The Red Record

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"I'm sitting here with very little sleep, stroke damage, and a very very nasty chest cold, but I have real problems with Oestreicher's analysis. Let me start by noting Oestreicher's biases, and the uses to which they are being put today."
 
Sorry about your health problems.


"For someone so good with Algonquin, Oestreicher confusingly reads Tallege/wi (in Lenape), the Tchiliga/tha/we, the Talega/tha/wi Shawnee division, as being the (Ani) Tsulagi (Cherokee), and further he dismisses Trowbridge's report that the Shawnee claimed to have built the mounds on the basis of absolutely no evidence at all. (NJAS article, pg 37, footnote 27.)"
 
The simple fact is that nobody--not Oestreicher, not you, not me, not anybody--knows, for sure, who these Talligeu or Talligewi were.  Heckewelder records their name, but does not equate them with Cherokee or Shawnee or any other known historical tribe; so, his informants never told him who they were.  In truth, he adopts Col. John Gibson's speculation that they were really "Allegewi," a tribe he theorized existed along the Allegheny/Ohio River.  Oestreicher's reason for identifying the name as a Delaware attempt to say "Tsalagi" (Cherokee) is because he feels the details of the war between the Lenape and Tallegewi, as related by Heckewelder, were too much like the story of a war between the Lenape and Cherokee, which took place during historical times, to be coincidental.  So, that's what's behind his guess.  You have your reasons for guessing the name is a Delaware attempt to say "Tchiliga/tha/we" (Chillicothe), the name of a Shawnee division.  To me, the name looks most like Lenape, "tallegau" or "tallegawi"--from the word for 'crane' (the bird).  But, like everyone else, this would be no more than a guess.


"While I can accept Oestreicher's assertions that the Lenape attacked the Cherokee with firearms during the contact period, and that they used "Tallega" variants to speak of the Cherokee (ani tuslagi) I don't think that the Cherokee were the people referred to in the Heckewelder fragment of the Lenape oral tradition of their migration, nor by Rafinesque."
 
The operative phrase, here, being "I don't think .."


"The astronomical traditions of the Shawnee (The Principle Narrative) align well with the structures in Ohio. As this has significant consequences today, I simply can not let Oestreicher's work go uncommented."
 
It seems to me you're getting all worked up, unnecessarily, over Oestreicher's identification of the Talligewi, in these migration legends, as Cherokee, since he doesn't even believe these legends are historically accurate!  Therefore, his identification has no bearing, whatsoever, on who actually built the structures. 


"Further, speaking to the same footnote, while its true that the Shawnee were Algonquin speakers, they far preceded the Lenape in central North America; the archaeological continuity through to contact era Shawnee villages of the "Fort Ancient" cultures is well known, a fact which Oestreicher is either unaware of, or ignores."
 
I would agree that the Shawnee preceded the Lenape in central North America; however, there is absolutely no archaeological evidence that could prove that ancestors of the Shawnee preceded ancestors of the Lenape in central North America.   
 

"By comparison, a minor question is Oestreicher's assertion that the Lenape Chief's name "Wapushuwi", "White Lynx",  incorporates the Swedish morpheme "poes", as "piasi" variants for "cat" exist in other algonquin languages. While I have little knowledge of how ellision works in Lenape, why does "Wapushuwi" have to incorporate a Swedish morpheme, and the Chief be "historical"? That's one of the things which lead me to question Oestreicher's contact era identifications from Heckewelder's personal name list, which he did not evidence in the article; perhaps he did in his thesis."
 
I don't know if the Delaware word, "pooshiish" (Munsee) / "puschis" (Northern Unami) / "pushis" (Southern Unami), was originally derived from the Swedish, "poes," Dutch, "poesje" or English, "pussy"--but, it's definitely a European loanword (wherever it occurs in Algonquian languages).  And, in Lenape, it can only refer to a common house cat, which is also a European import.  Hence, anyone who bore such a name would have to have lived post-contact!


"Now as to the pictographs. Oestreicher notes Rafineque's claim in his 1834 Prix Volney essay that "pictographic records among the Delaware, a phenomenon common to other North American tribes, "can cite occurrences as far back as 300 years"'. While Oestreicher notes Rafinesques' claim in 1834 that he had Lenape pictographic records, he then goes on to ignore it."
 
If he noted it, how did he ignore it?  In any case, I don't understand the significance of this.  Kindly elaborate.


"Where could these records have come from? My guess is from Chief Anderson who could not be "mede",  (as recorded by English speakers; I was wrong in remembering what the Lenape called their Mediwiwin) via Dr. Ward (Cook) of Virginia, an early resident of Pendleton, Indiana, who most likely acquired his land there in 1820. (The land records were destroyed by a fire in the 1880's). As a botanist/pharmacist Rafinesque my have had contact with Dr. Ward (as he was usually known) in Lexington on his trip from Virginia to Indiana to acquire his land."
 
The operative phrases, here, are:  "My guess ...," "..most likely ..," and "..may have ..."  In addition, your identification of "Dr. Ward Cook," as Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward," is another guess, on your part.  And, where can I find the rule that Lenape "metewak" ('Indian doctors') had to be full-bloods?


"The tough part for me in all of this is that while I can agree with some of Oestreicher's conclusions about Rafinesque's linguistic methods, there are other points that stick. Why Rafinesque used "Towako" to refer to Twakanhah (Cahokia), when he could have come up with another spelling if he was working from Cusick's "Sketches of the Ancient History of the Six Nations", is beyond me."
 
Who says "Towako" is Cahokia?  That's another guess! 
 
 
"If Rafinesque got that spelling from Heckewelder's list of toponyms, then one has to wonder where Heckewelder got that list of place names from... a transcript of the Walam Olum? If so, where did Heckewelder get it?"
 
He didn't get it from Heckewelder.  The only possible meaning this word could have in Delaware is 'mudpuppy' ("twekw").  There is a placename in New Jersey, "Towaco," which was named after a Delaware man of the historic period who bore that name. 


