PART 4 of AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1613 TAWAGONSHI TREATY
by Robert Venables
Are Gehring, Starna, and Fenton biased? While demeaning Van Loon as a con artist, Gehring, Starna, and Fenton sneak in brief references that, if examined carefully, reveal aspects of Dr. Van Loon that the authors should have provided if their goal had been an objective analysis of his character. Born in 1903 and educated as a doctor, Van Loon spent thirteen years, from 1955 to 1968, that Gehring, Starna, and Fenton only describe as the “medical director of the Kalaupapa mission in Molokai, Hawaii” (GSF 1987: 389; cf. 374). A reader might assume that the authors were implying that Van Loon was having a sun-filled island life in paradise. But the authors fail to mention that the isolated Kalaupapa mission on Molokai was and is a world-famous medical facility for Hawaii’s lepers. To be the medical director among lepers appears to have been a brave and noble act of Van Loon, a service he performed for thirteen years — long before “Doctors Without Borders” but evidently in that same humanitarian spirit. After the Kalaupapa leper colony, Dr. Van Loon served at what Gehring, Starna, and Fenton briefly list as “the Cresson, Pennsylvania, State School and the Wassaic, New York, State School” (GSF 1987: 389). But no mention is made of the fact that both schools were for the mentally challenged. How were Van Loon’s positions in Hawaii at a leper colony and at two schools for the mentally challenged indicative of Van Loon’s character? Was Van Loon a saint, was he a tyrant, or something in between?
Mohawk Names on the Treaty
Gehring, Starna, and Fenton also criticize the validity of the 1613 treaty on the basis that “the names of the Iroquois Indians listed on the document are actually place-names” (GSF 1987: 387). Yet Gehring’s own English translation of the treaty specifically refers to the fact that the four names indicate the leaders of towns, because other lesser leaders are from the same places: “the following sachems of the Long House, Gerhatjannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh, and Teyoghswegengh as well as with other lesser chiefs of the same” (GSF 1987: 379). Clearly, the “lesser chiefs” could not have been “of” the same leaders — they were of – meaning from — the same places.
Legal Questions
Gehring, Starna, and Fenton also questioned the validity of the 1613 treaty because it may affect “present-day events and legal questions,” issues such as whether land can be granted to non-Indians by a single Haudenosaunee nation or whether a land transfer must also be approved by the Grand Council at Onondaga (GSF 1987: 378). Are the authors suggesting that the evidence in Native legal issues should be determined in advance by only those “experts” who deny the validity of the evidence — especially when Native oral tradition, as in the case of the Two Row Wampum, presents an opposite view? Interestingly, the primary example of a legal issue that Gehring, Starna, and Fenton raise is what they regard as the treaty’s statement the Mohawks transferred land to the Dutch, and they believe there is no indication in the treaty that the Grand Council at Onondaga was involved. In this context, Gehring, Starna, and Fenton believed that the 1613 raised the issue of land transfers between Natives and non-Natives: “with the selling and purchase of land, it has implications for those who agree or disagree with the proposition that land claims against New York State are the province of the central Iroquois council, not of individual tribes” (GSF 1987: 378). Their argument is based on the fact that such a transfer would be contradictory to traditional Haudenosaunee practice, because any land set aside for the Dutch or any other non-Haudenosaunee also had to be accounted for at Onondaga. This was because lands currently unoccupied by Haudenosaunee but within the boundaries of the Confederacy would be regarded as “The Woods.” The Woods were the responsibility of both the individual nation closest to the new non-Haudenosaunee settlement and simultaneously the responsibility of all of the Confederacy’s five founding nations –Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. But there are already answers in the historic, documentary records for 1694 and 1783 that the three authors were evidently not aware of, or chose to ignore. These two documents provide excellent “upstreaming” to suggest a possible context for the 1613 treaty. In 1694, Sadakanahtie, the Onondaga speaker at the Albany negotiations, described the first negotiations with the Dutch as linking the Dutch immediately with “a great Mountain” – a Haudenosaunee metaphor for Onondaga, the seat of the Grand Council:
When the Christians first arrived in this Country, we received them kindly. When they were but a small People, we entered into a League with them, to guard them from all Enemies whatsoever. We were so fond of their Society, that we tied the great Canoe which brought them, not with a Rope made of Bark to a Tree, but with a strong iron Chain fastened to a great Mountain.
