USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Waterbury > The town and city of Waterbury, Connecticut, from the aboriginal period to the year eighteen hundred and ninety-five, Volume I > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105
Of two of these deeds-that of December 2, 1684 and that of February 20, 1685-the original autographs were discovered in 1890, bearing the names of the aboriginal proprietors (representatives of their tribes), and over against their names their respective "marks," made with their own clumsy fingers. Copies of these deeds and of the other two are preserved in the Waterbury Land Records, and they bring before us the red man at his point of closest approach to us. In the light of these interesting documents we see him standing for a little while upon the threshold of our history, and then turning away to vanish into darkness .*
It is not our object just now, to set forth the relations of these deeds, or of the purchases which they represent, to the settlement of Mattatuck; but rather to obtain from an examination of the names attached to them, and from any slight hints they contain, as definite a conception as possible of the Indians from whom the lands were purchased, who may with some propriety be considered the aboriginal occupants of Waterbury. In a deed given by the Farm- ington tribe to the town of Farmington, May 22, 1673, we read, " These are the names of the Indians that are now present, the day and year
* The four deeds are recorded in Vol. II. of the Land Records, pp. 224-231, but not in chronological order.
29
INDIAN DEEDS AND SIGNATURES.
aforesaid." At the several sales of Mattatuck territory the red men and their squaws were doubtless present-assembled at some one place-and if the modern photographer could only have been stand- ing near with his camera we should now have representations of the aboriginal grantors which would enable us to estimate them more correctly. But we have only their names and some few indi- cations of their relations to one another, and there are reasons why the names of persons and of relationships should both be mislead- ing. The place-names which have come to us from the red man were so constructed that they can be analyzed and interpreted; with their personal names the case is different. Even if we could trans- late them into English, as we do the names of the modern Indians of the west, they would probably be to us without significance; and as regards relationships, their mode of designating them was so different from ours that even the commonest terms were liable to be misunderstood. In the system of consanguinity which prevailed among our aboriginal predecessors (and which prevails to-day throughout the American race)* a man called his sister's children nephews and nieces (as with us), and they called him uncle; but his brother's children he called sons and daughters, and they called him father. A woman called her brother's children nephews and nieces (as with us), but she called her sister's children sons and daughters, and they called her mother. My father's sister's chil- dren and my mother's brother's children are my cousins; but my father's brother's children and my mother's sister's children are my brothers and sisters. And these designations represent an elabo- rate scheme, no part of which corresponds closely to our own. It is obvious, therefore, that if in the several deeds not only the names but the relationships of the grantors were invariably given (as they are in some instances), this would not greatly aid us in reconstruct- ing the aboriginal tribe or band; we should still have only a list of names before us.
But notwithstanding the scantiness of our material, it may be worth while to see what we can do with it.
Unfolding before us the first of these Indian deeds-that of August 26, 1674-we find that the persons designated as the "own- ers and proprietors " of the "tract of land called by the name of Mattatuck " are fourteen in number, and bear the following names: Nesaheagin, John Compound, Queramouch, Spinning Squaw, Tap- how, Chere, Aupkt, Caranchaquo, Patucko, Atumtucko, James, Uncowate, Nenapush Squaw, Allwaush. The order in which the
* See L. H. Morgan's "Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family," Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. XVII ; " Ancient Society," pp. 435-452.
30
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
names are here given is that which is followed in the body of the deed; the order in which the grantors affixed their marks to the original document may have been different, and we find among the signatures the statement that "Patucko promises for James," from which it is natural to infer that James was not present with the others. Among the witnesses is mentioned " Robin, the Indian."
In the second decd,-given nearly ten years later, that is, April 29, 1684, and relating to the northern purchase-three of these names appear again, namely, Patucko, who signs "in the name and behalf and by order of Atumtucko," and Taphow. To these may probably be added Allwaush, although somewhat disguised under the form of Wawowus. These are the four that come first in order, and follow- ing these we have Judas, Mantow, Momantow's Squaw, and Mary or Mercy, who is described as Sepus's Squaw, *- making eight in all. Among the signatures we find the additional name of Quatowque- chuck, Taphow's son, with the statement that "though Taphow's son's name is not in the deed above, yet he doth agree to the sale with the rest, this 30th of April, 1684." Among the witnesses to this deed is named " Momantow, Indian," whose squaw is mentioned among the grantors, and who must therefore be distinguished from Mantow, also one of the grantors. These persons are described in the body of the deed as "Indians now belonging to Farmington."