"Given the detailed information in the Heckewelder fragment, it's also strange that Rafinesque did not include more of it in the Walam Olum, while at the same time he has other details confirmed by hard evidence that do not appear to have come from Heckewelder."
 
Including more of the "details" would have exposed his hoax, sooner.  But, in fact, nearly every word he concocted for this forgery was from vocabulary lists compiled by Heckewelder and Zeisberger!  That his other details have been "confirmed by hard evidence" is your characterization.  I don't see any such evidence--hard or otherwise.


"My goal in "Man and Impact in the Americas" was to get to the best preserved versions of the traditions where they survived. I tried my best to keep my comments separate from what was passed on, and succeeded except at the end when my stroke interrupted me in the use of italics and indentation."
 
There is really only one such source:  Heckewelder.  That Sutton account was actually about events which took place in the historical period, as was shown by Beatty, later in his journal! 


"That the Lenape had medewiwin and that they held a migration tradition using mnemonic aides is inescapable for me."
 
The Lenape had "metewak" ('Indian doctors').  They did not have 'medicine societies,' such as are found among the Ojibway and others.  Lenape "metewak" were not the storytellers in Lenape society.  They had a migration tradition, as you call it, in the late 18th-century.  There was no need for "mnemonic aides" to tell these stories.  To say they did is just more guesswork.


"The fundamental question is whether Rafinesque was working from a transcription of this, or whether he attempted a reconstruction of it using other materials. For me that question is still open."
 
He was working from a set of pictographs and a manuscript devised, drawn and written by himself!


"Finally, whichever it was, if Rafinesque managed to put an end to a lot of European nonsense with his work, then do we not have to give him some respect for this reason alone, little less the other good works he did in his life?"
 
What he did was "European nonsense."  Respect what?  His cunning?


"In closing, I ask that this topic be left in "Research Needed"."
 
And I reiterate my request to put it with the other Frauds, where it belongs.

[shkaakwus]

Ed (E.P. Grondine):

I'm not going to respond to another one of your posts, unless you point out what lines in the Walam Olum correspond to what "evidence" you're citing from the various books, articles, and statements you claim support the authenticity of this sham.   There is absolutely no other way to evaluate whatever it is you're trying to say.   

[shkaakwus]

Ed:

I will ask this, for the second time, now.  You write: 

"Another really stunning coincidence for me is the burning of the stockades described in the WO, and if CSR dreamed this up 150 years before the stockades at Cahokia and Angel Mounds were excavated, then one would have to admit he had an unbelievably great creative talent."

WHERE IS THIS IN THE WALAM OLUM?

[E.P. Grondine]

The simple fact is that nobody--not Oestreicher, not you, not me, not anybody--knows, for sure, who these Talligeu or Talligewi were.  Heckewelder records their name, but does not equate them with Cherokee or Shawnee or any other known historical tribe; so, his informants never told him who they were.  In truth, he adopts Col. John Gibson's speculation that they were really "Allegewi," a tribe he theorized existed along the Allegheny/Ohio River. 

Oestreicher's reason for identifying the name as a Delaware attempt to say "Tsalagi" (Cherokee) is because he feels the details of the war between the Lenape and Tallegewi, as related by Heckewelder, were too much like the story of a war between the Lenape and Cherokee, which took place during historical times, to be coincidental.  So, that's what's behind his guess.  You have your reasons for guessing the name is a Delaware attempt to say "Tchiliga/tha/we" (Chillicothe), the name of a Shawnee division.  To me, the name looks most like Lenape, "tallegau" or "tallegawi"--from the word for 'crane' (the bird).  But, like everyone else, this would be no more than a guess.

Actually, I do know to a fair degree of certainty. The reasons for that opinion are in my book; they are archaeological.

"While I can accept Oestreicher's assertions that the Lenape attacked the Cherokee with firearms during the contact period, and that they used "Tallega" variants to speak of the Cherokee (ani tuslagi) I don't think that the Cherokee were the people referred to in the Heckewelder fragment of the Lenape oral tradition of their migration, nor by Rafinesque."
 
The operative phrase, here, being "I don't think .."

Okay, good one. Let's try:
"I think that Oestreicher is wrong, and the Cherokee were not..."

"The astronomical traditions of the Shawnee (The Principle Narrative) align well with the structures in Ohio. As this has significant consequences today, I simply can not let Oestreicher's work go uncommented."
 
It seems to me you're getting all worked up, unnecessarily, over Oestreicher's identification of the Talligewi, in these migration legends, as Cherokee, since he doesn't even believe these legends are historically accurate!  Therefore, his identification has no bearing, whatsoever, on who actually built the structures.

There's a fine distinction between legends and traditions which is escaping you, as are the reasons I am getting worked up.

This isn't simply a trivial academic matter for me. And if it wasn't necessary, I wouldn't be spending my time with this.

The climate collapse in western North America that prompted the Lenape and Mushkogean migrations will happen again. We're (all of us, first peoples, PODIA, and everyone else) living here now.

Impacts like those remembered in the traditions will happen again. We're living here now.

While I can't restore the lands to the peoples, I tried my best to restore the peoples to the lands. They've taken everything else, now they take our history.

Recognizing Shawnee remains as Shawnee remains runs gut deep for me.

On a personal level, I am so fed up with this wandering Shawnee nonsense that I want to SCREAM.

"Further, speaking to the same footnote, while its true that the Shawnee were Algonquin speakers, they far preceded the Lenape in central North America; the archaeological continuity through to contact era Shawnee villages of the "Fort Ancient" cultures is well known, a fact which Oestreicher is either unaware of, or ignores."
 
I would agree that the Shawnee preceded the Lenape in central North America; however, there is absolutely no archaeological evidence that could prove that ancestors of the Shawnee preceded ancestors of the Lenape in central North America.

Actually, there is plenty of archaeological evidence confirming Shawnee migration traditions. Its in my book.

