Part 2

When Nantucket was purchased by the colonists in 1659, there were two Chief Sachems Wanackmamack and Nicornoose (acting probably for Wauwinet), and at least two other Sachems, Autopscot (or Attapehat) and Potconet—besides a few petty Sachems—governing all the Indians on Nantucket and Tuckernuck. It may be assumed that at this time Wauwinet was old and feeble, and that his eldest son, known as Nicornoose, acted as his deputy, inasmuch as among several of the earliest deeds we find Nicornoose signing as Sachem, and there are no signatures by his father. Mr. Zaccheus Macy, in his valuable letter to the Massachusetts Historical Society, dated October 2d, 1792[10] mentions Wauwinet as living when the settlers arrived, but alludes to him as “the old Sachem.”

[10] =Vide Macy’s History of Nantucket=.

Among the Indian tribes there were generally one or two Sachems who controlled all the others. These were known as Chief or Head Sachems, and they exercised absolute control. Such in Nantucket were Wanackmamack and Wauwinet or his son and successor, Nicornoose.

According to Zaccheus Macy, Wanackmamack’s territory represented the southeast of the island and was bounded by a line running from Toupchue pond in the south, northward, roughly to Gibbs’ pond, and so over toward Podpis swamp, and then eastward to Sesacacha pond.[11]

[11] These, and the boundaries of the other Sachems’ property are clearly delineated on Dr. Ewer’s map of Nantucket.

=Wanackmamack= had one son, Saucoauso or Jeptha, who married Eastor.

Saucoauso had two sons, Cain and Abel.

Cain had one daughter, Jemima, who married James Shay, Shea or Shaa.

Abel had two sons, Ben Abel and Eben Abel.

Wanackmamack died before June 9th, 1682, because his son, Saucoauso, on this date, “having understood that his father Wanackmamack =now deceased=, had granted (to) English pasturage on east end of island, also sells same.”

Wauwinet’s boundary-line adjoined that of Wanackmamack on the north, extending due north to Coatue and Nauma, westward to Wesco (now Nantucket), and hence, almost due south to Weeweder pond.

=Wauwinet= had two sons, Isaac or Nicornoose, (also known as Nickanoose) and Waupordongga, and one daughter, Wonoma, who married Autopscot.

Nicornoose had two sons, Joshua and Isaac Wauwinet, and one daughter, Askommopoo, by his wife. Askommopoo married Spoospotswa, known as “Spotso.”

Nicornoose forsook his wife and, by another woman, had two sons, Wat and Paul Noose.

Joshua Nicornoose was so disgusted by his father’s leaving his mother that he left home altogether, and did not return until after an absence of over 50 years, when he claimed his inheritance and after some delay, it was restored to him.

Autopscot’s jurisdiction extended over the southwest of the island from Weeweder pond northerly to Monomoy, and then westward to the Popsquatchet hills and to Hummock pond.

=Autopscot= had a son, Harry Poritain, or Beretan, by Wonoma, his wife, who was the daughter of Wauwinet.

Harry Poritain had a son named Isaac Masauquet.

Masauquet had a son named Peter.

Peter had a son known as Lame Isaac, who ceded the last rights of his sachemdom.

Autopscot had also grandchildren named Tashama, of whom more anon.

Potconet’s (or Pottacohannet’s) dominions are uncertain, and there is some doubt as to their limitations. It is at least certain that he was Sachem of the adjacent island of Tuckernuck, but Zaccheus Macy, in his well known letter, states that his bounds extended from Madaket down eastward to Wesko and Capaum pond, thus lying north of Autopscot’s possessions, and that they also included the western coast. Moreover, Dr. Ewer’s map,—probably based upon the information supplied by Macy—delineates the northwestern section of the island as having belonged to Potconet; but no proof is in evidence, and although it seems reasonable to suppose that some sachem must have represented this section of the island, no deed has been found to cover it. Macy also asserts that Potconet sold all his rights to the English settlers, save those reserved and secured to some of the old natives, known as the Hoights and Jafets—in the neighborhood of Wannacomet or Capaum pond.

Be this as it may, from a foot-note to Hough’s =Nantucket Papers=, it appears that, on February 20th, 1661, Wanackmamack, Head-Chief of Nantucket, sold to Tristram Coffin, Sr., Peter Coffin, Tristram Coffin, Jr., and James Coffin, for £10, half of the island of Tuckernuck—one half down, and the other, when Thomas Mayhew decides =who is the proper owner=.

=Potconet, or Pottacohannet= had two sons, Akeamong, or Ahkeiman, and Jacob.

Why did neither of these sons claim his rights until 1672—a period of 11 years? Was Potconet living in 1661? These questions have still to be answered, although I have unsuccessfully sought in every direction for a satisfactory reply.

