The Red Record

[E.P. Grondine]

"Their Youth is never troubled with severe Pedagogues to whip their senses away, for they are entirely unacquainted with letter or figures. The little knowledge they have of past times is handed to them by hieroglyphics or tradition, subject to numberless errors and misrepresentations."

The reporter Cresswell was living with Nancy, a young Lenape woman, and spending many hours in the Council House. The "numberless errors and misrepresentations" are his opinions of Lenape traditions, and should be understood in that light.

As for Rafinesque's character, please remember the following. I could grant that Rafinesque authored the final stanzas that Brinton did not publish, but note what he recited in them: the evils and betrayals visited upon the Lenape by the European colonists.

And as for those, there was nothing fictional about them. 

Again, if Rafinesque wrote this entire, he did it alone while entirely surrounded by people who were killing Native Americans and considered them sub-human.

Rafinesque was a far more interesting and complex person than Oestreicher would have us believe.

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"Their Youth is never troubled with severe Pedagogues to whip their senses away, for they are entirely unacquainted with letter or figures. The little knowledge they have of past times is handed to them by hieroglyphics or tradition, subject to numberless errors and misrepresentations."

"The reporter Cresswell was living with Nancy, a young Lenape woman, and spending many hours in the Council House. The "numberless errors and misrepresentations" are his opinions of Lenape traditions, and should be understood in that light."
 
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with picking quotations out-of-context.  We know, exactly, what Cresswell meant by this statement, because earlier, in his journal, he wrote:  "Saturday, September 2nd, 1775.   Got to White-Eye's Town to breakfast.  Saw the Indian Warmarks made by Captn. Wingimund, a Dellawar Warrior which Mr. Anderson and Capt. White-Eyes explained to me.  These hieroglyphic marks are the history of his whole warfare."  These so-called "hieroglyphic marks" recounted no deeper "history" than that of a few years earlier!  And, Cresswell copied these "hieroglyphic marks" in his journal.  They include a turtle, the Sun, a fort, a river, men, and women.  NONE of them look anything like the pictographs of the Walam Olum which represent these same things.  (This is also true of one other example of Delaware pictographic writing that we possess.)  And, just like Sutton's account (when Beatty's entire journal is read, instead of picking out a few sentences), this is shown to refer to late post-contact events.
     

"As for Rafinesque's character, please remember the following. I could grant that Rafinesque authored the final stanzas that Brinton did not publish, but note what he recited in them: the evils and betrayals visited upon the Lenape by the European colonists.  And as for those, there was nothing fictional about them."
 
Irrelevant.  Heckewelder's Indian Nations was published in 1819, and he had already gone into the evils of the whites, in much greater detail than Rafinesque ever did--and Rafinesque had access to Heckewelder's book.
 
 
"Again, if Rafinesque wrote this entire, he did it alone while entirely surrounded by people who were killing Native Americans and considered them sub-human."
 
It wouldn't have been much of a hoax if he had written it from a prejudiced Euro-centric viewpoint!


"Rafinesque was a far more interesting and complex person than Oestreicher would have us believe."
 
No one has gone into the complexity of Rafinesque's character in greater length than Oestreicher.  Of course, you would have to have read what Oestreicher has written about him to know this.

[bullhead]

Mr.Grondine
you are right about the Occaneechi seeking refuge with other siouan tribes after bacon`s rebellion in may of 1676,i think thats what your talking about?
in your #126 reply you state that the Occaneechi people are ethnically distinct
from siouan people .can you tell me how you came to that conclusion?what evidence do you have?
here are a couple of links some of you might find interesting.

http://www.ibiblio.net/dig/html/excavations/slid_bag.html

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/tutelohist.htm

there are some interesting people on the one site ,Hale,Mooney,Lawson,etc.
what about Swanton he has them listed as Siouan People.

[E.P. Grondine]

"The little knowledge they have of past times is handed to them by hieroglyphics or tradition, subject to numberless errors and misrepresentations."

