USA > Rhode Island > The lands of Rhode Island : as they were known to Caunounicus and Miantunnomu when Roger Williams came in 1636 : an Indian map of the principal locations known to the Nahigansets, and elaborate historical notes > Part 18
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
NOTAQUONCRANET. (9)
This is the name, written by Roger Williams in the Original Deed, given by the Sachems, of the first purchase, now Providence. It is the "norwest" boundary of the purchase. It was so written in 1638 and then for the first time in the history of the town. What purports to be a record ofthis Deed was twice made in the Provi- dence Early Records-First in 1658 ( vol. 4, p. 70), the named then spelled-Neotaconkonitt-Second, in 1662, then spelled-Neota- conckonett-The spelling by Williams in the Original Deed is exceedingly clear ; why it was not followed is incomprehensible. If
! 1
THE "CANONICUS BOULDER" ON NOTAQUONCKANET. .
207
NEUTACONCANUT.
I have made no mistake, the volumes of the Early Records give us forty-two (42) forms of spelling the word, all copied, of course, and not written from the sound of the speaker. It almost seems as if ingenuity had been taxed to present these varieties. I present them as a literary curiosity :
Notaconkonott Newtaquenkanet
Neataconconitt
Notaquonckanet
Neotoconkonitt Netaconkonitt
Neataconkonitt
Notaqnoncanutt
Noteconkenett
Nutaconquenitt
Notakunkanit
Nudaconanet
Neataconcanitt
Neudaconkonet
Notquonckanet Nutaconkenut
Nudaconanett Nudaconkenett
Newdaconkonett
Neotaconckonett
Notakunkanet
Notakonkanit
Neotaconkanett
Notakunkanet
Nedaconconit
Noadaconqunat
Neoterconkenitt Notaquoncanot
Neotaconckcanett
Notacunckanet
Neotaconkenitt
Neotaconquonitt
Notoconkanet Nudaconganat Neotakonconitt
Newtaqunkanit Newtakonkanut Notacomanet
Newdaconanet
Neotakonconitt
Neautoconconet
Nudaconanit
Neotoconkenutt
Neotakonkonitt
Nudaconanet
Neutaconenutt
Nuteconkenett
Notaquonckanet
Neutoconenutt
Newteconcanitt
Notakunkanut
Neutoconkenett
Notaconeanit
Neutaconcanut
Newtaconconut
Neutaconkanut
Neoterconkernitt
Neotaconkinitt
Notaconckanet
Nudaconganet
Neotakonkonitt
Neotaconckonett.
It is extraordinary that nowhere in the printed volumes of the Early Records does this name appear, as written by Williams in the original Deed, as it stands at the head of this note.
Dr. Usher Parsons gives in his "Indian Names" p. 18) the name. but with a still different variety of spelling,
NEUTACONCANUT,
and applies it to a "Mountain two or three miles 'South-west' from Providence."
If there is no intermediate error, Roger Williams has given us still
--
Notoconkenett
208
NEOTERCONKERNITT.
another variety in spelling. It occurred in a letter written by Mr. . Williams, 27th October, 1660. He spells the word
NOTAQUONCANOT.
Here I follow Narr. Club 6, 314. It will be noted that the phonetic qualities of the two forms given by Williams are almost identical. They were written the first in 1638; the second in 1660. There is an extraordinary error here in the printing of the volume. At the head of the letter is printed "For his much honored kind friend Mr. John Winthrop at his home in Namcag these," while the letter itself is addressed to his "Loving Friends and Neighbors"; and it was, in fact, written to the inhabitants of Providence. The way in which the blunder was made will be seen by one curious, by a reference to Mr. Knowles' Memoir of Williams (page 404). The heading belongs to a preceding letter, bearing the date, 11, 7, 48 ( Sept. 11, 1648). The error was further continued in the table of contents prepared by the Editor of the volume, the late John R. Bartlett. The letter has disappeared from the archives of Providence. Mr. Knowles, who first printed it, did not state where it existed, and today its existence is unknown.
