NAFPS Forum
General => Research Needed => Topic started by: Mo on September 09, 2006, 11:26:45 pm
-
http://www.meyna.com/lenape.html
this is new to me. maybe others have encountered this before. i'm not sure what to make of it.
-------------------------------------
The "Red Record" (The Wallum Olum) is not new or a recently discovered piece of ancient history. It was given to the white man in 1820, when its last caretaker presented it to a Dr. Ward, a Moravian missionary and physician who had lived among the Lenni-Lenape for a number of years. Dr. Ward had saved the life of the village historian and, as a show of appreciation, the Red Record was given with the statement, "This is like our Bible".
The Red Record has passed through many hands, but most did not even examine the carved and painted prayer sticks made of bark and wood. Finally, it fell into scholarly hands and the inquiry into its meaning began. As the words and symbols of the Red Record were matched to each other by anthropologists, archealogists and historians, the impact of these writings began to emerge. Each time understanding was near, the writings were pushed aside. There were a number of reasons for this, as there are for all ancient writings as they are discovered.
Firstly, translating and understanding the Red Record would have destroyed the European position that they had taken this land because it was an uncivilized country inhabited by heathen savages. Secondly, it was believed that these heathen savages did not have the mental capacity to maintain a written history of their people. Thirdly, so little was known of the world described by the Red Record that it was passed off as more Native myths and legends.
In spite of this, the inborn curiosity of the intellectual and learned people of history were fascinated by this mystery. With the aerial photographs of Russia, China, Japan and Africa of World War II, and the later, sophisticated photographs and maps from satellites, connections were made with the Red Record which set about the first serious and scientific examination of its meaning. After more than 20 years of work and study, a translation was completed.
-------------------------
any thoughts?
-
i just read a bit further...sounds very suspicious to me incorporating christian teachings and the old bering straight theory. where does this come from??
-
sorry...answered my own questions...
The Walam Olum of Constantine Rafinesque
Constantine S. Rafinesque (1773-1840) was a naturalist who emigrated to America from Europe in 1815. He studied descriptive zoology, botany, and meteorology. In 1836 he produced a document which he called the Walam Olum. He claimed that this was an ancient document written by early Lenape (Delaware) indians that he had been able to translate into English.
The document supposedly described the peopling of North America. This has long been considered to be an authentic and very important document. It was not until 1996 that the researcher David Oestreicher exposed the document as a hoax. Based on an examination of Rafinesque's papers, Oestreicher concluded that Rafinesque had first translated the document from English into Lenape, rather than from Lenape into English, meaning that the Lenape document was a forgery.
The reason Rafinesque created this hoax, Oestreicher argued, was partly out of a desire for fame and recognition. Rafinesque may also have been inspired by Joseph Smith's then recent translation of the Mormon Bible from golden tablets inscribed with ancient Egyptian which he claimed to have found in upstate New York. Rafinesque had publicly denounced the Mormon Bible as a hoax, but viewing its success, he may either have decided to attempt something similar himself, or he may have been trying to cast doubt on the Mormon assertion that Native Americans had descended from Hebrew tribes. Apparently some question still remains concerning the authenticity of the Walam Olum. There are still those who claim it is not a hoax at all, but a true record of the Delaware Indians.
References:
David M. Oestreicher, "Unraveling the Walam Olum," Natural History, October 1996, 14-21.
-
I`m not too keen on this Icelandic theory but this site does have some strong evidence that mistakes were made in linguistics and that the Red Record or Wallum Olum actually did exist.
http://frozentrail.org/
-
I tend to agree with the theory that all the land on the earth was once one large continent that broke apart. If you look at a globe or a map of the continents, it's pretty obvious that the continents if they could somehow be 'pushed' together would fit quite neatly.
-
ice bridge theory or not...just seems too convenient that this writing fits in so neatly with christian thought and a land miogration theory proven wrong since. why would the lenape story about their origins be so sharply contrasted with most other native stories? i don't think anyone else has stories of coming over from an ice bridge or bering strait..do they? the "incredible" knowledge might have been so for ancient people but it was well known by the 1800s when this first appeared.
just smells fishy to me.
-
Tansi;
I have heard stories, passed down by the Aboriginal peoples of Yukon and Alaska, of people crossing the Bering Strait, while I lived in Yukon Territory. The First Nation people there, have stories of the ones who crossed..... and the people who were already here who met them.
Ric
-
shame on me...i was not thinking about the natives far north. thank you for the correction. my meaning was the lenape are surrounded by other stories of origin so this red record is very out of the norm for the area. but again..if i am wrong correct me. are there people here who believe this is legit?
-
Mo, I think it was real, but lost. It was lost and I think misintererpted. I don't believe in the "Green Channel" And some of the orgin stories are different from the migration stories. I don't think anyone will really know what it said. I have heard some things, but not really a "ice bridge". So there will probably always be differences. frederica
-
thanks everyone for the info. i need to read up more on this i think.
-
Mo, Your best bet is to find an elder. I believe that one has been shaped to fit. Another reason it was called a fraud was not only the misrepresentation and his misuse of Lenape words. It was also thought that the people were not capable of such a documentation. frederica
-
Mo, Your best bet is to find an elder. I believe that one has been shaped to fit. Another reason it was called a fraud was not only the misrepresentation and his misuse of Lenape words. It was also thought that the people were not capable of such a documentation. frederica
Yea but,Lenape also documented with Wampum and their`s never been dispute over that nor labeled fraud.It`s pictographs just like the Wallum Olum.Maybe someday the memory or prayers sticks will surface in the basement of some european museum.....Wood decays before Quahog shell so they`re probably in bad condition if they exist any more..........Such a mystery solved is a dream of many.Personally,i`m a believer and you`re right,europeans didn`t want it leaked out that we actually weren`t illiterate and of the possibility that we actually wrote the first book.
Mo........I don`t know if you can find an elder alive today who can tell us.All storytellers(as far as in know)Holymen,visionarys,etc are gone.I don`t even think Speck did any studies but theirs some recording of the Wallum Olum by linguists and other historians......Let me know how you make out.
-
I agree with you Danielle. As I said before I believe it was real. My point is I also believe that the more you read how "they" interpert it, the more confused it will become. It's been shaped to fit their cultural thinking. That includes even the newer version where they say it may be true. frederica
-
While the Lenape tradition keepers perished in the conquest, the archaeological facts support Rafinesque's account and the Red Record as reliable.
For a discussion of the appearance in eastern Wisconsin of Oneota culture, see Victoria Durst, The People of the Dunes, Whitefish Dunes State Park, 1993, p. 46-63. For a discussion of the appearance of Oneota culture at Redwing, see Clark A. Dobbs, Red Wing Archaeological Preserve, Goodhue-Pierce Archaeological Society Planning Committee, Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis, 1990, p. 7. For a discussion of the western Oneota culture appearance and distribution, see James L. Theler and Robert F. Boszhardt, Twelve Millenia, Archaeology of the Upper Mississippi River Valley, pages 152-155, particularly abandonment of effigy mounds, p. 155. In their book on The Gottschall Rockshelter, Robert J. Salzer and Grace Rajnovich cite cannibalism at Aztalan, citing Fred A, Finney and James B. Stohlman, The Fred Edwards Site, New Perspectives on Cahokia, Prehistory Press, Madison. One problem assigning this here to a climate collapse is Oneota occupancy at Aztalan, following on the Stirling phase occupancy at the site. For carbon dates at this site: Lynne Goldstine, Joan Freeman, Aztalan State Park, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1995 for group burials and stockade history.
For radio carbon dates for the stockade and later fall of Cahokia, see the literature. For the radio carbon dates for Angel Mounds, see the literature. For "Middle Fort Ancient" sites in this area, see the literature - but note that "Middle Fort Ancient" attacker and defender sites are seldom clearly delineated. In this regard note especially the Ana Lynn site on the Blue River in Indiana, rc 1170-1270 CE, for evidence of the Lenape flanking move around Cahokia ("Twakanhah" in Iroquois, "Towako" in the Walum Olum) and their recent defeat of a Mississippian people on the Ohio River.
For the east central areas of North America, the "Wellsburg" complex appears to be equivalent to Oneota. It goes by a yet another different name further east in far Western Maryland and central Pennsylvania, a name which escapes me entirely since my stroke.
In as much as Rafinesque had no knowledge of any of these excavations when he purportedly concocted his "forgery", that it is a forgery is highly unlikely, as the tradition agrees in detail with the physical evidence of the Lenape migration in North America during the Little Ice Age. Thus in my opinion one must side with Brinton's appraisal of Rafinesque's work.
You may be involved with Lenape who think otherwise; which in my view is unfortunate, because at the end of this line of the physical evidence of the Lenape migrations lie the Lenape homelands at the time of European contact. If the preceding chain of physical evidence is denied, then the Lenape have no claim to those lands, as there is no physical evidence for them ever having lived in them. The Lenape will also loose any claim to the remains of their ancestors along the way.
-
"Stockades"
In recent times, defensive walls or stockades have been excavated at both Cahokia and Angel Mounds. There was no way Rafinesque could have had any knowledge of these when he "forged" the Red Record, or the Lenape setting fire to these to defeat them, another point mentioned in the Red Record.
Thus this one detail pretty much closes this argument, and proves that the Red Record is not a forgery, and shows that Rafinesque was not a forger.
It also vindicates Brinton's abilities with the Lenape language.
By the way, the modern Shawnee pronunciation of Thallegatha is "Talega".
-
I was always told it was legimate, too bad it's lost. I heard a while back that there was new evidence to support it.
-
Hello folks, I'd read read an interesting article extensively referencing The Red Record, and found the New Age Fraud forum while searching for more info on the subject. I noticed this thread under the 'research needed' section, so thought I'd share. The article is located at http://www.hope-of-israel.org/aztec.htm
- orville
-
Well, that article seems to indicate someone else (Berbers) or the like built the mounds. The problem with the Red Record is it has been missing since the late 1800. I believe parts of it may be accurate but would not endorsed as a accurate migration story. I don't believe the Ice Bridge. From what I can recall it was give to a Moravian Dr. who gave it to Rafinesque. He is the one that translated it. And the problem with that is he used the Moravian Archives in Philadelphia. They did not have access to much more than common Lenape' words because the Tradition practices were barred to them. So his translation was greatly suspect. That and his history did him in. As far as I know the Lenape' were in the Pennsylvania area for about 10 to 12,000 years. There is other problems with their theories. This is about 10 pages. www.abcd-classics.com/thomascy/ohiomounds/ohio_mounds-037.html It's been pretty well decided they are Ndn, just what Nation no one is sure. Lesson learned. Never give anything of your Nation to anyone else to preserve.
-
Hi Frederica,
The article I'd referred to connects the Aztecs mound builders to Caananite mound builders escaping Joshua's genocide of the Caananites. It traces these peoples over time, through various peoples such as Thracians, Berbers, Tallegwi, etc, and suggests they became some of the NDN nations. The accounts of the Red Record supports the other information presented in the article.
I'm usually skeptical of such translations, especially from the 19th century - a lot of "scientific" hoaxes being perpetrated then. But, my understanding from reading an article at http://lenapedelawarehistory.net/mirror/wallamolum.htm , is that the Delaware nation endorsed a translation of The Red Record in 1980. The account is given in the full article and seems consistent with that presented in the 'Aztec' article.
"In 1976, David McCutchen, a graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara and the California Institute of the Arts, was hired to research the history of the Delaware Nation. It should be pointed out that the tribal name "Lenni-Lenape" meant the "Original People". In 1610, Captain Samuel Argall sailed up the Lenape River, and named both the river, and the people living on its banks, the "Delaware" in honor of his patron, Lord De La Warr. From that time on, these people were referred to by outsiders and Europeans as the "Delaware".
In his work, McCutchen came upon The Red Record, the history of its translation, some of the original wooden prayer sticks, and the original words which described the meanings of the carvings. He completed his study as far as he could, and then proceeded to go to the source. He took the results of his research, photographs of the original prayer sticks, and all materials the curators would allow, to Linda Poolaw, the Grand Chief of the Delaware Nation Grand Council of North America in Oklahoma. With Chief Poolaw's assistance, McCutchen was able to fill in the blanks, answer remaining questions and complete the final translation of The Red Record. In 1980, the tribal descendents of the Lenni-Lenape passed a resolution endorsing McCutchen's recreation of the entire Red Record as an accurate re-telling of the history of their people."
Thanks for the link to "The Problems of the Ohio Mounds" article, I've had a quick scan and look forward to reading it later this evening.
BTW, while I do believe in a Bering land bridge, I reckon it accounts for only portion of the populating of this continent. I think as many, if not more, sailed here.
- orville
-
Hi Frederica,
In his work, McCutchen came upon The Red Record, the history of its translation, some of the original wooden prayer sticks, and the original words which described the meanings of the carvings. He completed his study as far as he could, and then proceeded to go to the source. He took the results of his research, photographs of the original prayer sticks, and all materials the curators would allow, to Linda Poolaw, the Grand Chief of the Delaware Nation Grand Council of North America in Oklahoma. With Chief Poolaw's assistance, McCutchen was able to fill in the blanks, answer remaining questions and complete the final translation of The Red Record. In 1980, the tribal descendents of the Lenni-Lenape passed a resolution endorsing McCutchen's recreation of the entire Red Record as an accurate
As far as I know the endorsement has been withdrawn as entirely accurate. I believe that was in the 90's.
-
He' kulamalsihemo hach?
I usually only read here, having little to offer, but thought I would offer my little knowledge of this topic. A very good look into the "Walam Olum" was done in the "Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey", No. 49, 1994, pgs. 1-44. This was written by David M. Oestreicher with the blessings of Delaware Elders, including Lucy Parks Blalock from Eastern Oklahoma. This article points to the 3 "main" reasons for Rafinesque to make up the whole fraud, 1) It would confirm his theories concerning the peopling of America, the distruction of the Moundbuilder Civilation, as well as the time frame of the ancient American history, 2) this "discovery" and "translation" would grant him the much sought scientific recognition, 3) and of course INCOME, no less than 3 times did he try to sell the "Walam Olum" for a "hefty sum".
As far as what is "accepted" as truth, there are probably as many Delaware/Lenape who "accepts it" as there are who discredit it, in my opinion the evidence against it is much more realistic.
Wanishi
-
Thanks Frederica, that would explain why I can't find reference to the Red Record on the Delaware Tribe websites. In their FAQ, responding to 'How did your tribe get started?', the reply begins with "We are not sure." Also thanks Wanishi for the Oesteicher reference. So, another 19th century 'scientific' fraud .... suprise, surprise! :-)
- orville
-
Hello everyone -
First off, nobody built "mounds". Dirt was used in the construction of many different structures: forts, platforms for temples and nobles' residences, places of astronomical celebration, ballcourts, burials, etc. "mounds" are what you end up with several centuries to several millenia afterwards.
There were no "moundbuilders". Different peoples used dirt to construct different structures at different times, and those peoples had and have names.
Second, Oestricher claims that Rafinesque forged the Walum Olum using the Moravian missionary Heckewelder's recording of the Lenape migration tradition. Now even if the Walum Olum was cobbled together by Rafinesque from Lenape sources, which seems unlikely to me, the archaeological sequence set out above showing the Lenape migration during the Little Ice Age still stands, and is rock solid, along with Heckewelder's recording of the Lenape account, which agrees with that archaeological sequence.
Everyone would like their ancestors to be there "forever", but often that was not the case. Peoples moved; and sometimes they merged.
That Rafinesque was gifted with a pictographic copy of the Walum Olum in 1822, immediately after the Lenape deportation of 1821, seems likely.
Third, Oestreicher bases his argument that Rafinesque forged the Walum Olum on the basis of a list of chiefs which the European du Poinceau claimed he obtained from Heckwelder's papers. du Poinceau may just as likely have gotten the list of chiefs from Rafinesque's own recording.
Fourth, given Mede tradition keeping, there was every reason for Heckewelder and Rafinesque to have been given the same account.
-
Archaeological research has shown 2 separate Proto-Algonquian migrations into the East. The first one came out of the Ohio Valley down to the Delaware Bay area and Delmarva Pen. then spread South during the Late Archaic-Early Woodland period (the Adena-Middlesex Culture). Trade florished on the East Coast and the Middlesex culture mingled with the local Piedmont Tradition ( Rossville-Piscataway) and then the Fox Creek Culture (historical association unknown -possibly Iroquoian) entered the Delaware Valley from North West New York to trade and settle.
The Second Proto-Algonquian migration came straight down the coast from the North in the Middle Woodland Period. Trade suddenly stopped and local resources became the norm. The "mix and mingle" point was Southern P.A and Central New Jersey.
The Southern Unami (Lenape) of Southernmost Part of New Jersey and Northern Delaware retained a Hunter-Gatherer Culture depending on wild rice sometimes gardening maygrass, sunflowers, and goosefoot ( a "carry over" from the Adena). They practiced "ossuary style" burials and used Chicasons (Houses for the Dead).
Adena graves have been found all over Southern New Jersey. Mounds might have existed once in Gloucester, Cape May and Cumberland Counties.
The war with the Talligwi (Cherokee) was a mis-interpretation of a historical event.
The Adena were a development of the "Glacier Kame Culture". They spoke Proto-Algonquian and eventually became the Central
(Great Lakes) and Southern Coastal Algonquian Culture. That is why Southern Coastal Algonquians have more in common in language and culture with the Anishanaabe (Ojibway) than with their Northern neighbors the Minsi and Mohican.
Yurok and Wiyot on the California Coast is the most primitive Algic language and if you follow the path of the Glacier Lake Missoula Flood ( In theory, the Algonquian "Great Flood") a pattern will begin to emerge showing the Algonquian migration from the West Coast of the U.S. and the isolation of these 2 tribes. Glacier Lake Missoula would of also blocked any "ice free corridor" that existed at the time.
The closest genetic relation to the Coastal Algonquian "Yellow Dogs"
(Wiisosa in Lenape) is the Southeast Asian wolf or the Dingo. We did not have any of the "Husky type" dogs that were brought in later migrations from Siberia.
.... and the Red Record is a fraud and does not match archaeology in any way shape or form.
.........Where's Ray Whritenour when you need him.........
-
Ray had put it all up once, but when he left he took it all down. But I do remember he said it was all a fraud, and one of the biggest disservice ever done to the Lenape'.
-
Other than Chad Smith, yup!
Ray could tear it top to bottom but he know's the language and history. I just know some of the archaeology.
-
Here are several artifacts that show additional archaeological evidence that confirms use of imagery in the Walam Olum:
1. Piqua, Ohio figurines found by J.A. Rayner are also known as Ketika Figurines depicted by Carl Schuster in the Social Symbolism of Tribal Art. Curated at the Smithsonian.
2. Hohokam Palettes by Devin Alan White includes Turtle and snake - Falling from the Sky depiction.
3. Catlinite Turtle disc engraving from Van Meter State Historic site. Shows hole in Turtles Back.
4. Monks Mound artifacts including the Catlinite Objects found on the first terrace and the Palisade wall as Grondine Showed.
5. Birchbark scrolls described by Selwyn Dewdney in his book Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway confirm use of walam olum imagery.
See
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/walamolum.htm
Vince Barrows
-
That just proves that Rafinesque had a extensive knowledge of Indian symbols. ::)
Like I said. There were 2 separate Proto-Algonquian migrations into the Delaware Valley. The first one between 600 BC to 200 BC. The second one between AD 300 to AD 700.
Also, I have photos and sketches of every piece rock and pottery ingraving in the Delaware Valley. None match anything in the Walum Olum.
-
How did Rafinesque know these symbols?
1. Piqua, Ohio Figurines were found in 1908
2. Hohokam Palettes first published in 2004 by Arizona State Museum
3. Never Published before - Photographed at University of Missouri, Eichenberger Cast 1966
4. Unearthed from the first terrace of monks mound in 1998
5. Published in 1975, numerous depictions found on birchbark scrolls that match Walam Olum.
How did he know the symbols when they were not yet unearthed? How did he also know the Amerindian Myths and legends behind them?
Vince Barrows
-
How did Rafinesque know these symbols?
1. Piqua, Ohio Figurines were found in 1908
2. Hohokam Palettes first published in 2004 by Arizona State Museum
3. Never Published before - Photographed at University of Missouri, Eichenberger Cast 1966
4. Unearthed from the first terrace of monks mound in 1998
5. Published in 1975, numerous depictions found on birchbark scrolls that match Walam Olum.
How did he know the symbols when they were not yet unearthed? How did he also know the Amerindian Myths and legends behind them?
Vince Barrows
Looking at your illustration comparisons I only see very common Amerind motifs found from Nova Scotia to Nevada. It proves nothing.
There is no archaeological evidence that any event in the Walum Olum ever took place. The Adena were one of the original group of Proto-Algonquians who settled in the Delmarva and Lower Delaware Valley.
They settle peacefully and absorbed the Laurentian tradition cultures (there were several) that already resided here. The Fox Creek did the same. The Proto-Munsee came down from the North during the second wave.
The Lenape of the pre-contact were independent villages or "farmstead communities" each with it's own customs, food gathering and gardening practices and ceremonies. They never reached the area "en-mass" nor did they probably ever believe they did.
-
"Looking at your illustration comparisons I only see very common Amerind motifs found from Nova Scotia to Nevada"....
It proves that archaeological evidence from across the continent exists with prehistoric symbols from the Walam Olum.
You claim that these are "very common Motifs". I know of no other examples of authentic artifacts in existence that match the symbols. If you can show any other examples. please do.
This widespread connections to Walam Olum imagery show that the matching stone engravings were created prehistorically.
The attribution of these artifacts to events such as the list of chiefs and to tribal legends would not be possible without Raf.s documentation of the wisdom shared by Native Informants.
-
P.S. How can something be "very common" and yet "not exist"?
-
You claim that these are "very common Motifs". I know of no other examples of authentic artifacts in existence that match the symbols. If you can show any other examples. please do.
The rock art found all throughout New England. The "Story Stones" documented by Edward Lenik. They were found in Odell Park in Franklin, New Hampshire although the images are far more complicated and artistic than the Walum Olum.
A matter of fact. If you read Edward Lenik's Many articles and books on Coastal Algonquian rock art and clay images you would see for yourself that the Walum Olum pictographs are very linear and simple compared to real Coastal Algonquian imagery. That is one of the things that makes it such a insult to my people's cultural development.
-
Now you say the drawings are "too simple" and "insulting to my people's cultural development."
Take a look at the Birchbark scrolls by Selwyn Dewdney from 1965 for more examples of parallels to this imagery that were shared by James Red Sky, a Shoal Lake Midewiwin elder.
Each form conveyed very complex meanings. The history and events they describe are not simple and countless parallel accounts have been recorded by many other native informants. Consider the story of Nanabozho and glooskap.
The question was can you can identify any other artifacts that match the Walam Olum Imagery. Leniks rock art studies identified a interesting variety of different forms on the coast.
-
Consider the story of Nanabozho and glooskap.
The question was can you can identify any other artifacts that match the Walam Olum Imagery. Leniks rock art studies identified a interesting variety of different forms on the coast.
Nanabozho, Glooskap or their equivalent did not exist among the Southern Unami or even the Southern Algonquians.
Midiwin scrolls have been in the possession of Europeans since the 18th Century when they were first collected by Jesuits. That is where Ranfinesque drew his images from. The question is can you show me any parallels in the images collected by Lenik?
-
Interesting question. A parallel can be seen in the Book of Wild (Manuscript Pictographique Amerique), recorded by D. Emanuel 1860.
This correspondence is to share my excitement about an interesting document with you - called the Book of Wild.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Book%20of%20Wild/
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/bookofwild.htm
I scanned this document from Microfilm at Rice University in Houston, TX. It was recorded by Domenech Emanuel (1825-1903). This 1860 document is called The Manuscript Pictographique Amerique. (Book of Wild). D. Emanuel started out as a French Missionary where he stayed in St. Louis at the Seminary of the Barrens.
I think he may have acquired the document when he was at that seminary, The origin of the document with American Indian Pictographs probably has much earlier origin,.
Of particular interest are the written languages on the document and the depictions of swords and scabbards, as well as sailing ships. I do not know what it is or what it says. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I did some research to find out who D. Emmanuel was. and found that he was one of the first ordained missionaries in texas, and spent a lot of time as an amateur ethnographer. He made trips to the Western states and recorded many interesting examples of petroglyphs in several later works.
Imp.Lemercier Paris, this ideographic of the "Red Indians" was indeed controversial. The author wrote some responses to this document were "full of hatred of a national jealousy".
An translation from the frech document stated: "We should not expect to find in a library a important manuscript written by the Sachem hand of some insider secrets of all institutions of this tribe.
That is what happened.
The Library of the Arsenal has, for nearly a century, hidden in a box that contained the volume manuscript,
and bears in the catalog title Book of Wild. This volume, indeed, was by penned by the Indians of New France.
The Marquis de Paulmy, who had in his valuable library, received, probably from
some travelers or that were donated by missionaries.
We were unable, however, discover a certain provenance of the Book of the Wild.
It is a collection of figures and hieroglyphics intermingled
of letters and numbers very crudely and very naively
designed to lead and rolled in red crayon on
thick paper mill in Canada. The collection is incomplete at the beginning and end,
also offers regrettable shortcomings in the current volume.
It consists still lift sheets of a small size of 4" or more less affected by the seawater, which has made them stick together.
This manuscript we had reported as a monument very curious and perhaps unique in the world, by
famous bibliophile Paul Lacroix, curator of the Library of the Arsenal made
us take a facsimile, with the intention to recommend to Mexican archaeologists..
A missionary scholar who returning from the United States, where he stayed long
among Indian tribes, may have provided us this precious manuscript.
Also, it is with feelings of deep gratitude we thank the government of His Majesty
Emperor Napoleon III of its readiness to meet and our plea to all charges of this publication and he was executed in the seventeenth century. We have not ever published a manuscript apparently rarer and more singular than this: it is
undoubtedly from the old people of New France . We
do not claim to provide translation, not would be hardly possible, with the weak information
, it has on the pictographic redskins: however, we think we can explain not only the about this manuscript, but still a large number of
hieroglyphics it contains. But before you start this explanation we give some preliminary details on on the Indian ideographic."
Vince
-
Interesting question.
Vince
You didn't answer it.
I bet you Rafinesque had a copy of that book......
-
The imagery presented by Lenik closely/precisely matches that shown in the Book of Wild.
Google books link (http://books.google.com/books?id=-O49d2affsoC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Story+Stones++by+Edward+Lenik&source=web&ots=6VbQrQwej2&sig=aNo9iT7qQo_EU9RkZlHOlOc2ZZQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA52,M1)
This document was published by the French Government and is composed of fragments of ancient Indigenous compositions, drama or rhetoric, adapted since the conquest including Subject of Christians. The author wrote it is urgent to collect these oratories, which are becoming daily more unintelligible and quickly lost amid political concussions incessant. Such documents embrace the whole history of periods cosmogonic, Toltec history, until the arrival of Cortez. Geography and ethnography of the area between the Mississippi and Grand Ocean are represented in the book at hand. It includes representations purely artistic, annals, calendars, rituals, parts of the trial, land registration, and finally the mixed signs of writing and numeration. Using the help of writing and plans drawing, as on our maps, our plans including some prints with captions, where the legend and localities are accompanied by their own name and sometimes a narrative. This leads all to the absolute conclusion on the degree of perfection achieved through writing which could only be taught in indigenous institutions.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 09:50:06 am by BuboAhab »
Post previously edited by original poster at time indicated above. Link shortened by Barnaby so page will fit in browser window.
-
The imagery presented by Lenik closely/precisely matches that shown in the Book of Wild.
That wasn't the answer to my question either. You have to match Lenik with the Walum Olum.
-
Thank you for the tip. I just purchased the book and find this source excellent. More to follow.
-
Thank you for the tip. I just purchased the book and find this source excellent. More to follow.
You can still buy ASNJ (Archaeology Society of New Jersey) bulletins online with many of his articles in them also.
Peace-Rich
-
Hi all -
Since I included the WO in an appendix of my book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and only learned of Oestreicher's work
on it afterwards, I have taken a good look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walam_Olum
While I have no doubt of early Algonquin migrations into the North East (Mohican) , I am fairly certain that
the Lenape proper were not among them. (See the link for a summary Lenape archaeology. By the way the Lenape powwow at Anderson was a pleasure. The Little Ice Age was brutal in North America, and I won't hold their efforts at survival during it
against their descendants, as long as they do not claim Shawnee ceremonial sites.)
You have to be careful when you use the archaeologists' term "Adena" which was taken from an estate's name. Properly, the "Adena" were the Andaste (Andasteranon - sp?) people (their real name) and Iroquoian.
As far as tallegewi, etc., they were tshilliga/the division Shawnee. (see the link.)
Now what Oestreicher, whose work was supported by Kraft, would have us believe is that Rafinesque
forged the WO in one month. That is simply super-human. Sadly, it is also clear that Rafinesque's own
shortcomings interfered with his preservation of the WO.
If what one is trying to do is to actually retrieve the Lenape medewiwin's account, and that is what is desired, clearly one has to get to Heckewelder's 1822 manuscript, and start from there. I've had a stroke, and mastering Lenape to that point, along with
the money required to work with the microfilm of H.'s manuscript are beyond me now, so I'll continue to pass on the Lenape
fragments as preserved, along with some notice of the problems involved.
Also sadly, I see that the effects of Jerry Pope's fraud continue to have their effects, including casting aspersions on good people. I want to assure you that East of the River Shawnee have safegaurds in place to assure that that does not happen again. I have also heard of a Yeogehenny Shawnee group which has formed from people who left Pope, but have yet to meet them.
I soon will start to work on new materials on Richard Kieninger, Frank Joseph Collin, et al., whose fraudulent histories appear every month in every Barnes and Noble and Borders bookstore in the nation. You can write to me for a copy of that study as it now sits, or educated indian will send you one. You will be amazed.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
(And by the way, I have a special deal on "my" book for some people, if you want to write me.)
-
You have to be careful when you use the archaeologists' term "Adena" which was taken from an estate's name. Properly, the "Adena" were the Andaste (Andasteranon - sp?) people (their real name) and Iroquoian.
The "Andaste" was the Susquehannocks. This is on several documented deeds from the 17th Century between Colony of Maryland and the tribe. They did not come down into the Susquehanna Valley-Delmarva Area until the Late Woodland ( about 1300-1500).
The Adena/ Middlesex People came into the Delaware Valley- Delmarva area during the Terminal Archaic- Very Early Woodland. They were Proto- Central Algonquian.
The Munsee and Mohican were Northern Algonquian and migrated straight down the coast during the Late Middle Woodland.
[/quote]
-
I'll have to differ with you on the Andaste. Nanticote, along with some things. The pile of evidence why
is set out in my book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and I can't retype all of it here.
Sure, after the Virginia colonists' attack a few Andaste survivors assimilated with the Susquehannocks, but no,
the Andaste were very distinct: male height was around seven and half feet tall, and everybody else remembered fighting
them: HoChunk, Menominee, Ojibwe, Five Nations, Cherokee, Shawnee. And not only do we have the Maryland records,
we actually have the eye witness account of one colonist who lived with them, along with other visitors accounts. And yes,
they were actually seven and a half feet tall.
And yes, the peoples' accounts line up perfectly with the archaeological record of the Andaste, also set out in my book.
A short introduction would be Dragoo's "Mounds for the Dead".
If you don't want to buy a copy of my book for the special price (and contact me off list for this),
I gifted copies to many libraries, so you can read a copy for free through inter-library loan at your local library.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
I'll have to differ with you on the Andaste. Nanticote, along with some things. The pile of evidence why
is set out in my book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and I can't retype all of it here.
Sure, after the Virginia colonists' attack a few Andaste survivors assimilated with the Susquehannocks, but no,
the Andaste were very distinct: male height was around seven and half feet tall, and everybody else remembered fighting
them: HoChunk, Menominee, Ojibwe, Five Nations, Cherokee, Shawnee. And not only do we have the Maryland records,
they were actually seven and a half feet tall.
If you don't want to buy a copy of my book for the special price (and contact me off list for this),
I gifted copies to many libraries, so you can read a copy for free through inter-library loan at your local library.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
:o Never saw that on any dig, bulletin or report I read. So were they half Angel, half space alien, or a lost tribe of Semites???????
-
Hi Nanticoke -
I didn't say any of that, and for that matter never wrote it, so why are you trying to
put those words in my mouth?
The Andaste were seven and a half feet tall, however, and yes, their remains were dug up,
and yes, they were seven and a half feet tall.
Now, back to the Lenape. Aside from what Rafinesque provided in the Walum Olum,
there are two direct accounts from Lenape Medewiwin of their migration in
the Little Ice Age: that preserved by Heckewelder, and that by Sutton. The Lenpae
Medewiwin's accounts agree with the archaeological record.
I don't hold this as a grudge. Extraordinary circumstance will cause people to take actions
which they never would normally have taken.
Now some archaeologists are working with some Lenape to deny all of this and
claim Shawnee ceremonial sites. I will do whatever I can to stop them and expose them.
It's kind of a sensitive issue for me.
How would Lenape feel if I were to claim that their ancestral grounds were someone else's
and turn archaeologists loose on them?
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
PS - From what I've heard, sadly, the Lenape shut down their Big House ceremonies about
thirty years ago.
-
Hi Nanticoke -
I didn't say any of that, and for that matter never wrote it, so why are you trying to
put those words in my mouth?
The Andaste were seven and a half feet tall, however, and yes, their remains were dug up,
and yes, they were seven and a half feet tall.
Now, back to the Lenape. Aside from what Rafinesque provided in the Walum Olum,
there are two direct accounts from Lenape Medewiwin of their migration in
the Little Ice Age: that preserved by Heckewelder, and that by Sutton. The Lenpae
Medewiwin's accounts agree with the archaeological record.
I don't hold this as a grudge. Extraordinary circumstance will cause people to take actions
which they never would normally have taken.
Now some archaeologists are working with some Lenape to deny all of this and
claim Shawnee ceremonial sites. I will do whatever I can to stop them and expose them.
It's kind of a sensitive issue for me.
How would Lenape feel if I were to claim that their ancestral grounds were someone else's
and turn archaeologists loose on them?
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
PS - From what I've heard, sadly, the Lenape shut down their Big House ceremonies about
thirty years ago.
The "Little Ice Age" happened in the 15th to 17th Century. The First Proto-Algonquians ( Adena Middlesex and Fox Creek) migrated into the Delaware Valley and down the Coast during the Terminal Archaic. The Shawnee sprung from this group ( Chawano, Chawanoc). They did not become wanderers into the Ohio Valley until they were battered up and down the Carolina Rivers by Spanish Slavers.
The Northern Algonquians (Munsee, Mohican) did not migrate down into The New York, New Jersey area until the Middle Woodland. Their migration fits more in line with the Walum Olum that is why many still believe it.
As for Delawares claiming Shawnee sacred sites. Which ones? There is as much fraudulent Delaware out there than there is Cherokee. Many of them are outright cults who make up their own culture. Are you sure it isn't one of those groups?
-
Actually, Nanticoke:
The ancestors of the Shawnee people were compromised of three streams:
The first stream was Iroquoian, and came across the land bridge after 50,000 BCE. They survived the Holocene Start Impacts
of 10,900 BCE in the Big Lick area.
The second stream came up from South America sometime in the third millenia BCE, and assimilated with the
Iroquoian peoples. They headed up the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, and assimilated with the Iroquoian peoples living
there. That's why you have those "formative" mounds at Baton Rouge, and why Poverty Point fell.
That's also why you have that "formative" sacbe road connecting Chiliothe and Newark, which Brad Lepper did such a
wonderful job in tracing. And by the way, the other route into Newark, meeting place of the Tchiligatha and Kishpoko
divisions, came up from Marietta, ancestral home of the Kishpoko. It goes via Salt Creek, and yes there is a big mound on
the Licking River at the ford.
That's why you had those two pairs of astronomical rings and rectangular enclosures there in Newark - its where the
divisions met.
The Shawnee Primary Narative was an astronomical allegory, and their meetings and ball games were timed to astronomical
events. Hence the astronomical celebration function of the rings. (And by the way, the eastern jaguar was grey with
red markings, and that's one of the reasons why the same word is used for comet in Shawnee.)
The third stream of the Shawnee ancestors were Algonquin, and they came across Lake Erie in the global climate collapse of
536 CE. They assimilated with what remained of the existing peoples along the Ohio, though part of the Tshiligatha
removed south east and were ancestral to the Tsulagi.
The distribution of the Shawnee divisions was such along the Ohio: Thewighili (my granmothers division)
controlled the pass between the Ohio and Potomac rivers, with their principle settlement at Shawnee Oldtown, Maryland.
Next down river was Piqua, then Kishpoko, then Tshiliga/tha (excuse my spelling, but this division held common ancestry
with the Tsulagi before 536), and then Mekoche.
Now as to this "wandering" Shawnee nonsense:
First you had the Lenape migration, as their medewiwin related.
You can read about the Shawnee Divisions' locations at first European contact in Charle's Adams, The Wilderness Road.
The divisions were dispersed by the Five Nations, who were armed by the English and used by them as mercenaries.
The divisions fled to different places, and we have excellent well dated reports of their arrivals from other European colonists.
Alford covered some of this, some was covered in the book Red Carolinians, some by historians in Illinois (Dickson Mounds and
Starved Rock. The Mekoche and Tshiligatha divisions headed up the Vermillion River to try to get fire-arms from the French).
