Talk:Pocahontas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Peer review Pocahontas has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Pocahontas as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Serbo-Croatian language Wikipedia.

An event in this article is a April 5 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Contents

[edit] Geneologies

[edit] Bushes are not directly descended from Pocahontas

Since this erroneous factoid gets reinserted from time-to-time -- for the record neither U.S. President Bush was directly descended from Pocahontas. Pocahontas's only grandchild was Jane Rolfe who married Robert Bolling. Their only child was John Bolling, who married Mary Kennon. Mary Kennon's sister was Martha Kennon who was an ancestor of the Bushes. A second connection is that after Jane Rolfe's death, Robert Bolling remarried to Ann Stith. They had several children, including one also named Robert Bolling. This Robert Bolling, who was a half-brother to John Bolling, was also an ancestor of the Bushes. So there are two indirect relations with Pocahontas but no direct blood lineage. older≠wiser 15:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the most thorough genealogy I've come across shows that President Bush is, in fact, a Pocahontas descendant - it shows Robert Bolling,Jr. to be Jane Rolf's son. I've done a cut-and-past job from that website (I hope I don't get charged with copyvio). The line goes thus:

GENERATION 13 4564. John ROLFE was born 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England and was christened 6 May 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England. He died 22 Mar 1622 in Jamestown, James City, , Virginia,USA. John married Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) on 5 Apr 1614 in Jamestown, , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

4565. Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) was born about 1595 in Werowocomoco, , , Virginia,USA. She died Mar 1617 in Gravesend, Kent, , England and was buried 21 Mar 1617 in St. George's, Gravesend, Kent, England. [Parents]

GENERATION 12 2282. Thomas ROLFE (Lieutenant) was born 30 Jan 1615 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. He died 1656 in Virginia, USA. Thomas married Jane POYTHRESS in , , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

2283. Jane POYTHRESS was born about 1620 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 11 1140. Robert BOLLING (Colonel) was born 26 Dec 1646 in All Hallows, London, Middlesex, England. He died 7 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA and was buried 17 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA. Robert married Jane ROLFE on 1675 in Petersburg, Ind. City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

1141. Jane ROLFE was born 10 Oct 1650 in Petersburg, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Kippax, Charles City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 10 570. Robert BOLLING (Jr.) (Major) was born 25 Jan 1681 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. He died before 3 Jan 1748/1749 in , , Prince George, Virginia,USA. Robert married Anne May COCKE on 27 Jun 1706. [Parents]

571. Anne May COCKE was born 27 Jan 1705 in Prince George County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 9 284. James MUNFORD (Major) was born 1708 in Prince George County, Virginia. He died 25 Apr 1754 in Prince George County, Virginia. James married Elizabeth BOLLING on 1727 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

285. Elizabeth BOLLING was born 17 Dec 1709 in Prince George County, Virginia. She died 1754 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 8 142. Robert MUNFORD married Anne BROADNAX. [Parents]

143. Anne BROADNAX was born in Charles City County, Virginia. She died after 1780. [Parents]

GENERATION 7 70. John SHELLMAN (Jr.) was born 5 May 1756 in Frederickstown, , , Maryland,USA. He died 17 Apr 1838 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. John married Clarissa MUNFORD. [Parents]

71. Clarissa MUNFORD was born in Amelia County, Virginia. She died Feb 1845. [Parents]

GENERATION 6 34. Samuel Howard FAY was born 21 Jul 1804 in Cambridge, , Middlesex, Massachusetts,USA. He died 16 Aug 1847 in Brooklyn, , , New York,USA. Samuel married Susan SHELLMAN on 5 Jul 1825 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. [Parents]

35. Susan SHELLMAN was born 20 Feb 1808 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. She died 12 Jan 1887. [Parents]

GENERATION 5 16. James Smith BUSH (Reverend) was born 15 Jun 1825 in Rochester, , Monroe, New York,USA. He died 11 Nov 1889 in Ithaca, , Tompkins, New York,USA. James married Harriet Eleanor FAY on 24 Feb 1859 in New York City, , , New York,USA. [Parents]