This extraordinary variety in spelling the name Notaquonckanet is characteristic of the structure of these names in Rhode Island- one scarcely knows which form to select. It is an excellent illus- tration of the correctness of the criticisms of Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull on Dr. Usher Parsons' "Indian Names in Rhode Island." Trumbull speaks of the Connecticut Records and the original Land transfers contained in them. These ( he writes ) supply many Indian names in forms less corrupt than those which were given to them by later recorders, and especially in the Documents from which Dr. Parsons' List was compiled (Trumbull's Indian Names of Con- necticut XI). I cannot omit from my account the two forms given by Prof. Elton (Collections R. I. Hist. Soc. 4, 204). The learned author reproduces the Original Deed to Williams in which the name is clearly written as printed at the head of this note, by Mr. Elton,
NEOTERCONKERNITT.
In a foot note Mr. Elton gives us another variation, thus
.
209
THE "SHORT" BOUNDS.
Neoterconkenitt. How it is possible to do such work is incompre- hensible.
I now propose to consider Mr. Tooker's definition of the name of the hill which Williams gives in the first Indian Deed, and there written by Mr. Williams, Notaquonckanet. In Book Notes (v. 19. p. 81) we gave a few varieties in the spelling of this name. There were upwards of forty varieties in the published Providence Early Record. These cannot be considered Indian words. They are merely English corruptions of an Indian word. Nor can it be pretended that under such a variety in spelling the same meaning can be preserved. We use this form of speech as a direction to a child-write, rite, right. The sounds are so similar that no child could understand the meaning, and just so it was between the ignorant English and the uneducated Indian. There are not fewer than sixty-five different forms of writing this name.
In March, 1897, Mr. W. W. Tooker read a paper before the Historical Society on "Indian Geographic Names," with special reference to certain Rhode Island names. In this paper the gentle- man attempts an analysis of the word at the head of this note, which, by the way. he writes "Notaquonchanet." thus adding a new variety to those which preceded. For the purpose of verification the reader may find Mr. Tooker's paper in the Publications of the Hist. Soc., Vol., 5, pages 203-215. After a very learned analysis of the word, which Mr. Tooker says "suggested a number of possible deriva- tions," of which "none were conchisively satisfactory"-"a hint was discovered in the word 'shortbounds'" in Roger Williams' letter to John Whipple." For this letter Mr. Tooker cites (Pub. R. I. Hist. Soc .. 3, 150, 151). Mr. Tooker then gives this quotation from the letter, "The Sachems, and I, were hurried, by the envy of some against myself, to these short bounds ; by reason of the Indians at Mashapog. Notakunkanet, and Pawtucket, beyond whom the Sachems would not then go." By referring to his authority it will be seen that he has not followed his authority-Notakunkanet is printed Notakunhanet ( Proc. Hist. Soc., v. 3, p. 150). But in another way he makes a very serious change. Mr. Tooker says "would not then go." His citation, Pub. Hist. Soc. 3. 151, says "could not then go." The word "hurried" was not used in the
210
THE "LONG" BOUNDS.
modern sense. It came from the provincial English verb "to hurry," which meant "to lead." It meant that Williams and the Sachems were led to fix these short bounds, &c., &c. But Mr. Tooker has here omitted half a dozen words of the utmost consequence to a true understanding of the clause which he quotes. Mr. Williams wrote, "Themselves ( the Sachems ) and I could not be trusted with- out present (or new) bounds hurried on to their grief, and mine" ( R. I. Hist. Tract 14, 27).