In the Registry of Nantucket Deeds, under date June 20, 1672, is the following entry: “Ahkeiman laying claim to part of Tuckanuck his claim thereto is found no other but as he was a =duke or principal man upon Nantucket=; the Nantucket Sachems, =together with his father=, having sold =Tuckanuck=, it is ordered that he shall have such a part or portion of land for his use at Nantucket of the present Sachems as will become one of such quality, and a portion of the whales.”

On page 211 of the Book of Town Records, dated March, 1681, there is a record of a bargain between James Coffin, Peter Coffin, John Coffin, and Stephen Coffin, and Ackeamong and Jacob, sons of Pottacohannet (Potconet), concerning Tuckanuckett, said Ackeamong and Jacob claiming half of it. The said Coffins having delivered them 40 acres arable land on Nantucket and £5, and disclaiming any right to any whale, the said Ackeamong and Jacob renounce any claim to any part of Tuckernuck, reserving liberty to save their whale that may come ashore.

To this is affixed the marks of Ackeamong and Jacob, James Coffin and Stephen Coffin, 6th of March, 1681.

Witnessed by William Worth and Richard Pincom (Pinkham), and acknowledged on the same date before William Worth, magistrate.

It does not appear, however, why the order of the Court made in 1672, was not carried out until 1681—a period of nine years.

Potconet must therefore, have died before March 6th, 1681, or his sons could not have made the above agreement; if, indeed, he was not dead before 1672, when Akeamong made his first claim.

Some confusion has arisen as to the standing of Nanahuma, who signed the first Indian deed with Nickanoose. Mr. H. Barnard Worth[12] says: ... “They (the English) obtained a deed, dated June 20th, 1659, from the Sachems Nickanoose and Nanahuma, of a tract comprising the section of Nantucket west of Hummock Pond.[13] George Nanahuma was the sachem of the Indians that lived in this section but =Nickanoose held some sway over him=, and joined in the conveyance.” With this I am in perfect accord, with the exception of Mr. Worth’s using the definite instead of the indefinite article, as indicated in boldface in the above quotation. I believe that it should read thus: “Comprising a section of Nantucket west of Hummock Pond”; and further, “George Nanahuma was a sachem of the Indians, etc.” The force of this will be seen presently.

[12] Bulletin 3. Vol. II, p. 112. =Nantucket Historical Association’s Publications=.

[13] The western half of Nantucket was sold by Wanackmamack, February 20th, 1661.

There is no deed to prove who was the legitimate sachem, if any existed, of the Western section of Nantucket, but a section west of Hummock pond apparently belonged to Nanahuma, viz: the neck which bears his name, part of the woods to the north of it, and he possibly may have had a proprietary interest in the =large plain= further west. I think this view is borne out in the “first Indian Deed.”

In this deed “the plain” is evidently immediately west of Nanahuma’s Neck from the use of the word Acamy in the deed (“on the other side of the water”), and its locality is further fixed by the description of its position, which agrees almost mathematically with its exact actual position.[14] I am sorry to differ from Mr. Worth when he says: “the deed of Nanahuma indicates that at the time he was sachem over the west end of Nantucket.” It might as truly be said that the co-signer was sachem over the west end of Nantucket, which we know he never was.

[14] =Vide= Ewer’s Map.

I believe that Nanahuma was a subsidiary or petty local sachem, tributary to Nickanoose, and that all the property he owned as a sachem was restricted within the limitations already indicated. This is confirmed by his only subsequent deed, dated June 24th, 1678, by which he disposes of “all his interest in the West plains, and to the Neck or long woods” to the English. Besides, according to the delimitation of the other Sachems as already given, none of them interfered with those just mentioned as belonging to Nanahuma.

Indeed, it is doubtful whether Nanahuma at this time owned the Neck which bore his name, for, on July 4th, 1664, “all the fields belonging to the Neck” were sold to the English by Pakapanessa, Jonas Kimmo and Harry, son of Wapakowet, who were probably residents of the identical “plain” which was sold by Nanahuma in 1659. Moreover, in 1667, we find Nanahuma associated with “Mr. Larry Ahkeramo” and Obadiah in a plea to the Court that “whereas the sachems had sold the ground they formerly lived on to the English, the said sachems would not entertain them on the land unsold.” Curiously enough, in 1678, we find George Nanahuma, alias Cowpohanet, selling to the English “all his interest in the West plains, and to the Neck or long woods.” There, verily, seems to have been a joint stock company in these lands!

