The Red Record

[E.P. Grondine]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"And one might think that the Lenape would not have had any problem coming up with a word closer to "tsulagi" for the Cherokee"

I do think that.  That's why I'm not convinced that "Talligewi" = "tsulagi" (as I said, previously).  And, I reiterate, NOBODY knows who the Talligewi were.  We can only guess, right now.

You know, it's strange Shkaakwas,

We have continuity between contact era Shawnee village sites and Fort Ancient, and we also have well dated Oneota/Wellsburg intrusion, and its eastern relations, such as late Monangahela, but for some reasons we just can't seem to put the two together. Hmmm...

For the European colonial powers the Ohio River was the key to North America. After the coastal settlements, one of their main focuses was removing the Shawnee from the Ohio. And that started during the "Beaver Wars".

Given the astronomical celebratory function of some of the "Hopewell" ring structures, I hope you will understand my interest in the Shawnee Principle Narrative.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
(Not too bad a book, if I do say so myself. You can read it for free via interlibrary loan, or PM me about personally signed copies)

[NanticokePiney]

I don't have a copy of "Red Carolinians" handy, unfortunately. But I can assure you that the Ocanachee were not a siouxian people, as they were savanah river descendants, as were the Yuchi, and they looked like them, and quite distinct. The contact period reports of the Ocanachee's appearance were published just two years ago. 

 The Yuchi were Muskogean or possibly "isolate". They weren't Iroquoian. They were related to the Natchez.

 

Again, the Cherokee remembered when the Siouxian peoples showed up, and their battle with them.

 Archaeology disagrees and so do I.

Sorry to hear that, but the first colonist's first hand account of the jaguar which I read is still there. I wonder if the jaguars' remains have been mistaken for those of mountain lion.

 Denser bones. So what was the colonist's name and where's the account?

I would take another look at the diagnostics. What cultural artifacts indicated they were a Siouxian people?

 The way the wikwams were arranged in concentric circles and there was a astronomical calendar structure in the center. Also projectile point and pottery styles match that of other Southeastern Siouians.


   

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Rich

The Yuchi were Muskogean or possibly "isolate". They weren't Iroquoian. They were related to the Natchez.

I'd go with "isolate", actually Savanah River descendants, from what I can make out.

My initial introduction to the Yuchi was from "Tribes that Slumber", where they were presented as something of a mystery. For the confusion as to their language, page 144.

I did include a Yuchi henge tradition in my book, but gave the matter little thought until long afterwards, even though henges were recovered at Cahokia. (My conclusion now is that not only Siouxian peoples had henges.)

After my book and stroke, I read the accounts of the Ocanachee while in Halifax, North Carolina, I believe from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0742552632?%5Fencoding=UTF8&ref%5F=sib%5Fdp%5Fpt#reader-link

That's when I first became aware of the gross physical differences between them and other peoples. (email me please as well on this.)

And then I saw the council house in Tallahasse, which were common through the South East:

http://www.missionsanluis.org/

Including at Ocanachee itself.

This is exactly what was described by de Soto in Alabama. They're big enough to ride horses around in.

As the Apalachee were not Yuchi/Ocanachee ethnically, it appears this type of structure was adopted by other peoples in the south east. But I know of no Siouxian antecedents or descendants for this type of structure.

The Yuchi relationship with the Natchez was distant, but it appears that they did participate in the Mississippian trade federation.

Moving on: the Cherokee remembered when the Siouxian peoples showed up, and their battle with them.

[/i]Archaeology disagrees and so do I. [/i]

See Tribes that Slumber, page 144, for the distribution of Yuchi sites. Note that Yuchi/Ocanachee remains are indistinguishable. For the Cherokee account of their battle with the Catawba, see my book, or email me. The Cherokee had names for the Mushkogean nations.

So what was the colonist's name and where's the account?

That should have been colonists' (plural), not just one. This wasn't an isolated siting, and when I was at Newark I expected that I would be able to find out more about these cats when I returned home.

The colonists' accounts are in Newark, and that's all I can give you until and unless I stumble across the satchel containing my notes/copies, or I am able to return to Newark. My apologies for this, but I've had this damn stroke; it's quite frustrating.

I would take another look at the diagnostics. What cultural artifacts indicated they were a Siouxian people?

[/i]The way the wikwams were arranged in concentric circles [/i]

Those wikwams did not happen to have 2 foot deep foundations, by any chance?

and there was a astronomical calendar structure in the center.

I am of the opinion now that henges were not uniquely Siouxian.
Again, I included a Yuchi henge tradition in my book.

[/i]Also projectile point and pottery styles match that of other Southeastern Siouians.[/i]

Those are pretty good, but... I wonder if what you're seeing as Southeastern Siouxian are not Ocanachee/Yuchi? Again, Ocanachee/Yuchi had a grossly different appearance than Sioux.

Given the southeast distribution of clovis, my current thinking is that these people came north from South America, bringing overstrike technology with them.