The term "short bounds" had nothing to do with the bounds of the first deed as they had existed. They were entirely different. They were the objects fixed upon by Miantinomi "in his own per- son" (R. 1. Hist. Tract, Sec. Ser. 4, p. 48). These objects, or natural things, were "Sugar Loaf Hill, Buett's Brow, Absolute Swamp, Ox Ford, and Hipses Rock ( Prov. Early Rec., v. 2, p. 72). These bounds were set after the Deed of 1638 and before Mian- tinomi was murdered in 1643. Probably in 1642. There were five of these "short bounds." Neither is mentioned in the Original Deed. But Notaquonckanet is mentioned in that Deed. Hence it was not "at the short, or scant bound." Thus the hill Notaquanckanet had nothing whatever to do with the term "short bounds." The fixing of these localities did not shorten the bounds, but extended them. In the case of this hill the bound was extended nearly a mile. Mr. Tooker then finds that the word Nota-kunkan- ut. thus giving me still another variety in spelling the word, to mean "at the short or scant bound." This meaning, Mr. Tooker says, he reached "according to the foregoing analysis." But Mr. Tooker is defective in memory, besides being untrustworthy in his citations. On page 211 he said, "A number of possible derivations suggested themselves in the course of study, but none were con- clusively satisfactory until a hint was discovered in the words short bounds in Roger Williams' letter." This hint had no connection with the analysis so learnedly shown. Does the learned gentleman expect us to believe that the name Notaquonckanet was devised by the Sachems specifically to fit their Deed to Williams in 1638, and meant "at the short or scant bound." when there were no such bound considered or fixed? Was this name then for the first time given to this hill because it was "a short or scant bound?" Had it ever
-
211
OBBATINUE'S CORN FIELD.
before served the Indians as a short bound; and, in case it had not, why give it such a name? Notaquonckanet Hill had not the slightest connection with the term "short bounds" as used by Mr. Williams in the letter quoted, and written in 1669, nearly thirty years after the "short bounds" were fixed. A knowledge of the history of Rhode Island will quickly show the bearing of these facts upon Mr. Tooker's definition. The definition is ridiculous. The letter writ- ten in 1669 had reference to the fight of the Pawtuxet Partners in the struggle for the lands. The word "short bounds," or "shortened bounds," as Mr. Williams wrote in 1677 ( Narr. Club 6. 390) had reference, solely in comparison, to the "Up streams without limits" appendix to the Original Deed, and to the "boundless bounds" ( Hist. Tract 14, 27) of the Confirmation Deed of 1659. When this bound, Notaquonckanet, was given to this purchaser the number of the population was just seven persons. The area 15.360 acres of land-more than 2,000 acres to each individual man. Can that be considered "a short or scant bound?" Most certainly it cannot. These modern methods of defining words by an analysis, which cannot be shown with any conclusive logic, but by finding some natural object near by, as, for instance, Annawamscutt, which Mr. Tooker defines "as at the shell rock," and Opponang, "a wasting place," and Quowatchang as "the place of the tall tree," or Popa- nomscut as "at the shelter rock," are of no value.
OBBATINUE'S CORNE FIELD.
In a deed of land given by William Arnold to his daughter Joane, the wife of Zachary Rhodes, one of the bounds mentioned is Obbatinue's Corne Field, another bound is Papaquinepaug river, and still another, but different from the last, is Papaquinepang pond. These bounds, taken in connection with the remaining bound. renders the identification of the location of Obbatinne's Corne Field an casy matter. This last bound is described thus, "being bounded (11 the south, and part of the west sides with the great fresh river running down to Pawtuxet falls" ( Early Records. v. I. p. So). The date of the deed is 1646. It will be noted that the river which we now call "Pawtuxet" was not then so called, the name applying only to the "Falls." This Indian Sachem's corne field was what
----
212
OBBATINEWAT.