17. Harriet Eleanor FAY was born 29 Oct 1829 in Savannah, , Chatham, Georgia,USA. She died 27 Feb 1924 in Boston, , Suffolk, Massachusetts,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 4 8. Samuel Prescott BUSH was born 4 Oct 1863 in Brick Church, , , New Jersey,USA. He died 8 Feb 1948 in Columbus, , Franklin, Ohio,USA. Samuel married Flora SHELDON on 20 Jun 1894 in Columbus, , , Ohio,USA. [Parents]

9. Flora SHELDON was born 17 Mar 1872 in , Franklin, , Ohio,USA. She died 4 Sep 1920 in Watch Hill, , , Rhode Island,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 3 4. Prescott Sheldon BUSH was born 15 May 1895 in Columbus, Franklin, , Ohio,USA. He died 8 Oct 1972 in New York City, , , New York,USA. Prescott married Dorothy WALKER on 6 Aug 1921 in Kennebunkport, York, , Maine,USA. [Parents]

5. Dorothy WALKER was born 1 Jul 1901 in Nr. Walker's, Point, York, Maine,USA. She died 19 Nov 1992 in Greenwich, , , Connecticut,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 2 2. George Herbert Walker BUSH was born 12 Jun 1924 in Milton, Massachusetts, USA. He married Barbara PIERCE on 6 Jan 1945 in Rye, New York, USA. [Parents]

3. Barbara PIERCE was born 8 Jun 925 in Rye, Westchester, New York, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 1 1. George Walker BUSH was born 6 Jul 1946 in New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut. [Parents]

There is a tremendous amount of speculation about Pocahontas descendents. I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I've come across a numer of quite convincing sites that dismiss the direct Bush-Pocahontas lineage. [1], [2], [3], [4] indicate that Robert BOLLING (Jr.) of Generation 10 was the child of Col. Robert Bolling with Anne Sith not Jane Rolfe. [5] indicates Col. Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe had only one child, "John Bolling of "Cobbs" (Colonel) b 1676 d 1729". (blacklisted URL removed per automated message by Erechtheus) also corroborated this. I could probably find more, but I think I've made the point. older≠wiser 15:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Yes, you've made your point - whether conclusively, well, I guess we'll have to wait for further research to tell. From my own point of view, the jury is still out on that one (but even that's a departure from the position I would have stoutly maintained as late as yesterday). I'll make some more comments under Lir's, below. David Cannon 10:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If people think he is descended, then the wikipedia should include the information. Lirath Q. Pynnor

For once, I'm inclined to agree with older≠wiser - not necessarily with his conclusions, but with his view that the information should NOT be in the article. As I said in my comments above, I consider the jury still to be out on this question. If so, both opinions (that Bush IS or IS NOT a Pocahontas descendant) are POV. This encyclopedia strives for NPOV, so I don't think the article should take a stand either way.
I do propose, however, that the article include a sentence or two about the controversy, without taking sides, like this: A number genealogists have linked Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush with Pocahontas, but this link has not been proved. The connection depends on Robert Bolling, Jr. (a 10th generation ancestor of George W. Bush) being the son of Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe (granddaughter of Pocahontas), a connection which has been disputed by many reputable genealogists, who believe that the younger Bolling was the son of Anne Sith, not Jane Rolfe. The Bush family, for its part, has not confirmed, denied, or publicly expressed an opinion on, whether or not they are descended from Pocahontas. David Cannon 10:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm fine with an addition phrased such as you propose. older≠wiser 12:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! Done. BTW, I've removed the sentence, "Thomas Rolfe remained in England." This source says that he died in Virginia. However, if anyone can come up with a contrary source, we'll factor that in. David Cannon 00:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think I need to revert my own edition. I've had some correspondence with the author of the genealogical site I referred to, and this convinces me that older≠wiser is right. I print (in full) my e-mail to the author, and his reply:
Dear Dr. Barker,
I have been researching the family tree of President George W. Bush, and have found your online genealogy very helpful. It is the most comprehensive that I have found.
There is one problem that I'd like to hear your comments on. Your genealogy shows that President Bush is a descendant of Pocahontas through Jane Rolfe (1141). I (and a number of others) have tried inserting the information in Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia), but a number of others have drawn my attention to other websites that dispute the link, claiming that the younger Bolling was the son of Anne Sith, not Jane Rolfe. Even on your genealogy, I find a problem with it, namely this:
  • Jane Rolfe died in 1676.
  • Her supposed son, Robert Bolling, Jr. (570), was born in 1682.
I got these dates from your genealogy. Now, how can someone be born six years after his mother has died? Either the dates are wrong (quite possible), or the link is wrong (equally possible).
Something in me really wants to find that President Bush is a Pocahontas descendant, but the internal contradiction in the data makes the connection appear tenuous at best. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Yours sincerely,
David Cannon.
Dr Barker's reply:
This is a wrong connection, he descends from the Stith connection, and not the Boling. Sorry for the problem, we have corrected it in our files, but we have not yet put up the correction on the Internet. Sorry.
Lowell A. Barker
In view of this information, I will now change what I wrote yesterday, to reflect the fact that the Rolfe link has been shown to be mistaken.

