Notice:This is a working history, this page may be rewritten numerous times. This
is due to the fact that new information is gradually being found, so please bear with
me. Further notice, Lenape names for people and places will be spelled as documented, except
 those marked,* which have been translated by Ray Whritenour, Lenape Texts & Studies





The written history of Weekpink begins in 1703 when the English council of
proprietors of West-Jersey had made yet more land purchases on the East bank
of the Delaware River. A few tracts were excluded from these deals, one being
a very valuable tract containing a village called Okokathseeme. This tract was
better known as Weekpink, sometimes spelled Weepink. It was reserved by a
Lenape Sachem (Chief) called Mahamickwon, who was known to the colonists
as King Charles. This was done with the aid of an English Quaker named
John Wills who was sometimes one of the council of proprietors. With his help,
King Charles laid an English right on this tract of land known as Weekpink.
For more details on the activities of these land deals see:
The History of the Colony of New Jersey by Samual Smith, pp.94-97.
Or see it on line at:
http://www.webroots.org/library/usahist/honc0003.html



King Charles is also mentioned in The Burlington Court Book 1704/5.
This entry appears as follows:

[Indian Kings Complaint] Indian King Charles Complains to the Bench Against
the Wife of Mons Coxks for Cheating him of four Pounds it being Money
Shee had of him in the Street at Philadelphia the bench Satisfied the Indian
that he shall be heard before my Lord.

This was just a minor legal problem for King Charles when compared with
what was to come in 1717. I should note that this King Charles must not
be confused with King Charles the 2nd who was King of England at the
time. The Lenape did not have kings. Since this fellow was a Chief and
apparently was a man of status among his people, I'd assume the colonists
coined this nickname as a play on rank or prestige. I refer to him more
often in this history by his colonial nickname because it shows up more
consistently in the records than his Lenape name. I've seen many
forms of his Lenape name; for example, here are some of the different
spellings I've seen: Mahamickwon, Mahamecun, Hummickson, Himmickon,
Himocan. Mahamickwon or Mehemickwon are closest to his original
name,*Mecheu Miquon, which were both recorded in events that John
Wills was involved in. Wills spoke Lenape, and often assisted
King Charles as an interpreter.

The *Kuweupink, looking North.

The *Kuweupink, looking South.


Some writers and historians have referred to this land as Coaxen
or Quakson after the band of Lenape that historically lived in
that area; however, others say that the nearby Little Creek was
known by this name. I'm not sure which one the name originates
from. The original Lenape form of Coaxen is *Kuwewaksin
(there is pine wood). The  name Weekpink or Weepink is said
to have originated with the stream that ran near the village.
Another name also appears in written history, while during
some legal proceedings in 1717 John Wills refers to the land
as Coerping. This name, according to one of my informants who
is an authority on the Lenape language, is probably closest to
the original form of Weekpink or Weepink. The original Lenape
form of Weekpink was *Kuweupink (at the pine tree stream).
This would make sense because half of Southampton lies in
the Pine Barrens. For one of my references to the name Coaxen go to:

http://www.historicsouthamptonnj.org/html/early_settlers_and_pioneer_inc.html

http://www.historicsouthamptonnj.org/html/biographical_sketch__gen__will.html



19th cen. map







The Historic Irick Homestead,
A.K.A. The Hatcher Farm.
(Private Property)




Same as above.


This tract and King Charles (Mehemickwon) was documented once again
in 1717 he was victim of a fraud. The given details of this incident can be
found in: New Jersey Archives First Series Vol.IV Documents Relating to
the Colonial History of the State 1709-1720, pp. 273-285, 319-320. I will
just give an overview of what happened in the archives. Maybe I'll post
the details later on their own page. In 1717, John Wetherill attempted to
cheat King Charles out of his land. Luckily, King Charles had many friends
among the colonists, and one in particular, John Wills, came to his aid. This
is John Wills's account of what King Charles told him several times:

"That John Wetherill had a design to Cheat him of some of his land at a
place called Coerping: I asked him wch way that could be,he Answered
that he had made him Drunk and when so had made a writing and got him
Set his hands to it . . .And further he told me that ye Said John Wetherill
offered to give him more Drink next morning,The Indian Said he asked
the said Wetherill for what he would give him Drink,the said Wetherill
Answered do you not know for wt do you not Remember you Sold me
the Land last Night,no said the Indian I knew nothing of it,for I was So
Drunk last Night that I knew nothing,not so much as where I was,And if
you have done Any Such thing by me when I was in that Condition as
to get my hand to A writing you have Cheated me,And I will have none
of yor drink nor you Shall never have the Land,and for that time they
parted,And Soon after ye Indian Came to my house,very uneasy he was
And gave me this Account . . . ."

