Yankee Doodle

The Spirit of '76- Archibald MacNeal Willard

 Yankee Doodle is a song most American school children learn sometime between the ages of 5 and 8. Most adults recognize the song, if not all the lyrics. I hope that most people probably know that, at least in legend, the song and phrase “Yankee Doodle” were both created by the English to be derogatory and insulting to Americans.

By examining the common lyrics, it’s not difficult to see the slight. Even the version school children learn is a little insulting. It reads:

Yankee Doodle went to town,

Riding on a Pony;

He stuck a feather in his cap,

And called it macaroni.

 
On my first post on this blog, I attempted to trace the meaning of the very complicated term “Yankee.” Although, no one really knows its exact origins, it essentially refers to someone of New England. The term “Doodle” is easier to understand. It simply means something like idiot, half-wit, or simpleton. As in all the many versions of this song, the term Yankee Doodle is synonymous with a country bumpkin, or what some would call a “hick.”
 
The entire scene these first four lines paint is of someone who is simple and uneducated. He rides on a pony instead of a horse. When he calls his feathered cap macaroni, he is not referring to the pasta, but rather to a fashion popular in England during the mid 18^th century.
 
A Macaroni was someone who dressed and acted at the extremes of fashion, often to the point of being somewhat ridiculous. The term is actually related to the Italian pasta (oddly), because eating macaroni was fashionable for well traveled European men of the 18^th century. These rich young men would describe fashionable things as being extremely “macaroni.” In fact, they belonged to a group popularly known as the Macaroni Club.

One of these very Macaroni styles was wearing an extremely tall powdered wig topped by a small hat which could only be removed with a pole. These guys seem somewhat like our 20^th century “metro-sexual.” Fashion, hygiene, and popular trends were identity defining among these men. In fact other English of the 18^th century made use of the macaroni style in satire. However, in Yankee Doodle, the line is used to suggest that this Yankee is so simple he actually believes putting a feather in his plain old cap equals the extremes of European fashion.


Macaroni Style from Fashion-era

According to legend, British troops created the lyrics during the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 to describe their under-trained, uneducated, home-spun colonial allies. Several prominent Americans like Benjamin Franklin even tried to play up to this character while in Europe during the Revolution by dressing in animal furs and acting as if he were from the extreme frontier. Apparently, this is what many Europeans expected colonial Americans to look like.

It’s interesting that this little anthem turned from being a derogatory insult into a national ballad of pride. In fact, it is said the tune was played so much during the Civil War that General Grant admitted he only knew two songs. The first was Yankee Doodle, he said, and the second one wasn’t.

However, as with most things in history, the origins of the lyrics and the tune are cloudy. Even how the song switched sides during the Revolution is a little murky. However, the two schools of thought point to either an English or an American origin for the song. Hence, whether it was truly originally created to be used to insult the colonials is even in question.

In his book Liberty and Freedom, David Hackett Fischer argues that the legend is correct. Yankee Doodle was a song created by an Englishman targeting colonial Yankees for their backward ways. In fact, he credits Dr. Richard Shuckburgh, an English surgeon stationed in New York during the French and Indian War, with the creation of the tune and certain lines.

During the French and Indian War, British regular troops were shipped over the Atlantic to protect the original American colonies from the French and their Native American allies. Of course, they were not doing this out of kindness or concern. Great Britain was mostly acting out of self interest by protecting their profitable colonial territories from a rival European power.

Hackett explains, according to the records of three New York families, the lines of Yankee Doodle written by Shuckburgh between 1759 and 1760 while he was stationed in Albany. Hackett States:

“The Regulars laughed at the antics of the Yankee militia. Their quaint clothing, curious speech, and clumsy manners became the butt of British humor.”

One must understand that the early colonies were very agricultural and rural. Though Yankees could be fierce warriors, they were very different than British regulars. Colonials were more used to irregular guerilla warfare and scouting, if experienced in warfare at all. They did not all have uniform clothing, weapons, or training. Each colonial area provided what they could to their militia. Among these provisions would have been odd assortments of hunting rifles, few bayonets, and perhaps scraps of military dress. Obviously most Yankees were more used to shooting rabbits, deer, and squirrels, than enemy soldiers.

Assembled as a whole in Albany, the New England militias must have looked like a rag-tag, back woods, odd looking, sounding, and probably smelling collection of provincials. In fact, from the prospective of the British, they probably were.

Though Hackett states it is quite possible Shuckburgh penned the verse of Yankee Doodle we all know so well, in The Story of Our National Ballads, CA Browne argues that the original opening verse was probably different. Set to the tune of an old English country dance, Shuckburgh might have actually written:

Father and I went down to camp,

Along with Captain Gooding.

There we see the men and boys,

As thick as hasty pudding.

Apparently, Shuckburgh attempted to convince the colonial leaders that the song was a well respected military tune in England. Though, the regulars knew this was a joke, the colonials took up the song as their own. According to Browne, the song called at that time “The Yankee’s Return to Camp” found constant use in the militia camps. Of course the British, including Shuckburgh, must have thought this was hilarious.

However, this is somewhat disappointing. This means the most well known verse containing the pony, feather, cap, and macaroni was not the original. In fact, Roger Lee Hall, author of The Boston Yankee Ballad writes that this version does not show up in print until 1884 in a book entitled The Nursery Rhymes of England. Though, he also quotes author James J. Fuld, who explains that most authorities now believe the song was of American origin.

In fact, Hall quotes the author of Music for Patriots, Politicians, and Presidents, who states that the original verses of Yankee Doodle can actually be attributed to a sophomore at Harvard University named Edward Bangs. Edward served as a minuteman at the Battle of Lexington. The verses Edward Bangs wrote were printed in a popular broadside, which was created between 1775 and 1776. Hall records Edward’s original lyrics as being:

Father and I went down to camp,

Along with Captain Gooding.