[edit] No relationship - not valid information for inclusion.

Since it is obvious there is no relationship between Pocahontas and the president, I have removed any references to it in the article which is after all about Pocahontas, not aboput people who can not claim descent from her which would only be good for trivia anyway.

This information is more suited for this page:

"A number of genealogists have attempted to link Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush with Pocahontas, but this link has been proved to be based on the mistaken assumption that Robert Bolling, Jr. (a 10th generation ancestor of George W. Bush) was the son of Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe (granddaughter of Pocahontas). This connection has been disproved by many reputable genealogists, who point out that Rolfe died in 1676, six years before the birth of the younger Bolling, who therefore could not have been her son. He was evidently the son of Anne Stith, whom his father married after Jane Rolfe's death. The Bush family, therefore, is not directly descended from Pocahontas."

The above information would be better off on a page that cared about the president or his ancestry, and even then, if there is no relationship, then why even make mention of it. Plank

Incorrect information about the relationship has been repeatedly added to the article and there is obviously some mistaken information in common circulation. There is nothing inappropriate about including a clarification about the correct information here. older≠wiser 16:21, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
If there are rumors about Bush being related to Pocahontas that are not true, I think there is nothing wrong with this article shooting that down. After all, this is an encycolopedia. So one should walk away more informed. (I understand that several presidents in the past have tried to trace their line to her, such as Jefferson and Washington, but I remember where the source was for that so I've left it out of the article) Grice 00:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other noteworthy descendents?

I don't think it's the place of an encyclopedia to have to shoot down rumors of various kinds, unless they've clearly entered the common currency (which cannot be said of Pocahontas-Bush geneology; how many people are aware of such talk?). Instead of wasting a paragraph to explain that Pocahontas isn't related to GWB, why not mention the prominent Virginians that are known to actually *be* related to her? I know that there are some noteworthy descendents of her son Thomas. Funnyhat 22:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including notable descendants. But I think it is worth having the disclaimer regarding Bush (although it could perhaps be briefer). That bogus information has had to be excised from the article on repeated occasions -- it was placed there to prevent future reinsertion of the bogus rumor. older≠wiser 22:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Funnyhat is right Bush need not be mentioned in this article! It is irrelevant. Plank 23:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What we could do is just say something like "there have been attemps to link Bush with Pocahontas without any success" and then simply add a link to the source that goes into more detail about it. Grice 09:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that Bush is a descendant of Pocahontas. After all, he is white for goodness sakes, and has no signs of any Native heritage whatsoever. However, she probably has many living descendants; there's just no 100% way to know for 100% sure. SilentWind 20:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why call her Pocahontas?

If we know that this person's real name was Matoaka and that "Pocahontas" was only her nickname, why is this article still called "Pocahontas?" It should be titled "Matoaka."

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Niteowlneils 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is not the word "indian" missused?