(Cadwallader Colden, The History of the Five Nations Depending on the Province of New‑York in America 1727 and 1747; (1747; Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1958), 149‑150.)
Thus this indicates that while the first treaty was initially made by the Mohawks, it was also confirmed by the Onondaga Grand Council at Onondaga, symbolized by the term the “Great Mountain.” (Peter Wraxall, An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs Contained in Four Folio Volumes, Transacted in the Colony of New York, from the year 1678 to the Year 1751, Charles Howard McIlwain, ed., 1754; reprint of the 1915 edition; New York: Benjamin Bloom, 1968, 24; and the Interpreter’s note included within the text of the speech of Canasatego, June 26, 1744, at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in Benjamin Franklin, Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736-1762, with an introduction by Carl Van Doren and Historical & Bibliographical Notes by Julian P. Boyd, Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938, 51).
In 1783, the Mohawk leader Joseph Brant described this same procedure in a speech to Canada’s Governor Frederick Haldimand at Quebec:
“Brother, we, the Mohawks, were the first Indian Nation that took you by the hand like friends and brothers, and invited you to live amongst us, treating you with kindness upon your debarkation in small parties. The Oneidas, our neighbors, were equally well disposed towards you and as a mark of our sincerity and love towards you we fastened your ship to a great mountain at Onondaga, the Center of our Confederacy, the rest of the Five Nations approving of it.”
Charles M., Johnston, ed., The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press and The Champlain Society for The Government of Ontario, l964)
In 1987, Gehring, Starna, and Fenton admitted that although the 1613 treaty was first published in 1968 in The Indian Historian, they did not learn about this publication until 1986 (GSF 1987: 380). Thus they also evidently didn’t know treaty was republished in 1974 in volume four of The American Indian Reader [Jeannette Henry, ed., The American Indian Reader (5 volumes: Anthropology (I), Education (II), Literature (III), History (IV), and Indian Treaties (V); San Francisco: The Indian Historian Press, 1972-1977), IV, 38-44. The failures to read either the 1968 or the 1974 publications by Van Loon on the treaty are surprising lapses. These failures are all the more surprising given the fact that in 1959 Fenton served on a committee of scholars to examine the treaty, and Fenton had challenged the treaty’s validity (see GSF 1987: 381-382).
Gehring, Starna, and Fenton also ignored the fact that the first publishers of the treaty, Jeannette Henry and Rupert Costo, were Native scholars who viewed history with extreme care and caution. I knew both of them, and it seems very unlikely that Van Loon could have published in their Indian Historian without being vetted. As a recognition of their importance in documenting Indian studies, including history, Henry and Costo were recognized and funded by the Ford Foundation. They then went on to found the national Indian newspaper Wassaja in 1973.
Why might the document have been at Mississauga?
The Mississauga lands at Grand River, Ontario, were where many of the Crown-allied Haudenosaunee took refuge following the American Revolution. Between 1783 and 1784, the lands at Grand River were secured by the Crown from the Mississaugas as a result of diplomatic efforts by Haudenosaunee leaders such as the Mohawk Joseph Brant, who cooperated with the Crown’s Governor Frederick Haldimand. (“Substance of [Joseph] Brant’s Wishes Respecting Forming a Settlement on the Grand River, March 1783; and Governor Frederick Haldimand, Grant of land, October 25, 1784 [also known as “Proclamation of October 25, 1784”] in Charles M., Johnston, ed., The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto: The University of Toronto Press and The Champlain Society for The Government of Ontario, l964, 44 and 50-51.)
Is it possible that a British agent gathered together treaties relevant to the Haudenosaunee as one of the collections of evidence that demonstrated to London that the Crown’s Haudenosaunee allies deserved these lands? If this was the case, then L.G. Van Loon’s explanation of obtaining the document from Mississauga is logical. Perhaps using information that he had obtained from Major Van Loon, his relative, L.G. Van Loon speculated that the document was part of a Native salvage operation that gathered up documents during raids in the 1920s by the Royal Mounted Police. (L.G. Van Loon, “The Treaty of Tawagonshi,” reprint of a 1968 article, in Jeannette Henry, ed., The American Indian Reader [5 volumes: Anthropology (I), Education (II), Literature (III), History (IV), and Indian Treaties (V)]; San Francisco: The Indian Historian Press, 1972-1977, IV, 40.)