The reporter Cresswell was living with Nancy, a young Lenape woman, and spending many hours in the Council House. The "numberless errors and misrepresentations" are his opinions of Lenape traditions, and should be understood in that light.

"Saw the Indian Warmarks made by Captn. Wingimund, a Dellawar Warrior which Mr. Anderson and Capt. White-Eyes explained to me.  These hieroglyphic marks are the history of his [Wingimund's] whole warfare."

knowledge they have of past times/the history of his [Wingimund's] whole warfare.

Notice any difference? To me, this is a perfect example of what's wrong with Oestreicher's analysis. It seems to be not visible to you.

"As for Rafinesque's character, please remember the following. I could grant that Rafinesque authored the final stanzas that Brinton did not publish, but note what he recited in them: the evils and betrayals visited upon the Lenape by the European colonists.  And as for those, there was nothing fictional about them."
 
Irrelevant.
 
"Rafinesque was a far more interesting and complex person than Oestreicher would have us believe."
 
No one has gone into the complexity of Rafinesque's character in greater length than Oestreicher.  Of course, you would have to have read what Oestreicher has written about him to know this.

I don't know, you read Oestreicher's thesis, but you simply either ignore evidence of problems with it, or try to handwave them away as irrelevant.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Bulhead -

Thanks for the links. But Swanton was sometimes wrong, particularly in his understanding of the relationship between Mushkogean and "Mississippian" peoples.


Mr.Grondine
you are right about the Occaneechi seeking refuge with other siouan tribes after bacon`s rebellion in may of 1676,i think thats what your talking about?

Yes. Since my stroke I have a rough time remembering the dates. The account I used of "Bacon's Rebellion" at the time of Man and Impact in the Americas came from Century magazine, and was definitive.

in your #126 reply you state that the Occaneechi people are ethnically distinct from siouan people .can you tell me how you came to that conclusion? what evidence do you have?

The ethnographic information on the Ocanachee which I read in 2007 in came from a book on the Roanoke colony, wherein the author had assembled first hand accounts of Ocanachee appearance. I believe its the volume I gave Rich the link to.

I wish I could be of more help.

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"knowledge they have of past times/the history of his [Wingimund's] whole warfare.

Notice any difference?

No.  The first is a general statement and the second is the ONLY specific example Cresswell provided of that general statement.  He didn't give any examples from 2,000 B.C., 1,000 B.C., 100 A.D., or even 1700 A.D.  His one example of recording "past times" with "hieroglyphics" was no more than 20 years earlier.

David Zeisberger lived with the Delaware Indians for nearly fifty years, was adopted by the Munsee, and served on the Grand Council of the Delaware Nation.  He recorded much that we know about the Lenape religion and ceremonies of that period of history.  He never mentioned anything like what you're trying to read into this statement of a man who lived with the Delaware for a matter of weeks, in order to justify the forged linguistic nonsense of a man who NEVER lived with the Delaware.  And, as I said, Fliegel combed the entire corpus of Moravian missionary writings, and found NOTHING about any Walam Olum. 

[E.P. Grondine]

What a fortunate stroke of luck. I located the first report of Dr. Ward (Cook)
in Pendleton, ca. 1825: The Pioneer, compiled by Samuel Hardin of Anderson Indiana, Greenfield, Indiana, 1895, pg 250.

Unfortunately, most of my mede materials still remain misplaced. That being the case, Shkaakwus, since you refuse to accept the existence of Lenape medewak, let me suggest a visit to Anderson to verify it for yourself. Perhaps it was meant to be. Moving on...

David Zeisberger lived with the Delaware Indians for nearly fifty years, was adopted by the Munsee, and served on the Grand Council of the Delaware Nation.  He recorded much that we know about the Lenape religion and ceremonies of that period of history.  He never mentioned anything like what you're trying to read into this statement of a man who lived with the Delaware for a matter of weeks, in order to justify the forged linguistic nonsense of a man who NEVER lived with the Delaware.  And, as I said, Fliegel combed the entire corpus of Moravian missionary writings, and found NOTHING about any Walam Olum. 