is now called Bellefonte, the sharp bend in the Pawtuxet river making the south and west bounds thereof. Papaquinepaug river was not Papaquinepaug pond : this latter was probably that water which is now called Fenner's pond, for the reason that Mashapaug pond was then, and is still, a well known water, and Cunliff's pond, the only other pond in the region, is an artificial pond, made in the past century, and hence has no Indian name. Papaquinepaug river "is the river that runnes out of Mashapaug pond" ( Early Records, v. 1, p. 45) and flows through the Roger Williams Park, formning the beautiful chain of lakes therein, is enlarged by a dam into Cunliff's pond, and irrigating Obbatinue's Corne Field, enters the Pawtuxet river. Let me speculate a moment on this name Obbatinue. The name of this Sachem is not found in the histories of Rhode Island. So far as I now know this is the only reference to him in all our books. In Bradford and Winslow's Journal, a book usually cited as "Mourt's Relation," Mr. Young's edition, page 225, mention is made of an expedition from Plymouth to Shawmut (now Boston ), and it is stated that the "Sachem or Gov- ernor of this place is called Obbatinewat." This was in Septem- ber, 1620. It is also therein stated that this Sachem was a subject of Massasoit, within whose domain was Plymouth, and whose wig- wam was at Sowams, now Warren, Rhode Island.
Obbatinue was then, probably, this same Sachem; the remove across the bay from the lands of the Wampanoags to the lands of the Narragansets, at Pawtuxet, was but a short one, or possibly Obbatinue had been led captive by a Narraganset wife ; at all events he was a countryman of King Philip: and yet dwelt among the Narragansetts. He was from the first coming of the English, among their best friends. In Bradford and Winslow's Journal, the same cilition cited above, page 232, it is stated that in December, 1621, some Indian Sachems led by Massasoit visited Plymouth and made submission to "oure Sovereign lord King James." Mr. Morton, in his New England's Memorial, p. 67, prints in full the document here referred to with the names of the Sachems attached : among them is Obbatinnua, but Judge Davis, whose edition I have here used, introduces in a note a slight variation, thus, Obbatinowat. Thus a charming bit of history is now added to the beautiful land
1
........
213
OCCUPESUATUXETT.
known as Roger Williams Park. Why not restore the name of the little river which "runnes" through it, to the name by which Roger Williams and Miantinomi knew it. Papaquinepaug ; and name some romantic walk within it Obbatinue's path ?
OCCUPESUATUXETT-COPESSCATUNIT. (17)
The word Occupesuaturett, which was a name of an Indian locality on the bay below Pawtuxet, has occupied the attention of sundry writers of Providence. The latest is X. O. D., who says: "Probably the earliest spelling of the word is to be found in the record of the deed, or gift of land, by John Greene, Sen., to his son, John Greene, Jun., which was dated 1644. * The true ** interpretation of the word would appear to be the place below the first river, possibly because John Greene, Sen., was the first settler below Pawtuxet River." Another writer spells the word Occupasnetuxet ; she ( for a lady wrote the letter) does not define the word, but leaves that inference. She says it is "the Indian appellation of those level 'meadows through which the river flows'" (these two last quotation marks are the lady's ) ; then she continues: "Shortened for convenience in con- versation Pastuxet." Shortened by whom? Certainly not by Indians, but by the English, and hence not an Indian word, nor do I find it in the early records of Showomet. The Indian deed of Showomet bears the date 12th January, 1642. Copessuatuxett is the north bound, in Sohomes Bay (R. I. Hist. Coll. 2, 253). The John Greene deed I have not seen, but the date of it was Oct. Ist, 1642. It was transferred to the younger Greene, 25th September, 1644, and then spelled Occupasuatuxett ( Prov. Early Rec. 2, 33). This form in the Early Records is taken from the manuscript copy written by the Town Clerk, Olney ; the original is not accessible. The form in the Showomet original manuscript Deed is Copessuatuxet. This shows that the Greene form of spelling was not the earliest, and since we cannot produce the Indian deed to Greene, the Showomet deed remains the most ancient form. J. Hammond Trumbull, the highest authority in the Indian language in our time, spells the word thus :
...
214
PAPASQUASII.
"Copessuatuxit, or Occupessuatuxit, the north bound of Warwick purchase ; it means the small harbor or cove on tide water." This definition explains the language of the deed.