"By comparison, a minor question is Oestreicher's assertion that the Lenape Chief's name "Wapushuwi", "White Lynx",  incorporates the Swedish morpheme "poes", as "piasi" variants for "cat" exist in other algonquin languages. While I have little knowledge of how ellision works in Lenape, why does "Wapushuwi" have to incorporate a Swedish morpheme, and the Chief be "historical"? That's one of the things which lead me to question Oestreicher's contact era identifications from Heckewelder's personal name list, which he did not evidence in the article; perhaps he did in his thesis."
 
I don't know if the Delaware word, "pooshiish" (Munsee) / "puschis" (Northern Unami) / "pushis" (Southern Unami), was originally derived from the Swedish, "poes," Dutch, "poesje" or English, "pussy"--but, it's definitely a European loanword (wherever it occurs in Algonquian languages).  And, in Lenape, it can only refer to a common house cat, which is also a European import.  Hence, anyone who bore such a name would have to have lived post-contact!

Wrong. Obviously you have no knowledge of the North American jaguar as well.

"Now as to the pictographs. Oestreicher notes Rafineque's claim in his 1834 Prix Volney essay that "pictographic records among the Delaware, a phenomenon common to other North American tribes, "can cite occurrences as far back as 300 years"'. While Oestreicher notes Rafinesques' claim in 1834 that he had Lenape pictographic records, he then goes on to ignore it."
 
If he noted it, how did he ignore it?  In any case, I don't understand the significance of this.  Kindly elaborate.

There's a distinction between legends and traditions which is escaping you.
Regardless of what kind of use Rafinesque made of them, the use of pictographic records and wampum by the Lenape medewak is attested.

"Where could these records have come from? My guess is from Chief Anderson who could not be "mede",  (as recorded by English speakers; I was wrong in remembering what the Lenape called their Mediwiwin) via Dr. Ward (Cook) of Virginia, an early resident of Pendleton, Indiana, who most likely acquired his land there in 1820. (The land records were destroyed by a fire in the 1880's). As a botanist/pharmacist Rafinesque my have had contact with Dr. Ward (as he was usually known) in Lexington on his trip from Virginia to Indiana to acquire his land."
 
The operative phrases, here, are:  "My guess ...," "..most likely ..," and "..may have ..."  In addition, your identification of "Dr. Ward Cook," as Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward," is another guess, on your part.  And, where can I find the rule that Lenape "metewak" ('Indian doctors') had to be full-bloods?

In Anderson, Indiana, in the records about Chief Anderson. Perhaps someday I'll meet you there.

"The tough part for me in all of this is that while I can agree with some of Oestreicher's conclusions about Rafinesque's linguistic methods, there are other points that stick. Why Rafinesque used "Towako" to refer to Twakanhah (Cahokia), when he could have come up with another spelling if he was working from Cusick's "Sketches of the Ancient History of the Six Nations", is beyond me."
 
Who says "Towako" is Cahokia?  That's another guess! 

See the string of archaeological sites given in my later post here on the Lenape migration tradition as preserved by Heckewelder.
 

"If Rafinesque got that spelling from Heckewelder's list of toponyms, then one has to wonder where Heckewelder got that list of place names from... a transcript of the Walam Olum? If so, where did Heckewelder get it?"
 
He didn't get it from Heckewelder.  The only possible meaning this word could have in Delaware is 'mudpuppy' ("twekw").  There is a placename in New Jersey, "Towaco," which was named after a Delaware man of the historic period who bore that name.

Given the defiencies in Oestreicher's work and method, someone someday is going to have to go back through Heckewelder's manuscripts and see if there are any other fragments of the Lenape migration tradition which he preserved.

"Given the detailed information in the Heckewelder fragment, it's also strange that Rafinesque did not include more of it in the Walam Olum, while at the same time he has other details confirmed by hard evidence that do not appear to have come from Heckewelder."
 
Including more of the "details" would have exposed his hoax, sooner.  But, in fact, nearly every word he concocted for this forgery was from vocabulary lists compiled by Heckewelder and Zeisberger!  That his other details have been "confirmed by hard evidence" is your characterization.  I don't see any such evidence--hard or otherwise.

Perhaps Rafinesque is not the only person to have his beliefs interfere with his perception and thinking.

"My goal in "Man and Impact in the Americas" was to get to the best preserved versions of the traditions where they survived. I tried my best to keep my comments separate from what was passed on, and succeeded except at the end when my stroke interrupted me in the use of italics and indentation."
 
There is really only one such source:  Heckewelder.  That Sutton account was actually about events which took place in the historical period, as was shown by Beatty, later in his journal!

Not according to the wampum count Sutton reported.

If you want to learn about the Lenape during the "Beaver Wars", I'd suggest visiting Kitianung, Pennsylvania.

"That the Lenape had medewiwin and that they held a migration tradition using mnemonic aides is inescapable for me."
 
The Lenape had "metewak" ('Indian doctors').  They did not have 'medicine societies,' such as are found among the Ojibway and others.  Lenape "metewak" were not the storytellers in Lenape society.  They had a migration tradition, as you call it, in the late 18th-century.  There was no need for "mnemonic aides" to tell these stories.  To say they did is just more guesswork.

Not according to several reports from the contact period.

Again, there is a distinction between stories and traditions which is escaping you. You may wish to try thinking about the oral corpus of any people as a library. On the shelves there are childrens' books, adventures, romances, fantasies, how to guides, morality tales, and then there are some histories in the reference section.

"The fundamental question is whether Rafinesque was working from a transcription of this, or whether he attempted a reconstruction of it using other materials. For me that question is still open."
 
He was working from a set of pictographs and a manuscript devised, drawn and written by himself!

In your opinion.

"Finally, whichever it was, if Rafinesque managed to put an end to a lot of European nonsense with his work, then do we not have to give him some respect for this reason alone, little less the other good works he did in his life?"
 
What he did was "European nonsense." 

In your opinion.

In closing, I ask that this topic be left in "Research Needed".
 

[shkaakwus]

Ed:

I will ask this, for the second time, now.  You write: 

"Another really stunning coincidence for me is the burning of the stockades described in the WO, and if CSR dreamed this up 150 years before the stockades at Cahokia and Angel Mounds were excavated, then one would have to admit he had an unbelievably great creative talent."

