Housatonic Pohtatuck Mattatuck
"Another
toponym of the Schaghticoke and Mahikanak homelands that has been much debated
is Housatonic. Ausatinoag is the name recorded in 1661 by John Pynchon in land
account books, Usiatenuk in modern Mahikanneuw. The change from -atinoag to
-atenuk should not be ignored. Pynchon was closely familiar with
toponyms from the Central Connecticut Valley and dialects of that region. Goddard, in a 2016 paper that is based on the
work of Pere Mathevet, and subsequently Holly Gustavson, revealed the presence
of a half-dozen dialects, some of them language isolates, in an area that was
previously treated as having only two dialects. If Pynchon’s records were
accurate in 1661, that would change the affiliation of these people. However, nearby toponyms suggest that this is
a Mahikanneuw name, and affiliates with awosatenik (awosaten[e]+ik,
locative suffix, Unami), changed only by the loss of initial a, which is
also common in modern Unami. Usiatenuk
(modern Mahikan) and Ausatinoag affiliate more closely with Unami than
Munsee: awosi = on the other
side, Unami, while Munsee uses awasi. From old to modern Unami, [w]o
and long o convert to u; o and u have a
substitution relationship across languages that a and u do not
share. It appears that Ausi (awosi/awusi) in old Mahikan is also unified to -u
in Usiatenuk. Munsee is more distant to the name Usiatenuk. Some have posited
Munsee as the tongue of the Schaghticoke people, but the Schaghticoke people
appear to identify as majority Mahikanak (See Schaghticoke p.67), while they
include in their number and have historic ties with their immediate neighbors.
Housatonic River (Mahican) "beyond the mountain"
Usiatenuk in modern Mahikan; (awosatenik, Unami Lenapeuw; awosatene
= over the hill, p. 22 Zeisberger)
Pohtatuck
do not appear to have a published history that I could locate in their own
voice, but here is one reference: http://nativenortheastportal.com/bio-tribes/pootatuck
Tschana[n]tamsquah
named among Pohtatuck translates as “unknowing woman” (Unami tshilantamixkwe=
tschil+anantam+ixkwe = not/don’t wisdom woman) similar in Nipmuk (anantam
– wisdom).
Mattatuck – near Middlebury and Naugatuck; mistranslated as “no tree,” derives from matta,
“distant, last” (Kchisogmo Laurent attested), and tekw, “river.” “Far River.”
There is also a Mattituk, eastern Long Island in Unkachog land,
being the farthest east river on that land.
Menunketesuck
River (and Menunketesuck Island )(Hammonasset)
"strong flowing stream"
Naugatuck River near Middlebury and Mattatuck;
mistranslated as "single tree," a temporary and thus useless
identifier. Naugatuck derives from nohkw,
“soft” and tekw “river,” Nohkwtetk. Nohkw confused by
uninformed with nekwut, “one,” tekw confused with mhituk,
“tree.”
Quassapaug (Quinnipiac) "big pond" or "big rock"
Mianu/Mayanno(s), sakima of Siwanoy who died
by the gorge named for him, presents a telling form of “gather” if his name is
given at all correctly. Lenape, Mahikan
and Mohegan all adhere to the mauwe-/mauwu-/mauwi- stem form for “gather
(animate) together,” even extending to Northern Cree maaumwitaau (we
gather together). Mauwen is modern Unami for “to gather” animate subjects,
similar in Munsee. I found one instance
of moiham, “someone gathers,” in Unami, where the normal form is mauwe-.