We can not avoid using the word "indian" in TV shows and movies, but people who knows enough to write an enciclopaedia knows that Americas are not part of India. Should not be used instead a more correct term, as simple as "native"? --Asierra 15:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the two in the intro to Native American--after that it gets problematic, as they are part of a quote, part of a link, etc. Niteowlneils 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though I'm not going to object to Niteowlneils changes, it should be noted that the need to destroy any associations with the word "indian" with the Native Americans/American Indians has not been completely successful (they often call themselves "Indians" as do others and their neighborhoods are still called "Indian Reservations") and I don't think its the job of Wikipedia to further this objective. If the word Indian had by now become a complete taboo, I might think differently. For the most part, the word Indian is just a historical reminder that names are something other people give you. Aside from the natives wrongly being labeled Indians by Columbus, the name India was given to that land by westerners (everything east of the Indus river being labeled the land of the Indies) and not by the indigenous peoples of India itself. Thats my two cents on that. Grice 13:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand you completely. Supposedly, the reason why the Whites ended up finding North America in the first place was because they were hoping to find an easier way to get to India, because they liked trading with them. When they arrived in North America, they thought they were in India so they called us Indians. And the name has stuck like crazy glue ever since... it makes me very mad, because WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIA. We are Native Americans. NOT INDIANS. Grr... -SilentWind 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pocahontas images

There is an extant contemporaneous woodcut portrait of Pocahontas. Are there any public domain prints of this?

I find the captions on the portraits a bit hard to swallow - are they honestly trying to suggest that the original primitive engraving is an accurate picture of what she looked like?

How can we know? Does anybody have a photograph of her to compare the original engraving? No we don't. But we do know that the original was done while she was alive and that the later one that distorts her features is based off the earlier one. The earlier one has more authority and the later one has none. Grice 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

For goodness sake it looks like a gremlin! To say that the second portrait "Europeanizes" her is faintly ridiculous - it simply makes her look more *human* - other than dress and make-up, I can't see how this picture has been "Europeanized".

A gremlin? Well that's your opinion. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. Grice 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Please forgive me for I am interrupting you, gentlemen, but, if I may say so, I agree that she does look dreadful in the first portrait. Anglius

The picture has certainly been "Europeanized" she has mousy hair and milk white skin!!! The original may not be conventionally attractive, but I hardly think she looks like a 'gremlin', just unromantisized.

[edit] Link to "Indian Removal Act"

I'm only someone trying to learn about Pocahontas, so I'm not exactly knowledgable on this topic.

However, I'm wondering if there isn't some confusion with the mention of an "Indian Removal Act" and the link to the (2 centuries later) Andrew Jackson Indian_Removal_Act of 1830. Maybe there was another similarly named act brought on by the King of England at the time? -paul v

I do not believe so, sir. Anglius

[edit] Reputable Genealogists?

Who are the genealogist that are said to be reputable in the article? A reputable one would be published in a book and would be a professional. Please list some names and publications. Dwain 19:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ritual

I have removed the following passage which is unsourced and confusing.

One theory about the event - if it ever occured - is that Powhatan had created a ritual in which Smith would be 'saved' by Pocahontas, a favored younger wife unrelated to Matoaka. It would have shown the kindness of Powhatan's people over his logical treatment of an enemy.

Before it is returned, some questions need answering: (1) Who has suggested this? A reputable scholar of native ceremonies? If so, name them. (2) Who is this Pocahontas who is unrelated to Matoaka? It's confusing. The Singing Badger 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor, Princess query

Codex Sinaiticus - the article on Chief Powhatan gives three possibilities for the translation of Powhatan itself: Chief, King, Emperor, and my opinion is that a person who is the ruler of 'tidewater Virginia' does not really merit the style of 'Emperor'. 'King' is arguable, but 'Chief' is the most recognisable term for the leader of such a Native American group.