While the Moravians were good people, they were missionaries. I think you could comb the entire corpus of Spanish missionary writings and learn very little of Hopi, Navajo, Zuni, or Teja traditions and religion. I think the same might hold
the French pretes and Ojibwe mediwiwin.

We know what happened when the Maya showed the Spanish priests their books... and so did many peoples in the north, and at a very early date at that. It's in my book...

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[shkaakwus]

The fact that you found a reference to "Dr. Ward Cook" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, show that he is Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward"! 

I have no idea what you mean by saying that I "refuse to accept the existence of Lenape medewak."  I'm the one who taught you what the correct word for them is!

Your remark about the Moravians is just a sad, last-ditch attempt to make your theory work.  It's time to let it go.

[E.P. Grondine]

The fact that you found a reference to "Dr. Ward Cook" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, show that he is Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward"! 

Actually, it was "Dr. Ward" in that last reference I cited. It is my inference that he used his first name to avoid confusion with another Pendleton Cook who was also a doctor.

I have no idea what you mean by saying that I "refuse to accept the existence of Lenape medewak."  I'm the one who taught you what the correct word for them is!

The Anderson records mentioned "mede", not "mete", as you would have it. But they were written by English speakers, so...

Your remark about the Moravians is just a sad, last-ditch attempt to make your theory work.  It's time to let it go.

I tried to let this go back months ago with my post "Reconstructing Rafinesque".

I have stated the reasons why in my opinion this topic needs to remain in Research Needed.

Educated Indian and the other moderators have shared their opinions as well.

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"Actually, it was "Dr. Ward" in that last reference I cited. It is my inference that he used his first name to avoid confusion with another Pendleton Cook who was also a doctor."

Whatever.  You have produced ZERO evidence that this guy is Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward."


"The Anderson records mentioned "mede", not "mete", as you would have it. But they were written by English speakers, so..."

In Lenape, consonants appearing after a vowel are not voiced--no matter what letters are used to write them.  Hence, "medewak" is pronounced as "metewak."  Besides which, you were calling them "medewiwin."


"I tried to let this go back months ago with my post "Reconstructing Rafinesque". I have stated the reasons why in my opinion this topic needs to remain in Research Needed. Educated Indian and the other moderators have shared their opinions as well."

Sadly, yes.

[bullhead]

Mr.Grondine
In my opinion you have not Justified to me why this should not be in the fraud section. this seems to me that it is all about you and your book?

the correct spelling is Mide or Midewiwin

[E.P. Grondine]

Mr.Grondine
In my opinion you have not Justified to me why this should not be in the fraud section.

I've stated the reasons why in my opinion research is still needed, and the problems I have accepting Oestreicher's analysis. I think Educated Indian in his earlier post summarized well the thinking of others with similar views.

this seems to me that it is all about you and your book?

NO.

Originally I had intended to write 3 books "Man and Impact in the Americas", "Man and Impact in the Ancient Near East", and "Man and Impact in Europe".
Fearing the nationalist and religious problems I would encounter with "Man and Impact in the Ancient Near East", I decided to do "Man and Impact in the Americas" first. (There's a good joke) At the time, one wrote old world history and sold it, and I thought that one could sell traditions. Hooo boy... (Second good joke.)

Originally, my book was simply going to be a collection of impact accounts from traditions and the archaeological/geological record. After reading David Cusick's "Sketches of the Ancient History of the Six Nations", I realized I had a very reliable tradition; further, I realized that none of the other traditions which I was quoting from were easily available, and it came to me that I should do what I could to correct this.

I also knew that there were young Sioux fluent in their language and traditions, and recovering their memories of the impact events would be their work. The same holds for the peoples on the west coast. The Hopi, Navajo, and Zuni elders will share that part of what they remember of the comet and asteroid impacts when they think it is proper. So that was not my work either.

(I have found an young Arapaho fellow to work through their traditions, and I believe I have located the Oglala to work through their part of Siouxian traditions. That leaves Dakota and Lakota yet to be found, as well as some for the North east, which problem Rich knows about.)

