USA > Pennsylvania > Historical register : notes and queries historical and genealogical, chiefly relating to interior Pennsylvania. Volume I > Part 22
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27
x. Elizabeth, b. July 12. 1758.
xi. Jane, (31) b. Oct. 1, 1759.
xii. George, b. April 15, 1762.
xiii. Charlotte, b. May 25, 1763.
xiv. Hugh, b. July 3, 1766.
The son of one of these, Robert, John, George, or Hugh, was A. H. C. Pollock, Esq., who m. Jessie, daughter of George Clark, Esq., of Westhatch, county Middlesex, and had John O. G. Pollock, who m. Maria Louisa, daughter of Henry Dai- ley, Esq., and was High Sheriff for county Meath, 1854. He has died since 1880. (See Burke's Landed Gentry.) From James, who emigrated to America. descended Professor Carlile Pollock Patterson, b. Miss. ; appointed hydrographic inspector in the U. S. coast survey from California and died about 1881. He became superintendent of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey office on the death of Prof. A. D. Bache. Prof. Patter- son stated to the writer that he was descended from the Moun- tainstown house, the old family seat of his mother being now owned by Jno. O. G. Pollock, Esq.
His descent is as follows :
James Pollock had George Pollock, Carlile Pollock, and per- haps other children.
i. George Pollock moved from New York to New Orleans, in 1803. . He became a justice of the peace for the county of Orleans, and it was before him that General James Wilkinson made his affidavit against Aaron Burr, Dec. 26, 1806. (Am. Reg., 1,110, 1806-7.) He was also a member of the grand jury that indicted General Wilkinson for the arrest of P. V. Ogden, Jany. 29, 1807. (idem., 98.) He had one son, Carlile, and perhaps more ; and a daughter who m. a Mr. Patterson. They were the parents of Prof. Carlile Pollock Patterson ; the sev- enth in succession who bore the name of Carlile.
ii. Carlile Pollock, who removed to New Orleans about 1700. He was a notary public and is spoken of as " a son of Oliver Pol- lock and a man of high standing," in a N. O. letter to the writer. He subsequently resided in N. Y. His name occurs in Philadelphia mercantile books, especially Conyham, Nes- bitt & Co's, one of the great firms in that city in 1792/5, as an insurer of vessels from N. Y. to Antiqua and elsewhere. Prof. P. says he moved to Connecticut in 1800.
249
The Pollock Family of Pennsylvania.
Disjecta Membra.
Captain William Pollock paid £23 11s. 6p. for saving pow- der out of the brig Nancy: which amount Committee of Safety granted August 27, 1776.
William Pollock was a tailor at Lewisburg. 1800.
William Pollock was on Assessor's list of Dunbar township, Fayette county, 1799, for one horse, one cow, and one hundred acres of land.
James Pollock was a soldier in Capt. W.m. Peebles' company, Second battalion, Col. Miles regiment Penna. troops from Cum- berland county, 1776.
James Pollock, justice of the peace Robinson township. Washington county. April 14 1840 to 1845; also held office in same county as auditor, 1832; commissioner, 1839; treas- urer, 1861.
James Pollock, junior. justice of the peace for Peters and Nottingham townships. same county. December 26. 1822.
James Pollock was constable White Deer township 1779 ; single man in 1796.
James Pollock was married in Christ's Church, Phila., June 25, 1796, to Elizabeth Urviler.
John Pollock was resident of German township, Fayette county, September, 1791.
John Pollock opened store in Mr. Lewis' house, Lewisburg, 1795; d. 1806.
Edward Pollock, single, resident of East Buffalo township, 1800.
Thomas Pollock, d. Buffalo Valley. August 5, 1801.
John Pollock and Ahiman Pollock were heads of families in Springfield township, Farette county, 1772.
Robert Pollock owned 288 acres land, original survey, Franklin township, Fayette county, 1780. Not on tax list 1785. Owned 2832 acres Dunbar township, 1790.
