Dutch-Colonies-L Archives

From: "Peter Christoph" <>
Subject: Re: [D-Col] NA bouweries and plantations: land records
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1990 05:24:24 -0500
References: <004001c3f264$7b6dca30$9dcaf7a5@D74JNG11>

The only thing that I can add to Howard's excellent answer is that the
O'Callaghan translations are now in the custody of the New York State
Archives. A. J. F. van Laer used them in preparing his translations of
volumes I-IV of the Colonial Manuscripts. For an Irishman educated in
medicine in Paris, O'Callaghan did an amazing job of translating the Dutch
records. He was sometimes fooled by an idiomatic expression, and sometimes
misread a name, but he was certainly the best of the 19th century
translators of New York's Dutch records. If I can't find a more recent
translation by Van Laer or Charles Gehring, I have no problem in going with
O'Callaghan, although I do check the names in the original manuscripts
(those that survived the 1911 fire) to be sure that he didn't read Pieter
Winne for Pieter Winston, and that sort of thing.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Swain" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [D-Col] NA bouweries and plantations: land records


> Hi Margery and all,
>
> From: <>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:08 PM
>
> > I would like to know more about how the ownership passed as to the
first
> > plantations and bouweries in New Amsterdam.
>
> I can't answer your question in general, but I have some comments
> on your specific example that may point you to some more general
> answers. Of course, if what you really wanted to know was what
> happened in your example, then I think I'll come close to your answer.
>
> > From Stokes, we learn that there were no patents for these farms
inside
> > New Amsterdam itself until late 1639. (At least there were none
recorded) The
> > Manatus map of 1638, however, shows names of those who were farming
these
> > properties.
>
> I believe most people date the Manatus map as showing things
> as of 1639, not 1638.
>
> > Were any of these people actual owners? I guess I'm asking, was anyone
> > an actual protected owner until he had a patent?
> > I find a document for a plantation on the North River from Barent
> > Dircksen Swart to Gerrit Jansen from Olderburch and Volckert Evertsen on
18 May 1639
> > [NYHistrec v14:p25], naming a sales agreement for of 1,302 guilders.
> > Also found was a lease dated the same day in which Gerrit and
Volkert
> > are leasing the same property to a William Williamsen, [Iconography vol
1:90]
> > with Barent Dircksen (from whom they just bought it) shown as the
present
> > occupier.
> > In each case the adjoiner on the north is Mr. Lesley and in the one
> > case, the wording states that the property is between Jan Pieterszen and
Mr. Lasley
> > , an Englishman. Since Jan Pieterszen is named on the Manatus Map at
> > Plantation #9 and Mr. Lasley at Plantation #12, we can see that the
plantation on the
> > North River between them is #11 -- alas I can't read the name at #11 vry
well,
> > but I believe it is Barent Dircksen.
>
> Stokes (Iconography of Manhattan Island...) has a discussion of the
> farms shown on the Manatus map in vol. II. In many cases it is not
> obvious who the person shown in the map key really is. Stokes
> explains many of these.
>
> In your case, plantation #11 is named on the map as belonging to
> "Boere baecker", ie. the farmer baker. Stokes explains (vol II, p. 191)
> that this is Barent Dircksen Swart, who was a baker.
>
> (I might note that Stokes may not be all-knowing in these designations.
> He does not know who the "Snyder", ie. tailor, is who has #45.
> Frederic Kip in his Kip Family in America says that belonged to
> Hendrick Hendricksen Kip.)
>
>
> Now, if you want to see how the land north of the wall passed from
> person to person over the first several owners, you need to look in
> vol. VI of Stokes in the section, "Original Grants and Farms."
> (For land south of the wall, see the Dutch Grants section in vol II.)
>
> Vol. VI also has the index where you can find Dircksen, Barent.
> Also, in the index there is a section beginning on p. 418 titled
> "Grants and Farms, Original" where you can find him also.
> These will refer you to pp. 148-149 (of vol VI) where he discusses
> Manatus Map #11 from the earliest occupier (Jan van Rotterdam
> in 1638).
>
> Stokes does a pretty good job in all these land discussions of
> pointing to primary records -- if only you can decipher his
> terse citations. By guess and error and checking them out,
> I think I have solved this puzzle for your case.
>
> He cites first "N. Y. Col. Docs., XIV: 7-8." This is really
> Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York
> edited by O'Callaghan and Fernow.
> This item is a lease from Barent Dircksen to Cornelis Jacobsen
> and brother on 14 May 1638.
>
> Next, Stokes cites "Records N. Neth. (O'Callaghan's trans.)
> I:118 (N. Y. State Library)"
> I believe that the Roman numeral here reflects O'Callaghan's
> overall numbering scheme for the colonial documents.
>
> Vol. I in this series is the first part of the Register of the
> Provincial Secretary. There is a terse abstract of these items
> in Calendar of Dutch Mss. At the top of each page you
> see the overall O'Callaghan volume number and down the
> right hand edge you see the page number in the original ms.
> In your case, if you look at p. 8, you will see that original
> p. 118 deals with a Lease (dated 14 May 1639) from
> Barent Dircksen to Gerrit Jansen and Volckert Evertsen
> of the bouwery called Walenstsein.
>
> Some of these volumes have now been translated and
> published. This had not happened when Stokes was writing;
> so, that is why he says "N. Y. State Library" -- because that
> was where the original was at the time, I think. (I'm not sure
> where "O'Callaghan's translation" was. I don't think it was
> ever published. Maybe it was a ms. at the State Lib. )
> The Register of the Provincial Secretary has now been translated
> and published as part of the New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch
> series. (This particular one was translated by A.J.F. van Laer.)
> So, if you have a large library near you, you can go look
> up the complete text.
>
> > Were others also selling their rights during this period in the
hope of
> > getting a patent later?
>
> Glancing at nearby pages in the 2 sources I've mentioned above,
> I see other land transactions -- patents, leases, deeds.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Where would a record of such documents be, if they weren't in
> > Iconography?
>
> See above.
>
> > Or did the owners keep the documents at home rather than recording them?
I
> > have seen very few of them.
>
> I believe they (along with many other items) were recorded in the
> Register of the Provincial Secretary. They might also be in the
> Registers of the Notarys, Salomon La Chair and Walewyn Van der Veen.
>
> Regards,
> Howard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==== Dutch-Colonies Mailing List ====
> NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, political
> announcements, current events, personal messages, flames,
> etc. is NOT ALLOWED and will be grounds for removal
> LIST ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/dutch-colonies
> and
http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=dutch-colonies
> and exclusion from this mailing list.
> For comments or list administration questions,please contact
> Tina Vickery
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>

This thread:

• Re: [D-Col] NA bouweries and plantations: land records by "Peter Christoph" <>