There we see the men and boys,

As thick as hasty pudding.

Chorus:

Yankey doodle keep it up,

Yankey doodle dandy,

Mind the music and the step,

And with the girls be handy.

Hall does not discount that Shuckburgh may have had a hand in the creation of Yankee Doodle. However, he states that it was not until the version created by Edward Bangs was printed that this song became popular. In addition, he states that the Bangs version would have been the most well known during the Revolution.

The broadside and lyrics attributed to Edward Bangs

It is now unclear whether the song was originally created by the British or the Americans. However, as the animosities created during the French and Indian War led to the conflicts which began the American Revolution, Yankee Doodle was being used as a morale lowering weapon. According to CA Browne, British troops occupying Boston prior to the massacre in 1770 were already playing Yankee Doodle to annoy and harass the Bostonians. They even played it outside colonial church services and aboard British ships anchored Boston harbor. Browne even goes so far as to state that the British marched out of Boston to reinforce their forces at the Battle of Lexington to the tune of Yankee Doodle.

It seems the song finally switched sides after the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775. Thomas Aubrey, a British officer during the Revolution, writes about this transition in his series of letters entitled Travels Through the Interior Parts of America.

In his writing, Aubrey claims that the term Yankee was originally created by the Cherokee to mean coward, though this is only one of many theories. He said that the soldiers stationed in Boston during the commencement of hostilities often used the term as an insult. However, he also writes:

“But after the affair of Bunker Hill, the Americans glorified in it. Yankey-doodle is now their paean, a favorite or favorites, played in their army, esteemed as warlike as the Grenadier’s March – it is the lover’s spell, the nurse’s lullaby. After our rapid successes, we held the Yankees in great contempt; but it was not a little mortifying to hear them play this tune, when their army marched down to our surrender.”

Though the colonial militia lost the Battle of Bunker Hill, Aubrey is probably referencing the 1781 British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia. General Cornwallis, claiming illness, refused to ride out and surrender his sword to General Washington. He had his second in command deliver the weapon is his stead. Even then, it was delivered first to the wrong man.

As the British officers and German mercenaries marched by the assembled American and French leaders, the British refused to salute the colonial generals and commanders. Washington had ordered the army to remain courteous in victory. The English band played an old song called, “The World Turned Upside Down.” In response, as Aubrey stated, the Continental army responded with Yankee Doodle. It was the old morale-busting weapon of the British now turned against them.

If Dr. Shuckburgh did invent the lyrics to Yankee Doodle, he did not live to see how his song would be used or what it would eventually become. The tune changed in both lyrics and meaning as the French and Indian War led to the American war for independence. Even if most of the known lyrics were written later by Americans, the song and term “Yankee Doodle” changed from colonial insult to national ballad as Americans embraced the peculiar, awkward, somewhat provincial, yet entirely independent character the song describes.

Even though Yankee Doodle no longer really holds its position as the “in your face” patriotic theme it once was, from my perspective I find it amazing that it has survived in any form in our blind-to-our-past modern American culture. Though we still sing the song to our children, I wonder if most people know the significance of the words, how they were directed, and eventually how they were used. I cringe a little as it sometimes seems hard to find that independent Yankee Doodle character represented in our 21^st Century national identity. As I mentally scan through TV channels, news broadcasts, newspapers, the internet, and other forms of poplar media; It immediately becomes clear, perhaps we are now confused as to who is the Yankee and who is the Macaroni.

Blue Rock of Bass River

I’m a little disappointed that I did not find this awesome Cape Cast video until after I finished researching Follins Pond and Leif Ericson. I know this area well and I could have found the Blue Rock, which seems to have an example of what was considered by some to be a mooring hole. However, this video also expresses doubt that these holes were created by Norseman. When I get my kayak up in this area in the near future, I will get my own photos of Bass River’s Blue Rock. Until then, enjoy the video.

Leif Ericson and Follins Pond- Yamouth, Ma

Dragon-prowed Norse Longship

Throughout New England there are many sites and archeological finds which seem to suggest that Norse dragon ships, along with their European passengers, may have arrived in the North East of the United States about 500 years before Columbus accidentally landed in the Caribbean. Though, the majority of these finds remain categorized as mere curiosities, there are several that suggest history books concerning the subject of the discovery of the New World should be re-written.

Information of possible Norse exploration comes from very few historical sources. In fact, the majority of the information comes from the Norse Sagas, including The Saga of Eric the Red and The Saga of the Greenlanders. Although the sagas depict events that took place around 1000 AD, they were not committed to writing until the 13^th century. According to the sagas, the story begins with Eric the Red, an Icelander who was banished from Iceland for manslaughter around 982 AD. During his banishment, Eric explored and settled Greenland.


Eric the Red

 The Sagas give two versions of how land was discovered west of Greenland. In one version, it seems that the son of Eric the Red, known as Leif Ericson, first sighted new land while sailing to Iceland in order to spread Christianity. However, the second version states that in 985, a Norseman named Bjarni was sailing from Iceland to Greenland. He was blown off course, only to find himself near the coast of an unknown land. After skirting the shores of several strange areas, Bjarni eventually arrived safely in Greenland at this father’s settlement. According to the Saga of the Greenlanders, he never sailed again. However, he did report what he had seen to Leif Ericson.

Leif Ericson by Christian King

The tale goes on to say that Leif purchased Bjarni’s ship and gathered adventurers to sail west in an attempt to locate this new land. Eric the Red was about to join his son on the expedition when he apparently fell off his horse, injuring himself. He saw this as a bad omen and declined to join Leif and his crew.

Leif followed Bjarni’s directions west and first landed on a flat rocky shore, he called Helluland, which means appropriately “Land of Flat Stones.” Most researchers agree that this was most likely Baffin Island, which is the largest island in Canada. Though, some also suggest that it might have been north Labrador. Though Ericson interacted with the natives on the island, whom the Norse called skraelings, he ultimately decided not to settle in Helluland because it was inhospitable.