In the third deed, the original autograph of which is preserved -that of December 2, 1684-the names of John a Compowne, Man- tow, Atumtucko and Spinning Squaw reappear, and in addition to these we have Worun Compowne, and instead of Patucko, Patucko's Squaw, who is designated Atumtucko's mother (which, however, may mean his aunt), and, second in the list, a new name, Hachatow- suck. The name Sebocket, which appears among the signatures under the form of Abuckt or Abucket, is probably the same which occurs in the first deed as Aupkt. The names given in the body of this third deed are seven in number; among the additional signa tures at the end are " James's daughter, by Cockoeson's sister," " also Cockoeson's sister's daughter, as also Abuck." We learn from another memorandum that Cockoeson's sister was "Patucko's squaw," and that Warun Compowne was " Nesaheg's son," perhaps his nephew.
Counting the several distinct names that appear in the three deeds given by Farmington Indians, we find that they number twenty-five. Mr. J. W. De Forest has been quoted as assigning to the Farmington tribe a population of "eighty to one hundred war-
* Sepus's name is preserved in Waterbury (but in incorrect form) in Sequeses Council, Degree of Poca- hontas, of the " Improved Order of Red Men."
31
INDIAN DEEDS AND SIGNATURES.
riors, or about four hundred persons." But Mr. De Forest frankly confesses * that his estimate is " based upon nothing," and in all probability it is too large. There must have been at this time a good many Farmington Indians besides these; in the deed already referred to, given to the town of Farmington in 1673, the following names are found in addition to those already enumerated: Nona- wau, Onkawont, Skerawagh, Wauno, Seacut, Wonkes, Aslanaugh, Wasamock, Cochemhoote and Nocimamon. The number of signers on that occasion, including two sons of James and several squaws, was twenty-five. But the tendency of the latest investigators is to the belief that our estimates of the Indian population have hitherto been entirely too high, and sympathizing with this view we venture the opinion that the twenty-five men and women who signed the Mattatuck deeds constituted a fair representation of the Farmington tribe. If we are to distinguish in any way between the signers of the deeds and others who did not sign, we may sup- pose that the signers (excepting, of course, the sachem and perhaps members of his family) belonged to a band that had from time to time occupied a camping ground within Mattatuck bounds and thus secured a special claim to the territory.
Examining the names themselves, what do we find ? John Jos- selyn, in his "Two Voyages to New England," t says that the Indi- ans "covet much to be called after our English manner, Robin, Harry, Philip, and the like." In each of these deeds we find this preference illustrated. Among the names mentioned in the first are included (besides the witness, Robin) a John and a James; in the second we find a Judas and a Mary or Mercy, and in the third John appears again. The first deed mentions also a Chere (written afterward Chery), which may possibly stand for Cherry, and in both the first and the third deed Spinning Squaw holds a prominent place. We may readily believe that the English proper names were attached to the Indians who bore them in a hap-hazard way; but the designation "Spinning Squaw" invites inquiry. Is it to aboriginal spinning (making thread from filaments of bark) that reference is made? or had this woman learned to spin from her white neighbors of Farmington, and become so devoted to that kind of work that it gave her a name ? It is interesting to learn that this woman's name became connected at an early day with a locality in the northern part of the town. The purchase described in the deed of April 29, 1684, is spoken of as having upon its southern boundary
* " History of the Indians of Connecticut," p. 52.
+" An Account of Two Voyages to New England, Made during the Years 1638, 1663. By John Josselyn, Gent .; " reprint of 1865, p. 100.
32
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
" that which was formerly Spinning Squaw's land;" in other words, her land was at the northern end of the purchase of 1674. But how this case of individual ownership came to pass (if such it was) there is nothing to indicate.
