Talk:Werowocomoco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Welcome to the Talk page for the Wikipedia article about Werowocomoco.

Blurb for DYK[edit]

Did You Know


They should not have left out the "allegedly" from the Main page blurb. Many scholars who have written books on the subject have questioned whether such an event took place, for the reason that John Smith, who wrote prolifically on the subject of Virginia nearly every year, made no reference to this having occured until around 20 years after it supposedly did. They think it may well have been a story he concocted in later life only after Pocahontas became famous. If this really happened, he had 20 yrs. worth of reports on VA natives where he did not say a word about it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on Werowocomoco, John Smith of Jamestown, and Pocahontas each make it pretty clear that the story is doubtful. Vaoverland 03:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Powhatan as title[edit]

Powhatan does not mean 'Emperor' - it is from an Algonquian word, meaning roughly "waterfalls in a current of water", and refers to the waterfalls on the James River approximately where modern day Richmond is located. The term was used as a title for Wahunsunacock in much the same way as certain characters in Shakespeare's plays are referred to - e.g. "Northumberland" or "York" for the dukes of those two respective localities. I've spent a lot of time researching the appelations of Wahunsunacock, and if you are looking for a title that may be construed as "Emperor", the term 'Mamanatowick' is a possibility, as it seems to be a rarely used word meaning roughly 'paramount chief', as opposed to the more common weroance. There is a lot of confusion about the term "Powhatan" as it is used (often incorrectly) to refer to many things. WLD 13:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am going to have to revert back again to the other editor's version. As the other editor said, it is a a title, a tribe, a confederacy and a place (you forgot river). There is ample evidence for this in the primary sources, and only modernistic OR saying otherwise without convincing proof. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the appropriate primary sources. WLD 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm sure you have some source for your "Northumberland" theory, besides yourself, right? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a theory - read Shakespeare for yourself. One example, of many is Henry IV part two, Act Three "'Tis not ten years/Since Richard and Northumberland, great friends/Did feast together, and in two years after/Were they at wars. It is but eight years since". WLD 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the British usage. What I obviously meant was, do you have any source whatsoever for your theory that this British usage was ever applied to the Powhatan people. I do believe you when you say you have researched this, but as is well known, this isn't the place to do our own research - only to cite all existing views. Fortunately, Media-wiki have just opened up a new project you may be interested in, called Wikiversity, where you can conduct all the original research you want. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have read 'Map of Virginia' and 'A True Relation'. Take another look, and see if Powhatan is used as a synonym for Emperor. It isn't. See the following usages:
  • "Tawnor nehiegh Powhatan. where dwels Powwhatan."
  • "The name of this river they call Powhatan accor to the name of a principall country that lieth upon it."
  • "The place called Powhatan, some 40. On the South side this river,..."
  • "On the South side inhabit the people of Youghtanund, who have about 60 men for warres. On the North branch Mattapament, who have 30 men. Where this river is divided, the Country is called Pamaunke, and nourisheth neere 300 able men. About 25 miles lower on the North side of this river is Werawcomoco, where their great King inhabited when CaptainSmith was delivered him prisoner; yet there are not past 40 able men. But now he hath abandoned that, and liveth at Orapakes by Youghtanund in the wildernesse. 10 or 12 myles lower, on the South side of this river is Chiskiack, which hath some 40 or 50 men. These, as also Apamatuck, Irrphatock, and Powhatan, are their great kings chiefe alliance and inhabitance. The rest (as they report) his Conquests."
  • "Theses are scarse known to Powhatan."
  • "...doth equalize any of the Territories of Powhatan and speake his language; who over all those doth rule as king."
  • "Amongst those people are thus many severall nations of sundry languages, that environ Powhatans Territories."
  • "Powhatan their great king and some others that are provident, rost their fish and flesh upon hurdles as before is expressed and leepe it till scarce time."
  • "The forme of their Comon wealth is a monarchicall governement. One as Emperour ruleth over many kings or governours. Their chiefe ruler is called Powhatan, and taketh his name of the principall place of dwelling called Powhatan. But his proper name is Wahunsonacock."