In closing this note, which started out on the Walam Olum, I have been wrong before, and like everyone else I am just trying to put the pieces together. I hope you understand why I can not accept Oestreicher's work entire, and why I ask that it remain in Research Needed.

[shkaakwus]

Can somebody show me what any of this has to do with the Walam Olum?  This is getting just plain surrealistic.  To answer your question, Ed:  NO, I do not understand why you want to keep this in Research Needed--and, I don't understand why whoever it is who makes these judgments doesn't move it to Frauds, post haste!  In fact, why doesn't that person, or those persons, explain which of E. P. Grondine's points (or those of any other poster) convinces him or her or them that the Walam Olum may not be a fraud? 

And, Ed:  You can't accept Oestreicher's work "entire," because you haven't even read his entire work!

[bullhead]

Shkaakwus,I don`t think anyone can show us what this has to do with the wo.
this"wo" should of been placed in the fraud section from day one,the wo is an insult to all aboriginal people, in my opinion.I see the wo as part of the on going genocide, it attemps to steal our "my' oral history.
the wo should be placed in the fraud section until it`s supporters can proves it belongs some where else,it has earned no rspect nor does it deserve any respect.and so far it`s supporters have done a piss poor job of proving it is not a HOAX.

[bullhead]

Mr.Grondine
in your reply #119 you say that the Occaneechi " are not Siouan " your wrong again they are in FACT siouan speaking people, they are Very closely related to the Saponi and the Tutelo people ,you know like Brothers and sisters.

[E.P. Grondine]

Mr.Grondine
in your reply #119 you say that the Occaneechi " are not Siouan " your wrong again they are in FACT siouan speaking people, they are Very closely related to the Saponi and the Tutelo people ,you know like Brothers and sisters.

Hi Bullhead,

The Ocanachee survivors sought refuge with the Saponi after the Virginia colonist's attack on them.

They were ethnically distinct from Siouxian peoples.

[E.P. Grondine]

Shkaakwus,I don`t think anyone can show us what this has to do with the wo.
this"wo" should of been placed in the fraud section from day one,the wo is an insult to all aboriginal people, in my opinion.I see the wo as part of the on going genocide, it attemps to steal our "my' oral history.
the wo should be placed in the fraud section until it`s supporters can proves it belongs some where else,it has earned no rspect nor does it deserve any respect.and so far it`s supporters have done a piss poor job of proving it is not a HOAX.

Bulllhead, I feel the same way about what Oestreicher did with Heckewelder's fragment of Lenape tradition, and I really get upset when others try to use his work to claim Shawnee ancestral sites.

Bottom line, I think that Oestreicher missed at least one, if not several, of Rafinesque's sources. I can not accept Oestreicher's work entire as it now sits.

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"Bulllhead, I feel the same way about what Oestreicher did with Heckewelder's fragment of Lenape tradition, and I really get upset when others try to use his work to claim Shawnee ancestral sites."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Walam Olum is authentic!  Who are these "others"?  How can they use Oestreicher's work to prove these sites are not Shawnee, when Oestreicher doesn't even believe Heckewelder's account is historical?


"Bottom line, I think that Oestreicher missed at least one, if not several, of Rafinesque's sources. I can not accept Oestreicher's work entire as it now sits."

Which one?  Or, which ones?  This has to stay in "Research Needed" because YOU "THINK" this?   (And, you need $20,000 to look for these supposed missing sources!)

[E.P. Grondine]

Who are these "others"? 

Who they are, and there are several, should be self evident by now.

How can they use Oestreicher's work to prove these sites are not Shawnee, when Oestreicher doesn't even believe Heckewelder's account is historical?

Yes, I mentioned that earlier. You also seem to have problems with both Lenape
medewak and with their use of pictoglyphs as well.

Which one?  Or, which ones?  This has to stay in "Research Needed" because YOU "THINK" this?

I have requested that it be left in Research Needed, for the reasons I stated much earlier. 

I would have been happy to have let this sit at my comment "Reconstructing
Rafinesque".

[shkaakwus]

If who these "others" are is "self-evident, by now," would somebody else who's been reading this thread PLEASE tell me who they are?

Where is it written that Lenape metewak used pictoglyphs?  Show me, and I'll accept it.  That's fair enough, isn't it?   Anybody?

The reasons you stated earlier have all been shown to be unreasonable! 

The Walam Olum is a hoax and this thread should be moved to Frauds.

[educatedindian]

Can somebody show me what any of this has to do with the Walam Olum?  This is getting just plain surrealistic.  To answer your question, Ed:  NO, I do not understand why you want to keep this in Research Needed--and, I don't understand why whoever it is who makes these judgments doesn't move it to Frauds, post haste!  In fact, why doesn't that person, or those persons, explain which of E. P. Grondine's points (or those of any other poster) convinces him or her or them that the Walam Olum may not be a fraud? 

SW, what you don't seem to realize is that this topic is not like most of our usual ones at NAFPS. This is mostly a line of historical research, along with other disciplnes and questions, etc. There's more than a few reasons to leave this under Research.