Of the Indian names in the deed of 1674, the first in order, and doubtless the first in importance, is Nesaheagun. The name is spelled in a variety of ways, and seems to be identical with Neesou- weegun, a name found attached to an agreement with the towns- men of New London in 1651 .* But the bearer of the name (known also as Daniel) could scarcely have been the same person. Nesahea- gun seems to have been the successor, and, in accordance with Indian law, the nephew of Sehat (Seocut ?) who was the first sachem of the Farmington tribe with whom the English became acquainted. Nesaheagun is spoken of as "sachem of Poquonnock in Windsor," and about the year 1666 sold a tract of land measuring twenty-eight thousand acres to certain agents of that town. His name does not reappear in the second and third deeds; but the first name in the third deed is John a Compound, which, by the way, stands next to Nesaheagun's in the first, and the fourth is Warun Compound, who is described as "Nesaheg's son," which may mean his nephew. If John a Compound was also a nephew of Nesaheagun, or his brother, he may have been his successor in the sachemship. This name, Compound, if not of English origin, has been forced into a strange resemblance to English; but there is reason to suspect that it is an Indian name in disguise, possibly a place-name. In the third deed -that of December 2, 1684-the full name is given as John a Com- powne. The chief who figures most prominently in the early his- tory of Virginia was named Powhattan, from the falls in the river (pauat-hanne) near which he lived. Is it not possible that the "Indian proprietor" who here comes before us may have been named in a similar way from the "other-side falls," wherever these may have been? At all events, acompown-tuk (if there were such a name) would mean "the falls on the other side," and might easily have been transformed by "otosis" into "a-Compound." The name Compounce, attached to a pond in the north-western part of Southington, is usually regarded as a corruption of "Compound's;" but in this latest form it resembles more closely the name as it appears in the Farmington deed of 1673, where it is given as Com- paus.
The third name in the deed of 1674, Queramouch, is interesting as being identical with one of the three Indian names already men- tioned in the curious deed of 1657, where it appears as Querrimus
* President Stiles, First Series Mass. His. Coll., Vol. X, p. 101.
33
INDIAN DEEDS AND SIGNATURES.
or Queromus. His associates in the deed of 1657 were Kepaquamp and Mataneag. This last name may afford another instance of the naming of a chief from the place where he lived. There was a place called Mattaneaug, or Matianock, near the mouth of Farmington river in Windsor. In the Colonial Records of 1640 it is called Mat- tanag. Arramamet, described in 1636 as " sachem of Matianocke," lived near the present line between Windsor and Hartford, and twenty years later-in 1657-the same sachem or his successor may have been designated by the name of the place at which he resided .*
Of the names Uncowate and "Nenapush Squaw" we know nothing further. But Patucko, whose name is the first in the deed of April, 1684, and who is superseded in the deed of December following by "Patucko's squaw," ought to interest us especially as the source of one of the place-names that have survived to the pres- ent day. One would hardly suspect a connection between Tucker's Ring, in the northwest corner of the town of Wolcott, and this Indian " proprietor," but such a connection exists. A suggestion of it is found in the name Ptuckering Road, and in a deed of 1731, cited in Dr. Bronson's "History of Waterbury," Potucko's Ring is definitely mentioned. If the story is true that he " kindled a fire in the form of a large ring around a hill, in hunting deer, and per- ished within it," that may account for the place-name. At the same time it is worthy of mention that potucko (in the Narragansett dialect puttukki, in the Massachusetts, petukqui) means round. Dr. Trumbull calls attention to the fact that "a Patackhouse, sister of Nessahe- gen of Pequannoc, signed a deed to Windsor in 1665."+ If Potucko lost his life (in the way indicated by tradition, or otherwise) between April and December, 1684, the substitution of his squaw's name for his in the later deed would readily be explained.
Attention has already been called to the fact that while Moman- tow's squaw is named as one of the grantors in the deed of April, 1684, Momantow himself was among those who witnessed it. This would indicate that the wife had certain rights in the second grant of land in which the husband did not share. Whether this was the case with other squaws who are named in the deed as grantors, it is difficult to say; but this can hardly be the explanation of the substi- tution of Potucko's squaw for Potucko himself in the deed of Decem- ber, 1684, because the land therein described is substantially the
* See Trumbull's " Indian Geographical Names," p. 27.
+ " Indian Geographical Names," p. 57. In several of the Algonkin versions of the Lord's prayer, Petukkeneag or some cognate word is used for " bread," meaning "something round." In the Mohegan dialect it is 'tquogh; in the Virginia tuckahoe, whence the modern " hoe-cake."
Potucko's name is perpetuated in another way in Waterbury-in Potucko Assembly (No. 229) of the "Royal Society of Good Fellows," an insurance fraternity.