Traveling further, Erikson and his crew landed in a forested area which he called Markland. In Old Norse, the name means “Forestland.” Again, there is agreement that this was probably Labrador. Later the Greenlanders used this area to gather timber.

Leif Ericson continued to sail south for two more days. He next arrived at a place he called Vinland, which is generally translated as “Wine Land” or “Meadow Land.” Here the Saga of the Greenlanders describes how Ericson sailed west past a Cape and entered a large river, which connected to a lake. The saga further states that this land was warm enough to allow their cattle to graze outside throughout the winter months. Ultimately, Leif Ericson decided to spend the winter in Vinland. He created a small settlement called Leifsbudir.

Map showing possible Norse routes

In the spring, Leif returned to Greenland carrying a cargo of grapes, grape vines, and timber. His brother as well as other Norse adventurers later explored the same areas, sometimes fighting and sometimes trading with the natives there. They used Gaelic runners to explore three days over land. The runners returned with more grapes and wheat. There are at least two other historical references to Vinland, aside from semi-legendary Norse Sagas. One source even predates at least the writing of the Norse Sagas.

There have been many theories presented which seek to match Vinland with a modern location. In 1960, a Norse settlement was discovered on the northern tip of Newfoundland. Many believe that this area, called L’Anse aux Meadows, is probably Leif Erikson’s camp. However, it has also been theorized that Vinland may have been a very large area, including at least three small settlements, the Newfoundland site being one of them.

As I said, there are probably hundreds of artifacts and unexplained pre-Columbian sites which claim Norse origins. I have plans to visit several of them as seasonal museums begin to open. However, Follins Pond, in the towns of Dennis and Yarmouth, is somewhat unique among these sites. Unlike many artifacts and areas people claim a Norse connection to, the Follins pond area has been at least researched by professional archeologists and historians. Some of these researchers even came to the conclusion that the shore Follins Pond was actually Leif Ericson’s camp in Vinland.

Most of the evidence supporting a Norse visit to Follins Pond can be attributed to research conducted by the former writer, teacher, and amateur archeologist Frederick J. Pohl. Pohl believed that Leif Ericson entered the mouth of Bass River in Cape Cod, traveled several miles up the river, and ultimately camped on the shores of Follins. Certainly the area is reminiscent of the description of Vinland in the Norse Sagas.

 In 1952, the Massachusetts Archeological Society (MAS) conducted digs in the areas of Follins Pond most suspected of Norse visitation. In the January 1953 Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archeological Society, Benjamin L. Smith, outlined the work conducted by the MAS in an article entitled A Report on the Follins Pond Investigation.

According to Smith, several interesting things were discovered during the dig which some believed were suggestive of a Norse presence. The first piece of controversial evidence included several buried wooden posts and stones, potentially used to support a shored ship. In addition, the wood seemed to have been shaped by a metal axe. Yet, members of the Archeological Society estimated that the wood and construction was no more than 90 – 150 years old because the wood was not completely rotted. They theorized that the ship might have been a colonial ship hidden from the British during the War of 1812 or the Revolutionary War. In addition, they were informed by local historians that the area in which the posts were discovered was once used by Cape fisherman as a boat landing.

However, in the 1955 article entitled Comments on the Follins Pond Report, Pohl expressed his disagreement with the findings of the MAS. He stated that the shape, size, and estimated weight of the construction of wooden posts and stones suggested the shape of a classic Norse ship. He also suggested that the wood might have been well preserved by having been buried several feet under the shore bank immersed in an oxygen deprived environment. Therefore, the wood might be centuries older than it appeared.



Map of the Follins Pond digs- MAS



In addition, another piece of evidence Frederick Pohl suggested as proof of a Norse visitation to Cape Cod were the existence of what he called “Mooring Holes” in several rocks along the shore of the Follins Pond and Bass River. According to Pohl, these holes were drilled manually into rocks always at a slight angle. In these rocks would be placed a large iron pin with an eye-hole, which attached the ship to shore by use of ropes. These were of particular interest to Pohl because similar holes have been discovered in more classically Norse areas like the fjords of Scandinavia.

Furthermore, some of these holes seemingly presented with specific characteristics which the “mooring holes” of Norse Europe would have displayed. For instance, some of the holes on Cape Cod were slightly triangular in shape, with bulging, rounded sides. To Pohl this indicated that they were chiseled by hand, rather than drilled mechanically.

However, the MAS also responded to this evidence in their original report. Smith suggested that most of the holes were drilled for the purpose of blasting the nearby rocks with explosives. The rocks were then used to create the breakwater at the mouth of Bass River. Furthermore, researchers from the MAS found that a type of drill widely used in the 19^th century Cape also left triangular shaped holes with wide bulging sides. Therefore, even if the holes were mooring holes, there was no way to tell when they were created.



Large rocks along Follins Pond



In his 1953 article, Frederick Pohl defended his theory concerning the mooring holes. He conceded that he may not know exactly when the mooring holes were bored into the rocks along Follins Pond, but was sure that they were not holes intended for blasting rock used in the construction of the Bass River Breakwater. He stated that such holes would have been larger, more circular, and there would have needed to be several holes per large rock.  

However, the existence of odd holes and the remnants of a shored boat were not the only pieces of evidence discovered to support Ericson’s visit to the Cape. In an article entitled An Osseous Find at Follins Pond, an archeologist named Bernard W. Powell reported his findings after having examined a domestic horse bone found near Follins. The bone was discovered by a local home owner. Powell explained that the remains of domestic horses are present in the Greenland settlements, though rare. Hence, it would be plausible that the Norse who might have explored the Cape might also have been in the company of horses. Unfortunately Powell could not determine the age of the bone. He suggested that the potential weight of the animal belonging to the bone might be of a weight comparative to Norse domestic horses, but not much else could be determined. Hence, this piece of evidence, like the mooring holes and remains of the shored boat, are simply circumstantial.