The last quotation is telling - Smith tells us that Wahunsonacock's proper name is Wahunsonacock, and "taketh his name of the principall place of dwelling called Powhatan" Where do you get your idea that Powhatan means Emperor? It is not in "True Relation" or "Map of Virgina" - True Relation says Emperor Powhatan, and Powhatan their Emperor, but does not equate the word Powhatan with Emperor. WLD 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems you've proved me wrong. Mea culpa. I did get confused, because I have often heard that Powhatan was not a personal name, but a title. Perhaps Northumberland is an apt comparison after all. I will revert myself to your version.
In looking this up, I found Smith's account where he reports how he and two other English tried to perform a coronation of him as "Emperour" of Virginia (and supposedly vassal of James), but he refused to kneel to receive the crown, and they had a hard time finally getting it on his head! Lots of interesting stuff... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for being open to discussion. The first hand accounts of the interactions between the colonists/settlers and the local population are very interesting. I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that someone they called an emperor could be a vassal to a king, as I thought it would normally be the other way around - at least, that's what the Romans did. Why Smith chose to refer to Wahunsonacock as an emperor is interesting, rather than say as a king, with feudal lords. Maybe it is just a question of what he was familiar with from his travels elsewhere. Anyway, such speculation, although interesting, is definitely original research, and would have no place in an article. Thanks again for reverting back. WLD 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Werowocomoco dispute[edit]

This much is not in dispute: the location was on the north side of the York River and was long thought (mostly by tradition) to have been near Wicomico, despite little archaeological evidence. A 25 miles downriver from West Point figure provided by Smith is consistent with that location. Recently, some compelling archaeological information and historical maps and descriptions give the location near Purtan Bay strong credibility as the likely site. Captain Smith left us with some of the current discrepancies, as his 25 mile figure doesn't even seem to come close to matching Purtan Bay (although we are not sure exactly from where upstream in the West Point area he began measuring).

I restored the properly-sourced statement by the Gloucester Board of Supervisors which attempted a politically-correct compromise which probably satisfies no one, and was deleted without explanation. I also removed POV and non-sourced pro-Wicomico edits which removed the preceding and provided what I feel is an inaccurate description of the distance from Wicomico to Jamestown, based upon a check I did on Google Maps myself. Neither site is exactly 12 miles across the Virginia Peninsula as the crow flies from Jamestown, as both sites are further than that, although Purtan Bay seems to be a lot closer than Wicomico. (Check it yourself, and use additional mapping sources if you think I have erred; I am not expert, and WP is not for original research anyway).

For the article to meet WP criteria, I think we can only include the facts as they develop (studies are still underway), and present thopse which are inconflcit as objectively and accuractely as possible per WP:NPOV. I have no interest in either and can appreciate considerations on both sides of the issue.

To the unregistered user who removed some of my sourced content and replaced it with the non-sourced and apparently partially inaccurate content, please "tighten up" and "follow the rules" if you want to have a role in this article. If you have properly sourced content to add to the debate, and some of what you had may be, please follow the rules. I suggest you both register as an editor and refer to WP:CITE if you really care about this issue and would like others to consider your position. Mark in Historic Triangle 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued POV edits[edit]

Despite my good faith efforts to present the considerations regarding the possible locations of Werowocomoco, we are continuing to have POV edits which seem determined to present only one side of the possibilities. If this continues, I will ask for sanctions and protection of the article.

Per WP policy, if there is some justification for the above, please discuss it here and stop editing the article as a way of accomplishing your position/opinion, which may or may not eventually prove to be accurate. Are we seeking the truth, or is this one of those "don't confuse us with facts, as our minds are already made up" situations? If it is that, WP isn't the place for you to express yourself.