3
34
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
same as that which Potucko, with others, deeded ten years before. It is nevertheless true that a study of these names and relationships inevitably suggests that the gens, as distinguished from the tribe, had come to be somehow recognized in the ownership of land as well as of personal property. The rule which (as we have seen) had become well established among the Aztecs may have begun to operate among the Indians of Connecticut.
The only other names in the three Farmington deeds that require notice are Quatoquechuck, who has already been referred to as Taphow's son, and Hachatowsuck. This last name, under the form "Hatchetowset," occurs frequently in the Woodbury and Litchfield records, but evidently as designating another person. He is mentioned in the Litchfield Land Records as buying and selling land as late as 1736, and in 1741 he petitioned the General Court to help him to a division of the Indian lands at Pootatuck, at which date his eldest child was aged sixteen. It is evident from these facts that the Pootatuck Indian could not be identical with the signer of the deed of 1684. One who was sufficiently prominent at that date to stand second among the native " proprietors " of Mattatuck, would hardly be speculating in land fifty-two years afterward. Besides, there is no reason to doubt that the same name frequently belonged to persons of different tribes. If we could analyze Indian personal names, we should probably find it to be a matter of course
PESTLE OF TURKEY HILL INDIANS .* (SEE NEXT PAGE).
that there should be a Hachetowsuck in the Tunxis tribe and an Atchetouset among the Pootatucks. But it illustrates the curious changes to which Indian names were subject on European lips, to
* This " pestle " was found in 1883, in a cave (afterward destroyed by quarrying) at Turkey Hill, near Turkey Brook, Derby. It is 17 inches long and 212 by 214 inches in diameter at the middle. The mate- rial is a compact mica slate. It is worn smooth on one side, but not at the ends.
35
1142415 INDIAN DEEDS AND SIGNATURES.
find that the Pootatuck Atchetouset, in his petition to the General Court, appears under the guise of "Hatchet Tousey." Many years later a squaw of the Turkey Hill band, near Derby, bore the name of Moll Hatchet. She was said to have been so called from the fact that she habitually carried a hatchet with her; but the name seems to have belonged to her family and was very probably a remnant of some such genuine Indian name as Hatchetowsuck. In "Hatchet Tousey " the transformation may be seen taking place.
When we turn to the deed given by the Paugasuck or Derby Indians, we find an entirely new set of names before us, represent- ing another and for the most part a distinct tribe. The names mentioned in the body of the deed, and at the end of it, are as follows : Awawus, Conquapatana, Curan, Cocapadous, Cocoeson, Tataracum, Kekasahum, Wenuntacun, Wechumunke, Weruncaske, Arumpiske and Notanumhke. Of the twelve persons thus desig- nated the first eight appear to have been men, the other four were women. Of the relations of the grantors to one another and to other Indians, there are some slight indications. Although the name of Awawus comes first in the list, it is Conquepatana who is designated "sagamore," that is, sachem .* But Awawus, as the position of his name indicates, must have been sufficiently promi- nent among the grantors to hold a representative place; for in a memorandum attached to the deed by Governor Robert Treat of Mil- ford, he calls him "the Indian proprietor." "Awawas, the Indian proprietor," he says, "appeared at my house and owned this deed above mentioned to be his act, and that he has signed and sealed to it." On the 18th of April, Conquepatana made a similar acknowl- edgment of the deed before the governor, "and said he knew what was in it, and said it was weregen." t The relation between the name
* The impression is prevalent-based upon the positive statements of some of the earlier writers-that the terms " sachem" and " sagamore" designated two distinct offices, the second inferior and subordinate to the first. But there seems to be no good ground for such a representation. Dr. J. H. Trumbull, in his edition of Roger Williams's " Key," note 292, says that a comparison of the several forms of the word as found in different Algonkin dialects " establishes the identity of sachem with sagamore."
In the Massachusetts vocabulary attached to Wood's "New England's Prospect," published in 1635, sag- amore and sachem are said to be the same, although Wood says elsewhere (in the monarchical phraseology so generally adopted) that "a king of large dominions hath his viceroys or inferior kings under him, to agitate his state affairs and keep his subjects in good decorum. Other offices there be," he adds, " but how to distin- guish them by name is something difficult " (p. 90, reprint of 1865). Daniel Gookin, on the other hand, writing about 1674, seems to make a difference between the two terms. He says, speaking of the Pequots : " Their chief sachem held dominion over divers petty sagamores." (First Series Mass. His. Coll., vol. I. p. 147).
