The Red Record

[E.P. Grondine]

They didn't escape my notice.  And, they didn't escape Rafinesque's notice, either.  Where do you suppose he got the idea for his hoax?!

Currently, from Dr. Ward of Pendleton, who passed through Lexington on his way to gain  land which had just been taken from the Lenape. But that is just my current estimate and I reserve the right to change my mind as I look at this further. Now where do you think Rafinesque got the idea that Lenape also kept scrolls?

Rafinesque NEVER said the Walam Olum was written on "scrolls," or that the Lenape "kept scrolls."  However, he learned about Indian pictographs written on birchbark (for both sacred and secular purposes) from reading about them in Heckewelder's Indian Nations, page 130, and Tanner's captivity narrative, pages 67, 254-5, 281-2 & 434--both of which books he had accessed BEFORE coming out with his fraudulent book.   

Thank you. Those citations may prove of use in tracking the locations of Lenape medewak.

[E.P. Grondine]

BoBo in your reply #167 you use the label DETRACTOR`S ,

Bubo Ahab views attacks on Rafinesque's Walam Olum as an attack on Ojibwe midewiwin. For that matter, whatever Rafinesque did, I view the attacks on the earlier existence of Lenape medewak the same way.

the way i see it Rafinesque`s is the real detractor he created a HOAX and you have tried to support that hoax by useing the lies of liars.
you also say that
" here is what the detrators don`t want you to know or see"

Why such strong words, bull head?  I remind you once again that Rafinesque had good qualities as well, and was treating people with respect while his neighbors were killing them.

2,these were sacred and used in a secret society.sacred things should be kept private.and the detractors are doing everything they can to stop readers from learning about them.

First of all these ARE SACRED and you do not have a right to Determine what is or what is not SACRED TO US. and you don`t have a right to know or see.only Mide have that right ,you can look at the mide as secret but I see it as private.
there are only a couple of ways that an aboriginal person can become part of the Mide,you can not buy your way in ,you can not get grandfathered in, there are NO politic`s involved.YOU BOBO are a perfect reason why there is little or no tolerance for NON-NATIVES in our ceremonies,you seem to have an enormous since of ARROGANT ENTITLEMENT.I see the rest of your post as bullshit as well.

I understand your point about "secret" versus "private" well.

So then, bull head, you are ojibwe, and mide, and further you have the right to speak for all the midewiwin of all ojibwe bands?

I can't remember the midewiwin who did that Canadian book, but obviously they held different views than yours.

I know these are core issues for you, but could you please soften your language, and stop shouting?

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:
 
"Why such strong words, bull head?  I remind you once again that Rafinesque had good qualities as well, and was treating people with respect while his neighbors were killing them."
 
Why do you keep saying this?  Speaking of the mounds in the Midwest, Rafinesque's best friend and benefactor, John Clifford, wrote, "The manners and customs of our present North American Indians are so totally incompatible with these laborious constructions, that we cannot suppose their ancestors concerned in the formation of them."  (Clifford, John, "Indian Antiquities, Letter II," in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, Vol. 1, Lexington, KY (1819), pp.171-2.)  Rafinesque and his buddy, Clifford, BOTH believed that the Talligewi who supposedly built the mounds were Toltecs, and that they were driven south to Mexico by the invading Lenape and Iroquois.  AND, Rafinesque believed these same Toltecs were remnants of the "Atlanteans"--from ATLANTIS!  (Rafinesque, C. S., The American Nations, Vol. 1, Philadelphia (1836),  p.147; and, Rafinesque, C. S., Ancient History, or Annals of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY (1824), pp.13 & 15.)  Rafinesque was not some kind of forward-thinking egalitarian!  He had very little regard for the accomplishments of the Indians in this country.  Now, how about joining me in requesting this topic be moved to "Frauds"?

[bullhead]

Mr. Grondine
first you insult me by saying bobo is going to educate me.at best you and your puppet corrupt people.the bottom line is just this simple you are using a HOAX to support your book.you insult people and you wonder why there are strong words.you use your health for a means of deflection,[Personal attack removed}.

and now in your reply # 181 you try and put words in my mouth by saying I am Ojibwe and Mide and further i have the right to speak for all mide of all Ojibwe bands.[Personal attack two]
WHERE in any of my POSTS do I make these claims,point them out [Personal attack three]
BUT here you are Clearly not Ojibwe and you think you have a right to print sacred items your a criminal where i come from [Personal attack four].
the Mide do NOT consist only of Ojibwe,[Personal attack five]
[Bizarre series of personal attacks].Rafinesque`s has good qualities he`s a Liar.