Mrs. Eliza Pollock, d. Buffalo Valley, July 3, 1833.
Mrs. I. Pollock, d. Buffalo Valley, October 23, 1824.
Margaret Pollock, d. Buffalo Valley, October 13, 1842.
.
250
Historical Register.
Joseph Pollock was fariner, White Deer township, with log-house and double barn. 1796.
Hugh Pollock. m. to Martha Anthony, First Baptist Church, Philadelphia. April 9. 1795.
Eleanor Pollock, m. to Wm. Beatty, Neshaminy Presbyterian Church, Bucks county, November 8. 1799.
Maria Pollock, m. Thomas Ewing, Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, December 31. 1808.
Mary Pollock, m. Elijah Hammond, same place. May 15, 1806.
Mary Pollock deeded to James Pollock, September 10, 1794, for 5s., 328 a. in "Cumberland county, now Lycoming," for . which she had made application May 5, 1769. Witnesses : John M. Taylor and Praner Stephen.
Margaret Pollock, m. June 8, 1809, in Presbyterian Church, Carlisle, to John Boileau.
Susanna Pollock, m. November 24, 1808, same place, James Scott.
James Smith Polk, m. to Jean Fullion March, 7, 1785, by Parson Elder, of Paxtang.
Samuel Pollock, 1779, Capt. Murray's company, Paxtang, ' Col. Elder's battalion, marched with others to Bedford to pro- tect settlers.
John P., private 6th Penn'a battalion, Capt. Jeremiah Tal- bot's company, 1776; Col. Wm. Irvine.
David Polk, Capt. Jacob Ziegler's company, Continental Line, Ist Penn'a seven months' men.
George Polk, Continental Line, 5th Penn'a, 1776.
John Pollock, 7th Penn'a Continental Line; killed in action, 1717.
James Polk, among taxables, West Paxton, 1750.
James Pollock, of Paxtang, with John Harris and seven others, appeal, 1755, to settlers to repair to the frontier to re- sist the Indians.
James Pollock, ensign Provincial service west of Susque- hannock, January 4, 1758.
Thomas Pollock, graduated A. B., Yale, 1786; A. M. 1789 ; d. 1803.
George Pollock, A. B., Yale, 1787; A. M. 1790; d. 1839.
251
Early Indian History on the Susquehanna.
EARLY INDIAN HISTORY ON THE SUSQUEHANNA.
BY PROF. A. L. GUSS.
Captain Smith has been severely criticised for his description of the size of the Susquehannocks. and from it discredit has been attempted to be thrown on all he has written. Though his later writings seem to have a degree of egotistical and mar- velous coloring, his general accuracy and truthfulness are pretty well vindicated .- See address of William Wirt Henry, Rich- mond, Va., 1882. Smith says: "Such great and well-propor- tioned men are seldom seen, for they seemed like giants to the English, yea, and to their neighbors." Of the one of whom he made the sketch, he says, "he seemed the goodliest man we ever saw." There is nothing improbable in this ; he does not say they were "the sons of Anak, which come of the giants," in whose sight the white men " were as grasshoppers." The only thing Smith has said that seems hyperbolical, is that the calf of this man's leg, whom he has pictured, "was three quarters of a yard about, and all the rest of his limbs answer- able to that proportion." This may be a little over-drawn ; but there are instances even among us of large persons of whom it could be truthfully affirmed. The truth is, some of the critics have themselves exaggerated, for they talk almost as if Smith's giants were described as equal to the fabulous giants who walked about with pine trees for staves. Alsop, who published a history of Maryland in 1666, knew and visited these natives. and his testimony is to the point. He says they were "a people cast in the mould of a most large and war-like deportment, the men being for the most part seven feet high in altitude, and in magnitude the bulk suitable to so high a pitch, their voice large and hollow as ascending out of a cave, their gait and behavior straight, stately, and majestic, treading the earth with so much pride, contempt, and disdain to so sordid a center, as can be im- agined from a creature derived from the same mould and earth."