Is the document a copy? Could the document have been copied by a French official or, more probably, an English official, copying the present record from the original Dutch. It could have been part of a collection of treaties intended as a historical record. Could another explanation be that such a copyist could have been a multi-lingual American Indian? One example is the Mohawk Joseph Brant (1743-1807) who was bilingual in English and Mohawk, but having grown up in the eighteenth century Mohawk Valley, may have been familiar enough with Dutch because of his interactions with Dutch-speaking settlers both before and after the American Revolution? At the end of the American Revolution, Joseph Brant sought clarification of the Treaty of Paris that ended the war. He was very conscious of the rights of the Haudenosaunee that had been defined in treaties. On May 21, 1783, Brant gave a speech to Canadian Governor Frederick Haldimand:
“Brother, you have books and records of our mutual Treaties and Engagements, which will confirm the truth of what I have been telling, and as we are
unacquainted with the art of writing, we keep it fresh in our memory by Belts of Wampum deposited in our Council House at Onondaga.”
(Joseph Brant to Governor Frederick Haldimand, speech at Quebec, May 21, 1783, in Charles M., Johnston, ed., The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press and The Champlain Society for The Government of Ontario, l964, 39.)
After the Revolution, did Brant or some other Indian attempt to rectify the lack of written documents among the Haudenosaunee by undertaking an effort to collect written records of past treaties?
Van Loon’s Credentials as an Amateur Historian
Gehring, Starna, and Fenton admit that Van Loon’s credentials in Dutch history earned him the support of other students of Dutch New York history: Van Loon “clearly had the respect of scholars Van Cleaf Bachman and Alice P. Kenney” (GSF 1987: 389). Faced with this array of positives, the authors set about using circumstantial evidence to discredit Van Loon. For example, Gehring, Starna, and Fenton raised questions about the handwriting in the 1613 treaty “The pen strokes and handwriting style, in fact, very closely resemble Van Loon’s own handwriting” (GSF 1987: 388). However, no evidence from a handwriting expert is presented to confirm this. Challenging Gehring, Starna, and Fenton, Vernon Benjamin concluded in 1999 that “In fact, Van Loon’s Dutch handwriting is clearly and rather obviously different from that of the Tawagonshi photocopy” used by Gehring, Starna, and Fenton (Vernon Benjamin, “The Tawagonshi Agreement of 1613: A Chain of Friendship in the Dutch Hudson Valley” in The Hudson Valley Regional Review, Volume XVI No. 2 (September 1999), 12).
CONCLUSION.
History is never neat and tidy. History also involves an ongoing exploration for new evidence. Thus there is never “The Final Chapter,” as Gehring, Starna, and Fenton arrogantly subtitled their 1987 article. There is, frankly, not enough information at present to either prove or disprove the accuracy of the 1613 treaty. In 1987, Gehring, Starna, and Fenton did not conclusively disprove the validity of Van Loon’s copy of the 1613 treaty. And I cannot conclusively prove the validity of the 1613 treaty. I can only make a judgment based on what I know so far, and I conclude that the 1613 treaty is a valid document. There is, as it were, no “smoking gun.”
In addition to their criticism of the 1613 treaty, Gehring, Starna, and Fenton do not give credence to the Haudenosaunee oral tradition of the Two Row Wampum. They seem to believe that a document written by Europeans or Euro-Americans hold more credibility. And while they accept and write about oral traditions given to them by Haudenosaunee “informants,” they seem to disregard or omit any oral tradition that doesn’t agree with the conclusions they have reached in the past.