PAPASQUASH. (20)
In 1669 John Gorum, or Gorham, of Plymouth petitioned that government "for a grant unto himself of One Hundred acres of land" * * "if it can be purchased from the Indians" ( Plym. Col. Rec. 5, 20). Three years later, in 1672, Gorham with two other « men, James Brown and Constant Southworth, were appointed a committee to purchase a certain tract of land of the Indians, granted by the Court to said Gorham, lying at Papasquash Neck ( Plym. Col. Rec. 5, 95). Gorham served in the Plymouth Forces at the Great Swamp Fight, 19th December, 1675; contracted a fever, from which he died. In 1677 the Plymouth Government, in return for good service done by Gorham, granted the lands at Papasquash to his heirs forever. The earliest mention of the name appears in the Deed of Acquidneck ( 24th March, 1637-8). As printed in the R. I. Col. Rec. (v. I. p. 45) it is thus spelled, Paupausquatch. The same Deed printed in the Portsmouth Records is spelled Pumpos- quatick (p. 56). After the grant of the Mount Hope lands to Plymouth by the King, in 1680, the lands were immediately sold. and in the Deed given by the Plymouth Government the name is spelled Pappasquash ( Munro's Hist. Bristol, 61). The title to the English of the lands on Papasquash came by the Deed 28th March, 1653, given by Ousamequin ; it was the third regular purchase made by the town of Rehoboth ( Fessenden's Hist. Warren, 50). There is a note giving from the illustrations of spelling this name ( Munro's Hist. Bristol, 66) ; but nothing further concerning its derivation or meaning. There exists a comical reference to this name in a letter written by Jeremiah Dummer in 1714. Mr. Dummer was one of the most distinguished legal minds in Massachusetts of that time. He speaks of Col. Byfield, the chief among the planters of Bristol. R. I. Both Drummer and Byfield were in London and were dis- cussing the antipathy of Byfield toward Dudley, thien Governor of
·
POJACK -POTOCK. 215
Massachusetts. Drummer writes : "I told him ( Byfield) that both . my duty and my inclination led me to stand by his (Dudley's) commission, with what friends and interests I could make ; and he replied that he would, by the help of God, get him turned out, and therein please God and all good men. Accordingly we both have been pretty diligent, but I think he is now a little out of breath (immensely corpulent). His age makes him impatient of fatigues of application ; and his frugality makes him sick of coach hire, fees to officers, and door keepers, and other expenses; so that I believe he now heartily wishes himself safe in his own government at Poppy-squash" ( Mass. Hist. Soc. Col., Ist Ser., vol. 5, p. 193).
POJACK-POTOCK. (22)
This is the name given to a projecting point of land south of Potowomut. Its north bound is the stream Mascachuge. In March, 1776, the military defence of the Narragansett Bay was considered by the General Assembly, and among other places a force was placed on Pojuck point ( R. I. Col. Rec. 7, 492-3). The following year, 1777, the Blaskowitz chart of the Bay was published in London and these defences on Pojack point were shown thereon. Concerning this name there is something curious. There are but two words in Williams's Key to the Indian Language in which the letter J. appears. It has occurred to me that the word may be a cor- cupt form of Potock ( Hubbard, 1677. p. 55). Potock, or Potock, was the chief counsellor of Quaiapen. He dwelt on these identical lands. and was slain, according to Hubard, with his mistress, the Queen. July 2, 1676. Pojack must have come from Potock. There are things written in the New England histories concerning this Indian that lend interest to the study of his character. There was printed in London a tract, in 1676, entitled "A new and further account of ' the Bloody Indian war." The author writes ( page 13) : "Likewise Potucke, the Great Indian counsellor, a man considering his educa- tion of wonderful subtlety". He is again referred to in another tract, also printed in London in 1677, entitled "The Warr in New England visibly Ended" (page 2). "There is one Potuck, a mis-
- --
216
THE GREAT INDIAN COUNSELOR.