In my short exploration of the Follins Pond area, my fiancé and I were able to see how the pond easily connects to Bass River, and from Bass River to Nantucket Sound. Assuming it looked similar in 1000Ad, a 60 foot Viking ship could make the trip from the sound to the pond.

Bass River from Bass River Bridge- May 2012

However, we were ultimately unable to get close to any large rocks along the shore which could have been examples of Pohl’s mooring stones. The shore of the pond is covered with private beaches and back yards of private properties. There are very few public access areas along the pond, and none have large stones near them that we could see. We could not get very close to the area called the “gully,” which is displayed on the map of Follins created by the MAS. This was the spot at which the remains of the ship was discovered. However, I was able to take several pictures of this area from across the pond at a public boat landing, but I would have liked to poke around there myself. Maybe I can return to this area with my kayak sometime this summer and attempt to locate some of the areas displayed on the map without having to trespass.

The Gully area from a distance
Remains of a shored ship was unearthed here

So it seems that the mystery of the modern location of Ericson’s Vinland remains unsolved. It might have been the small Norse settlement discovered in Newfoundland, but it might yet be an area south of that. Its possible it could still be along the shores of Cape Cod. Pohl certainly believed it was, even refusing to accept the conclusions of the MAS investigation.

However, after reviewing the evidence supporting Pohl’s Follins Pond theory, I have to admit that there is some evidence suggesting a thousand year old Norse visitation, but there is not enough to conclusively say Ericson and his explorers were ever here. This, however, does not seem to matter to the residents of Dennis and Yarmouth. Many of the roads surrounding Follins Pond have classic Viking names like Norse Road, Saga Road, Vinland Drive, and Leif Ericson Drive.

Whether or not any evidence will ever prove the Cape’s association with Ericson’s Vinland is pretty dubious. Archeologist, Bernard Powell, thoroughly explained why it is so difficult to locate proof of a small thousand year old Norse settlement (as if an explanation was needed). In his article The Mooring Hole Problem in Long Island Sound, Powell discusses the research conducted by Pohl. He mentions that Native Americans have lived in the Northeast in substantial numbers for thousands of years and very often archeologists come up with no proof of their habitation in places where researchers know they lived and worked. Imagine then, attempting to find the camps of only about 300 Norseman who might have journeyed to Vinland a thousand year ago for only one or two summers. Not only is it improbable, but it seems mindblowingly impossible to be able to locate absolute proof.

Still, as I mentioned, there are several Norse related curiosities throughout New England, other than the evidence discovered at Follins Pond. These oddly built structures and puzzling artifacts like Dighton Rock, the Bourne Stone, and America’s Stonehenge hint at the possibility of some unknown presence mingling with the Native tribes and cultures of ancient New England. However, I could not say if these were the works of Leif Ericson and his crew. Yet, certainly the possibility exists, and should not yet be dismissed, that a thousand years ago, dragon-prowed Viking longships once slipped from the primordial New England mists to leave their mark somewhere on our Yankee shores.

Historical Misconceptions

I am currently writing an article on the Norse discovery of the New World around 1000 AD. I came across this short video during my research which addresses 5 of the most common historical misconceptions. I thought it was hilarious, and it also includes the “Vikings.” Take a look in preparation for the next article or just for a laugh.

Roanoke Colony- New Clues

Governor White's map of the Roanoke Colony

Although definitely not part of New England, I could not help jumping at the opportunity to write about a potential new clue discovered about the mysterious Roanoke Colony. Though the new information does not yet conclusively explain what happened to the missing colonists who once settled in modern day North Carolina, it suggests some new possibilities aside from the pop culture theories of alien abduction, wayward demons, or vampire epidemics.

The creation and disappearance of the Roanoke Colony is a very interesting story, it was always one of my favorites to teach in American History. Roanoke is considered England’s first attempt at establishing a permanent colony in the New World. In 1587, many years before Jamestown or Plymouth, an Englishman named John White set out for what was then called Virginia and is now North Carolina. He had with him over a hundred potential colonists, including his pregnant daughter.

The colony at which the settlers hoped to live had been previously established by the English and had been left with only a skeleton crew of soldiers to maintain it in anticipation of new arrivals and new supplies. However, when White and his group arrived there was no one left in the colony. Although odd, the previous occupants of the fort had run afoul with local native groups. The fort had been attacked by natives before and had also been completely abandoned at one time.

Although White and his colonists were depending on the men that remained, they stayed in an attempt to re-establish the fort and colony. John White became the Governor of Roanoke. He tried his best to create peaceful relationships with the tribes surrounding the colony, including the Croatans. During this time his daughter gave birth to the first English child thought to have been born in the New World, the nearly legendary Virginia Dare.

Despite Governor White’s efforts with the local tribes, one of the Roanoke colonists was killed while shell fishing. Now fearing for their survival, the other colonists convinced White to return to England for help. Reluctantly, White agreed. He left behind a colony of 115 people, including his daughter and granddaughter.

Because of England’s war with Spain, Governor White was unable to return to the New World for three years. When he finally did return to the Colony in 1590, he found it empty and abandoned. Though there were no signs that a struggle had taken place, the word “CROATOAN” had been carved into one of the fort’s posts. In addition, the letters “CRO” were carved into a nearby tree.

White believed that the colonists had traveled to Croatoan Island. He attempted to mount a search in the area, but he was interrupted by the sudden arrival of a serious storm. He was forced to leave the Virginia Territory the next day without ever having discovered the fate of his family or that of the missing colonists.