[This much be a record for personal attacks. You were warned before. You are now banned.]

[bullhead]

Mr.Grondine
in your post #179 you say that in your book you did not use ojibwe materials period.I haven`t complained at all about your book having Mide items in it ,have i ,where did I say that.MORE DEFLECTION eh.

in your post # 162 you CLEARLY say that if your BOOK goes for a secound printing that you want to add a MIDE teaching on the shells and a real NICE picture of a SCROll.ONCE again to do this is wrong .NO matter how you twist and turn this, IT`S WRONG, FOOL.
JUST so you know you insulted me ,the gloves are off .you think you can insult people and we have to take it, your wrong again .

THE RED RECORD BELONGS IN THE FRAUD SECTION.

[BuboAhab]

Why the continued very long strings of personal attacks and insults?

Rafinesque stated "Olum implies a record, a notched stick, an engraved piece of wood or bark. It comes from ol, hollow or graved record."

This fact, combined with the other studies on birchbark scrolls, artifacts, and native legends simply confirm the authenticity of the "Red Record".

[shkaakwus]

Why the continued very long strings of personal attacks and insults?

Rafinesque stated "Olum implies a record, a notched stick, an engraved piece of wood or bark. It comes from ol, hollow or graved record."

This fact, combined with the other studies on birchbark scrolls, artifacts, and native legends simply confirm the authenticity of the "Red Record".

What "fact"?  There is NO general Algonquian, NOR specific Lenape, stem or morpheme, "ol-," meaning 'hollow' or 'graved' or 'record.'  Rafinesque made this up!  It's not a "fact"!

[BuboAhab]

Get your research done first and your facts need to be corrected.

"In Zeisberger’s Delaware dictionary, however, we find waloh or walok, signifying a cave or hole, while in the “Walam Olum” we have oligonunk rendered “at the place of caves, the region being further described as a buffalo land on a pleasant plain, where the Lenape advancing  seaward from a less abundant northern region, at last found food (Walam Olum pp 194-195)

Olum was the name of the scores, marks, or figures in use on the tally-sticks or record-boards. The native Delaware missionary, Mr. Albert Anthony, says that the knowledge of these ancient signs has been lost, but that the word olum is still preserved by the Delaware boys in their games when they keep the score by notches on a stick. These notches— not the sticks—are called to this day olum—an interesting example of the preservation of an archaic form in the language of children.

The name Walam Olum is therefore a highly appropriate one for the record, and may be translated "RED SCORE."

The Lenâpé and their legends: with the complete text and symbols of the Walam olum, a new translation, and an inquiry into its authenticity.
By Daniel Garrison Brinton, Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, His
Published by D.G. Brinton, 1885
Original from the New York Public Library

Walam Olum Means “painted record”
American Indian Literature: An Anthology
By Alan R. Velie
Edition: 2, revised, illustrated
Published by University of Oklahoma Press, 1991

Walum Olum means "painted records," with Walum more specifically meaning "
painted red" and Olum implying a record painted or engraved on white bark
New Jersey, America's main road
By John T. Cunningham
Edition: illustrated, revised
Published by Doubleday, 1976

-----

And if you are interested in birchbark scrolls: An exhibition was scheduled at the Montana Museum of Art and Culture.

Spirit Trails and Sky Beings
January 13 - March 8, 2009
Paxson Gallery

This exhibition features Ojibway stories scribed on birch scrolls as told and made by Ojibway traditionalist and UM graduate Richard LaFromboise (Miskomin).  Birch bark scrolls, or pictographic scrolls, serve as memory aids to correctly and completely tell the tribe’s traditional stories through an elaborate series of symbols called pictographs. The stories are expressions of Ojibway culture that teach lessons, morals, and values to children as well as adults.  Pictographic scrolls are a very rare art form and are preserved today in the hands of a few individuals known as “Keepers of the Scrolls.”

http://www.umt.edu/montanamuseum/exhibitionschedule.htm

The following page prooves that these documents were also used on maps - to document migrations, just as used in the Walam Olum.
http://www.kunstpedia.com/articles/452/2/The-Indigenous-Maps-and-Mapping-of-North-American-Indians/Page2.html

------------

And we have not said anything of the "character" of Oestreicher. This debunker has a long history of skepticism and rash judgement. His take on the Grave Creek Stone recently added to his list of hoax claims.  However, Oest ignored P.P. Cherry's detailed proof and history of the excavation just as he ignored the fact that birchbark scrolls exist.