Wills persuaded him to wait until the Governor arrived in Burlington,
but in the meantime he lost sleep and couldn't eat. This being due to
the knowledge that Wetherill was about to build a house on the
property. It took Wills awhile to go through legal channels, but
finally several prominent legislators tried to mediate and

"laid before him[Wetherill] the Injustice of his proceeding and ye
Danger he would not only bring himself into But that it might be ye
occasion of a war in the Country if he persisted,yet he obstinately
refused to Deliver the said Writing to the Indian . . . ."

By that time, a number of Indians had "come to See and hear how
ye matter would End." Wetherill's brother, a Quaker who detested
what Wetherill had done, offered him as much land in another
place if he would give up the deed. Still Wetherill refused. Finally,
King Charles laid his case before Governor Robert Hunter and
indicated:

"how fraudulently and unjust John Wetherill had obtained his
hand to Deed for a parcel of land out of ye tract he had reserved
for the Indians . . . of wch he never Intended to Sell any having
Sold all the rest to the English and Said if that be taken from us
where must ye Indians go Signifying that he had Lived Amongst
ye English ever Since they came into the Country and that they
had lived loving and like Brothers together And that a little Land
would Serve the Indians And that there was Enough in the
Country for both And therefore[he] was not willing to be put
upon Seeking a habitation Among Strangers . . . ."

Despite Governor Hunter's urging Wetherill to give back the
deed, Wetherill continued to worm his way into keeping it.
Finally the Governor told Wetherill that he would have the
Attorney General prosecute him for creating a disturbance
among the Indians, and also for purchasing lands of the Indians
without a license unless he gave up the deed.

"I then told Wetherill that such a deed of gift would be of
no availe to him,being expressly against the Law which
obliges every purchaser to have a previous Lycence from the
Government to purchase,and being obtained by base means
of making an Indian drunk,and that it was well known that no
Indian can dispose of Land but the whole tribe or Canton
by themselves or their Deputy,they all having an undivided
right to and Property in the Land they claim,and that he
would only expose himself to a Prosecution for a fraud . . . ."

Wetherill went and fetched the deed rather than face the
consequences. The Governor informed the Indians that
they could leave, but they refused to go until they
witnessed the paper actually destroyed. The paper was
indeed destroyed.

"the Indian having got it forthwth tore it to pieces And
threw it into the fire all but A Small Scrap that fell upon
the floor Another Indian perceiving of it Step'd and
pick'd it up and threw it into ye fire also showing thereby
their Great Aversion to it . . . ."

After this incident, I have found no mention of this tract again
until 1740. Now this is where things get confusing. In this year,
John Wills conveyed this very land to the family of the late
King Charles in exchange for 4 shillings. Wait a minute, I
thought he had already owned it under English law. If this
was the case, I think it would have been mentioned in the
Archives. This leads me to believe that this tract was just
simply kept out of any land deals. It's my guess that John
Wills bought the land that year, then sold it back to King
Charles family, thus giving them better protection against
future frauds. The language used in this deed makes it clear
he was acting with their benefit in mind.
To view this deed on line go to:

http://www.historicsouthamptonnj.org/html/pioneer_deed.html

Smiths History, when discussing the formation of the
Brotherton Reservation in 1758, gives the number of
Natives living at Brotherton and Weekpink.

"There are about sixty persons seated here,and
twenty at Weekpink"

Weekpink was also mentioned many times in the entries
of John Brainerd's journal.This journal was actually just
a fragment of his original which had burned along with his
diaries and papers. This is a great loss of valuable information
on both Brotherton and Weekpink from the years that
Rev. Brainerd preached at both. In this journal, he refers
to Weekpink by name and to Brotherton as the Indian
town. Mount Holly is referred to by its old name of
Bridgetown, not to be mistaken for Bridgeton,
Cumberland Co. This section of the journal spans the
time frame of January, 1761 - October, 1762. I'll give a
few selected entries from the journal:

"Lords Day,Dec.6.  Rode this morning abt.14 miles to
Wepink the Old Indian town, and attended divine worship
there; accommodating myself to the Indians, and like
wise to the White People,a number of whom were present.
In the afternoon preached at Bridgetown to a crowded
assembly."

