP: Bradford, p. 96 and Davis 1908, p. 125; Winslow 1624, pp. 4–5 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 284–85.
- OPP: Bradford, p. 96 and Davis 1908, p. 125.
- Winslow 1624, p. 5 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 285.
- Winslow 1624, p. 6 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 286.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 98 and Davis 1908, p. 127.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 6–7 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 287.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 98 and Davis 1908, p. 127; Winslow 1624, p. 7 reprinted in Young 1941, pp. 287–88.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 7–8 reprinted in Young 8141, pp. 288–89.
- Winslow 1624, p. 8 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 289,
- OP: Bradford 1952, p. 99 and Davis 1908, p. 128.
- Winslow 1624, p. 128 reprinted in Young, pp. 289–90.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 10–11 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 292–92.
- Mourt's Relation 1622, p. 37 reprinted in Dexter 1865, p. 93 and Young 1841, p. 193.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 9–10 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 290–91.
- Bradford 1952, p. 99–100 nn. 3 & 4.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 99–100 and Davis 1908, p. 128.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 100 and Young 1908, pp. 129. See also Bradford 1952, p. 100 n.5; Willison 1945, p. 204.
- Philbrick 2006, p. 135.
- Willison 1945, p. 204.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 101 and Davis 1908, p. 129.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 101 and Davis 1908, p. 130.
- Winslow 1624, p. 12 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 294.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 12–13 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 294–95.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 102 and Davis 1908, pp. 130–31.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 99–112 and Davis 1908, pp. 128–48.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 12–15 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 292–97.
- Willison 1945, pp. 204–10.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 110 and Davis 1908, p. 138.
- Adams 1882, p. 53.
- Philbrick 2006, pp. 15–36.
- Willison 1945, p. 206.
- Williamson 1839, p. 56 & n.†.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 99 and Davis 1908, p. 128
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 99 and Davis 1908, p. 128.
- Bradford 1952, p. 99 n. 4.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 11–13 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 292–95.
- Winslow 1624, p. 13 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 295.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 103–09 and Davis 1908, pp. 132–37.
- Morton 1637, p. 117 reprinted in Adams 1883, p. 261.
- Adams 1882, p. 56.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 13–14 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 296–97.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, p. 112 and Davis 1908, p. 139.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 14–15 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 297–98.
- Bradford 1952, p. 112 and Davis 1908, p. 139.
- Winslow 1624, p. 15 reprinted in Young 1841, p. 299.
- OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 113–14 and Davis 1908, pp. 140–41.
- Young 1841, p. 103 n.1.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 15–16 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 299–300.
- Winslow 1624, p. 16 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 299–300; OPP: Bradford 1952, pp. 113–14 and Davis 1908, p. 141.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 17–18 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 300–02.
- Winslow 1624, pp. 17–18 reprinted in Young 1841, pp. 301–02.
- Wood 1634, p. 94.
- Simmons 1988, p. 40.
- Willison 1945, p. 212.
- Philbrick 2006, pp. 138 & 383.
- Nickerson 1994, p. 200.
- Adams 1892, p. I: 36.
- Shuffelton 1976, p. 108.
- Davis 1826, pp. 85–86 n.§.
- Adolf 1964, p. 256.
- Baylies 1830, p. 96.
- Willison 1945, p. 468 n.3.
- "Chronological and Topographical Account of Dorchester". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 9: 147–99, 164. 1804.
- Young 1841, p. 226 n. 3.
- Morton 1637, pp. 84, 93 reprinted in Adams 1883, pp. 216, 229.
- Young 1841, pp. 190–91 n.3; Adams 1883, p. 216 n.3.
- Willison 1945, p. 421.
- Willison 1945, pp. 484–85.
- Friedlander, Whitney (October 29, 2015). "'Saints & Strangers' Cast on Bringing Early American Settlers to Life". Variety. Retrieved December 15, 2017.
- Hobsbawm & Ranger 1983, p. 279.
- Ceci 1990, p. 83.
- See. e.g., Stefoff, Rebecca (2001). The Colonies. New York: Benchmark Books.
- Philbrick, Nathaniel (2008). The Mayflower and the Pilgrims' New World. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
- Archer, Gabriel (1843). "The Relation of Captain Gosnold's Voyage to the North part of Virginia, begun the sixth-and twentieth of March, Anno 42 Elizabethae Reginae, 1602, and delivered by Gabriel Archer, a gentleman in the said voyage". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 3. 8: 72–81. The book was first published in Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1647–51. An annotated version is contained in Levermore 1912, pp. I:43–54.