As for 'Princess' being used for Pocahontas, I can find no evidence of her being afforded the recognition of 'Princess' when presented at court to King James I, and 'daughter of the chief' is an accurate description. WLD 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Powhatan was usually referred to as Emperor in the 17th Century English, and with good reason - he was absolute ruler of not only his own nation, but of a dozen surrounding nations. If that doesn't merit the definition of Emperor, what does? Modern attempts to falsely deny his sovereignty remind me of a certain character in the Disnety cartoon, but I won't say which one... So are you saying Pocahontas was presented at London as "the daughter of the chief"??? Sorry, Emperor and princess are more than fully justified, despite your Eurocentric pov toward natives, so I'm going to have to restore them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Captain John Smith's letter of recommendation, written in 1616, to Queen Anne (King James' wife) concerning Pocahontas refers to "Powhatan their chief King" and to Pocahontas as "this Lady Pocahontas". It goes on to describe Pocahontas as "at last rejecting her barbarous condition, she was married to an English Gentleman, with whom at this present she is in England; the first Christian ever of that Nation, the first Virginian ever spoke English, or had a child in marriage by an Englishman: a matter surely, if my meaning be truly considered and well understood, worthy a Princes understanding." It does not refer to Wahunsunacock as 'Emperor', nor to his daugter, Matoaka (or 'Lady Rebecca' as she was baptised) as Princess.
Can you cite any documentation from John Rolfe or the Virginia Company that refers to her and her father otherwise?
As for absolute ruler - Wahunsunacock's tribe were part of a confederacy of six, not a dozen - he did not have absolute power, and in fact another tribe existed in the same area, unallied to the confederacy. At best it can be argued that Wahunsunacock was king of his own tribe, in much the same way that the Saxon kings of Britain could be called kings.
I've no idea what Disney charater you are talking about. I've not seen the cartoon.
If you can't cite sources, I suggest using the style 'King' for Wahunsunacock and leaving Pocahontas/Matoaka/Lady Rebecca [Rolfe] plainly as his daughter, as Smith did not refer to her as a princess.
Google searches also show
  • "Emperor Powhatan" about 272
  • "King Powhatan" about 533
  • "Chief Powhatan" about 33,100
  • "Emperor Wahunsunacock" no matches
  • "King Wahunsunacock" no matches
  • "Chief Wahunsunacock" about 202
So on the (flawed) basis of Google popularity, it looks like "Chief Powhatan" would be the way to go. As John Smith's letter refers to him as King, I'd be happy to go with that rather than chief, but Emperor looks unjustified.
WLD 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I cite any contemporary documentation that refers to Powhatan as "Emperor"? Yes, I certainly can... Just for starters, there is the picture of her on the article... Note that the part you can see reads MATOAKA ALS REBECCA FILIA POTENTISS PRINC: POWHATANI IMP: VIRGINIA (The IMP: stands for IMPERATOR)... Unfortunately, you can't see the caption in that pic (The picture, including caption can be seen on this website [6]), but it reads: Matoaks als Rebecka daughter to the mighty Prince Powhatan Emperour of Attanoughkomouck als virginia converted and baptized in the Christian faith, and wife to the worthy Mr. Joh. Rolff. (BTW, The 19th C. copy mistakenly had her as the wife of Mr. Tho. Rolff, who was actually her infant son...) If you read the article a bit, it mentions that she was promoted in London as an "Indian princess", I don't see any inaccuracy here, although I must wonder why the scare quotes. If that's not enough, I have around 20-25 books about her in my private collection, just about everything that was ever written about her, including some stuff by Smith and Wm. Strachey, I'm sure I can find references there to 'Emperor" and "Princess" if you like... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I do like. Please do. We can then add those references into the article, which would be great. WLD 15:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing... He started out with six tribes, but he ended up adding all the other Algonquian tribes as far as the Doegs, with the notable exception of th Chickahominy, who were tributary. I suggest you read some more sources, his power over these tribes was indeed absolute. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Personally, I'm still not convinced he merits the title/style of 'Emperor', and I'd suggest it is possible that contemporary sources were equally as confused about his, and Pocahontas' status. If one were boosting the status of the colony in the UK (which was the intention), it would make sense to refer to the only native of North America with you as being of high status, even if they weren't. Which makes more sense - "Come see the daughter of the Emperor!" or "Come see the daughter of the local village chief!"? However, my personal beliefs don't merit inclusion in the article, and you have better source material that I. Can I suggest that instead of simply reverting people who change Emperor to Chief, and Princess to member/daughter, that you write a paragraph about the controversy, and back up your argument that the title/styles of Emperor/Princess with citations of your sources. I think it would be a valuable addition to the article, but it is unfortunately, one I can't do. WLD 10:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Pocahontas was not a regular "member" of the tribe or even one of the nobility, she was daughter of the Paramount ruler, whose authority over his people exceeded that of James over his, she was by any definition a princess, and I am convinced that the anonymous user keeps reverting to "member" only to be ugly, colonialistic, or to get some snide satisfaction from saying she was a "member" as if she was a commoner. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia convention of 'assume good faith'. I agree that it is sometimes difficult, but please avoid descending into name-calling. For the avoidance of doubt, whoever the anonymous contributor is, it is not me. I suggest that as more than one person is exercised by this issue, it would be a good idea to cover the dispute over Pocahontas' title/style in the article itself, if only to prevent more people making changes of the kind you disagree with. WLD 09:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I just stuck my oar in and rearranged the intro so that the names 'princess' and 'emperor' become more self-evident. I hope this helps matters. The Singing Badger 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've stuck my oar in as well. I've made some (hopefully regarded as) minor changes to the intro to remove controversial terms, and added a section discussing her title and style. I have a lot of sympathy for Codex Sinaiticus - it's galling if you are an expert to have apparent non-experts modifying your text. All I can suggest is making sure all terms are properly cited. I've asked on the List of Latin phrases talk page for someone to translate the 1616 engraving's inscription. WLD 10:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
As a point to offer into the debate, I'll say immediately that I am not expert in the customs of the Powhatan people in the early 1600s. However, what I will point out is that it is by no means obvious that the daughter of a leader/chief/king/emperor is accorded any particular status. My reason for saying this is that I am passingly familar with the customs of one African people (the Konkomba of Ghana), where village leaders are elected by common consent, and the children of such leaders do not inherit their parents rights of leadership on their parents death. The Wikipedia article on the Dagomba mentions the Konkomba in passing as being acephalous, which, strictly, is incorrect - the Konkomba have a power structure which just doesn't fit into traditional classifications. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. There are many other peoples with similar, non-traditional structures. WLD 15:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting article online here [13] in the Encyclopedia of North American Indians. It states that "Powhatan's chiefly position was also inherited matrilineally; thus his children could not succeed him." WLD 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting point is the statement on this website Algonquian Language Group - Powhatan Tribe that "The ruler of this entire area, stretching from what is now Washington D.C. to northern North Carolina, with about 9000 subjects and dozens of villages was the great Powhatan. It was his title of Powhatan that the English used as the name for all the tribes. Powhatan was the "Great King." Powhatan's real name was Wahunsenacawh; Powhatan was the name of the village he came from. He died in April 1618, leaving the chiefdom to his brothers." Two things stand out - (1) that apparently his empire consisted of 9000 subjects. This looks too small to be believeable - perhaps someone can corroborate this, and (2) it claims Powhatan was the name of the village Wahunsunacock same from! That is, not a title. Can anyone de-conflict the sources? WLD 15:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
As the articles already state, Powhatan was not only the title of the Emperor, but was also the name of the capital at the present site of Richmond. As to extent, John Smith says the Powhatan domains stretched as far north as the Aquia creek (north of Fredericksburg) and included the peninsula now known as the Northern Neck, which he knew as Chicacoan. North of the Aquia, and including all the area around Washington DC, was the domain of another supergroup known as the Doegs or Dogues (also called Piscataway, Nanticoke, Nacotchtank, and other names)... Famous from Bacon's rebellion incident... I'm just looking through my sources now for a better population estimate, but I have so many sources, upgrading this article will probably be a very gradual effort! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. As far as I can tell, Powhatan is Algonquin for "at the falls", thus naming the town. The analogy used elsewhere is like the English peerage - John Doe, who lives in Podunk, becomes Lord Podunk, so Wahunsunacock, who lived in Powhatan becomes 'Lord' Powhatan. In this case, instead of 'Lord', the title is 'Mamanatowick', which is rendered in various places as the Algonquin for "great chief", "paramount chief", or "emperor". Incidentally, each village had its own chief, the title of whom was apparently 'Weroance'. Oh, and at www.virtualjamestown.org, specifically here [14], it gives the population as about 8,000; and here [15] it claims about 14,000 WLD 00:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I own most of the books you just added as sources and then some; I have Rountree (one of the most recent and best researched) here in my lap now, so I will be re-reading that over the next little while, with an eye for relevant facts... ;o) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, she says 14,000, but I will look in greater depth, maybe also check Barbour... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another portrait