After the Three Fires defeated the Five Nations, the Shawnee divisions started to return to their ancestral homes, but by
then the English colonists were showing up in force, and we all know what happened next.
Now the Lenape medewiwin remembered their migration with a wampum count, and the dates for Oneota are pretty well
established by radio carbon dating, including the later eastern variants. That's set out at the wikipedia discussion link.
For some reason you seem to think that if you impugn Rafinesque, that will eliminate Heckewelder's and Sutton's preservations of the Lenape medewiwin traditions. It won't.
The climate collapse in North America during the Little Ice Age started earlier here than in Europe, and prompted Kushita,
Chicasa, Choctaw and Abikhas to start their migration from the Three Rivers petroglyphs area in New Mexico into
southeast North America. We would do well to remember these traditions, as we are living here now, and the same climate
collapses will happen again; it would be good to be ready for them.
I bear the Lenape no ill will for their migration, as the Algonquin stream of the Shawnee came south in the climate collapse
of 536 CE.
If you wish to speak about the Adena (Andaste), I suggest you read the fundamental introduction to them, Dragoo's
"Mounds for the Dead", before you do so again. Again, they were seven and half feet tall, and the Ojibwe, Menominee,
Hotsega (HoChunk), Five Nations, Cherokee, and Shawnee tradition keepers all held the memories of their ancestors' battles
with them.
In closing, while Oestreicher would have us believe that Rafinesque produced the Walum Olum in one month, that is simply
super human. I think that Rafinesque was just thrown by the use of historical present tense in Lenape, and once he had a
key to that, he proceeded with his translation. I stated the reasons for my thinking on this over at the wikipedia discussion.
I have no problem with early Algonquin in what later became New England, and I have no problem with a very early date for
their migration there. They just were not Lenape.
I have gifted copies of my book to major libraries, and you can read it via interlibrary loan for free.
I stopped it at European contact. The rest was too painful.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
I'm still confused about the Adena being exceptionally tall. As "token Nanticoke" for the 'Cumberland County Prehistoric Museum' I have seen many Adena Burials and many reports on the same. I have even seen one of those "wolf shamans" with the alveolar ridge destruction on the front of his face where a wolf maxilla was installed installed up close and personal. He was only about 5'9". I have just recently seen Adena/ Middlesex remains from the Delmarva Complex in a confidental site in Atlantic County, New Jersey. I have seen nothing to the contrary that they were not average height.
Oh! Call me Rich or Piney. Nanticoke is what tribe I am.
-
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0DEEDB1439E233A25753C3A9619C946796D6CF
I googled "Andaste" and found this old article which has some descriptions.
-
Hi Rich -
The archaeologists will define "Adena" based on technologies, just as they do "Hopewell", another name they made up.
The easiest way to get the first hand contact accounts of the Andaste (the Adena Adena proper) survivors is through my book "Man and Impact in the Americas". The volumes containing the material on them otherwise are pretty rare.
PS - Dr. Dallas Abbott is working through the material remains of recent impact mega-tsunami's on the North East coast, and certainly some of the peoples must have remembered them. Perhaps you're familiar with their traditions.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Hi Rich, everyone -
I need to share some further thoughts on Rafinesque with all of you, just to free my mind of them and leave a path for those who follow.
Among scholars of classical Greek and Latin, it is a common practice to "reconstruct" lost writings from the fragments of them that remain. For that matter, those scholars will even use translations into other languages, such as Arabic, to gain materials for those reconstructions.
Rafinesque knew all of their techniques and would not have hesitated to apply them to Lenape traditions. Rich has spoken of Oestriecher's article in the New Jersey Archaeological Society publication; it is useless for the purpose of determining what Rafinesque did and what he was working from. Instead, one must go to Oestreicher's thesis, where he set out what he thought were the names of the historical Lenape leaders known from other sources, and then carefully work one's way through it. That would take tens of thousands of dollars.
Then there's Heckewelder's 1822 paper. Again, tens of thousands of dollars to work with it.
A similar situation exists as far as the pictographs goes. Europeans commonly viewed Native American art through European eyes, and it is common to see Mayan art looking Greek or Roman in their representations of it. In addition, in Rafinesque's case Chinese and Egyptian writing systems were not well understood at the time, and he had no firm chronology to work with, as we do today. In this case, baring further archaeological discoveries, we pretty much have what we have, and that's it.
Tracking Dr. Ward (not his full name, by the way) from Anderson would take tens of thousands of dollars more. In this regard, it is greatly to be regretted that the bulk of Thomas Jefferson's Native American materials were lost on his move from Washington back to Charlottesville, Virginia. Maybe Dr. Ward (again, not his full name) corresponded with Jefferson, and perhaps some part that correspondence may survive, but taking a look for it would require tens of thousands of dollars.
Anyone dealing with the traditions of the eastern peoples faces a situation similar to that faced by Rafinesque. Bits and pieces of their traditions are scattered here and there, not assembled, and usually corrupted, through both translation problems and the biases of those recording them.
Anyone working with Chicasa, Choctaw, Kushita, Miami, Wendat, etc. traditions faces the same problems. The loss of the history of the Cherokee assembled by Sequoia's colleague is greatly to be regretted. There is no center for this kind of work, no funding, and for the eastern peoples, nearly everyone's languages and traditions are fading.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
I suggest that rather than spending all that money, One can freely find solace in the fact that Native Americans wrote the Walam Olum. Also, it is acceptable to completely ignore the detractors that will commit libel against anyone that has researched such matters.
A quote copied from another website stated on Saturday, May 08, 2004: "See the "Walam Olum" published by the Indiana Historical Society. Also, See "The Lenape and their Legends" by Brinton. It is believed that it is not a hoax. The history of the Lenape was handed down for millenia by means of pictographs on sticks or bark as well as orally ( or story telling."James Albany President,Lenni Lenape Historical Society. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walam_Olum"
-
This topic should be moved to Frauds. The Walam Olum is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.
-
This topic should be moved to Frauds. The Walam Olum is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.
In your opinion. I differ with you on that, and I've stated the reasons for my opinion.
Let me remind you that besides the Walam Olum, we have two other records of tellings of the Lenape migration by their mediwiwin, both of which accord with the archaeological record.
Its sad how much was lost in the conquest. If the devastation had not been so complete, the traditions would have been better preserved and there for all to hear.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
E.P. Grondine writes:
"Let me remind you that besides the Walam Olum, we have two other records of tellings of the Lenape migration by their mediwiwin, both of which accord with the archaeological record."
First of all, "walam" has been ungrammatically truncated from Delaware, "wallamman" ('red paint'), in an amateur attempt to create a descriptive adjective meaning, 'red.' You can't do that! To translate 'red,' in a phrase like 'Red Record,' the word "machkeekhasik" ('that which is marked red') would likely be used. Even if this record was supposed to have been done in traditional 'red paint,' the adjective (prenoun) would have been "wallammanni"--NOT "walam"! Next, "olum," is also grammatically deficient. An "olum" is a single notch on a tally stick. It can't refer to the hundreds of different engraved images which supposedly make up this work. It would have to be pluralized to "olumall," at a minimum, to force-fit it to signify this title! Your "mediwiwin" is not a Delaware word, which would be "metewak" or "meteinowak," in Lenape.
The fact that John Heckewelder, in his Indian Nations, related a migration story based on accounts he heard from Lenape informants, parts of which look a lot like what we read in the Walam Olum, is because Rafinesque lifted those details directly from Heckewelder's account! Nobody is denying that the Lenape had some traditional stories of a migration, which came to the notice of chroniclers in the 18th-century. However, that Rafinesque incorporated some of that in his fraudulent "epic," does not make that "epic" any less of a fraud! The Gaelic speakers of Ireland and Scotland have numerous authentic traditional tales of their folk-hero, Ossian; however, the fact that James Macpherson salted, here and there, his monumental counterfeit, Ossian, with some of these, does not make his work any less of a forgery! Likewise, with Rafinesque's ridiculous production.
"Its sad how much was lost in the conquest. If the devastation had not been so complete, the traditions would have been better preserved and there for all to hear."
There is plenty left! Enough to occupy a willing person in a lifetime of learning. Three comprehensively documented dialects of Delaware, and over two hundred traditional stories, tons of cultural observations by Moravian missionaries and others--and NOT A SINGLE MENTION of this so-called "Walam Olum." Thankfully, the oldest living speakers told us, unanimously, that they never heard of the "Walam Olum." Even those questioned in the late 19th and early 20th centuries never heard of it!
-
First of all, "walam" has been ungrammatically truncated from Delaware, "wallamman" ('red paint'), in an amateur attempt to create a descriptive adjective meaning, 'red.' You can't do that! To translate 'red,' in a phrase like 'Red Record,' the word "machkeekhasik" ('that which is marked red') would likely be used. Even if this record was supposed to have been done in traditional 'red paint,' the adjective (prenoun) would have been "wallammanni"--NOT "walam"! Next, "olum," is also grammatically deficient. An "olum" is a single notch on a tally stick. It can't refer to the hundreds of different engraved images which supposedly make up this work. It would have to be pluralized to "olumall," at a minimum, to force-fit it to signify this title! Your "mediwiwin" is not a Delaware word, which would be "metewak" or "meteinowak," in Lenape.
If you have non-Lenape speakers trying to record utterances, you can expect mistakes, not perfection. Compare, for example "Nicotani" for Cherokee "Ani Kitani" in Mooney. If my memory serves (and since my stroke it sometimes does not), the term "Mediwiwin" was used in later Lenape records at Anderson, referring to the fact that Chief Anderson himself could not be mediwiwin, because of his mixed blood. But that may have been an Ojibwe borrowing by that time. Or perhaps it was "mediwi", without the /wak - I'd have to go back to Anderson to check.
The fact that John Heckewelder, in his Indian Nations, related a migration story based on accounts he heard from Lenape informants, parts of which look a lot like what we read in the Walam Olum, is because Rafinesque lifted those details directly from Heckewelder's account!
Or did Heckwelder compose his list from a transcript of the Walam Olum? He only provided part of the migration tradition, did he not?
Nobody is denying that the Lenape had some traditional stories of a migration, which came to the notice of chroniclers in the 18th-century.
Actually, a lot of people are denying the Lenape migration, and attack the Walam Olum because they think that was the only recording of the tradition of that migration; hence Kraft's sponsorship of Oestreicher's work.
The accounts of Heckewelder and Sutton of the migration tradition I repeated in my book "Man and Impact in the Americas".
However, that Rafinesque incorporated some of that in his fraudulent "epic," does not make that "epic" any less of a fraud! The Gaelic speakers of Ireland and Scotland have numerous authentic traditional tales of their folk-hero, Ossian; however, the fact that James Macpherson salted, here and there, his monumental counterfeit, Ossian, with some of these, does not make his work any less of a forgery! Likewise, with Rafinesque's ridiculous production.
I set out above what in my opinion will have to be done before Rafinesque's activities will be fully understood, and provided some rough cost estimates of what it will take to do them.
I would be most pleased to see the fragments of the Lenape migration tradition (history) assembled all together in one place.
"Its sad how much was lost in the conquest. If the devastation had not been so complete, the traditions would have been better preserved and there for all to hear."
There is plenty left! Enough to occupy a willing person in a lifetime of learning. Three comprehensively documented dialects of Delaware, and over two hundred traditional stories, tons of cultural observations by Moravian missionaries and others--and NOT A SINGLE MENTION of this so-called "Walam Olum."
Excuse me, but what do you think the Lenape mediwiwin were reciting, of which we have two other accounts? Pictographic record use is well attested among other nations, by the way.
Thankfully, the oldest living speakers told us, unanimously, that they never heard of the "Walam Olum." Even those questioned in the late 19th and early 20th centuries never heard of it!
My current thinking is that Chief Anderson turned the pictographs over to Dr. Ward when the Lenape were driven from Anderson, for which I seem to recall a date of 1820. The devastation by this point was pretty complete.
There are simply too many coincidences of detail confirmed by much later archaeological excavations to concede that R. simply fabricated the WO. Would you see the wikipedia discussion of this as well? It is hard for me to type in again here what I typed in there. Another confirming "coincidence" left out from that discussion is the mention in the Walam Olum of the Norse plagues ca. 1275 CE., which pretty much extincted the "Dorset" peoples.
You expect me to accept that R. created the whole of it in one month, but I think that he was just thrown by the Lenape use of the historical present, and once he had that key...
-
E.P. Grondine writes:
"If you have non-Lenape speakers trying to record utterances, you can expect mistakes, not perfection. Compare, for example "Nicotani" for Cherokee "Ani Kitani" in Mooney."
And, a similar result is produced by non-Lenape speakers trying to forge a hoax. Why is it, do you suppose, that Rafinesque, who said he made "a deep study of the Linapi" in order to "translate" the Walam Olum, never points out a single mistake in the text? Even the veriest tyro should be able to find many of these kinds of mistakes!
"If my memory serves (and since my stroke it sometimes does not), the term "Mediwiwin" was used in later Lenape records at Anderson, referring to the fact that Chief Anderson himself could not be mediwiwin, because of his mixed blood. But that may have been an Ojibwe borrowing by that time. Or perhaps it was "mediwi", without the /wak - I'd have to go back to Anderson to check."
As this is a side issue, which has no bearing on the authenticity of the Walam Olum, don't take any trouble checking it on my account.
"Or did Heckwelder compose his list from a transcript of the Walam Olum? He only provided part of the migration tradition, did he not?"
The Lenape chiefs in this list of Heckewelder's are ALL figures from the historical period--most known from other sources, as well. To this list, Rafinesque added many other names, which he cobbled together from a list of placenames compiled by Heckewelder!
"Actually, a lot of people are denying the Lenape migration, and attack the Walam Olum because they think that was the only recording of the tradition of that migration; hence Kraft's sponsorship of Oestreicher's work."
I didn't say that some people aren't questioning the historicity of these migration stories. I said nobody denies that these migration stories were being told, by some Lenape people, in the 18th-century.
"The accounts of Heckewelder and Sutton of the migration tradition I repeated in my book 'Man and Impact in the Americas'."
Okay.
"I set out above what in my opinion will have to be done before Rafinesque's activities will be fully understood, and provided some rough cost estimates of what it will take to do them."
Yes. I have no idea how you calculated those costs.
"I would be most pleased to see the fragments of the Lenape migration tradition (history) assembled all together in one place."
They are. In Heckewelder's Indian Nations, together with his manuscript appendix, thereto, which is readily available from the American Philosophical Society; and, in that short account of Benjamin Sutton. There aren't any other known "fragments."
"Excuse me, but what do you think the Lenape mediwiwin were reciting, of which we have two other accounts?"
First: I don't accept your contention that these migration legends were recited by Lenape metewak.
"Pictographic record use is well attested among other nations, by the way."
It is attested among the Delaware! So, what? None of the real Lenape pictographs have any similarity, whatsoever, with those Rafinesque invented and/or lifted from other sources.
"My current thinking is that Chief Anderson turned the pictographs over to Dr. Ward when the Lenape were driven from Anderson, for which I seem to recall a date of 1820. The devastation by this point was pretty complete."
In the absence of any actual evidence of this, you're free to imagine whatever you like.
"There are simply too many coincidences of detail confirmed by much later archaeological excavations to concede that R. simply fabricated the WO."
I find it interesting that you are seeing coincidences in the archaeological record which no modern archaeologist sees. Much more interesting are the "coincidences of detail" between what is related in the Walam Olum and Rafinesques 1824 work, Ancient History, or Annals of Kentucky, where he sets forth his theories on the peopling of North America--ten years prior to his mention of the Walam Olum! How convenient the Walam Olum came along to corroborate his theories!
"Would you see the wikipedia discussion of this as well? It is hard for me to type in again here what I typed in there."
I've read that. The most persuasive part of that is all the praise from scholars regarding David Oestreicher's exposure of Rafinesque's Walam Olum as a fraud.
"Another coincidence left out from that discussion is the mention in the Walam Olum of the Norse plagues ca. 1275 CE., which pretty much extincted the "Dorset" peoples."
That is your interpretation of what is being mentioned. In my opinion, it is no more possible to connect these two things than it is to find historical events in the writings of Nostradamus.
"You expect me to accept that R. created the whole of it in one month, but I think that he was just thrown by the Lenape use of the historical present, and once he had that key..."
You lost me here. By my reading, Rafinesque had been cooking this thing up for more than a decade prior to publication.
My favorite part of Rafinesque's forgery is where he directly copies some words from the printed works of Zeisberger and Heckewelder--including typographical and typesetting errors in the words from those books! LOL!
-
Summary of scholarly opinion regarding David Oestreicher's dissection of Rafinesque's "Walam Olum."
-----------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walam_Olum
. . . your prodigious effort has convincingly demolished the Rafinesque fake. For all thoughtful, rational people, the controversy is now buried once and for all. Congratulations. -- W. W. Newcomb, author of Culture and Acculturation Among the Delawares.
Your control over R[afinesque's] manipulations is phenomenal [and] should kill any further attempts to resuscitate the W.O. . . . I'm sorry my contemporaries have not lived to read the total destruction of the W.O. -- the late James B. Griffin, former member of the Lilly team and leading archaeologist, Smithsonian Institution.
. . . it is with great satisfaction that I have been reading your pieces on the Walam Olum in the New Jersey Archaeological Society bulletins and in Natural History. It is an impressive and convincing job of historical detective work and congratulations are in order. -- Anthony F. C. Wallace, University Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, member of the APS, and author of numerous seminal works.
I'm sorry to say you have convinced me completely. Rafinesque forged the Walam Olum . . . its a real pleasure to read such great work. -- The late Rafinesque scholar and translator of Rafinesque's works, Arthur J. Cain, University of Liverpool, England.
Alas, three times alas! I am very convinced of the fraudulence of this sacred (or satanic?) C.S.R.! He would without doubt be delighted to know that people still speak about him 150 years after his death, and perhaps even in spite of the unflattering terms . . . Bravo . . . for your pugnacity and patience. -- Rafinesque scholar and author Georges Reynaud, Université de Provence, Marseille, France.
I did think it would be impossible to demonstrate beyond cavil after all this time that Rafinesque had concocted it from whole cloth. But I think that you've been able to do just that, to an even more striking degree than critics were able to accomplish for the Kensington Stone. -- David Henige, University of Wisconsin.
. . . a magnificent and wholly gratifying piece of literary sleuthing and scientific research. I heartily congratulate you [Natural History magazine] and Mr. Oestreicher for another example of Natural History's informative, highly readable, and scientifically sound stories. -- J Harold Ellens, University of Michigan.
. . . a fine piece of scholarly detective work and an airtight case against the accused . . . Thanks again for your sleuthing and for giving us a fascinating forger who makes our Henry Rowe Schoolcraft look like a paragon of scholarly probity. -- Martin W. Walsh, University of Michigan.
I write to . . . record my admiration for your thoroughness, imagination, and lucid literary style in your investigation . . . You seem to have left no stone unturned in solving the mystery, and you have been eminently fair to Rafinesque and to his commentators. -- John C. Green, Professor Emeritus of History, University of Connecticut, author of American Science in the Age of Jefferson and The Death of Adam.
It is a splendid piece of work -- you have indeed, without a possible shadow of a doubt, proven that Rafinesque forged the Walam Olum . . . You have caught R. red-handed time and time again. -- Stephen Williams, author of Fantastic Archaeology, and Curator for North American Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
David Oestreicher has employed linguistic, historic, and archival evidence that details, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the entire Walam Olum is a fraud perpetrated by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. -- the late Herbert C. Kraft, former Director of Seton Hall University Museum and author of numerous seminal works on the Lenape.
I congratulate you on not only your scholarship but the great detective work in tracking down the sources that matter most in . . . the unraveling of the mystery surrounding the Walam Olum . . . a genuine achievement, something that many have tried and no one until now has succeeded at doing. -- Joe Napora, author of the Walam Olum [a new translation, 1992], conceding that he had been mistaken about the Walam Olum.
Its great! Its crushing, convincing, clever and thoughtful. And interestingly and entertainingly written. Way to go! -- Stephen Epstein, Curator at the University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Its exciting and controversial and pioneering and there you have it! -- Jennifer Brown, University of Winnipeg.
I am amazed at the depth and detail of the scholarship . . . the historical study of early anthropology is also highly developed and very sophisticated. -- J. Peter Denny, University of Western Ontario.
I was just thrilled to observe your sophisticated analysis of the Walam Olum . . . -- Rafinesque scholar Vilen Belyi, Vinnitsa Technical University, Ukraine.
It will raise the level of scholarship . . . I think it opens up a whole new chapter in the history of anthropology. -- Noted anthologist of Amerindian Literature, John Bierhorst.
Very accessibly written and persuasively argued. Altogether superb. -- Alex Shoumatoff, author of The Mountain of Names, The Rivers Amazon, and other noted works.
When David Oestreicher was able to show it was a fraud, many people were offended. But you have to go where the facts lead you. -- Bruce Pearson, renowned Lenape Language scholar and retired linguistics professor, University of South Carolina.
Oestreicher presents conclusive proof of the fraudulence of one of the most widely discussed 19th-century American Indian documents, laying to rest a controversy that has raged ever since Constantine Rafinesque "discovered" it in 1834 .-- Newsletter XV:1, The Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas.
Oestreicher's work has spelled an end to more than 150 years of denial by scholars . . . Oestreicher's work is considered to be solid. It's receiving increasing attention and acceptability in both native circles and scholarly circles. -- ethnohistorian Lawrence Hauptman, State University of New York at New Paltz and author of numerous seminal works on American Indians.
I am most impressed by the hard and imaginative research you have done. It sure looks like you have unmasked the hoax. -- James H. Madison, Chair, Department of History, Indiana University, and author of Eli Lilly: A Life, 1885-1977.
I have given it a thorough reading and I believe that you make your case. -- William N. Fenton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany, and acknowledged Dean of Iroquois studies.
I am absolutely overwhelmed by the thoroughness of your exposé. You effectively attack this work's authenticity from many different directions, any one of which would have convinced the most stubborn romantic . . . We owe you a great debt of gratitude for the finality with which you have disposed of all doubts! -- Raymond Whritenour, Lenape Language scholar and editor of Delaware-English Lexicon.
Oestreicher convincingly argues that the Walam Olum . . . is in fact a fraud composed by Constantine Rafinesque . . . Oestreicher's paper on this issue . . . is definitive, if correct. -- Hugh McCulloch, Ohio State University. Doug Weller (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
E.P. Grondine writes:
"If you have non-Lenape speakers trying to record utterances, you can expect mistakes, not perfection. Compare, for example "Nicotani" for Cherokee "Ani Kitani" in Mooney."
And, a similar result is produced by non-Lenape speakers trying to forge a hoax. Why is it, do you suppose, that Rafinesque, who said he made "a deep study of the Linapi" in order to "translate" the Walam Olum, never points out a single mistake in the text? Even the veriest tyro should be able to find many of these kinds of mistakes!
When I researched this in about the year 2000, I relied on Brinton's opinion, as Oestreicher's analysis had not gained much acceptance by that time.
Given the number of languages that R. worked with, I expect little more than an analysis by him at the morpheme level, working solely with written materials that he had at hand.
E.P. Grondine writes:
"If my memory serves (and since my stroke it sometimes does not), the term "Mediwiwin" was used in later Lenape records at Anderson, referring to the fact that Chief Anderson himself could not be mediwiwin, because of his mixed blood. But that may have been an Ojibwe borrowing by that time. Or perhaps it was "mediwi", without the /wak - I'd have to go back to Anderson to check."
As this is a side issue, which has no bearing on the authenticity of the Walam Olum, don't take any trouble checking it on my account.
Ah, but it isn't a side issue, anymore than whether or not Dr. Ward (not his full name, by the way) existed.
It goes to the question of why any Lenape would give the pictographic mnenonic aides to a European.
E.P. Grondine writes:
"Or did Heckwelder compose his list from a transcript of the Walam Olum? He only provided part of the migration tradition, did he not?"
The Lenape chiefs in this list of Heckewelder's are ALL figures from the historical period--most known from other sources, as well. To this list, Rafinesque added many other names, which he cobbled together from a list of placenames compiled by Heckewelder!
Unfortunately, O.'s article does not evidence that, but merely repeats his claim, as you do here. You are obviously certain about O.'s identifications with figures from the contact period; I'm not, at least not yet. I need to take a look at O.'s thesis, and check his readings there for myself, before I'll concede this.
You want to label R. as a fraud, fraud, FRAUD, although while nearly all of the Kentuckians around Rafinesque were killing the peoples, he was trying to preserve their memory. He did a lot more work than simply the WO, and he did that work in a hostile environment, always treating the peoples with respect.
Again there are details that R. could not have known of which are in the WO, the stockades being one, the plague being another. There are simply too many of these details for me to concede to O's analysis yet, at least as published in the NJ archaeological journal. At this point I would rather suspect that R. sought H.'s help, and that H. compiled his lists from the WO.
"Actually, a lot of people are denying the Lenape migration, and attack the Walam Olum because they think that was the only recording of the tradition of that migration; hence Kraft's sponsorship of Oestreicher's work."
I didn't say that some people aren't questioning the historicity of these migration stories. I said nobody denies that these migration stories were being told, by some Lenape people, in the 18th-century.
I see. You're giving us transcriptions for Lenape mediwi (mete/wak, by your informants pronouciations, whatever years those were taken), and claiming that the migration tradition was not held by them. How ingineous.
"The accounts of Heckewelder and Sutton of the migration tradition I repeated in my book 'Man and Impact in the Americas'."
Okay.
Thank you. I remind you again that the Lenape migration accounts are demonstrated by the rock hard evidence of the archaeological record.
"I set out above what in my opinion will have to be done before Rafinesque's activities will be fully understood, and provided some rough cost estimates of what it will take to do them."
Yes. I have no idea how you calculated those costs.
Based on experience.
"I would be most pleased to see the fragments of the Lenape migration tradition (history) assembled all together in one place."
They are. In Heckewelder's Indian Nations, together with his manuscript appendix, thereto, which is readily available from the American Philosophical Society; and, in that short account of Benjamin Sutton. There aren't any other known "fragments."
Nothing from the Big House, then?
I would like to see where O. claims R. lifted the opening passsages of the WO from.
"Excuse me, but what do you think the Lenape mediwiwin were reciting, of which we have two other accounts?" [/i]
First: I don't accept your contention that these migration legends were recited by Lenape metewak.
Yeah, I know. Unlike other Alqonquin, the Lenape had no history that was held by chosen and trained individuals, say a group called mete/wak.
And the archaeological evidence of their migration simply does not exist either.
How about this for a working hypothesis: You're giving us transcriptions for Lenape mediwi (mete/wak, by your informants pronouciations, whatever years those were taken), and claiming that the migration tradition was not held by them. Then relying on that, you deny Lenape migration, allowing archaeologists digging rights at sites which are not Lenape.
"My current thinking is that Chief Anderson turned the pictographs over to Dr. Ward when the Lenape were driven from Anderson, for which I seem to recall a date of 1820. The devastation by this point was pretty complete."
In the absence of any actual evidence of this, you're free to imagine whatever you like.
Ah, go back to the beginning of this thread, where most of it is laid. Or go to Anderson. Fly into Indianapolis, rent a car, pay for gas, mileage, motel, food...
"There are simply too many coincidences of detail confirmed by much later archaeological excavations to concede that R. simply fabricated the WO."
I find it interesting that you are seeing coincidences in the archaeological record which no modern archaeologist sees.
Uhhh, you're mistaken there. Do you watch tv? NOVA?
Much more interesting are the "coincidences of detail" between what is related in the Walam Olum and Rafinesques 1824 work, Ancient History, or Annals of Kentucky, where he sets forth his theories on the peopling of North America--ten years prior to his mention of the Walam Olum! How convenient the Walam Olum came along to corroborate his theories!
Yeah, what a strange theory R. held: people crossed from Asia into North America. I'll grant you that R. held his views for a long time, but still, producing the WO in one month would have been superhuman.
Again, O.'s claim is that R concocted it in one month, and that would have to have been superhuman.
"Would you see the wikipedia discussion of this as well? It is hard for me to type in again here what I typed in there."
I've read that. The most persuasive part of that is all the praise from scholars regarding David Oestreicher's exposure of Rafinesque's Walam Olum as a fraud.
It is a pretty good list. Once again, I'll need to take a close look at O.'s thesis before I'll cede this one, or even any points.
PS - It was damn difficult for me even to get hold of a copy of the NJ archaeology journal article.
"Another coincidence left out from that discussion is the mention in the Walam Olum of the Norse plagues ca. 1275 CE., which pretty much extincted the "Dorset" peoples."
That is your interpretation of what is being mentioned. In my opinion, it is no more possible to connect these two things than it is to find historical events in the writings of Nostradamus.
Not according to the Natchez.
"You expect me to accept that R. created the whole of it in one month, but I think that he was just thrown by the Lenape use of the historical present, and once he had that key..."
You lost me here. By my reading, Rafinesque had been cooking this thing up for more than a decade prior to publication.
My favorite part of Rafinesque's forgery is where he directly copies some words from the printed works of Zeisberger and Heckewelder--including typographical and typesetting errors in the words from those books! LOL!
Well, R. did claim to have studied Linape, and if he found any conflicts with his transcription, he probably would have adopted Z. and H.'s spellings.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Ed:
No point continuing this exchange. You've presented your case, but none of it makes sense, to me, so it's best we agree to disagree. After reading the views presented, I sincerely hope the powers that be, here, will transfer this thread to Frauds--in accordance with the current weight of scholarly opinion on this subject.
-
Ed:
No point continuing this exchange. You've presented your case,
No, I haven't really presented my case yet. I've just told you what's coming.
but none of it makes sense, to me,
Don't feel all alone. I'm used to people not understanding what I tell them.
For example, I passed on traditions of the Holocene Start Impacts in "Man and Impact in the Americas", and for a long time people could not accept the traditions I passed on. Often they were simply dismissed a myths or nonsense.
Among those traditions I passed on were Lenape traditions from the Walam Olum, so I have a particular interest in this. IF OESTREICHER CAN CONVINCE ME THAT RAFINESQUE MADE THEM ALL UP, THEN THEY"LL BE REMOVED.
ITS SIMPLY THAT HE HAS NOT DONE THAT YET.
so it's best we agree to disagree. After reading the views presented, I sincerely hope the powers that be, here, will transfer this thread to Frauds--in accordance with the current weight of scholarly opinion on this subject.
While its true we disagree, I would ask that they don't close this one off yet. "You're wrong, everyone agrees with me, I win, game over." - I don't think so.
Oestreicher has offered no explanation of how Rafinesque dreamed up the stockades at Cahokia, Angel Mounds, and elsewhere, some 130 years before they were discovered by excavation. I just managed to locate my briefcase with my copies from Anderson, Indiana, and I plan to check through them in the morning when I have good light, and post some hard citations here for you.
Personally I find it irritating that I can't remember the old Lenape word for medewiwin.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Ed:
No point continuing this exchange. You've presented your case, but none of it makes sense, to me, so it's best we agree to disagree. After reading the views presented, I sincerely hope the powers that be, here, will transfer this thread to Frauds--in accordance with the current weight of scholarly opinion on this subject.
Scholarly opinion has a tendency to drift over time; at one time it was thought by scholars that nonwhites were subhuman and the earth was flat. There is a long history of academics who have hidden or destroyed archeological evidence that did not support their pet theories. Is the Walum Olum real? I don't know. But I do not see a need to move this topic to Frauds....let the discussion continue among those who can add something.
-
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. Ostreicher gets pretty close to hysterical and unbalanced sometimes in his denunciations. 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. That, plus that the WO contradicts the BS Theory.
A few years ago I asked Bee Neidlinger, a Munsee woman and oldtime AIMster who runs the yahoo group Ancient Native Heritage. She thinks the WO is just one more different account, but it contradicts some of what she knows from Munsee traditions. There were old written records, but they were carved in trees themselves, not detached pieces of bark.
-
wolfhawaii writes:
"Scholarly opinion has a tendency to drift over time; at one time it was thought by scholars that nonwhites were subhuman and the earth was flat. There is a long history of academics who have hidden or destroyed archeological evidence that did not support their pet theories. Is the Walum Olum real? I don't know. But I do not see a need to move this topic to Frauds....let the discussion continue among those who can add something."
Please name those scholars, in the list of those who've commented on Oestreicher's work, who believe non-whites are subhuman, and those who believe the Earth is flat, and those who have hidden or destroyed archaeological evidence that did not support their pet theories. If you can't, you're point is irrelevant to this discussion. "At one time" is a phrase that can be employed to dredge up the insupportable beliefs of any people, at a particular time in their history. This argument is a red herring.
-
E.P. Grondine writes:
"Oestreicher has offered no explanation of how Rafinesque dreamed up the stockades at Cahokia, Angel Mounds, and elsewhere, some 130 years before they were discovered by excavation."
Huh? I can't find any mention of stockades, Cahokia or Angel Mounds in my copies of the Walam Olum. Please cite the reference.
-
Shkaakwus your right the WO is a fraud.
I would like to point to one bit of evidence,it comes from a book "RED EARTH WHITE LIES " by vine Deloria,jr. pages 72,73.what i am refering to is a doctor Thomas Lee [an anthropologist] of canada.preliminary evidence indicated the site might be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old.
The evidence not only conflicted with accepted doctrine,it would have made it necessary to revise estimates of the stages of North American glaciation.The scientific establishment went after Lee.He lost his position at the museum and some of his papers on the discovery were lost.
-
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."
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."
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."
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."
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!
-
Shkaakwus your right the WO is a fraud.
I would like to point to one bit of evidence,it comes from a book "RED EARTH WHITE LIES " by vine Deloria,jr. pages 72,73.what i am refering to is a doctor Thomas Lee [an anthropologist] of canada.preliminary evidence indicated the site might be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old.
The evidence not only conflicted with accepted doctrine,it would have made it necessary to revise estimates of the stages of North American glaciation.The scientific establishment went after Lee.He lost his position at the museum and some of his papers on the discovery were lost.
I guess this first sentence is either a mistake or sarcasm, since it doesn't jive with the rest of your post, which seems to be supporting the post of wolfhawaii. How do you know Dr. Thomas Lee's "evidence" was correct? Vine Deloria, Jr. was a very astute social commentator and I agree with a lot of what he had to say, such as his support for the 1/4 Indian BQ as a standard for recognition. A paleontologist he was not. He believed Indians hunted dinosaurs, which may caution us on equating oral traditions with history! But, again, this is drawing us far afield from the subject of this thread.
-
Nope it was not a mistake shkaakwus ,it is not sarcasm.I meant what I said
I knew a lenape man here in my area didn`t know him well but knew him well enough and just as important I knew his reputation as a highly respected lenape man .he had commented on the WO and said it wasn`t accurate.
the way I took wolfhawaii post was that he was making a general statement.
I don`t know that Dr. Lees evidence "was correct" but when some of his papers come up missing ,he gets fired,and if you would or could read further down pg 73 ,you would find out that he was black balled for 8 years he couldn`t get a job.he was attacked from both sides of the border.
in my mind he was on to something,more importantly he scared the shit out of them.so they put him in his place.
I am gratefull for all of your research that you have posted here.
-
bullhead:
Thanks for clarifying that!
-
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.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 may 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 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. 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?
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.
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.
That the Lenape had medewiwin and that they held a migration tradition using mnemonic aides is inescapable for me.
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.
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?
In closing, I ask that this topic be left in "Research Needed".
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
A further note on Oestreicher's biases:
"... I supposed that the Delaware had taken the names of historical chieftains and
superimposed them into an epic of a bygone era. Numerous examples of this phenomenon exist in oral traditions. A narrative told by the late Delaware elder Martha Ellis, for example, casts Tecumseh and Henry Hudson as contemporaries"
Oestreicher clearly does not differentiate between oral history remembered by an individual, and traditions held by a team of selected and well trained especially talented individuals using mnemonmic aids such as wampum or pictographs.
Aiee! If these ethnographers had of done their job better, it would have made my task much easier. I could have simply used the fragments of the medewak's tradition of the Lenape migration as preserved by Heckewelder and Sutton.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
And another catch: NJAS article, page 31: Oestreicher attributes Sutton's report of the medewak migration tradition to Beatty, while Beatty clearly stated that he got it from Sutton.
This is followed by the assertion that the tradition refers to Delaware migrations during the Beaver Wars.
And another: NJAS article, page 25: Heckewelder and Zeisberger both reported that the Lenape held deluge traditions
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
As Oestreicher points out, Rafinesque was pretty bizarre by modern standards, and most modern scholars worked with Brinton's translation, and that's what I did as well.
The major problems that I have with Oestreicher's analysis concern:
1) the Lenape mede/wak - whose existence and operation are well documented.