- Bradford, William (1906). Governor William Bradford's Letter Book. Boston, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants.
- Bradford, William (1952). Morison, Samuel Eliot (ed.). Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620–1647. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. LCCN 51013222. This is the modern critical edition of the manuscript by William Bradford entitled simply Of plimouth plantation. In the notes and references the manuscript (as opposed to the printed versions) is sometimes referred to as OPP. The first book of the manuscript had been copied into Plymouth church records by Nathaniel Morton, Bradford's nephew and secretary, and it was this version that was annotated and printed in Young 1841, pp. 1–108, the original at a time having been missing since the beginning of the American Revolution. In the decade after the publication by Young, the original manuscript was discovered to be in the library of the Bishop of London in Fulham Palace. The Massachusetts Historical Society arranged for a longhand copy to be made. That version was published in Volume III of the Fourth Series of the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1856), which volume is hosted by the Internet Archive. When the manuscript was returned to Massachusetts at the end of the 19th century, the Massachusetts legislature commissioned a new transcription to be published. While the version that resulted was more faithful to the idiosyncratic orthography of Bradford, it contained, according to Morison, many of the same mistakes as the transcription published in 1856. The legislature's version was published in 1898. A copy is hosted by the Internet Archive. That version was the basis of the annotated version published as Davis, William T., ed. (1908). Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606–1646. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. The 1982 Barnes & Noble reprint of this edition can be found online at HathiTrust. A digitized version with most of Davis's annotations and notes removed is hosted at the University of Maryland's Early Americas Digital Archive. The most amply annotated and literrally transcribed edition of the work is Ford 1912. The history of the manuscript is described in the Editorial Preface to the 1856 publication by the Massachusetts Historical Society and more fully in the Introduction of Morison's edition (pp. xxvii–xl), which also contains a history of the published editions of the manuscript (pp. xl–xliii).
- Brereton, John (1602). A Brief and true Relation of the Discoverie of the North Part of Virginia …. London: Georg. Bishop. A facsimile reprint with introduction by Luther S. Livingston and published by Dodd, Mead & Co. in 1903 is hosted by the Internet Archive. A digitized version (with page numbers) is also hosted by the University of Michigan. An annotated version can also be found in Burrage 1906, pp. 353–94.
- Brinley, Francis (1798). "A Brief Account of the Several Settlements and Governments in and about the lands of the Narragansett Bay Bay in New England". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 5: 216–220.
- Champlain, Samuel de (1878–82). Slafter, Edmund F. (ed.). Title Voyages of Samuel de Champlain. Translated by Otis, Charles Pomeroy. Boston: The Prince Society. LCCN 03017624. Hosted by Internet Archives: Volume I; 1567–35 (1880); Volume II: 1604–1610 (1878); Volume III: 1611–1618 (1882).
- Cushman, Robert (1622a). A sermon preached at Plimmoth in New-England December 9. 1621 …. London: Printed by I[ohn] D[awson] for Iohn Bellamie. Repinted in Cushman, Robert (1858). The First Sermon Ever Preached in New England …. New York: J.E.D. Comstock.
- Cushman, Robert (1622b). "Reasons & considerations touching the lawfulnesse of removing out of England into the parts of America". A relation, or, Journall of the beginning and proceedings of the English plantation setled at Plimoth in New England, by certaine English adventurers both merchants and others …. London: Printed for John Bellamie. pp. 60–72.
- Gookin, Daniel (1792). "Historical Collections of the Indians in New England". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 3rd series. 1: 141–229. (Reprint of 1674 manuscript.)
- Gorges, Ferdinando (1622). A briefe relation of the discovery and plantation of Nevv England …. London: Printed by John Haviland, and are to be sold by William Bladen. Published under the authorship of "Plymouth Council for New England". This work was published in Purchas 1625, pp. IV:1827–1832 (in the 1905–07 reprint it is found volume 19, pp. 269–284 and reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society as Gorges, Ferdinando (1832). "A Brief Relation of the Discovery and Plantation of New England". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 2nd series. 9: 1–25. The booklet was also reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. I:199–240.