[shkaakwus]

BuboAhab:

The stem, "wal-," signifying, 'hollow,' is NOT the same thing as "ol-."  In the Southern Unami dialect of Lenape, "wal-" does shift its pronunciation to "ol-." (It does NOT make this shift in the other three dialects, Munsee, Northern Unami and Unalachtgo.)  The Walam Olum is NOT written in Southern Unami!  If it was, the 33 words beginning with the stem, "wap-" ('white') would begin with "op-."!  And, if there were a word, "walam," it would be written as "olam"!  Therefore, the "ol-," in "olum," cannot mean 'hollow.'  

Regarding "olum" meaning a 'notch' (on a stick), Oestreicher writes:  "Brinton's argument that Olum refers to 'scores, marks, or figures in use on the tally-sticks or record-boards' and that his etymology was verified by the Munsee speaker, Albert Anthony (Brinton 1885: 161), should be dismissed.  Modern Munsee and Unami speakers contradict that such a word was ever in use and enough evidence has been accumulating by the writer to demonstrate that Brinton frequently fudged in his presentation of evidence."  (Oestreicher's dissertation, p.360, note 3.)

How come those who appeal to the authority of Daniel Brinton never quote this passage from that author:  "Not without hesitation do I send forth this volume to the learned world.  Regarded as an authentic memorial, the original text of the Walam Olum will require a more accurate rendering than I have been able to give it; while the possibility that a more searching criticism will demonstrate it to have been a fabrication may condemn as labor lost the pains that I have bestowed upon it."  (Brinton, D. G., The Lenape and Their Legends; with the Complete Text and Symbols of the Walam Olum, Philadelphia (1884), pp.v-vi.)

David Oestreicher has now provided what Brinton saw would be necessary, and what might well happen, over a century ago.

[E.P. Grondine]

Mr. Grondine
first you insult me by saying bobo is going to educate me.at best you and your puppet corrupt people.the bottom line is just this simple you are using a HOAX to support your book.you insult people and you wonder why there are strong words.you use your health for a means of deflection,[Personal attack removed].

and now in your reply # 181 you try and put words in my mouth by saying I am Ojibwe and Mide and further i have the right to speak for all mide of all Ojibwe bands.[Personal attack two]
WHERE in any of my POSTS do I make these claims, point them out [Personal attack three]
BUT here you are Clearly not Ojibwe and you think you have a right to print sacred items your a criminal where i come from [Personal attack four].
the Mide do NOT consist only of Ojibwe,[Personal attack five]
[Bizarre series of personal attacks].Rafinesque`s has good qualities he`s a Liar.

[This much be a record for personal attacks. You were warned before. You are now banned.]

I asked if you were mide or ojibwe. Aside from putting words in my mouth which I never said, it looks like you have taken powers upon yourself which you do not have.

I have told you what I saw printed. If you do not think that it was proper for those midewiwin to have done so, then you should discuss it with them.

The only accounts I put in my book were the ones shared, and that is true for all of the material in my book - its only material that was publicly shared with intent by those responsible.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[E.P. Grondine]

E. P. Grondine writes:
 
"Why such strong words, bull head?  I remind you once again that Rafinesque had good qualities as well, and was treating people with respect while his neighbors were killing them."
 
Why do you keep saying this?  Speaking of the mounds in the Midwest, Rafinesque's best friend and benefactor, John Clifford, wrote, "The manners and customs of our present North American Indians are so totally incompatible with these laborious constructions, that we cannot suppose their ancestors concerned in the formation of them."  (Clifford, John, "Indian Antiquities, Letter II," in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, Vol. 1, Lexington, KY (1819), pp.171-2.)  Rafinesque and his buddy, Clifford, BOTH believed that the Talligewi who supposedly built the mounds were Toltecs, and that they were driven south to Mexico by the invading Lenape and Iroquois.  AND, Rafinesque believed these same Toltecs were remnants of the "Atlanteans"--from ATLANTIS!  (Rafinesque, C. S., The American Nations, Vol. 1, Philadelphia (1836),  p.147; and, Rafinesque, C. S., Ancient History, or Annals of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY (1824), pp.13 & 15.)  Rafinesque was not some kind of forward-thinking egalitarian!  He had very little regard for the accomplishments of the Indians in this country.  Now, how about joining me in requesting this topic be moved to "Frauds"?

