TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION In regard to the subdivision of Wampanoag territory, Vaughan offers the following statement: Anthropologists recognize nine subdivisions on the mainland, an additional four on Martha’s Vineyard, and several others scattered throughout the offshore islands and coastal promontories. The mainland sub-tribes were generally quite cohesive, largely because of the strong leadership offered by Massasoit and his immediate heirs. The leading Wampanoag sachems kept their principal headquarters at Pokanoket (now Bristol Rhode Island)....[390] The actual organization of the territory into political units is difficult to discover from information recorded during the seventeenth century. Ideally, there would have been a sachem over each of the Wampanoag subdivisions and under him various sub-sachems who exercised some authority over more localized areas.[391] Probably, as the passage by Vaughan suggests, true organization on a “tribal” basis was an ephemeral thing.[392] When a leader arose who could attract and hold the loyalty of the various subdivisions of the Wampanoags, then he came to exercise some authority beyond whatever tract of land would have been considered his “territory”—that is, the land which he had the right to allot. Massasoit was such a leader. He controlled a certain territory but also commanded the support of other sachems and received gifts from them as tokens of their loyalty.[393] The absolute authority of a tribal leader like Massasoit was solid only as long as he could keep his followers in agreement with him, and dissension was not unexpected.[394] Upon the death of a sachem, there was probably considerable shuffling and re-shuffling of territorial affiliation. GOVERNMENT The chief Wampanoag official was known as the sachem. The same official was also sometimes called sagamore. The office was hereditary through the male line—that is, a man’s son would normally succeed him upon his death or retirement. There were some variations upon this arrangement, and occasionally wives, daughters, and nephews succeeded to the position of leadership. If the heir was too young to undertake the responsibility of leadership, the position was usually held for him until he was of age. The arrangements of regency in this event are not known. Usurpation of the sachemship did occur, and if the man who took the position away from the rightful heir could find support and proved a good leader, he could retain the position.[395]