There is another portrait here http://www.williamsburgprivatetours.com/Pocahontas%20smith.htm which claims to have made in her lifetime. Thoughts anyone? WLD 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could be authentic, but I wouldn't bet on it. There seems to be a lot of speculations and guesswork involved. Jonas Liljeström 17:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
That looks like a 19th century painting, not a 17th century one. The Singing Badger 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pocahontas' kidnapping

The page on the The Anglo-Powhatan Wars here: [16] says Pocahontas was kidnapped not by the colonists, but by the Potowomacks, then traded to an English sea captain for a copper kettle to become a pawn in the negotiations between the colonists and the Powhatans. Can anyone confirm this? If so, the article should be updated. WLD 13:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question in part, Ralph Hamor's account of the kidnapping is transcribed online here http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1004. From his account, it's not so clear- cut, but looks to be kidnapping by connivance between Capt. Argall, and 'Iapazeus', a local chief. WLD 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncertain passages

I'm trying to find references for every statement made in this article. The following has stumped me:

During hard times, Pocahontas also helped to save the Jamestown colony from extinction by supplying it with food.

Certainly the natives did sometimes help the settlers, but was Pocahontas herself involved in this? Or is this just a fanciful image written by someone who has seen The New World? I've removed the sentence for now but if I've missed something let me know. The Singing Badger 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the following: again, I can't find a reference:

Chief Powhatan gave the newlyweds property that included a small brick house. Today, Fort Smith is in Surry County, just across the James River and was used as a home or cottage by Pocahontas and John Rolfe when they were first married.

The Singing Badger 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pocahontas engraving inscription