First off, you have to remember that there was no radio-carbon dating. Rafinesque assumed that North America structures dated to the same period as similar Europen ones, and their dating was based on classical writings as understood at the time.

Note that the statement on Atlantis contradicts the Beringia passage that Rafinesque argued, as Oestreicher pointed out in his NJAS article. This is but one of the factors leading me to my opinion that Oestreicher missed to some degree how complex a person Rafinesque was.

Ascrbing the views held by someone in contact with Rafinesque with those of Rafinesque himself is shaky. Rafinesque's work was also used by down right racists of the worst sort.

For example, let us allow Oestreicher his hypothesis. Then there's ending section of the Walam Olum which covers European lies and depredations which Rafinesque wrote, and wrote so truly that he was mistaken for being Lenape.

Once again, my view is that Oestreicher has missed one or more of Rafinesque's sources.

I also think it would be good for Oestreicher to actually write a  history of the Lenape after European contact, and to try to recover their own historical traditions.  Perhaps the exercise would soften his views on Rafinesque.

[BuboAhab]

A response from Oestreicher (davidmaxoes@aol.com) has been received last night as follows:

Dear Mr. Barrows:

Thank you for your interest.  I've not yet published on the Grave Creek Stone but P. P. Cherry contains some of the strongest evidence regarding who perpetrated the hoax.  It will be covered in my forthcoming work.

As for the Walam Olum, if you carefully read some of the articles I wrote and my dissertation (available through UMI), you'll see that I indeed mention Ojibwa pictographs such as those found in the scrolls.  The similarities that exist between them are simply due to Rafinesque's having grafted genuine Ojibwa pictographs from a published source, specifically John Tanner's Narrative.  The use of these glyphs in the Walam Olum -- truncated almost beyond recognition and blended with Egyptian, Chinese, and Maya symbols from other published sources has nothing to do with any genuine Delaware pictographs.

Thanks again for writing.

Have a good evening.

Sincerely,

David M. Oestreicher
---------
I reject Oestreicher's opinion of the Grave Creek Stone and the Walam Olum. John Tanner's narrative only contains several small depictions from birchbark scrolls - none of which were "grafted".
http://books.google.com/books?id=UCETAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=John+Tanner%27s+Narrative.#PPA356,M1

And P.P. Cherry's description of the Grave Creek Stone can be found here, with no strong evidence about "who perpetrated":
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/gravecreektablets.htm

[shkaakwus]

BuboAhab writes:

"I reject Oestreicher's opinion of the Grave Creek Stone and the Walam Olum. John Tanner's narrative only contains several small depictions from birchbark scrolls - none of which were 'grafted'."

Bubo:  It's nearly impossible to hold a meaningful conversation on this with somebody who hasn't read Oestreicher's dissertation (i.e., somebody such as yourself).  You have to read Part II, Chapter I (pp.101-231) of Oestreicher's dissertation to see how Rafinesque thought the Ojibway pictographs, Chinese ku-wen figures, Egyptian hieroglyphics, etc., were each made up of two or more "simple signs," which he, then, "separated" from the pictographs and made up a list of them, which was published.  He didn't borrow the pictographs, in whole, as written by Tanner--only part of them.  It was these so-called "simple signs" that he grafted into his Walam Olum figures.  The evidence is undeniable.  BUT, you've got to actually look at the evidence (i.e., Oestreicher's dissertation) BEFORE making statements like this!

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"First off, you have to remember that there was no radio-carbon dating. Rafinesque assumed that North America structures dated to the same period as similar Europen ones, and their dating was based on classical writings as understood at the time."

His belief was not based on his "classical studies," but on his belief that there was a linguistic equivalence between the names, "Talligewi" and "Toltec, and "Talligewi" and "Cherokee" (i.e., "Tsalagi") and "Atlantis"--much like some of the erroneous linguistic beliefs we've witnessed on this thread.