- Gorges, Ferdinando (1658). A Briefe Narration of the Originall Undertakings for the Advancement of Plantations into the Parts of America. London: Printed by E. Beudenell for Nath. Brook. This pamphlet was reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society as Gorges, Ferdinando (1837). "A Briefe Narration of the Originall Undertakings for the Advancement of Plantations into the Parts of America". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 3rd series. 6: 45–93. (Hosted by the Internet Archive.) And by the Maine Historical Society as Gorges, Ferdinando (1847). "A Briefe Narration …". Collections of the Maine Historical Society: [v]-xiv, -71. (Hosted online by the HathiTrust.) It is also reprinted in Baxter 1890, pp. II:1–81.
- Hubbard, William (1677). A Narrative of the Troubles with the Indians in New-England, from the First Planting thereof in the year 1607. to this Present Year 1677. But Chiefly of the Late Troubles in the Two Last Years, 1675. and 1676. To which is added a discourse about the warre with the Pequods in the year 1637. Boston: Printed by John Foster. LCCN 03026260. This volume was reprinted and annotated as Drake 1865.
- Johnson, Edward (1654). Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviour in New England. London: Printed for Nath: Brooke. A facsiile copy of the work (with original page numbers) is reproduced in the second volume of Poole, William Frederick, ed. (1867). Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviour in New England. Andover, Massachusetts: W. F. Draper. This work is hosted by Hathitrust: Volume I and Volume II.
- Morton, Nathaniel (1669). New Englands Memorial. Cambridge: S.G. and M.J. for John Ulster of Boston. A facsimile reproduction is contained in Lord, Arthur, ed. (1903). New Englands Memorial. Boston: The Club of Odd Volumes. An early annotated edition is Davis, John, ed. (1826). New-England's Memorial by Nathaniel Morton. Boston: Crocker & Brewster. This book is largely based on the manuscript Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford, Morton's uncle.
- Morton, Thomas (1637). New English Canaan, or New Canaan. Amsterdam: Jacob Frederick Stam., an annotated version of which, retaining the original orthography, is contained, together with introductory matter and notes, in Adams, Charles Frances, Jr., ed. (1883). New England Canaan of Thomas Morton. Boston: The Prince Society. Retrieved November 22, 2016.
- Mourt's Relation (1622). A relation, or, Journall of the beginning and proceedings of the English plantation setled at Plimoth in New England, by certaine English adventurers both merchants and others …. London: Printed for John Bellamie. This work (the authors of which are not credited) is commonly called Mourt's Relation, and is generally accepted to have been written by William Bradford and Edward Winslow (as to the narrative parts) and Robert Cushman (as to the religious and promotional parts). An annotated version was first printed in Young 1841, pp. 109–251. Another annotated version is Dexter, Henry Martyn, ed. (1865). Mourt's Relation or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth. Boston: John Kimball Wiggin. Retrieved December 18, 2016 – via Internet Archive. Several different copies of that book are also hosted by HathiTrust. A version with contemporary orthography and comments was published in connection with the Plimouth Plantation, Inc. as Heath, Dwight B., ed. (1963). Mourt's Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. Bedford, Massachusetts: Applewood Books. ISBN 0918222842.
- Pratt, Phineas (1858). "A Declaration of the Affairs of the English People that First Inhabited New England". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 4. 4: 474–87.
- Purchas, Samuel, ed. (1625). Hakluytus posthumus, or, Purchas his Pilgrimes. Contayning a history of the world, in sea voyages, & lande-travells, by Englishmen and others …. London: Imprinted for H. Fetherston. The original imprint was "In fower parts, each containing five bookes". All four volumes (parts) are hosted online by the Library of Congress The 1905–07 reproduction was printed in 20 volumves (one for each "book"): Purchas, Samuel, ed. (1905). Hakluytus posthumus. Glasgow: J. MacLehose and Sons.
- Rosier, James (1605). A True Relation of the most prosperous voyage made this present yeere 1605, by Captaine George Waymouth, in the discovery of the land of Virginia. London: Geor. Bishop. The pamphlet was reprinted in an 1877 edition hosted online by HathiTrust. It is reprinted with annotations at Burrage 1906, pp. 357–94.
- Smith, John (1616). A description of New England: or The observations, and discoveries, of Captain John Smith (admirall of that country) in the north of America, in the year of our Lord 1614. London: Printed by Humfrey Lownes, for Robert Clerke. This book is reprinted in Arber 1910, pp. 175–232. A digitized version can be downloaded from The Digital Commons at University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
- Smith, John (1620). New Englands trials. London: Printed by William Jones.