WHERE IS THIS IN THE WALAM OLUM?

Are you going to answer this one simple question, Ed?  This is the third time I've asked it.

[E.P. Grondine]

Ed:

I will ask this, for the second time, now.  You write: 

"Another really stunning coincidence for me is the burning of the stockades described in the WO, and if CSR dreamed this up 150 years before the stockades at Cahokia and Angel Mounds were excavated, then one would have to admit he had an unbelievably great creative talent."

WHERE IS THIS IN THE WALAM OLUM?

Are you going to answer this one simple question, Ed?  This is the third time I've asked it.

Shifted from historical present to past tense:


The Stirrer was chief;
The Talegawe towns were too strong.

The Man-who-Built-Fires was chief;
they all gave to him many towns.

The Man-who-broke-to-pieces was chief;
all the Talegawe went south.

Heckewelder:
The enemy fortified their large towns and erected fortifications, especially on
the large rivers and near lakes,...

[shkaakwus]

As expected, there is absolutely nothing in these lines from the Walam Olum which say that the Talligewi had stockades, that they were burned down by anyone, or that this all took place at Cahokia and Angel mounds.  You are interpreting these lines to fit your own theory.  This is called pure guesswork.   

Rafinesque made up the name of "Pematalli" ('Constant-there' in Rafinesque, but 'The-Stirrer' in Brinton).  He saw the name of the historical personage, Pemaholend ('he who is constantly loved'), from which he (incorrectly) split the morphemes and used "Pema-" as 'Constant,' then tacked on the word, "talli" ('there'), from Zeisberger's word-list, in order to make up his ridiculous name.  In fact, the word "talli," is a particle, and CANNOT be suffixed to another stem, in Delaware!  [By the way, you HAVE to use Rafinesque's "translations," if you want to see exactly how he invented all this stuff.]

"The Man-who-Built-Fires" is Brinton's attempt to translate an untranslatable bit of nonsense, "Tenchekensit," again, made-up by our forger.  Rafinesque translates the name as "Opening Path."  He concocted this name (like the last) from Zeisberger's "tenktschechen" ('it is open') and Heckewelder's placename, "machksithanne" ('bear path creek').  He took -sit- from that last word, thinking it meant 'path,' literally (because that's how Heckewelder freely translated it), when it actually means, 'foot.'  LOL!

"Paganchihilla" (your 'The Man-who-broke-to-pieces') is taken directly from Heckewelder's list of historical Delaware chiefs!  This is the famous Buckongehelas, whose name the Moravians wrote (correctly!) as Pachgantschihillas ('the fulfiller').  Rafinesque "translated" the name as 'Great Fulfiller'! 

So, none of this crap even remotely means anything like the names whose translations you've adopted as part of your theory.  As you write them, they don't have anything to do with burning stockades at Cahokia; and, as Rafinesque intended them to mean they can't even be used to support such a wild guess!

 

[shkaakwus]

Next question, Ed.  You wrote:

"Another coincidence left out from that discussion is the mention in the Walam Olum of the Norse plagues ca. 1275 CE ..."

Where does this occur in the Walam Olum?  [You can either provide the lines, or just cite chapter and verse numbers.]

[shkaakwus]

You know what?  Let's put this one to bed.  Here is David Oestreicher's list of 26 names Rafinesque lifted directly from Heckewelder's list of historical Lenape persons--many of whom Heckewelder knew, personally!  "WO" stands for the names in the Walam Olum.  "H" stands for the names in Heckewelder's list.  Keep in mind, that, according to the Walam Olum, ALL these "chiefs" lived in pre-contact times!  LOL!  (The letter combination, ch, in Heckewelder's names is pronounced like the ch in German, Bach, or Scottish, loch.  His tsch is pronounced like English ch in church.)
 
1.  Janotowi (WO IV:9)        =       I-anottowi (H 383)
2.  Tamakwi (WO IV:12)       =      Tamaque (H 396)
3.  Ayamek (WO IV:15)        =      Ajamaikend (H 385)
4.  Tasukamend (WO IV:19)  =      Tasuckamend (H 387)
5.  Pemaholend (WO IV:20)   =      Pemaholend (H 395)
6.  Matemik (WO IV:21)        =      Mattemikgun (H 383)
7.  Olumapi (WO IV:23)         =      Olumapies (H 384)
8.  Taquachi (WO IV:24)       =      Tachquatschi (H 386)
9.  Alkosohit (WO IV:26)       =      Achcolsoet (H 383)
10. Shiwapi (WO IV:27)        =      Schiwachpi (H 383)
11. Wekwochella (WO IV:30) =      Wiquihilla (H 384)
12. Kwitikwund (WO IV:31)    =      Quitiequond (H 384)
13. Wakaholend (WO IV:33)   =      Woakaholend (H 395)
14. Tamenend (WO IV:35)     =      Temenend (H 383)
15. Wingenund (WO IV:39)    =       Wingenund (H 395)
16. Lapawin (WO IV:40)        =       Lapawinsoe (H 386)
17. Opekasit (WO IV:47)       =       Opekhasit (H 385)
18. Paganchihilla (WO IV:59)  =       Pachgantschihillas (H 391)
19. Pepomahemen (WO V-8)  =      Pepommahemen (H 385)
20. Lokwelend (WO V:15)      =       Lawelochwelend (H 389)
21. Tamenend (WO V:32)      =       Temenend (H383)
22. Linkwekinuk (WO V:19)    =       Linquechinoak (H 384)
23. Gikenopalat (WO V:23)    =       Gichkenopalat (H 387)
24. Epallahchund (WO V:53)  =       Echpallawehund (H 395)
25. Wangomend (WO V:55)    =      Wangomend (H 395)
26. Nenachihat (WO V:58)     =       Nenatschihat (H 384)
 
By the way:  It doesn't cost $10,000 to get this Heckewelder list.  You can order a copy from the American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia, for the cost of the photocopies.
 