"Note that the statement on Atlantis contradicts the Beringia passage that Rafinesque argued, as Oestreicher pointed out in his NJAS article. This is but one of the factors leading me to my opinion that Oestreicher missed to some degree how complex a person Rafinesque was."
 
It doesn't contradict the Beringia passage theory of Rafinesque, at all!  Rafinesque thought the TOLTECS and CHEROKEE were from ATLANTIS.  But, he thought the LENAPE and IROQUOIS and SHAWNEE and other tribes migrated from ASIA, across the Bering Straits.


"Ascrbing the views held by someone in contact with Rafinesque with those of Rafinesque himself is shaky. Rafinesque's work was also used by down right racists of the worst sort."
 
Clifford was NOT simply "someone in contact with Rafinesque."  He was his BEST FRIEND!  


"For example, let us allow Oestreicher his hypothesis. Then there's ending section of the Walam Olum which covers European lies and depredations which Rafinesque wrote, and wrote so truly that he was mistaken for being Lenape."
 
LOL!  So, what you're saying, here, is that Rafinesque wrote that section of the Walam Olum, himself!  
 

"Once again, my view is that Oestreicher has missed one or more of Rafinesque's sources."
 
Yes.  A view formed without even having read Oestreicher's 574-page dissertation!  Incredible!


"I also think it would be good for Oestreicher to actually write a  history of the Lenape after European contact, and to try to recover their own historical traditions.  Perhaps the exercise would soften his views on Rafinesque."
 
Such an undertaking would be re-inventing the wheel!  That's been done innumerable times.  You're obviously just not familiar with the literature.    

[E.P. Grondine]

"I also think it would be good for Oestreicher to actually write a  history of the Lenape after European contact, and to try to recover their own historical traditions.  Perhaps the exercise would soften his views on Rafinesque."
 
Such an undertaking would be re-inventing the wheel!  That's been done innumerable times.  You're obviously just not familiar with the literature.   

I did not see a collection of Lenape pre-contact historical traditions at the time I researched this (2000). If you know of such a volume, then please tell me of it. I knew of Heckewelder's and Sutton's fragments, which agreed with the Walam Olum, and that was it.

I am particularly interested in the Lenape Holocene impact traditions, and I am sceptical of Oestreicher's analysis of them as given in the Walam Olum. On the other hand, Oestreicher's analysis of the Walam Olum creation tradition seems to be pretty good.

The situation as I see it is this. Consider the work Ossian, and the legitimate Ossian traditions. In the case of the Walam Olum, to my knowledge little else survives of the Lenape pre-contact historical traditions aside from the fragments preserved in Heckewelder and Sutton's accounts, (and possibly materials from the Big house which were not available to me at the time of my work and I so stated). That's why the search for Rafinesque's sources is so important - determining precisely the "portion", (and perhaps he did just work from materials preserved by others, or perhaps he had other materials).

What I know is that Rafinesque did not understand Lenape grammar. Whether he had a transcript which he was trying to make fit to a dictionary, or whether he created the whole thing, or whether he assembled parts from "portions" is
something still needing research. By your own admission, there are still those lines which Oestreicher left unexamined.

Also, it is clear that Rafinesque's biases filtered his perception. That afected the pictoglyphs. Whether he created them whole, or simply viewed them through his biases, is still an open question for me. Did he obtain scrolls from the Anderson area? Despite your statements here, I am certain that there were Lenape Medewak who used pictoglyphs and wampum, and I wonder as to their fate. This is something else which will require research. Research Needed, whether by me or someone else.

Finally, the essential point: the archaeological sequence is there, along with Heckewelder's and Sutton's accounts from the Lenape themselves of their migration. I can not accept Oestreicher's interpretation of those accounts as it has no supporting physical evidence. In other words, Oestreicher has his own biases which alter his perception, as do we all.

With my stroke damage I am now dependent on the work of others to a large extent. I hope to gain a copy of Oestreicher's thesis, and I hope to be able to examine it. The best I can do for now is to caution others, and I have done that since last year, when Doug Weller first alerted me. After my initial examination, I wrote my note Reconstructing Rafinesque.

Again, and it's no laugh, IF Rafinesque composed the final section of the Walam Olum (and I do think that is possible, though not confirmed) then please consider his eloquent statement of the European depradations when evaluating his character.

At least this exchange has been a good exercise for my left hand, and I have benefited from some of your knowledge. I hope that I will be able to research this further, and I hope that others will be able to as well.