“Of the Indians who lived on the reservation, the most authentic accounts pertain to Joe Mau-we-hu. He was a son of Gideon Mauwehu, a Pequot, who was a sachem of the Derby tribe of Indians, living on the state reservation, at Scatacook, in Kent. After he had taken his tribe or clan thither from the Naugatuck country, according to Barber, Gideon had a desire that his son, Joe, should be brought up among the whites, and accordingly placed him in the family of Agur Tomlinson, of Derby, where he remained during his minority. On attaining manhood he preferred to remain in Derby, and his father gave him a tract of land on the plain at the falls, which was called the Indian Field. Here he established himself as a sort of a sachem of the few Indians remaining in this locality, building his cabin on the south border of the flat, tilling a little ground, but subsisting mainly on hunting and fishing. He had the respect and confidence of the whites, and for a few years lived among them on Indian hill. He was known mostly by the name of Chuse, or Chuce, it is said from his manner of speaking the word choose. The locality now took the name of Chusetown, being so called until it took the name of Humphreysville, in 1803. Other Indians were also here for short periods, and on the hill, east of the plain, they had a burial ground, each grave being designated by a heap of stones.”
From: History of New Haven County, Connecticut, Volume 2 edited by John L. Rockey
http://books.google.com/books?id=9Yk6AQAAIAAJ&dq=Ruggles%20guilford&pg=PA553#v=onepage&q=Ruggles%20guilford&f=false
From: History of New Haven County, Connecticut, Volume 2 edited by John L. Rockey
http://books.google.com/books?id=9Yk6AQAAIAAJ&dq=Ruggles%20guilford&pg=PA553#v=onepage&q=Ruggles%20guilford&f=false
Have you seen my collection of primary and secondary sources, Tim? I have an extensive list. Here's one you'll like:
ReplyDelete"Whenever a soul has departed, the nearest relatives extend the limbs and close the eyes of the dead; after the body has been watched and wept over several days and nights, they bring it to the grave, wherein they do not lay it down, but place it in a sitting posture upon a stone or a block of wood, as if the body were sitting upon a stool; then they place a pot, kettle, platter, spoon, with some provisions and money, near the body in the grave; this they say is necessary for the journey to the other world. Then they place as much wood around the body as will keep the earth from it. Above the grave they place a large pile of wood, stone or earth, and around and above the same they place palisades resembling a small dwelling." (van der Donck [1655]1841:201-202)
VAN DER DONCK, Adriaen. [1655] 1841. A Description of the New-Netherlands. In Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 2d Ser., Vol. I. New York: D. Appleton & Company.
By the way, this also contains what is my contention are many "prayer seats". I don't think they are at all, I think they are "seats for the dead"
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of repeating myself, I do want to add one more thing . . .
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion of my research into stone structure sites in Rhode Island, including all of the dozens and dozens of primary and secondary sources I compiled, intertwined with the known history of the founding of the state, led me to the very sober conclusion that most of what I was seeing was, if not funerary, then certainly related to death.
And if you truly consider Indian history in New England, it certainly makes perfect sense. The sheer numbers of dead, the variety of practices, the different eras that seem to be represented, etc.
Look at MA. Peter rarely finds the well-preserved obviously newer piles that we see so often in CT and RI. And we know that huge masses of Indians died from disease in Massachusetts long before any disease touched the Narragansett or Pequot. Therefore, many of their sites related to death and burials in MA should be older than what we find much further south. It completely jives with the history.
I am not saying ALL these sites are funerary, but I am saying that vast majority of them are. I think those are not are usually hilltop sacred sites, also found in the historical documents.
But unfortunately in this line of research, there are many opinions and not much agreement on specifics. So I stick to the history, and I see a pretty clear picture -- one that has at least satisfied much of my own curiosity.
Jim: I have seen that (impressive) list. Just before I looked at this, I was reading an old Seymour CT History in a CT Monthly Magazine that was "new" to me; it reads: "Near the river was an old Indian burying ground where each grave was marked by a small heap of stones. In 1790 Mr. Nathan Stiles bought this land and in ploughing it over destroyed those relics of antiquity (page 315 http://books.google.com/books?id=kvQLAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22the%20fishing%20place%20at%20Naugatuck%2C%22&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q=%22the%20fishing%20place%20at%20Naugatuck,%22&f=false)." I had just been perusin a Milford History that wrote of: "Their residence here must have been continued many years, or after it began, their numbers must have been large, for, as concluded in the Indian History part of this work, the number of burials must have approached three hundred...(By Samuel Orcutt pages 34-35
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=Samuel%20Orcutt&ei=YAIbTp_HKOa40AGQ2qWWBQ&ct=result&id=O3RZMDT2vx8C&output=text&pg=PA34)."
In my opinion, "ploughing over graves' is an apologistic way of saying "Robbing Graves." Same as happened across the river from me with Nonnewaug's Grave...
ReplyDeleteAccording to the AN DER DONCK, description above, what do you think the pile of stones would look like after the body and the surrounding wood rotted away from the center? I am guessing that is what these hollows are.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree, Peter. In fact, I once came across an archaeological report that discussed that very hypothesis for piles with hollows. I will try to find it.
ReplyDelete