WP readers deserve enough facts to form their own opinion, or, as I am doing, monitor events and withhold judgment. Personally, I don't think we yet know authoritatively where Werowocomoco was. Nothing I have read has yet convinced me that anyone else does either. However, my opinion is only that. I do believe that presenting all credible facts is the WP way in such matters. Mark in Historic Triangle 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ANSWER

The original text in the Wikipedia encyclopedia was entered by the Princess Pocahontas Foundation. It was Werowocomoco Research Group who altering the information.

The Foundation's information come directly from Smith's book, "Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England and the Summer Isles" 1624, not from another's version of it. Smith plainly describes where he was taken when the fmous event of Pocahontas' saving his life. "At the ordinary flowing of the salt water, it (Pamunkey River) divideth it self into two Gallant branches. On the South side inhabit the people of Youghtand (?), who haue about 60 men for warres. On the North branch Mattapament, who haue 30 me. Where this river is divided the county is called Pamaunkee, and nourisheth neare 300 able men. About 25 myles lower on the North side of this river is Werawocomoco, where their great King inhabited when I was delivered him prisioner;" 

Dividing into "two Gallant branches" can only describe the division at present day West Point. Twenty five miles from the division places it in the area of Wicomico. Purtan Bay is only about 13 miles from this division.

Those who are attempting to change the location are either altering his description or ignoring it. They are also making untrue claims. First. The location has never been "lost" as they claims so they could not have "found" it. If for no other reason the existence of Powhatan's Chimney at present day Wicomico proves the location. They have been attempting to disclaim the chimney, but it was one of the reasons that the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities was establish after it fell down in 1888. They believed then that it was the chimney from the building that Smith sent two Dutchmen to Werowocomoco to build an English house for Powhatan. The association rebuilt the chimney in 1934, so they believed it was Powhatan's Chimney then too, some 50 years later. There are many, many historians who have written about it and some even visited it before it fell down. SCRIBNER'S MAGAZINE, wrote about it in 1881, before it fell down.

The area of the chimney was known as Werowocomoco until 1900 when a post office was established in the area. The first Postmaster, John Edwin Hogg, submitted the areas name, Werowocomoco to them and they rejected it as too long and named the Post Office Wucomico instead, which the area is known as today.

The ones who are trying to change the location of Werowocomoco have chaged their "proof" of location several times. They fist tried to establish it by saying it was 12 miles from the Kiskiack Indian Village. When it was pointed out that according to Smith one had to find the location of Werowoomoco before you can find the location of the Kiskiacks, they stopped. Then they said that Smith said that it was 12 miles from Jamestown. When it was pointed out the Wicomico is 12 miles from Jamestown and Purtan Bay is 15 miles from Jamestown, they started saying thet Smith said that it was 15 miles from Jamestown. He said 12 miles. The 25 miles are a problem to them, one that they have to address. They have tried by saying that Smith meant an island some miles up the Pamunkey River, or an Indian village some where up that river. Or, as their latest claim is, that because the York River and the Pamunkey Riner as they are known today were called the same then, that Smith ignored the fork in the river. Who knows what their next claim will be.

According to Smith's map, there was a village at the Purtan Bay site but its name was "Nattacock" not Werowocomoco. The existance of Indian artifacts is not unexpected, in fact, there were several Indian villages along the York River and they are all sites where Indian artifacts are found. They can be found all over Gloucester County.

Around 1900 a site on Purtan Bay was suggested as the site of Werowocomoco, but it was not the present site that is suggested. It was Purtan Plantation, and it was suggested because on Tindall's 1608 map there was a location on the Pamunkey River named "Poetan". They claim was that Poetan stood for Powhatan and Purtan and also for Werowocomoco. That was an opinion, not proof.