There have obviously been several hundred theories presented since 1590, which attempt to explain the disappearance of the Roanoke men and women. Some believed that they had simply been killed or carried off by local hostile tribes. Others have theorized that nearby Spanish colonists might have attacked and killed them as well. One of the most widely believed theories states that the colonists were absorbed into one or several different native groups. In 1998, archeologists discovered an English signet ring in the Croatoan tribal capital, supporting the hypothesis that the colonists might have fled there and joined with the tribe.

Even the Jamestown Colonists, including the famous John Smith, was interested in finding the lost colonists. Although not necessarily a reliable source, he was told by Powhatan (the father of Pocahontas), that the colonists who had once been at Roanoke had joined with an enemy tribe. Powhatan assured Smith that he had killed them all.

However, the evidence discovered recently does not seem to support any of the established theories. According to ABC news, a map created by Governor John White in 1585 indicates that the colonists might have moved west up the Albemarle Sound to the area where the Chowan and Roanoke Rivers join.

This new evidence was discovered by examining two patches attached to Governor White’s map, which had apparently never been looked at before. One patch appeared to be a simple correction to the original, but the other hid a small symbol representing the existence of a second English fort. Scholars believe the symbol of the fort could indicate where White believed the colonists could have gone. The article reports that this discovery would not have been made had one of the researchers not recently pondered what might be hidden under the two patches.

Although the discovery on White’s map is fascinating, the area it indicates is now privately owned. Some of it even appears to be covered by a golf course, so archeological digs will have to wait several years, if they happen at all.

This type of discovery is interesting. The fate of the Roanoke colonists has been one of the greatest mysteries of colonial America for over 400 years. It has been written about and re-written about across the genres, from history to science fiction, and remains in pop culture today.

This is certainly also an interesting lesson in historical research for everyone. No matter how many times one has examined a single source, looking at it carefully and objectively one more time might reveal a hidden clue previously missed by hundreds of researchers who believed they knew everything about the source in front of them. There are literally thousands of unsolved historical mysteries; some are probably in walking distance from your own home. In addition, in our digital age, one no longer necessarily has to sift through dusty old pages in dank dark archives (though that can be fun too). So start digging people. You never know if you will be the researcher that asks that one simple question that cracks a case hundreds of years old or as new as yesterday.

Are Native Americans From Russia?

People of the Altay Mountains

A couple weeks ago I wrote an article stating that new evidence recently discovered in Native American archeological sites suggest that there may be a connection between Stone Age natives in the New World and the Stone Age Solutrean culture of Europe. This remains true. However, a separate genetic study has also recently discovered evidence which strengthens the theoretical link between the DNA of Native Americans and native Siberians.

According to National Geographic, Theodore Schurr, an anthropologist affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, has conducted an in depth genetic study comparing Native American groups with their Siberian counterparts. Between 1991 and 2003, Schurr and other Russian scientists collected genetic samples from the Altay region of Siberia. In addition, the team also collected over 2,500 samples from Native tribes in Canada, the US, and Mexico.

The team focused on both the mitochondrial DNA, passed down through our female ancestors, and Y DNA, passed down from our male ancestors. By calculating mutations within these DNA patterns, Schurr identified an ancient mutation that occurred around 18,000 years ago in the Y DNA of Siberians from the Altay region. According to Schurr, this same mutation appears in the Y DNA of Native American groups. Although, the article did not specify exactly which groups.

This newer genetic evidence seems support the generally accepted theory that most Native American groups immigrated from Siberia to North America by using the Bering Land Bridge roughly 15,000 years ago.

Despite the evidence presented in this study, other anthropologists have suggested that Schurr might be jumping the gun a bit. These scientists point out that the same mutations Schurr identifies as similarities between the Altay Siberians and the Native Tribes of the Americas also occurs in other Asian populations like Mongolia and China. Before any assumptions are made, these anthropologists suggest that a genetic dating study needs to be completed on these other East Asian populations.

This evidence does not necessarily contradict the Stanford and Bradley Solutrean theory, as the previous article stated that there was a lack of European DNA in modern native populations. Stanford and Bradley suggested that the Siberian nomads might have overrun the previously established population of European origin. In addition, both theories still lack physical evidence, which is now covered by the oceans which returned following the end of the Ice Age.

In my opinion, it is likely that both the Asian and European Native American origin theories are at least partially correct. In addition, I suspect other native populations in North and South America probably have separate origins. New studies like these are just now beginning to shed light on the patterns of ancient human migrations, a subject about which we have previously had a lack of concrete information. As I am kinda a geek for studies like this, I will be eagerly anticipating new information and research on this subject.

Sachem Iyanough- Barnstable, Ma



Statue of the Sachem Iyanough- Hyannis Village Green

Researching history is interesting in that looking into one project often leads me to another one. This is what has happened in the last few posts I’ve made. In traveling down Route 6A I have stumbled across several interesting finds worth looking into. One of these is the somewhat mysterious grave of the Sachem Iyanough.

Having grown up on Cape Cod, I had always known that the name of the village of Hyannis was of native origin. However, I never knew much more than that until I was an adult and I read the book Mayflower, by Nathaniel Philbrick. Still, I was curious. I did not understand how the relationship between the English and Iyanough could have soured so quickly from promisingly friendly and helpful to one stained by betrayal and death.

In researching Iyanough, it turns out I could not relate his story in isolation from the native leaders who were his contemporaries or the big players in the Plymouth colony between 1620 and 1623. The tale of his fall from grace in the eyes of the New England colonists is complicated by political intrigue, outright violence, and a willingness or eagerness to take lives. However, when the Plymouth colonists are first introduced to Iyanough, he plays an important part in saving a life and establishing a working relationship.

According to Mourt’s Relation, written mostly by Edward Winslow, Iyanough was the Sachem of the Mattakeese tribe in the area of Cummaquid. The traditional territory of the Mattakeese included much of modern day Barnstable, including the modern village of Cummaquid. Although, they were theoretically part of the larger Wampanoag Confederation under Massasoit’s leadership, they still maintained a separate identity. Remember, most of the tribes of Cape Cod did not join Metacom in making war against the English colonists. In fact, when Winslow and a group of English and natives first met the 26 year old Iyanough in 1621, he was anything but hostile.

