of a place situate and lying on the north side of Charles river
, full of Indians
, called Aberginians.’
Often as I had read that account, I had never before attached any particular significance to the name of those Indians other than that it seemed so different from Algonquin nomenclature in general, except that it was somewhat suggestive of ‘Virginians
’ and might possibly have come from the circumstance that New England
was originally regarded as a part of Virginia
Now a place name is often derived from the name of the people who live there, or the name of the people may come from that of the place.
We are here informed that the Indians of that neighborhood were called ‘Aberginians.’
And is there not a striking resemblance between that name and ‘Aberjona’?
And in face of this extraordinary resemblance is it not reasonable to infer that the name of those Indians came either from that of the river on whose banks they lived, or that the river took its name from the Indians?
It would require only a transition from a single vowel to make ‘Aberginians’ identical with ‘Aberjonians.’
Hence it seems quite natural to assume that Aberjona was originally the name of the entire river, from its source down to the sea, instead of being limited to the section above the lakes as at present—the lakes, or ponds, being simply slackwater and a tidal basin, respectively, in the river.
In the same Charlestown
records occurs the following passage describing Charlestown
, peninsular as the first settlers found it: ‘Upon surveying, they found it was a neck of land, generally full of stately timber, as was the main, and the land lying on the east side of the river called Mistick river (from the farm Mr. Cradock
's servants had planted, called Mistick, which this river led up unto) and indeed generally all the country round about was an uncouth wilderness, full of timber.’
The name ‘Mystic,’ as applied to this river, has been derived by some students of history not from the English
word, but has been held to be of Indian origin, coming