DID THE ROMANS COLONIZE AMERICA f 369 



dian's knowledge of the mother (Latin) tongue. There is, without doubt, in 

 them a corroboration of the three-fold facts — the verbal, the physical, and the 

 traditional. 



But these are not all the valuable facts in connection with the river that 

 evince the Indian's knowledge. The Mississippi was known to the early aborigi- 

 nes also as the Chuckagua (Ramsay's Annals of Tennessee). This is the title, 

 doubtless, which gave rise to the tradition that the meaning of the name was 

 " Great Father of Waters. " We see the term ' ' water " in the word in the Spanish 

 version of the Latin aqua. The expression ' ' Great Father " is supposed to be re- 

 presented or expressed by the prefix " chuc," which is furthermore supposed to be 

 the same as the Hebrew Jah^ (or Jehovah) — the Great Father. This Hebrew 

 term, or its corruption, is often found in the Indian nomenclature, and written 

 in transcripts showing now "Chi," "Che," "Chu," etc.: and what is more re- 

 markable still, this term is nearly always in names applying to waters about which 

 there is great mystery or grandeur. It appears to be a fact that the word Jehovah 

 was once known in purity to the early colonists of America. The Choctaw Lex- 

 icon has it as belonging to that language. And that their word is not a mere 

 modern appropriation or adaptation of the ancient one we have striking evidence. 

 The Choctaws print it as "Chihowah." Now, an ancient tradition gives the 

 aboriginal name of the Delaware River as Chihohocci (or really Chihoaqua), 

 The legend (as recorded by Mrs. EUett — Poems— Tradition of "Delaware Water 

 Gap")« is that God's Finger— or the Finger of the Great Spirit,— once touched 

 the mountain, at a place now known as Delaware Water Gap; the rocks were 

 then rent asunder, and the waters released from their long confinment in the val. 

 leys beyond. Hence the name — simply God's River. 



Reserving for a future article other illustrations of the Indians' use of the 

 Hebrew term, let us return to those names wherein the Latin magnus or its abbre- 

 viation is seen. 



There is a tradition, I think mentioned by the historian Bancroft, that makes 

 the meaning of the aboriginal name of the Hudson simply "The Great River." 

 The Hudson has had many tribal appellations, mere dialectic distinctions. But 

 the title that appears to be the oldest, the one most in conformity with the recog- 

 nized models of the aborigines, is the word Mahaqua. This appears first histori- 

 cally in connection with one of the oldest tribes along the river (see Am. Cyclo- 

 pedia, vol. I., p. i88.) But it is a well known fact that the aboriginal nations 

 usually received their tribal distinctions or appellations from the name of the 

 river upon which the people were first found by the early white explorers here. 

 This is in accordance with a custom which has obtained in all ages of the world. 

 The conclusion is therefore legitimate that the name Mahaqua was first applied 

 to the river. We are supported in this conclusion by all the historical facts per. 

 taining to the name. The same name lingers still in a corruption of the old 



4 lu the Spanish language— from which we get the Indian originals— Ch and J are the same 

 in sound. 



5 Citation made from memory— the authority not at hand at this writing. 