2) the Lenape migration, and Oestreicher's interpretation of it - I suppose I'll have to make this as easy as possible for you, and to give others a warning as well:
For a discussion of the appearance in eastern Wisconsin of Oneota culture, see Victoria Durst, The People of the Dunes, Whitefish Dunes State Park, 1993, p. 46-63. For a discussion of the appearance of Oneota culture at Redwing, see Clark A. Dobbs, Red Wing Archaeological Preserve, Goodhue-Pierce Archaeological Society Planning Committee, Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis, 1990, p. 7. For a discussion of the western Oneota culture appearance and distribution, see James L. Theler and Robert F. Boszhardt, Twelve Millenia, Archaeology of the Upper Mississippi River Valley, pages 152-155, particularly abandonment of effigy mounds, p. 155. In their book on The Gottschall Rockshelter, Robert J. Salzer and Grace Rajnovich cite cannibalism at Aztalan, citing Fred A, Finney and James B. Stohlman, The Fred Edwards Site, New Perspectives on Cahokia, Prehistory Press, Madison. One problem assigning this here to a climate collapse is Oneota occupancy at Aztalan, following on the Stirling phase occupancy at the site. For carbon dates at this site: Lynne Goldstine, Joan Freeman, Aztalan State Park, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1995 for group burials and stockade history.
For radio carbon dates for the stockade and later fall of Cahokia, see the literature. For the radio carbon dates for Angel Mounds, see the literature. For "Middle Fort Ancient" sites in this area, see the literature - but note that "Middle Fort Ancient" attacker and defender sites are seldom clearly delineated. In this regard note especially the Ana Lynn site on the Blue River in Indiana, rc 1170-1270 CE, for evidence of the Lenape flanking move around Cahokia ("Twakanhah" in Iroquois, "Towako" in the Walum Olum) and their recent defeat of a Mississippian people on the Ohio River.
For the east central areas of North America, the "Wellsburg" complex appears to be equivalent to Oneota. It goes by a yet another different name further east in far Western Maryland and central Pennsylvania...
Aside from the archaeological sequence given above, you have the Missasagua, Assinapi (Anishinaabe?), Mengwe (apparently Siouxian Monacans in this case), Towakon (Twakanhah, Cahokia), Tallegewi (Tchilagathawi), Talmatan ("Neutrals"), etc. all showing up exactly where they were in the WO. How could Rafinesque have guessed all of them correctly? Heckewelder didn't mention them.
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.
3) the Lenape deluge tradition - whose existence is independently attested to by Heckewelder and Zeisberger.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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,...
-
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!
-
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.]
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Hi Shkaakwas -
http://forum.americanindiantribe.com/viewtopic.php?t=285
Thank you for the URL. I will examine it
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').)
Yeah, well, speaking of coincidences I read Cyrus Gordon's work many years ago in which "proved" Linear A recorded a semitic language, and its now known to record Luwian. As Oestreicher consulted with Gordon, I still have my doubts.
And once again, perhaps you may wish to research the North American jaguar, which used to prey along the Ohio River.
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!
That depends on whether or not Lenape Medewak used Walam Olum proper to preserve the tradition given to Heckewelder, now doesn't it?
'First: Heckewelder's account is NOT the Walam Olum--which is the only thing under consideration as a fraud, in this thread!
The only thing under consideration is whether to leave this in Research Needed.
I think Research is Needed, for the reasons I've set out. I am not satisfied with Oestreicher's analysis yet, and have real problems with his "reconstructed" history of the first peoples.
Second: Heckewelder NEVER said he got this account from "medewak." That's your own guesswork!'
Excuse me, but I said I did not know. If Lenape practices mirrored other peoples, then the historical tradition may have been publicly recited once a year, so anyone may have been Heckewelder's informant. In this regard, I seem to recall records of the Big House ceremonies are under dispute as well.
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? Please don't tell me I have to come to Anderson to see them!
In your case that would be best.
Certainly if Oestreicher's thesis is available via Print on Demand, then an electronic file of it could be provided to me, or some generous person (or perhaps even Oestriecher himself or one of his close associates) could gift me with a copy of it.
I actually had to travel to Lexington to get a copy of the NJAS article.
I highly recommend the root beer place on the old bypass when you visit.
"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 highlighted it this time, since you missed it the first time around.
Not only do we not know that, we don't even know that any of his account ever originated with metewak.
"mede/wak", not "mete/wak"
I gave other European accounts of Lenape medewak over at the wikipedia discussion. Oestreicher's failure to track the location of them and the Big House [Council 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!
I am not satisfied with Oestriecher's analysis yet, for the reasons I've stated.
This thread is NOT about Heckewelder's account. It's about the Walam Olum.
Again, I suppose that depends on whether you think "Walam Olum" actually existed, or whether they were entirely Rafinesque's creation.
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!
I written messages here for several days pointing out my problems with accepting Oestreicher's analysis, and I've stated the reasons underlying my reluctance.
At a minimum, I think that Oestreicher 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.
As you yourself can see from the posts of others here, you're making assertions about their thoughts that are wrong.
I ask that this remain in Research Needed, for the reasons stated.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
This is turning into a joke. Sorry, Al. I brought my expertise to this subject in an effort to help folks identify one of the great hoaxes of all time, but, I guess it's falling on deaf ears. E. P. Grondine offers nothing but wild speculation and guesswork, in support of his pet theories concerning the movement of people across North America in pre-contact times. And, these speculative vaporings are given the same consideration as the facts I've provided. I wash my hands of the matter. People can judge for themselves. I highly recommend David Oestreicher's Ph.D. dissertation, The Anatomy of the Walam Olum: The Dissection of a 19th-Century Anthropological Hoax, for a complete understanding of this fraud. Put this thread wherever you like.
-
This is turning into a joke. Sorry, Al. I brought my expertise to this subject in an effort to help folks identify one of the great hoaxes of all time, but, I guess it's falling on deaf ears. E. P. Grondine offers nothing but wild speculation and guesswork, in support of his pet theories concerning the movement of people across North America in pre-contact times. And, these speculative vaporings are given the same consideration as the facts I've provided. I wash my hands of the matter. People can judge for themselves. I highly recommend David Oestreicher's Ph.D. dissertation, The Anatomy of the Walam Olum: The Dissection of a 19th-Century Anthropological Hoax, for a complete understanding of this fraud. Put this thread wherever you like.
Hi Shkaakwas -
We can hear you, Shkaakwas. But do you listen to others?
People can always judge for themselves. I am sure that educated indian and his colleagues welcome your permission for them to put this thread where they think it belongs. It is proper for you to recognize their right to do so.
Speaking of your allegations of wild speculation, speculative vaporing, pet theories, and guesswork: well, facts are facts.
I wrote much earlier about my opinion of Rafinesque's work and techniques in my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque", long before you started your strident demands that this thread be moved to Frauds.
As far as my opinion of Oestreicher's work and techniques goes, some thoughts came to me last night and were with me when I woke about 3:30 in the middle of the night, and they are proper to share.
Oestreicher and Kraft would have us believe that the Lenape came south so early that they forgot their own word for "cat", and then had to borrow a similar word from the Swedes. Their morphology of this will bear examining...
If we accept Oestreicher's reconstructed history of the Tallege/we as the Cherokee (ani tsulagi), we are left with the problem of how an ENTIRE SIOUXIAN SPEAKING PEOPLE, the MONACAN, ended up living in the eastern piedmont of Virginia at the time of European contact.
If however we identify the Lenape Tallege/we with the Shawnee Tchiliga/tha (modern pronunciation "Talega") division, and accept the rock hard FACTS of the archaeological record of the Lenape migration (rock hard facts, not speculation nor vapor) which I set out here, then we have a perfect explanation for how this entire Siouxian people, the Monocan, ended up living in the piedmont: they were the Mengwe spoken of in Heckewelder's fragment. In other words, the account preserved in Heckewelder's fragment, the archaeological record, and the European historical record all lock together.
Finally, the lack of respect for the Lenape mede/wak, their Council House, and oral tradition in Oestreicher's work as it now sits is simply unacceptable to me. I don't know how you others feel about it, but I am not entirely satisfied with Oestreicher's work as it now sits for the reasons I have stated, and I ask that this remain in Research Needed.
(Shkaakwas, this means you as well as me: research is needed. I hope you will understand why my research is likely to take me in the direction of locating the Lenape mede/wak through the conquest period, and trying to retrieve other fragments of their traditions from Heckewelder, rather than in other directions. I hope you will also understand why I am much more interested in Shawnee language and the Principal Narrative than in Lenape traditions.)
Finally, while most of Rafinesque's Kentucky neighbors were busy killing Native Americans and stealing their lands, and trying their best to remove all memory of them by destroying their remains, Rafinesque treated them honorably and tried his best to understand them and preserve their memory, and stood alone for many years while doing so, and we should remember this about him as well, alongside his faults.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Hi Ed! Rich here, I have some questions:
1.Where is the paleontological evidence that jaguars roamed as far as the Ohio valley?
2. Where is the Archaeological evidence that Cahokia was burnt. All evidence points that Cahokia failed due to over-extending it's resources.
3. The Eastern Proto-Siouian people lived from Pennsyvania ( Shenks Ferry Culture) to the Carolinas ( Pee Dee, Santee, etc.) Archaeological research points to them existing in the East since the Middle Archaic Period. That and linguistic evidence also points to a East-West migration for the Western Siouian. The Proto-Algonquians did not start moving in, in small groups, until the Terminal Archaic/ Early Woodland Periods. So how were the Monacan "driven to the East" and how are they "isolate"?
-
I've tried a dozen times to post my reply, here, but everytime I hit "post," I get this message:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /smf/index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.41 Server at newagefraud.org Port 80
And, yet, it allows me to post this!!! ???
-
Mr Grondine
the Mengwe are the Nottaway People{ Iroquoian speaking people.
-
Mr, Grondine
in your reply # 22 you state there were NO MOUND BUILDERS.
how do you explain the effigy mounds,in Iowa ,bear mounds,bird mounds,also other types of mounds.
wisconsin there were bird ,turtle,some type of big cat mound.and other
mounds
ohio there were 2 large serpant mounds,bear mound,bird,lizzard or alligator mounds.
i could bring up the mounds in Manitoba, North dakota, Indiana,Missouri,Minnesota,Kentucky,etc.there were 1000s and 1000s of mounds.
-
Mr Grondine
the Mengwe are the Nottaway People{ Iroquoian speaking people.
Mengwe was the Lenape term for the Iroquois but it was mainly applied to the Seneca and Mohawk. According to some scholars it signified the fact that they didn't circumcise.
-
Thanks for the correction Nanticokepiney the one source i have listed them as Iroquoian,and the other J.R.Swanton list`s them as Nottaway people
-
A bit off thread, but it goes to what I said in an earlier post about how "science" sometimes tries to ignore certain things that tends to weaken pet theories. Not having read the scientific criticism of the Walum Olum, I am not prepared to defend the WO as legitimate but I am interested in the discussion.
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/fachap.html
It reads in part:
In the 1960s, anthropologists uncovered advanced stone tools at Hueyatlaco, Mexico. Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre and other members of a U.S. Geological Survey team obtained an age of about 250,000 years for the sites implement-bearing layers. This challenged not only standard views of New World anthropology but also the whole standard picture of human origins. Humans capable of making the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago in Africa.
Virginia Steen-McIntyre experienced difficulty in getting her dating study on Hueyatlaco published. "The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco," she wrote to Estella Leopold, associate editor of Quaternary Research. "It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution has become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period."
-
wolfhawaii writes:
"A bit off thread, but it goes to what I said in an earlier post about how "science" sometimes tries to ignore certain things that tends to weaken pet theories."
What this article ignores is that the lead archaeologist, and discoverer of this site, Cynthia Irwin-Williams, criticized the dating methods used, and asked these geologists to emphasize, in their report, that an age of 250,000 years is essentially impossible! They failed to heed her advice. (Not that any of this has anything to do with the Walam Olum, but since I can't post my replies on that, I thought I'd attempt this one.)
-
Shkaakwus I can`t imagine your post on { W O } being delibrately blocked.I hope you will try to post it again.if you can`t get it posted maybe you could send it to some one who could try and post it for you.and see what happens.
-
No. It's not being done deliberately. It's some kind of technical snafu. I might try typing the whole thing (it's not too long), here, instead of doing a copy and paste of what I've written. We'll see.
-
Mr Grondine the Mengwe are the Nottaway People{ Iroquoian speaking people.
Hi bullhead -
As I have been told, "mengwe" is the general Lenape term for non-Lenape people.
In Brinton's translation of the Walam Olum, the Nanticokes are mentioned as the Lenape move up the Ohio River, but as Shkaakwas points out, the whole of it is questionable.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
"Mengwe" was a Lenape name for Iroquois people. It was never applied to any other people. (See Heckewelder, Indian Nations, pages xxiv and xlii; and, Brinton & Anthony, A Lenape-English Dictionary, p.81.)
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Oestreicher and Kraft would have us believe that the Lenape came south so early that they forgot their own word for "cat", and then had to borrow a similar word from the Swedes. Their morphology of this will bear examining..."
The leading Algonquianist and preeminent expert on Delaware, Dr. Ives Goddard, of the Smithosonian Institution, tells us that "po:shi:sh" (Munsee dialect) and "po:shi:s" (Unami dialect), meaning 'cat,' come from the Dutch words, 'poes' and 'poesje.' He says they cannot come from Proto-Algonquian, *peshiwa ('lynx'). /"Dutch Loanwords in Delaware," by Ives Goddard, in Kraft, H.C., ed., A Delaware Indian Symposium, Harrisburg, PA (1974), pp.156-7./
-
Hi Ed! Rich here, I have some questions:
Hi Rich!, Ed here, and I hope my answers will satisfy, or at point in good directions. My stroke interrupted the footnoting of my book that would make answering your questions easier.
1.Where is the paleontological evidence that jaguars roamed as far as the Ohio valley?
I do not recall that I have ever seen contact era jaguar mounted remains in any museum, but I did look up the colonists' accounts of these jaguars at Newark, Ohio, notes from which I posted on over at the paleoanthropology forum. They were a deadly threat to them that late. Grey with red markings, and quite a leap.
That's also where Tecumseh got his name from, if I remember correctly - Leaping, Springing, describing meteorites in flight.
2. Where is the Archaeological evidence that Cahokia was burnt? All evidence points that Cahokia failed due to over-extending it's resources.
I will have to cede (at least this afternoon) that I mistakenly recalled actual recovered burn evidence, but...
Note the appearance of Oneota at Cahokia:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/jeff/LewisClark2/TheBicentennial/Symposium2001/Papers/Iseminger_William.htm
The date of 1310 that I used in my book came from the visitor center, or from Lee Vick. (My stroke interfered with a dead on citation in MIIA, and its tough going through several feet of materials to try and relocate it now.)
For the Sand phase at Cahokia see Robert Hall, Cahokia Identity, Cahokia and the Hinterlands, pages 18- 25, especially page 25. RC charts are there as well.
And here's a nice site about Oneota at Angel Mounds:
http://www.indiana.edu/~archaeo/hovey/hl-ts.htm
The really best dated and diagnostic site I've seen for Oneota in that area is Ana Lyne, which I mentioned earlier in the discussion here along with its RC dates. 75% Oneota, 25% "mississippian" ceramics, RC 1170-1270, which I saw a presentation on last year.
In other words, the flanking movement from Heckewelder, from RC dates.
Please forgive me my slip on fire being used to broach the palisades.
3. The Eastern Proto-Siouian people lived from Pennsyvania (Shenks Ferry Culture) to the Carolinas (Pee Dee, Santee, etc.) Archaeological research points to them existing in the East since the Middle Archaic Period. That and linguistic evidence also points to a East-West migration for the Western Siouian.
Siouxian migration was certainly East-West from the Mississippi River and its tributaries during the contact period.
One problem with an earlier eastern Siouxian/western migration hypothesis is that the Cherokee remembered their battle with the Catawba when they first showed up. Of course, mt DNA A distribution abundantly demonstrates the problems with this hypothesis as well.
My guess is that your Shenk's Ferry site may be along the Cataba War Path, which headed from the south into Pennsylvania.
So how were the Monacan "driven to the East" and how are they "isolate"?
Its quite a way from the Monacans to the Catawba, and there are no records of alliance between the two peoples during contact and the conquest, to my knowledge. The Catawba War Path actually went up through Roanoke in Virginia, instead of through the Piedmont region, which would have occurred had the two Siouxian peoples been distantly related, in my opinion.
The Proto-Algonquians did not start moving in, in small groups, until the Terminal Archaic/ Early Woodland Periods.
My current estimate is that in the central regions (which are not the North East)
Algonquin migration may be set at the climate collapse of 536 CE. That accords with the appearance of Fort Ancient fortified sites, the distribution of Shawnee language, and with Shawnee tradition.
Once again, my apologies for mistakenly recalling actual recovered burn evidence of pallisade broaching, but...
We all are trying to figure out what occurred, and if we've been at this long enough we all know that we're capable of making mistakes. That's my best estimate; others will hold other opinions, and often have good reasons for doing so.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Mr, Grondine
in your reply # 22 you state there were NO MOUND BUILDERS.
how do you explain the effigy mounds,in Iowa ,bear mounds,bird mounds,also other types of mounds. wisconsin there were bird ,turtle,some type of big cat mound.and other mounds ohio there were 2 large serpant mounds,bear mound, bird, lizzard, or alligator mounds. i could bring up the mounds in Manitoba, North dakota, Indiana,Missouri,Minnesota,Kentucky,etc.there were 1000s and 1000s of mounds.
Hi bullhead -
Among the nuage fringe, they speak of THE MOUND BUILDERS as though they were one superior people. A lot of this goes back to Rafinesque, as Oestreicher pointed out in his essay. This bit of nonsense then went through Augustus Le Plongeon, and through him on to the nuagers of today.
In truth, many different peoples used earth as a construction material for many different types of structures at different times: for palace foundations, temple foundations, burial vaults, astronomical observatories, fort walls, commemorative structures, dance grounds, ball courts, irrigation works, etc.
Today's mounds are the remains of their works. They simply weren't piling up dirt for no purpose.
For one example, those effigy mounds n the Wisconsin area which you mention appear to have been clan meeting places for the clans of the Ho Chunk.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
I did look up the colonists' accounts of these jaguars at Newark, Ohio, notes from which I posted on over at the paleoanthropology forum. They were a deadly threat to them that late. Grey with red markings, and quite a leap.
I would like to see this account. Is it published somewhere?
One problem with an earlier eastern Siouxian/western migration hypothesis is that the Cherokee remembered their battle with the Catawba when they first showed up. Of course, mt DNA A distribution abundantly demonstrates the problems with this hypothesis as well.
The Cherokee migrated into the Southeast during the Late Woodland and encountered the Siouian People already residing there.
My guess is that your Shenk's Ferry site may be along the Cataba War Path, which headed from the south into Pennsylvania.
The Shenk's Ferry Culture evolved in situ on the Susquehanna River ( see: Jay Custer)
My current estimate is that in the central regions (which are not the North East)
Algonquin migration may be set at the climate collapse of 536 CE. That accords with the appearance of Fort Ancient fortified sites, the distribution of Shawnee language, and with Shawnee tradition.
Making them and the other Southeastern Algonquians the Middlesex-Adena Culture.
I would recommend you research the Chowan or Chowanac of South Carolina. You'll see some interesting connections.
-
Mr.Grondine
I don`t know which is the worst ,you for saying there are NO MOUND BUILDERS or those nuage people you say look at them as "one superior people ".they are just aboriginal people and mound building was part of there Culture.
if you follow the siouan migration out of the ohio valley to the north north west you find mounds.mounds date all the way back to the indian knoll people ,it`s a pretty well established part of there culture.
I don`t know about clan meeting place? I think your wrong .I believe they were built to show respect for there Helpers.here is an example of why i say that "the bear was considered sacred to all of these aboriginal people not just the bear clan people ".I could be wrong.
But I know you are wrong when you say there are NO mound builders
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"If however we identify the Lenape Tallege/we with the Shawnee Tchiliga/tha (modern pronunciation "Talega") division..."
Ed: You give what you say is the "modern pronunciation" ("Talega") of Tchiliga/tha, because that looks much more like Tallege/we; but, even if this is the "modern pronunciation," it is irrelevant. It clearly was not pronounced this way, in the past, or the Ohio city would have been called "Talega," instead of "Chillicothe"--which looks a lot less like Tallege/we! What's more, no Lenape speaker, nor Moravian missionary would have any trouble pronouncing the Shawnee name, correctly.
-
Hi Rich,
I would like to see this account. Is it published somewhere?
Not to my knowledge. I stumbled across the account of the jaguars I read while in Newark reading colonial accounts as I traced the route from Marietta (Kishpoko seat) to Newark.
I don't know of any comprehensive paper that's ever been done on the North American jaguar along the Ohio River; for that matter even the eastern bison is not comprehensively documented anywhere to my knowledge, and that is a major fauna. Only bits and pieces here and there.
The Cherokee migrated into the Southeast during the Late Woodland and encountered the Siouian People already residing there.
The Cherokee migrated into the Qualla lands after they were depopulated by the Bald Mountains impact. The published dates now for Pisgah are around 850 CE, dates which were not available when I wrote my book.
The nearby people in NC were Iroquoian, with some Savanah River descendants over towards Watseka.
The Shenk's Ferry Culture evolved in situ on the Susquehanna River ( see: Jay Custer)
I assume that the Siouxian identification would have been from the contact period, so my first estimate would be that the people at this site offered refuge to either Monacan or Catawba survivors who were fleeing colonists.
I would recommend you research the Chowan or Chowanac of South Carolina. You'll see some interesting connections.
I hope I get a chance to someday.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Mr.Grondine
I don`t know which is the worst ,you for saying there are NO MOUND BUILDERS or those nuage people you say look at them as "one superior people ".they are just aboriginal people and mound building was part of there Culture.
if you follow the siouan migration out of the ohio valley to the north north west you find mounds.mounds date all the way back to the indian knoll people ,it`s a pretty well established part of there culture.
I don`t know about clan meeting place? I think your wrong .I believe they were built to show respect for there Helpers.here is an example of why i say that "the bear was considered sacred to all of these aboriginal people not just the bear clan people ".I could be wrong.
But I know you are wrong when you say there are NO mound builders
Hi Bullhead,
Thanks for mentioning the helpers; the anthropologists call the people who relied on a helper a "clan".
No one built mounds. The mounds of today are the remains of earth structures from thousands of years ago, and many peoples used dirt as a building material, not just Sioux alone.
Ed
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"If however we identify the Lenape Tallege/we with the Shawnee Tchiliga/tha (modern pronunciation "Talega") division..."
Ed: You give what you say is the "modern pronunciation" ("Talega") of Tchiliga/tha, because that looks much more like Tallege/we; but, even if this is the "modern pronunciation," it is irrelevant. It clearly was not pronounced this way, in the past, or the Ohio city would have been called "Talega," instead of "Chillicothe"--which looks a lot less like Tallege/we! What's more, no Lenape speaker, nor Moravian missionary would have any trouble pronouncing the Shawnee name, correctly.
Hi shkaakwas -
And one might think that the Lenape would not have had any problem coming up with a word closer to "tsulagi" for the Cherokee.
E.P.
-
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.
-
I am confused. What about the mounds at Moundville Ala? Evidence indicates that they were used as both burial and as worship centers. "LittleOldMan"
-
I believe E. P. Grondine is taking exception to the use of the word, "mounds," to describe these various structures. He's not denying their existence!
-
The North Carolina people were the Siouian Eno, Waccamaw Sugaree, and Woccon inland. The Iroquoian Nottaway, Meherrin and Tuscarora in the middle and Algonquians on the Coast.
What is the "Bald Mountain Impact"?
Not to my knowledge. I stumbled across the account of the jaguars I read while in Newark reading colonial accounts as I traced the route from Marietta (Kishpoko seat) to Newark.
I don't know of any comprehensive paper that's ever been done on the North American jaguar along the Ohio River; for that matter even the eastern bison is not comprehensively documented anywhere to my knowledge, and that is a major fauna. Only bits and pieces here and there.
There is a lot of remains ( bones, teeth) of the eastern bison in various archaeological collections. There is no remains of the jaguar.
I assume that the Siouxian identification would have been from the contact period, so my first estimate would be that the people at this site offered refuge to either Monacan or Catawba survivors who were fleeing colonists.
The culture was wiped out by European diseases carried inland before English settlement on the East Coast. The survivors were absorbed by the Susquehanna. They were identified through the remains of religious structures in archaeological contexts.
-
I believe E. P. Grondine is taking exception to the use of the word, "mounds," to describe these various structures. He's not denying their existence!
Hi Little Old Man,
Thanks, shkaakwas. That's pretty much it. The "mounds" are what remains of the earth structures the different peoples built, such as those Little Old Man speaks of at Moundsville. This confuses a lot of people.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
The North Carolina people were the Siouian Eno, Waccamaw Sugaree, and Woccon inland.
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.
Again, the Cherokee remembered when the Siouxian peoples showed up, and their battle with them.
So what you have at European contact is two siouxian groups, Monacan in the north, and the group in the south.
What is the "Bald Mountain Impact"?
It appears to have been a Tunguska-class impact event.
There is a lot of remains ( bones, teeth) of the eastern bison in various archaeological collections. There are no remains of the jaguar.
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:
http://www.richwooders.com/appalachian/wildlife/cougar.htm
again, their coloring was different, as was their hunting methods.
returning to your site in Pennsylvania,
The culture was wiped out by European diseases carried inland before English settlement on the East Coast.
Then you're possibly looking at the Spanish plague ca. 1536 or so.
The survivors were absorbed by the Susquehanna. They were identified through the remains of religious structures in archaeological contexts.
I would take another look at the diagnostics. What cultural artifacts indicated they were a Siouxian people?
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!)
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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..............
-
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."
:D
-
"Their Youth is never troubled with severe Pedagogues to whip their senses away, for they are entirely unacquainted with letter or figures. The little knowledge they have of past times is handed to them by hieroglyphics or tradition, subject to numberless errors and misrepresentations."
The reporter Cresswell was living with Nancy, a young Lenape woman, and spending many hours in the Council House. The "numberless errors and misrepresentations" are his opinions of Lenape traditions, and should be understood in that light.
As for Rafinesque's character, please remember the following. I could grant that Rafinesque authored the final stanzas that Brinton did not publish, but note what he recited in them: the evils and betrayals visited upon the Lenape by the European colonists.
And as for those, there was nothing fictional about them.
Again, if Rafinesque wrote this entire, he did it alone while entirely surrounded by people who were killing Native Americans and considered them sub-human.
Rafinesque was a far more interesting and complex person than Oestreicher would have us believe.
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Their Youth is never troubled with severe Pedagogues to whip their senses away, for they are entirely unacquainted with letter or figures. The little knowledge they have of past times is handed to them by hieroglyphics or tradition, subject to numberless errors and misrepresentations."
"The reporter Cresswell was living with Nancy, a young Lenape woman, and spending many hours in the Council House. The "numberless errors and misrepresentations" are his opinions of Lenape traditions, and should be understood in that light."
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with picking quotations out-of-context. We know, exactly, what Cresswell meant by this statement, because earlier, in his journal, he wrote: "Saturday, September 2nd, 1775. Got to White-Eye's Town to breakfast. Saw the Indian Warmarks made by Captn. Wingimund, a Dellawar Warrior which Mr. Anderson and Capt. White-Eyes explained to me. These hieroglyphic marks are the history of his whole warfare." These so-called "hieroglyphic marks" recounted no deeper "history" than that of a few years earlier! And, Cresswell copied these "hieroglyphic marks" in his journal. They include a turtle, the Sun, a fort, a river, men, and women. NONE of them look anything like the pictographs of the Walam Olum which represent these same things. (This is also true of one other example of Delaware pictographic writing that we possess.) And, just like Sutton's account (when Beatty's entire journal is read, instead of picking out a few sentences), this is shown to refer to late post-contact events.
"As for Rafinesque's character, please remember the following. I could grant that Rafinesque authored the final stanzas that Brinton did not publish, but note what he recited in them: the evils and betrayals visited upon the Lenape by the European colonists. And as for those, there was nothing fictional about them."
Irrelevant. Heckewelder's Indian Nations was published in 1819, and he had already gone into the evils of the whites, in much greater detail than Rafinesque ever did--and Rafinesque had access to Heckewelder's book.
"Again, if Rafinesque wrote this entire, he did it alone while entirely surrounded by people who were killing Native Americans and considered them sub-human."
It wouldn't have been much of a hoax if he had written it from a prejudiced Euro-centric viewpoint!
"Rafinesque was a far more interesting and complex person than Oestreicher would have us believe."
No one has gone into the complexity of Rafinesque's character in greater length than Oestreicher. Of course, you would have to have read what Oestreicher has written about him to know this.
-
Mr.Grondine
you are right about the Occaneechi seeking refuge with other siouan tribes after bacon`s rebellion in may of 1676,i think thats what your talking about?
in your #126 reply you state that the Occaneechi people are ethnically distinct
from siouan people .can you tell me how you came to that conclusion?what evidence do you have?
here are a couple of links some of you might find interesting.
http://www.ibiblio.net/dig/html/excavations/slid_bag.html
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/tutelohist.htm
there are some interesting people on the one site ,Hale,Mooney,Lawson,etc.
what about Swanton he has them listed as Siouan People.
-
"The little knowledge they have of past times is handed to them by hieroglyphics or tradition, subject to numberless errors and misrepresentations."
The reporter Cresswell was living with Nancy, a young Lenape woman, and spending many hours in the Council House. The "numberless errors and misrepresentations" are his opinions of Lenape traditions, and should be understood in that light.
"Saw the Indian Warmarks made by Captn. Wingimund, a Dellawar Warrior which Mr. Anderson and Capt. White-Eyes explained to me. These hieroglyphic marks are the history of his [Wingimund's] whole warfare."
knowledge they have of past times/the history of his [Wingimund's] whole warfare.
Notice any difference? To me, this is a perfect example of what's wrong with Oestreicher's analysis. It seems to be not visible to you.
"As for Rafinesque's character, please remember the following. I could grant that Rafinesque authored the final stanzas that Brinton did not publish, but note what he recited in them: the evils and betrayals visited upon the Lenape by the European colonists. And as for those, there was nothing fictional about them."
Irrelevant.
"Rafinesque was a far more interesting and complex person than Oestreicher would have us believe."
No one has gone into the complexity of Rafinesque's character in greater length than Oestreicher. Of course, you would have to have read what Oestreicher has written about him to know this.
I don't know, you read Oestreicher's thesis, but you simply either ignore evidence of problems with it, or try to handwave them away as irrelevant.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Hi Bulhead -
Thanks for the links. But Swanton was sometimes wrong, particularly in his understanding of the relationship between Mushkogean and "Mississippian" peoples.
Mr.Grondine
you are right about the Occaneechi seeking refuge with other siouan tribes after bacon`s rebellion in may of 1676,i think thats what your talking about?
Yes. Since my stroke I have a rough time remembering the dates. The account I used of "Bacon's Rebellion" at the time of Man and Impact in the Americas came from Century magazine, and was definitive.
in your #126 reply you state that the Occaneechi people are ethnically distinct from siouan people .can you tell me how you came to that conclusion? what evidence do you have?
The ethnographic information on the Ocanachee which I read in 2007 in came from a book on the Roanoke colony, wherein the author had assembled first hand accounts of Ocanachee appearance. I believe its the volume I gave Rich the link to.
I wish I could be of more help.
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"knowledge they have of past times/the history of his [Wingimund's] whole warfare.
Notice any difference?
No. The first is a general statement and the second is the ONLY specific example Cresswell provided of that general statement. He didn't give any examples from 2,000 B.C., 1,000 B.C., 100 A.D., or even 1700 A.D. His one example of recording "past times" with "hieroglyphics" was no more than 20 years earlier.
David Zeisberger lived with the Delaware Indians for nearly fifty years, was adopted by the Munsee, and served on the Grand Council of the Delaware Nation. He recorded much that we know about the Lenape religion and ceremonies of that period of history. He never mentioned anything like what you're trying to read into this statement of a man who lived with the Delaware for a matter of weeks, in order to justify the forged linguistic nonsense of a man who NEVER lived with the Delaware. And, as I said, Fliegel combed the entire corpus of Moravian missionary writings, and found NOTHING about any Walam Olum.
-
What a fortunate stroke of luck. I located the first report of Dr. Ward (Cook)
in Pendleton, ca. 1825: The Pioneer, compiled by Samuel Hardin of Anderson Indiana, Greenfield, Indiana, 1895, pg 250.
Unfortunately, most of my mede materials still remain misplaced. That being the case, Shkaakwus, since you refuse to accept the existence of Lenape medewak, let me suggest a visit to Anderson to verify it for yourself. Perhaps it was meant to be. Moving on...
David Zeisberger lived with the Delaware Indians for nearly fifty years, was adopted by the Munsee, and served on the Grand Council of the Delaware Nation. He recorded much that we know about the Lenape religion and ceremonies of that period of history. He never mentioned anything like what you're trying to read into this statement of a man who lived with the Delaware for a matter of weeks, in order to justify the forged linguistic nonsense of a man who NEVER lived with the Delaware. And, as I said, Fliegel combed the entire corpus of Moravian missionary writings, and found NOTHING about any Walam Olum.
While the Moravians were good people, they were missionaries. I think you could comb the entire corpus of Spanish missionary writings and learn very little of Hopi, Navajo, Zuni, or Teja traditions and religion. I think the same might hold
the French pretes and Ojibwe mediwiwin.
We know what happened when the Maya showed the Spanish priests their books... and so did many peoples in the north, and at a very early date at that. It's in my book...
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
The fact that you found a reference to "Dr. Ward Cook" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, show that he is Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward"!
I have no idea what you mean by saying that I "refuse to accept the existence of Lenape medewak." I'm the one who taught you what the correct word for them is!
Your remark about the Moravians is just a sad, last-ditch attempt to make your theory work. It's time to let it go.
-
The fact that you found a reference to "Dr. Ward Cook" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, show that he is Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward"!
Actually, it was "Dr. Ward" in that last reference I cited. It is my inference that he used his first name to avoid confusion with another Pendleton Cook who was also a doctor.
I have no idea what you mean by saying that I "refuse to accept the existence of Lenape medewak." I'm the one who taught you what the correct word for them is!
The Anderson records mentioned "mede", not "mete", as you would have it. But they were written by English speakers, so...
Your remark about the Moravians is just a sad, last-ditch attempt to make your theory work. It's time to let it go.
I tried to let this go back months ago with my post "Reconstructing Rafinesque".
I have stated the reasons why in my opinion this topic needs to remain in Research Needed.
Educated Indian and the other moderators have shared their opinions as well.
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Actually, it was "Dr. Ward" in that last reference I cited. It is my inference that he used his first name to avoid confusion with another Pendleton Cook who was also a doctor."
Whatever. You have produced ZERO evidence that this guy is Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward."
"The Anderson records mentioned "mede", not "mete", as you would have it. But they were written by English speakers, so..."
In Lenape, consonants appearing after a vowel are not voiced--no matter what letters are used to write them. Hence, "medewak" is pronounced as "metewak." Besides which, you were calling them "medewiwin."
"I tried to let this go back months ago with my post "Reconstructing Rafinesque". I have stated the reasons why in my opinion this topic needs to remain in Research Needed. Educated Indian and the other moderators have shared their opinions as well."
Sadly, yes.
-
Mr.Grondine
In my opinion you have not Justified to me why this should not be in the fraud section. this seems to me that it is all about you and your book?
the correct spelling is Mide or Midewiwin
-
Mr.Grondine
In my opinion you have not Justified to me why this should not be in the fraud section.
I've stated the reasons why in my opinion research is still needed, and the problems I have accepting Oestreicher's analysis. I think Educated Indian in his earlier post summarized well the thinking of others with similar views.
this seems to me that it is all about you and your book?
NO.
Originally I had intended to write 3 books "Man and Impact in the Americas", "Man and Impact in the Ancient Near East", and "Man and Impact in Europe".
Fearing the nationalist and religious problems I would encounter with "Man and Impact in the Ancient Near East", I decided to do "Man and Impact in the Americas" first. (There's a good joke) At the time, one wrote old world history and sold it, and I thought that one could sell traditions. Hooo boy... (Second good joke.)
Originally, my book was simply going to be a collection of impact accounts from traditions and the archaeological/geological record. After reading David Cusick's "Sketches of the Ancient History of the Six Nations", I realized I had a very reliable tradition; further, I realized that none of the other traditions which I was quoting from were easily available, and it came to me that I should do what I could to correct this.
I also knew that there were young Sioux fluent in their language and traditions, and recovering their memories of the impact events would be their work. The same holds for the peoples on the west coast. The Hopi, Navajo, and Zuni elders will share that part of what they remember of the comet and asteroid impacts when they think it is proper. So that was not my work either.
(I have found an young Arapaho fellow to work through their traditions, and I believe I have located the Oglala to work through their part of Siouxian traditions. That leaves Dakota and Lakota yet to be found, as well as some for the North east, which problem Rich knows about.)
Now at the time I worked through the Walam Olum, the year 2000, Oestreicher's analysis was not widely known. I trusted Brinton's opinion, but did read one short paragraph dismissing of Oestreicher's analysis, and pursued it no further. As I pointed out above, the Walam Olum and the archaeological record lock, so I had no reason to suspect the extent of Rafinesque's "palingeny" (reconstruction) at the time of my book in 2004.
I knew he was strange, having read some of his other works, but again, given the environment he worked in and the hostility he encountered for treating the peoples and their remains with respect, I still liked him, especially in comparison with some of the genocidal and delusional people operating around him.