The advantage of oral tradition is the transmission over generations of “meaning,” because over time the precise definitions of words change or become obscure. The language of William Shakespeare often demands footnotes in order for a twenty-first century person to understand what was meant, so writing something down is not a fool-proof method to perpetuate meanings into the future. In oral tradition, the same “meaning” as the original may often be conveyed by using new words that are more familiar to newer audiences. The words may change in oral tradition, but the meanings remain constant. A check on the possibility of an alteration of an oral tradition is the Haudenosaunee belief that a speaker and the speaker’s audience both know that they are not simply speaking in a human context, because they recognized, and continue to recognize, that the Creator is watching. In contrast, Europeans and Euro-Americans have, over the centuries, increasingly become dependent on literal definitions. And that raises another issue: are written documents more reliable than oral tradition? For example, the American public celebrates “Independence” on July 4 because that is what the document states. But John Adams believed that July 2 would be America’s independence day because the Continental Congress voted for independence on July 2. “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.–I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival” (John Adams to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776, in L.H. Butterfield, Marc Friedlaender, and Mary-Jo Kline, eds., The Book of Abigail and John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975, 142). But the document declaring American independence wasn’t ready for signing until July 4, and that was the date at the top of the document. Should historians browbeat the American public over the exact date? Literal truth is often evasive. How Americans interpret the First Amendment depends upon their points of view. Do Americans have free speech and freedom of religion, or do Americans only have the right to insist that government refrain from any regulation of speech and religion? Do Americans have a right to own guns, or does the Constitutional clause “for a well regulated Militia” mean than gun ownership and membership in the National Guard (today’s militia) must go together?
Why are Americans more comfortable with documents than with oral tradition? Any document, like any oral tradition, depends upon the honesty of the author/speaker. Both documents and oral tradition can be altered, but somehow documentary evidence has a stronger role in U.S. courts than oral tradition. Consider, then, the case of James Madison, the future president of the United States. When the “founding fathers” – fifty-five white males – wrote the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787, the notes taken by James Madison were and remained admired for their details and insights for almost two centuries. Then, in 1987, James Hutson, the Chief of the Manuscript Division at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., examined the evidence gathered by other scholars since 1953, added his own research, and concluded bluntly “we know that Madison tinkered with his notes for at least thirty years after the convention adjourned. He made alterations and additions as early as 1789 and as late as 1821…. It is a problem whose solution exceeds all others in significance, if we are to understand the Philadelphia Convention” (James Hutson, “Riddles of the Federal Constitutional Convention” in The William and Mary Quarterly Third series, Volume XLIV, No. 5 (July 1987), 414-415). The problem remains unresolved. Does this mean that Madison always fiddled with the truth? Given the conclusion of James Hutson, should all of Madison’s life and deeds be discounted and even ignored as hypocritical? Or does it mean we should always be cautious when looking at history?
Finally, as noted earlier, the written records of treaties, including that at Tawagonshi in 1613, usually only focus on the terms of the treaty. The negotiations that preceded treaties are often not preserved in the written record. Yet these negotiations are as much a part of what the Haudenosaunee heard and came to believe as are the terms defined in the final treaty — especially because the final terms of treaties are never a Haudenosaunee language and survive only in a European language. Perhaps the most deceptive treaty is the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua. Only the English text of the final treaty was preserved. Yet Haudenosaunee oral tradition states that hunting rights were guaranteed to the Haudenosaunee by the U.S. diplomat Timothy Pickering during the negotiations. These hunting rights extended over all the lands involved in the negotiations in 1784 at Fort Stanwix (lands west of Pittsburgh and north of the Ohio) and all the lands involved in the negotiations with the State of New York (the lands west of Rome, New York). Although this provision was omitted from the treaty text, this right remained a part of Haudenosaunee oral tradition. Thus the Haudenosaunee were not surprised to learn that this fact was also recorded by a Quaker observer who entered the following in his journal:
The commissioner [Timothy Pickering] observed, that … the Indians shall have the right of hunting on these lands, as well as on all those ceded at the treaty of fort Stanwix; and on all other lands ceded by them since the peace.
(William Savery, A Journal of the Life, Travels and Religious Labours of William Savery compiled in 1837 from his original memoranda by Jonathan Evans. Philadelphia: The Friends Library, Volume One, p. 359. This quote can also be found in another edition of Savery’s journal: William Savery, A Journal of the Life, Travels, and Religious Labors of William Savery, edited by Jonathan Evans (Philadelphia: published for the Friends’ Bookstore, 1873), 124. This quote, with modernized spelling, can also be found in the Appendix of G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein, eds., Treaty of Canandaigua 1794 (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), p. 278.