"Lords Day,Jan. 10. Rode to Wepinck and officiated
to a mixt Congregation of Indians and White People,
in the Forenoon: In the afternoon at Bridgetown."

"Frid.Apr.23.  Rode down into the Country to settle
an Affair with a Man who had been concerned with
the Indians in some secular Affairs.Then rode to
Bridgeport to consult the Law respecting the Indian
Lands at Wepinck, and what should be done to prevent
the White People cutting off the Timber: and return'd
home next day."

"Tuesd. Sep.7  Attended an Evening Meeting with
the Indians.The next Day I rode to Wepinck, and
preach'd to the Indians there; a large Number of
White People also,were present. After service we
consulted further about the meeting House which
we are endeavoring to build for these Indians,
and the adjacent People."

To read more on line about Rev. John Brainerd's
activities here, go to :
http://www.historicsouthamptonnj.org/html/brainard_s_indian_church.html


Once again there is a gap in this history, since the
tract is not mentioned again until 1806. I am only
aware of this information through Bisbee's work,
and have not been able to locate it or view for
myself. From what he wrote, it appears that in
1806 the Indians at Weepink made a request to
the State to take charge of their land and lease
it for them. Two commissioners were appointed
and the legislative act recites in part: "Whereas
the Coaxen Indians by their petition have
represented that they claim right to a tract of
land in the said county, of which their
ancestors have been in possession upwards
of sixty years..." Due to the fact that General
William Irick [2nd] was born on the Irick
homestead in 1799, I'm certain that the Indians
were leasing some of the land already.
The Irick homestead was in the middle of
the Weepink tract, which is the location
of the Indian burial ground.

Bisbee claims the legislative act of 1806 proves
that 1740 is the earliest date of legal
ownership and not 1703 as Smith states.
I'm of the mind that 1740 is the date that this
land simply changed legally from being held and
reserved by its inhabitants as Indian lands to
being legally owned by them on equal terms
with the colonists. As far as I'm aware, this was
the first time any native people of this country
owned their ancestral lands on European terms.
Bisbee also claims, "It is obvious that there were
only two male Indians living at Weepink in
1806." He based this on section 2 of this
same legislative act, " And be it enacted, that all
leases or grants for the said commissioners
and their successors in office to commance
and prosecute all actions or suits at
law for the recovery of any debt or
debts due, and owing from any person or
persons, to any or either of said Indians."

Bisbee based this on the use of the word
"either" being used in the above; however, the
use of "to any or either of said Indians" indicates
others living on the property.

The final sale of Weepink several years later was
preluded by this act. What happened to the
Coaxen Lenape of Weepink? They
never just packed up and left or died off,
they were simply absorbed by the
surrounding non-native and mixed
population of Burlington County.



The reprint of John Brainerd's journal also
includes two letters from Franklin Earl.
Earl was a well-informed surveyor in
Burlington County. He was a respected and
 trusted member of his community.
http://www.historicsouthamptonnj.org/html/burlington_county_timber_prote.html
Both letters were from 1880


" To Rev. Samuel Miller of Mount Holly, N.J.:

Respected Friend:

"As to the location of the Indian Town referred to
in John Brainerd's journal, called 'Wepink' ,my
information is not as reliable as I should wish, but
still it goes very far, I think, in establishing the
fact of its location near Vincetown, on the farm
that now belongs to William Irick, and near where
two roads separate, the one leading to Eayrestown,
and the other leading to Medford. There is on said
farm and near the garden attached to the Mansion
House, an old Indian graveyard, and some years
ago, while there, the marks of very many graves
were plainly to be seen. "For many years I
remember the yard was surrounded by a fence,
but no one feeling an interest for its protection,
it had gone down, and the graveyard is now out
of sight, having been ploughed and cultivated;
but its location can readily be found. In a deed
in my possession, made by the Indian Chiefs the
28th day of April, 1703, this town was then
called by the Indian name of O-ko-kath-see-me-)
and is represented as being west by south, or
thereadouts, from the land on which (15) I now
live, and my deed (16) was given by the chiefs
for a consideration, as a relinquishment of
the Indian claim upon said land; the three
chiefs who signed the deed, A-me-arth-toth,
Hack-a-ka-mock and Keet-a-wa-wa, and
witnessed by many Indians, such as Efend-way,
Mitoff, and others, prominent amongst the
Indians. Between the graveyard and the
Eayrestown Road runs a small stream of water
which is known, I am cradibly informed by those
who have access to the old title deed of the property,
as Wepink, and if that be so, there can be, I think,
but little doubt but the Indian Town of 'Wepink' was
located somewhere near that place.