As to the numerical strength of these Indians, we are told
252
Historical Register.
" they can make near six hundred able men." This estimate can properly only be made to apply to the town Sasquesahan- ough, from which the delegation came of which Smith is speak- ing. If the other towns were as numerous, there were three thousand six hundred men : and if only half as numerous. there were two thousand one hundred men, a number equal to that of the Five Nations. There can be given no good reason or proof why the natives in Pennsylvania, from the dividing waters of the Delaware and Susquehanna rivers westward, may not have been originally thus numerous. There is abundant evi- dence on the ground to prove that the regions of the Susque- hanna and its branches were once well peopled with tribes of which history has almost lost sight.
It has become fashionable of late years to belittle the number of natives originally in the eastern part of the United States. No doubt many early accounts exaggerated, because they were made by unobserving men, and through ignorance. love of the marvelous, or for some sinister purpose ; but such articles as that of Mr. G. Mallory go more than to the opposite extreme in claiming that the Indians are as numerous in the United States now as they were at the period of first settlement. The number destroyed by the introduction of small-pox and other diseases, and the deadly fire-arms, and the equally fatal fire- water, is simply incalculable ; and their miserable remnants are no criterion by which to judge of their numbers, condition and power, in the days of their pristine glory. Nor is it true that we can look for a surviving remnant of all the old tribes, for many have entirely perished, their language and all, while other remnants of mixed blood have long been kept up only for the purpose of securing the Government annuities.
The language spoken by the Susquehannocks is a matter of great interest. Language changes so slowly as to be more en- during than physical peculiarities, or all the light which tradi- tions can afford. It may demonstrate a common origin long after the fact of a separation has ceased to be rehearsed in the tribal councils. On language the ethnologist bases his Indian classification, for history affords no light beyond its lessons. Were the Susquehannocks Algonquins or Iroquois ? Many
253
Early Indian History on the Susquehanna.
writers have classed them with the former : and even Pennsyl- vania historians have gone so far as to boldly assert that they were a branch of the Delawares. Even Gallatin was much misled by the omission of the little word "to" in a land grant -- "As far as to the bounds and limits of the Minquas land." From a careful reading of our Archives and Colonial Records, the writer of this article years ago pronounced them of Iroquois stock; and this was before he had seen any of the writings of Dr. Shea, or knew that any modern writer had advanced the same opinion. The question has an important bearing upon their conquest and the subsequent history of the remnant : for many absurd things have been stated in consequence of follow- ing a wrong theory. All the ethnological map-makers, to this day. color this territory, as well as all the interior of the State, as having belonged to Algonquin tribes. To know the lan- guage of these interior tribes is to know at least one step in their origin, and it is a key that will unlock much of the early Susquehanna history ; for the policy of the Five Nations in their wars with cognate tribes seems to have differed from their conquests of Algonquins. In the old days the conquered rem- nants of the former were incorporated into their cantons in New York; but they seem to have been satisfied to force Algon- quins to pay tribute, or if greatly exasperated, to reduce them to the condition of women, and force them to wear the typical petticoat. The adoption of Algonquin captives and tribes in later times was a prime cause of their degeneracy.
Only such thoughts on their language will be here presented as grow out of what is related in Smith's history. What was subsequently learned we leave to be subsequently related. It will be remembered that Smith found one Indian who could translate Susquehannock into Tockwock, and another who could translate Tockwock into Powhatan, while Smith himself was left to wrestle with the Powhatan and turn it into English. He gives as a reason for this device, to induce the Susquehannocks to come down, that " their languages are different." Again, he says, "for their language may well beseem their proportions, sounding from them as a voice in a vault." His companions, also, notice this sonorous peculiarity, for they relate that the
254
Historical Register.