- Smith, John (1624). The generall historie of Virginia, New England & the Summer Isles. London: Printed by I.D. and I.H. for Michael Sparkes.. Macmillan published a verbatim version of the first printing (with different pagination) of this work as well as Smith's 1630 autobiography and his Sea Grammar: Smith, John (1907). The generall historie of Virginia, New England & the Summer Isles: together with The true travels, adventures and observations, and A sea grammar. New York: Macmillan. The Macmillan version, is hosted by the Library of Congress in two volumes): Volume I and Volume II. A searchable version (with various download options) of the same book is hosted by the Internet Archive: Voume I and Volume II. The Generall History of Virginia is also contained in Arber 1910, pp. I:273–38; II:385–784. The work was twice republished in Smith's life (in 1726 and 1727) and immediately after his death (in 1732).
- Smith, John (1631). Advertisement for the unexperienced Planters of New-England, or any where. London: John Haviland.
- Whitmore, W.H., ed. (1867). John Dunton's Letters from New England. Boston: Printed for the Prince Society by T.R. Marvin & Son.
- Williams, Roger (1643). A key into the language of America: or, An help to the language of the natives in that part of America, called New-England. London: Printed by Gregory Dexter. A digitized version with modern typeface but 1643 pagination is hosted by the University of Michigan.
- Winslow, Edward (1624). Good newes from New-England: or, A true relation of things very remarkable at the plantation of Plimoth in New-England … Together with a relation of such religious and civill lawes and customes, as are in practise amongst the Indians …. London: Printed by I. D[awson and Eliot's Court Press] for William Bladen and John Bellamie. The work is reprinted, with annotations, in Young 1841, pp. 269–375.
- Wood, William (1634). New Englands Prospect. London: Tho. Coates for John Bellamie. A facsimile reproduction, with original pagination, is printed in an 1865 edition, together with a new preface and one from a 1764 reprinting, by The Society of Boston and hosted by the Internet Archive.
- Adams, Charles Francis (1892). Three Episodes of Massachusetts History. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. Online (via HathiTrust): Multiple copies. ("The Settlement of Boston Bay" is found in Volume 1, pp. 1–360. The chapter on Squanto is found at pp. 23–44.)
- Adolf, Leonard A. (Summer 1964). "Squanto's Role in Pilgrim Diplomacy". Ethnohistory. 11 (3): 247–61. doi:10.2307/480471. JSTOR 480471.
- Arber, Edward, ed. (1910). Travels and Works of Captain John Smith. Edinburgh: John Grant. Hosted online by the Internet Archive: Volume I and Volume II.
- Bartlett, John Russell, ed. (1963). The Complete Writings of Roger Williams. 6. New York: Russell & Russell Inc. LCCN 63011034.
- Axtell, James (January 1978). "The Ethnohistory of Early America: A Review Essay". William and Mary Quarterly. 35 (1): 110–44. doi:10.2307/1922574. JSTOR 1922574.
- Bancroft, George (1862). History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: History of the Colonization of the United States. 1. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown, & Co.
- Baxter, James Phinney (1890). Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine. Boston: The Prince Society. In three volumes, online, at the Internet Archive, as follows: Volume 1 consists of Baxter's memoir of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and A briefe relation of the discovery and plantation of New England … (London: J. Haviland for W. Bladen, 1622). Volume 2 includes A briefe narration of the original undertakings of the advancement of plantation into the parts of American… by … Sir Ferdinando Gorges … (London: E. Brudenell, for N. Brook, 1658) as well as other works of Gorges and his son Thomas Gorges. Volume 3 is devoted to Gorges's letters and other papers, 1596–1646.
- Baylies, Francis (1830). An Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth. 1—Part the First (From 1620 to 1641). Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little, and Wilkins.
- Bennett, M.K. (October 1955). "The Food Economy of the New England Indians, 1605–75". Journal of Political Economy. 63 (5): 369–397. doi:10.1086/257706. JSTOR 1826569.
- Bicknell, Thomas W. (1908). Sowams: With Ancient Records of Sowams and Parts Adjacent—Illustrated. New Haven, Connecticut: Associated Publishers of American Records. LCCN 08019182.
- Bragdon, Kathleen J. (1996). Native People of Southern New England, 1650–1775. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0806140046.
- Brown, Alexander (1897). Genesis of the United States. 1. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co.