Throughout the centuries, oral tradition and wampum have always been sources that are comparable to non-Indian written records. Wampum serves as a “mnemonic” device to remind a speaker to be sure to cover the details of an event. Thus the promise by the United States to guarantee Haudenosaunee hunting rights was and is still recalled in the oral traditions of the Haudenosaunee and remembered a wampum belt, the “Treaty of Canandaigua Belt.” In the same manner, the meaning and significance of the 1613 treaty are preserved in oral tradition and the Two Row Wampum, the Guswenta.
APPENDIX
Contents:
Full-text translation by L.G. Van Loon
Line-by-line translations of the 1613 Treaty from three translations by L.G. Van Loon, by Dutch friends of the Onondagas in 2009, and by Charles Gehring
Full text of the translation made by Dutch friends of the Onondagas
Full text translation by Charles Gehring
Full text in Dutch
Full Text of the L.G. Van Loon Translation:
Here at Tawagonshi met with us the undersigned Jacob Eelckens and Hendrick Christiaenssen, authorized by letter and obligated to examine into the trade with the aboriginal owners or directors of the country hereabouts and to conclude, as far as it may be compatible with the following chiefs of the Long House, Gerhatjannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh, and Teyoghswegengh, as well as other lesser chiefs of the same who declare that they are all in agreement thereupon, and we the participants promise: 1, That trade between their people and ours shall be permitted as long as we the participants are bilaterally agreed, and further; 2, That we the participants shall have the privilege of bringing our goods out of trade channels as long as no purchase agreement concerning them has been made: and further; 3, Parcels of land may be purchased that we the aboriginal participants consider as our property so long as it is discussed by the individuals and a bilaterally agreeable purchase agreement concerning them has been made, and further; 4, That we the participants shall be obliged to help each other to necessities in case of shortage of food that is insufficient, and further; 5, In case of a difference of opinion concerning real or imaginary injustices we the participants promise that this will stand as an Auspicia Melioris Aevi and that any difference from whatever nature or origin must be brought before a meeting of Commissaries in order to examine the whole. This foregoing we the participants promise in love and friendship to continue and to maintain for as long as grass is green and as evidence of the honor and goodwill we exchange a silver chain for a fathom of beadwork; and knowledge of the truth of this here undersigned by the participants on this 21st April 1613.
THREE TRANSLATIONS OF THE 1613 TREATY
BLACK: L.G. Van Loon’s Translation
RED: Translation by Dutch friends of the Onondagas
GREEN: Translation by Charles Gehring
Here at Tawagonshi met with us the undersigned
Here at Tawagonshi, the undersigned have gathered together
Met with us here at Tawagonshi the undersigned
Jacob Eelckens and Hendrick Christiaenssen
Jacob Eelckens and Hendrick Christiaenssen
Jacob Eelckens and Hendrick Christiaenssen
authorized by letter and obligated to examine into the trade
who are authorized in writing to execute the assignment to start trade
authorized by letter and ordered to investigate the trade
with the aboriginal owners or directors of the country hereabouts
with the Indian inhabitants, owner or owners of the surrounding country (land)
with the native owners or rulers of the country hereabouts
and to conclude, as far as it may be compatible with the following chiefs
and will stick to the decisions to be taken when it comes to this and is in line with the following contract with the chiefs
and to conclude as far as it may be eompatible with the following sachems
of the Long House, Gerhatjannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh, and Teyoghswegengh
of the Rotinonghisiyonni, Garhat Jannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh and Teyoghswegengh
of the Long House, Gerhatjannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh, and Teyoghswegengh
as well as other lesser chiefs of the same
which also include the lower chiefs of these tribes as applicable
As well as with other lesser chiefs of the same
who declare that they are all in agreement thereupon
The undersigned declare that all the following has been agreed upon
Who declare that they all are in agreement thereon
and we the participants promise
and promise
and we, participants, promise
1, That trade between their people and ours
1) that the trade between them and our people
1. That trade between their people and ours
shall be permitted as long as we the participants are bilaterally
will be tolerated as long and as far as both parties
shall be permitted as long as we, participants, are also in mutual
agreed, and further
agree, etc.
