« AnteriorContinuar »
burying place disclosed, evidently more ancient ; for the bones almost immediately crumbled to dust, on exposure to the air; and the deposits were far more numerous than in that near the river. By the representation of James Stark, Esq., the skeletons were countless, and the deceased had been buried in a sitting posture. In a considerable portion of the bank, though scarcely a bone remained of sufficient firmness to be lifted up, the closeness and position of the buried, were apparent by the discoloration of the earth. In this place of deposite, no beads were found, while they were common in that near the river.
In 1814, I visited this fortification in company with the present Chief Justice Gibson, and Jacob Cist, Esqs. The whole line, although it had been ploughed for more than thirty years, was then distinctly traceable by the eye. Fortune was unexpectedly propitious to our search, for we found a medal bearing on one side the impress of King George the First, dated 1714, (the year he commenced his reign,) on the other, an Indian chief. It was awarded to Mr. Cist, as the most curious and careful in such matters, and by him was deposited with the Philadelphia Historical Society.*
Three years ago, an ice flood passed over the flats, and left several skeletons exposed. Mr. Hancock politely sent for me, but being absent, I did not visit the spot until the next day. A profusion of blue beads remained ; a skull or two, and some well preserved bones were taken by Dr. Boyd; but all were regretting that I had not seen a picture of a lady, found upon the breast, worn as a locket, of, from this, the beads and other ornaments, it was supposed a great chief. Various were the conjectures who it could have been. Some supposed a European officer had presented the chief with a miniature of his mistress ; this I thought improbable. The likeness was not painted on ivory, but a print pasted on an oval piece of glass, about four inches the longest way. Taken in connexion with the medal of George the First, I expressed the conviction that the picture must have been that of Queen Anne. What greatly strengthens this opinion is the fact, that in 1710, in the reign of that Queen, a deputation of chiefs of the Five Nations visited England, where they were received with marked distinction. Clothed like tragedy kings, by tailors of the theatre; taken in the coaches of state, they were waited upon by Sir Charles Cotterell, and on the 19th of April,
• Should it not be placed with the Indian relics in a Museum to be formed in Wilkesbarre ?
introduced to her Majesty by the Duke of Shrewsbury. They were entertained by many noble persons, particularly the great Duke of Ormond,* who regaled them with a review of the life-guards. Their portraits were taken, and are now in the British Museum.
Their visit is noticed by Sir Richard Steele, in the “ Tattler,” of May 13, 1710.
The delegation consisted of five chiess, of whom, the names of four are preserved :-1. Te-Yee-Neen-Ho-Ga-Prow; 2. Sa-Ga-YeanQua-Peah-Ton; 3. Elow-Oh-Koam, and 4. Oh-Nee-Yeath-Ton-NoProw—the two last named being River Indians.f
It seems, then, probable, that the skeleton found with the picture on his breast, was one of the two latter chiefs, who had visited the Court of Queen Anne, received her likeness, pasted on glass, which was worn as a badge of honour, and was buried with him.
Mr. Jefferson further states, that the Tuscaroras became united with the Iroquois, in 1712, thus making the confederacy Six Nations. Of course, when the delegation visited England in 1710, two years before, the confederacy was constituted of, as it was called, the Five Nations. Five chiefs went to England. The inference is quite probable, nay, almost certain, that a distinguished sachem went from each nation. One died in England, leaving four, whose names we have mentioned. They were spoken of at the time as kings, and treated with great distinction. Two of these are stated to have been River Indians. We have given our reasons for believing that one of those kings died at the Indian fort at Jacob's Plains, Wilkesbarre, and that it was his skeleton which the flood washed out, of which I have spoken. He, then, was one of the River Indians. But there was another. Our inference is, that he occupied the fortification described by Mr. Chapman, on the west side of the river; that Wyoming, therefore, must have been, so late as 1715, and for a time indefinitely previous, the occasional residence of the kings of two of the Five Nations. Depending on hunting and fishing for subsistence, the tribes would, for the sake of plenty, be located some distance apart, however close their alliance; and Wyoming, from its superabundance of game and fish, would not be overlooked or neglected. What two nations, then, inhabited the valley ? Not the Mohawks ; they were located the farthest east, as we have seen, and gave or received their name from the Mohawk river. Not the Onondagos, for they, I take it, were a distinguished or favored tribe, to whom was committed the preservation of the Sacred Council Fire; the “Great Head,” or Congress, ever holding their sessions within the limits of that nation. Whether there are additional facts to warrant such an inference, I am not prepared to assert; but the Great Shikellamus, the Vice Roy over the Pennsylvania Indians, being an Onondago, might lead to the conjecture, that the more elevated civil offices of authority and honour, were exercised by that tribe. Not a fact presents itself, in my research, to lead me to suppose that the Cayugas had ever any special interest or influence here. But the Senecas and Oneidas acted so conspicuous a part in the affairs of Wyoming, that I incline strongly to the opinion, they were the nations who occupied the two fortifications described. A Seneca chief, Gi-engwah-toh, commanded in the battle. A delegation of Senecas, attempted and executed the impudent deception upon Congress.*
* The Duke of Ormond's family name, was Butler. I throw out the conjecture, that the ancestors of Col. John Butler, the intimate friend of Sir William Johnson, and leader of the Indians, may, probably at this time, have received an appointment from his relative and namesake, to return with these chiefs to America, and act as agent of the British Government.
† For this information, my acknowledgments are due to Drake's " Book of the Indians."
These, then, were probably the two nations whose kings kept their court in the valley. When the Moravian Indians were struck, it is stated to have been done by the Oneidas, the war party coming from Wyoming, showing this to have been within the special jurisdiction of those two nations. I offer another conjecture, which the unbiassed mind will readily receive as true : namely, That these were the Massawamees, who so incessantly harrassed the Powhattans of Virginia; struck the Catawbas of South Carolina, and took scalps and prisoners from the Cherokees on the Mississippi. The nations most southwesterly located would, naturally, be best acquainted with the southwest country and nations—know the war paths, and be best able to strike an effective blow in their own quarter. And although acting as one of, and by orders from, THE GREAT HEAD, at Onon
* Without anticipating events, which will be related in the sequel, illustrative of the point in question, I may here relate, that Mary Jemison was taken prisoner, from the lower part of Pennsylvania, in 1755, by a band of Senecas. Many years afterwards she married Hiokatoo, an Indian warrior, in the Seneca tribe, "that inhabited the banks of the Susquehanna." Her husband commanded the Indians in the battle, near Northumberland, in 1779. Relating to her the events of his youth, Hiokatov stated, that " in 1730, then aged about twenty, he was appointed a runner to collect an army to go against the Catawbas, Cherokees and other southern Indians." He told of a battle in which twelve hundred of the enemy were slain, spoke of adventures on the Mobile, and of being two years upon one expedition ; constantly professing an unextinguishable hostility to the Cherokees-incidents which go far to corroborate the opinion expressed.