NOTE THAT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ALL OF THE PERSONAL NAMES ARE RAFINESQUE'S "RECONSTRUCTIONS", THAT STILL LEAVES EVERY OTHER LINE UNACCOUNTED FOR, AS WELL AS DR. WARD OF PENDLETON, AND THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EVENTS FROM ABOUT 1000 AD ON. TOO MANY TOPONYMS AND ETHNONYMS ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
So one of my bottom lines is that I think that Oestreicher has missed a source or sources that Rarinesque used, and the Lenape and all of us deserve to have that portion searched for exhaustively. I would like to see graduate students working through Rafinesque and the Lenape material for many years to come. I want that research to be done, which is why I would like to see this left in Research Needed.
My other bottom line, and far more important than my book, is Oestreicher's refusal to admit that the "Hopewell" remains in Ohio are Shawnee, and that goes gut deep. They're not Lenape, they're not Siouxian, they're not Wendat, they're Shawnee/ Cherokee (Tsulagi). As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather be spending my time with the Shawnee Principle Narrative than dealing with this further. I hoped to leave this matter with my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque".
the correct spelling is Mide or Midewiwin
Among Ojibwe, but not Lenape. Please keep in mind that I was trying to recall with stroke damage what I had read at Anderson, which was recorded by English writers at that.
Note that in Lenape the Ojibwe "wi" is "wak", and in Shawnee "we" or "wi". Locatives in Shawnee are compounds with "the" (pronounced "tha").
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Now at the time I worked through the Walam Olum, the year 2000, Oestreicher's analysis was not widely known."
Oestreicher's first article, "Unmasking the Walam Olum: A 19th Century Hoax," was published in the 1994 Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey. His second article, "Text out of Context: The Arguments that Created and Sustained the Walam Olum," was published in the 1995 Bulletin of the ASNJ. His 1995 doctoral dissertation, The Anatomy of the Walam Olum: The Dissection of a 19th-Century Anthropological Hoax, became widely available through Pro-Quest UMI Dissertation Service, in 1996.
"I trusted Brinton's opinion, but did read one short paragraph dismissing of Oestreicher's analysis, and pursued it no further."
Since Brinton was incapable of translating Lenape, correctly (as I pointed out in a link provided previously), trusting his opinion was your first irreparable error. Ignoring Oestreicher's analysis was your second great mistake.
"As I pointed out above, the Walam Olum and the archaeological record lock,"
Saying this, again and again, does not make it true. The only thing that "locks" is your interpretation of Brinton's linguistically impossible translation of a forgery written in made-up Lenape and your interpretation of the archaeological record.
"so I had no reason to suspect the extent of Rafinesque's "palingeny" (reconstruction) at the time of my book in 2004."
Rafinesque's "reconstruction" was NOT of some existing Lenape document. It amounted to the mixing and matching of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese ku-wen characters and Ojibway glyphs (from Tanner), with a few others, so that he could "construct" a text that would conform to his own theory of world history.
"NOTE THAT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ALL OF THE PERSONAL NAMES ARE RAFINESQUE'S "RECONSTRUCTIONS", THAT STILL LEAVES EVERY OTHER LINE UNACCOUNTED FOR,"
No. Every Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum was "reconstructed" from words Rafinesque found in the works of Zeisberger and Heckewelder. There is NO Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum whose "parts" can't be found in the Moravian works. Oestreicher accounts for many lines other than those with personal names!
"AS WELL AS DR. WARD OF PENDLETON,"
The only Ward Cook, "physician," of Pendleton, Indiana, that I can find in the census, was born in 1809, in Virginia, and was still living in Pendleton, in 1880. Rafinesque calls his supposed benefactor, "the late Dr. Ward," in 1836!
"AND THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EVENTS FROM ABOUT 1000 AD ON. TOO MANY TOPONYMS AND ETHNONYMS ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE."
Only by employing a method of interpretation that violates all known linguistic rules.
"So one of my bottom lines is that I think that Oestreicher has missed a source or sources that Rarinesque used,"
Not so. The source you seek was Rafinesque's imagination.
"and the Lenape and all of us deserve to have that portion searched for exhaustively."
There are no more sources to search. This has already been done.
"I would like to see graduate students working through Rafinesque and the Lenape material for many years to come."
That would be an enormous waste of time and talent.
"I want that research to be done, which is why I would like to see this left in Research Needed."
And, I would like to see it put in Frauds, since all the necessary research has already been done.
"My other bottom line, and far more important than my book, is Oestreicher's refusal to admit that the "Hopewell" remains in Ohio are Shawnee, and that goes gut deep. They're not Lenape, they're not Siouxian, they're not Wendat, they're Shawnee/ Cherokee (Tsulagi). As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather be spending my time with the Shawnee Principle Narrative than dealing with this further. I hoped to leave this matter with my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque"."
This is just crazy. Oestreicher takes NO position on who built the mounds in Ohio! He clearly states he doesn't know who built them. He can't "admit" something he doesn't know!
"Note that in Lenape the Ojibwe "wi" is "wak", and in Shawnee "we" or "wi"."
No. Ojibwe "-wi" is just "-w" in Lenape. "-ak" is a plural suffix.
-
Fearing the nationalist and religious problems I would encounter with "Man and Impact in the Ancient Near East"
Telling Muslims the Kaballa was worshipped by them as the stone of Kybele when they were still pagan and a meteor would cause some distress. :-X :o
-
"Now at the time I worked through the Walam Olum, the year 2000, Oestreicher's analysis was not widely known."
Oestreicher's first article, "Unmasking the Walam Olum: A 19th Century Hoax," was published in the 1994 Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey. His second article, "Text out of Context: The Arguments that Created and Sustained the Walam Olum," was published in the 1995 Bulletin of the ASNJ. His 1995 doctoral dissertation, The Anatomy of the Walam Olum: The Dissection of a 19th-Century Anthropological Hoax, became widely available through Pro-Quest UMI Dissertation Service, in 1996.
I was working in the Library of Congress main reading room, and did not hit it. That's the fact.
"I trusted Brinton's opinion, but did read one short paragraph dismissing of Oestreicher's analysis, and pursued it no further."
Since Brinton was incapable of translating Lenape, correctly (as I pointed out in a link provided previously), trusting his opinion was your first irreparable error. Ignoring Oestreicher's analysis was your second great mistake.
Again, I did not ignore Oestreicher's analysis. It's simply that I had no knowledge of it, excerpt for a short passage of dismissal. Besides Brinton, I knew of the Vogelins' work.
"As I pointed out above, the Walam Olum and the archaeological record lock,"
Saying this, again and again, does not make it true. The only thing that "locks" is your interpretation of Brinton's linguistically impossible translation of a forgery written in made-up Lenape and your interpretation of the archaeological record.
And saying it isn't true does not make it not true. I've presented the archaeological evidence and testomonies which lead me to conclude that Oestreicher has missed at least one of Rafinesque's sources, and perhaps several.
"so I had no reason to suspect the extent of Rafinesque's "palingeny" (reconstruction) at the time of my book in 2004."
Rafinesque's "reconstruction" was NOT of some existing Lenape document. It amounted to the mixing and matching of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese ku-wen characters and Ojibway glyphs (from Tanner), with a few others, so that he could "construct" a text that would conform to his own theory of world history.
Yes, Rafinesque was trying to build a coherent world history, and as I stated in my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque" would have tried to have fit whqatever he had into that world view.
In my case, I attempted to use physically evidenced impact events, climatic shifts and population movements to sort it out.
NOTE THAT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ALL OF THE PERSONAL NAMES ARE RAFINESQUE'S RECONSTRUCTIONS", THAT STILL LEAVES EVERY OTHER LINE UNACCOUNTED FOR,
No. Every Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum was "reconstructed" from words Rafinesque found in the works of Zeisberger and Heckewelder. There is NO Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum whose "parts" can't be found in the Moravian works. Oestreicher accounts for many lines other than those with personal names!
Let's see, Rafinesque's work uses Lenape vocabulary attested in other sources, so he had to have stolen all of it from them?
"Many lines" is not all of them, so will you concede that researdh is needed?
"AS WELL AS DR. WARD OF PENDLETON,"
The only Ward Cook, "physician," of Pendleton, Indiana, that I can find in the census, was born in 1809, in Virginia, and was still living in Pendleton, in 1880. Rafinesque calls his supposed benefactor, "the late Dr. Ward," in 1836!
Thanks for the info, clearly Ward Cook is not Ward, a bad guess on my part.
Ward is in Pendleton by 1825. 1825-1809= 16 = too young.
AND THE ENTIRE COURSE OF EVENTS FROM ABOUT 1000 AD ON. TOO MANY TOPONYMS AND ETHNONYMS ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
Only by employing a method of interpretation that violates all known linguistic rules.
I don't think so.
"So one of my bottom lines is that I think that Oestreicher has missed a source or sources that Rafinesque used," ]
Not so. The source you seek was Rafinesque's imagination.
and the Lenape and all of us deserve to have that portion searched for exhaustively.
There are no more sources to search. This has already been done.
You and I disagree.
"I would like to see graduate students working through Rafinesque and the Lenape material for many years to come."
That would be an enormous waste of time and talent.
I think it will be good exercise.
"I want that research to be done, which is why I would like to see this left in Research Needed."
And, I would like to see it put in Frauds, since all the necessary research has already been done.
My other bottom line, and far more important than my book, is Oestreicher's refusal to admit that the "Hopewell" remains in Ohio are Shawnee, and that goes gut deep. They're not Lenape, they're not Siouxian, they're not Wendat, they're Shawnee/ Cherokee (Tsulagi). As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather be spending my time with the Shawnee Principle Narrative than dealing with this further. I hoped to leave this matter with my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque".
This is just crazy. Oestreicher takes NO position on who built the mounds in Ohio! He clearly states he doesn't know who built them. He can't "admit" something he doesn't know!
Yes he did, and I pointed it out to you. We'll have to differ. I differ with Barbara Mann as well.
"Note that in Lenape the Ojibwe "wi" is "wak", and in Shawnee "we" or "wi"."
No. Ojibwe "-wi" is just "-w" in Lenape. "-ak" is a plural suffix.
Case in point:
Me(i)de/wiwin (emphatic? or mede+wi+wi)
Mede/wak
you gave meteu elsewhere, did you not?
Michi Bichi (Miami) is cognate with M'sse piase, which is cognate with Lenape
"poesi", not Swedish/English "pussy".
It is interesting to note the Creator is male in Miami, but female in Shawnee, a significant shift.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I simply agree with those who want this left in "Research Needed".
If you learn anything more, please share. I am capable of changing my mind.
[/quote]
-
If you read a dismissal of Oestreicher's work, you can't say you didn't know it existed. You should have looked for it. It wouldn't have been difficult to find. The copyright was 1995. You can't register a copyright and get an ISBN or ISSN without providing the Library of Congress with more than one copy of the book or periodical. You were there in 2000. If, for whatever reason, they didn't have the dissertation or articles, they were easily obtainable elsewhere.
Shkaakwus wrote:
Rafinesque's "reconstruction" was NOT of some existing Lenape document. It amounted to the mixing and matching of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese ku-wen characters and Ojibway glyphs (from Tanner), with a few others, so that he could "construct" a text that would conform to his own theory of world history.
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Yes, Rafinesque was trying to build a coherent world history, and as I stated in my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque" would have tried to have fit whqatever he had into that world view."
Shkaakwus replies:
This is an admission that Rafinesque was a forger and the Walam Olum is a hoax!
Shkaakwus wrote:
Every Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum was "reconstructed" from words Rafinesque found in the works of Zeisberger and Heckewelder. There is NO Lenape-based word in the Walam Olum whose "parts" can't be found in the Moravian works. Oestreicher accounts for many lines other than those with personal names!
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Let's see, Rafinesque's work uses Lenape vocabulary attested in other sources, so he had to have stolen all of it from them?"
Shkaakwus replies:
Yes. Especially when he even copied the typographical errors in those works! LOL!
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Many lines" is not all of them, so will you concede that researdh is needed?"
Shkaakwus replies:
No. Oestreicher could have dealt with every line, but his dissertation would have swelled to an unmanageable size. It's already 574 pages, plus! As it is, he covers many, many lines, which are more than enough examples to prove his case.
Shkaakwus wrote:
This is just crazy. Oestreicher takes NO position on who built the mounds in Ohio! He clearly states he doesn't know who built them. He can't "admit" something he doesn't know!
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Yes he did, and I pointed it out to you. We'll have to differ."
Shkaakwus replies:
From Oestreicher's dissertation (page 311): "We shall never know for sure whether ancient Shawnee people took part in the moundbuilding culture." And (page 312): "Whether the Talligewi were ever moundbuilders is difficult to say. They were certainly not responsible for every mound east of the Mississippi..."
I'm not going to debate Algonquian word structure with you, since you're at a severe disadvantage.
This topic belongs in Frauds, as you've clearly admitted, above.
-
As I stated belfore, hard evidence that the Walam Olum exists is supported by other artifacts with identical imagery. Search the Thread for Piqua, Ohio.
Someone asked for Hard evidence exists that Cahokia Was Burnt down,
http://books.google.com/books?id=GOagAAAAMAAJ&dq=charred+mound+cahokia&q=charred&pgis=1
-
BuboAhab:
Which of J. A. Rayner's ketika figurines (or any other inscriptions or paintings, etc.) look identical with the pictographs of the Walam Olum. Just how many similar representations are we talking about, here? Frankly, I don't believe there are any from what I've been looking at on the internet.
Whether or not Cahokia was burned down is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't say anything like that in the Walam Olum!
Finally, you can't prove the authenticity of one fraudulent hoax by comparing it with another fraudulent hoax, as you've done with the Book of Wild (Manuscript Pictographique Amerique), recorded by D. Emanuel 1860. They're both notorious forgeries!
-
The Smithsonian Institute curates J.A. Rayner's Ketika Figurines which match the first two symbols in the walam olum. This is archaeological proof of the authenticity of the walam olum.
See:
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/walamolum.htm
The fact that Cahokia Was burnt down was also stated in the Walam Olum.
The Book of Wild is also a supporting document that shows the Natives Used glyphs to record stories.
These stories were also recorded by Native Americans on Winter Counts, Petroglyphs, and pictographs.
Case closed: Walam olum is authentic.
-
The figures shown on this website are not "identical" with the Walam Olum figures, by any stretch of the imagination! And, that supposed correspondence with the WO Nanabush figure is non-existent! In fact, Oestreicher proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rafinesque made up that first figure from four or five separate "simple signs" that Rafinesque "saw" in the Ojibway Neobagun of Tanner. (Oestreicher's dissertation, pages 172-177). The same is true of the Nanabush figures in the Walam Olum. (Oestreicher's dissertation, pages 196-198).
Cite the line or lines in the Walam Olum that state "Cahokia" was "burned down."
The so-called "Book of Wild" is a flaming hoax! See: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/pictographs.html
Where is your proof that the Walam Olum "stories" were "recorded by Native Americans on Winter Counts, Petroglyphs, and pictographs"?
The Walam Olum is a proven forgery. This topic belongs in "Frauds."
-
The whole basis for this detractor's opinion is "No its not", with no evidence to back it up. Thus it is not worth continuing this discussion with this detractor.
-
The whole basis for this detractor's opinion is "No its not", with no evidence to back it up. Thus it is not worth continuing this discussion with this detractor.
Why don't you true believers read Oestreicher's 574-page doctoral dissertation before presenting your completely bogus arguments for this forgery's "authenticity." It never ceases to amaze me how people at this forum think they can know what they're talking about without reading the incontrovertible proof that this work is a hoax, which is contained in Oestreicher's dissertation. Rafinesque has left us many other writings which show exactly how he concocted his pictographs from elements drawn from Chinese ku-wen figures, Egyptian hieroglyphs and Ojibway neobagun figures. BUT, you've got to actually read Oestreicher to know and understand this!
-
Your basis for decision making is fundamentally flawed. Because Oest. says so?
You should try reading other sources on the Walam Olum to become more informed. Start with Ed Grondine, Selwyn Dewdney, C. A. Weslager, Joe Napora, Daniel Brinton, The Indiana Historical Society, and Myron Paine, etc.
It is very comftorable to rely on these sources rather than one New Jersey debunker.
-
After reading Oestreicher's work, Joe Napora recanted and admitted the Walam Olum was nothing but a hoax (see quotation above). Brinton, Weslager, and most of the Indiana Historical Society team died before Oestreicher's work was published, so they didn't have the advantage of seeing it. The one Indiana Historical Society team member who lived to read Oestreicher's work also thanked him for showing what a hoax the Walam Olum is (see quotation above). Ed Grondine just admitted, in his last post, that the WO pictographs were made-up by Rafinesque, from Chinese, Egyptian and Ojibway figures; and earlier admitted that the personal names were stolen by Rafinesque from Heckewelder's list of historical Lenapes.
Look: Readers of this forum can go through this thread and decide for themselves who's provided convincing evidence and who hasn't.
I'll be very surprised and disappointed in them if they side with you, on this. Ideally, they'll be reading this topic in the "Frauds" section, where it belongs.
-
Joe Napora never "recanted". Napora Stated in July 17, 2008 "The Walam Olum is a fascinating document that deserves more study, study without the academic turf protection and careerism that infects so much historical / literary study. You make the connection, the same as I did, between the Cahokia art and the walam olum. Perhaps those are the connections that Rafinesque made, but does that matter all that much? Rafinesque was a creative artist / naturalist / poet."
Brinton, Weslager, and the Indiana Historical Society team had more information than Oest. ever had and they were closer to the sources and they did not "recant" either.
Grondine did not admit that anything was made-up. The Detractor is putting words into Grondine's mouth.
And you left Selwyn Dewdney and Myron Paine out of your rant why?
As the detractor cannot find anything negative to say about Dewdney, I will quote Dewdney on this.
"A surviving pictographic record on wood, preserved by the Algonquian-speaking Delaware long after they had been shifted from their original homeland on Atlantic shores at the mouth of the Delaware River, offers evidence of how ancient and widespread is the myth of a flood (see Deluge (mythology) involving a powerful water manito. The record is known as the Walum Olum (Painted Sticks), and was interpreted for George Copway by a Delaware Elder... Apart from the reference to man's moral wickedness, the mood and imagery of the Walum Olum convey an archaic atmosphere that surely predates European Influence."
-
Here is part of what Napora wrote to Oestreicher: "I contratulate you not only on your scholarship but the great detective work you did in tracking down the sources that matter most in not so much the unmasking as the unraveling of the mystery surrounding the Walam Olum. Unmasking may be the most appropriate word since there is not little doubt that this was a fraud on Rafinesque's part."
Leonard Warren, in his 2005 biography, Constantine Samuel Rafinesque: A Voice in the American Wilderness, University Press of Kentucky, May 2005, ISBN 978-0813123165 [1] (p 209), quotes Charles Wilkins Short, who knew Rafinesque, and who wrote to a friend, "Everybody knows that poor Raffy was a most bare-faced liar, not to say rogue", and (Warren) goes on to write, "There is now very good reason to believe that he fabricated important data and documents...The most egregious example is the Lenni Lenape migration saga, Walam Olum, which has perplexed scholars for one and a half centuries. Rafinesque wrote the Walam Olum believing it to be authentic because it accorded with his own belief--he was merely recording and giving substance to what must be true. It was a damaging, culpably dishonest act, which misled scholars in search of the real truth, far more damaging than his childish creations, which could be easily dismissed; this was more than mischief."
Dewdney--like McCutchen is--was an "artist"--NOT a scholar. (They love the little pictures!) And, Napora is not saying, in your 2008 quotation, that the Walam Olum isn't a fraud. He's merely saying Rafinesque's forgery should be looked upon as "poetry" and "art," rather than as history. I suppose that way he can justify (to himself) keeping his "translation" of it on the market.
Myron Paine is a wack-a-doodle-do! He belongs in the "Frauds" section, too.
-
If you read a dismissal of Oestreicher's work, you can't say you didn't know it existed. You should have looked for it.
Why? Consider how many translations of the Walam Olum were out there in 2000, and how many have come out since 1995, or even since 2000. Doug Weller was the first person to point out Oestreicher's work to me just last year, and I applied due diligence afterwards. No one else stepped forward any earlier.
Do you have any idea how many peoples lived east of the Mississippi River? How many linear feet of material I went through to extract climate and impact information? Do you have any idea of the concentration of 3He in our solar system? Or of sunspot numbers, solar activity, and climate? Or of the mechanics of asteroid and comet impacts? Or injection and accretion mechanisms?
I tried to let this set at "Reconstructing Rafinesque" so I could move on to other far more important work, but you will not let it set. You have your reasons for doing this, and they are not entirely academic, as is clear from your intensity.
While you keep on shouting "fraud", I prefer to speak quietly at a normal level, and agree with Educated Indian and the Lenape elders who hold that the Walam Olum contains a "portion". It's that portion that I am interested in. Unfortunately, I'll have to go through Oestreicher's work line by line to try and form a better estimate as to that portion and its source(s), and as I mentioned earlier, there is other work that is more important now.
Also, while I am taking no pleasure in this exchange, I did enjoy locating and reading Miami traditions last week. Perhaps if Oestreicher were to recover Lenape tradtions in a nice single volume, reading that work would be enjoyable as well. Or is he simply going to sit on his butt and try to spend the rest of his life living off his thesis?
You may not believe this, but perhaps Oestreicher will end up gifting me with a copy of his thesis, or perhaps he and I will end up trading copies of our works. As far as my own book goes, I'll simply use Heckewelder's and Sutton's accounts, which are indisputable, along with the undeniable archaeological evidence, should it make it to a second edition.
I have set out my objections to Oestreicher's work as it now sits. Those clear errors will have to be removed before I'll accept it. Whatever Oestreicher's points about Rafinesque or the Lenape, his Shawnee history is miserable, as is his understanding of Ojibwe Midewiwin and other peoples' use of pictographs and wampum. In my opinion.
If its any consolation to you I have warned others that the Walam Olum is not reliable, and that they should stay clear of citing it in any way. I did that last year, by the way, well before our little exchange here.
I want others to work through this, and would like to see them do it for many years to come. So I would like to see this left in "Research Needed".
In closing, thank you for the census search. As far as Dr. Ward Cook and his brother go, they we're clearly too young to buy the land at Anderson when it was taken from the Lenape.
That still leaves their father as a candidate for Rafinesque's "Dr. Ward". Or perhaps he was another individual, but then one would have to track the Lenape Medewak to find him (if he existed), wouldn't one?
You may consider such an exercise grasping at straws if you like.
-
Grondine did not admit that anything was made-up. The Detractor is putting words into Grondine's mouth.
While Detractor does do that a lot, please see my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque" here for my estimate of the problems of using Rafinesque's version of the Walam Olum.
That said, please feel free to hold shkaakwas's feet to the fire, as perhaps it will get him off his butt and on to the task of actually recovering Lenape traditions.
I am hoping that if "Man and Impact in the Americas" ever gets to a second edition I'll be able to include the Ojibwe Midewiwin's tradition of the shells as an Appendix in it. Along with at least one picture of a nice birch bark scroll.
Neahw - Ouso katet
-
[Long series of childish insults removed] I'd then understand why the Walam Olum is not a fraud! As it is, I only know how to read and write the Lenape language in which it is supposedly written--and, with only that poor light to guide my understanding, I can't see anything but a giant fraud.
[You need to knock off the insults, general childishness, and the stomping-your-feet-demanding-everyone-agree-with-you-this-instant bit. It only interferes with your arguments and makes you look bad.]
-
Shkaakwus
i just wanted to say thanks for all of your hard work and information you put into your posts here.I think there are alot of people out there who can make a much more informed decision about this hoax the "WO". When you use work such as the WO which has been surrounded in controversy for years and years, to support your research and it comes back to bite you in the ass, you have know one to blame but yourself.
-
Shkaakwus
i just wanted to say thanks for all of your hard work and information you put into your posts here.I think there are alot of people out there who can make a much more informed decision about this hoax the "WO". When you use work such as the WO which has been surrounded in controversy for years and years, to support your research and it comes back to bite you in the ass, you have know one to blame but yourself.
You're welcome, bullhead. I appreciate hearing this.
-
Mr.Grondine
in your post #162,you are talking about your 2nd edition book and some of it`s possible contents " mide tradition of shells and A NICE picture of birch bark scroll "
Mide teachings are meant for Mide people only.Birch bark scrolls are SACRED they should NEVER be photographed ,again these scrolls are not meant for the public they are not for sale or to be sold.DO you understand the word SACRILEGIOUS,is money and fame that dam important to you.
-
Here is what the detractors do not want you to know or see.
1. Walam Olum was a series of Birchbark scrolls and notched sticks. These were translated by a Delaware Elder for George Copway.
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.
3. The time period of these scrolls extends from prehistoric times of the "mound builders" to the present day.
4. Fortunately there were a few individuals in a time of genocide that recorded these scrolls and the Walam Olum (painted sticks)
5. The Sacred Scrolls by Dewdney can be seen here.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?albumview=grid
6. The Walam Olum is an authentic birchbark example slightly discolored by the English language.
-
There are no birchbark scrolls, no notched nor painted sticks. All we have is the word of a notorious liar and snake-oil salesman (i.e., Rafinesque) that these things ever existed. Somehow, he "lost" these "originals," just after publishing his book. (How convenient!) His "Dr. Ward" and "John Burns" have NEVER been identified!
George Copway was a Christian Methodist missionary and convicted embezzler, who was given a published copy of the Walam Olum by anthropologist, Ephraim G. Squier.
-
Mr.Grondine
in your post #162,you are talking about your 2nd edition book and some of it`s possible contents " mide tradition of shells and A NICE picture of birch bark scroll "
Mide teachings are meant for Mide people only.Birch bark scrolls are SACRED they should NEVER be photographed ,again these scrolls are not meant for the public they are not for sale or to be sold.DO you understand the word SACRILEGIOUS,is money and fame that dam important to you.
After my book was done, I saw a Canadian publication with pictures of the scrolls and a telling, and clearly the midewiwin had decided to share the tradition of the shells. There was also another earlier release by midewiwin that an Ojibwe friend pointed me to later on.
On this topic, some Ojibwe in Michiagn gave midewiwin scrolls to a doctor who saved them during a time of plague in the 1830's, and these scrolls were recently returned. Given the devastation of these plagues, and the general devastation of the Lenape, Rafinesque's acquisition account makes sense. I am not entirely satisfied yet with Oestreicher's work, and I think it would be worthwhile to leave this in "Research Needed".
As for my views on proper use, see my earlier post in this chain on Hopi, Navaho, and Zuni traditions. To my knowledge, my entire book had proper use.
But then I used to just simply pick up feathers, thinking that they were simply left there for me.
The European history of North America goes back only 400 years. What my work is about is extracting memories of long term climate cycles and comet and asteroid impacts from the traditions, so that those memories can be used to save lives in the future. Whatever our heritage, we're all here now.
Money? NASA receives 18,700 Million $Dollars per year, and they spend 3.5 of them on finding the next piece of junk before it hits, despite direct orders to them from the Congress to do it, orders which NASA management ignored. That number needs to be turned from $3.5 million into at least $20 million per year, and that money is important to me, and to you as well.
I also need enough fame to help make that happen.
That said, I often think/measure my time in lives per hour, or I can break it down into lives per minute if you'd like.
Now how many of those minutes do you want to waste with poorly considered words? As I've already said what I want to say about Rafinesque and Oestreicher's work, and actually said it a long time back, I'm going leave Bubo Ahab to educate you and Shkaakwus for a while.
Once again, the "Hopewell" mounds were made by Shawnee/Cherokee ancestors - Talega among them. Not Sioux, not Lenape.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Now how many of those minutes do you want to waste with poorly considered words?"
You've already wasted a good part of your research time studying a made-up work of fiction, thinking it held the key to some great historical mystery.
[Very long string of personal insults and attacks removed.]
[You've been cautioned about this before. Ironically you attacked a man who just asked you to choose your words more carefully. I ask you to show more maturity.]
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"Now how many of those minutes do you want to waste with poorly considered words?"
You've already wasted a good part of your research time studying a made-up work of fiction, thinking it held the key to some great historical mystery.
[Very long string of personal insults and attacks removed.]
[You've been cautioned about this before. Ironically you attacked a man who just asked you to choose your words more carefully. I ask you to show more maturity.]
Thank you for your edits, Educated Indian. It's clear shkaakwas has something motivating him other than a search for truth, or for Lenape historical traditions, for that matter.
shkaakwus, factually you are wrong, as the Walam Olum plays only a small part in my work, and was relatively easy to come by. I remind you once again that both Heckewelder and Sutton's accounts of Lenape migration tradition remain, along with the archaeological sequence which I set out.
Another fact you are wrong about was what the purpose of my work, which I just set out for you.
If you examine the solar activity charts in the 2006 publication at this site
http://www.cdejager.com/sun-earth-publications/
you will perhaps gain a better understanding of part of what I researched for my work, and its scope and purpose.
Other material concerned comet and asteroid impacts, and the physical evidence of them and their effects on climate and on the peoples living here then, and their accounts of them.
I am still of the opinion that Oestreicher may have missed some of Rafinesque's sources, and perhaps his inspiration. For the time being I will hold with the Lenape elders who hold that the Walam Olum contains a "portion".
I hope that in the future I will receive the opportunity to examine Oestreicher's work in depth, including Heckewelder's sources for his lists of personal names toponyms, and ethnonyms. Perhaps if not me, someone else will receive the task. Whatever the result, I think that the exercise will be good for graduate students. That's one of the reasons why I'd like this left in "Research Needed" for the time being.
Finally, I am still not satisfied with Oestreicher's proposed Lenape adoption of Swedish/English word "pussy", or his proposal that they would then use it for a chief's name.
-
Ed:
I haven't got the slightest interest in what you like to think about in your spare time, regarding asteroids, comets, and other catastrophic phenomena. THIS THREAD is about the authenticity of the Walam Olum--NOT events in outer space which may, or may not, affect the Earth. When you do manage to attempt relevancy, you write things like this:
"On this topic, some Ojibwe in Michiagn gave midewiwin scrolls to a doctor who saved them during a time of plague in the 1830's, and these scrolls were recently returned. Given the devastation of these plagues, and the general devastation of the Lenape, Rafinesque's acquisition account makes sense."
In fact, the state was Minnesota--NOT "Michigan." The doctor worked in a tuberculosis sanitorium--there was NO "plague." He worked there in the early 1900's--NOT the "1830's. And, the doctor got an acquisition receipt from the non-Indian from whom he bought the scrolls. He was NOT given them because he "saved" anybody. The scrolls were returned by his grandson. The doctor was Dr. Herbert Burns. This COMPLETELY changes what you wrote from almost relevant to entirely irrelevant to the question of the authenticity of the Walam Olum. What you wrote is, quite frankly, dishonest--from a scholarly perspective. Yet, you're allowed (for God knows what reason) to continue this charade on this forum, while my posts, pointing out the irrelevancy of your arguments, are mutilated to the point of unrecognition by the administrator. Take from this what you will.
See: https://mail.socsci.umn.edu/pipermail/ojibwe-net/2006-December/000290.html
-
Ed:
I haven't got the slightest interest in what you like to think about in your spare time, regarding asteroids, comets, and other catastrophic phenomena. THIS THREAD is about the authenticity of the Walam Olum--NOT events in outer space which may, or may not, affect the Earth.
First off, shkaakwas, its not my spare time, its my time, and I spent it in the manner I thought best. Given that all of us (including you yourself) are already passengers on spaceship Earth, your lack of interest in the planet you live on and the fates of the people living here in the past is unfortunate.
When you do manage to attempt relevancy, you write things like this:
"On this topic, some Ojibwe in Michiagn gave midewiwin scrolls to a doctor who saved them during a time of plague in the 1830's, and these scrolls were recently returned. Given the devastation of these plagues, and the general devastation of the Lenape, Rafinesque's acquisition account makes sense."
In fact, the state was Minnesota--NOT "Michigan." The doctor worked in a tuberculosis sanitorium--there was NO "plague." He worked there in the early 1900's--NOT the "1830's. And, the doctor got an acquisition receipt from the non-Indian from whom he bought the scrolls. He was NOT given them because he "saved" anybody. The scrolls were returned by his grandson. The doctor was Dr. Herbert Burns. This COMPLETELY changes what you wrote from almost relevant to entirely irrelevant to the question of the authenticity of the Walam Olum.
See: https://mail.socsci.umn.edu/pipermail/ojibwe-net/2006-December/000290.html
[/quote]
Thanks for your correction as to the location - my memory is not as good as it was. Others here may read the article as well. Perhaps they'll note the red paint and carving, as well as the age of the scrolls, all key items which appear to have escaped your own notice, for some reason.
What you wrote is, quite frankly, dishonest--from a scholarly perspective. Yet, you're allowed (for God knows what reason) to continue this charade on this forum, while my posts, pointing out the irrelevancy of your arguments, are mutilated to the point of unrecognition by the administrator. Take from this what you will.
I'm sure others here will take from it what they will as well. And it is also dishonest from a scholarly perspective to try to include unsubstatiated claims along with those demonstrated, and to engage in perjorative.
As far as the moderators' actions, or for that matter my entire exchange with you here, I suppose it was just meant to be.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
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?!
-
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?
-
BoBo in your reply #167 you use the label DETRACTOR`S ,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"
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 [Abusive language removed] as well.
[Make your points without getting abusive.]
-
Mr.Grondine
in your post # 169 you suggest I look at other post`s in regards to your views on proper use.
if you are printing Mide teachings or printing pictures of Mide scrolls then you are WRONG,[Personal attack removed] ,you can sugar coat it all you want ,but you are wrong.you do NOT have the RIGHT to publish these sacred things.you should be placed in the fraud section.
you also state in this post " Im going leave BuBOahab to educate you and Shkaakwus for awhile"
[Series of personal attacks removed] you use a hoax to support your work.
[If you get abusive one more time, you WILL be banned. This is your only warning.]
-
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.
-
Mr.Grondine
in your post # 169 you suggest I look at other post`s in regards to your views on proper use.
if you are printing Mide teachings or printing pictures of Mide scrolls then you are WRONG,SCREW your VIEWS,you can sugar coat it all you want ,but you are wrong.you do NOT have the RIGHT to publish these sacred things.you should be placed in the fraud section.
you also state in this post " Im going leave BuBOahab to educate you and Shkaakwus for awhile"
who do you think you are you arrogant fool ,you and your sock puppet don`t educate people, you use a hoax to support your work.
First off, Mr. bull head, I didn't use ojibwe midewiwin materials in my book. Period.
The first release by midewiwin that I saw was at Mackinaw, in a Canadian book at the museum there. Again, an Ojibwe friend pointed me to an earlier release.
I certainly would not publish them in a second edition without being instructed to.
One) I never claimed any right to publish them.
Two) Bubo Ahab is not my sock puppet.
As far as my use of the Walam Olum... I remind you of what I knew of
Oestreicher's work when I did my research in 2000. Eminent scholars such as Brinton and Vogelin had been taken in by Rafinesque as well; I relied on their opinions.
That said, I still think Oestreicher missed some of Rafinesque's sources, a "portion".
I've stated my objections to Oestreicher's work as it now stands. Once again, the "Hopewell" mounds were built by Shawnee/Cherokee ancestors, not Sioux, not Lenape, in my opinion.
I give Heckewelder and Sutton's acounts of Lenape traditions as well, and they are beyond question by Oestreicher. They also appear to be beyond his understanding.
I have already cautioned others about using Rafinesque's work.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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"?
-
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.]
-
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.
-
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".
-
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"!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
"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.
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"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."
Rafinesque authored the entire Walam Olum, and that final bit says nothing about his "eloquence." If he hadn't written that from a Lenape point of view, his forgery wouldn't have been much of a hoax. It is a laugh, and the joke's on you.
I've had enough of this, myself. Read Oestreicher's dissertation before attempting to pose as an expert on this. Until then, Wawullamallessil!
-
Rafinesque translated the entire Walam Olum, as Brinton pointed out with the help of another individual. That indivual knew the Lenape/ Delaware/ Ojibwe language.
"In several cases the figures or symbols appear to me to bear out the corrected translations which I have given of the lines, and not that of Rafinesque. This, it will be observed, is an evidence, not merely that he must have received this text from other hands, but the figures also, and weighs heavily in favor of the authentic character of both."(Brinton, Page 157)
Walam Olum is authentic. Raf. preserved it. Squire later saw Raf's Manuscript materials and published on it. Read Weslager - Schoolcraft stated his objection is that he knew of no other examples of native writing. Now we do know of other examples including Birchbark scrolls, Book of Wild, and smithsonian artifacts.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5k34LON-MUwC&pg=PA77&dq=walam+olum#PPA84,M1
The detractors really do need to learn the scientific method. They will then understand that evidence is required to support a hypothesis. Objective, scientific proof has been given that confirms the authenticity.
-
Bubo:
I've read all that and more. Now, go read Oestreicher's dissertation and find out why Brinton, Squier, Weslager and you were and are wrong. Until then, you're just blowin' smoke.
-
E. P. Grondine writes:
"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."
Rafinesque authored the entire Walam Olum, and that final bit says nothing about his "eloquence." If he hadn't written that from a Lenape point of view, his forgery wouldn't have been much of a hoax. It is a laugh, and the joke's on you.
I've had enough of this, myself. Read Oestreicher's dissertation before attempting to pose as an expert on this. Until then, Wawullamallessil!
Speaking of posing, I've clearly stated some here the reasons for some of the problems I have with Oestreicher's analysis, as well as the uses to which it is put.