agreement, and further
2, That we the participants
2) that we as contracting parties
2. that we, participants
shall have the privilege of bringing our goods out of trade channels
will have the right to keep our own traded goods
shall have the privilege of bringing our goods out of the trade routes
as long as no purchase agreement concerning them has been made
as long as there is no definite buying contract
provided that no purchase agreement concerning them has yet been made
and further
etc.
and further
3, Parcels of land may be purchased
3) that part of the land can be bought
3. Parcels of land may be purchased
that we the aboriginal participants
from the Indian contracting parties
that we, the native participants
consider as our property
who see this as their own country
consider as our own territory
so long as it is discussed by the individuals
For this both parties have to negotiate
Provided that it is discussed by individuals
and a bilaterally agreeable purchase agreement
and a mutually agreed upon contract
and a mutually agreeable purchase agreement
concerning them has been made, and further;
has to be written up, etc.
has been made; and further
4, That we the participants shall be obliged to help each other
4) That we, as contracting parties, will support each other
4. That we, participants, shall continue to help one another
to necessities in case of shortage of food that is insufficient,
and in case there is a shortage of food, we will give each other the necessary food supplies
with necessities in case of shortage of food that is insufficient
and further;
etc.
and further;
5, In case of a difference of opinion concerning real or imaginary injustices we the participants promise
5) and that we, as contracting parties, promised that in case of dispute regarding real or imagined injustices and that we, as contracting parties,
5. In case of disputes relating to real or imagined injustices we, participants, promise
that this will stand as an Auspicia Melioris Aevi
and these types of matters, (awaiting better times)
that this shall serve as an Auspicia Melioris Aevi,
and that any difference from whatever nature or origin
will take these matters whatever they may be,
and that any dispute from whatever nature or origin
must be brought before a meeting of Commissaries in order to examine the whole.
and put them forward to a meeting of representatives who will consider everything.
must then be brought before a board of magistrates in order to investigate everything.
This foregoing we the participants
We, the contracting parties,
This aforementioned we, participants,
promise in love and friendship to continue and to maintain for
promise each other that all of the above will be carried out in affection and friendship and to carry out this promise
promise, in amity and friendship, to sustain and maintain for
as long as grass is green
as long as the grass is green.
as long as the grass is green
and as evidence of the honor and goodwill
As a sign of respect and affection,
and as a token of honor and affection
we exchange a silver chain for a fathom of beadwork;
we exchange with each other a silver chain in return for a special piece of rope from a sea vessel [sea shell; wampum].
we exchange a silver chain for a fathom of wampum
and knowledge of the truth of this here undersigned by the participants on this 21st April 1613.
And, as realizing the truth of the above, the contract holders have signed today, on 21 April, 1613.
and as acknowledgment of the truth of this, it has been signed by the participants on this 21st of April 1613.
Translation by Dutch friends of the Onondagas
Here at Tawagonshi, the undersigned have gathered together: Jacob Eelckens and Hendrick Christiaenssen, who are authorized in writing to execute the assignment to start trade with the Indian inhabitants, owner or owners of the surrounding country (land) and will stick to the decisions to be taken when it comes to this and is in line with the following contract with the chiefs of the Rotinonghisiyonni, Garhat Jannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh and Teyoghswegeng, which also include the lower chiefs of these tribes as applicable. The undersigned declare that all the following has been agreed upon and promise 1) that the trade between them and our people will be tolerated as long and as far as both parties agree, etc. 2) that we as contracting parties, will have the right to keep our own traded goods as long as there is no definite buying contract, etc. 3) that part of the land can be bought from the Indian contracting parties who see this as their own country. For this both parties have to negotiate and a mutually agreed upon contract has to be written up, etc. 4) That we, as contracting parties, will support each other and in case there is a shortage of food, we will give each other the necessary food supplies etc. 5) and that we, as contracting parties, promised that in case of dispute regarding real or imagined injustices and these types of matters, (awaiting better times) will take these matters whatever they may be, and put them forward to a meeting of representatives who will consider everything. We, the contracting parties, promise each other that all of the above will be carried out in affection and friendship and to carry out this promise as long as the grass is green. As a sign of respect and affection, we exchange with each other a silver chain in return for a special piece of rope from a sea vessel [sea shell]. And, as realizing the truth of the above, the contract holders have signed today, on 21 April, 1613.