If Potconet had no jurisdiction over the northwest section of Nantucket, and if no evidence is in existence as to any other sachem holding predominant rights over it, may it not be suggested that it was mainly divided up into reallotments for the Indians who were dispossessed by the requirements of the whites, and over whom subsidiary sachems or sagamores were appointed, of whom there were several? Of course, this is a mere suggestion.

We talk glibly and deprecatingly of the poor Indians as “mere savages”, but the annals of American history afford but few instances of really nobler men than Massassoit, Passaconaway, Samoset, and Wanackmamack, the controlling Head Sachem of Nantucket. Had it not been for the high personal qualities of such men New England might not have occupied today the proud position which she now holds among the United States.

The venerable Chief Wanackmamack was not only the pride and glory of his insular braves, but the tried, true, and loyal friend of the English immigrants. He was as kind-hearted and judicious as he was courageous and high principled, and he governed his home-land so ably and satisfactorily as to justify his memory in history as an exemplary ruler.

Of Wauwinet little is known but that he was very old and much respected when the settlers arrived, and nothing, so far as I have been able to ascertain, has been said against him.

Nicornoose, his eldest son and successor, has not a good record, as he deserted his wife and children, and had two children by another woman.

Beyond the fact that Autopscot was called “a great warrior and got his land by his bow”, and that he permanently established peace throughout the island, little further is recorded of him. Nor does history mention anything concerning Potconet, the sachem ruling the proximate western islands, with the exception of a record of the sale of his lands to the settlers, in 1659. Such were the rulers of Nantucket when the settlers arrived.

What a revelation the incoming of the whites must have been to the red men, who had lived on the island, probably from a very early age, among their own people, under their own laws, perpetuating their own habits and customs—living close to Nature—for the most part in peace and amity—simple in their lives, and knowing nothing, caring nothing for the external world beyond them!

Yet, on the arrival of the new people who had come to supplant them, they received them amicably, treated them justly, and as they treated one another, relying upon what they recognized as the instinctive and inalienable principles of humanity to govern their relationships and to promote the mutual good and harmony of all. I cannot stop to inquire who first took advantage of the racial differences which distinguished these two peoples, or how the greater intellectuality and experience of the one eventually overcame the other, but Time tells the story; and today, while the whites glory in the beauties of, and the opportunities afforded by their island home, where are the poor Indians, the aborigines? All gone—melted away like dew-drops in the sun, and not even one remains to tell the story of their past history!

The number of settlers who had arrived from Salisbury in 1660 and 1661 soon began to make themselves comfortable in their new and strange environment, while the Indians could not but admire the novel type of dwelling houses which the new-comers had set up in strange contrast with the humble wigwams of the aborigines; indeed the new procedure which was being introduced in many directions must have caused them much surprise.

For a time the English and the Indians—the civilized and the uncivilized—worked together amicably for the agricultural development of the island. Together they cleared and tilled the land (for the most part existing as a primeval wilderness), settling the allotments, cutting down the timber, which is said to have almost covered the island, and mutually performing the numerous farming operations involved in the reclamation and cultivation of the soil. In addition to farming they engaged also in fishing, in which art the natives were expert. Much time was also devoted to the raising of sheep, and thus while mutual forbearance was exercised, mutual trust was generated, and while the settlers acted faithfully and justly with the Indians, the latter were equally loyal in the discharge of their duties in their new relationships.

When King Philip visited the island in 1665 and tried to induce the natives to join in his contemplated war with the English, they emphatically refused to do so, expressing themselves as perfectly satisfied and desiring to be at peace with the whites. Indeed, at a town meeting, on October 10th, 1665, Attaychat (Autopscot) “signified that himself with all the Tomokommoth Indians subject to the English Government in Nantucket, acknowledge subjection to King Charles II. This was done in the presence of Metacomet, alias Philip, Sachem of Mount Hop.”

Unfortunately, civilization has too often brought in its wake habits and customs which have ever proved degenerative, if not destructive to the uncivilized races of the earth, and so they proved to the Indians, who were sober, industrious, and happy before the settlers introduced among them the iniquitous “fire-water,” to the abuse of which they fell a prey. Acting under its pernicious influence their primitive instincts were aroused within them, and never afterwards were they the same people. Discontent soon spread among them, and litigation in the Courts—to which they had equal access with the whites—became so very frequent that the records extend from 1673 to 1754.

I do not say that alcohol was at the bottom of all these cases, but that it made the natives excitable, litigious and dissatisfied I avow, without any reference to the misconduct and crime which it often prompted, and which frequently resulted from its influence. In many cases they found that the Courts decided against them, and they became discouraged. Moreover, they were astounded at the fastly-increasing number of whites on the island (so that offensive measures were out of the question), and as a matter of fact they never could be made to understand that the execution of a sale-deed of their property involved its absolute surrender to the purchaser, however many attempts they made to regain their land.