I have also stated the reasons why I made that effort. You haven't told us is why this is so important to you, so why don't you do so before you go, shkaakwus?
-
You're not paying attention, Ed. On page 6 of this topic, educatedindian wrote:
"You get quite worked up on the subject, and I wonder why."
To which I replied, (on page 6, April 24th):
'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.
-
The detractor did not answer the question. My guess is that this person is either a personal friend of oestr. from new jersey or someone that believes in a turf war. Seems that Napora was correct about careerism infecting academic research.
-
Since I'm being brought back into this, I may as well make a point I should have made earlier.
SW seems to think Oestreicher's work is the final word on the subject, or should be. I grant you he's done important work, well done work, valuable work. But if it were as definitive as you claim, or if academia accepted it as widely as you claim, then Oestreicher would be regarded the same. Universities would be clamoring to have him teach there.
An online search shows that Oestreicher recently lists himself as an "independent scholar." This is the polite way in academia to say not working right now, at least not teaching. Sometimes the term also is used for amateur historians, but that doesn't apply to him.
There are perfectly valid reasons he may not be working, personal, family, etc. I know of a case of one historian who got fired over a union drive at his university and has trouble getting hired since then. For all I know he may choose to not work, have money from his family, or some other valid reason.
But sometimes very controversial positions taken in one's work make it harder to get hired. University administrators don't want the grief and/or faculty in his field disagree strongly enough to object to them working there.
I stress I don't know for certain why he's not, best as I can tell, working. But I do know that if his work were THE work on the WO as you think, and if all scholars in the subject accepted it as such, schools would be making him offers left and right.
So I stand by my earlier statements that scholarship is still divided. You repeatedly stomping your feet saying, "Agree with Oestreicher!" won't change that. It does mean we can and should look at all opinions, and much of those opinions would not have been brought up here had this discussion been shut down as you repeatedly demanded.
-
educatedindian:
I'm not going to reply to somebody who deletes and mutilates my posts, at will and with impunity. Come on over to the Woodland Indians Forum and you and I can debate this, on equal terms. (I'll tell you what I really think of what you just posted, here.) Introduce yourself over there, then we'll have a little chat. In the meantime, it speaks volumes that you'd rather guess what you think you know about Oestreicher's life and work (most of it wrong, btw) than actually refute any portion of his dissection of this giant hoax. Of course, like Bubo and EPG, you haven't read Oestreicher's dissertation, either. Now, who are those "scholars" who disagree with Oestreicher? So far, you haven't named a single one.
-
You're not paying attention, Ed.
Sorry, with my poor stroke damaged brain I tend to only pay attention to the important points.
On page 6 of this topic, educated indian wrote:
"You get quite worked up on the subject, and I wonder why."
I still wonder myself.
To which I replied, (on page 6, April 24th):
'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.
I suppose that's really indicative of one way our approaches differ, shkaakwus. Given the state of 18th century medicine, my inclination is to ask for what medicinal purpose our eccentric French acquaintance was selling snake oil for?
Further, did he himself believe it worked, and was he doing it for public benefit?
As for what this forum is about, it's main focus is New Age Frauds and Plastic Saviors, currently operating con men, spiritual thieves. Of course, old and dead con men are fair game as well, and if after further consideration and research I arrive at the same conclusions you have, then I will announce it. How I would look into this I stated in "Reconstructing Rafinesque" (date not certain, but a long time back); if you are in contact with him, I still hope that Oestreicher himself will agree to a trade or gift; I offer 467 pages for his 541, but mine have smaller type. Even if that were to happen time is quite important as well, and the Shawnee Primary or Principal Narrative remains for me of greatest interest, far more than Lenape traditions and the fate of their medewak, though those are also high concerns. Ojibwe traditions are also of greater interest for me, both the tradition of the shells and those concerning the V(W)endigo.
In the meantime, I will caution others, but I will also hold with those Lenape elders who consider that the Walam Olum preserves a "portion" of Lenape tradition.
Finally, I would hope that graduate students for many years to come will be re-examining Oestreicher's thesis very carefully, as that would appear to me to be a good approach to study of the Lenape people. I would also hope that Oestreicher moves beyond his earlier work to both/either a contact era history of the Lenape and/or a collection of the Lenapewak's own pre-contact historical traditions.
-
educatedindian:
I'm not going to reply to somebody who deletes and mutilates my posts, at will and with impunity. Come on over to the Woodland Indians Forum and you and I can debate this, on equal terms. (I'll tell you what I really think of what you just posted, here.) Introduce yourself over there, then we'll have a little chat. In the meantime, it speaks volumes that you'd rather guess what you think you know about Oestreicher's life and work (most of it wrong, btw) than actually refute any portion of his dissection of this giant hoax. Of course, like Bubo and EPG, you haven't read Oestreicher's dissertation, either. Now, who are those "scholars" who disagree with Oestreicher? So far, you haven't named a single one.
Oh brother. More of that pompous obnoxiousness from you, not mention intolerance of opposing views and a basic lack of manners.
Working the long hours I already do, I don't have time for this. I barely have enough time to do the bare minimum at NAFPS, much less getting into longer discussions that I wish I could.
The "mutilations" (Talk about a martyr complex! They were nothing more or less than your personal attacks on several people.) wouldn't be necessary if you could show the same maturity that's expected from the average middle school student, not to get abusive or personal towards someone you don't agree with. In any college classroom, you'd have been kicked out long ago, if not expelled from campus had you continued what you've done in here.
We have bent over backwards for you, and it still hasn't gotten you to behave like a decent human being.
So excuse me if I'm not inclined to waste more time on this, esp since you can't even be bothered to read what's already on the thread. The italicized question above was already answered. See for yourself.
And it was also admitted to by Oestreicher himself on academic listservs. Do the research, I found in about half a minute what you were too lazy to find out on a subject so close to your heart.
And what I found on the question in bold.
http://www.nyhumanities.org/speakers/adult_audiences/lecture.php?lecture_id=929
"Dr. David Oestreicher
Independent Scholar....
Oestreicher is curator of the award-winning traveling exhibition, In Search of the Lenape....
Oestreicher...has worked as a lecturer, consultant, curator, and independent scholar."
If you have evidence he's working, rather than the past tense "has worked" of that website (other than part time grant work for a traveling exhibit) then tell us. The website is listed as being last updated March 20 this year.
But your rather ridiculous hero worship of the man has gotten you all tied up in knots. Even praising his work at length, followed by a mild dissent about whether each and every scholar praises him, turns you vengeful and vicious. Most people wouldn't get this worked up defending their own child. Again, why does this get you so worked up, other than your own childishness and pompously insisting everyone must agree with you on even the tiniest point?
-
Al:
I'll let the readers of this forum decide whether or not they believe in this hoax. If anyone has the least interest in the truth of the matter, I've told them how to get a copy of Oestreicher's dissertation, which can be had for no more expense than a typical hardcover book of similar size; and, is as easy to order as any book you get at Amazon or Barnes & Noble. If people aren't that interested, then who cares? And, if [Insults removed] aren't interested enough to actually read the proof that the Walam Olum is a total forgery, but continue to defend it as an authentic product (or possible authentic product) of the Lenape, [Personal attacks removed] I can read and write Lenape. I've read Oestreicher's works on this subject. I'm telling you it's a fraud. Believe or not. [Personal attacks removed]
[Despite repeated warnings, he's continued the same childishness he's displayed in over a dozen posts. Banned from posting but not from the forum. Should he wish to apologize for his behavior the ban will be lifted.]
-
Moving on, a few avenues that are worthy of further research into Walam Olum symbolism include Birchbark scrolls (Dewdney) and the Delaware Big House ceremony (Speck). In my opinion these are related cermonies that are performed the same way and depicted on the scrolls. Both ceremonies show a remarkable amount of similairites in thier detail. Also, certain aspects of the big house ceremony compare with those discussed by Raf. in the Walam Olum. This connection needs further research.
-
Ray has contributed much to this topic. He's the only Lenape speaker here; knows as much if not more about the Lenape than anyone here. We each have our own way of expressing our thoughts, opinions, and knowledge. I've never thought Ray was rude, condescending, or childish. Why have his posts been edited and deleted, while others have been left standing? If Ray's posts are considered childish by the moderators, then there are several others that could be viewed that way as well. Why has Ray been banned from posting? Isn't this cutting off your nose to spite your face? You deprive this forum of his vast knowledge and insight.
-
The Delaware Indian Big House cermony by Speck states on Page 60
"maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringng on censure of the older veterans."
-
The Delaware Indian Big House cermony by Speck states on Page 60
"maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringng on censure of the older veterans."
What is this supposed to mean? Is there a reason for quoting Speck as regards maturity, ridicule, or censure?
-
SW seems to think Oestreicher's work is the final word on the subject, or should be. I grant you he's done important work, well done work, valuable work. But if it were as definitive as you claim, or if academia accepted it as widely as you claim, then Oestreicher would be regarded the same. Universities would be clamoring to have him teach there.
Hi educatedindian -
While one might think or hope this might be the case, from what I've seen there are very limited academic resources for Eastern Native America studies, as well as for the preservation and presentation of sites. For example, acquaintances of mine are actually struggling to raise money to save the major site of Tecumseh's and Tenskawatawa's Prophetstown at Greeneville, Ohio. In the meantime, while the National Park Service should be taking over operation of
the world heritage class sites at Newark and Fort Ancient from the Ohio Historical Society, so far they have shown no interest. I attribute this to the deficiencies of our former president's appointees at the National Park Service; but this is just conjecture on my part.
Thus Oestreicher could be an "independent scholar" for reasons having little to do with the quality of or acceptance of his study of the Walam Olum.
shkaakwus seems to be concerned that a "recent" (say about 1400 CE) Lenape arrival in the east would somehow jeopardize their land claims there, and claims to current rights there. I don't think he needs to worry about that, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps his frustrations are leading him to insulting behavior.
I myself am a little more concerned about the climate collapses that led to earlier migrations in the Americas, as it is a certainty they will happen again. Generally, from what I have seen, starvation can lead a people do things they otherwise would not consider.
My offer to Oestreicher for a trade still stands.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
The Delaware Indian Big House cermony by Speck states on Page 60
"maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringng on censure of the older veterans."
What is this supposed to mean? Is there a reason for quoting Speck as regards maturity, ridicule, or censure?
Bubo, are you ignoring the question?
-
Oestreicher could be an "independent scholar" for reasons having little to do with the quality of or acceptance of his study of the Walam Olum.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
I stressed that also. Some independent scholars do very good work in any case.
These are the comments I referred to. Oestreicher admits many scholars and Lenape don't accept his arguments about the WO, but claims it's due to ignorance, either 1. scholars not having yet read his work, or 2. Lenape not knowing their own culture.
I have no idea how he could make such a claim, unless he claims to know the education of everyone he disagrees with. To say that about the Lenape, it's arrogant bordering on insulting for an outside anthropologist to lecture Natives on not knowing their own culture.
-----------------
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-amindian&month=0510&week=d&msg=kkvvAXpApfs4DIkd%2bNQuSg&user=&pw=
"....so Many books have already been written endorsing the epic that other scholars Outside the field such as Velie are apparently not even
aware of the new findings.
....some young Lenape unacquainted with their own language and traditional ways and eager to reclaim their heritage, have become enthusiastic advocates for the document.
David M. Oestreicher"
-
Bubo, are you ignoring the question?
[/quote]
No, Speck does not need to be re-worded. To find out more, read his book called The Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony V2.
-
Bubo, are you ignoring the question?
No, Speck does not need to be re-worded. To find out more, read his book called The Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony V2.
Deflection much?
I'm not asking you to reword Speck. I'm asking why you quoted that particular passage from Speck at that particular moment. One more time, the question is: What is this supposed to mean? Is there a reason for quoting Speck as regards maturity, ridicule, or censure?
-
Specks statement applies to this coversation and speaks for itself. "maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringng on censure of the older veterans."
-
I haven't been keeping track of this thread as I don't know anything about what is being discussed .
I'm just responding to what I have noticed about Shkaakwus's debating style. I'm not sure I agree with banning Shkaakwus, but in my own experience I have found this person to be stubronly set in the conclusion they want to reach, dishonest in the debating tactics they use to maintain their position , and they are rude, inflammatory and insulting to anyone who doesn't accept their conclusions.
1. Shkaawus often proves his conclusions using other information which he presents as factual. The problem is, often a closer examination of these facts shows they are only being assumed to be true and they may not be facts at all . Conversely if some facts don't fit with the conclusion he wants to arrive at, he often pretends it doesn't exist or minimizes it's importance.
2. Shkaawus often either neglects to fully investigate the validity of the information he uses to support his case, or he neglects to present an adequet explanation of why he believes his information to be true .
3. Shkakwus frequently cites historical facts to support his conclusions without showing how this historical fact actually connects to his conclusion. In some instances when he is asked to explain this, he admits there is no connection.
4. If Shkaakwus has any real qualifications as a historian he would be well aware he often resorts to the dishonest debating tactics described above. His conclusions as he presents them, often sound like they are based on documented facts, but on closer examination these "facts" frequently turn out to be a lot of unsubstantiated smoke and mirrors. Even though there is some major gaps and disconnections in Shkaakwus's presentation, he is often needlessly inflammatory , rude and sarcastic to people who don't accept his conclusions.
If I go over my past conversations with Shkaakwus in other threads and point out specific examples of this , it will pull this thread off topic, but if anyone reads through the debate in the thread linked to below, there is lots of examples...
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2215.0
In the thread above I pointed out a number of the obvious problems with Shkaakwus's so call historical expertise. I did this as respectfully and gently as possible and I didn't reply to his last post pointing out how his explanations once again don't seem to support his conclusions... I figured people would notice these things for themself without me explictly pointing them out.
Maybe I needed to be more aggressive and sarcastic, but I'm not comfortable doing that. People need to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
Maybe it is different in New Jeresy but all the indigenous people I have known, who care about maintaining their culture and identity put a really high value on politeness and retaining the dignity this commitment brings.
In that context this comment quoted above , "maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringing on censure of the older veterans." might be fitting as a reminder of these values....
I don't see where Shkaakwus's general attitude of sarcasm and rudeness respects these values....
Like I say, I'm not sure I agree with Shkaakwus being banned for this, but then on the other hand I'm surprised he was even allowed back here, after posting here before, and then trashing all the threads he participated in by deleting all his posts, and even deleting a whole thread and everybody else's posts -
Shakaawus did this over on the AITF too.
IMO, that in itself should be proof of how self centered, rude and disrespectful this person can be.
Sorry to reply to this and risk pulling this thread further off topic. If it's appropriate maybe this could be split into a discussion about Shkaakwus or the problems of personal biases / loyalties / egos, interfering with historical research in general...
(edited to fix confused numbering)
-
Specks statement applies to this coversation and speaks for itself. "maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringng on censure of the older veterans."
That's the best two-step I've seen in a good while. I thought I knew where you were going with this, just wanted to see if you were man enough to actually say it. I see it took Moma to put your thoughts into words.
. . . Maybe it is different in New Jeresy but all the indigenous people I have known, who care about maintaining their culture and identity put a really high value on politeness and retaining the dignity this commitment brings.
In that context this comment quoted above , "maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringing on censure of the older veterans." might be fitting as a reminder of these values....
I don't see where Shkaakwus's general attitude of sarcasm and rudeness respects these values....
Bubo, if you're questioning Ray's age and/or maturity, you really need to read more. Know your subject before making snide comments. Ray has been studying the Lenape, their history, their traditions, their language, since before you were born. He is one of the few fluent Lenape speakers in New Jersey. Ray will tell you he isn't fluent, because he doesn't know every word in the language. However, his command of Lenape is probably better than your English. His isn't only book-knowledge, he knows the people. Using the above quote from Speck shows your immaturity, arrogance, and rudeness.
-
Y'all may say a lot of things about Ray, but no one can say he's dishonest or doesn't know his facts. Is he stubborn? Absolutely! Is he opinionated? Without a doubt! As I said in an earlier post, we each have our own way of expressing our thoughts, opinions, and knowledge. Y'all think Ray is rude and condescending; I've never experienced that. Moma, you and I both have been accused of many things in our quest for the truth. There are some out there right now that are thinking I haven't been completely honest because I didn't post details of a conversation I had. I gave the final outcome, but not all the details. Is that dishonesty? People have accused you of being a whole lot of things, Moma; rude being one of the minor ones. I've never found you to be rude. You ask the hard questions and don't beat around the bush. Neither one of us like to sugar-coat things, but does that make us rude or condescending? I don't think so.
Ray has studied the Lenape for over half his life. I wouldn't question anything he told me about their history, traditions, or language. I trust him. I know you've disagreed with him about the Sand Hill, and recently about Sam Beeler in particular. Since this isn't the Beeler thread, I will only say this . . . Do not let Claire Garland's lies cloud your judgement.
As for Ray's deletions here on NAFPS . . . I don't know what happened back then; I wasn't a member. As for what happened on AITF . . . If you aren't a member, then you don't know what happened there either. I am a member of AITF. If I were y'all, I wouldn't make any assumptions.
I think it speaks poorly for this forum that after someone has been banned from posting, those who he was debating are allowed to throw mud. The pokes and jabs are reminiscent of the playground. Where's that [childish insult] button when you really need it.
-
Bonnie I don't want to argue with you . In most situations I respect your opinion. Here we seem to disagree but thats OK. If you want I can make a list of stuff your friend Shkaakwus has said which i consider needlessly inflamatory, rude and condescending. I could show this to you privately, or post it publicly , but as you are a smart lady and can read what he wrote yourself, I would feel kind of disrepectful of your own way of thinking to try and force my way of seeing this on you. As you rightly point out what is rude and what isn't, is largely in the eyes of the offended.
Al can be a bit ruthless when it comes to stopping people from flaming and making insulting comments. I know he did this to me once for saying someone was whiney. But I respect what he does , because even if it sometimes seems a bit unfair it forces people to be polite.
And Shkaakwus is only banned if he refuses to apologize for comments which according to the standards of this message board are considered too personal and inflamatory. It's pretty easy to figure out what those standards are , and to try and stay within an acceptable range of self expression. There is good reasons to maintain those standards . So I don't see the guy as much of a victim...
As for you allegation that Claire Garland is a liar... I haven't seen any evidence of this , though it's entirely possible this exists but hasn't been clearly explained. As far as i have seen , there does seem to be quite a bit of evidence that supports what Claire Garland is saying.
If you would like me to explain more clearly why I think Shkaakwus is dishonest in how he selects information to support his own conclusions, feel free to ask about it in the thread on Sam Beeler or privately.
Apparently one of us is wrong, but if we both care about finding out the truth, this shouldn't be a problem, and I don't mind if i find out it's me.
Though i don't know enough about the WO to have an informed opinion, from the bit I read , without knowing all the details, I tend to be more in agreement with Shkaakwus on this one. But as i already pointed out, because of his seemingly selective use of knowledge, I don't trust him as a source...
-
"That's the best two-step I've seen in a good while."
- Bls did not hook me into his trap of changing this discussion from fact to opinion.
"Ray has been studying the Lenape, their history, their traditions, their language, ..."
- Then why did he ignore the facts about birchbark scrolls?
"[Personal attacks and insults]."
- Have you seen a trend that personal insults do not belong in this discussion? Lets try to stay on topic and have a civilized discussion please.
-
"That's the best two-step I've seen in a good while."
- Bls did not hook me into his trap of changing this discussion from fact to opinion.
You really don't pay attention to what's been posted. Where'd you get the idea that I'm a guy, especially since Moma called me "Bonnie" and said I was "a smart lady"? Or do you only read/comprehend what you want? Oh, and by the way, your quoting Speck about maturity, ridicule, and censure was most definitely your opinion.
"Ray has been studying the Lenape, their history, their traditions, their language, ..."
- Then why did he ignore the facts about birchbark scrolls?
In regard to the Lenape?
"[Personal attacks and insults]."
- Have you seen a trend that personal insults do not belong in this discussion? Lets try to stay on topic and have a civilized discussion please.
Do not presume to lecture me about the tone of this forum. This is not flaming; this is healthy debate. You want to see insults and attacks, check out a couple of the other threads around here. But, since you're wanting to keep this discussion "on topic" and "civilized", please follow your own advice.
-
Continuity that the Walam Olum, Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony by Speck, and Birchbark Scrolls by Dewdney are each related is seen in their reference to "Picking Berries".
]Rafinesque recorded in the Walam Olum first part "the first women picking berries"
Speck states that "Picking Berries" was done on the fourth, fifth, and sixth day of the Big House Ceremony. Picking berries was symbolic of the attendants action of picking up wampum scattered about at the ceremony. The Wampum was stored in the mouth while the attendants made the sound "M+". This symbolized birds picking berries from bushes. Others state that the action used to reward the attendants for their efforts with Wampum (Money).
]Dewdney recorded in the Birchbark scrolls that "Picking berries" was symbolic of taking the divergent path. The divergent path was taken to go to the heart berry when one is making a "breakthrough". Red Sky stated the temptation of the "strawberry" on the divergent path should be avoided.
The Lakota and Delaware custom of recording yearly "winter Counts" on skin or birch bark was also widely recorded. See the book entitled "The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian "
I suggest that "picking strawberries" was symbolic of temptation. Most importantly, this statement shows that at least this "portion" of the document is authentic.
-
The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway . . . Ojibwe
The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian . . . Lakota
So, why does Bubo mention either one in a discussion of the Walam Olum?
-
The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway . . . Ojibwe
The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian . . . Lakota
So, why does Bubo mention either one in a discussion of the Walam Olum?
It is worthy to mention Ojibway and Lakota in discussion of the Walam Olum because each group used "Picture Writing" in recording their history. The same phrases and symbols were actually used by these groups during important ceremonies, as shown above. These groups also were "named" by Europeans and these names have little or nothing to do with who they actually were.
-
The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway . . . Ojibwe
The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian . . . Lakota
So, why does Bubo mention either one in a discussion of the Walam Olum?
It is worthy to mention Ojibway and Lakota in discussion of the Walam Olum because each group used "Picture Writing" in recording their history. The same phrases and symbols were actually used by these groups during important ceremonies, as shown above. These groups also were "named" by Europeans and these names have little or nothing to do with who they actually were.
Many people used "Picture Writing" in recording their history; the Ojibwe, Lakota, and Lenape are not unique in this regard.
"The same phrases and symbols were actually used by these groups" . . . Please give an example where the Ojibwe, Lakota, and Lenape use the same word or symbol, with the identical meaning. You're not going to find even one. No, your "picking berries" example is not valid. Their ceremonies are not the same; their traditions are not the same; their languages are not the same.
These groups were "named" by Europeans. These groups? I'm sure you meant to say these Nations. These wouldn't be the only People "named" by Europeans or by neighboring Nations.
You have failed to justify your use of The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway or The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian in trying to prove the authenticity of the Walam Olum.
-
Bls's opinion :"No, your "picking berries" example is not valid." is completely unsupported by any facts.
The phrase "picking berries" in allegorical uses in each ceremony and scroll is exactly the same.
Dont take my word for it, read the factual proof for yourself that three sources use the same phrase, symbol, and ceremony.
See also page 132, the Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation, by George Copway 1860.
http://www.archive.org/details/indianlifeindian00copw
Interesting to compare the walam olum symbols with this:
http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/24WALAM.htm
-
Continuity that the Walam Olum, Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony by Speck, and Birchbark Scrolls by Dewdney are each related is seen in their reference to "Picking Berries".
]Rafinesque recorded in the Walam Olum first part "the first women picking berries"
Speck states that "Picking Berries" was done on the fourth, fifth, and sixth day of the Big House Ceremony. Picking berries was symbolic of the attendants action of picking up wampum scattered about at the ceremony. The Wampum was stored in the mouth while the attendants made the sound "M+". This symbolized birds picking berries from bushes. Others state that the action used to reward the attendants for their efforts with Wampum (Money).
]Dewdney recorded in the Birchbark scrolls that "Picking berries" was symbolic of taking the divergent path. The divergent path was taken to go to the heart berry when one is making a "breakthrough". Red Sky stated the temptation of the "strawberry" on the divergent path should be avoided.
The Lakota and Delaware custom of recording yearly "winter Counts" on skin or birch bark was also widely recorded. See the book entitled "The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian "
I suggest that "picking strawberries" was symbolic of temptation. Most importantly, this statement shows that at least this "portion" of the document is authentic.
There is no word in the Walam Olum meaning "picking berries." "Gattamin", the word that's supposed to mean that, by one translator's guess, is not a Lenape word. It's a word invented by Rafinesque, which he said means "fat fruits." So even the author of the Walam Olum didn't talk about "picking berries". "Gattamin" is not found in the Big House Ceremony.
In the Big House Ceremony, "picking berries" is used in reference to picking up wampum, in payment or reward for services rendered.
In the Birchbark Scrolls, the use of the term "picking berries" signifies the "divergent path" taken when making a "breakthrough".
The phrase "picking berries" in allegorical uses in each ceremony and scroll is exactly the same.
Using the references cited, this has not been proven.
Still wondering why you mentioned the Lakota "winter counts". You haven't even attempted to tie that into the discussion, just left a loose-end dangling.
Your suggestion that "picking strawberries" is symbolic of temptation is opinion, with no facts to back it up.
None of this proves the Walam Olum is authentic. Your statement hinges on "picking berries" and since the word Rafinesque used is not even Lenape, and he said it meant "fat fruits", you're grasping at straws.
-
Not grasping at straws at all, and it is rewarding to have such expert sources backing up my opinion. Picking Berries is used in the Walam Olum in the 19th glyph. According to Napora, glyph 19 is translated as "picking berries". The context of the phrase is set out as described in the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony on page 143. The Delaware Chief by the English Name of George Copway sets out dozens of other glyhps used in the walam olum in his 1860 book entitled The Traditional History of the Ojibway Indians. The Birchbark Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway sets out further symbolism of picking berries on page 103. Further supporting the context: Speck clarifies the Delaware phraseology includes the statement "Wampum is our heart" on page 64.See also Native Heart Berry Basketry of the Ojibway
http://www.simplybaskets.com/Native_American_Indian_Ojibwa_Strawberry_Heart_Berry_Basket.html
Winter counts were also part of this pictographic language of the northern nations, which include countless parallels in symbolism to that of the Walam Olum.
-
Not grasping at straws at all, and it is rewarding to have such expert sources backing up my opinion. Picking Berries is used in the Walam Olum in the 19th glyph. According to Napora, glyph 19 is translated as "picking berries". The context of the phrase is set out as described in the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony on page 143. The Delaware Chief by the English Name of George Copway sets out dozens of other glyhps used in the walam olum in his 1860 book entitled The Traditional History of the Ojibway Indians. The Birchbark Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway sets out further symbolism of picking berries on page 103. Further supporting the context: Speck clarifies the Delaware phraseology includes the statement "Wampum is our heart" on page 64.See also Native Heart Berry Basketry of the Ojibway
http://www.simplybaskets.com/Native_American_Indian_Ojibwa_Strawberry_Heart_Berry_Basket.html
Winter counts were also part of this pictographic language of the northern nations, which include countless parallels in symbolism to that of the Walam Olum.
According to Rafinesque, there was no "picking berries". According to him, his made-up word meant "fat fruits".
Joe Napora acknowledged that the Walam Olum is a hoax. He has been quoted as saying that he was "dismayed that the sources upon whom he had relied had been so negligent in their investigation of the document that the hoax should have continued as long as it has".
http://books.google.com/books?id=w7bPHGCMsg0C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=Napora+%2B+Walam+Olum&source=bl&ots=AalI18s8IK&sig=nUzDPZH6m_6ZHhqWX0JazjayH88&hl=en&ei=CulCSoygBYXasgPOnoHrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
Kahgegagahbowh, George Copway, was Mississauga Band Ojibwe. He was not a Delaware Chief. Copway married a white woman and became a Methodist missionary. His first book was The Life, History and Travels of Kah-ge-ga-gah-Bowh, 1847; his second was The Traditional History and Characteristic Sketches of the Ojibwa Nation, 1851. The Walam Olum is not mentioned in either book.
Now you quote Speck as saying "Wampum is our heart". Earlier, when you quoted Speck in regard to "picking berries" . . . "This symbolized birds picking berries from bushes. Others state that the action used to reward the attendants for their efforts with Wampum (Money)." So, which is it?
You cannot draw parallels between all the "northern Nations". Each Nation has its own language, its own traditions, its own history.
-
Wrong on Raf, correct that Copway was Ojibway chief, not Delaware. And he explained in his books that such sacred writings were to be kept private.
Your interpretation of the excerpts that Oestreicher published "from Napora" is really just evidence of taking statements out of context in a thoughtless attempt to make it appear that Napora's work is not current or valid. Perhaps look up the definition of "dismayed". Then look at previous notes in this thread that clear up Napora's opinion. Read Napora to find out what he wrote, then read Speck to find out what he wrote.
The presumption that there can be no connections between northern groups is also inaccurate because all were fleeing for their lives from invasion, and all had been trading for eons on ancient waterways. One example is that there was obsidian found in Ohio artifacts from the Yellowstone area.
-
Wrong on Raf, correct that Copway was Ojibway chief, not Delaware. And he explained in his books that such sacred writings were to be kept private.
Your interpretation of the excerpts that Oestreicher published "from Napora" is really just evidence of taking statements out of context in a thoughtless attempt to make it appear that Napora's work is not current or valid. Perhaps look up the definition of "dismayed". Then look at previous notes in this thread that clear up Napora's opinion. Read Napora to find out what he wrote, then read Speck to find out what he wrote.
The presumption that there can be no connections between northern groups is also inaccurate because all were fleeing for their lives from invasion, and all had been trading for eons on ancient waterways. One example is that there was obsidian found in Ohio artifacts from the Yellowstone area.
The word Rafinesque used when he wrote the Walam Olum is "gattamin". This word is not Lenape; it is a made-up word, invented by Rafinesque. He translated it as "fat fruits". Lily translated it to mean "picking berries" and Brinton translated it to mean "they desired it". There is no consensus, even among people who believe the Walam Olum is real. I imagine it is difficult to translate a word that doesn't exist in real life. But since it's Rafinesque's word, I'd go with his meaning.
Yeah, I knew I had my facts when it came to George Copway. Another fact that you may not be aware of . . . He was convicted of embezzlement and defrocked by the Methodist church in 1846. After that happened, he moved to New York, started writing and giving lectures. He used the romantic style of writing, meant to appeal to the popular taste of the time. He portrays himself as ""noble-but-literate and Christianized". Another fact you may not know . . . Copway was given a copy of the Walam Olum and believed it to be authentic. Some think he may have used it as a source for some of his pictographs, changing them up just a bit to make them look Ojibwe.
My interpretation of Napora's words?? Not just my interpretation. Napora says the Walam Olum is a hoax. How many ways can that statement be interpreted? He said he was dismayed that the sources he'd used were so negligent. I think we all know the meaning of dismayed, as well as the meaning of negligent. I am not taking anything out of context. I never said Napora's work "is not current or valid". I put a great deal of validity in his admission that the Walam Olum is a hoax. If you're talking about Napora's translation . . . Napora does not speak, read, or write Lenape. He relied on previous translations; you know, the ones he now feels were negligent.
I'm going to say this one more time, because obviously you're having trouble with comprehension. You cannot make blanket statements about American Indian cultures. Each Nation has it's own history, it's own tradition, it's own language. Just because they traded, just because obsidian was found in Ohio, does not mean that they shared their creation stories, their spirituality, or any of their traditions.
-
First, opinion of "real or created" lenape words from the early 1800's translation is affected by a major chronological problem of at least 179 years. Languages change over time, a proven fact..
The detractor's character attack on the Chief of the Ojibway is utterly thoughtless. Clearly, dredging up these attacks on the character of an Ojibway Chief is done in an attempt to obscure his use of the Walam Olum symbols. Consider that some settler thought this Ojibway Chief had too much money, and made false accusations. The "court" process in 1800's made it especially easy to destroy native lives, ignore civil rights and take their lands.
Lets simply review logic about the argument. If Ojibway Chief was given a copy of the Walam Olum, and then "copied" the walam olum images into his 1860 book on authentic glyphs, then he must have thought very highly of Rafinesques "creation". If Ojibway Chief never saw the document, then the symbols were obviously evidence of authenticity. IF Ojibway Chief translated the Walam Olum for Rafinesque, then the Walam Olum is authentic. And still, Oest would have us believe that Raf "copied" them.
When we have proof that natives traded raw materials, then they must have got something back for their commodity. What was it? Verification that they traded the legends, stories, and traditions can easily be determined by a widespread review of Native myths, languages, and legends. Bls need not repeat yourself any more. I agree to disagree with Bls constant thoughtless nay saying.
-
First, opinion of "real or created" lenape words from the early 1800's translation is affected by a major chronological problem of at least 179 years. Languages change over time, a proven fact..
The detractor's character attack on the Chief of the Ojibway is utterly thoughtless. Clearly, dredging up these attacks on the character of an Ojibway Chief is done in an attempt to obscure his use of the Walam Olum symbols. Consider that some settler thought this Ojibway Chief had too much money, and made false accusations. The "court" process in 1800's made it especially easy to destroy native lives, ignore civil rights and take their lands.
Lets simply review logic about the argument. If Ojibway Chief was given a copy of the Walam Olum, and then "copied" the walam olum images into his 1860 book on authentic glyphs, then he must have thought very highly of Rafinesques "creation". If Ojibway Chief never saw the document, then the symbols were obviously evidence of authenticity. IF Ojibway Chief translated the Walam Olum for Rafinesque, then the Walam Olum is authentic. And still, Oest would have us believe that Raf "copied" them.
When we have proof that natives traded raw materials, then they must have got something back for their commodity. What was it? Verification that they traded the legends, stories, and traditions can easily be determined by a widespread review of Native myths, languages, and legends. Bls need not repeat yourself any more. I agree to disagree with Bls constant thoughtless nay saying.
Yes, languages change over time. This is not what happened in this case. Rafinesque knew some Lenape; he invented the rest. From his original manuscript, it can be determined that he wrote the Walam Olum first in English and then translated it into Lenape.
This was not a "character attack on the Chief of the Ojibway". I was simply stating facts; something you seem unable to do. Your ramble about what might have happened, i.e. "some settler thought this Ojibway Chief had too much money, and made false accusations", is purely conjecture. You don't need to tell me about the court system in the 1800's, as it pertains to Indians; I know how bad it was. However, there is no evidence that Copway's conviction was not legitimate. Don't muddy the water.
Copway did not translate the Walam Olum for Rafinesque. He received a copy of the completed, published work. Did he think "very highly" of it? I guess so, at least he liked it enough to copy some of the symbols. The fact that he borrowed from the Walam Olum does not make it authentic. It doesn't say much for Copway, either.
What do you think Indians traded for? Do you think they traded corn for ceremony? Are you intentionally being obtuse? They traded one commodity for another. Traditions and spirituality are not commodities.
One more time: You cannot make blanket statements about American Indian cultures. Each Nation has it's own history, it's own tradition, it's own language. Just because they traded, just because obsidian was found in Ohio, does not mean that they shared their creation stories, their spirituality, or any of their traditions.
-
What do you think Indians traded for? Do you think they traded corn for ceremony? Are you intentionally being obtuse? They traded one commodity for another. Traditions and spirituality are not commodities.
One more time: You cannot make blanket statements about American Indian cultures. Each Nation has it's own history, it's own tradition, it's own language. Just because they traded, just because obsidian was found in Ohio, does not mean that they shared their creation stories, their spirituality, or any of their traditions.
You sure this NEVER happened? Ghost Dance and the southeastern stomp culture comes to mind; if i had the time to research these days i think numerous examples would emerge. Is it the case with the Walum Olam? Don't know. Ad hominem comments discouraged and may violate TOS.
-
What do you think Indians traded for? Do you think they traded corn for ceremony? Are you intentionally being obtuse? They traded one commodity for another. Traditions and spirituality are not commodities.
One more time: You cannot make blanket statements about American Indian cultures. Each Nation has it's own history, it's own tradition, it's own language. Just because they traded, just because obsidian was found in Ohio, does not mean that they shared their creation stories, their spirituality, or any of their traditions.
You sure this NEVER happened? Ghost Dance and the southeastern stomp culture comes to mind; if i had the time to research these days i think numerous examples would emerge. Is it the case with the Walum Olam? Don't know. Ad hominem comments discouraged and may violate TOS.
Bubo has tried to say that because the Ojibwe recorded events on birchbark scrolls and the Lakota kept their winter counts on hides, the Lenape would have recorded their history on something. He's also tried to say that if a symbol means one thing in Ojibwe, it means something similar in Lenape. He's trying to make blanket statements about Indian culture, traditions, history, and language. It can't be done.
Ad hominem comments discouraged and may violate TOS . . .
What are you trying to say?
-
Bls do not put words into my mouth. To concisely summarize my conclusion based on the evidence shown:
1. Ritual and linguistic connections have been shown with the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony.
2.The cultural importance of "picking berries" is corroborated in WO, Southern Ojbway Birchbark scrolls, Delware indian big House ceremony, and Ojibway heart berry Basketry.
3. Glyphs used in the WO match other artifacts including the Piqua Ohio Ketika Figurines, Cahokia Mounds tablet engravings, Lakota Winter counts, and others.
4. Archaeological evidence has been found that corroborate statements made in the Walam Olum including Stockades, Palisades, and burnt buildings found at Cahokia.