+ Weregen means "a good thing." In the form Wauregan the word has been appropriated as the name of a manufacturing company and a village in eastern Connecticut. . Dr. Trumbull (" Indian Names," p. 79) says : " It was doubtless suggested by a line in Dr. Elisha Tracy's epitaph on Sam Uncas in the Mohegan burying-ground in . Norwich :
' For courage bold, for things wauregan
He was the glory of Moheagon.' "
36
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
of the sagamore and the fourth name in the list, Cocapadoush, is not apparent at first glance, but comes to view when we give them as they are given in another deed (April 1, 1709), where they are written "Cockapotanah," and "Cockapotoch." The sagamore is known in later records as Konkapot, and he who stands fourth in the list was Konkapot-oos, perhaps Little Konkapot. It may be worth while to mention in this connection that Konkapotanah lived until 1731, and that on June 28, 1711, he and his son "Tom Indian" deeded to the proprietors of Waterbury, for a consideration of twenty-five shillings, "a small piece of land" north of Derby bounds, west of the Naugatuck river, and south of Toantuck brook .* In a deed given by Nonnewaug and other Pootatuck Indians, in 1700, to the people of Woodbury, Konkapotana's son is included among the signers, and also another of the grantors we are just now considering, Wenuntacun; from which it would appear that close relationships existed between the Paugasucks and the Poota- tucks similar to those between the Paugasucks and the Tunxis. Of the other four men in our list, namely Curan and Cocoeson, two are represented not only personally, but by the women whose names follow. One of these, Arumpiske, is said to be Curan's squaw, and another, Notanumke, Curan's sister. The other two women, Wechumunke and Weruncaske, are designated as Cocoeson's sis- ters.
By the mention of Cocoeson's sisters we are brought to a consid- eration of the relation of this fourth deed to the other Waterbury deeds, or rather, the relation of these Paugasuck Indians to the Farmington tribe in the ownership of Mattatuck territory. It has already been suggested that Wawowus of the second deed (April 29, 1684) was identical with Alwaush of the first. Is it not proba- ble that Awawus, whose name comes first in this Paugasuck deed- the "Indian proprietor " who appeared before Governor Treat-is the same person ? It is possible, too, that the Curan of this fourth deed is identical with Caran-chaquo, of the first, and the position of his name, between Conkapotana and Conkapotoos, suggests a relationship between him and them. But, however this may be, we
* It would be interesting to know whether there was any relation of kinship between Konkapotana and Captain Konkapot, who figures so prominently among the Stockbridge Indians of the upper Housatonic. A deed of the territory comprising the " upper and lower Housatonic townships," made in 1724, was signed by Konkapot and twenty others. He received his captain's commission from Governor Belcher, in 1734, was baptized in 1735, and died previous to 1770-one of the first fruits of the mission to the Housatonic Indians, of which the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, born in Waterbury, was the founder.
The name is perpetuated in Konkapot river in North Canaan, and in Konkapot's brook in the southeast- ern part of Stockbridge, Mass. This latter stream has become in the mouths of the people " Konk's brook," and latterly, with the help of " otosis " has been degraded into " Skunk's brook." Thus is the stately name of the sachem of the Paugasucks reduced to an offensive monosyllable!
37
INDIAN DEEDS AND SIGNATURES.
may feel certain that the sisters of Cocoeson mentioned here are identical with the "Cocoeson's sisters" who signed the deed of December 2, 1684. And this being the case, we are in a position to make still further identifications. We learn from the deed of December 2 that Cocoeson's sisters were James's daughters, and that one of them was Patucko's squaw and Atumtucko's mother. This establishes the fact, suggested by his name, that Atumtucko was Patucko's son; it also explains why, in the deed of 1674, Patucko "promised for James," and suggests to us that we are to look for this James among the Paugasucks. In a deed of 1659, by which the Paugasucks sold to Lieutenant Thomas Wheeler the land between the Housatonic and Naugatuck rivers, we find the name of "Pagasett James." It is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that this Paugasuck James was the James who was the father of Cocoeson and his sisters, and that the sister who in the fourth deed is desig- nated a squaw, that is, Wechumunke, was Patucko's squaw and Atumtucko's mother. At the sale of December 2, it would appear that "Atumtoco's mother, Jemes's dafter," was not present, but was represented by the other sister, Werumcaske. "Cockeweson's sister's dafter " is also mentioned as among the signers.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.