Now at the time I worked through the Walam Olum, the year 2000, Oestreicher's analysis was not widely known. I trusted Brinton's opinion, but did read one short paragraph dismissing of Oestreicher's analysis, and pursued it no further.  As I pointed out above, the Walam Olum and the archaeological record lock, so I had no reason to suspect the extent of Rafinesque's "palingeny" (reconstruction) at the time of my book in 2004.

I knew he was strange, having read some of his other works, but again, given the environment he worked in and the hostility he encountered for treating the peoples and their remains with respect, I still liked him, especially in comparison with some of the genocidal and delusional people operating around him.

NOTE THAT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ALL OF THE PERSONAL NAMES ARE RAFINESQUE'S "RECONSTRUCTIONS", THAT STILL LEAVES EVERY OTHER LINE UNACCOUNTED FOR, AS WELL AS DR. WARD OF PENDLETON, AND THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EVENTS FROM ABOUT 1000 AD ON. TOO MANY TOPONYMS AND ETHNONYMS ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

So one of my bottom lines is that I think that Oestreicher has missed a source or sources that Rarinesque used, and the Lenape and all of us deserve to have that portion searched for exhaustively. I would like to see graduate students working through Rafinesque and the Lenape material for many years to come. I want that research to be done, which is why I would like to see this left in Research Needed.

My other bottom line, and far more important than my book, is Oestreicher's refusal to admit that the "Hopewell" remains in Ohio are Shawnee, and that goes gut deep. They're not Lenape, they're not Siouxian, they're not Wendat, they're Shawnee/ Cherokee (Tsulagi). As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather be spending my time with the Shawnee Principle Narrative than dealing with this further. I hoped to leave this matter with my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque".

the correct spelling is Mide or Midewiwin

Among Ojibwe, but not Lenape. Please keep in mind that I was trying to recall with stroke damage what I had read at Anderson, which was recorded by English writers at that.

Note that in Lenape the Ojibwe "wi" is "wak", and in Shawnee "we" or "wi". Locatives in Shawnee are compounds with "the" (pronounced "tha").

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:
 
"Now at the time I worked through the Walam Olum, the year 2000, Oestreicher's analysis was not widely known."

Oestreicher's first article, "Unmasking the Walam Olum:  A 19th Century Hoax," was published in the 1994 Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey.  His second article, "Text out of Context:  The Arguments that Created and Sustained the Walam Olum," was published in the 1995 Bulletin of the ASNJ.  His 1995 doctoral dissertation, The Anatomy of the Walam Olum:  The Dissection of a 19th-Century Anthropological Hoax, became widely available through Pro-Quest UMI Dissertation Service, in 1996. 
 
 
"I trusted Brinton's opinion, but did read one short paragraph dismissing of Oestreicher's analysis, and pursued it no further."
 
Since Brinton was incapable of translating Lenape, correctly (as I pointed out in a link provided previously), trusting his opinion was your first irreparable error.  Ignoring Oestreicher's analysis was your second great mistake.
 
 
"As I pointed out above, the Walam Olum and the archaeological record lock,"
 
Saying this, again and again, does not make it true.  The only thing that "locks" is your interpretation of Brinton's linguistically impossible translation of a forgery written in made-up Lenape and your interpretation of the archaeological record.
 
 
"so I had no reason to suspect the extent of Rafinesque's "palingeny" (reconstruction) at the time of my book in 2004."
 
Rafinesque's "reconstruction" was NOT of some existing Lenape document.  It amounted to the mixing and matching of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese ku-wen characters and Ojibway glyphs (from Tanner), with a few others, so that he could "construct" a text that would conform to his own theory of world history. 


"NOTE THAT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ALL OF THE PERSONAL NAMES ARE RAFINESQUE'S "RECONSTRUCTIONS", THAT STILL LEAVES EVERY OTHER LINE UNACCOUNTED FOR,"
 
No.  Every Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum was "reconstructed" from words Rafinesque found in the works of Zeisberger and Heckewelder.  There is NO Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum whose "parts" can't be found in the Moravian works.  Oestreicher accounts for many lines other than those with personal names!
 