- Burrage, Henry S., ed. (1906). Early English and French voyages, chiefly from Hakluyt, 1534–1608. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. (The work consists of first-hand accounts of early voyages to the New World, with introduction and notes by Burrage.)
- Burrage, Henry S. (1914). The Beginnings of Colonial Maine, 1602-1658. Portland, Mainee: Printed for the state. LCCN 14008527.
- Ceci, Lynn (April 4, 1975). "Fish Fertilizer: A Native North American Practice?". Science. 188: 26–30. doi:10.1126/science.188.4183.26. JSTOR 1740002. PMID 17760151.
- Ceci, Lynn (September 19, 1975). "Letter: Indian Corn Cultivation". Science. 189 (4207): 946–50. JSTOR 1740631.
- Ceci, Lynn (1990). "Squanto and the Pilgrims: On Planting Corn 'in the manner of the Indians'". In Clifton, James A. (ed.). The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 71–89. ISBN 0887383416.
- Cell, Gillian T. (October 1965). "The Newfoundland Company: A Study of Subscribers to a Colonizing Venture". William and Mary Quarterly. 22 (4): 611–25. doi:10.2307/1922912. JSTOR 1922912.
- Chamberlain, Alexander F. (October – December 1902). "Algonkian Words in American English: A Study in the Contact of the White Man and the Indian". The Journal of American Folklore. 15 (59): 240–67. doi:10.2307/533199. JSTOR 533199.
- Chase, Henry E. (1885). "Notes on the Wampanoag Indians". Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1883. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office: 878–907.
- Cook, Sherburne F. (September 1973). "The Significance of Disease in the Extinction of the New England Indians". Human Biology. 45 (3): 485–508. JSTOR 41459892.
- Crosby, Alfred W. (April 1976). "Virgin Soil Epidemics as a Factor in the Aboriginal Depopulation in America". William and Mary Quarterly. 33 (2): 289–99. doi:10.2307/1922166. JSTOR 1922166.
- De Forest, John William (1851). History of the Indians of Connecticut from the Earliest Known Period to 1850. Hartford, Connecticut: Wm. Jas. Hamersley. LCCN 02015045.
- Dean, John Ward, ed. (1887). Capt. John Mason, the Founder of New Hampshire. Boston: The Prince Society. (A copy is also hosted by the HathiTrust.)
- Deane, Charles (March 1885). "Indians Kidnapped from Maine". Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 2nd. 2: 35–38. JSTOR 25079636.
- Deetz, James; Deetz, Patricia E. Scott (2000). The Times of Their Lives: Life, Love, and Death in Plymouth Colony. New York: Random House. ISBN 0716738309.
- Dockstader, Frederick J. (1977). Great North American Indians: Profiles in Life and Leadership. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. ISBN 0442021488.
- Drake, Samuel G. (1845). The Book of the Indians, or, Biography and History of the Indians of North America from its First Discovery to the Year 1841 (9th ed.). Boston: Benjamin B. Mussey.
- Drake, Samuel G., ed. (1865). The History of the Indian Wars in New England. Roxbury, Massachusetts: Printed for W. Elliot Woodward. LCCN 02015135. Hosted by the Internet Archive in two volumes: Volume I and Voume II.
- Dunn, Jerome P. (Spring 1993). "Squanto Before He Met the Pilgrims". Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. 54 (1): 38–42.
- Ford, Worthington C. (1912). History of Plymouth Plantation 1620–1647. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company for The Massachusetts Historical Society. LCCN 12029493. The work is in two volumes hosted on the Internet Archive as Volume I and Volume II.
- Goddard, Ives (1978). "Eastern Algonquian Languages". In Trigger, Bruce G. (ed.). Northeast. Handbook of North American Indians. 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 70–77. ISBN 0160045754. (William C. Sturtevant, general editor.)
- Green, Samuel Abbott (1881). History of Medicine in Massachusetts: A Centennial Address Delivered before the Massachusetts Medical Society. Boston: A. Williams & Co.
- Herndon, G. Melvin (July 1967). "Indian Agriculture in the Southern Colonies". The North Carolina Historical Review. 44 (3): 283–97. JSTOR 23517891.
- Hobsbawm, Eric; Ranger, Terence, eds. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, United KingdomCambridge University Press. ISBN 0521246458.
- Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Sr. (1891). "The Medical Profession in Massachusetts". Medical Essays, 1842-1882. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. pp. 312–69. (This essay was originally a lecture delivered before the Lowell Institute, January 29, 1869.)