Indians began an oration " with a most strange, furious action and a hellish voice." Purchas, in his " Pilgrimage" in 1613. p. 640. says : "The Sasquesahanockes are a gyantly people. strange in proportion, behavior, and attire, their voice sounding from them as out of a cave." Purchas, in his "Pilgrimes." 1625, Vol. IV, 1695, says the same as Smith, with this varia- tion : that the voice came " sounding from them as it were a great voice in a vault or cave as an echo." These, however, are the exact words used by Smith in his Oxford tract in 1612. Strachey also follows this original description. calling them the " Sasquesahanougs." These words were not used without cause, and can only be reconciled on the hypothesis that they spoke a dialect of the Iroquois stock of languages. We have but to recall the fact that the Iroquois had no labials in their langauge ; that it consisted of a succession of open, hollow-throat sounds, well calculated to impress strangers with the idea of coming from a vault, and differing so much from the sounds of any other tongue as to seem to be an infernal noise, especially when accompanied, as it was in this instance, with violent gesticula- tion. The fact that they did speak a dialect of the same lan- guage as the Five Nations is clearly established by the testi- mony of later acquaintance, and it fully explains and justifies these early and exceedingly interesting observations.
The name given these ladians is a matter of very consider- able interest. It has provided the title of our great interior river; and were the State named after the manner of Wiscon- sin, Illinois, Tennessee, or Arkansas, it would be the Common- wealth of Susquehanna; and few people are aware of how near the King, in 1637, came granting a charter for a province com- prising twelve leagues on each side of the river, from the bay "to the head of said river to the Grand Lake of Canada," and known as " The Susquehammocks' Country." It is a home word, and ignorance of its origin, meaning and use is not compli- mentary to ourselves. Let us look at it.
The reader must be cautioned not to confound the word used by Smith and later English writers with the "Sasquehannagh Indians," with whom William Penn made a treaty in 1700 and in 1701, for it then denoted the several tribes or bands who lived
255
Early Indian History on the Susquehanna.
on or near the lower part of the river. of whom the remnant of those that Smith met was only one, the Shawanese and Ganawese bands being included in the term. After their conquest the Sus- quehannocks disappeared as a nation, the name in its original sense died out, but was used to denote any and all Indians on that stream. In the meantime the remnant of survivors took the name of Conestogas from the creek on which they were located.
The term must also be distinguished from the "Susquehanna Indians" of the period of "the French and Indian War," when it denoted those living upon the upper branches of the river. without regard to tribe, but mostly Delawares and Shawanese in contradistinction to those of the same tribes who had re- moved to the Ohio, and who, with others living there, were often termed the "Ohio Indians." Great changes often occur in the application of terms after the lapse of fifty or a hundred years ; and great errors are committed by writers who have failed to observe these changes The spelling Sasquesahanoughs, or more properly, Sasquesahanocks, given by Smith, soon ripened into Susquehannocks. Susquehannas, and a great many other forms found in old authors. In fact, Smith's books and map are not uniform, but give four variations, and other writ- ers furnish many other forms, and this diversity often occurs in the same author. Many old writers almost seem to have tried not to spell an Indian name twice in the same way. It is clear that this variously spelled term for these Indians and their river, as long used by the people of Virginia and Mary- land, and as it has come down to us in periodical modifications, grew out of the word first used by Smith. His name never died, though it has been variously spelled and applied. But where did he get it ? If he got it from the Susquehannocks, and if it was their own name, then it is of the Susquehanna dialect of the Iroquois language. If he got it from the Tock- wocks, we must seek the meaning in Algonquin dialects.