 
"AS WELL AS DR. WARD OF PENDLETON,"
 
The only Ward Cook, "physician," of Pendleton, Indiana, that I can find in the census, was born in 1809, in Virginia, and was still living in Pendleton, in 1880.  Rafinesque calls his supposed benefactor, "the late Dr. Ward," in 1836!
 
 
"AND THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EVENTS FROM ABOUT 1000 AD ON. TOO MANY TOPONYMS AND ETHNONYMS ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE."
 
Only by employing a method of interpretation that violates all known linguistic rules.


"So one of my bottom lines is that I think that Oestreicher has missed a source or sources that Rarinesque used,"
 
Not so.  The source you seek was Rafinesque's imagination.
 
 
"and the Lenape and all of us deserve to have that portion searched for exhaustively."
 
There are no more sources to search.  This has already been done.
 
 
"I would like to see graduate students working through Rafinesque and the Lenape material for many years to come."
 
That would be an enormous waste of time and talent.
 
 
"I want that research to be done, which is why I would like to see this left in Research Needed."
 
And, I would like to see it put in Frauds, since all the necessary research has already been done. 


"My other bottom line, and far more important than my book, is Oestreicher's refusal to admit that the "Hopewell" remains in Ohio are Shawnee, and that goes gut deep. They're not Lenape, they're not Siouxian, they're not Wendat, they're Shawnee/ Cherokee (Tsulagi). As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather be spending my time with the Shawnee Principle Narrative than dealing with this further. I hoped to leave this matter with my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque"."
 
This is just crazy.  Oestreicher takes NO position on who built the mounds in Ohio!  He clearly states he doesn't know who built them.  He can't "admit" something he doesn't know!


"Note that in Lenape the Ojibwe "wi" is "wak", and in Shawnee "we" or "wi"."
 
No. Ojibwe "-wi" is just "-w" in Lenape.  "-ak" is a plural suffix.
 
 
 
 
 
 

[NanticokePiney]

  Fearing the nationalist and religious problems I would encounter with "Man and Impact in the Ancient Near East"

 Telling Muslims the Kaballa was worshipped by them as the stone of Kybele when they were still pagan and a meteor would cause some distress.   

[E.P. Grondine]

 "Now at the time I worked through the Walam Olum, the year 2000, Oestreicher's analysis was not widely known."

Oestreicher's first article, "Unmasking the Walam Olum:  A 19th Century Hoax," was published in the 1994 Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey.  His second article, "Text out of Context:  The Arguments that Created and Sustained the Walam Olum," was published in the 1995 Bulletin of the ASNJ.  His 1995 doctoral dissertation, The Anatomy of the Walam Olum:  The Dissection of a 19th-Century Anthropological Hoax, became widely available through Pro-Quest UMI Dissertation Service, in 1996. 

I was working in the Library of Congress main reading room, and did not hit it. That's the fact.
 
"I trusted Brinton's opinion, but did read one short paragraph dismissing of Oestreicher's analysis, and pursued it no further."
 
Since Brinton was incapable of translating Lenape, correctly (as I pointed out in a link provided previously), trusting his opinion was your first irreparable error.  Ignoring Oestreicher's analysis was your second great mistake.

Again, I did not ignore Oestreicher's analysis. It's simply that I had no knowledge of it, excerpt for a short passage of dismissal. Besides Brinton, I knew of the Vogelins' work.
 
"As I pointed out above, the Walam Olum and the archaeological record lock,"
 
Saying this, again and again, does not make it true.  The only thing that "locks" is your interpretation of Brinton's linguistically impossible translation of a forgery written in made-up Lenape and your interpretation of the archaeological record.

And saying it isn't true does not make it not true. I've presented the archaeological evidence and testomonies which lead me to conclude that Oestreicher has missed at least one of Rafinesque's sources, and perhaps several.