- Hoyt, Epaphras (1824). Antiquarian Researches: Comprising a History of the Indian Wars in the Country Bordering Connecticut River and Parts Adjacent …. Greenfield, Massachusetts: A. Phelps.
- Humins, John H. (March 1987). "Squanto and Massasoit: A Struggle for Power". New England Quarterly. 60 (1): 54–70. doi:10.2307/365654. JSTOR 365654.
- Hutchinson, Thomas (1765). The History of the Colony of Massachusett's Bay: From the First Settlement Thereof in 1628, until its Incorporation with the Colony of Plimouth Province, Province of Main etc., by the Charter of King William and Queen Mary in 1691. 1 (2d ed.). Boston: Printed for Mr. Richardson. First of three volumes.
- James, Sydney V., Jr., ed. (1963). Three Visitors to Early Plymouth. Plymouth, Massachusetts: Plimouth Plantation, Inc. LCCN 66008244.
- Jennings, Francis (1976). The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393008304.
- Kinnicutt, Lincoln N. (November 1914). "The Plymouth Settlement and Tisquantum". Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 48: 103–118. JSTOR 25080029.
- Kinnicutt, Lincoln N. (October 1920). "Plymouth's Debt to the Indians". The Harvard Theological Review. 13 (4): 345–61. doi:10.1017/s0017816000029916. JSTOR 1507717.
- Knapp, Samuel L. (1836). The Library of American History. New York: C.J. Jackson & Co.
- Kruer, Matthew (Spring–Summer 2003). "A Country Wonderfully Prepared for their Entertainment: The Aftermath of the New England Indian Epidemic of 1616". Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council—Online Archive (129).
- Kupperman, Karen Ordahl (December 1977). "Thomas Morton, Historian". The New England Quarterly. 50 (4): 660–64. JSTOR 364252.
- Kupperman, Karen Ordahl (2000). Indians and English: Facing Off in Early America. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801431786.
- Levermore, Charles Herbert, ed. (1912). Forerunners and Competitors of the Pilgrims and Puritans: or, Narratives of Voyages Made by Persons Other than the Pilgrims and Puritans of the Bay Colony to the Shores of New England during the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century, 1601–1625, with Especial Reference to the Labors of Captain John Smith in Behalf of the Settlement of New England. Brooklyn, New York: The Society [New England Society of Brooklyn]. LCCN a17000511. The work is hosted on the Internet Archive: Volume 1 and Volume II.
- McManis, Douglas (1972). European Impressions of the New England Coast, 1497–1620. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago, Department of Geography. ISBN 0890650462.
- Major, Minor Wallace (Fall 1970). "William Bradford versus Thomas Morton". Early American Literature. 5 (2): 1–13. JSTOR 25070464.
- Mann, Charles C. (December 2005). "Native Intelligence". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved November 22, 2016.
- Marr, John S.; Cathey, John T. (2010). "New Hypothesis for Cause of an Epidemic among Native Americans, New England, 1616–1619". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 16 (2): 281–86. doi:10.3201/eid1602.090276. PMC 2957993. PMID 20113559.
- Mather, Cotton (1855) . Magnalia Christi Americana. 1. Hartford, Connecticut: S. Andrus & Son. LCCN nuc87620072.
- Martin, Calvin (1978). Keepers of the Game: Indian-Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 0520035194.
- Matthews, Albert (1904). "Note on the Indian Sagamore Samoset". Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. 6: 59–70.
- Mood, Fulmer (March 1937). John Winthrop, Jr., on Indian Corn. The New England Quarterly. 1. pp. 121–33. doi:10.2307/360150. JSTOR 360150.
- Morison, Samuel Eliot (1956). The Story of the "Old Colony" of New Plymouth, 1620–1692. New York: Knopf. LCCN 56008893.
- Nanepashemet (1993). "It Smells Fishy to Me: An Argument Supporting the Use of Fish Fertilizer by the Native People of Southern New England". In Benes, Peter; Benes, Jane Montague (eds.). Algonkians of New England: Past and Present. Annual proceedings, Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife (1991). Boston, Massachusetts: Boston University. pp. 42–50.
- Nickerson, Warren Sears (1994). Carpenter, Delores Bird (ed.). Early Encounters—Native Americans and Europeans in New England: From the Papers of W. Sears Nickerson. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press. ISBN 0870133519.
- Philbrick, Nathaniel (2006). Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War. New York: Viking. ISBN 0670037605.