NOW can we put this thing in Frauds?
 
 
 
   

[educatedindian]

educatedindian writes:

"Since there's still a lot more to be discussed on this, it should be kept under Research. I don't think scholarly opinion is unanimous at all."

1. Where can one read the opinions of scholars who support the authenticity of the Walam Olum, now that Oestreicher has published his findings?  
 
"Ostreicher gets pretty close to hysterical and unbalanced sometimes in his denunciations."

2. Can you give an example?


"His target is not so much the WO as it is any claim that oral tradition can be relied on, or even listened to at all."

3. This is simply not true.  Oestreicher has worked with numerous Lenape traditionalists, and has recorded some of their traditional stories and cultural knowledge, himself.  He has a great regard for the people and their traditional knowledge.  The Walam Olum is not a part of Lenape oral tradition, although, as I said, before, Rafinesque did incorporate some genuine bits of the oral tradition, which he lifted from Heckewelder.  Whether or not the Lenape migration stories of the late 18th-century are folklore or history is a matter of opinion.  Whatever opinion he holds on this has no bearing on whether or not the Walam Olum is authentic.

"That, plus that the WO contradicts the BS Theory."

4. Where?  Rafinesque used it as a proof of his out-of-Asia theory!  In truth, these stunted, cryptic sentences of the Walam Olum can be seen to "prove" any migration theory you like, depending on how you choose to interpret them!
 

I added numbers to make it clearer what I'm replying to.

1. Just from memory, David McKutchen is probably the best known to argue the WO is authentic. Doing a search should turn up more, in addition to much older writers like Brinton.

2. The very titles of Oestreicher's works on the subject include "fraud," "hoax," etc, pretty emotionally worded. Again, from memory, I recall him posting on an academic listserv where he ranted quite a bit. Anyone who disagreed with him got a long series of "Oh lord, you must be kidding!" type of comments. This was on an academic listserv.

3. That he's recorded stories is irrelevant. Many anthros regard oral tradtion as unreliable, even while recording it themselves. That you put folklore and history into two different and opposed categories suggests you might think so yourself.

4. The WO states that the migration was a return to the Americas, clearly arguing that NDNs are indigenous. The BS Theory claims that a small group of immigrants from Asia (sometimes theorized to be as few as a hundred) came over, the strait was closed by rising waters, and no one else came over til the Vikings (in older versions, Columbus.) WO states there were migrations back and forth. BS Theory claims that America was almost hermetically sealed after that first crossing, with the strong racist implication that NDNs were too passive to travel beyond roaming for hunting nearby, or were supposedly too stupid to build boats.

Your last message didn't so much ask we put this into Frauds as almost demand it. You get quite worked up on the subject, and I wonder why. I'm also very curious as to how you know so much on the topic. Are you in academia yourself?

If we hadn't kept this under Research, there's lots of good information on the topic that wouldn't have come out, esp from you. And for that I thank you. And the fact remains that some Lenape elders endorse the WO. (See McKutchen.) Others don't.

[E.P. Grondine]

NOW can we put this thing in Frauds?

Not quite yet. I did work from Brinton's English translation, and accepted his opinion as to the WO as a transcription, and Brinton's translations. So please use "Brinton's" instead of "yours".

Thanks much for the name list, which was omitted from the NJAS article. Still, to work with Heckewelder's manuscript at the level I want would take about $10,000. As I mentioned in an earlier note, even to go through Oestreicher's thesis at the level I feel comfortable with would take about $10,000.

As expected, there is absolutely nothing in these lines from the Walam Olum which say that the Talligewi had stockades, that they were burned down by anyone, or that this all took place at Cahokia and Angel mounds.  You are interpreting these lines to fit your own theory.  This is called pure guesswork.

The remains of the stockades are there, and well dated. Heckewelder describes the fortification activities in his fragment of the mede/wak's tradition , which you omitted from your reply. Also, I know of no evidence of Cherokee fortifications from the period Oestreicher hypothesizes this fragment refers to.

The strange thing about Rafinesque as a reconstructor is that he put the lines I cited exactly where they should sit in time: Talmantan ["Neutrals"] and Missassgua activities are known from David M. Stothers and James R. Graves, Cultural Continuity and Change: The Western Basin, Ontario Iroquois, and Sandusky Traditions, A 1982 Perspective, Archaeology of Eastern North America, Volume 11, 1983, p. 109-142. And so placed Rafinesque.

Simlarly, Rafinesque placed the following (a plague?) at the right place and time:

30. After the Little-One (came) the Fatigued-One;
after him, the Stiff-One.

Since you seem knowledgeable, I am particularly interested if Rafinesque had a specific source for the following:

1. Long ago there was a Mighty Snake, and beings evil to men.

2. This Mighty Snake hated those who were there,
(and) he greatly disquieted those whom he hated.

3. He harmed all things, he injured all things,
and all were not in peace.

4. Driven from their homes, the men fought with this murderer.

5. The Mighty Snake firmly resolved to harm the men.

6. The Mighty Snake brought three persons,
he brought a monster ,
he brought rushing water.

7. Between the hills the water rushed and rushed,
dashing through and through, destroying much.

8. Nanabush, the Strong White One, Grandfather of beings, Grandfather of men,
was on [Sea] Turtle Island.

"Nanabush" does seem strange, as does the Lenape creation story Rafinesque used, created, or "reconstructed" (palingeny).

We still have Oestreicher's refusal to admit to the existence of Lenape mede/wak, as well as his refusal to confront the evidence that they used mnemonic aids. Finally, we have Oestreicher's rather bizarre interpretations of the fragments of tradition reported by Heckewelder and Sutton.

Then there are the differences in the spellings, with no consideration given to any other source other than they being Rafinesque's creations. And we have Oestriecher's rather bizarre comment about "piasse"/"poose", a simple matter which leads me to question his other linguistic assertions.

I am still not satisfied with Oestreicher's work, and probably won't be until
1) he writes a history of the Lenape during contact, and
2) he tries to retrieve as much of the mede/wak's pre-contact history tradition as he can.