5. Ojibway Chief George Copway translated the Walam Olum (WO) for Rafinesque (see page 132, the Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation, by George Copway 1860).
These points confirm the authenticity of the Walam Olum.
-
Bls do not put words into my mouth. To concisely summarize my conclusion based on the evidence shown:
1. Ritual and linguistic connections have been shown with the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony.
2.The cultural importance of "picking berries" is corroborated in WO, Southern Ojbway Birchbark scrolls, Delware indian big House ceremony, and Ojibway heart berry Basketry.
3. Glyphs used in the WO match other artifacts including the Piqua Ohio Ketika Figurines, Cahokia Mounds tablet engravings, Lakota Winter counts, and others.
4. Archaeological evidence has been found that corroborate statements made in the Walam Olum including Stockades, Palisades, and burnt buildings found at Cahokia.
5. Ojibway Chief George Copway translated the Walam Olum (WO) for Rafinesque (see page 132, the Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation, by George Copway 1860).
These points confirm the authenticity of the Walam Olum.
Documentation needed.
Some of these statements are so far from the truth that they border on ridiculous.
-
Documentation given with page numbers, Bls missed it. bls opinions. Now some others.
"I discovered evidence that convinced me the legend Walam Olum was a true history. I wrote a book, Frozen Trail to Merica, to explain the
history." Myron Payne
"Walam Olum is a fascinating document that deserves more study, study without the academic turf protection and careerism that infects so much historical / literary study. .. You make the connection, the same as I did, between the Cahokia art and the walam Olum. Perhaps those are the connections that Rafinesque made, but does that matter all that much? Rafinesque was a creative artist / naturalist / poet." Joe Napora
"First to the Wallam Olam and the Welsh connection. The story of the Wallam Olam is somewhat in a fog. First, (from what we can glean from Constantine Rafinesque) there was a Dr. Ward who was summoned to the White Water area of Indiana to treat a Native American village whose members were all sick (smallpox?). One of the last surviving men who called himself a "king" asked if he could give this Dr. Ward some sacred information. The dying Indian told Dr. Ward that the member of the tribe who was originally scheduled to received the information was now dead and there was not left to present the material to him. The Indian handed Dr. Ward 148 sticks, each with carvings on them. The University of Georgia attempted to run down the name "Dr. Ward" during the time period. None were found in Indiana. But such a Dr. Ward was found living in Cynthiana, KY and that Dr. Ward was a friend of Rafinesque, so maybe the same one.
Dr. Ward later gave the sticks to Constantine Rafinesque, a professor at Transylvania College in Lexington, KY. Later Rafinesque and Eli Lilly (of Indiana fame) supposedly went to the tribal area to get more information on the Wallam Olam. In talking with some surviving elders, they discovered there was a chant that went with each stick. One stick supposedly told of a great flood and another contained the tribe's creation myth. The remaining sticks told what happened to various kings during their reigns. Lilly published the Wallam Olam as a book and gave each member of the Indiana Historical Society a copy.
The bards of the Brits also recorded births and deaths of nobility on sticks, and on special occasions they brought them out into the public and sang the stories recorded for everyone to hear. Independent invention? Diffusion?
Obviously at the very least Rafinesque and Lilly would have had some trouble understanding the wording of the Wallam Olam, but they did, I think, the best they could to write down what they heard.
Now the Welsh connection. Had Rafinesque and Lilly written down Guallam Olam instead of Wallam Olam, they would have been right on target. In British-Khumary (now Welsh), Guallam Olam (sound familiar?) means "Organization of Everyone." And how about this? Lleni Llenape translates from Khumric as "Hidden or Secret Knowledge or Lineage." Do you suppose this misunderstanding may have created a name for a whole new tribe of Native Americans? Many, if not most, of the Native tribes now carry names that were generated from what Europeans heard and wrote down, and some of those were completely off from what the tribes called themselves." Lee Pennington
What happened to the Delaware? Historical Context for the time frame of annihilation of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark can be seen in George Rogers Clark's journal. This account verifies the placement of the Delaware in Piqua, Ohio, where the Piqua Ketika Figurines were found. And later in Indiana, Cahokia, Illinois, and Kentucky.
http://books.google.com/books?id=D2gOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+rogers+clark
Readers can see these birchbark scrolls/ sticks at the following link:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?start=all
Readers can compare other birchbark engravings are found in Russia.
http://gramoty.ru/
-
Documentation given with page numbers, Bls missed it. bls opinions. Now some others.
"I discovered evidence that convinced me the legend Walam Olum was a true history. I wrote a book, Frozen Trail to Merica, to explain the
history." Myron Payne
"Walam Olum is a fascinating document that deserves more study, study without the academic turf protection and careerism that infects so much historical / literary study. .. You make the connection, the same as I did, between the Cahokia art and the walam Olum. Perhaps those are the connections that Rafinesque made, but does that matter all that much? Rafinesque was a creative artist / naturalist / poet." Joe Napora
"First to the Wallam Olam and the Welsh connection. The story of the Wallam Olam is somewhat in a fog. First, (from what we can glean from Constantine Rafinesque) there was a Dr. Ward who was summoned to the White Water area of Indiana to treat a Native American village whose members were all sick (smallpox?). One of the last surviving men who called himself a "king" asked if he could give this Dr. Ward some sacred information. The dying Indian told Dr. Ward that the member of the tribe who was originally scheduled to received the information was now dead and there was not left to present the material to him. The Indian handed Dr. Ward 148 sticks, each with carvings on them. The University of Georgia attempted to run down the name "Dr. Ward" during the time period. None were found in Indiana. But such a Dr. Ward was found living in Cynthiana, KY and that Dr. Ward was a friend of Rafinesque, so maybe the same one.
Dr. Ward later gave the sticks to Constantine Rafinesque, a professor at Transylvania College in Lexington, KY. Later Rafinesque and Eli Lilly (of Indiana fame) supposedly went to the tribal area to get more information on the Wallam Olam. In talking with some surviving elders, they discovered there was a chant that went with each stick. One stick supposedly told of a great flood and another contained the tribe's creation myth. The remaining sticks told what happened to various kings during their reigns. Lilly published the Wallam Olam as a book and gave each member of the Indiana Historical Society a copy.
The bards of the Brits also recorded births and deaths of nobility on sticks, and on special occasions they brought them out into the public and sang the stories recorded for everyone to hear. Independent invention? Diffusion?
Obviously at the very least Rafinesque and Lilly would have had some trouble understanding the wording of the Wallam Olam, but they did, I think, the best they could to write down what they heard.
Now the Welsh connection. Had Rafinesque and Lilly written down Guallam Olam instead of Wallam Olam, they would have been right on target. In British-Khumary (now Welsh), Guallam Olam (sound familiar?) means "Organization of Everyone." And how about this? Lleni Llenape translates from Khumric as "Hidden or Secret Knowledge or Lineage." Do you suppose this misunderstanding may have created a name for a whole new tribe of Native Americans? Many, if not most, of the Native tribes now carry names that were generated from what Europeans heard and wrote down, and some of those were completely off from what the tribes called themselves." Lee Pennington
What happened to the Delaware? Historical Context for the time frame of annihilation of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark can be seen in George Rogers Clark's journal. This account verifies the placement of the Delaware in Piqua, Ohio, where the Piqua Ketika Figurines were found. And later in Indiana, Cahokia, Illinois, and Kentucky.
http://books.google.com/books?id=D2gOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+rogers+clark
Readers can see these birchbark scrolls/ sticks at the following link:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?start=all
Readers can compare other birchbark engravings are found in Russia.
http://gramoty.ru/
« Last Edit: Today at 06:44:10 AM by BuboAhab »
Love the way he edits his posts 12 hours after they were originally made.
-
Last I checked, there is no rule about editing posts, and adding relevant information.
Is that the best Bls can say in "rebuttal"? Bls case is based on Ad hominem, unscientific opinion, and nay saying.
-
Simon Le Page du Pratz recorded the Natchez use of pictographs, and my current working hypothesis is that their usage was rapidly adopted by others. (Noted on page 389 of Man and Impact in the Americas. See also page 253 and following for other accounts of "Mississippian" mede.)
My current opinion is that is why the Walam Olum gets a lot more specific around 1,000 CE (AD). This date accords well with the spread of "Mississippian" Culture up the Mississippi River.
The Five Nations use of historical wampum as mnemnonic aides is ancient, including year counts. As I cited earlier here, we also have Sutton's account of Lenape medewak use of historical wampum, including year counts. I can not hazard a guess as to when the Lenape medewak adopted this technology.
I am enjoying the polite discussion here by others now more able on this matter.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Bls's opinion :"No, your "picking berries" example is not valid." is completely unsupported by any facts.
The phrase "picking berries" in allegorical uses in each ceremony and scroll is exactly the same.
Dont take my word for it, read the factual proof for yourself that three sources use the same phrase, symbol, and ceremony.
See also page 132, the Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation, by George Copway 1860.
http://www.archive.org/details/indianlifeindian00copw
Interesting to compare the walam olum symbols with this:
http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/24WALAM.htm
It was a little difficult to check anything out in those "three sources", since only two were given; but I gave it my best shot.
I agree that the pictures in Copway's book are similar to those in the Walam Olum. Similar in the same way that all stick figures resemble each other no matter who draws them. I didn't notice any berries in Copway's.
The second reference is in French. It's impossible "to compare the walam olum symbols with this", since it is the Walam Olum glyphs.
Bubo, you've given me one reference with which to compare the Walam Olum, Copway's Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation, and that didn't pan out.
Again, please give an example where the Ojibwe, Lakota, and Lenape use the same word or symbol, with the identical meaning.
-
Grondine reinforced a reason not to share the treasure of the Walam Olum with those unable to grasp the truth. As Le Paige Du Pratz stated, "This is what makes them vividly conscious of the fact that they ought not to waste this treasure, and that the surest means of preserving it unaltered is not to entrust such a precious deposit to people who do not have the prudence necessary to make good use of it, or who in a little while would entirely deform it by additions or by omissions equally unfortunate to the truth."
Contrary to what Bls would have us believe, not all "stick figures" are alike. There is a marked resemblance between Ojibway Chief George Copway's glyphs and the Walam Olum glyphs. This is because the Walam Olum used Ojibway symbols with meaning.
For those who had difficulty locating sources:
1. Man and Impact In the Americas by Grondine is a most valuable source in this study.
2. Picking Berries is used in the Walam Olum in the 19th glyph. According to Napora, glyph 19 is translated as "picking berries".
http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/24WALAM.htm
3. The context of the phrase is set out as described in the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony on page 143. Further supporting the context: Speck clarifies the Delaware phraseology includes the statement "Wampum is our heart" on page 64
4. The Delaware Chief by the English Name of George Copway sets out dozens of other glyhps used in the walam olum in his 1860 book entitled The Traditional History of the Ojibway Indians (Which I stated the walam olum glyphs should be compared with).
http://www.archive.org/details/indianlifeindian00copw
5. The Birchbark Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway sets out further symbolism of picking berries on page 103.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?start=all
6. See also Native Heart Berry Basketry of the Ojibway;
http://www.simplybaskets.com/Native_American_Indian_Ojibwa_Strawberry_Heart_Berry_Basket.html
7. Historical Context for the time frame of annihilation of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark can be seen in George Rogers Clark's journal. This account verifies the placement of the Delaware in Piqua, Ohio, where the Piqua Ketika Figurines were found. And later in Indiana, Cahokia, Illinois, and Kentucky.
http://books.google.com/books?id=D2gOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+rogers+clark
8. Lakota Winter Counts - The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian by Greene is an excellent place to start in the study on these artifacts. Winter counts were also part of this pictographic language of the northern nations, which include countless parallels in symbolism to that of the Walam Olum.
9. Piqua Ohio artifacts from the Smithsonian are shown to be Ketika figurines in "Social Symbolism of Tribal Art" by Carl Schuster. This comprehensive work shows the Ketika Figurines and explains their cultural significance.
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/walamolum.htm
-
BuboAhab -
As near as I know, Mr Burrows "artifacts" are all frauds. Mr. Burrows was the jailer of Frank Joseph Collin, the organizer of the neo-Nazi marches through Skokie, who was later imprisoned for improper activities with young boys, and who emerged from prison to become editor of Ancient American magazine.
From the reports that I have read and seen presented, many people have had much time and money wasted trying to verify any of Burrows' claims, and to date they have not had any success.
Until Burrows proves any of his claims, it would probably be best to consider his "artifacts" as frauds. You will want to remove mention of them, so as to not compromise your citations of real artifacts showing WO symbols, or cast shadows on your sense of judgment.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Grondine reinforced a reason not to share the treasure of the Walam Olum with those unable to grasp the truth. As Le Paige Du Pratz stated, "This is what makes them vividly conscious of the fact that they ought not to waste this treasure, and that the surest means of preserving it unaltered is not to entrust such a precious deposit to people who do not have the prudence necessary to make good use of it, or who in a little while would entirely deform it by additions or by omissions equally unfortunate to the truth."
Contrary to what Bls would have us believe, not all "stick figures" are alike. There is a marked resemblance between Ojibway Chief George Copway's glyphs and the Walam Olum glyphs. This is because the Walam Olum used Ojibway symbols with meaning.
For those who had difficulty locating sources:
1. Man and Impact In the Americas by Grondine is a most valuable source in this study.
2. Picking Berries is used in the Walam Olum in the 19th glyph. According to Napora, glyph 19 is translated as "picking berries".
http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/24WALAM.htm
3. The context of the phrase is set out as described in the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony on page 143. Further supporting the context: Speck clarifies the Delaware phraseology includes the statement "Wampum is our heart" on page 64
4. The Delaware Chief by the English Name of George Copway sets out dozens of other glyhps used in the walam olum in his 1860 book entitled The Traditional History of the Ojibway Indians (Which I stated the walam olum glyphs should be compared with).
http://www.archive.org/details/indianlifeindian00copw
5. The Birchbark Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway sets out further symbolism of picking berries on page 103.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?start=all
6. See also Native Heart Berry Basketry of the Ojibway;
http://www.simplybaskets.com/Native_American_Indian_Ojibwa_Strawberry_Heart_Berry_Basket.html
7. Historical Context for the time frame of annihilation of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark can be seen in George Rogers Clark's journal. This account verifies the placement of the Delaware in Piqua, Ohio, where the Piqua Ketika Figurines were found. And later in Indiana, Cahokia, Illinois, and Kentucky.
http://books.google.com/books?id=D2gOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+rogers+clark
8. Lakota Winter Counts - The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian by Greene is an excellent place to start in the study on these artifacts. Winter counts were also part of this pictographic language of the northern nations, which include countless parallels in symbolism to that of the Walam Olum.
9. Piqua Ohio artifacts from the Smithsonian are shown to be Ketika figurines in "Social Symbolism of Tribal Art" by Carl Schuster. This comprehensive work shows the Ketika Figurines and explains their cultural significance.
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/walamolum.htm
I want to address several of these assertions, but don't have time this morning. Saving so they won't be edited before I have time to comment. Will post this evening.
-
BuboAhab -
As near as I know, Mr Burrows "artifacts" are all frauds. Mr. Burrows was the jailer of Frank Joseph Collin, the organizer of the neo-Nazi marches through Skokie, who was later imprisoned for improper activities with young boys, and who emerged from prison to become editor of Ancient American magazine.
From the reports that I have read and seen presented, many people have had much time and money wasted trying to verify any of Burrows' claims, and to date they have not had any success.
Until Burrows proves any of his claims, it would probably be best to consider his "artifacts" as frauds. You will want to remove mention of them, so as to not compromise your citations of real artifacts showing WO symbols, or cast shadows on your sense of judgment.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
Ed Grondine;
The subject and the objects of the Burrows Cave "discovery" are a different topic from the Walam Olum and should not be conflated in any way. To this end, I suggest a different thread for the topic of the Burrows Cave. For the record, I have no affiliation with Mr. Burrows or any of the activities that you stated. I have never met the person that you are speaking of and do not know anything about the man. Hopefully this clears up any confusion.
-
I want to address several of these assertions, but don't have time this morning. Saving so they won't be edited before I have time to comment. Will post this evening.
: Bls don't bother with your "address" unless you have facts and citations to back up your opinion. The citations that I have listed are independently verifiable and can be checked by anyone that is serious about researching the topic of the Walam Olum.
-
Grondine reinforced a reason not to share the treasure of the Walam Olum with those unable to grasp the truth. As Le Paige Du Pratz stated, "This is what makes them vividly conscious of the fact that they ought not to waste this treasure, and that the surest means of preserving it unaltered is not to entrust such a precious deposit to people who do not have the prudence necessary to make good use of it, or who in a little while would entirely deform it by additions or by omissions equally unfortunate to the truth."
Contrary to what Bls would have us believe, not all "stick figures" are alike. There is a marked resemblance between Ojibway Chief George Copway's glyphs and the Walam Olum glyphs. This is because the Walam Olum used Ojibway symbols with meaning.
For those who had difficulty locating sources:
Going to reply to these one by one.
1. Man and Impact In the Americas by Grondine is a most valuable source in this study.
I haven't read Man and Impact, but having experienced the 'research' in this thread, I don't think I'll bother.
2. Picking Berries is used in the Walam Olum in the 19th glyph. According to Napora, glyph 19 is translated as "picking berries".
http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/24WALAM.htm
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlum-Gattamin.jpg) 19th Glyph - Gattamin netami mitzi nijini nantine'
I don't read French, so I'm not sure what Napora originally thought the 19th glyph said. I do know that Napora now thinks the Walam Olum is a hoax. He has been quoted as saying that he was "dismayed that the sources upon whom he had relied had been so negligent in their investigation of the document that the hoax should have continued as long as it has".
Rafinesque translated it as "fat fruit the first food the Jinns the fairies".
Brinton translated the same glyph/phrase to say "and fetched them food, when first they desired it".
3. The context of the phrase is set out as described in the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony on page 143. Further supporting the context: Speck clarifies the Delaware phraseology includes the statement "Wampum is our heart" on page 64
It's disrespectful to speak of the Big House Ceremony while talking about the Walam Olum.
4. The Delaware Chief by the English Name of George Copway sets out dozens of other glyhps used in the walam olum in his 1860 book entitled The Traditional History of the Ojibway Indians (Which I stated the walam olum glyphs should be compared with).
http://www.archive.org/details/indianlifeindian00copw
George Copway was Ojibwe, not Delaware. I thought we already cleared that up. Are you now saying the Walam Olum used Ojibwe glyphs? I thought it was supposed to be Lenape.
Let's compare the Walam Olum glyphs with the glyphs in Copway's book.
Walam Olum
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlumGlyphs1.jpg) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlumGlyphs3.gif) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlumGlyphs4.gif) . . .
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlumGlyphs6.gif) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlumGlyphs8.jpg) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlumGlyphs9.jpg)
Copway
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/CopwayOjibweGlyphs2.jpg)
5. The Birchbark Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway sets out further symbolism of picking berries on page 103.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?start=all
I didn't see any berries.
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/OjibwayGlyphs1.jpg) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/OjibwayGlyphs2.jpg)
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/OjibwayGlyphs3.jpg) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/OjibwayGlyphs4.jpg)
6. See also Native Heart Berry Basketry of the Ojibway;
http://www.simplybaskets.com/Native_American_Indian_Ojibwa_Strawberry_Heart_Berry_Basket.html
This is a modern basket . . . 2004. It's the only Ojibwe 'strawberry basket' I could find anywhere.
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Baskets/OjibweStrawberryHeartBasket2004.jpg)
Compare with traditional Ojibwe baskets.
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Baskets/OjibweBasket1.jpg) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Baskets/OjibweBasket5.jpg)
7. Historical Context for the time frame of annihilation of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark can be seen in George Rogers Clark's journal. This account verifies the placement of the Delaware in Piqua, Ohio, where the Piqua Ketika Figurines were found. And later in Indiana, Cahokia, Illinois, and Kentucky.
http://books.google.com/books?id=D2gOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+rogers+clark
The Lenape were not annihilated. Horrible things happened, they were forced out of their homeland, murdered, suffered the pain of Manifest Destiny; but they are still here. Don't be so arrogant.
8. Lakota Winter Counts - The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian by Greene is an excellent place to start in the study on these artifacts. Winter counts were also part of this pictographic language of the northern nations, which include countless parallels in symbolism to that of the Walam Olum.
Lakota Winter Counts
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/LakotaWinterCounts1.jpg)
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/LakotaWinterCounts4.jpg)
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/LakotaWinterCounts5.jpg)
9. Piqua Ohio artifacts from the Smithsonian are shown to be Ketika figurines in "Social Symbolism of Tribal Art" by Carl Schuster. This comprehensive work shows the Ketika Figurines and explains their cultural significance.
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/walamolum.htm
We did not walk across the Bering Strait. We did not come from Norway by way of Greenland. We did not come from Atlantis. We are not the Lost Tribe of Israel; neither are we related to any other tribes in the Middle East. There is no connection to Wales. I realize these facts fly in the face of all your research, but it's time for a little reality. Bubo, I know you've built your website and most of your academic career around these fantasies, but they just aren't true.
-
I want to address several of these assertions, but don't have time this morning. Saving so they won't be edited before I have time to comment. Will post this evening.
: Bls don't bother with your "address" unless you have facts and citations to back up your opinion. The citations that I have listed are independently verifiable and can be checked by anyone that is serious about researching the topic of the Walam Olum.
Facts, not opinion. As for the citations . . . I used the ones you gave us.
-
Grondine reinforced a reason not to share the treasure of the Walam Olum with those unable to grasp the truth. As Le Paige Du Pratz stated, "This is what makes them vividly conscious of the fact that they ought not to waste this treasure, and that the surest means of preserving it unaltered is not to entrust such a precious deposit to people who do not have the prudence necessary to make good use of it, or who in a little while would entirely deform it by additions or by omissions equally unfortunate to the truth."
Excuse me, Bubo Ahab, but Le Page du Pratz was speaking about the mechanisms the Natchez used to preserve their history in true form - they carefully selected their mede. These national histories were usually recited publicly once a year. As I understand, among the Lenape this occurred during the Big House Ceremony.
-
bls -
Do you have any idead why my keyboard is locking?
I haven't read Man and Impact, but having experienced the 'research' in this thread, I don't think I'll bother.
Bubo Ahab's iconographic work does not come from "Man and Impact in the Americas"
I have stated my reasons for my problems with Oestreicher's work as it not stands.
You can try to ignore the archaeological sequence, but that is your problem, not mine.
I was told by Lenape in Anderson that the Lenape stopped holding the Big House Ceremony some 20 years ago.
The report was that the Lenape recited their traditions during this ceremony, so it has bearing on the problem at hand.
The Lenape mede were pretty much annihilated. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion of what Rafinesque did.
-
Re: cyber attack that fouls keyboarding.
There is a difference between clever and intelligent. Someday someone will learn it.
My apologies for my anger at this.
We did not walk across the Bering Strait.
I see - Are you a racist who can't stand the idea of being distantly related to the peoples of Asia?
Well, as near as I can make out from Cambridge University's world DNA database, and the archaeological record:
1) C mt DNA (Iroquoian and others) crossed Berringia from after 50,000 BCE to about 32,000 BCE
2) A mt DNA (Siouxian hunters in the inland strip) crossed Beringia from about 32,000 BCE to 27,000 BC
and A mt DNA (Algonquin) crossed hunting sea turtles along the coast - hence the Great Turtle traditions,
which are shared with the peoples in Shanxi China.
3) B and D mt DNA (southern peoples ancestors) crossed the Pacific Ocean to South America sometime around 40,000 BCE, perhaps earlier, when boats were developed
4) The Savanah River mt DNA crossed from the Sahara River region of Africa to Pedra Furada 35,000 BC -it is nearly extinct, except for 6 individuals - most killed by impact, the remainder slaughtered during the conquest.
5) X mt DNA crossed from Europe 8,350 BCE - the Red Paint People
-
Due to the "keyboard problem" I have had to break my response into these separate messages.
We did not come from Norway by way of Greenland. We did not come from Atlantis. We are not the Lost Tribe of Israel; neither are we related to any other tribes in the Middle East. There is no connection to Wales. I realize these facts fly in the face of all your research, but it's time for a little reality. Bubo, I know you've built your website and most of your academic career around these fantasies, but they just aren't true.
Agreed. There are some people who have taken records of minor contacts and built imaginary worlds.
Educated Indian can provide you with a copy of my expose of this nonsense.
Without revealing their identities, I will add that others can as well.
Or you may contact me directly for a copy.
Bubo Ahab, what is your response?
-
Of course, the "keyboarding problem" could be related to exposing the Burrows Cave fraud ring, and not
to bls.
I suppose we'll learn which shortly.
-
Of course, the "keyboarding problem" could be related to exposing the Burrows Cave fraud ring, and not
to bls.
I suppose we'll learn which shortly.
Grondine [Insult removed] How could I have anything to do with your "keyboarding problem"? How could exposing the Burrows Cave fraud have caused it? Sounds like there's something wrong with your keyboard, your computer. Yep, sounds like a personal problem.
-
Of course, the "keyboarding problem" could be related to exposing the Burrows Cave fraud ring, and not to bls.
I suppose we'll learn which shortly.
Grondine, have you completely lost your mind? How could I have anything to do with your "keyboarding problem"? How could exposing the Burrows Cave fraud have caused it? Sounds like there's something wrong with your keyboard, your computer. Yep, sounds like a personal problem.
No, I did not loose my mind, and its no personal problem, bls.
As a matter of fact, I went over to the local library, used a computer with a completely different OS and browser, and the same thing happened when I tried to reply using "quote" on your post: bizarre keyboard and cursor dance.
As I mentioned earlier, there's a difference between clever and intelligent, as there is between clever, intelligent, and wise.
Now bls, you have my response in 3 sections; you may wish to respond, or not.
My offer to Oestreicher for a trade still stands.
-
Do not put words in my mouth. I made no claims about anything relating to Greenland, Atlantis, Lost Tribes of Israel, Middle East, or Wales? Where do you think your ancestors are from?
Bls you missed the correspondence in all of the sources that I have referenced. Dig deeper and keep looking. It might take you a few years.
-
"It is a shame to see your excellent observation on the Piqua tablet and your observations on wampum use compromised by this fraud (the Burrows Cave)."
Thanks for your kind comment on my research into the Piqua, Ohio Tablet and Wampum. I have been meaning to put together a more concise paper on the Ketika Figurines. Sorry to disappoint you about the Burrows Cave Fraud.
-
"It is a shame to see your excellent observation on the Piqua tablet and your observations on wampum use compromised by this fraud (the Burrows Cave)."
Thanks for your kind comment on my research into the Piqua, Ohio Tablet and Wampum. I have been meaning to put together a more concise paper on the Ketika Figurines. Sorry to disappoint you about the Burrows Cave Fraud.
Don't feel alone, others have been taken in by it as well. Your mention of it may have led to bls's statement.
As I wrote earlier, the Burrow's Cave ring is already known, and getting better known everyday. I expect that educated indian and the other moderators will move the topic to fraud when they get the time.
-
Do not put words in my mouth. I made no claims about anything relating to Greenland, Atlantis, Lost Tribes of Israel, Middle East, or Wales? Where do you think your ancestors are from?
Bls you missed the correspondence in all of the sources that I have referenced. Dig deeper and keep looking. It might take you a few years.
I "missed the correspondence in all of the sources"? Look at the glyphs! The ones from the Walam Olum do not look like the Ojibwe glyphs in either Copway's book or the Birchbark Scrolls. The Walam Olum glyphs do not look anything like the pictures found in the Lakota Winter Counts. If you still maintain that they all use the same figures with identical meanings, you really are delusional.
There were no references to "picking berries" and no strawberries in any of them.
As to your thoughts on where our ancestors originated, I'm not putting words in your mouth. A review of your research says it all; your words, your website.
Wales . . . You quoted Lee Pennington:
"The bards of the Brits also recorded births and deaths of nobility on sticks, and on special occasions they brought them out into the public and sang the stories recorded for everyone to hear. Independent invention? Diffusion?
Obviously at the very least Rafinesque and Lilly would have had some trouble understanding the wording of the Wallam Olam, but they did, I think, the best they could to write down what they heard.
Now the Welsh connection. Had Rafinesque and Lilly written down Guallam Olam instead of Wallam Olam, they would have been right on target. In British-Khumary (now Welsh), Guallam Olam (sound familiar?) means "Organization of Everyone." And how about this? Lleni Llenape translates from Khumric as "Hidden or Secret Knowledge or Lineage." Do you suppose this misunderstanding may have created a name for a whole new tribe of Native Americans? Many, if not most, of the Native tribes now carry names that were generated from what Europeans heard and wrote down, and some of those were completely off from what the tribes called themselves." Lee Pennington
Not only did Pennington say there was a Welsh connection to the Lenape, he asserts that they had "kings", a very eurocentric concept.
Norway via Greenland . . . You quoted Myron Paine:
"I discovered evidence that convinced me the legend Walam Olum was a true history. I wrote a book, Frozen Trail to Merica, to explain the history." Myron Payne
Some info about Myron Paine.
Books by Myron Paine
Frozen Trail to Merica: Talerman
by Myron Paine, Ph.D.
This book solves not only the mysterious disappearance of Norse from the Western Settlement of Greenland in the 1300s, but also deciphers Delaware (Lenape) Indian history found to have been written in Old Norse. The fictional plot is based on Chapter 3 of Walam Olum, a manuscript of pictograms and verses first published in 1836 and based on engravings on bark given in payment for treatment to a Dr. Ward of Indiana by an old Leni Lenape Indian.
http://www.galdepress.com/books/fiction/frozentrail.html
Frozen Trail to Merica: Walking to Merica
by Myron Paine, Ph.D.
This book solves not only the mysterious disappearance of Norse from the Western Settlement of Greenland in the 1300s, but also deciphers Delaware (Lenape) Indian history found to have been written in Old Norse. The fictional plot is based on the Walam Olum, a Native American manuscript consisting of engravings on bark. Walking to Merica continues the saga begun in Paine’s Talerman.
http://www.galdepress.com/books/fiction/frozentrailwalkingtomerica.html
Paine's Website
The Frozen Trail
Hypothesis: During the Little Ice Age ancestors of the Algonquin-speaking
people walked, en masse, on the ice from Norse Greenland to Merica
http://www.frozentrail.org/
600-YEAR OLD AMERICAN HISTORY HAS OLD NORSE WORDS
http://www.frozentrail.org/reviews/newsarticle
By Larry Stroud
Ancient American Artifact Preservation Association
February 28, 2007
Excerpt
That the Algonquin Indian languages have many words identical to Old Norse is not a new discovery, as evidenced in books other than Sherwinís, but the application Paine and Omdahl are using is new. The two are using Sherwinís eight volumes to decipher the Lenapeís ancient picture stick writing, the Walum Olum. For each picture stick, Lenape historians recited or sang a verse.
"The memory verses of the Walam Olum were created by people speaking Old Norse," Paine said. "The Walum Olum is a 600-year-old American history composed of pictographs and memory verses. The history tells of fighting the mound builders, Iroquois, and of the arrival of white men."
"Our efforts to decipher the Walum Olum have found a striking correlation of the Walum Olum words to Old Norse phrases," Paine said. "This relationship strongly supports the hypothesis that Old Norse speakers visited eastern ancient North America and left very tangible evidence of their presence."
HISTORY OF THE WALUM OLUM
http://www.frozentrail.org/reviews/newsarticle
Excerpt
Researchers Myron Paine and Frode Th. Omdahl, who specialize in Norse "tracks" in ancient America, give the following history of the Walum Olum:
About 1821 a dying Delaware historian passed a bundle of the Walum Olum memory sticks to a Dr. Ward, probably Dr. John Russell Ward, who was treating him. "The historian hoped to save the Lenape 400-year history as the tribe, splintered into chaotic factions that had fought on opposite sides in the American Revolutionary War, massacred each other and were being pushed out of their shrinking land allotments once again," Paine said.
Lost Tribe of Israel . . . You've referenced The Book of Wild:
The Book of Wild is also a supporting document that shows the Natives Used glyphs to record stories.
From your website:
Manuscript Pictograph America - by Domenech Emanuel, 1860
http://www.famsi.org/research/loubat/
Histoire Indians of North America, by Adair discusses the Jewish Origin of Native Americans.
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/bookofwild.htm
Middle East . . . Comparing North American artifacts to Egyptian, Libyan, Indian, Berber-Arabic, Hebrew, Islam
From your website:
The Rockford Journal
Rockford, Ill. August 13, 1874
Official Paper of The County
The Mound Builders
Were they of Aztec, Egyptian, or Lybian Nationality
Discovery of an Interesting Relic in a mound Near Rockford.
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/rockfordtablets.htm
Index of Tablets
41. Piqua, Ohio Ketika Figurines (two), expert Lee Pennington suggested the inscribed language on these tablets is coelbric.
79.Etowah Tablet from Etowah Mounds, GA is in the museum at the site. It is inscribed in Numidian and reads in the Berber-Arabic language. (Fell)
84.Marshall Anderson Rattlesnake Disk
Similar to the Ashoka Chakra, the wheel of law (dharma) relics of the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka the Great (Reigned 273-232 BCE) is now the central figure on the National Flag on the Republic of India.
114. the Newark Holy Stones, The Decalogue Tablet inscribed in Old Hebrew and located in the Coshocton, OH Museum
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/entableture.htm
-
"It is a shame to see your excellent observation on the Piqua tablet and your observations on wampum use compromised by this fraud (the Burrows Cave)."
Thanks for your kind comment on my research into the Piqua, Ohio Tablet and Wampum. I have been meaning to put together a more concise paper on the Ketika Figurines. Sorry to disappoint you about the Burrows Cave Fraud.
Don't feel alone, others have been taken in by it as well. Your mention of it may have led to bls's statement.
As I wrote earlier, the Burrow's Cave ring is already known, and getting better known everyday. I expect that educated indian and the other moderators will move the topic to fraud when they get the time.
Bubo's mention of the Burrows Cave may have led to which statement?
What are you talking about?
-
Bls is wrong - look again at the page numbers that I have referenced about "picking berries" and see for yourself that each has made reference to "strawberries".
"As to your thoughts on where our ancestors originated, I'm not putting words in your mouth. A review of your research says it all; your words, your website."
I am flattered that you took the time to read my website, however you have again failed to notice that my websites show historical accounts quoted in reference to the study of iconography. None of the sources that you show include "my words". In fact these are historical quotes from years of research including newspapers, articles, and other researchers. It is apparent that I have not stated my opinion in any of this.
This is a broad review of evidence presenting all accounts on iconography and leaving the reader to make up his or her own mind for themselves. You did not answer my question: Where do you think your ancestors came from?
Stop putting words into my mouth, taking quotes out of context, and do your research before you come to your conclusions.
-
Still, I dont think the scientific process states that we can pick and choose which evidence we want to use.
We should take a look at all evidence that there is, regardless of what our thoughts are about it, and then the informed reader can make up their minds for themselves.
My interest in all of this is researching, collecting and presenting data that would otherwise be unknown. That way, others can pursue avenues of research for themselves if interested in a particular topic.
-
Bls is wrong - look again at the page numbers that I have referenced about "picking berries" and see for yourself that each has made reference to "strawberries".
Bubo, I went all thru those references you gave; couldn't find strawberries anywhere. Why don't you post those pictures, since you're the only one who's seen them.
2. Picking Berries is used in the Walam Olum in the 19th glyph. According to Napora, glyph 19 is translated as "picking berries".
http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/24WALAM.htm
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/WalamOlum-Gattamin.jpg) 19th Glyph - Gattamin netami mitzi nijini nantine'
I don't read French, so I'm not sure what Napora originally thought the 19th glyph said. I do know that Napora now thinks the Walam Olum is a hoax. He has been quoted as saying that he was "dismayed that the sources upon whom he had relied had been so negligent in their investigation of the document that the hoax should have continued as long as it has".
Rafinesque translated it as "fat fruit the first food the Jinns the fairies".
Brinton translated the same glyph/phrase to say "and fetched them food, when first they desired it".
Does the 19th glyph look like a strawberry? Looks more like a bunch of grapes to me. Neither Rafinesque nor Brinton translated that glyph as "picking berries".
"As to your thoughts on where our ancestors originated, I'm not putting words in your mouth. A review of your research says it all; your words, your website."
I am flattered that you took the time to read my website, however you have again failed to notice that my websites show historical accounts quoted in reference to the study of iconography. None of the sources that you show include "my words". In fact these are historical quotes from years of research including newspapers, articles, and other researchers. It is apparent that I have not stated my opinion in any of this.
This is a broad review of evidence presenting all accounts on iconography and leaving the reader to make up his or her own mind for themselves. You did not answer my question: Where do you think your ancestors came from?
Stop putting words into my mouth, taking quotes out of context, and do your research before you come to your conclusions.
Don't feel flattered, Bubo. Sometimes you have to dig thru the trash to find what you're looking for. This was one of those times. You may have been quoting others on your website, but the words you've posted here have been your own.
Where do I think my ancestors came from? The German, Scots-Irish, and English came from Europe. My Cherokee ancestors came from the Appalachian Mountains.
You show your complete lack of respect for Native Americans when you try to change their creation stories. Natives know where their people originated. They don't need you, with your eurocentric viewpoint, trying to tell them where they originated. Science only goes so far; the rest is faith.
