COTTON MATHER'S DRAWING,1690

little cove1 at Dighton Rock itself. Dighton Rock, therefore, had been seen by whites, probably as early as 1640. But this fact does not warrant any conclusion as to whether it was then inscribed or not; for no one seems to have thought to make an enduring statement as to its existence or appearance.

ASSONET NECK AND THE INDIANS

There is another question of importance concerning this earliest period, of whose solution we know little. How much use did the Indians actually make of Assonet Neck? Was it in any way regarded by them as especially important or precious? It is often assumed that it was one of their most prized possessions. "No offers that the English had made," says Ebenezer W. Peirce,2 "were found sufficient to induce the Indians to part with their loved resort upon Assonet Neck." "Assonet Neck was peculiarly the camping ground of the Wampanoag Indians. They retained possession of it longer than of any of the surrounding country, on account of the convenience of the oyster, clam and other fisheries." The earliest discoverable statement of the sort is that of Isaac Greenwood in 1730, given in full on a later page of this paper, that "this Place was One of ye most considerable Seats of Indians in this Part of ye World, and the River remarkable for all Sorts of Fowl and Fish."4 The one clear fact is that the Indians never did sell Assonet Neck, though efforts were made to buy it. This might conceivably have been because of the relative remoteness of the place, or for other reasons, rather than because of any particular love for it or extensive use made of it. Contemporary records are silent as to this. We only know that they did not sell, not why this was so. Examination of the Neck itself has not yet discovered any considerable signs of Indian occupancy. The so-called "Indian corn-hills," it is true, are still very numerous and in splendid preservation. Indian relics are found on the Neck, but not more abundantly than elsewhere. Much more extensive shell-heaps exist in Freetown, whose lands the Indians sold in 1659, 1 Called Asonate Cove in a deed of 1768 (Bristol County, Massachusetts, N. District, Land Records, Book 57, p. 41).

2 Collections Old Colony Historical Society, No. 3, 1885, p. 113.

3 Walter D. Nichols, in Hurd's History of Bristol County, Massachusetts, 1883, p. 181.

See p. 289, below.

than are known on Assonet Neck. The place was inhabited by Indians, without question. But there is nothing yet, in records or in material remains, to show that it was held in exceptionally high esteem. It may well have been that it was; but evidence is lacking. The few records that have a bearing on this matter, though inconclusive, are interesting. When Winslow and Hopkins, on their first visit to Massasoit in July, 1621, had crossed the river at the "knowne shole place" in Taunton, they went on down the river on the side opposite from Assonet Neck. "As we passed along, we observed that there were few places by the River, but had beene inhabited, by reason whereof, much ground was cleare, saue of weedes, which grewe higher then our heads." The recent plague, however, had entirely depopulated this part of the country. It is probable that the salt meadows along Taunton River were included in the original Cohannet purchase, for they were soon made use of by the settlers, as already noted. Moreover they are expressly mentioned in Philip's confirmatory deed of 1663. But some of them were sold again by the Indians to other parties in the "Freemen's Purchase" of 1659; and this fact gave rise to protracted disputes between the proprietors of Taunton and the "ancient ffreemen." The published histories of Taunton and of Freetown say nothing as to the settlement of these disputes; though how they all ended happily can be discovered from a probably unpublished document, which we shall have cause to mention again shortly. In 1643, apparently, an unsuccessful attempt was made to purchase Assonet Neck: "Whereas they [the inhabitants of Taunton] desire the Neck of Assonett for pastureing yeong beasts, it is also graunted by the Court, puided leave can be pcured from Vssamequin, and all payments to be made by themselues, without any Charg to the countrey.'

There is widely current a tradition that Assonet Neck was "a place of banishment among the Indians." It is first mentioned in 1 Mourt's Relation (ed. Dexter, 1865), pp. 104-105.

2 Francis Baylies (Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth, 1830, i. 283) says that the territory of Taunton, including Berkley, was claimed by the sachem of Tetiquet, but was desolate and depopulated, owing to the ravages of the plague. But the whole country had been thickly populated. In another place (iii. 3) he says: "The lands of Mt. Hope and Poppesquash and, probably Assonet and Shewamit, were held by the Wampanoags. The last were uninhabited."

Plymouth Colony Records, ii. 58.

1807 by an English traveler, Edward A. Kendall. It is commonly assumed in the neighborhood that this fact of "banishment," as well as the name "Conspiracy" attached to a small island at the lower end of Assonet Neck, had something to do with King Philip's War. But this assumption is disproved by a record of 1670, the record above referred to of the final agreement between the proprietors of Taunton and the "ancient ffreemen" concerning the position of the line between their possessions and the ownership of certain meadows about Assonet Bay and along Taunton River.2 A part of their agreement reads thus: "All the Marsh or Meadow land at Assonate on both sides of Assonate Bay but not to extend any part to ye place commonly called the Banished Indians . . . shall be and is concluded to be Taunton meadows." The description is not definite enough to enable us to say whether this place was on the Neck itself. If not, it must have been in its close vicinity. We have no knowledge as to the reason for the name, nor for that of Conspiracy Island.

1 In a letter to the Hon. John Davis, dated October 29, 1807, published as an "Account of the Writing-Rock in Taunton River" in Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1809, iii. 165–191. The statement quoted is on p. 181; and is again made by Kendall in his Travels, 1809, ii. 231.

2 Bristol County, Massachusetts, N. District, Land Records, Book 3, p. 198: 20 July, 1670. I am indebted to Charles R. Carr of Warren, Rhode Island, for this important reference.

The two names do not seem to be Anglicized Indian designations, but more probably terms applied by the English because of incidents known to them and hence occurring after their arrival. If so, our choice among known incidents is very limited, and the most likely occasion for their origin seems to have been furnished by the events of the period between 1642 and 1645. There were conspiracies" by Corbitant and the Namaskets in 1621, and by other Indians in 1623; but apparently they had nothing to do with this locality. In 1632 Massasoit was attacked by the Narragansett Canonicus, and successfully defended by the English. Nothing connects this conflict with the region in question. From 1634 to 1637 occurred the Pequot troubles, ending in the extermination of this tribe. Many Indians were taken captive and distributed among the allies; and some of these were afterward shipped away to be sold as slaves. Several persons have suggested to me that some of these may have been held for a time on Assonet Neck. But this region was still a remote, almost unknown, unsettled wilderness. Moreover, Plymouth took no part in the Pequot War, and had no share in the captives. The names must have arisen later, in all probability. The evidence as to the disposal of the Pequot captives is fully discussed by A. W. Lauber in his History of Slavery in Colonial Times (Columbia University Studies in History, 1913, liv. 374–376). A few years after this war, however, the Narragansetts did for many years actively "conspire" against both the Mohegans and the English;