Edward Winslow

In the spring of 1621, a group of colonists from Plymouth, along with native guides like Tisquantum (Squanto) and Tokamahamon, traveled to Mount Hope to visit with Massasoit. On their return trip they were informed that one of the Plymouth children had gone missing in the vast wilderness of Cape Cod. Most of this same group immediately set out to find the boy, following the lead of Squanto.

They set off for Cape Cod by boat and anchored the first night at Cummaquid. The following day they were informed by several members of the Mattakeese tribe that the English boy had been found alive and well by the Nauset tribe. The Mattakeese invited the colonists to first visit their village and meet their Sachem, Iyanough. Winslow is very complimentary of the young native leader at their first meeting. According to Mourt’s relation:

“A man not exceeding 26 years of age, but very personable, gentle, courteous, and fair conditioned, indeed not like the savage, save for his attire; his entertainment was answerable to his parts, and his cheer plentiful and various.”

Iyanough and the Mattakeese fed and entertained the colonists. Except for one elderly native woman, whose children had once been abducted and made slaves by previous English visitors, a good time seemed to have been had by all.

Following the meal and festivities, Iyanough accompanied the men to Nauset (modern Eastham). When they reached Nauset, Iyanough and Tisquantum waded in ahead of the colonists to meet with the Nauset Sachem, Aspinet. The English in the search party were somewhat wary of the Nausets because the two groups had clashed the previous fall when the Pilgrims were first exploring the area. In addition, the English had unearthed and stolen stashed native corn during their previous expedition on the Cape.

Despite a somewhat tense beginning, the Nausets, English, and their native guides got along well. The Plymouth colonists promised to repay the stolen corn. The Nausets returned the missing English child, now decorated with wampum beads and necklaces. In return the colonists rewarded the Nausets with metal knives and animal skins.

Satisfied, the English traveled back to Cummaquid, where Iyanough helped them gather fresh water. As before, the Mattakeese entertained and fed the colonists. As an offering of friendship, Iyanough gave them one of his own wampum necklaces. With that, the English returned to Plymouth.

Iyanough seems to have tried very hard to convince the English that he and his tribe could be trusted friends. Sadly, the trust he earned by helping to rescue the young Plymouth boy did not last. However, whether or not Iyanough actively played a role in his own downfall is still a little unclear.

Sources like The History of Cape Cod by Frederick Freedman and the History of New England by John Goram Palfrey continually mention the fear the Plymouth colonists had of a large native conspiracy against them. Often it appears that Tisquantum, the theoretically loyal translator of the Plymouth colonists, was to blame for creating this tension. According to Edward Winslow, Squanto occasionally spread the rumor to local tribes that the colonists were preparing for war against the native population. He demanded gifts from these groups, claiming that only he could stop the English from massacring the lot of them.

Often these rumors led to nothing more than hostile talk. However, sometimes the fear of an uprising among the native groups led to acts of seemingly unprovoked violence on the part of the English. Often where violence occurred, Myles Standish, the military advisor to Plymouth Colony, was sure to be at the heart of it.

Myles Standish- Military Advisor to Plymouth

In comparing the sources of Freedman and Palfrey to Edward Winslow’s own Good News From New England, one gets a pretty clear picture of the events which ultimately led to the decline in peaceful relations between the English and the natives, and what ultimately led to the death of Iyanough.

According to both Freedman and Palfrey, in the fall of 1621, nine powerful Sachems signed a treaty with the English, declaring themselves loyal to King James. This act was in response to attacks and threats made by Myles Standish and his men, which in turn were in response to rumors spread by Squanto. Iyanough was not among the ones who personally singed the treaty, but the English assumed his loyalty because Massasoit, the Grand Sachem of the Wampanoag Confederation, had signed.

From the perspective of Iyanough this may or may not have been accurate. Yes, the Mattakeese seemed to be connected to and owed some allegiance to Massasoit, but many of the Cape tribes were also very separate from Massasoit’s Pokanokets.

Additionally, in the spring of 1622 a separate group of Englishmen under the leadership of the businessman Thomas Weston attempted to create a colony about 30 miles north of Plymouth in modern Weymouth. According to Palfrey, these new colonists quickly made themselves notorious for stealing food from both the Plymouth colonists and the Massachusetts tribe in their area. In short, they were making friends with no one.

Soon matters became worse for the men in Weymouth. As winter approached, their supplies ran low. They had already aggravated their native neighbors to the point they now refused to trade with the English. The men at Weymouth begged the Plymouth colonists for assistance, even suggesting that the two colonies should team up to take food from the natives by force. Bradford, the governor of Plymouth, declined. He suggested that the Weymouth colonists subsist on ground nuts and shell fish, as the Plymouth colonists were doing. However, not all was going well in Plymouth either.

In February of 1623, according to Good News From New England, Standish took a group of men to Mattakeese to trade for corn. Previously, this tribe had been among the most trusted, supposedly because of the earlier actions of Iyanough. In a previous encounter, Governor Bradford had even left one of their stranded boats full of important supplies with this group. He asked them to guard it from animals and anyone who might try to steal from them. The English returned to find their boat and supplies had been perfectly protected and their trust had been validated.

However, during the February visit, Standish was very suspicious of the Mattakeese and their Sachem. As they arrived in modern day Barnstable a serious winter storm blew in preventing an immediate return to Plymouth. The group decided to spend the night with the Mattakeese. However, Standish noted there were strangers among the well known group of natives. Although, no reason was given, he seemingly began to suspect that the Mattakeese were planning to kill him during the night.