However, Natick and Massachusett are marked by Eliot and Trumbull, in the
Natick Dictionary, as using mianau- for “gather them together”:
With inan. subj. nippe moiemo, the water is gathered
together, Ex. 15, 8; mukkinneonk noema), Lev. 8, 4 (– miſſaema),
Judg. 20, 1), the assembly is gathered together; pl. máemoush, Prov. 27,
25. [Narr. midwene, ‘a court or meeting'; miau'étuck, let us
meet. Abn. maiéssafin, on s'assemble. Quir, mutuwêu'unk, a
congregation, Pier. 61.] mianaú;, motinati, etc., v. t. an: he
assembles, gathers (them) together, 2. Sam. 12, 29; suppos. mayanuk, “if
he gather together’, Job 11, 10; imperat. 2d sing. miam, miyan, máin,
gather thou (them) together, 2 Sam. 12, 28; Esth. 4, 16; Num. 21, 16.
This affiliation marks a northeastward
association that upsets present assignations of Siwanoy language. Quiripi appears also to use -mauw as
the stem for “gather people,” as used in nagamauwo, “those gathered” in
the “Quiripi Catechism,” yet perhaps this is mistranslated from nag amauwo
= those Departed (neg amaiyeuog in Nipmuk); mutuweuunk is
cited from Pierson. Additionally, Quiripi as presented in the Helps for the
Indians . . . catechism uses intrusive r, which may be reflected in
anthroponyms given above. There is a
troubling number of linguistic anomalies to be found in the names of
signatories for just a few of the area tribes, suggesting that the picture is
more complex than we’ve been led to believe.
There are signs of influence from all languages in all directions within
toponyms and anthroponyms of Westchester and Fairfield Counties.
The presentation of separate leaders
accompanied by separate entourages of community leaders (clan elders) attests
to the fact that each of these people regarded themselves as independent of
each other – to the level of speaking separately about the core critical matter
of the Land. On the face of it, we have here
six independent, but closely allied, political bodies. They represent just half of the contingency
of communities grouped as “Siwanoy,” treated in land negotiations as two
divisions of many communities. To what
degree people labelled Siwanoy regarded themselves as one is and won’t be
clear. What we do know is that they initially presented large delegations as
agents for the people, and later fewer.
Earlier people talked separately in small clusters of villages, while
later, sakima signed alone for large areas; even later, those same sakima
signed together. There were also early
combined negotiations, particularly after wars, with multiple peoples
petitioning together. Peaceful talks about land appear to have been different
in the early years.
Page 51:
“Many anthroponyms appear to indicate a place, perhaps marking the
person by their place of association. The majority of personal names reflect
nominal forms of verbs.” (Sachem
Nonnewaug)
Variations in linguistic affiliation of
toponyms, ethnonyms and anthroponyms in these documents cannot be simply
attributed to the translators since the named translators would ostensibly
speak the same language as categorized by some scholars. As given above, the translators are all from
the immediate area where Mahekanituk meets the sea (Rye, Yonkers, Hackensack),
less than 20 miles apart. Yet, in an
area of less than 50 miles radius, the suffix for just one concept of pooling
water takes on an array of forms: -pack, -pac, pek, -pequa, -paqua, -pough,
-paugh, pauk, -buc and -peague. Again, these forms are mostly
recorded by the same few persons and translated into just two languages, but
the resulting forms on record are diverse. While lists of signatories are all
full of similarities, many have some degree of idiosyncrasy. The difference between “tribes” in names
falls mostly to the frequency of certain endings or frequency of theme in roots
used.
Mahikan names in the
Hudson Valley distinguish only slightly from Lenape, being very closely related
(Appendix F). The only Paugusett sakima
I could find in early contact times is Kockopotanauk, a name that bears the one
stand-out trait of Mahikan, shared with Quiripi, frequent use of au
diphthong in colonial transliteration.
However, the names of leaders recorded at Wnahktituk (Stockbridge) in
later parts of the colonial period take on distinctive form readily recognized
in regional land documents (Appendix G). This difference is supported by at
least two east-west dialects of Mahikan, recognized in the words for “woman,” uxk,
in Western dialect, usk in Eastern dialect.
Elizabeth Mauwee
(Mahyeuh)
was born in New Haven (Mioonktuk). In 1699 she married Joseph Chuse (Paugusset)
and moved to Schaghticoke."