Mr. Thomas Macy wrote a forceful letter to the Governor, in May, 1676, as to the pernicious effects of drink upon the natives, but every effort made to mitigate the evil by legislative measures failed; the natives who craved for it would sacrifice all they possessed, and one way and another, they generally found means of obtaining it. Fines and whipping were the modes inflicted for drunkenness and misdemeanors, but the death-penalty was never exacted except in cases of deliberate murder. It is recorded that, between 1704 and 1769, ten natives were executed for capital crimes.[15]

On the other hand it has been stated that Quibby—who murdered Harry Gardner—was the first and only Indian executed in Nantucket since its settlement by the whites. Macy’s instances, however, seem well substantiated.[16]

[15] Obed Macy; =opus cit.=

[16] “Miriam Coffin.”

In thus alluding to the misconduct of the natives I am merely mentioning facts which I should have preferred to pass over, but in justice to their memory it must be said that perhaps the majority of them were exemplary in their lives—many of them pious—and good steady husbandmen and craftsmen. As a race they have been much misrepresented, and if revengeful, it was only when their subduers had treated them cruelly or unjustly.

Spirited efforts had been made to introduce Christianity among the natives, and the results on Nantucket were probably more successful than in any other section of New England. Thus, Barber (in his =Historical Collections=, page 448) says: “Soon after the English had settled on the island, attempts were made to convert the Indians to the faith of the Gospel, and, in course of years, all of them became nominal Christians.”

Soon after 1680, all the old Sachems, who were alive when the English arrived had passed away, and their successors reigned in their stead.

As Macy says: “The Indians were instructed in the mode of fishing practised by the whites, and, in return, the whites were assisted by the Indians in pursuing the business.” Another writer says: “There is no doubt that the Natick Indians hunted the whale in canoes, in a manner somewhat similar to that practised today by the Bow-Meaders of the north coast of Siberia.” Moreover, I have been personally informed by a gentleman of much culture and experience who knows as much about the Nantucket Whaling industry as any man now alive, that “hunting the whale was well-known and long practised by the Nantucket Indians.” If any further evidence is deemed necessary it may be found in the following quotation from =Weymouth’s Voyage=: “One especial thing in their manner of killing a whale which they (the Indians) call =powdawe=, and will describe his form, how he bloweth up the water, and that he is twelve fathoms long, and that they go in company with their King, with a multitude of their boats, and strike him with a bone made in the fashion of a harping iron, fastened to a rope, which they make great and strong of the bark of trees which they veer out after him; that all their boats come about him, and as he riseth above water, with their arrows they shoot him to death. When they have killed him and dragged him to shore, they call all their chief lords together, and sing a song of joy, and these chief lords, whom they call sagamores, divide the spoil and give to every man a share; which pieces so distributed they hang up about their houses for provision, and when they boil them they blow off the fat, and put in their pease, maize and other pulse which they eat.”

There can be no doubt that the Nantucket Indians joined gladly in the chase of whales, and that they were fully as dexterous as the whites, not only in securing, but in dealing with the carcasses afterwards.

The year 1763–4 was, indeed, a sad one for the Indians of Nantucket, inasmuch as, from August in the former year to February in the latter, they suffered from a malignant form of epidemic which, even yet, has not been identified, although the probability is that it was either typhus or typhoid fever, small-pox or yellow fever. Curiously enough, of the English who visited them daily, caring for and nursing the afflicted natives, not one was affected by the pestilence, which ceased suddenly, without previous abatement, on the 16th of February, 1764. Before the epidemic broke out there were 358 Indians on the island, of whom 222 perished, leaving only 136 natives to represent the race.[17]

[17] Obed, Macy; =opus cit.=

In 1791 there were but four male Indians and sixteen females left on the island, and in 1809 there were only three or four persons of pure blood and a few of mixed race.

From 1664 to 1774 the records consist mainly of land-sales from the Indians to the English; of complaints of one Indian against another, or others in relation to landsales, and of controversies about their respective claims to whales. Within this period also one repeatedly notices the names of the successors of the old sachems, for several generations; but, concurrently with these, up to 1754, are the records of many attempts on the part of some of the Indians to regain their lands.

The perusal of these is very interesting, but I can only refer those who may desire to obtain a full knowledge of such matters to the ample and careful reports given by Mr. Henry B. Worth in the Bulletins of the Nantucket Historical Association.[18]

[18] =Vide= Vol II. Bulletin 3.

In 1693 the island of Nantucket, ceded from the Provincial Government of New York, was incorporated in the State of Massachusetts.

=Names of Some of the Nantucket Indians Occurring in the Registry of Deeds, Petitions, Etc.=