Captain Standish ordered that only one man should be allowed to sleep during the night, the rest would remain awake and guard their supplies and each other. Despite the constant guard, Standish eventually found that some beads were missing among their supplies. He and his six men went to the Sachem (Presumably Iyanough) and demanded the return of their property. They promised that if the beads were not returned, they would attack the Mattakeese that very night.

The Sachem asked that they return to their boat and make sure the beads were not somewhere aboard. When a volunteer returned to the ship, he found the beads. To be fair to Standish, Winslow does seem to suggest in his writing that the culprit planted the stolen property directly before the boat was re-searched. Either way, the natives gifted the English with so much corn that it loaded their boat.

Edward Winslow also suggests that because Standish had set a guard and had made such a production over the missing beads, that all the men were able to escape the Mattakeese unharmed. Whether there was a legitimate threat to begin with is another question.

At a separate March meeting with the native leader Canacum, Standish and his men were interrupted by the arrival of the warrior Wituwamat, who was well known as a killer of Europeans. The rumor, according to Winslow, was that Wituwamat enjoyed killing white men with his knife because they made funny faces, begged, and cried like children in their dying moments.

The two natives exchanged words, which Standish could not understand at the time. Although Winslow does not say who later translated the conversation, Standish came to understand the exchange to have been a plan to kill the English of Weymouth and Plymouth. In addition, Iyanough’s name was dropped as a fellow conspirator.

In the spring of 1623, Massasoit became ill. Edward Winslow was sent to Pokanoket to pay his respects. With Winslow’s help Massasoit soon recovered from what many thought was a terminal illness. According to Winslow, because of this action, Massasoit felt that the English had proven their friendship to him. In return, he warned Winslow of an impending plot against the men of Weymouth and of Plymouth.

“At our coming away, he called Hobomok to him, and privately (none hearing save two or three other of his pnieses, who are of his council) revealed the plot of the Massachusetts before spoken of, against Master Weston's Colony, and so against us, saying that the people of Nauset, Pamet, Succonet Mattachiest, Manomet, Angawam, and the Isle of Capawack, were joined with them; himself also in his sickness was earnestly solicited, but he would neither join therein, nor give way to any of his. Therefore as we respected the lives of our countrymen, and our own after safety, he advised us to kill the men of Massachusetts, who were the authors of this intended mischief.”

This proved to be the smoking gun that would condemn not just Iyanough, but many of the Sachems of Cape Cod, and honestly it was Massasoit who pulled the trigger. According to Palfrey, it was the English of Weymouth who had originally provoked the uprising. However, the natives planned to attack Plymouth as well because they knew the Plymouth colonists would attempt to help their fellow English.

I can’t help but wonder at Massasoit’s intentions here. Whether or not he was actually concerned for the English is unclear because we only have Winslow’s side of the story. However, it seems obvious that he was careful to make sure the colonists knew he was not part of the conspiracy.

In addition to the report from Massasoit, news had recently come to the colonists of a native uprising in the colony of Jamestown in Virginia the previous year. During this uprising, which had occurred suddenly, over 300 English colonists had been killed. Because of news like this, the men of Plymouth were unwilling to let matters play out on their own. Though Winslow says they were loathe to do so, on the Twenty-Third of March Governor Bradford, Myles Standish, and Assistant Governor Isaac Allerton decided to preempt what they saw as imminent war with aggression of their own.

In fact, according to Winslow, the three men decided that they would begin laying traps for the accused natives and their Sachems by first pretending to trade, then attacking when the natives were unprepared. Myles Standish gathered eight men of his choice and began marching for modern Weymouth.

However, it seemed the first blow of the conflict actually happened in Plymouth. A well know native by the name of Manomet arrived in the colony only a day or so after Standish and his men left. Manomet claimed to be there to make sure that his friends in Plymouth were fairing better than the English in Weymouth. However, Bradford was suspicious of the native’s intent. Manomet was quickly captured, chained, and made a prisoner in the newly constructed Plymouth fort.

Meanwhile Myles Standish arrived in Weymouth to find the colony rather unorganized by his standards. Natives were living right alongside the English. Some seemed comfortable with the situation, but others reported to Standish that they feared for their lives.

Standish quickly took command of the Weston’s colony and what followed was a period of building tension. Both sides eyed each other, ready for the killing to commence at any time. A Massachusetts warrior named Pecksuot even informed Hobomock, who had been acting as translator for the English since the death of Squanto, that they knew full well what Standish was planning and that they were unafraid.

Many of these native warriors were known pniese, which Winslow describes as a warrior of renown amongst the tribes. Some of these warriors daily entered the colony and sharpened their weapons in front of Standish, sometimes making threats and rude gestures.

Among these warriors was Wituwamat, who had previously bragged about how many French and English he had killed, and how he enjoyed the act. Like some of the more dangerous warriors, Wituwamat was also a pniese. He carried with him a knife, the handle of which showed the face of a woman. Of Wituwamat, Winslow writes:

“Wituwamat bragged of the excellency of his knife, on the end of the handle there was pictured a woman's face, but said he, I have another at home wherewith I have killed both French and English, and that hath a man’s face on it, and by and by these two must marry.”

Wow. Wituwamat sounds both fascinating and creepy actually. In addition, Pecksuot continued to call out Standish personally. He mentioned that although Standish was a great captain, he was a rather small man. Though Winslow writes that Standish bore these insults and threats with patience, in realty he did not take the presence of the pniese lightly. Very quickly he conspired to let the bloodshed begin with the deaths of Wituwamat and Pecksuot.

Within a day or so Standish noticed Wituwamat, Pecksuot, and another warrior gathered together in one building. Standish and his men entered and shut the door behind them. Standish grabbed Pecksuot’s knife and with it killed him. The men with Standish killed Wituwamat and the third warrior.

Though Hobomock took no part in the killing, feeling that the English had demeaned themselves, Winslow records that he said, “Yesterday Pecksuot bragging of his own strength and stature, said, though you were a great Captain yet you were but a little man; but today I see you are big enough to lay him on the ground.”

