The former writer states that in the war of 1626, the Mohawks were successful and that the Mabicans fled and left their lands x " war broke out " unoccupied ; the latter affirms that again in " between the near Fort the Makand 1628, Maikens, Orange,

waes" and that the former were beaten and driven off. 2

Ad

mitting that both writers refer to the same occurrence, and that there is no conflict in date, the retirement spoken of could only

have included a single canton or chieftaincy.

That the Mahicans^ as a nation, did not leave their lands unoccupied nor sur

render their possession, appears from the title deeds which they

gave to Van Rensselaer in 1630, the validity of which was never questioned ; from the treaty made with them by Kieft,

and from their participation in the wars with the Dutch at Fort

Amsterdam. To these facts it may be added that deeds from King Aepjin show that his council-fire was kept burning at Schodac 3 as late as 1664 ; that one of the castles of the nation, that at Cohoes, was in occupation by them as late as 1660, and that the records of the commissioners of Indian affairs show an organization, distinct from that which was recognized by Mas sachusetts but clearly subordinate to it, for> over half a century after the English succeeded the Dutch in the government. It

only remains to harmonize these facts with the statements That, as already intimated, a canton or chieftaincy