[Preumaker's Land,] a tract described as "Lying upon Esopus Kil, within the bounds of Hurley," granted to Venike Rosen, April 1, 1686, was the place of residence of Preumaker, "The oldest and best" of the Esopus sachems, whose life was tragically ended by Dutch soldiers in the war of 1660. The location of his "house" is described as having been "At the second fall of Kit Davits Kil." [FN-1] A creek now bears the name of the sachem, who was a hero if he was a savage.
[FN] "Kit Davits' Kil" or the Rondout was so called from Christopher Davids, an Englishman, who was first at Fort Orange, and was an interpreter. He obtained, in 1656, a patent for about sixty-five acres, described as "Situate about a league (about three miles) inland from the North River in the Esopus, on the west side of the Great Kil, opposite to the land of Thomas Chambers, running west and northeast halfway to a small pond on the border of a valley which divides this parcel and the land of John de Hulter, deceased." Ensign Smith wrote: "I came with my men to the second valley on Kit Davietsen's River.. . . Further up in said valley I crossed the stream and found their house." (Col. Hist. N. Y., xiii.) Supposed to have been at LeFever's Falls in Rosendale. (Schoonmaker.)
[Frudyachkamik,] so written in treaty—deed of 1677 as the name of a place on the Hudson at the mouth of Esopus (now Saugerties) Creek, is written Tintiagquanneck in deed of 1767 (Cal. Land Papers, 454), and by the late John W. Hasbrouck, Tendeyachameck. The deed orthography of 1677 is certainly wrong as there is no sound of F in Algonquian. (See Kerhonksen.)
{TN} {Unable to locate interlinear references to the following two notes which appear on this page.}
[FN-1] Saugerties is probably a corruption of Dutch Zager's Kiltje, meaning in English, "Sawyer's little Kill." The original appears first of record in Kregier's Journal of the Second Esopus War (1663), "They were at Zager's Kiletje"; "To Sager's little Kill"; "To the Sager's Killetje." (Col. Hist. N. Y., xiii, 342, 344.) The first corruption of record also belongs to that period. It was by a Mohawk sachem who visited Esopus and at a conference converted Zager's Kiltje to Sagertjen. Some of the local Dutch followed with "de Zaagertje's." Other corruptions were numerous until the English brought in Saugerties. The original Zager, however, seems to have held legal place for many years. In 1683, in a survey of the Meals Patent, covering lands now included in Saugerties, it is written: "Being part of the land called Sagers," and in another, "Between Cattskill and Sager's Kill." It is also of record that a man known by the surname of Zager located on the stream prior to 1663, obtained a cession of the lands on the kill from Kaelcop, an Esopus sachem, and later disappeared without perfecting his title by patent. Zager is now converted to Sager, and in English to Sawyer. The claim that Zager had a sawmill at the mouth of the stream seems to rest entirely upon his presumed occupation from the meaning of his name. A sawmill here, in 1663, would seem to have been a useless venture. In 1750, ninety years later, one Burregan had a mill at the mouth of the kill. "Burregan" stands for Burhans.
[FN-2] "To Freudeyachkamik on the Groote River." (Col. Hist. N. Y., xiii, 505.) It was probably the peninsular now known as Flatbush, Glasco, etc., at the mouth of the creek. The orthographies of the name are uncertain. An island south of the mouth of the creek was called Qusieries. Three or four miles north is Wanton Island, the site of a traditionary battle between the Mohawks and the Katskill Indians. It is now the northeast boundmark of Ulster County. Neither of these islands could have been the boundmark of the lands granted by the Indians. Wanton seems to be from Wanquon (Wankon, Del.), "Heel"—resembling a human heel in shape—pertuberant. The letter t in the name is simply an exchange of the surd mutes k and l. Modern changes have destroyed the original appearance of the island.
