Hoboken, now so written--_Hobocan-Hacking,_ July, 1630; _Hobokan-Hacking,_ Nov. 1630; _Hobokina,_ 1635; _Hobocken,_ 1643; _Hoboken,_ 1647; _Hobuck_ and _Harboken,_ 1655-6--appears of record first in the Indian deed to Michael Pauw, July 12, 1630, negotiated by the Director-general and Council of New Netherland, and therein by them stated, "By us called Hobocan-Hacking." Primarily it was applied to the low promontory [FN-1] below Castle Point, [FN-2] bounded, recites the deed, on the south by the "land Ahasimus and Aressick." On ancient charts Aressick and Hoboken-Hacking are represented as two long necks of land or points separated by a cove on the river front now filled in, both points being called hooks. In records it was called an island, and later as "A neck of land almost an island, called Hobuk, . . . extending on the south side to Ahasimus; eastward to the river Mauritus, and on the west side surrounded by a valley or morass through which the boundary can be seen with sufficient clearness." (Winfield's Hist. Hudson Co.; Col. Hist. N. Y., xiii, 2, 3, 4.) In "Freedoms and Exemptions," 1635; "But every one is notified that the Company reserves, unto itself the Island Manhates; Fort Orange, with the lands and islands appertaining thereto; Staten Island; the land of Achassemes, Arassick and Hobokina." The West India Company purchased the latter lands from Michael Pauw in 1638-9, and leased and sold in three parcels as stated in the Pauw deeds. The first settlement of the parcel called by the Dutch Hobocan-Hacking is located by Whitehead (Hist. East N. J.) immediately north of Hobokan Kill and called _Hobuk._ Smith, in his "History of New Jersey," wrote _Hobuck,_ and stated that it was a plantation "owned by a Dutch merchant who in the Indian wars, had his wife, children and servants murdered by the Indians." In a narrative of events occurring in 1655, it is written: "Presently we saw the house on Harboken in flames. This done the whole Pavonia was immediately in flames." [FN-3] (Col. Hist. N. Y., xii, 98.) The deed statement, "By us named," is explicit, and obviously implies that the terms in the name were Dutch and not Indian, and Dutch they surely were. Dr. A. S. Gatschet, of the Bureau of Ethnology, wrote me: "Hoboken, called after a village on the river Scheldt, a few miles below Antwerp, [FN-4] and after a high elevation on its north side. _Ho-,_ _hoh-,_ is the radical of 'high' in all German dialects, and _Buck_ is 'elevation' in most of them. _Buckel_ (Germ.), _Bochel_ (Dutch), means 'hump,' 'hump-back.' _Hump_ (Low German) is 'heap,' 'hill.' _Ho-bok-an_ locates a place that is distinguished by a hill, or by a hill in some way associated with it." Presumably from the ancient village of Hoboken came to Manhattan, about 1655, one Harmon van Hobocoon, a schoolmaster, who evidently was given his family name from the village from whence he came. He certainly did not give his family name to Hoboken twenty years