-
Bls, your interpretation of whether the glyph looks like some berries has no weight on what it actually says. Take another look at the sources with page numbers provided. I am not going to copy it here for you.
Ever hear the old adage One mans "trash" is another mans treasure.
Change their creation stories? Which ones are you referring to?
Diversionary tactics used by Bls do not support his argument. Can the discussion of the Walam Olum stay on topic?
-
Bls, Bubo Ahab -
I have had this "non-judgemental" and "open minded" cr*p foisted upon me by various individuals.
bls - Tecusmseh advised never to trouble anyone about their religion, and he was a wise man. Well, if the Creator chose to fashion us out of tree apes, who am I to question Her judgment? I hope this satisfies; that's as much as I want to share.
To my knowledge, the crossings were as I described; I reserve the right to change my opinion as new information becomes available.
Bubo - When referencing early finds, you hit the earlier erroneous interpretations of them by those who found them. But there is no point in repeating those errors, except in terms of what people thought at the time, and in documenting the finds themselves.
bls - While we need to call out errors in interpretation, and most of the early interpretation was erroneous, on the other hand, we can not throw out the materials because of earlier errors in interpretation and the understanding of them.
Bubo - The Six Nations memories of European visitors may be read in David Cusick's work, which is given complete as an appendix in "Man and Impact in the Americas". Those visits were minor, and the visitors' ends may be read there as well. Anyone who writes otherwise is creating imaginary empires.
Everyone else - I have stated my own problems with Oestreicher's work as it now stands; I have set out what will need to be done to re-examine it in depth.
-
Bls, your interpretation of whether the glyph looks like some berries has no weight on what it actually says. Take another look at the sources with page numbers provided. I am not going to copy it here for you.
Neither Rafinesque nor Brinton translated that glyph as "picking berries". One person, who didn't read Lenape, thought it said "picking berries" and that's the translation you want to go with? You're the one who has continuously tried to tie that glyph with the Ojibwe strawberry. I wasn't able to find any strawberries in the Ojibwe works either. That 2004 Strawberry Heart Basket really doesn't count. Maybe I did miss all those berries, but I really doubt it. If you stand by your research, you'll post the pictures here for us all to see. The fact that you've failed to do that speaks volumes.
Ever hear the old adage One mans "trash" is another mans treasure.
Yeah, but often times it's just trash.
Change their creation stories? Which ones are you referring to?
By changing the location, you've changed the story. Creation myths have as much to do with where they took place as they do with the action.
Diversionary tactics used by Bls do not support his argument. Can the discussion of the Walam Olum stay on topic?
[Insult removed] As previously stated, I'm a woman; therefore, it would be 'support her argument'.
Diversionary tactics? You're the one who brought up the Ojibwe Birchbark Scrolls, Copway's book, and the Lakota Winter Counts; trying to say they used some of the same glyphs found in the Walam Olum, with identical meanings. You're the one who's been blathering about the Ojibwe Strawberry Heart Basket. You're the one who quoted Lee Pennington and Myron Paine. You're the one who has mentioned the Cahokia Mounds. You're the one who gave the Piqua Mounds Ketika Figurine as validation of the Walam Olum. Seems that your research is all over the place. You seem to be a master at diversion. What is it? Throw enough references out there that no one will take the time to investigate? Baffle them with bullshit and they'll think you're brilliant?
-
I have already posted the link about a dozen times to the photo of the birchbark scrolls.
Readers can see these birchbark scrolls/ sticks at the following link:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?start=all
Rafinesque and Brinton were alluding to the same meaning, but this is over BLS's head. Picking Berries was an allegory, as before stated. Continuity that the Walam Olum, Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony by Speck, and Birchbark Scrolls by Dewdney are each related is seen in their reference to "Picking Berries".
Speck states that "Picking Berries" was done on the fourth, fifth, and sixth day of the Big House Ceremony. Picking berries was symbolic of the attendants action of picking up wampum scattered about at the ceremony. The Wampum was stored in the mouth while the attendants made the sound "M+". This symbolized birds picking berries from bushes. Others state that the action used to reward the attendants for their efforts with Wampum (Money).
Dewdney recorded in the Birchbark scrolls that "Picking berries" was symbolic of taking the divergent path. The divergent path was taken to go to the heart berry when one is making a "breakthrough". Red Sky stated the temptation of the "strawberry" on the divergent path should be avoided.
Ketika figurines match Glyphs 2 and 4 in the Walam olum. These were excavated by J.A. Rayner in Piqua Ohio, a site of the unfortunate massacre of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark.
Bls What location are you talking about?
I am not the slightest concerned about what gender Bls is and it does not relate to this topic either. You have been constantly changing the subject, posting thougtless comments, blathering about no connections with anything, ignoring references that include page numbers, and disrespectfully putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
-
"I have had this "non-judgemental" and "open minded" cr*p foisted upon me by various individuals."
Censorship based on the social stigma connected with a certain artifact, and other sudden dismissals are subjective ways to think of an object. That is the problem with archaeology today- it is very subjective. Archaeologists have been taught to think based on their gut. What is cr*p is not following the scientific method in research.
"Bubo - When referencing early finds, you hit the earlier erroneous interpretations of them by those who found them. But there is no point in repeating those errors, except in terms of what people thought at the time, and in documenting the finds themselves."
Earlier interpretations were included exactly to show what people thought at the time. That way we can learn about how thought is so subjective and influenced by their own beliefs. Hopefully a few scientific facts may be gleaned from documenting the finds.
"Bubo - The Six Nations memories of European visitors may be read in David Cusick's work, which is given complete as an appendix in "Man and Impact in the Americas". Those visits were minor, and the visitors' ends may be read there as well. Anyone who writes otherwise is creating imaginary empires."
Cusick is a valuable source, and much is learned from reading this. Where did Cusick get his information?
Schuster shows that the Ketika figurine indicates a village courtyard. The central point was represented as the cosmic navel, that is, the point where all life comes. “Other ketika figures include a “Cosmic Woman” of hourglass form with central disk as navel, 132 & 133. This symbol for woman is said to represent the anatomical proportions of the Original Ancestor. Human figures depicted on top of her suggest that such diagrams were executed originally as earth sculptures, large enough for participants to move about inside them, in the manner of hopscotch diagrams.
This is similar to the Piqua, Ohio ketika figurines found by J.A. Rayner.2
Ke is an Osage term that also means turtle.3
Katickuhraxhu is a term used for Evil spirit by the Tuscarora.4
Cetika is referenced in ancient Buddhist text called the Bodh Gaya as meaning Royal Palace Shrine at a Sacred Tree, something akin to a private royal chapel.5
In the Walam Olum, the Ojibway Epic, The Ketika Figurine resembles Walam Olum Symbols 2 and 4, which are translated “On the Earth, (was) an extended fog, and there the great manito was.
He made the extended land and the sky.”6
Historical Context for the time frame of annihilation of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark can be seen in George Rogers Clark's journal. This account verifies the placement of the Delaware in Piqua, Ohio, where the Piqua Ketika Figurines were found.7
Therefore, linguistic studies of the Native American epic called the Walam Olum confirm that the written record is authenticated.
1. Carpenter, Edmund Snow, 1922- Title Materials for the study of social symbolism in ancient & tribal art : a record of tradition & continuity based on the researches & writings of Carl Schuster / edited & written by Edmund Carpenter, assisted by Lorraine Spiess Published [New York] : Rock Foundation, 1986-1988 Description 3 v. in 12 : ill. (some col.), col. maps ; 38 cm.
2. Moorehead, Warren King. The stone age in North America; an archeological encyclopedia of the implements, ornaments, weapons, utensils, etc., of the prehistoric tribes of North America,. Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1910.
3. La Flesche, Francis. A Dictionary of the Osage language. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Govt. print. off., 1932.
4. Catlin, George. Letters and Notes of the Manners, Customs, and conditions of North American Indians. Volume II. Dover Publications. 1973.
5. http://www.buddhanet.net/bodh_gaya/bodh_gaya02.htm
6. http://books.google.com/books?id=KSgTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7
7. http://books.google.com/books?id=D2gOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+rogers+clark
-
I have already posted the link about a dozen times to the photo of the birchbark scrolls.
Readers can see these birchbark scrolls/ sticks at the following link:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?start=all
Rafinesque and Brinton were alluding to the same meaning, but this is over BLS's head. Picking Berries was an allegory, as before stated. Continuity that the Walam Olum, Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony by Speck, and Birchbark Scrolls by Dewdney are each related is seen in their reference to "Picking Berries".
Speck states that "Picking Berries" was done on the fourth, fifth, and sixth day of the Big House Ceremony. Picking berries was symbolic of the attendants action of picking up wampum scattered about at the ceremony. The Wampum was stored in the mouth while the attendants made the sound "M+". This symbolized birds picking berries from bushes. Others state that the action used to reward the attendants for their efforts with Wampum (Money).
Dewdney recorded in the Birchbark scrolls that "Picking berries" was symbolic of taking the divergent path. The divergent path was taken to go to the heart berry when one is making a "breakthrough". Red Sky stated the temptation of the "strawberry" on the divergent path should be avoided.
Ketika figurines match Glyphs 2 and 4 in the Walam olum. These were excavated by J.A. Rayner in Piqua Ohio, a site of the unfortunate massacre of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark.
Bls What location are you talking about?
I am not the slightest concerned about what gender Bls is and it does not relate to this topic either. You have been constantly changing the subject, posting thougtless comments, blathering about no connections with anything, ignoring references that include page numbers, and disrespectfully putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
You may see berries, but I wasn't able to find any. If it's true, post it up here. If you can't or won't do that, no one is going to believe you. I was able to disprove your belief that the Lenape, Ojibwe, and Lakota glyphs are the same simply by posting a few pictures. I was able to prove your Ojibwe Strawberry Heart Basket meant nothing. If you're so adamant that there are strawberries, or berries of any kind, prove it.
You may not be concerned with what gender I am, but the fact that you've missed references to me being female, says something about your research abilities. What kind of analyst lets things like that slip by him? It's the little things, the attention to detail that's important. Something you obviously haven't mastered in your 20-something years.
I have not changed the subject once in this thread. My comments have been in response to allegations you've made. You're the one who has brought other topics into this discussion, in a vain attempt to prove the authenticity of the Walam Olum. I haven't ignored your references; I used them to prove your theories wrong. I haven't put words in your mouth; I quoted you. Thoughtless comments? Rafinesque and Brinton's allusions went over my head? Be careful, child. You're becoming very disrespectful.
-
Bls is again wrong and has proved nothing of disconnection between Lenape, Ojibway or Lakota. On the contrary, Bls has shown other random examples of glyphs on winter counts, glyphs on Copways Book, and more random examples of glyphs from the WO. Also Bls has proven nothing about the Ojibway heart berry basket. Only statements of thoughtless nay-saying, as usual.
Again, Bls can read the book if interested in the heart berry symbolism beginning on page 103.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?action=view¤t=103.jpg
Bls response shows only that this person has not read the sources provided. Bls gender does not matter in this blog or conversation. Bls has constantly changed the subject, just as in this rant about your gender. Also, Bls has taken statements from other sources such as newspaper articles that I have transcribed and made false claims about this being something that I said.
Bottom line is the evidence of the Walam Olum is given which proves that it is authentic.
-
I don't know what it will take to get those involved in this thread to discuss and debate instead of hurling personal attacks. Debate the WO and quit insulting each other.
I'll give you both a few days to edit out your insults towards each other and any other personal remarks or I will do it myself. And if the insults continue in any way, I'll just lock the thread for good.
-
"I have had this "non-judgemental" and "open minded" cr*p foisted upon me by various individuals."
Censorship based on the social stigma connected with a certain artifact, and other sudden dismissals are subjective ways to think of an object. That is the problem with archaeology today- it is very subjective. Archaeologists have been taught to think based on their gut. What is cr*p is not following the scientific method in research.
"Artifacts" are well provenienced, and Mr Burrow's and his associates could easily do this, were it not for the fact that their "artifacts" are frauds.
Actually, the Burrow's Cave "artifacts" are not artifacts, they are frauds created and promoted by a well organized ring of con men. Your appeals to others to suspend "judgment", rational thinking, so that this fraud may continue is all that these con men continually ask for.
But they are well known, and the outlines of their fraud are as well; it is now simply a matter of filling in some of the details, as well as sorting out the victims from the victimizers.
I have suspected for quite some time that you know more about this fraud and those responsible for it than you have shared with us so far. You have continually repeated these con artists' pleas not to be judged.... You have also given us a count of the Burrow's Cave "artifacts"...and you know when they first appeared...
From what I have learned, they began manufacturing smaller items for sale for lesser amounts as their fraud progressed... the exact time of their start is still not fully known.
Finally, they operate the area east of Cahokia, no?
There is a thread for this now, and please add any more information you have on this fraud there.
"Bubo - The Six Nations memories of European visitors may be read in David Cusick's work, which is given complete as an appendix in "Man and Impact in the Americas". Those visits were minor, and the visitors' ends may be read there as well. Anyone who writes otherwise is creating imaginary empires."
Cusick is a valuable source, and much is learned from reading this. Where did Cusick get his information?
From every tradition keeper of the Six Nations he could meet.
Schuster shows that the Ketika figurine indicates a village courtyard. The central point was represented as the cosmic navel, that is, the point where all life comes. “Other ketika figures include a “Cosmic Woman” of hourglass form with central disk as navel, 132 & 133. This symbol for woman is said to represent the anatomical proportions of the Original Ancestor. Human figures depicted on top of her suggest that such diagrams were executed originally as earth sculptures, large enough for participants to move about inside them, in the manner of hopscotch diagrams.
This is similar to the Piqua, Ohio ketika figurines found by J.A. Rayner.2
Ke is an Osage term that also means turtle.3
Katickuhraxhu is a term used for Evil spirit by the Tuscarora.4
Cetika is referenced in ancient Buddhist text called the Bodh Gaya as meaning Royal Palace Shrine at a Sacred Tree, something akin to a private royal chapel.5
In the Walam Olum, the Ojibway Epic, The Ketika Figurine resembles Walam Olum Symbols 2 and 4, which are translated “On the Earth, (was) an extended fog, and there the great manito was.
He made the extended land and the sky.”6
Historical Context for the time frame of annihilation of the Delaware by George Rogers Clark can be seen in George Rogers Clark's journal. This account verifies the placement of the Delaware in Piqua, Ohio, where the Piqua Ketika Figurines were found.7
Therefore, linguistic studies of the Native American epic called the Walam Olum confirm that the written record is authenticated.
1. Carpenter, Edmund Snow, 1922- Title Materials for the study of social symbolism in ancient & tribal art : a record of tradition & continuity based on the researches & writings of Carl Schuster / edited & written by Edmund Carpenter, assisted by Lorraine Spiess Published [New York] : Rock Foundation, 1986-1988 Description 3 v. in 12 : ill. (some col.), col. maps ; 38 cm.
2. Moorehead, Warren King. The stone age in North America; an archeological encyclopedia of the implements, ornaments, weapons, utensils, etc., of the prehistoric tribes of North America,. Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1910.
3. La Flesche, Francis. A Dictionary of the Osage language. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Govt. print. off., 1932.
4. Catlin, George. Letters and Notes of the Manners, Customs, and conditions of North American Indians. Volume II. Dover Publications. 1973.
5. http://www.buddhanet.net/bodh_gaya/bodh_gaya02.htm
6. http://books.google.com/books?id=KSgTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7
7. http://books.google.com/books?id=D2gOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+rogers+clark
Bubo Ahab, you lack judgment, in my opinion. Budhist figurines and words have nothing to do with the Walam Olum, in my opinion, and I want to emphasize that that is in my opinion, my judgment.
During the conquest, the Miami invited other peoples to be buffers between them and the Europeans. The Town of Piqua is named after the Piqua division of the Shawnee, and their final cone and ring earthwork may be seen just to the west of the trade house there.
On a more positive note, in as much as my history ended with the European arrival, I did not know earlier of the Lenape presence there at Piqua, nor of Clark's attack on them, nor of the slate which you showed with what appears to be a pictograph similar to one in the Walam Olum manuscript.
But then all would have to be examined in detail before any conclusion could be made.
In general, my views on the Walam Olum have not changed since my note "Reconstructing Rafinesque". I still think that resolving the problem of what Rafinesque did is going to require tracking the Lenape mede, and determining their fate.
-
Mr. Grondine, Did you notice educatedindians request to avoid hurling insults, quit insulting each other and making personal attacks? Your accusations of "lack of judgment" are personal attacks and your long-held Suspicion that I know more about the Burrows Cave is completely false. I have no further knowledge on them, other than I have stated in this and the B.C. thread. Perhaps "I reject this opinion" is a better way of putting a disagreement, and still being able to carry on this discussion.
Still, I am interested in learning more. On Wednesday the 17th October in 1804, William Clark of the Lewis and Clark expedition recorded in his journal: “This Chief tells me of a number of their traditions about Turtles, Snakes, and the power of a particular rock or cave on the next river which informs of everything… none of those I think worth while mentioning.”
Why the objection between Buddhist (ancient china) and native linguistics. The turtle was an ancient symbol of cosmic order in many traditions, especially in china. So was the phoenix red-bird (see the Utz Tablet).
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/TABLETS/IOWA/?action=view¤t=REVERSE.jpg
This is a similar mythological character of the native Thunderbird. So was the Puma, and the list goes on and on.
It is shown that the word for earth is turtle. In fact turtle carries the earth on its back in many myths and legends. Other native lingusitics studies show that the word for earth is the same as that for turtle.
"During the conquest, the Miami invited other peoples to be buffers between them and the Europeans. The Town of Piqua is named after the Piqua division of the Shawnee, and their final cone and ring earthwork may be seen just to the west of the trade house there."
On a more positive note, in as much as my history ended with the European arrival, I did not know earlier of the Lenape presence there at Piqua, nor of Clark's attack on them, nor of the slate which you showed with what appears to be a pictograph similar to one in the Walam Olum manuscript.
But then all would have to be examined in detail before any conclusion could be made."
Anyone interested can see close up examples of the Piqua Ketika figurines on the following link:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/TABLETS/Piqua/
-
Mr. Grondine, Did you notice educatedindians request to avoid hurling insults, quit insulting each other and making personal attacks? Your accusations of "lack of judgment" are personal attacks and your long-held Suspicion that I know more about the Burrows Cave is completely false. I have no further knowledge on them, other than I have stated in this and the B.C. thread. Perhaps "I reject this opinion" is a better way of putting a disagreement, and still being able to carry on this discussion.
Yes, I noticed his request, and I noticed your earlier statement of having seen 30,000 tablets. The number of real tablets is far less. Thus I'm fairly certain you have seen all of Mt. Burrow's and his associates forgeries. Of course you may have made a mistatement or simply made a typo...
But given your own nature as revealed by the scope, intensity, and range of your search, and the lack of judgment with which you handle evidence, and their nearness to you, I am pretty certain that you have made your way to them, as we can see immediately below.
Still, I am interested in learning more. On Wednesday the 17th October in 1804, William Clark of the Lewis and Clark expedition recorded in his journal: “This Chief tells me of a number of their traditions about Turtles, Snakes, and the power of a particular rock or cave on the next river which informs of everything… none of those I think worth while mentioning.”
Once again, you leave out the key information. Which Chief, which people, and which river?
The key point here is that either Mr. Burrows and his associates have desecrated a major burial, as they would have us believe, or they have been manufacturing fake NDN history.
In your judgment, Bubo Ahab, which is it?
Why the objection between Buddhist (ancient china) and native linguistics.
Because of the time of separation. You may not have noticed my mention in this thread of common Great Turtle traditions, and very early common ancestry.
But imaginary readings of cognates are common, and may be seen in Cyrus Gordon's work on Linear A which Shkaakwas mentioned here earlier. I was familiar with multiple examples of this behavior in early attempts to read Linear A - and many of your own cognate chains are either weak (distant) or spurious, in my opinion. LIke Shkaakwas having a Lenape Chief named after a house cat.
Anyone interested can see close up examples of the Piqua Ketika figurines on the following link:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/TABLETS/Piqua/
While I thank you for calling to our attention to these engravings, why are you referring to them as "Ketika figurines"?
I also want to thank you for your excellent images of the tablets from Cahokia.
And your reports of the desecration which went on there.
But Bubo Ahab, its simply the lack of boundaries, the way you lump it all together, that is your deficit, in my opinion.
If I was sent to look at the Walam Olam, I would look to track the Lenape mede first, as that is the key data. If I am lucky that work will fall to others, and I will be allowed to do more enjoyable work than tracking their deaths.
Besides, while I had a mind like a steel trap, it's a little rusty now... there's no point in gnawing your foot off; the tetanus will get you anyway...
-
Bls is again wrong and has proved nothing of disconnection between Lenape, Ojibway or Lakota. On the contrary, Bls has shown other random examples of glyphs on winter counts, glyphs on Copways Book, and more random examples of glyphs from the WO. Also Bls has proven nothing about the Ojibway heart berry basket. Only statements of thoughtless nay-saying, as usual.
I wasn't aware that you needed to pick only certain glyphs to compare. From Bubo's statement earlier, any random sample should be sufficient.
The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway . . . Ojibwe
The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian . . . Lakota
So, why does Bubo mention either one in a discussion of the Walam Olum?
It is worthy to mention Ojibway and Lakota in discussion of the Walam Olum because each group used "Picture Writing" in recording their history. The same phrases and symbols were actually used by these groups during important ceremonies, as shown above. These groups also were "named" by Europeans and these names have little or nothing to do with who they actually were.
I asked Bubo several times to provide proof that these three Nations used the same pictures, with identical meanings. When he failed to post even one example, I did the research. I used the references Bubo gave to pick my random sample.
Copway's Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation, pgs 132 & 133: I posted pg 133.
The Ojibwe Birchbark Scrolls: I posted four examples.
The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts: I chose three different styles.
This was the only Ojibwe 'strawberry basket' I could find anywhere.
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Baskets/OjibweStrawberryHeartBasket2004.jpg) 2004
Traditional Ojibwe baskets
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Baskets/OjibweBasket1.jpg) . . . (http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Baskets/OjibweBasket5.jpg)
Again, Bls can read the book if interested in the heart berry symbolism beginning on page 103.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Sacred%20Scrolls%20of%20the%20Southern%20Ojibway/?action=view¤t=103.jpg
Although I've been thru the Marburg72 photobucket several times, I spent another hour today studying the glyphs. I could not find one berry. Bears, otters, owls, birds, trees, shells, boats, and people, but no berries. The only mention of strawberry is as it relates to death. Paths leading to a circle; Dewdney wasn't sure of the meaning, saying it might represent the Great Strawberry. No explanation was given for this statement. I spent another couple hours searching for any mention of strawberry in connection to the Ojibwe. Strawberries have medicinal uses. Boiled strawberry root cures stomach aches; boiled strawberry leaves stop diarrhea; the chewed leaves can also be used as a dressing for burns. June is the Strawberry Moon. I finally found another reference to strawberry in connection to death. In History of the Ojibway People, William W. Warren writes, "The soul is supposed to stand immediately after the death of the body, on a deep beaten path, which leads westward; the first object he comes to in following this path is the great Oda-e-min (Heart berry), or strawberry, which stands on the roadside like a huge rock, and from which he takes a handful and eats on his way." The soul continues to travel thru the prairie and after four days reaches the spirit world. Apparently the strawberry holds an important place in the lives of the Ojibwe; however there are no strawberry glyphs in the Sacred Scrolls. There is only a circle that Dewdney speculates may represent the Great Strawberry. There is definitely nothing about picking berries.
Bls response shows only that this person has not read the sources provided. Bls gender does not matter in this blog or conversation. Bls has constantly changed the subject, just as in this rant about your gender. Also, Bls has taken statements from other sources such as newspaper articles that I have transcribed and made false claims about this being something that I said.
I don't post until I've done my research. I think most people on this board know how meticulous I am. I pay attention to the little things, the details.
I don't make thoughtless comments; I don't ramble or go off topic. As I've stated before, I have not changed the subject once in this thread; my posts have been in response to allegations and assertions made by others. If someone posts something that is false, I'm not going to let it go unchallenged. Truth is very important to me.
My gender really isn't important; but the fact that Bubo missed the reference to me being a woman half-way thru this thread, says something about his ability to do accurate research. His continuing to refer to me as "he", after it was pointed out to him, shows an inability to remember details. Or was it disrespect? Women can't do research? Women can't debate? So, which was it? Inability to remember or disrespect?
I have not ascribed any words to Bubo other than the ones he actually said here on NAFPS. They're quoted with the date and time he wrote them. I have quoted excerpts from his website. These things appear on his site, without disclaimer. As Grondine says, "When referencing early finds, you hit the earlier erroneous interpretations of them by those who found them. But there is no point in repeating those errors, except in terms of what people thought at the time, and in documenting the finds themselves." No such explanation is given on his site. It seems the whole purpose for his website is to tie the Cahokia Mounds, the Piqua Mounds, the Welsh Butterfly, the Walam Olum, and numerous other glyphs from around the world together. This is a personal observation and I'm entitled to my opinion. I haven't posted anything found in newspaper articles in this thread.
I haven't made any false statements in this thread or any other. I don't lie. As I said before, truth is very important to me. I hold myself to the same standards that I hold everyone to. Half-truths and lies are unacceptable.
Bottom line is the evidence of the Walam Olum is given which proves that it is authentic.
I disagree with this statement. Nothing that Bubo has posted proves the authenticity of the Walam Olum.
Al, I am not going to edit any of my posts. Considering that Bubo questioned my intelligence and my ability to comprehend on numerous occasions, made false accusations about what I was posting, called me names and was generally rude and disrespectful, I was as polite as humanly possible. I request that no one's posts are edited, leave them as they are; and then lock this thread.
-
I wasn't aware that you needed to pick only certain glyphs to compare. From Bubo's statement earlier, any random sample should be sufficient.
Yes, you do need to pick, and not to do so is not legitimate.
I don't post until I've done my research. I think most people on this board know how meticulous I am. I pay attention to the little things, the details.
In Bubo's defense, he shows Lenape at Piqua, and shows Lenape symbols on artifacts from there. You did not address them, and both need to be pursued.
But then there's the more significant detail that you missed entirely.
I don't make thoughtless comments; I don't ramble or go off topic.
I don't know about the first part, or we'd be further along in this by now.
I myself am rambling right on over to the Burrow's Cave ring of lying thieving con men.
Truth is very important to me.
Here's the truth then: "Reconstructing Rafinesque" and carefully examining Oestreicher's analysis of him may be discussed on a forum, but it is not something that can be done on a forum.
It will require resources (funds) and considerable time.
I have quoted excerpts from his website. These things appear on his site, without disclaimer. As Grondine says, "When referencing early finds, you hit the earlier erroneous interpretations of them by those who found them. But there is no point in repeating those errors, except in terms of what people thought at the time, and in documenting the finds themselves." No such explanation is given on his site. It seems the whole purpose for his website is to tie the Cahokia Mounds, the Piqua Mounds, the Welsh Butterfly, the Walam Olum, and numerous other glyphs from around the world together. This is a personal observation and I'm entitled to my opinion. I haven't posted anything found in newspaper articles in this thread.
You noticed that as well. Now what did that mean, bls?
Half-truths and lies are unacceptable.
Yes. And it goes way beyond simply being "unacceptable".
We're dealing with traditions here; I don't know if you can imagine how amazed I was to learn that keeping those of the Shawnee belonged to my grandmother's division by right.
Nothing that Bubo has posted proves the authenticity of the Walam Olum.
Except the Piqua materials, possibly. But since we're dealing with traditions, what he presented requires deep consideration before being judged.
I was as polite as humanly possible.
I don't think so, otherwise Bubo would have shared more.
I request that no one's posts are edited, leave them as they are; and then lock this thread.
I do not want this thread locked.
Whoever aided in the manufacture of Burrow's frauds was/is intimately familiar with Fell's "studies", and with both legitimate and fraudulent symbols. Further, he had no care as to the difference, and as a matter of fact felt for some reason that manufacturing these frauds was proper behavior. In point of fact, he would duplicate known frauds to try and give them legitimacy, for some reason: perhaps to promote a fake NDN history, but certainly to obtain money and support.
I am fairly certain that Bubo has run into him and knows him quite well. If he searches into his soul, he will be able to identify him to us.
M'si Manitou, we humbly ask for your help.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
I wasn't aware that you needed to pick only certain glyphs to compare. From Bubo's statement earlier, any random sample should be sufficient.
Yes, you do need to pick, and not to do so is not legitimate.
Grondine, I think you have that backwards. If I have 100 glyphs to choose from, 25 in each category, I should be able to randomly pick 5 glyphs from each group. If I only pick the 2 or 3 that resemble each other as my sample, I'm stacking the deck. I'm not being objective. As it is, I gave more than 5 examples of each. There are some similarities; just as most stick figures resemble each other no matter who has drawn them.
I don't post until I've done my research. I think most people on this board know how meticulous I am. I pay attention to the little things, the details.
In Bubo's defense, he shows Lenape at Piqua, and shows Lenape symbols on artifacts from there. You did not address them, and both need to be pursued.
You're referring to the Piqua Mound Figurines found by J.A. Rayner? For your viewing pleasure, from Bubo's website . . .
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q129/bls926/Glyphs/PiquaGlyphs.jpg)
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/walamolum.htm
It's a square with an X in it. That's not very impressive. How can you call this a Lenape symbol? I've seen my four-year granddaughter make similar drawings and she isn't Lenape.
But then there's the more significant detail that you missed entirely.
And that would be?
I don't make thoughtless comments; I don't ramble or go off topic.
I don't know about the first part, or we'd be further along in this by now.
I myself am rambling right on over to the Burrow's Cave ring of lying thieving con men.
This statement was in reply to Bubo's accusations that I had taken this thread off topic. I'm not the one who brought up the Lakota Winter Counts or the Ojibwe Strawberry Heart basket. While neither has anything to do with the Walam Olum, I had to address them or leave others with the impression that somehow they gave credence to the Walam Olum.
Truth is very important to me.
Here's the truth then: "Reconstructing Rafinesque" and carefully examining Oestreicher's analysis of him may be discussed on a forum, but it is not something that can be done on a forum.
It will require resources (funds) and considerable time.
Scholars have been questioning the authenticity of the Walam Olum since shortly after Rafinesque published it. Many studies have been done. By the 1980's and 1990's most intelligent people knew it to be a hoax.
I have quoted excerpts from his website. These things appear on his site, without disclaimer. As Grondine says, "When referencing early finds, you hit the earlier erroneous interpretations of them by those who found them. But there is no point in repeating those errors, except in terms of what people thought at the time, and in documenting the finds themselves." No such explanation is given on his site. It seems the whole purpose for his website is to tie the Cahokia Mounds, the Piqua Mounds, the Welsh Butterfly, the Walam Olum, and numerous other glyphs from around the world together. This is a personal observation and I'm entitled to my opinion. I haven't posted anything found in newspaper articles in this thread.
You noticed that as well. Now what did that mean, bls?
To provide information that has been proven false or that most learned men know is inaccurate, without disclaimer, says to me that either Bubo believes it or that his research is sloppy.
Half-truths and lies are unacceptable.
Yes. And it goes way beyond simply being "unacceptable".
We're dealing with traditions here; I don't know if you can imagine how amazed I was to learn that keeping those of the Shawnee belonged to my grandmother's division by right.
We agree on something.
Nothing that Bubo has posted proves the authenticity of the Walam Olum.
Except the Piqua materials, possibly. But since we're dealing with traditions, what he presented requires deep consideration before being judged.
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions after looking at the two Piqua Figurines. A square with an X inside does not a tradition make.
I was as polite as humanly possible.
I don't think so, otherwise Bubo would have shared more.
Well, maybe he couldn't answer the hard questions. He was starting to repeat himself. Honestly, I think Bubo had already given us everything he had.
I request that no one's posts are edited, leave them as they are; and then lock this thread.
I do not want this thread locked.
My opinion on this hasn't changed.
Whoever aided in the manufacture of Burrow's frauds was/is intimately familiar with Fell's "studies", and with both legitimate and fraudulent symbols. Further, he had no care as to the difference, and as a matter of fact felt for some reason that manufacturing these frauds was proper behavior. In point of fact, he would duplicate known frauds to try and give them legitimacy, for some reason: perhaps to promote a fake NDN history, but certainly to obtain money and support.
I am fairly certain that Bubo has run into him and knows him quite well. If he searches into his soul, he will be able to identify him to us.
M'si Manitou, we humbly ask for your help.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
How can you get your boxers in a bunch over the Burrow's Cave hoax and support the Walam Olum? Fraud is fraud; it doesn't mater if it happened in 1836 or the present day. A lie is a lie.
-
Grondine, I think you have that backwards. If I have 100 glyphs to choose from, 25 in each category, I should be able to randomly pick 5 glyphs from each group. If I only pick the 2 or 3 that resemble each other as my sample, I'm stacking the deck. I'm not being objective. As it is, I gave more than 5 examples of each. There are some similarities; just as most stick figures resemble each other no matter who has drawn them.
This is the basis for Bls misinterpretation. Bls is expressing many opinions that apparently contradict each other. Which is it Bls?
a. all stick figures resemble each other no matter who draws them
b. 2 or 3 glyphs resemble each other in each sample
c. just pick 5 random samples from each
The correct answer is b. More than that actually are the same glyph in the examples that I have given. This cannot be attributed to chance, beause they are specific glyphs with meaning.
as for your claim "picking berries", which is it Bls?
a. no berries shown on scrolls
b. There is only a circle that Dewdney speculates may represent the Great Strawberry
c. heart berry baskets didnt exist because they look different than other random baskets
Again, the correct answer is b. Actually dewdney shows several examples and Bls included supporting Ojibway ethnographic text to explain the Oda-e-min (Heart berry) tradition.
Bls did not have permission to copy my website. Bls missed a key point about the Ketika Figurines, that they are apprently not just an X with a square around it. The first stone has a white circle inserted solidly through the center, Same as glyph 2 of the Walam Olum, the next matches Glyph 4.
Also, there is something going on at woodland indians forum regarding this topic and my website. Apparently that moderators have locked out their blog. Over the last few weeks, many have arrived on my website from this link:
http://woodlandindians.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6023&p=3
Yet, when this link is clicked on, it is locked out to public viewing. Why is this blog actively discussing and linking to my webpage with no access to the general public. Could it be that Bls is involved with previous editors that have been booted off this blog?
-
Grondine, I think you have that backwards. If I have 100 glyphs to choose from, 25 in each category, I should be able to randomly pick 5 glyphs from each group. If I only pick the 2 or 3 that resemble each other as my sample, I'm stacking the deck. I'm not being objective. As it is, I gave more than 5 examples of each. There are some similarities; just as most stick figures resemble each other no matter who has drawn them.
This is the basis for Bls misinterpretation. Bls is expressing many opinions that apparently contradict each other. Which is it Bls?
a. all stick figures resemble each other no matter who draws them
b. 2 or 3 glyphs resemble each other in each sample
c. just pick 5 random samples from each
The correct answer is b. More than that actually are the same glyph in the examples that I have given. This cannot be attributed to chance, beause they are specific glyphs with meaning.
I haven't contradicted myself; you're just twisting it in an attempt to validate your research.
Are there really more than a couple similar (not identical) glyphs in each group? And do any of them have the exact same meaning? I don't think so.
as for your claim "picking berries", which is it Bls?
a. no berries shown on scrolls
b. There is only a circle that Dewdney speculates may represent the Great Strawberry
c. heart berry baskets didnt exist because they look different than other random baskets
Again, the correct answer is b. Actually dewdney shows several examples and Bls included supporting Ojibway ethnographic text to explain the Oda-e-min (Heart berry) tradition.
Dewdney speculates that the circle represented the Oda-e-min. He wasn't sure and obviously no Ojibwe were able to confirm it either. Could it be that he has transcribed the glyphs in the Birchbark Scrolls to fit, giving them meanings that tie into their traditions? Maybe.
Bls did not have permission to copy my website. Bls missed a key point about the Ketika Figurines, that they are apprently not just an X with a square around it. The first stone has a white circle inserted solidly through the center, Same as glyph 2 of the Walam Olum, the next matches Glyph 4.
Your website is public. I don't need your permission to re-post pictures or written words, as long as I give credit and a link to the source. I did both.
Also, there is something going on at woodland indians forum regarding this topic and my website. Apparently that moderators have locked out their blog. Over the last few weeks, many have arrived on my website from this link:
http://woodlandindians.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6023&p=3
Yet, when this link is clicked on, it is locked out to public viewing. Why is this blog actively discussing and linking to my webpage with no access to the general public. Could it be that Bls is involved with previous editors that have been booted off this blog?
Everything on a message board does not have to be public. Some areas are for the general public, some for members only, some for moderators, some for administrators. Yes, Bubo, you are a member of Woodland; still doesn't mean you or the general public has open access.
-
Bls statements are apparently direct contradictions and also not valid in any scientific sense. Bls rediculous reasoning is on a par with taking a few random letters or words from one book and comparing it with a few letters or words from another source. Then bls is saying that both sources could not possibly be in the same language.
Bls statement "obviously no Ojibwe were able to confirm it either" is also false because Dewdney and Objibway Elder Red Sky worked together in writing the book.
By the way, if you do wish to use in your Web site a graphic, picture, or paragraph from another Web site, current Netiquette dictates that you ask permission before using it. Bls did not ask permission, and Bls may not use it.