"so I had no reason to suspect the extent of Rafinesque's "palingeny" (reconstruction) at the time of my book in 2004."
 
Rafinesque's "reconstruction" was NOT of some existing Lenape document.  It amounted to the mixing and matching of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese ku-wen characters and Ojibway glyphs (from Tanner), with a few others, so that he could "construct" a text that would conform to his own theory of world history. 

Yes, Rafinesque was trying to build a coherent world history, and as I stated in my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque" would have tried to have fit whqatever he had into that world view.

In my case, I attempted to use physically evidenced impact events, climatic shifts and population movements to sort it out.

NOTE THAT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ALL OF THE PERSONAL NAMES ARE RAFINESQUE'S RECONSTRUCTIONS", THAT STILL LEAVES EVERY OTHER LINE UNACCOUNTED FOR,
 
No.  Every Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum was "reconstructed" from words Rafinesque found in the works of Zeisberger and Heckewelder.  There is NO Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum whose "parts" can't be found in the Moravian works.  Oestreicher accounts for many lines other than those with personal names!
 
Let's see, Rafinesque's work uses Lenape vocabulary attested in other sources, so he had to have stolen all of it from them?

"Many lines" is not all of them, so will you concede that researdh is needed?
 
"AS WELL AS DR. WARD OF PENDLETON,"
 
The only Ward Cook, "physician," of Pendleton, Indiana, that I can find in the census, was born in 1809, in Virginia, and was still living in Pendleton, in 1880.  Rafinesque calls his supposed benefactor, "the late Dr. Ward," in 1836!
 
Thanks for the info, clearly Ward Cook is not Ward, a bad guess on my part.
Ward is in Pendleton by 1825. 1825-1809= 16 = too young.
 
AND THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EVENTS FROM ABOUT 1000 AD ON. TOO MANY TOPONYMS AND ETHNONYMS ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
 
Only by employing a method of interpretation that violates all known linguistic rules.

I don't think so.

"So one of my bottom lines is that I think that Oestreicher has missed a source or sources that Rafinesque used," ]
 
Not so.  The source you seek was Rafinesque's imagination.
 
and the Lenape and all of us deserve to have that portion searched for exhaustively.
 
There are no more sources to search.  This has already been done.

You and I disagree.
 
"I would like to see graduate students working through Rafinesque and the Lenape material for many years to come."
 
That would be an enormous waste of time and talent.

I think it will be good exercise.
 
"I want that research to be done, which is why I would like to see this left in Research Needed."
 
And, I would like to see it put in Frauds, since all the necessary research has already been done. 

My other bottom line, and far more important than my book, is Oestreicher's refusal to admit that the "Hopewell" remains in Ohio are Shawnee, and that goes gut deep. They're not Lenape, they're not Siouxian, they're not Wendat, they're Shawnee/ Cherokee (Tsulagi). As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather be spending my time with the Shawnee Principle Narrative than dealing with this further. I hoped to leave this matter with my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque".
 
This is just crazy.  Oestreicher takes NO position on who built the mounds in Ohio!  He clearly states he doesn't know who built them.  He can't "admit" something he doesn't know!

Yes he did, and I pointed it out to you. We'll have to differ. I differ with Barbara Mann as well.

"Note that in Lenape the Ojibwe "wi" is "wak", and in Shawnee "we" or "wi"."
 
No. Ojibwe "-wi" is just "-w" in Lenape.  "-ak" is a plural suffix.

Case in point:
Me(i)de/wiwin (emphatic? or mede+wi+wi)
Mede/wak

you gave meteu elsewhere, did you not?

Michi Bichi (Miami) is cognate with M'sse piase, which is cognate with Lenape
"poesi", not Swedish/English "pussy".

It is interesting to note the Creator is male in Miami, but female in Shawnee, a significant shift.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I simply agree with those who want this left in "Research Needed".

If you learn anything more, please share. I am capable of changing my mind.





 
 
 
 
 
 
[/quote]