See Talk:List_of_Latin_phrases#Pocahontas_engraving_inscription

Before indulging in a revert-fest, could we either locate a citeable translation, or a Latin scholar to give a correct translation? WLD 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note I'm not claiming the pre-Phoogenb revision is necessarily correct, but neither has anybody else cited a source for a different version. Cite a source, and I'll be happy to back whomever to the hilt. :-) WLD 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you for the grammar correction, Codex. WLD 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
<edit conflict>It's worth looking at this reference: Abbreviations in Latin Inscriptions assembled from digital texts of all Latin inscriptions published in L'Année Épigraphique between 1888 and 1993. From that we see that:
  • POTENTISS - doesn't appear
  • PRINC - could be any one of: princ(eps), princ(ipales), princ(ipali), princ(ipe), princ(ipem), princ(ipes), princ(ipi), princ(ipia), princ(ipibus), princ(ipis), princ(ipum)
  • IMP - could be any one of: Imp, imp(endio), imp(ensis), imp(erante), Imp(erator), imp(erator, Imp(eratore), imp(eratore, Imp(eratorem), Imp(eratores), Imp(eratori), Imp(eratoribus), Imp(eratoris), Imp(eratoris, Imp(eratorum), imp(eri), imp(erii), imp(erio), imp(etum), Imp(peratoribus), imp(ugnavit)
Now, obviously, the date range of the corpus examined for the referenced collection does not cover the Simon van de Passe engraving of 1616, but it illustrates that the abbreviations in question are not unambiguous, so we need to be careful about drawing conclusions about the correct translation, and more to the point for Wikipedia, the verifiable translation, as one of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I would prefer whatever is stated in the article to be both verifiable and true. WLD 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I have in my lap now, a copy of Frances Mossiker's 1976 treatise, Pocahontas: the Life and the Legend. Following page 144 are several pages of plates (illustrations), one of which is a facsimile reproduction of the original engraving, being the frontispiece of John Smith's Generall Historie of Virginia (1627 ed.)... The engraving of course is by Simon Van de Passe. At the bottom the English paraphrase version of the Latin legend is given exactly as follows: "Matoaks als Rebecka daughter to the mighty Prince Powhatan Emperour of Attanoughkomouck als virginia converted and baptized in the Christian faith, and wife to the wor.th Mr. Joh. Rolff." ... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well that is confusing. The Latin legend being "MATOAKA ALS REBECCA FILIA POTENTISS : PRINC : POWHATANI IMP:VIRGINIÆ", there being no mention of Attanoughkomouck in the original text! Obviously, we can use it, since it is citeable, but personally, I'd prefer a translation into 21st century English, with minimal interpolation and addition of words not present in the orginal text. Is/was 'als' even English? WLD 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it's as English as "alias", since that's what it was an abbreviation for... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't get drawn into that debate. :-) I suggest that rather than having a single translation, we acknowledge the ambiguity in the abbreviations and link to a paragraph in the text giving the possible different translations, and an indication of which may be the most accurate (in as NPOV manner as possible)? We really could do with a Latin scholar here, preferably familiar with 17th century Latin usage and abbreviations. I'll freely admit that I'm not one.
On another point, isn't it 'Simon van de Passe' rather than 'Simon Van de Passe'? Modern Dutch usage would be a lower case 'v' when using the christian/first/given name, according to Dutch name. Of course, you may be gently pointing out that you know better than me. WLD 23:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ha, no, I just copied it as written in my Mossiker... "van" is probably more correct in modern usage... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
To answer myself partially - it depends on whether he's Dutch or Flemish. Having used my knowledge of Dutch names, and read the first section of the article which confirmed my belief, I wrote the last item. I then went on to read more, and learnt something, documented both in that article and in tussenvoegsel. Feh! WLD 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My favorite solution would be to scan the entire 1627 frontispiece including the English caption, then we wouldn't have to translate it at all... Another thing, the 1627 copy reproduced in my book looks noticeably lighter than the "original" van de Passe shown in the article... it looks like someone has tampered with the shadows to give her an uglier appearance in the article version... I wonder which one is the "real" original? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we had an original 1627 copy to scan... I don't think copyright laws allow us unreservedly to scan a modern (post circa 1923) edition/reproduction of the original. Copyright law being one of the many things I'm not expert in, I would not like to risk it. As for which is the "real" original, I suspect this one [17] is, because it looks like an engraving, whereas this one [18] looks like it has been tidied up, much like the oil painting (a weird grayscale reproduction of which, showing the translated text, is in this article [19]. There's a poor, colour reproduction, including the text, here [20]. The image used on the dust-cover of the Mossiker books looks different again - there's a large copy on Amazon here [21], and this looks like a different oil-pinintg as well [22]. Working out which are originals, and which are copies would be a time-consuming task. I would say the Mossiker dust-cover version is a 'cleaned-up' copy of the the original - the shadow of the head on the lace is too big, the shading of the hat gives incorrect perspective, and details on the hat-band have been removed. WLD 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Queens in Cornwall, UK

It seems very unlikley that this place is named after Pocahontas for the reason given in the article. Indian Queens is west of Plymouth and London to the east, so it seems very unlikely she would have travelled through it en route to London. 82.32.238.139 09:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, slap a {{fact}} on it, and if no citation comes forward within reasonable time, delete the assertion. Unsupported assertions can be summarily deleted - waiting a reasonable time before doing so is not necessary, but is less abrupt. Some editors take the approach of deleting and noting on the talk page why it was deleted, much as you have done without the deletion. Thanks for pointing this out. WLDtalk|edits 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say it is not impossible that it is named for Pocahontas, not necessary for her to have ever physically been there, and not entirely unlikely, as Pocahontas was wildly popular in England for a brief time in the 17th century, and had a few places named for her where she had never been. A sourced citation would be nice, though. Has any Indian Queen or even princess ever passed through the place in all of history? Would this be necessary in order for it to have that name? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Having read that article Indian Queens now, I agree that this is a dubious connection, but it is still encyclopedic and of interest, even if apocryphal connection, so I think we should keep some kind of link to that article from here. I have changed the line so to better agree with the information over there. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/c/Talk%7EPocahontas_2b75.html"