DID THE ROMANS COLONIZE AMERICA ? " 367 



river name was spoken, the audience at once knew the character of the water. 

 This was the general rule, though exceptions appear. We cannot now determine 

 the facts fully, because many of the descriptives of the Indian names are evi- 

 dently gone from the more modern title. We know that even in the historical 

 period many of these (descriptives) have been dropped. For instance, we have 

 now simply " Mackinaw," where it was originally Michilli Mackinaw (or Ma- 

 aqua-nd). We have now in our geographies and on our maps simply "Haw," 

 where the original was Saxapahaw — two well-known descriptives gone from the 

 ancient name. We have also "Toe," where it was originally Estatoe. Numer- 

 ous examples could be cited had we space for illustration. 



The Latin birth of the descriptive in the examples given will be seen as we 

 proceed. 



Not only have the Indian names been often shorn of their strength and vigor 

 by the abbreviative spirit of our modern age, but sometimes those names have 

 been clad in the most fanciful of garbs by literary aesthetes. In a group of the 

 fanciful names appear Tennessee and Mississippi. 



Let us analyze the latter, as it is one of our great waters having in the title 

 the letter M. ^ Before we proceed, however, wrth the task of analysis, we should 

 formulate full principles upon which we can proceed legitimately, dealing, as we 

 have to, partly with the absolutely unknown. There is a principle, well under- 

 stood in the higher branches of mathematical science, applied in the elucidation 

 of problems where, with a knowledge of three factors, the fourth or the unknown 

 is an easy demonstration. In the case of the Indian names we often have undis- 

 puted facts in our favor. In the example Orinoco we have the illustration of a 

 physical nature that cannot be controverted. Secondly, the fact that the Indians' 

 words mean something — the fact that they have definite significance — certainly 

 cannot be eliminated from the problems before us, if we have the evident descrip- 

 tive epithet yet remaining with the name. We have also often the testimonies 

 traditional. Fortunately the gap lying between the coinage of the word and its 

 communication to our ancestors in the historical period was not so great but that 

 the truths of history were often securely held in the memories of the native, and 

 •correctly transmitted. We should not, however, attach too great importance to 

 mere tradition, unless it is corroborated by the physical and the verbal facts. If 

 these, however, shall all agree, and a cornparative investigation reveals a further 

 coincidence and corroboration in the Latin language — in the Roman theory — we 

 certainly must consider the evidence decidedly in our favor, if not irrefutably 

 sustaining the positions assumed. 



3 Among the waters of the Western Continent, having in their aboriginal titles the letter 

 M, are Mississippi, Missouri, Merrimac, Potomac, Moratoc (lower Roanoke), Michigan, Kalla- 

 muckee (great Tennesse), We-apa-ma-ooka (Albermarle Sound), Ma-aqua-esque-don (Delaware 

 Bay), Ma-aqua or Mahaqua (Hudson), Appomatoc (James?), Minnesota, Alabama, Amaccura 

 <in Florida and South America also), Ammasona (Amazon), Vermaha (La Plata), Mackinaw 

 (Lake Superior), and Wasmasaw (Cooper). Webster says that Massachusetts means "great 

 hills." The tradition in regard to nearly all the names cited connects the term " great " with the 

 words. 



VIIl-24 