Perhaps no word has had so many divergent interpretations. This will, we hope, excuse us if we enter into an examination of the word at length. Some of these versions are only fit to laugh at. An eminent teacher used to say it meant "long crooked river." For this we know of no authority. Some
256
Historical Register.
classic scholar derives it from the Latin sus, swine; que. and ; Hannah, a woman who lived at the river at an early date: the river of Hannah and her hogs. A Shawanese origin has been suggested and defined as " the river with rocks." To this it is a fatal objection that it was near a century after Smith before the Shawanese first began to settle on its banks. A certain Rev. N. W. Jones, in what he calls his "Indian Bulletin for 1868," published in New York, says : "Susquehanna-smooth river ; from sooskwa, it is smooth, and anna, a stream." This explanation would be very smooth indeed, if he had shown us that sooskwa was a word for smooth in any language or dialect spoken where Smith originally got the name. Indian names always meant something, but there is nothing distinctively smooth about this river to contrast it with others. John Heck- ewelder was long a missionary among the Delawares. He was so prejudiced in their favor that he could "Delawareize " al- most any word. In looking through his Delaware spectacles, he says that Quenischaschacki is the " name given by the Dela- wares to the long reach in the West Branch of the Susquehanna in Lycoming county. Hence they call the West Branch Quen- ischachachgek-hanne. [quin, long; schaschack-ki, straight,] which word has been corrupted into Susquehanna." Considering that the word was in use near a century before the Delawares were on the West Branch, and that it belonged to the lower part of the river, the absurdity will appear as great as the sounds are in themselves utterly dissimilar. It is, indeed, a very long reach and too much corruption to torture a derivation from this source.
Hon. Horatio Hale, a distinguished Indianologist, of Clinton, Ontario, Canada, says: "Sasquesahanough" is of Iroquois origin, meaning "the Falls People;" that "its correct form would be Sosko"sa-hanon, or in the Mohawk dialect, Soskoñsa- ronoñ, the ñ having the French nasal sound. It is derived from Oskoñsa, the falls of a river, and hanoñ, honoñ or ronoñ, people." Gen. John S. Clark, of Auburn, N. Y., is of the same opinion ; that it "describes exactly the great Susquehanna town, as they who live at the falls ;" that "Smith apparently attempted to represent the nasal sound by nough; and that any modern Iroquois with a good ear will recognize it and give its meaning.
.
257
Early Indian History on the Susquehanna.
In Seneca, falls is ga-sko-sa-da ; and ga-sko-sa-go, at the falls. The word for people. ronon, in the western dialects becomes hanof or henon, which compounded with ga-sko-sa, becomes ga-sko-sa-ha-noñ, a near approach to the Sasquesahanough of Smith. The significance of changing "G" to "S" in the initial I am unable to account for, and I never found an Iro- quois scholar that could." It would be a profound pleasure to agree with these eminent scholars in this ingenious and rather laborious and far-fetched interpretation, if the known facts and probabilities were in ics favor. There are a number of things about it, however, besides the initial, that no Iroquois scholar can explain, one of which is the change of hanne into ronon through " the Mohawk dialect," and the change of ronon into hanne through "the western dialects.".
There can be no question that Smith heard of the Susque- hannocks before he saw them, and that he must have heard a descriptive name for them before he communicated with them. When their neighbors, the Tockwocks, told Smith of them, they designated them by their own Tockwock descriptive term, and when Smith did meet them, he had but a single interview, and labored under great difficulties in having what they said un- derstood, having to resort, as already shown, to a triple trans- lation. What he gives us is his own rendering of a version into Powhatan-itself, perhaps, imperfect. In the absence of any in- formation, we can not suppose that he abandoned a word already somewhat familiar without saying a word about it. It would be unnatural and contrary to the analogy of similar cases. The Hudson river Indians told the Dutch that the Indians west of Albany were Maquas, and that those west of the Delaware were Minquas ; the Powhatans told Smith of the Monacans and Chawanocks; and so with numerous other tribes, none of whom called themselves by these names; and yet these first-heard terms were seldom abandoned, even when the true name was discovered. These terms, given by adjoining tribes, were often nick-names, and had, as with us now, often a most surprising durability. We can rest assured, therefore, that Sasquesa- hanocks is a Tockwock or Nanticoke term, and not the name that those "gyants " applied to themselves. There is no sub-
·
258
Historical Register.