Standish and the English proceeded to kill the native men who had been living in Weston’s colony. When the Massachusetts tribe heard about the attack, they gathered to combat the English. Along with Hobomock, who was himself a pniese, Standish and the English drove the small native army into the swamp in defeat. Seeing his task complete, Standish returned to Plymouth with Wituwamat’s severed head and any of Weston’s people who were willing to return with him.

Upon arriving in Plymouth Standish confronted Manomet, still a prisoner, with the head of Wituwamat. He asked Manomet if he recognized the warrior. The prisoner replied that he did and knew him to be part of a great conspiracy to kill the English. Manomet gave the names of the other chief conspirators. Although Winslow does not say that Manomet named Iyanough directly, it seems that he must have, because the Sachem of the Mattakeese appears very soon after in a list containing the names and deaths of those who sided with the Massachusetts.

Hobomock entreated the English to release Manomet, as he said he had nothing to do with the rebellion. Though Winslow felt that Hobomock had been bribed on the man’s behalf, the English agreed to release their prisoner with a message for his Sachem, Obtakiest, of the Massachusetts.

The English explained to him that they had never wished for any violence, but the actions of the Massachusetts had forced their hand. Therefore, they claimed, the natives had only themselves to blame for what happened. In addition, Standish told the prisoner if Obtakiest ever attempted violence again, there would be no place for him to hide. He and his people would be hunted into extinction. Thus, the prisoner brought the message to his Sachem.

The sudden acts of violence against the Massachusetts and the death of their prominent pniese sent shockwaves among the native communities of the nearby areas. Winslow states that many of the Sachems accused of conspiring with Wituwamat and the Massachusetts fled their homelands in fear to hide in swamps and deserts. Although he also says that no real action had been taken against them. In those swamps many died of disease, starvation, and exposure. Among the dead Winslow lists Canacum, Sachem of Manomet; Aspinet, Sachem of Nauset; and Iyanough, the Sachem of the Mattakeese. Winslow goes on to say that many other natives continued to die because very little corn was planted or preparation done for the winter because of the fear the English inspired.

The exact location of Iyanough’s death was unknown for over two hundred years. However, in the appendix of Increase Mather’s Early History of New England, a letter is reprinted which discusses the discovery of the Sachem’s burial. The letter, authored by Amos Otis of Barnstable, mentions that there is some confusion as to who the village of Hyannis is actually named after. Otis says the land was purchased from a native known as Hyanna or Ianna, who some claim was the son of Iyanough. However, he seems to have had some doubts as to the exact genealogy of the family. Of the grave, Otis was fairly certain it was that of the famous Sachem of the Mattakeese. He offered the following story about the discovery of the grave.

On May 18^th 1861, Patrick Hughes, an Irishman working for Enoch T. Cobb, was plowing in a field near Great Swamp, about a half mile from where tradition states Iyanough had his village. The plow struck something metal, which appeared to be a brass kettle. Under the kettle Hughes discovered a skull and bones. The bones  were arrayed in a sitting position. Among the other artifacts discovered were an iron hatchet, the remains of a wooden bow and arrows, a wooden bowl, iron nails, and some black and white wampum.

This Plaque along Rt 6A marks the entrance to the trail which leads to Iyanough's grave.

Otis states that among the natives of the 1620’s, iron nails were a thing of curiosity, so were once prized possessions. However, only a few years after, the iron nails ceased to be important to the natives of the area. He says that a bronze kettle and iron hatchet would have been articles buried only with a person of importance, as they would have been rare. He also states that the grave must have been before the time when natives commonly used firearms and had ceased to use wampum as a form of currency. Therefore, he dates the grave to right around the time and area where Iyanough was traditionally said to have died. No more exact verification had been performed. Amos Otis took the remains to Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth, Ma.

Today, the grave of Iyanough is maintained by an organization called Tales of Cape Cod. It can be found directly off of Route 6A, about a half mile of very pleasant walking into the swamp where the Sachem attempted to hide from the English.

The grave of the Sachem Iyanough, Cummaquid, Ma

In conclusion, though I have a much more clear idea of how and why the relationship between Iyanough and the early New Englanders soured, I am still unsure if he actually had anything to do with the conspiracy to murder the colonists of Weymouth and Plymouth. Of course, even in sources of purely English origin, he never got a chance to answer the finger pointing accusations of Massasoit and others for himself.

I was honestly most surprised by the behavior of Myles Standish. While the other leaders among the English seemed to work at their relationships with their native neighbors, Standish always seemed ill at ease and on the verge of violence. He was actually a bit like Wituwamat in that regard. I guess when I saw the actor portraying Standish at Plymouth Plantation, I never envisioned him decapitating an enemy in an ambush.

As I have before, I also must remark on the amazing diversity of the native population of New England during the colonial era. So much of this tradition and complexity seems to have been lost, now only reflected dimly in the names of local streets and villages. Unfortunately, this is how most people think of Iyanough, if people think of him at all. Not as a Sachem who, like his contemporaries, struggled to find a place for himself and his people in a world they no longer recognized. Rather, I think most people, like I did as a child, vaguely recognize that Iyanough might have something to do with the village of Hyannis.

It’s a shame that subjects like this are no longer regularly taught in American history classes at the high school level. Although Iyanough’s death and participation in the development of New England was certainly tragic, I can clearly see the connections that should be made between the actions of the Plymouth colonists and the echo of those same behaviors by the US government all the way up to the 20^th century in its treatment of native populations. However, Iyanough is more fortunate than most. Throughout Hyannis and the Cape, there are several statues and plaques dedicated the former Sachem of the Mattakeese. Sadly, the only memorial for most of the native figures who shaped our modern New England will only be the sign at the end of your road.

The Plaque dedicated to Iyanough- Main Street Hyannis