Translation by Charles Gehring
Met with us here at Tawagonshi the undersigned Jacob Eelckens and Hendrick Christiaenssen, authorized by letter and ordered to investigate the trade with the native owners or rulers of the country hereabouts, and to conclude as far as it may be eompatible with the following sachems of the Long House, Gerhatjannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh, and Teyoghswegengh, as well as with other lesser chiefs of the same, who declare that they all are in agreement thereon; and we, participants, promise: 1. That trade between their people and ours shall be permitted as long as we, participants, are also in mutual agreement; and further, 2. That we, participants, shall have the privilege of bringing our goods out of the trade routes, provided that no purchase agreement concerning them has yet been made; and further, 3. Parcels of land may be purchased that we, the native participants, consider as our own territory, provided that it is discussed by individuals and a mutually agreeable purchase agreement has been made; and further, 4. That we, participants, shall continue to help one another with necessities in case of shortage of food that is insufficient and further; 5. In case of disputes relating to real or imagined injustices, we, participants, promise that this shall serve as an Auspicia Melioris Aevi, and that any dispute from whatever nature or origin must then be brought before a board of magistrates in order to investigate everything.
This aforementioned we, participants, promise, in amity and friendship, to sustain and maintain for as long as the grass is green; and as a token of honor and affection we exchange a silver chain for a fathom of wampum; and as acknowledgment of the truth of this, it has been signed by the participants on this 21st of April 1613.
DUTCH VERSION OF THE 1613 TREATY
Hier op Tawagonshi vergaderdt met ons ondergeschrevenen Jacob Eelckens end Hendrick Christiaenssen per breva geauthoriseert ende gelast de handel met de wilden Inwoonders eyghenaers ofte beheerschers van t’ landt hierontrent overna te gaen ende insoverre het Compatibel met de hierna volgende sal syn tot besluyt te coomen den Royaners der Rotinonghsiyonni Gerhat-Jannie/ Caghneghsattakegh/ Otskwiragerongh/ ende Teyoghswegengh alsmeede andere mindere overste derselve die verClaeren dat sy alles daeraen gaende overeengecoomen syn/ ende wy Participanten belooven: 1. Dat de handel tusschen hun volck ende die van ons sal toegelaeten worden soolangh wy participanten oock weedersydte Saccordert syn ende verder 2: Dat wy participanten de voorReght sullen hebben ons goederen uyt de neeringh weg te brengen midts dat eenighe Coop Verdragh aengaende deselve nogh niet afgesproochen wierde; end verder, 3: Grondtstucken sullen connen gecoft worden van t’ Landt wy widen Participanten als eygh gebiedt beschouwen midts dat er overgesproocken wordt door de individueelen ende een weedersydts geschickt Coopverdragh opgemaeckt wordt: end verder 4: Dat wy Participanten sullen behouden in geval van gebrek aen voed sel die niet en toereycken sal elckander aen den noodigheden te helpen: ende verder 5: In casa van meening verschil betreffende Louter ofte verbeelde onreghtaerdigheden belooven wy Participanten dat dees als Auspicia melioris aevi sal blyven staen ende dat eenighe meening verschil van welcke aerdt ofte oorsprongh dan oock voor een vergaderingh Commissarissen sal moeten gebraght worden om het alles to ondersoecken. Dit bovenstaende belooven wy Participanten weedersydts in Amitie ende vriendtschap vol te houden ende te handthaven voor soolang t’ gras groen is ende als een bewys van Eere ende Toegeneeghnheydt ver ruylen wy eene silverketting voor een vaedem Seewant: ende kennis der waerheydt deeses onder teekent door den Participanten op deese 21 April 1613.
Jacob Eelckens
Hendrick Christiaenssen.
GerhatJannie (totem) t’merck van
Caghneghsattakegh (totem) t’merck van
Otskwiragerongh (totem) t’merck van
Teyoghswegengh (totem) t’merck van