[Kerhonkson,] now so written as the name of a stream of water and of a village in the town of Wawarsing, Ulster County, is of record in several forms—Kahanksen, Kahanghsen, Kahanksnix, Kahanckasink, etc. It takes interest from its connection with the history and location of what is known, in records of the Esopus Indian War of 1663, as the Old Fort as distinguished from the New Fort. In the treaty of peace with the Dutch in 1664, the fort is spoken of without name in connection with a district of country admitted by the Indians to have been "conquered by the sword," including the "two captured forts." In the subsequent treaty (1665) with Governor Nicolls the ceded district is described as "A certain parcel of land lying and being to the west or southwest of a certain creek or river called by the name of Kahanksen, and so up to the head thereof where the Old Fort was; and so with a direct line from thence through the woods and crosse the meadows to the Great Hill lying to the west or southwest, which Great Hill is to be the true west or southwest bounds, and the said creek called Kahanksen the north or northeast bounds of the said lands." In a treaty deed with Governor Andros twelve years later (April 27, 1677), the boundary lines "as they were to be thereafter," are described: "Beginning at the Rondouyt Kill, thence to a kill called Kahanksnix, thence north along the hills to a kill called Maggowasinghingh, thence to the Second Fall, easterly to Freudyachkamick on the Groot River, south to Rondouyt Kill." In other words the district conceded to have been "conquered by the sword" lay between the Esopus and the Rondout on the Hudson, and extended west to the stream called Kahanksen, thence north to a stream called Maggowasinghingh, thence north, etc. The only stream that has been certainly identified as the Maggowasinghingh is the Rondout, where it flows from the west to its junction with the Sandberg Kill, east of Honk Falls, and this identification certainly places Kahanksen south of that stream. And in this connection it may be stated that the conquered lands did not extend west of the Rondout. The Beekman and the Beake patents were held primarily by Indian deeds. After the conquest the Indians did not sell lands east of the boundary line, but did sell lands west of that line. The deed from Beekman to Lowe distinctly states that the lands conveyed were "within the bounds belonging to the Indians." As the lands on the west of the kill were not conquered and ceded to the Dutch, the Old Fort could not have been on that side of the stream. In reaching conclusions respect must be had to Indian laws, treaties, and boundary descriptions. In the records of the town of Rochester, of which town Wawarsing was a part, is the entry, under date of July 22, 1709, "Marynus van Aken desired the conveyance of about one hundred acres of land lying over against the land of Colonel Jacob Rutsen called Kahankasinck, known as Masseecs," that is the land asked for by Van Aken took the name of Masseecs from a swamp which the name means. Colonel Rutsen's land has not been located; he held several tracts at different times, and one especially on the west line of Marbletown known as Rosendale. Whatever its location it shows that its name of Kahankasinck was extended to it or from it from some general feature. Obviously from the ancient treaty and deed boundaries the site of the Old Fort has not been ascertained, nor has the Great Hill been located. Presumably both must be looked for on Shawongunk Mountain.
The fort, as described by Kregier in his "Journal of the Second Esopus War," was a palisaded village and the largest settlement of the Esopus Indians. He made no reference to a stream or to a ravine, but did note that he was obliged to pass over swamps, frequent kills, and "divers mountains" that were so steep that it was necessary to "haul the wagons and cannon up and down with ropes." His course was "mostly southwest" from Wildwijk, and the fort "about ten miles" (Dutch), or from thirty to thirty-five miles English. It was not so far southwest from Wildwijk (Kingston) as the New Fort by "about four hours," a time measure equal to nine or ten English miles. The Indians did not defend the fort; they abandoned it "two days before" the Dutch troops arrived. No particular description of it has been handed down. Under date of July 31, 1663, Kregier wrote: "In the morning at dawn of day set fire to the fort and all the houses, and while they were in full blaze marched out in good order." And so disappeared forever the historic Indian settlement, not even the name by which it was known certainly translatable in the absence of knowledge of the topography of its precise location. [FN]