1. There's still no consensus, among either academia, or among Lenape themselves, that the WO is or is not legitimate. Doing the online version of stomping your feet, or continuing to make snide little comments, won't change that.

2. You keep conflating Rafinesque with the WO, or the version that Rafinesque produced with the WO, when this just isn't so. Even among Lenape and other related tribes that dispute the WO, there are accounts of records very similar to the WO. The closest thing to a consensus there is, is that the WO contains some elements or portions that may be truthful.

3. You seem to want to shut down discussion, put an end to it. But the more this has been left open, the more good information keeps coming out. And frankly I think most of us are enjoying the discussion because we're learning so much, even with your occasional snideness.

In answer to your questions, NAFPS generally puts any question under Research first. When there's a group consensus, we move it to Frauds should the evidence show it. So far the only one I see convinced the WO is a hoax in its entirety is you. Now if the thread was entitled Rafinesque (and that was its sole subject), I think it would've been moved long ago, that you would've convinced most people on that narrower subject matter. But it isn't.

[shkaakwus]

Can somebody show me what any of this has to do with the Walam Olum?  This is getting just plain surrealistic.  To answer your question, Ed:  NO, I do not understand why you want to keep this in Research Needed--and, I don't understand why whoever it is who makes these judgments doesn't move it to Frauds, post haste!  In fact, why doesn't that person, or those persons, explain which of E. P. Grondine's points (or those of any other poster) convinces him or her or them that the Walam Olum may not be a fraud? 

SW, what you don't seem to realize is that this topic is not like most of our usual ones at NAFPS. This is mostly a line of historical research, along with other disciplnes and questions, etc. There's more than a few reasons to leave this under Research.

1. There's still no consensus, among either academia, or among Lenape themselves, that the WO is or is not legitimate. Doing the online version of stomping your feet, or continuing to make snide little comments, won't change that.

2. You keep conflating Rafinesque with the WO, or the version that Rafinesque produced with the WO, when this just isn't so. Even among Lenape and other related tribes that dispute the WO, there are accounts of records very similar to the WO. The closest thing to a consensus there is, is that the WO contains some elements or portions that may be truthful.

3. You seem to want to shut down discussion, put an end to it. But the more this has been left open, the more good information keeps coming out. And frankly I think most of us are enjoying the discussion because we're learning so much, even with your occasional snideness.

In answer to your questions, NAFPS generally puts any question under Research first. When there's a group consensus, we move it to Frauds should the evidence show it. So far the only one I see convinced the WO is a hoax in its entirety is you. Now if the thread was entitled Rafinesque (and that was its sole subject), I think it would've been moved long ago, that you would've convinced most people on that narrower subject matter. But it isn't.

I realize this is different, since it deals with the work of a phony, rather than the phony, himself.  But, isn't that just two sides of the same coin?

1. No consensus?  Did you miss the comments of all those scholars I posted, earlier, commending Oestreicher on his expose of this forgery?  I asked for a list of academics (or scholars) who still think it's authentic and got nothing except one name:  McCutchen--a man who doesn't have a clue regarding the structure of the Lenape language.  And, ALL of the last elders who could actually speak Lenape never heard of the Walam Olum.  Would you like me to list them?  Then, somebody can list those who did not say this.

2. There is NO other Walam Olum, except the one Rafinesque dreamt up!  Where are you getting this?  Who are these Lenape?  Which parts of the Walam Olum do they feel are authentic?  And, why?  The fact that Rafinesque stole some material from Heckewelder and incorporated it in his forgery, does NOT make that forgery authentic!  E. P. Grondine wants to do "more research."  John Fliegel spent years searching the entire Moravian Archives for some reference or slight allusion to the Walam Olum.  He compiled an excellent index of that entire gigantic missionary repository--people who lived with the Delaware Indians, continuously, for over a century.  He found NOTHING remotely related to this nonsense--except Heckewelder's migration accounts, which we already knew about.

3. Why should discussion on it be shut down if it's moved to Frauds?  People can still talk about it, there.  The burden is now on defenders of the Walam Olum to show it isn't a Fraud, and, so far, no evidence, whatsoever, has been presented in this thread or elsewhere.

"Group consensus"?  Why don't we put it to a vote?

[NanticokePiney]

  I recently got my hands on McCutchen's book, 'The Red Record'. Lets look at some outright bad scholarship.
  He assumes the Lenape's "Catastrophic Flood" took place in Siberia. The most oblivious location for the "Flood" of Algonquian legend was the "Lake Missoula Flood".
  He has the Lenape fighting the Chinese in 2600 B.C.
  He has the Lenape growing corn on the Columbian Plateau.


    more to come..............

[shkaakwus]

Regarding David McCutchen's book, NanticokePiney writes:

"He assumes the Lenape's "Catastrophic Flood" took place in Siberia.
 He has the Lenape fighting the Chinese in 2600 B.C.
 He has the Lenape growing corn on the Columbian Plateau."