chievous Engine, and a Counsellor". Concerning Potack's place of residence, Mr. S. G. Drake has expressed an opinion different from that which I have written. Mr. Drake "fixes his residence in the vicinity of Point Judith" ( Book of the Indians 3, 77). This he attempts to show by citing a manuscript dated in 1661, "wherein Potok with several other chiefs complain of Samuel Wildbow and others of his company. These chiefs claimed jurisdiction at Point Judith, which this Wilbour had seized, as they claimed." But Mr. Drake is in error. Potock did not sign this protest ( Potter's Hist. Narr. 277). But even in case he did sign it, it would not make him a resident. A residence, in the vicinity, is ambiguous. Mr. Drake make's another serious error concerning Potock. In liis edition of Hubbard's Indian War ( 1865) he says, in a note ( vol. 1, P. 75), in speaking of a treaty, signed at Pettaquamscut 15th July, 1675: "Among other articles the Narragansetts by their agent, Potucke, urged that the English should not send among them any to preach the Gospel, or call upon them to pray to God. But the English refusing to concede such an article, it was withdrawn, and a Peace concluding." This statement Mr. Drake cites from "Gook- ing, History Praying of the Indians." Against this I object. First, there is no such writer as "Gooking"; second, that Gookin never wrote such a statement concerning the action of Potock in connec- tion with the treaty mentioned by Hubbard. This treaty Hubbard prints (vol. I, pp. 76-79). It was made 15th July, 1675. Gookin's "Historical Collections of the Indians in New England," the only book ever printed which he had written, was finished 7th December. 1674. It was never printed until 1792, at which time it was printed by the Mass. Hist. Soc. in their collection, volume I, pp. 141-230. Goodkin does not mention Potock's name, and he wrote more than a year before the treaty was made. There is in the treaty no evidence that Potock was present, or had any hand in it. The person who edited the volume, whose name I do not know, in a note says : "Their Sachems would not suffer the Gospel to be preached to their subjects". This was written in 1792, and there is no reference to Potock. It is an excellent illustration of the loose- ness in which New England history has been written. There is not the slightest doubt that the Narragansetts had good reason to keep
---
217
PAUTUCKQUT-PAUTUXET.
a "Praying Indian" who prayed under the guidance of Humphrey Atherton at a respectable distance ; they were used by Massachu -- setts chiefly as spies. Potock was a savage, but he was a splendid savage. Atherton was a civilized man, acting under the direct guidance of God himself, all the while a treacherous scoundrel. Potock acted up to the full light of his conscience. Atherton was an everlasting liar.
Poatock, in 1661, testified to the integrity of the title of the Misquamicut lands in Socho, both for himself and as the repre- sentative of Pessicus, who was a brother of Miantinomi ; and also for Scuttape, the grandson of Canonicus.
Powctuck witnessed an Indian Deed of land north from Caw- cumsquisuck to Richard Smith in October, 1660.
PAUTUCKQUT. (13)
The name Pawtucket was first written as it stands above in the Original Indian Deed in 1638. Mr. Trumbull defined it as meaning "At the Falls". Parsons defines it as meaning "Union of two rivers, and a fall into tide water". This definition Parsons took partly from the following: "An aged Indian woman at Stoningtown in 1679 stated that the river near Mr. Blackstone's house is called in Indian Pautuck and signifies a fall because there the fresh water falls into the salt water" ( Potter's Hist. Narragansett 266). There are fewer varieties in spelling this name than is the case with most Indian names. In a transcript of the facsimile of the original Deed in Paine's Denial of the Forgery the name is printed Pautuckgut (Pubs. Hist. Soc., v. 5, p. 208).
PATUXETT. (10)
The name Pautuxet was not mentioned by Williams in the original Deed. It first appears in the memorandum which was Written beneath this Deed, and is there written as it stands above.
218
PAUCHASSET-POCASSET.
In the Arnold Forgery of this Deed of 1659 it was written in the -body of the Deed thus, Pantuxett. The most corrupt form of which I now have knowledge is that which appears of record in a Deed given by William Arnold in 1645, thus, Pootatugock. It was recorded in 1674-5 ( Prov. Early Rec. 4, p. 18). Mr. Trumbull defines it as meaning "at the Little Falls" and as being the diminu- tive of Pautuckqut.
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.