I would like to see this left in "Research Needed" for the time being.

That's it for this evening.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[shkaakwus]

educatedindian writes:
 
"1. Just from memory, David McKutchen is probably the best known to argue the WO is authentic. Doing a search should turn up more, in addition to much older writers like Brinton."
 
First:  McCutchen's work (1993) predates Oestreicher's (1995), so it doesn't meet the criteria.  Second:  David McCutchen decided he could translate a work, supposedly written in Lenape, without actually having to learn the Lenape language, himself!  Third:  After publishing his book, McCutchen started producing and selling sets of "Walam Olum sticks," at $300 a set!  Great "scholar"!


"2. The very titles of Oestreicher's works on the subject include "fraud," "hoax," etc, pretty emotionally worded."
 
Calling something what it is is "emotional"?
 
 
"Again, from memory, I recall him posting on an academic listserv where he ranted quite a bit. Anyone who disagreed with him got a long series of "Oh lord, you must be kidding!" type of comments. This was on an academic listserv."
 
I'm beginning to understand his reactions! 
 


"3. That he's recorded stories is irrelevant. Many anthros regard oral tradtion as unreliable, even while recording it themselves. That you put folklore and history into two different and opposed categories suggests you might think so yourself."
 
Folklore is folklore and history is history.  The Walam Olum is neither.  It's a fraud.  We have many instances where folklore can provide insights into historical events.  It is not history, however.  Anyone who equates the two does a disservice to both.


"4. The WO states that the migration was a return to the Americas, clearly arguing that NDNs are indigenous."
 
Where does it say this? 
 
 
"The BS Theory claims that a small group of immigrants from Asia (sometimes theorized to be as few as a hundred) came over, the strait was closed by rising waters, and no one else came over til the Vikings (in older versions, Columbus.)"
 
That's a very narrow characterization of a theory which has been modified, over and over, as new information comes to light.  Besides which, it has no bearing (pun intended) on the authenticity of the Walam Olum, since nobody knows if the theory is true or not; nor do we know if the Walam Olum endorses it or not!
 
 
"WO states there were migrations back and forth."
 
Again:  Where does it say this?
 
 
"BS Theory claims that America was almost hermetically sealed after that first crossing, with the strong racist implication that NDNs were too passive to travel beyond roaming for hunting nearby, or were supposedly too stupid to build boats."
 
The fact that racism exists is deplorable.  Its existence or non-existence will neither one make the Walam Olum true or false. 


"Your last message didn't so much ask we put this into Frauds as almost demand it."
 
No.  I asked if you would put it there upon seeing, what to any objective reader, is incontrovertible proof that this document is a fake.  If you honestly can't see that Rafinesque stole 26 Lenape names from Heckewelder's list of historical personages (ten of whom Heckewelder knew, personally, and included biographical notes on them in his list!), and that Rafinesque then inserted them into the pre-contact period of his ridiculous production, then, I'm not sure what more there is to say.
 
 
"You get quite worked up on the subject, and I wonder why. I'm also very curious as to how you know so much on the topic. Are you in academia yourself?"
 
'Worked up?'  Yeah.  I guess I do get 'worked up' when I see frauds, phonies, and snake-oil salesmen (which Rafinesque was, literally, in his later life, by the way!) making fools out of people through their deceits.  I thought that's what this forum was all about.  Was I mistaken?  I "know so much on the topic" because I've studied the Lenape language for nearly thirty years (as I said in my Member Introduction message), and I know fraudulent attempts to write and translate Lenape when I see them.  I'm not an academic.


"If we hadn't kept this under Research, there's lots of good information on the topic that wouldn't have come out, esp from you. And for that I thank you. And the fact remains that some Lenape elders endorse the WO. (See McKutchen.) Others don't."
 
I could just as easily post all my information on this topic if it was in the Frauds section, where it belongs.  The fact that some Lenape elders endorse the WO, while others don't, just means that one group of elders is right (those who don't endorse it) and the other is wrong.  As I stated, previously, EVERY Lenape elder who could speak Lenape is on record that they NEVER heard of the Walam Olum.
 
 
 

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:
 
" 'NOW can we put this thing in Frauds?' Not quite yet. I did work from Brinton's English translation, and accepted his opinion as to the WO as a transcription, and Brinton's translations. So please use "Brinton's" instead of "yours".
 
They're not my translations.  They're Rafinesque's translations!  Anyway:  In Walam Olum I: 9-11, Brinton translates, 'Anew spoke the great Manito, a manito to manitos, To beings, mortals, souls and all, And ever after he was a manito to men, and their grandfather.'  Now, please tell us why the Walam Olum calls the Great Spirit (Kitanitowit) the 'grandfather' of men--when the Lenape, from the 1600's through all the centuries up to today, universally call the Great Spirit their 'FATHER'?   This monumental cultural faux pas aside, Brinton knew the Lenape language better than McCutchen, but he certainly did not know it well enough to attempt a translation of ANY text in real Lenape, much less one in phony Lenape--as I've had an opportunity to demonstrate, elsewhere on the internet.


"Thanks much for the name list, which was omitted from the NJAS article. Still, to work with Heckewelder's manuscript at the level I want would take about $10,000. As I mentioned in an earlier note, even to go through Oestreicher's thesis at the level I feel comfortable with would take about $10,000."
 
I have absolutely no idea what it is you're proposing to do!  What "level" are you talking about?


"The remains of the stockades are there, and well dated."
 
WHERE?  They're not mentioned in the Walam Olum!
 
 
"Heckewelder describes the fortification activities in his fragment of the mede/wak's tradition , which you omitted from your reply."
 
First:  Heckewelder's account is NOT the Walam Olum--which is the only thing under consideration as a fraud, in this thread!  Second:  Heckewelder NEVER said he got this account from "medewak."  That's your own guesswork! 

 
"Also, I know of no evidence of Cherokee fortifications from the period Oestreicher hypothesizes this fragment refers to."