"Edgepillock, the Indian Town where it appears from
the journal of Brainerd he lived most of his time
during the history of his journal, was at what is
now called Indian Mills, in Shamong Township.
And in 1717 there was a saw-mill there (from an
old map in my possession on which a mill is marked
on the Makindom Branch) , and I think the site
is where, or near where the grist-mill now stands.
In 1758 an Act was passed by Legislature of
New Jersey, appointing commissioners to purchase
land for the Indians anywhere in the colony of
New Jersey, who purchased Edgepillack in
Evesham Township, containing 3, or 4 acres, on
which the Indian Town, afterwards known by the
name of Brotherton was erected. The deed was
made to Gov. Bernard in trust, and bears date
August 29th 1758. Recorded in Secretary's office
at Trenton in Lib. O. of Deeds, folio 394. And in
1796 another Act was passed by the Legislature,
appointing as commissioners Joseph Salter,
Josiah Foster, and Thomas Hollingshead, to
take charge of the Indian land at Edgepillock,
to rent and work the same to and for the use and
benefit of the Indians. So yopu will preceive that
the town called Edge Pillock in 1717 was changed
in 1758 to Brotherton, and in 1796 it was again
changed to EdgePillock, and now it is called
and known by the name of Indian Mills. And if
the above described town has gone through so many
changes of name, why cannot O-ko-kath-see-me in
1703 be called Wepink' in 1760, after the little
rivulet which runs along probably in front of the town".

Respectfully,
"Franklin M. Earl".
"Pemberton, N. J. , April 14, 1880"

(15)   The farm on which Mr. Earl was born
and now lives 1 1/4 miles south of Pemberton,
and 2 1/2 miles Easterly of Vincentown.
(16)   The deed of 1703 located the land
released " to lie North East or thereabouts
from the Indian Town called O-ko-kath-see-me"


"To Rev. Allen H. Brown, of Camden, N. J. :

"Dear Sir:

"The quotation which you make above from
Smith's History, Which I had overlooked
before, only goes to confirm me that
Weepink was where I stated in my letter
to Rev. Samuel Miller, as the farm, on
which the Indian Graveyard is, was
devised by the Indians by will to
Josiah Foster, one of the Commissioners
appointed to take charge of the Indian
lands by Act of the Legislature, to rent
and work the same for the benefit of the
Indians. I have not examined the records
but 'Tradition' says, that the will was contested
in Court and Foster came out victorious,
by confirming said will, showing the Indians
had a good title in fee.

"King Charles was or claimed to be the
head chief over all the Indians, both
at Brotherton and Weepink. His
Indian name was Hum-mick-son
or King Charles.

"I have three or four deeds from King Charles,
and one other chief 'We-long-omit' for
lands between 'Brotherton' and 'Weepink'
large tracts of lands. There were
several chiefs at Brotherton and Weepink,
such as Sis-o-whe-to, and Allo-moo-gos.
The present owner of the farm at Weepink,
traces his title back to the chief or chiefs,
who devised the same to Josiah Foster.

"Respectfully,
"Franklin M. Earl"
"Pemberton, N. J. May 7, 1880"



UPDATE COMING SOON!!
Courtesy Of Rich Walling



As You Can See This Burial Ground Is Worth Saving.Those
Buried There Do Not Deserve To Have Their Graves
Desecrated By Development. Disturbing Their Graves
To Rebury Their Remains On Reconsecrated Ground Is
NOT The Answer. Those Buried  There  Went  Through
  A Lot So That Their Bones Could Rest In That Ground.
The Weekpink Site Is Important To Lenape And Local
History, It's Destruction Would Be A Great Loss To All!!!

Contact Southampton Township
or
Indian Burial And Sacred Grounds Watch
If  you are concerned about
it's future as well

If you have any questions or information about
this historic site, please contact Steven Carty at:
pineylenape@netscape.net


NOTE TO ARTIFACT HUNTERS:
In New Jersey Its A 10 Year Sentence
For Anyone Who Unlawfully Disturbs,
Moves, Or Steals Human Remains.
I Advise You Go Elsewhere.
 
Article by. Steven Carty





Return To Main Page