- Pope, Peter Edward (2004). Fish into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation in the Seventeenth Century. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: For the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia by the University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9781469601175.
- Prince, Thomas (1826). A Chronological History of New England in the Form of Annals (New ed.). Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Co.
- Prowse, D.W. (1895). A History of Newfoundland from the English, Colonial, and Foreign Records. New York: Macmillan. LCCN 10014021.
- Pulsipher, Jenny Hale (2005). Subjects unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812238761.
- Quinn, D.B. (1960). "Edward Hayes, Liverpool Colonial Pioneer" (PDF). Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. 111: 25–45. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 21, 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2016.
- Rainey, Froelich G. (April 1936). "A Compilation of Historical Data Contributing to the Ethnography of Connecticut and Southern New England Indians". Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Connecticut. 3: 3–49.
- Robbins, Maurice (July 1956). "Indians of the Old Colony: Their Relation with and their Contribution to the Settlement of the Area". Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. 17 (4): 59–74.
- Rostlund, Erhardt (1957). "The Evidence ffor the Use of Fish as Fertilizer in Aboriginal North America". Journal of Geography. 56: 222–228.
- Russell, Howard S. (1969–70). "New England Agriculture from Champlain and Others". Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. 31 (1–2): 11–18.
- Russell, Howard S. (September 19, 1975). "Letter: Indian Corn Cultivation". Science. 189 (4207): 944–46.
- Russell, Howard S. (1980). Indian New England before the Mayflower. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England. ISBN 0874511623.
- Salisbury, Neal (1981). "Squanto: Last of the Patuxets". In Sweet, David G.; Nash, Gary B. (eds.). Struggle and Survival in Colonial America. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 228–45. ISBN 0520041100.
- Salisbury, Neal (1982). Manitou and Providence: Indians, Europeans, and the Making of New England, 1500–1643. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195034546.
- Salwen, Bert (1978). "Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period". In Trigger, Bruce G. (ed.). Northeast. Handbook of North American Indians. 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 160–76. ISBN 0160045754. (William C. Sturtevant, general editor.)
- Shuffelton, Frank (March 1976). "Indian Devils and Pilgrim Fathers: Squanto, Hobomok, and the English Conception of Indian Religion". New England Quarterly. 49 (1): 108–16. doi:10.2307/364560. JSTOR 364560.
- Simmons, William (1986). Spirit of the New England Tribes: Indian History and Folklore, 1620–1984. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England. ISBN 0874513707.
- Snow, Dear R.; Lanphear, Kim M. (Winter 1988). "European Contact and Indian Depopulation in the Northeast: The Timing of the First Epidemics". Ethnohistory. 35 (1): 15–33. doi:10.2307/482431. JSTOR 482431.
- Sylvester, Herbert Milton (1910). Indian Wars of New England. 1. Boston: W.B. Clarke Co. LCCN 10027624.
- Tolman, Adams (1902). "Indian Relics in Concord". Publications of the Concord Antiquarian Society. 10.
- Tomlins, Christophr L. (2010). Freedom Bound: Law, Labor, and Civic Identity in Colonizing English America, 1580-1865. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521761390.
- Trumbull, J. Hammond, ed. (1859). The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, May, 1678 – June 1689. 3. Hartford, Connecticut: Press of Case, Lockwood & Co.
- Vaughan, Alden T. (1995). New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620–1675 (3rd ed.). Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 080612718X.
- Warden, G.B. (September 19, 1975). "Letter: Indian Corn Cultivation". Science. 189 (4207): 946. JSTOR 1740631.
- Weston, Thomas (1906). History of the Town of Middleboro, Massachusetts 1669–1905. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. LCCN 06023056.
- Williams, Herbert Upham (1909). The Epidemic of the Indians of New England, 1616-1620, with Remarks on Native American Infections. n.p. This is a reprint of an article by the same name published in Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 20 (224): 340–49 (November 1909).
- Williamson, William D. (1839). History of the State of Maine; From its First Discovery, A.D. 1602, to the Separation, A.D. 1820, Inclusive. 1. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Smith.
- Willison, George F. (1945). Saints and Strangers. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. LCCN 45006745//r83.
- Young, Alexander, ed. (1841). Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers of the Colony of Plymouth, from 1602–1625. Boston: C. C. Little and J. Brown. LCCN 01012110. Da Capo published a facsimile reprinting of this volume in 1971.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Squanto.|