Once again:  No passage of the Walam Olum mentions "fortifications"!  That's from Heckewelder.  We are not debating the authenticity of Heckewelder's account.  This thread is about the fraudulence of the Walam Olum of C.S. Rafinesque.


"The strange thing about Rafinesque as a reconstructor is that he put the lines I cited exactly where they should sit in time: Talmantan ["Neutrals"] and Missassgua activities are known from David M. Stothers and James R. Graves, Cultural Continuity and Change: The Western Basin, Ontario Iroquois, and Sandusky Traditions, A 1982 Perspective, Archaeology of Eastern North America, Volume 11, 1983, p. 109-142. And so placed Rafinesque."
 
A "reconstructor"?  That's a new name for what he was.  Where are the "Missassgua" mentioned in the WO?


"Simlarly, Rafinesque placed the following (a plague?) at the right place and time:

30. After the Little-One (came) the Fatigued-One; after him, the Stiff-One."
 
HOW?  There's nothing here which mentions a plague!   Am I the only person in this whole place who isn't able to see anything in the Walam Olum that you say is there?  BTW:  Are these the lines of WO which you say reference the Viking plague of 1275?  The person here called "the Fatigued-One," bears the name of a Lenape who died in 1727, in New Jersey--a name Rafinesque got from Heckewelder's list!
 

"Since you seem knowledgeable, I am particularly interested if Rafinesque had a specific source for the following:

"1. Long ago there was a Mighty Snake, and beings evil to men.

"2. This Mighty Snake hated those who were there, (and) he greatly disquieted those whom he hated.

"3. He harmed all things, he injured all things, and all were not in peace.

"4. Driven from their homes, the men fought with this murderer.

"5. The Mighty Snake firmly resolved to harm the men.

"6. The Mighty Snake brought three persons, he brought a monster , he brought rushing water.

"7. Between the hills the water rushed and rushed, dashing through and through, destroying much.

8. Nanabush, the Strong White One, Grandfather of beings, Grandfather of men, was on [Sea] Turtle Island.

"Nanabush" does seem strange, as does the Lenape creation story Rafinesque used, created, or "reconstructed" (palingeny)."
 
You answered one of your own questions.  Nanabush is NOT Lenape.  Another major cultural blunder on Rafinesque's part!  As for the Snake thing, I refer you to Oestreicher's dissertation, pages 232-246.  I'm not going to rewrite his entire dissertation, here.  Suffice it to say that Oestreicher finds the sources for this in the Bible, the Confucian books, Li Chi, Chou Li and Tso-shih-chuan--all of which materials were known by Rafinesque, since he, himself, noted the parallels between those and these Walam Olum passages.   


"We still have Oestreicher's refusal to admit to the existence of Lenape mede/wak, as well as his refusal to confront the evidence that they used mnemonic aids."
 
First:  It's preposterous to say Oestreicher doesn't know what a Lenape meteu is.  Of course he does!  So far as the metewak using "mnemonic aids" is concerned:  Just where, exactly, can I find that referenced?
 
 
"Finally, we have Oestreicher's rather bizarre interpretations of the fragments of tradition reported by Heckewelder and Sutton."
 
'Bizarre'?  No.  I think they are perfectly reasonable possibilities; which are not the subject of this topic, anyway.  Sutton's account was shown to be a historical period event by Beatty, himself.  Oestreicher's opinion on Heckewelder's account has no bearing on the authenticity of the WO--only on the authenticity of Heckewelder's account, which is not the subject of this thread.


"Then there are the differences in the spellings, with no consideration given to any other source other than they being Rafinesque's creations."
 
Heckewelder wrote the names down in German orthography, as did all Moravians.  If Rafinesque had not changed those spellings his hoax would have been discovered, immediately!  (The same is true with every single Lenape word he used.)
 
 
"And we have Oestriecher's rather bizarre comment about "piasse"/"poose", a simple matter which leads me to question his other linguistic assertions."
 
That's because, unlike Oestreicher and myself, you have only a rudimentary knowledge of the Lenape language (like Rafinesque and Brinton and McCutchen).  Your "piasse" is an entirely different word than Lenape, pushis.  They are not at all cognates.  The first is from an old Algonquian stem.  The second is a loanword from a European language.  The first does not occur in the Lenape language, although BOTH stems do appear in modern Ojibway.  There, the one is bizhiw ("lynx"); and the other (the European loanword) is boozhens ("cat").  Two completely different and etymologically unrelated words!


"I am still not satisfied with Oestreicher's work, and probably won't be until
1) he writes a history of the Lenape during contact, and
2) he tries to retrieve as much of the mede/wak's pre-contact history tradition as he can."
 
How can you be unsatisfied with Oestreicher's work when you haven't even read his 547-page doctoral dissertation on the subject?


"I would like to see this left in "Research Needed" for the time being."
 
That makes one of us.  It belongs in Frauds.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Shkaakwas -

Brinton knew the Lenape language better than McCutchen, but he certainly did not know it well enough to attempt a translation of ANY text in real Lenape, much less one in phony Lenape--as I've had an opportunity to demonstrate, elsewhere on the internet.

Could you provide URLs for that?

[/i]How can you be unsatisfied with Oestreicher's work when you haven't even read his 547-page doctoral dissertation on the subject?[/i]
As for the Snake thing, I refer you to Oestreicher's dissertation, pages 232-246.

For some reason, I think you might be able to provide me with a copy of Oestreicher's thesis in electronic file form, and I would like to read it.

I still have questions about Oestriecher's rather bizarre comment about "piasse"/"poose", a simple matter which leads me to question his other linguistic assertions.
 
That's because, unlike Oestreicher and myself, you have only a rudimentary knowledge of the Lenape language (like Rafinesque and Brinton and McCutchen).  Your "piasse" is an entirely different word than Lenape, pushis.  They are not at all cognates.

Its true what you state about my level of knowledge of Lenape, but that cognate failure would be strange, given Illini "piasse" and Shawnee "piasse". If the Lenape borrowed the word, it may have been from the Shawnee rather than the Swedes.