sequent evidence that they called themselves by any such name. as " Sasquesahanocks," or that they were so-called by any other Iroquois tribe, unless it was after they got it from the English. They were never so-called by the French, Dutell, Swedes, or even by the English to the northwards, except as they got the word from Smith or the English of Virginia and Maryland. It is absurd to suppose that during these many years of intercourse and trade. none of the Swedes, Dutch, French, or English should have learned what they called themselves. To the French, they were known as one of the Andasta tribes; to the Dutch and Swedes, as Minquas ; and to the English at New York and on the Delaware, at first largely by the same name ; and they only began to use the name Susquehannocks after they came in con- tact with Maryland settlements. Even if the word did mean " they who live at the falls." it is not a term appropriate to be applied by the Susquehannocks to themselves, but such as another tribe would designate them by, especially such a tribe as the Tockwoeks, on the Eastern Shore, who lived on more slug- gish streams : and in this case, even the word could, therefore, not be Iroquois. The conclusion must be that the word, having been received from the Tockwocks, was the name in use among them, and must have its peculiar signification and applicability from that standpoint. Unless we look through these spec- tacles, we will fail to see why they were so-called.
In dissecting the word Sasquesa-han-ock-s, we commence with the ending. The final letter belongs to one of our ter- minal forms for gentile words. We say Briton-s, Delaware-s, America-ns. Europe-ans, Egypt-ians ; also, New York.ers, Mary- land-ers. The -er is a derived form from the Teutonic wer, which comes from the Latin vir, a man. In like manner, -an or -n, is derived directly from man. An American is an America-man. The s denotes the plural number. Brazil-ians are Brazil-men. Euphony has worn away the first letter, leaving -er and -an or -n. Many words ending in a, e, c, k, gh, etc., re- ceive the plural -'s even without the -n, as Oneida-s. Cree-s, and as in the case before us. This -s is more than a mere plural, for it has the force of -ers or -ans. In the expression, "the Car- olinians of the two Carolinas," we distinguish between the gen-
.
259
Early Indian History on the Susquehanna.
tile noun and the territorial plural. Some of these words may take the older form, as when Montanus gives us Sasquesahanol -ers. In all the forms. the ending means men, people of the country or region, to the name of which the suffix is added. Now, our Indians used a suffix for the very same purpose. The Hurons used -ronon, the Mohawks used -haga. Algonquins sometimes used ape or abe, as in Assinaboins, the stone-people or stone tribe. The Delaware word for man was lenni. and they called themselves Lenni-Lenape, true men, manly men, or orig- inal men; but this seems to have been used to denote them- selves as the first and greatest among other inferior people. rather than to designate themselves in a tribal capacity. There does not seem to be any such Indian suffix or word in the name given us by Smith.
There is a peculiarity in Algonquin nouns by which they are divided into animate, living things ; and inanimate, lifeless things. The plural of the animate nouns has its own form, being an affix, which, when appended to inanimate names, gives them the force of living beings. This, in Delaware, is ak, but it varies in the different dialects, the Otchipwe having seven forms of this animate plural. Take achsin, stone, achsinall, stones: but Achsinak, those of the stone, or stone-ones, or the stone tribe. To the north-west, the corresponding ending often used is -nek, -ek, -gouk, -ouk, etc., and these are often found ground down as badly as their English equivalents. If Susquehannock was the word used to describe the people, as well as the coun- try where they lived, we have perhaps more reason to look for this animate plural than for a suffix word. But we do not find it, for the -ocke, -ock, -ough, cannot be regarded as intended for a word for people or the animate plural. If they were so intended, it would follow that the final "s" is a reduplication of the same idea, and it would be like saying "Americans men." Indeed, we may well infer that if any such word or ending for people was used by the Tockwock interpreters, its place was in- tentionally supplied in the use of the combined plural and deriv- ative gentile noun ending, "3," which Smith recognized as its equivalent, for if he by this time had acquired enough of the Powhatan to translate into English what he was here told, he cer-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.