Talk:Tantamous

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

MAJOR errors

According to http://files.usgwarchives.net/ma/middlesex/towns/concord/histch01.txt Tantamous/Old Jethro had nothing to do with the sale of land that led to the creation of Concord in 1635 or Concord's "Jethro's Tree." Content to that effect removed. An Indian named Jethro was present at the sale of land by the Indians, but he is identified as a Christian convert residing in Natick. Tantamous never converted, and lived in Framingham. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article you reference states that there was a deposition (not a deed) by Jethro's son (also known as Jethro and a praying Indian in the Natick/Framingham settlement) in 1684 referring back to the 1630s sale stating: "There were present also, at the said bargain, Waban, merchant; Thomas, his brother-in-law; Notawquatuckquaw; Tantumous, now called Jethro. Taken upon oath the 20th of October, 1684, before Daniel Gookin, Sen., Assistant, Thomas Danforth, Deputy Governor. Entered in the Register at Cambridge, Lib. 9. p. 100, 101; 20: 8: 84 (20th Oct 1684) by Thomas Danforth Rec'r."-"The Depositon of Jethro, a Christian Indian of Natick." Seems like this is not a "major error" and should be put back. Swampyank (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe there is a confusion between a Jethro who was a witness (not a seller) of the land to create Concord in 1636, identified as a Christian Indian from Natick, and Old Jethro/Tantamous who gave up land that later became part of Maynard, in lieu of making good on a mortgage. Tantamous did not convert, and I believe never resided in Natick. His history has him being hanged in Boston in 1676 - quite a feat if he was born circa 1580. I am in contact with present-day members of the Nipmuc people to see if there is documentation to clear up this. Clearly, there is no documented connection between either Jethro and Jethro's Tree. David notMD (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the reference I provided, Jethro is giving a deposition in 1684. He is described as being about 70 years old, meaning he would have been 22 at the time of the Concord sale. Critical problem here is that this Jethro is alive in 1684 whereas Tantamous/Old Jethro is elsewhere identified as being executed in 1676. David notMD (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the dispute is about. What did I claim erroneously? Looking at the source again, it looks like both father and son were present at Jethro's Tree in Concord (at least as witnesses) according to that Concord history link for the deeding of the property, and that history cites two references. I don't know that the other Jethro has ever been called "Tantamous" although the words "now called" may indicate that the individual is living in 1684 unless it is referring to his then current historical reputation after his notoriety in King Philips War. I suppose it is possible that the son took the name Tantamous after his father's death as was the case with other leaders such as Canonicus. All I claimed in the article is that both were potentially present at Jethro's Tree according to the source that I cited in the original version. From what I read previously, the father and son were both somewhat associated with the group near Natick, but the father never converted and the son did. You're correct that some sources confuse the two because they both go by the name "Jethro." It would be interesting to see what further primary sources are out there. Obviously, Peter Jethro was an active translator and signatory to many land transactions. Regarding Tantamous' age, there's no exact date, one source speculated that he was in his nineties when he died, but there's no birth certificate obviously. He must have been older than Peter. Swampyank (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, an apology, because I mistakenly thought that the article as written had Jethro selling the Concord land, rather than just witnessing the sale. Still begs the question of more than one Jethro. And I stand by removing the image of the sign for Jethro's Tree, as it misleads the readers into thinking there is a connection between the tree and the Native American Jethro. David notMD (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; Do you know who the tree is named after if it wasn't one of the Jethros present at the signing? I didn't see a source indicating otherwise. I did see one source stating that it was named after an "old Indian settler."(The Sacred Heart Review, October 23, 1897, p. 330(10) https://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/imageserver.pl?oid=BOSTONSH18971023-01&getpdf=true) My error if that's not the case.Swampyank (talk)

"A tradition has been handed down that the purchase took place under a large oak, which was standing in front of the Middlesex Hotel within the memory of our oldest inhabitants, and called, after one of the original settlers, "Jethro's tree"; and which is said to have been used in early times as a belfry on which the town bell was hung." This from page 6 of http://files.usgwarchives.net/ma/middlesex/towns/concord/histch01.txt. Other histories list the early settlers of Concord, but only by last name, so no help finding a Jethro there. Next week I should be able to get to the Concord Library, which houses their history collection, and see if an answer can be found. David notMD (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jethro puzzle

This website conjectures that it was Peter Jethro who was at the Concord land sale in 1636. That matches up with being a Christian convert age ~ 70 in 1684. Does not address why the description refers to that person as Jethro and as Tantamous. Perhaps the younger Jethro also used Tantamous, or error on part of historians. As for Old Jethro/Tantamous, Nipmuc Native Americans alive today state that he was in his 90's when executed in 1676. This aligns with his being born ~ 1580. Does not exclude him from also being at the Concord sale, but the histories mention only one Jethro. Still trying to get a grip on why "Jethro's Tree." David notMD (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) https://books.google.com/books?id=WdVmp-xPbNoC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=jethro%27s+tree+concord+ma&source=bl&ots=KWToUvm9rm&sig=ACfU3U06dDbZF5Y-rii5FdPwwa-XiA8KWQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ6MDey6HiAhUEOq0KHd1iANc4ChDoATAFegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=jethro's%20tree%20concord%20ma&f=false[reply]

That's very interesting to get the modern Nipmuc tradition/perspective. I assume that Jethro's tree was named after one or both of the Jethros because 1) at least one Jethro was present at the signing according to the "Concord History" records, 2) the nineteenth century "Framingham History" mentions Jethro's Tree under the section regarding "Old Jethro/Peter Jethro," and 3) at least one nineteenth century Concord resident wrote about a tradition referencing an the tree being named after an "Old Indian settler." I wonder if post-King Philip's War the deposed Indians in 1684 were hesitant to emphasize "Old Jethro" 's involvement in 1635 due to his later involvement with the colonists' enemies in the 1670s. Maybe the Concord Special Collections has some more information from other records. Swampyank (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begs the question why "Jethro's Tree" if one (or two) Jethro(s) were only witnesses to the signing (and not in anyway land owners there) rather than part of the transaction. And the whole "Tree" signage is confusing, as more authoritative histories have the signing taking place at Peter Bulkeley's house. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any insight on the other Jethro from Concord's library? It seems like there may have been multiple negotiations with the local tribes from 1635 (or earlier) to 1637 according to various Concord histories. Also, a poem by a resident born in Concord in 1815 (Jonathan Fay Barrett) refers to the tree as "Old Jethro's Oak." (The Story of Concord Told by Concord Writers, edited by Josephine Latham Swayne, pg. 35) Seems like the legendary tree was named after "Old Jethro" (regardless of his actual ownership rights of local land -other than potentially along the Assabet River into Concord). Swampyank (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Library has three books on early Concord history. Two (Walcott 1884 and Shattuck 1835) have the deposition by Peter Jethro that he was there are the sale. Third (Wheeler 1967) states that father and son, Tantamous/Jethro and Peter Jethro were there. Shattuck, page 6: "A tradition has been handed down that the purchase took place under a large oak,,,and falled, after one of the original settlers, 'Jethro's tree'; and which is said to have been used in early times as a belfry on which the town bell was hung." There is no list of the earliest settlers, so no surname to go with Jethro. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Staking speculation

Early life: Strike speculation: "In 1653 an Indian named "Jethro" was brought into the Indian court in Nonantum with several other Indians for drunkenness, and" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodysurfinyon (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is interested they will find the given speculation in the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodysurfinyon (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]