Moving on, the remains of the stockades are there, and well dated.
 
WHERE?  They're not mentioned in the Walam Olum!

In the field, in the real world.

Heckewelder describes the fortification activities in his fragment of the mede/wak's tradition , which you omitted from your reply.
 
First:  Heckewelder's account is NOT the Walam Olum--which is the only thing under consideration as a fraud, in this thread!  Second:  Heckewelder NEVER said he got this account from "medewak."  That's your own guesswork!

Ah, but therein lies the problem. Oestreicher's assertions concerning Rafinesque are one thing, but his assertions about Lenape medewak and mnemonic aids are another, as is his reconstruction of the peoples' history.

It's preposterous to say Oestreicher doesn't know what a Lenape meteu is.  Of course he does!  So far as the metewak using "mnemonic aids" is concerned:  Just where, exactly, can I find that referenced?

We have the statements from Anderson about Lenape medewak and their role. Whether Heckewelder received his account directly from them, or from those who they had related the tradition to, is something that I do not know. I gave other accounts of Lenape medewak over at the wikipedia discussion. Oestreicher's failure to track the location of them and the Big House is frustrating to me.

We're left with Oestreicher's refusal to admit to the existence of Lenape mede/wak, as well as his refusal to confront the evidence that they used mnemonic aids.

[/i]Once again:  No passage of the Walam Olum mentions "fortifications"!  That's from Heckewelder.  We are not debating the authenticity of Heckewelder's account.  This thread is about the fraudulence of the Walam Olum of C.S. Rafinesque.[/i]

This thread is on Oestreicher's analysis. Again, I know of no evidence of Cherokee fortifications from the period Oestreicher hypothesizes this Heckewelder fragment refers to.

Let me see if I can get to my bottom line here. Given Oestreicher's biases against Medewak, oral tradition, and mnemonic aids, and his reconstruction of Native American history, I can not accept his work entire yet.

At a minimum, I think that he may have missed one of Rafinesque's sources, perhaps Rafinesque's inspiration. There are still the coincidences in time, toponyms and ethnonyms, too many of them for me to accept Oestreicher's analysis entire yet.

I ask that this remain in Research Needed.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes (my new remarks in boldface type):
 
"Hi Shkaakwas -"
 
Hello.


'Brinton knew the Lenape language better than McCutchen, but he certainly did not know it well enough to attempt a translation of ANY text in real Lenape, much less one in phony Lenape--as I've had an opportunity to demonstrate, elsewhere on the internet.'

"Could you provide URLs for that?"
 
http://forum.americanindiantribe.com/viewtopic.php?t=285



"For some reason, I think you might be able to provide me with a copy of Oestreicher's thesis in electronic file form, and I would like to read it."
 
Sorry.  I bought mine, in book form, from ProQuest Dissertation Express.  It's still available, in various formats, for from $41 to $106, depending on what format or binding you order.


"Its true what you state about my level of knowledge of Lenape, but that cognate failure would be strange, given Illini "piasse" and Shawnee "piasse". If the Lenape borrowed the word, it may have been from the Shawnee rather than the Swedes."
 
It's called a coincidence.  BTW, Oestreicher says it's a borrowing from Dutch in his dissertation, as is universally agreed by linguists.  You have to know how Proto-Algonquian words changed pronunciation in each of its daughter languages (Lenape, Shawnee, Ojibway, Mahican, etc., etc.), to understand why "pu:shi:s" ('cat') cannot have originated in Proto-Algonquian, *peshiwa ('lynx').)


"Moving on, the remains of the stockades are there, and well dated."
 
'WHERE?  They're not mentioned in the Walam Olum!'

"In the field, in the real world."
 
Yes.  But not in the Walam Olum!  

 
'First:  Heckewelder's account is NOT the Walam Olum--which is the only thing under consideration as a fraud, in this thread!  Second:  Heckewelder NEVER said he got this account from "medewak."  That's your own guesswork!'

"Ah, but therein lies the problem. Oestreicher's assertions concerning Rafinesque are one thing, but his assertions about Lenape medewak and mnemonic aids are another, as is his reconstruction of the peoples' history."
 
Where can I read these "assertions" about metewak and mnemonic aids?  


"We have the statements from Anderson about Lenape medewak and their role."
 
Yes. But where can one see these statements?  They have to be written down, somewhere!  It's impossible to know if he said this unless we can see it, for ourselves!  Please don't tell me I have to come to Anderson to see them!  
 
 
 
"Whether Heckewelder received his account directly from them, or from those who they had related the tradition to, is something that I do not know."
 
Not only do we not know that, we don't even know that any of his account ever originated with metewak.
 
 
"I gave other accounts of Lenape medewak over at the wikipedia discussion. Oestreicher's failure to track the location of them and the Big House is frustrating to me."
 
Why on Earth is it incumbent on Oestreicher to do your research for you?  That wasn't what he was researching!


"This thread is on Oestreicher's analysis. Again, I know of no evidence of Cherokee fortifications from the period Oestreicher hypothesizes this Heckewelder fragment refers to."
 
This thread is NOT about Heckewelder's account.  It's about the Walam Olum.


"Let me see if I can get to my bottom line here. Given Oestreicher's biases against Medewak, oral tradition, and mnemonic aids, and his reconstruction of Native American history, I can not accept his work entire yet."
 
You're attributing "biases" to Oestreicher which you have absolutely no idea he holds!  You cannot tie the Walam Olum to metewak, at all!  Show one proof of it.  (Your  guesswork is not a proof.)


"At a minimum, I think that he may have missed one of Rafinesque's sources, perhaps Rafinesque's inspiration. There are still the coincidences in time, toponyms and ethnonyms, too many of them for me to accept Oestreicher's analysis entire yet."
 
You can keep saying this, but nobody but you can see them, unless they accept your very flawed interpretation of what the Walam Olum is saying.


"I ask that this remain in Research Needed."
 
Putting it in Non-Frauds wouldn't make it any more than the grand imposture it is.