There have been some who even question the artifacts found at proposed site, One was Daniel Herman Weiskotten, Historian and Archeologists, formerly with the Chesterfield Historical Society of Virginia, the Children's Museum of Virginia and the Virginia Association of Museums. He said that the artifacts were not "from the time of Pocahontas". There are others who have said the same thing.

When you try to establish an historical site you need more than archeological evidence, you also need other proof. Tradition plays a large part, for if it were not for tradition, many of our historical sites would not have been found. Archeological evidence only helps to confirm the tradition.

When you have a description written by one who participated in the event, that is proof. How can one come 400 years later and say he did not know what he was saying? They were not there. There are no other writers of that period who described where the location of Werowocomoco was.

If the Wikipedia encyclopedia wants to print the truth, read Smith's description in its original version. Make sure it is correctly quoted. Do not accept one's opinion as proof and do not accept everything submitted without checking the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.42.158 (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are the source of the past edit problem, bringing it here for discussion in certainly better. Thanks. I think we can make sure that the articles make it clear that there is dissension regarding the sites, and there is also room to present major considerations, such as some of the aspects you have pointed out. I added the Pocahontas Foundation item to external links after finding it during research, and I am not pro-Purtan Bay or pro-Wicomico, or pro anything about this except lets keep WP NPOV, factual, and up-to-date should new information arise. Mark in Historic Triangle 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I did not answer this way, but I thought, especially since the original information was submitted by us, that I had the right to correct it.

There are some things that should be corrected in the text.

First - take out all references to the location of Werowocomoco being "lost" and then being "found". This is not true. They even admit to it when they say that the area now known as Wicomico was known as Werowocomoco until a Post Office was established there in 1900. The first postmaster was John Edwin Hogg, my husband's grandfather, so the information about the naming of the P.O. was remembered by his mother, his two aunts and three uncles. Also the existence of Powhatan's Chimney is "Proof of the location.

Second - Actually the Werowocomoco Research Group is the only one promoting the idea that Purtan Bay is the location of the Indian Village, and they have done an excellent promotional job. They have received worldwide publicity. But if you make the announcement that you have "found" the location of where Pocahontas saved the life of Capt John Smith you will receive worldwide publicity. Especially if you do no say that the traditional site is already known, and ignore Smith's description of the location, how is anyone going to know that this is not the truth? People believe that they are telling the truth.

Third- If you measure a modern map, not Smith's map, you will see that Wicomico is about 12 miles from Jamestown and Purtan Bay is about 15 miles.

Fourth - As proof, they made a comparison map of a modern map and Smith's map. Because they wanted to line up Purtan Bay with Werowocomoco on a modern map, they reduced the size of the modern map to do so. A true comparison placed Purtan Bay at the location of the Nattacock Indian village and Werowocomoco on Smith's map at Cappahosic on the modern may. For some reason Smith's map has the location of Werowocomoco and Cappahosic transposed, but the location of Cappahosic is well documented with old land grants. Why they are transposed is anyone's guess, maybe because Smith map was not drawn by him but by William Hole

Fifth - Because someone found Indian artifact along the shore of the York River, and writes that it is the possible site of Werowocomoco is not proof. Indian artifacts are found all along the York River and at many other places in Gloucester County, Virginia.

Sixth - The research group appointed four or five members of Indian villages in the area to an advisory group for their project. They are not the official State organization. I have not found that the official organization has taken any stand on the location of Werowocomoco, even though the research group used their emblem on their web site.

Seventh - The home on Purtan Bay that they claim to be Werowocomoco was renamed that within the last few years. Previous owners told us that they never found an abundance of Indian artifacts there.

You can check this information. If you want the truth printed in the article, we hope you will make the corrections —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocahontas Foundation (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

i'm confused why the infobox is not in the upper right, but feel free to undo. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Werowocomoco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question[edit]

Who is a historical figure from Werowocomoo? 2601:140:8500:A370:E4C8:65F5:D601:C890 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Werowocomoco&oldid=1207902750"