Also, I only joined Woodland indians forum to see if I could find out what was being discussed in the forum that is constantly referring viewers to my webiste. It is suspicious that Bls private "woodland" indians forum is being used in unethical ways.
-
Scholars have been questioning the authenticity of the Walam Olum since shortly after Rafinesque published it. Many studies have been done. By the 1980's and 1990's most intelligent people knew it to be a hoax.
Oh really? Not by the year 2000, and not by the year 2009, as a matter of fact.
I have stated here my problems with Oestreicher's work on the Walam Olum, and the reasons why I will hold with those Lenape elders who hold that it contains a portion.
To provide information that has been proven false or that most learned men know is inaccurate, without disclaimer, says to me that either Bubo believes it or that his research is sloppy.
Excuse me, there is a difference between proven false and what "most learned men" THINK inaccurate. That distinction is lost on you.
For example, for many years I wrote about impact events, and the peoples' memories of them. Many "learned men" thought those memories to be nonsense, and that I was "inaccurate".
The hard geological data is now showing them to have been mistaken in their
conclusions.
We're dealing with traditions here.
We agree on something.
Yes, so you will understand that besides his statements on the Walam Olum and Oneota, I have real problems with Oestreicher's imaginary history of the Shawnee.
A square with an X inside does not a tradition make.
Based on years of playing with Hittite Hieroglyphic, Cretan Hieroglyphic, Linear A, and Linear B, I am capable of forming my own opinion.
I have never considered Native American pictographic systems in any depth.
I was as polite as humanly possible.
I don't think so, otherwise Bubo would have shared more.
Well, maybe he couldn't answer the hard questions. He was starting to repeat himself. Honestly, I think Bubo had already given us everything he had.
Oh, he can answer the hard questions; its simply that you do not know what the hard questions are yet. And he has not given us everything he has.
I request that no one's posts are edited, leave them as they are; and then lock this thread.
I do not want this thread locked.
My opinion on this hasn't changed.
Whoever aided in the manufacture of Burrow's frauds was/is intimately familiar with Fell's "studies", and with both legitimate and fraudulent symbols. Further, he had no care as to the difference, and as a matter of fact felt for some reason that manufacturing these frauds was proper behavior. In point of fact, he would duplicate known frauds to try and give them legitimacy, for some reason: perhaps to promote a fake NDN history, but certainly to obtain money and support.
I am fairly certain that Bubo has run into him and knows him quite well. If he searches into his soul, he will be able to identify him to us.
How can you get your boxers in a bunch over the Burrow's Cave hoax and support the Walam Olum? Fraud is fraud; it doesn't mater if it happened in 1836 or the present day. A lie is a lie.
Again, I have set out here my reasons for my problems with Oestreicher's analysis. You simply repeating "fraud" over and over again have not changed any of them.
Now I have a question for you, bls. Considering the date Rafinesque worked on the Walam Olum, if he were constructing a fraud, how could he have been certain that there were no living Lenape who could and would expose him?
As far as Burrows Cave goes, perhaps you should ask educated indian or someone else for a copy of "Amazing Stories".
-
The correct answer is b. More than that actually are the same glyph in the examples that I have given. This cannot be attributed to chance, because they are specific glyphs with meaning.
Bls missed a key point about the Ketika Figurines, that they are apparently not just an X with a square around it. The first stone has a white circle inserted solidly through the center, Same as glyph 2 of the Walam Olum, the next matches Glyph 4.
Bubo, your ability with pictoglyphic systems is pretty poor as well.
Bls did not have permission to copy my website.
Bubo, you don't own any tradition, or any image of any object. Period.
They are NOT yours to own.
Also, there is something going on at woodland indians forum regarding this topic and my website. Apparently that moderators have locked out their blog. Over the last few weeks, many have arrived on my website from this link:
http://woodlandindians.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6023&p=3
Yet, when this link is clicked on, it is locked out to public viewing. Why is this blog actively discussing and linking to my webpage with no access to the general public. Could it be that Bls is involved with previous editors that have been booted off this blog?
The moderators here are still the moderators here, Bubo.
As far as the visitors to your website go, perhaps its something else entirely that is interesting them, Bubo.
Tom Hanks and Leonardo di Caprio did a fine movie a few years back called "Catch Me If You Can".
-
By the way, if you do wish to use in your Web site a graphic, picture, or paragraph from another Web site, current Netiquette dictates that you ask permission before using it. Bls did not ask permission, and Bls may not use it.
Also, I only joined Woodland indians forum to see if I could find out what was being discussed in the forum that is constantly referring viewers to my webiste. It is suspicious that Bls private "woodland" indians forum is being used in unethical ways.
I want to clear up a couple things. Woodland Indians is not my forum. I am a member and one of the administrators, but it is not mine.
Historiography of Cahokia From the Earliest Times to European Arrival is a public website. I don't need your permission. Get over it and move on. Whining about it is not going to change the facts. Making excuses for why you joined Woodland is not strengthening your case. Put your big boy boxers on and grow up.
By the way, the only things I've copied from your website were posted right here on NAFPS in this thread; used to prove your theories wrong.
When your allegations of illegal activity didn't hold up, you resorted to attacking my character, stating that "It is suspicious that Bls private "woodland" indians forum is being used in unethical ways". Neither is true; there is nothing suspicious nor unethical going on at Woodland. In your attempt to win this debate over the Walam Olum, you have questioned my ability to comprehend and my intelligence. You have called my comments thoughtless and ridiculous. Apparently all that is okay, cause you were 'critiquing' what I'd posted. However, accusing me of unethical behavior is wrong. Bubo, you crossed the line. Do not attempt to smear my reputation again.
-
Bls take a look at the statement on my website "This is published for educational purposes at no cost. Please do not reproduce without permission. Copyright 2008 Vince Barrows All rights reserved."
Once again, Bls did not ever ask permission, and may not use my website. Bls malicious actions and false comments are aimed at sidetracking to divert attention away from the topic.
Here's the law, Bubo . . .
U.S. Code: TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
One final time . . . I do not need your permission.
Calling my actions "malicious" and my comments "false" border on slander.
Bubo, I see you don't know when to stop.
Take some advice . . . Now would be the perfect time.
-
Wrong Again, Bls. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
Please stop sidetracking and complaining on this website. Bls complaints have already been taken over to another website located on Etc.
-
Wrong Again, Bls. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
Please stop sidetracking and complaining on this website. Bls complaints have already been taken over to another website located on Etc.
Did you read Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use? Maybe you should read it again.
Bubo, you really need to grow up! I'm not attacking you, the person; I'm critiquing your post.
As for complaining and sidetracking this thread . . . Why did you respond to my post?
-
Getting back on topic...
http://hnn.us/comments/73376.html
Walum Olum forgery (#73376)
by Myron Paine on January 2, 2006 at 7:18 PM
Proclaiming that the Walam Olum is a forgery may be premature when Oestreicher's references, evidence, and logic are investigated further.
Oestreicher left out of his references two men who had researched the Lenape and their language for many yearss before him:
George E. Hyde, wrote Indians of the Woodlands, 1962. Hyde used the Walam Olum and other oral hisgtories to describe the ancient Lenape migration from Canada through Michigan, into Ohio, where they joined the Iroquois to fight the Sioux, and then on to the east coast.
Oestreicher appatenty did not know the ancient Lenape history when he cited Ojibwa, Shawnee, Sioux, and Iroquois loan words as evidence that Rafinewques used any available Indian word to make up a story (#49 p. 8 )
A more viable hypothesis for those same loan words is that they were learned by the Lenape during decades of interaction with the named tribes. Thus the Walam Olum appears to be valid ancient history.
Reider T. Sherwin wrote The Viking and the Red Man in eight voumes from 1940 through 1954. Sherwin, who knew and Old Norse dialect, focused on the Algonquin Language. His eight volumes contain more than 15,000 comparisons between Algonquin "words" and Old Norse phrases. Sherwin believed the Walam Olum was in the Old Norse language, with the title morphed from "Maalan Aarum," meaning "engraved years."
A reader familiar with Sherwin can observe that Oestricher used modern Lenape definitions to condemn Rafinesque's use of many words. But Old Norse definitions for the same words are strong evidence that Rafinesque was trying to faitfully translate the confusing text he had.
Using Sherwin's comparisons of Algonquin, Old Norse, and English to translate the Walam Olum was conceived as an independent test of its validity.
Strong positive testimony was found in the first verse of Chapter 3. All the Walam Olum words could be found in Sherwin's Algonquin listing. The associated Old Norse words sounded similar. The English meaning was similar.
But, it the first line, an equivalent word for "rushing waters" was not there. An intensive search of Sherwin's eight volumes looking for "rushing waters" in English, finally paid off. The companion Algonquin word was noted. The equivalent Old Norse word was shown in a phrase with words in front and behind. Those front and behind words sounded similar to the visible Walam Olum words. Somewhere, in over sixteen (16) generations of oral history, the Walam Olum word for "rusing water" went missing!
The Walam Qlum can be restored using Sherwin's comparisons.
Because the Walam Olum can be translated with a historic language, the Walam Olum is a hisotric document.
Indian Loan words are testimony that the Walam Olum describes the history miagration of the Lenape.
Based on the evidence, Rafinesque is not guilty of a forgery.
Mow there are much more productive hypotheses to pursue.
One viable hypothesis is that the Walam Olum is a valid oral history orighinally spoken in Old Norse. This hypothesis implies that the last seven verse in Chapter 3 describe the Norse people of Greenland walking to America on the ice.
That hypothesis is worth of pursuit.
---
My question is: Assuming Paine, Hyde, and Sherwin are correct, are these languages similar because the Algonquins were speaking old Norse or the "old Norse" were speaking Algonquin? Could they have been multi-lingual? Could they have been the same language in total?
-
Wrong Again, Bls. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
Bubo, consider for a minute that in your own view these two tablets belong to the Lenape.
-
I believe that by carefully studying the different "scripts" used at the different production times for the Burrows Cave frauds, the personalities of some of the people behind them may be discovered, and their development may be observed.
-
Nobody's denying the Vikings visited America. Beyond that, though...
As for the Lenape, you'd be surprised. Monsanto has the patent on strains of broccoli hundreds of years old. Intellectual property seems to mean "If you're merely filthy rich and trying to get obscenely rich, it's yours."
-
One viable hypothesis is that the Walam Olum is a valid oral history originally spoken in Old Norse. This hypothesis implies that the last seven verse in Chapter 3 describe the Norse people of Greenland walking to America on the ice.
Bubo, I appreciate your interest in my book, as it passes on some of the peoples memories of European visitors, and also describes and sets out their use of writing and proto-writing.
You may want to view it as supporting evidence for your hypothesis, and that is something I have no control over, other than to say that my opinion of the Walam Olum differs from yours and I can not support your hypothesis.
Also, I don't know which is worse, Oestreicher's reconstruction of Lenape and Shawnee history, or your own. Yours seems to have it, but not by much, in my opinion.
What I think needs to be done in researching the Walam Olum I set out in my earlier post "Reconstructing Rafinesque".
What I have noticed is that "Man and Impact in the Americas" seems to work much as a touchstone does, and run ins like those with Shkaakwas and yourself and another person who I will not name here will probably happen again in the future.
M'si Manitou, please give me strength.
-
Ed Grondine, Did you notice that the hypothesis was a direct quote from Myron Payne or did you just assume that I came up with it? Did you bother to read any of the sources that Myron Payne cited?
-
Ed Grondine, Did you notice that the hypothesis was a direct quote from Myron Payne
No, because of the way you cited it.
or did you just assume that I came up with it?
No, but clearly you do support Payne's view.
Did you bother to read any of the sources that Myron Payne cited?
No. I have many requests on my time, and Payne's hypothesis differs greatly from what I know to be true. From what you have shown here, I suspect spurious cognates being formed to support a belief which his supporters desire to hold. I've seen this before in Linear A studies.
Now who are the "private collectors", Bubo?
How much $money$ did they spend acquiring their Burrows Cave "artifacts"?
And have any of them passed recently, so that their heirs might make the objects available for examination?
-
"No, but clearly you do support Payne's view."
So now cut and paste it into this discussion means "support Payne's view"? Not so.
However, following up with reading the sources to become more informed about the topic would not hurt. My opinion was clearly stated, that the linguistic connections are interesting to see "Maalan Aarum," meaning "engraved years."
Consider the scenarios that would be required for such a linguistic connection.
Once again, I do not know who the private collectors are that you are looking for and also do not know how much $ they spent.
-
However, following up with reading the sources to become more informed about the topic would not hurt.
I have other demands upon my time right now, Bubo.
My opinion was clearly stated, that the linguistic connections are interesting to see "Maalan Aarum," meaning "engraved years."
Consider the scenarios that would be required for such a linguistic connection.
I did. What would be required for such a "linguistic connection" would be a group of people who desperately wanted it to be a true "linguistic connection". For example, see the earlier discussion in this thread of Oestreicher's "pussy" work.
Once again, I do not know who the private collectors are that you are looking for and also do not know how much $ they spent.
Bubo, surely you must have gathered a part of this information for your database. Otherwise it would not be as "comprehensive" as you desired, nor as you claimed here that it was.
-
Consider the scenarios that would be required for such a linguistic connection.
"I did. What would be required for such a "linguistic connection" would be a group of people who desperately wanted it to be a true "linguistic connection"."
Another scenario is that this linguistic connection is genuine. Genuine evidence of contact between the Algonquians and the Vikings, sharing their sacred history.
"Bubo, surely you must have gathered a part of this information for your database. Otherwise it would not be as "comprehensive" as you desired, nor as you claimed here that it was."
Yes, I gathered all the information in my database. If I removed the information that you did not like, it would be partial and biased.
-
http://hnn.us/comments/73376.html
Walum Olum forgery (#73376)
That post is one Myron Paine made on George Mason University's History News Network on January 2, 2006. Reading that, with all the typos and misspelled words, it's hard to believe he's a published author. He must have one hell of an editor.
Where does Paine think Old Norse came from? It didn't originate in Greenland. He's wondering if Algonquian is based on Old Norse or if Old Norse is based on Algonquian. Following that second hypothesis, the people of Norway would be descendants of the Algonquian people of the Western Hemisphere. That's crazy thinking, but . . .
If the Walam Olum is written in Old Norse, it proves to me that it's a forgery, written by a white man from Norway.
-
The complainer should read Sherwin and find out.
-
Genuine evidence of contact between the Algonquians and the Vikings, sharing their sacred history.
"sacred" history. We appear to be getting to the root of your reasons for your interest in this, which appear to be religious.
Bubo, surely you must have gathered a part of this information for your database. Otherwise it would not be as "comprehensive" as you desired, nor as you claimed here that it was.
Yes, I gathered all the information in my database. If I removed the information that you did not like, it would be partial and biased.
You seem to either have being truthful confused with being "partial and biased".
-
""sacred" history. We appear to be getting to the root of your reasons for your interest in this, which appear to be religious."
: Sorry, Ed. My interest in this is not "religious". Why is it hard for you to understand my interest?
"You seem to either have being truthful confused with being "partial and biased"."
:No confusion here, a partial and biased list is not a complete list.
-
Sorry, Ed. My interest in this is not "religious". Why is it hard for you to understand my interest?
Because you have never told us the reasons for your interest.
You seem to either have being truthful confused with being "partial and biased".
No confusion here, a partial and biased list is not a complete list.
QED
-
(Through an inadvertent keystroke I lost an earlier version of this comment, a comment which represented a considerable effort for me since my stroke. I just have to learn to accept that it was meant to be.)
In as much as my views on the Walam Olum differ from both those of Bubo and bls, I want to summarize again the reasons why for now I will hold with those Lenape elders who hold that the Walam Olum contains a "portion".
First off, my comments Oestreicher's work are based entirely on his NJAS article, and my offer for a trade with him of a copy of my book for a paper copy of his thesis still stands.
I can agree with Oestreicher that Rafinesque only worked with Lenape on a word level and not a grammatical level, and that Rafinesque engaged in "reconstruction". But extending Oestreicher's analogy, my thinking for the time being is that the situation with the Walam Olum may be (is) like having MacPherson's Ossian without having copies of the sources he used to build it.
The existence of Lenape medewak is independently attested to, and Oestreicher's claim that they did not exist is a gut issue for me, as is their fate.
(One of the infuriating things with Bubo is his lumping the Piqua artifacts together with known frauds, so they will have to be examined by others to determine whether they are frauds, real, or spurious to the issues at hand. As my own book ended at the European arrival, I know nothing about the Lenape presence at Pickawilly, particularly the when and who. Nor do I know anything about the history of these artifacts, what it might be they attest to.)
We have a Dr. Ward showing up in Pendleton (Anderson) at the right time.
Heckewelder's lists appeared at the time Rafinesque claimed to obtain a transliteration of the Walam Olum; Heckewelder's sources for these lists will have to be examined again; perhaps they were Lenape mede who held the same traditions as those given in the Walam Olum.
We have an archaeological sequence showing a Lenape migration in accord with the accounts given in the Walam Olum and the Heckewelder and Sutton fragments. (We don't know when Heckewelder obtained his fragment, nor from who.) That the "Fort Ancient" peoples were Shawnee is a gut issue for me, and this has importance as well for the Lenape, their lands at contact, and their ancestors' remains. Thus I have to differ with Oestreicher on his interpretation of the Heckewelder and Sutton fragments, and point out that to my knowledge his interpretation of them is entirely unsupported by the archaeological record.
The time Oestreicher allows Rafinesque to construct a fraud seems too short; perhaps Rainfesque used Du Poinceau's word lists to key an existing transliteration instead, and then add on to it his "reconstructions" or imaginary readings.
From my own experience, what Oestreicher presents as Rafinesque's working manuscript may likely be Rafinesque's printer manuscript instead; one which Rafinesque was trying to perfect.
Finally, we have Oestreicher's analysis of our eccentric French acquaintance's personality. Rafinesque had reasons for making his massive effort to assemble the materials supporting the world view which he held, and I am not satisfied that Oestreicher fully caught what motivated Rafinesque.
If I am permitted a closer re-examination of these matters, and I can recover the "portion" from the Walam Olum, then I will remove Rafinesque's "reconstructions', if I am able to; if no portion exists, then I will denounce Rafinesque as a fraud.
But that might not be my path, but the path of others. Whatever the case, careful re-examination of Oestreicher's work will be good exercise for graduate students for many years to come.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
you have never told us the reasons for your interest.
:I would have mentioned that, but this forum is about the Red Record, and not about me.
-
(One of the infuriating things with Bubo is his lumping the Piqua artifacts together with known frauds, so they will have to be examined by others to determine whether they are frauds, real, or spurious to the issues at hand. As my own book ended at the European arrival, I know nothing about the Lenape presence at Pickawilly, particularly the when and who. Nor do I know anything about the history of these artifacts, what it might be they attest to.)
Mr. Grondine, I do not intend to infuriate you. Your emotional response to my research into ancient iconography is deeply rooted in your own perception. I do not share your emotional response, and find it to be unreasonable.
-
Mr. Grondine, I do not intend to infuriate you. Your emotional response to my research into ancient iconography is deeply rooted in your own perception. I do not share your emotional response, and find it to be unreasonable.
My perception of the Burrows ring is all too objective, Bubo.
You're claiming to be a willing victim of it, rather than an active participant, but we'll see.
In either case, I can't rely on your work on the Piqua artifacts, but will have to re-check/re-do it myself.
-
Getting back on topic, again, about the Walam Olum.
Napora was not the first to translate Chapter 1 glyph 19 of the Walam Olum as Picking Berries. It was the Indiana Historical Society that translated the glyph " ... who went to pick berries, the first food, while the young men followed them."
The word origin can be seen in the Walam Olum (1954).
[Gattamin (kahtamiinheew "she goes out to pick berries), netami (cp. Ojibwa nittam "at first"), Mitzi (miitsu "he eats"), nijini (skinnu "young man"), nantine (nootemen "he goes after")]
"Pictograph: the cluster of small circles represents berries.4 The ascending curved line conveys the idea of a road or train, 56 and the face of two colors is probably a symbolic representation of a man and woman in one element. The double ground line signifies land41 and the four-feathered headdress again shows veneration.73
Comment: Berry-picking expeditions, for many of the northern Plains tribes, were notable occasions for amatory encounters. Among the Ojibwa of the Great Lakes region kidnapping of women by men from hostile groups frequently occurred during such expeditions. Woman's role as gatherer of wild plant foods was practically universal throughout North America."
Berries - food are represented as a small circle or group of very small circles usually attached to a line representing a stem. References :
Kohl, Johann Georg. Kitchi-Gami, Wanderings Round Lake Superior 1860 p.157, 215. http://books.google.com/books?id=gKUAAAAAMAAJ&oe=UTF-8
Salomon Julian Harris. The Book of Indian Crafts and Indian Lore, New York, 1928 p.396.
Diringer, David. The Alphabet : a Key to the History of Mankind. 1948 p.60.
Sherwin in The Viking and the Red Man comments in his translation of "Nixkam" (we are all his offspring (Rand). and Nixkamich (a grandfather, a progenitor, a forefather, an ancestor in the direct line, a parent). Rand says :
"The Micmacs have several names for God. They call him Nixkam, which intimates that were are all his offspring.
Nixkamich signifies grandfather or progenitor. Norsak, means "the Norseman" (Sherwin).
-
Sherwin in The Viking and the Red Man comments in his translation of "Nixkam" (we are all his offspring (Rand). and Nixkamich (a grandfather, a progenitor, a forefather, an ancestor in the direct line, a parent). Rand says :
"The Micmacs have several names for God. They call him Nixkam, which intimates that were are all his offspring.
Nixkamich signifies grandfather or progenitor. Norsak, means "the Norseman" (Sherwin).
Bubo, to my knowledge there is no archaeological evidence of a vast Norse empire in North America.
I also can't see what "Norsak" has to do with "Nixkam". As the peoples are ethnically distinct, I would ask you how you account for what you see as "cognates"?
But I visited Piqua, found the records of the Lenape there, so the gorgets you have shown could have been lost there in battle or in death. But I could find no record of their find - so where were they found in Piqua?
-
Mr. Grondine, we are talking about linguistic evidence here, not archaeological.
Secondly, your interpretation of the linguistic evidence does not take into account all scenarios on this dilemma. For example, we have the scenario that the Algonquian culture was once the Vast empire, and its language influences spread to Norway. Then we are left which the old saying about the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the Algonquian language or the Norse? Were these languages similar because the cultures were communicating? Over 3000 cognates between the Norse languages and Algonquian dialect are shown by Sherwin. However, Was the source of the data speaking Algonquian and living in Norway by 1940?
See Moorehead's book entitled "Stone Age in North America" for an account by J.A. Rayner's excavation of the Piqua tablets. Rayner apparently sent a complete account of the excavation to Moorehead, but it was not published.
Both the Keifer Tablets and the Ketika tablets were found in Piqua.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/TABLETS/Adena/?action=view¤t=keifer1.jpg
-
Mr. Grondine, we are talking about linguistic evidence here, not archaeological.
Vince, fundamental linguistic principle: languages are spoken by people. Those people leave behind evidence of their having been there.
There is no archaeological evidence of any vast Norse empire in North America.
Secondly, your interpretation of the linguistic evidence does not take into account all scenarios on this dilemma. For example, we have the scenario that the Algonquian culture was once the Vast empire, and its language influences spread to Norway.
Same problem: no archaeological evidence of any vast Algonquin empire in Norway, to my knowledge.
Then we are left which the old saying about the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the Algonquian language or the Norse? Were these languages similar because the cultures were communicating? Over 3000 cognates between the Norse languages and Algonquian dialect are shown by Sherwin. However, Was the source of the data speaking Algonquian and living in Norway by 1940?
Again, no archaeological evidence of extensive contacts.
and mt DNA is entirely different...
You also ignored one obvious possibility: that the words pre-date any Norse/Algonquin genetic split, and go far far further back... but that would also require that those words did not change over that vast period of time.
See Moorehead's book entitled "Stone Age in North America" for an account by J.A. Rayner's excavation of the Piqua tablets. Rayner apparently sent a complete account of the excavation to Moorehead, but it was not published.
Both the Keifer Tablets and the Ketika tablets were found in Piqua.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/TABLETS/Adena/?action=view¤t=keifer1.jpg
As it is necessary to learn which area around Piqua the gorgets (not "tablets")
were excavated from, thanks for the citation.
Your Adena/Red Ochre/glacial kame "tablets" are pallettes for either tattoo pigment or blowgun poison, or for medicinal use. Their backs often show scar marks.
Two of the artifacts you show appear to have been defaced by placing fake symbols on them, which is worrisome.
Vince, I simply don't think too much of your approach to North American glyphic systems, or your approach to earlier North American symbolic systems... Your method of attacking them is both deficient and misguided, in my opinion. I also think it near certain that you will never join the ranks of the famous decipherers.
-
Ed, you are changing the subject again - this time to "archaeological evidence".
Even so, start by reseading Stories In Stone, regarding Lithic Evidence from Norway.
http://www.lithics.org/occ2.html
Compare with lithics from Illinois:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Piney%20Creek%20Ravine/?action=view¤t=FenaiaRocks1.jpg&newest=1
Review Bronze age pottery styles, find out what type of pottery the "beaker people" made, and look at their engineering structures. Then compare these lithic, pottery, and engineering styles with those of Cahokia Mounds. Compare Beakers made by beaker people with the shape of beakers at cahokia. Compare Mounds with "Barrows". Compare Wood henge at cahokia with woodhenge in England.
Again, Archaeological evidence spanning the coast all the way into europe shares similiar styles.
Now, did you take Sherwin's DNA? You are assuming their DNA is different from other people?
Your interpretation (tattoo, poison, medicine) of the stones that have engravings is a possibility. However, they could have been something else too. Conjuring stones? ancestor stones? Gaming stones? Border Stones?
Which two of the artifacts do you deem to have fake symbols? What makes you so sure, and why are you worried?
The feeling is mutual about your approach to glyphic systems. I would prefer to see all historical translations, side by side, rather than make another new proposed translation. And I am not concerned about fame or your endorsement of my research.
-
Ed, you are changing the subject again - this time to "archaeological evidence".
It's no change, Vince.
Even so, start by reseading Stories In Stone, regarding Lithic Evidence from Norway.
http://www.lithics.org/occ2.html
Compare with lithics from Illinois:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Piney%20Creek%20Ravine/?action=view¤t=FenaiaRocks1.jpg&newest=1
Vince, the Norway URL link does not work.
Review Bronze age pottery styles, find out what type of pottery the "beaker people" made, and look at their engineering structures. Then compare these lithic, pottery, and engineering styles with those of Cahokia Mounds. Compare Beakers made by beaker people with the shape of beakers at cahokia. Compare Mounds with "Barrows". Compare Wood henge at cahokia with woodhenge in England.
Again, Archaeological evidence spanning the coast all the way into europe shares similiar styles.
Vince, surface appearances can be deceiving, particularly if one desperately wants to believe something.
You've kind of forgot about the radio-carbon dates for European cultures versus Native American. How many thousands of years separate European beaker cultures and Cahokia?
Rafinesque made the mistake of using what appeared to him to be comparable structures for dating, but then he didn't have radio-carbon dates, had little in the way of field reports, and was working in the early 1800's.
The technique of recycling earlier faulty work is common in "cult archaeology" circles.
Generally speaking, European long burrows have megalithic cores, and are astronomically oriented.
No ball courts nor astronomical rings have been found in Europe.
You're also ignoring African, South American, and Eastern North American henges. From what I can make out from their distribution, henges may be among mankind's most ancient constructions.
Now, did you take Sherwin's DNA? You are assuming their DNA is different from other people?
What are you talking about? The DNA differences between Norse and Native Americas are known.
Your interpretation (tattoo, poison, medicine) of the stones that have engravings is a possibility. However, they could have been something else too. Conjuring stones? ancestor stones? Gaming stones? Border Stones?
The other alternatives are not likely, given the markings on these artifacts backs.
Which two of the artifacts do you deem to have fake symbols? What makes you so sure, and why are you worried?
The two "banner stones".
The feeling is mutual about your approach to glyphic systems.
Vince, I don't remember ever speaking with you about any approach of mine to Native American glyphic systems.
Again, there is no archaeological evidence supporting your hypothesis, nor any DNA evidence supporting your hypothesis.
The peoples' memories of European contacts were set out in my book.
-
Ed - The link worked before, I guess they must be having web difficulties.
Surface appearances can be deceiving, particularly if one wants not to believe something.
I did not forget about carbon dates. I have attempted to find a valid carbon date from Cahokia for years, and there simply is no paperwork to validate any carbon dates. I challenge you to find any carbon date from Cahokia that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies. The "1000 year ago" date was a theory that was first proposed by Reed around 1963. Reed is not a reliable source because his reasoning was not scientifically sound. All the lithic evidence found at Cahokia contradicts his date. If you wish to ignore the lithic data then that is your loss.
Grondine's opinion about banner stones has no scientific basis, and they have been definitively proven authentic relics, with authentic engravings.
-
I did not forget about carbon dates. I have attempted to find a valid carbon date from Cahokia for years, and there simply is no paperwork to validate any carbon dates. I challenge you to find any carbon date from Cahokia that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies. The "1000 year ago" date was a theory that was first proposed by Reed around 1963. Reed is not a reliable source because his reasoning was not scientifically sound. All the lithic evidence found at Cahokia contradicts his date.
Vince, why would the archaeologists at Cahokia lie about their dates? We're taking about several thousand years between European beaker culture and "Cahokia":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture
You can read about the archaeological dates for the appearance of Mississippian in my own book, along with the Natchez account of their own history.
I am pretty sure that the folks excavating in the Cahokia area have been using reputable radio-carbon dating labs. Further, they usually place their artifacts into the context of artifacts/cultures from other sites which are well dated.
My own thinking is that the complex at St. Louis (Mound City) was earlier than Cahokia, but then that was destroyed.
The big problem you have is demonstrating a transmittal chain, and so far you've demonstrated no way points.
Again, with European burrows earth was usually used to cover megalithic constructions.
Grondine's opinion about banner stones has no scientific basis, and they have been definitively proven authentic relics, with authentic engravings.
Vince, who did this authentication work on these particular banner stones?
We know they are authentic relics, it is the engravings on them which are questionable. The technique of modifying relics to increase their value is well known within the artifact collecting community.
Who found these particular items? Where did they come from? Who published them first?
-
Ed you have not shown one example of a carbon date that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies, so why are you "pretty sure" that they are legitimate or complete?. Should we all take your word for it like a lemming?
Giving Partial or Selective evidence is one problem (which means selecting only the data that matches the intended results). The second problem is the sample size is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Less than 5 % of the site has been excavated, leaving more than 95% chance for error.
"Further, they usually place their artifacts into the context of artifacts/cultures from other sites which are well dated."
Show me an example.
"My own thinking is that the complex at St. Louis (Mound City) was earlier than Cahokia, but then that was destroyed."
Why do you think that? Is it based on any evidence or just hear-say?
"so far you've demonstrated no way points."
Way points? What are you talking about?
"Again, with European burrows earth was usually used to cover megalithic constructions. "
Look at the example of limestone slabs in Monks Mound.
"who did this authentication work on these particular banner stones?"
Dr. Hill, of Cincinnati. first. You can visit the Smithsonian to see them.
"We know they are authentic relics"
Who is "we"?
"the engravings on them which are questionable. The technique of modifying relics to increase their value is well known within the artifact collecting community."
Based on what modification?.
"Who found these particular items? Where did they come from? Who published them first?"
Look it up - I am not doing your research for you.
-
Ed you have not shown one example of a carbon date that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies, so why are you "pretty sure" that they are legitimate or complete?. Should we all take your word for it like a lemming?
"Further, they usually place their artifacts into the context of artifacts/cultures from other sites which are well dated."
Show me an example.
Try reading the fundamentals before you claim they do not exist. All of this was covered in "Cahokia and the Hinterlands", ed Emerson and Lewis, University of Illinois Press, 2000, including hundreds of reliable calibrated RC dates from reliable labs, summarized on page 10.
"My own thinking is that the complex at St. Louis (Mound City) was earlier than Cahokia, but then that was destroyed."
Why do you think that? Is it based on any evidence or just hear-say?
See Man and Impact in the Americas, pages 191-192 et priori.
"so far you've demonstrated no way points."
Way points? What are you talking about?
Between Beaker Culture/ Cahokia. None, Vince. No way points, no transmission route, no path.
"Again, with European burrows earth was usually used to cover megalithic constructions. "
Look at the example of limestone slabs in Monks Mound.
There's a big difference between limestone slabs and megaliths: several tons big.
"who did this authentication work on these particular banner stones?"
Dr. Hill, of Cincinnati. first. You can visit the Smithsonian to see them.
"We know they are authentic relics"
Who is "we"?
"the engravings on them which are questionable. The technique of modifying relics to increase their value is well known within the artifact collecting community."
Based on what modification?.
Making the "inscriptions".
"Who found these particular items? Where did they come from? Who published them first?"
Look it up - I am not doing your research for you.
Well, you're the one who brought them up. I never saw them on display at the Smithsonian. I wonder who Dr. Hill of Cincinatti was and what century he worked in, and what was his background.
Vince, you asked me for the data on Cahokia, and I gave it to you. You asked me why I formed my opinion on the Saint Louis complex, and I told you where it is in my book - and you have a copy of it.
Giving Partial or Selective evidence is one problem (which means selecting only the data that matches the intended results).
Yes it sure is.
The second problem is the sample size is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Less than 5 % of the site has been excavated, leaving more than 95% chance for error.
Vince, until you come up with evidence of either some way points, or some explanation for a thousand year time differential, your hypothesis is, ahem, "unlikely".
Demanding that the other 95% of the site be excavated to prove you are wrong is not likely to happen either.
-
Ed, ahem, you should try reading the source that you sent again, and show me where it says "Hundreds of carbon dates" were taken.
Actually the chart that you referred to clearly states "assigned and suggested new phase chronologies for the Mississippian period in the American Bottom, Illinois" So the carbon dates shown are only for the "Mississippian Period" - leaving out any periods from prior or after that shown. And you still have not shown the backing paperwork.
Assuming the dates on that graph are correct - they are based entirely on Robert Hull's purported 22 carbon dates in a single subfeature of mound 72. Why report only one subfeature? Why not date the beaded burial. Was the subfeature an intrusive feature added several thousand years after the rest of the activiites?
Actually the skeletons were badly deteriorated in Mound 72 and could not be carbon dated (bones were crushed down to 1/2 the original thickness) and excavations were inundated with water. The gender and age determination was nearly impossible. "inaccuracies involved in demographic determination necessitates that analysis be done with extreme caution. Analysis of the paleopathology of fragmentary skeletal material is difficult and inaccurate due to differential preservation of healthy bone. ..Because of the fragmentary nature of the Cahokia Skeletons, the accuracy of the pathological analysis is in doubt. Analysis of the skeletons was severely hampered by the poor bone preservation due to a variety of causes." Only a few (of 250+) were removed intact.
Why were archaic points found embedded in the leg bones of skeletons buried with Cahokia Points? this is only a small part of the picture. I give the entire chronology curve on my historyofmonksmound website, complete with waypoints.
See for the bannerstones with engravings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10108406/The-Banner-Stone-Conundrum
-
Ed, ahem, you should try reading the source that you sent again, and show me where it says "Hundreds of carbon dates" were taken.
Vincent, it appears that you are simply ignoring every RC date from Cahokia that does not accord with your hypothesis - see Cahokia and the Hinterlands, pages 8,9,14, 234 and the index on 354 for surrounding sites - there were goods coming in and going out from Cahokia. There are literally hundreds of radio-carbon dates given.
See for the bannerstones with engravings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10108406/The-Banner-Stone-Conundrum
From its iconography, the Welch butterfly is pretty clearly a fake which was planted. The dress of the people shown is from the late 1800's, when it was engraved. Your dating of 4300 BCE for it is not supported by any data.
I am looking through your site for your waypoints, and have not found them yet.
Another problem that you have is the lack of De Soto artifacts at Cahokia.
If you differ from Hudson's route, then you're going to have to demonstrate appropriate cities at all the locations the chronicles mention.
-
Vince -
From your site:
"An early Chalcolithic culture at Cahokia was discovered when thousands of microblades along with copper workshop evidence were reported by Gregory Perino. The discovery of micro lithic technology along with copper manufacturing workshops equates to chalcolithic presence at the Cahokia Mounds. Chalcolithic technology generally falls into the time period toward the end of the Neolithic period is supported by the presence of black and red pottery styles. Microlithic technology was present beginning in Upper Paleolithic periods and this trait existed until Woodland times. The majority of microlithic and copper evidence seems to occur around the third to the second millennium BC throughout the world. As stated by Clarence Webb in “The extent and Content of the Poverty Point Culture”:
""The two long-lasting microblade traditions in the New World are in the far north and Mesoamerica. The Northwest Microblade tradition is estimated by MacNeish (Willey 1966: 415) to have begun about 6000 B.C. The Arctic Small Tool tradition, starting at 4000-3000 B.C., spread from Alaska to Greenland and lasted until about 500 B.C. In Mesoamerica, the Tehuacin Valley sequence showed obsidian blades struck from prepared polyhedral cores in the Abejas phase, dated by MacNeish (1962) at 3400-2300 B.C. Willey (1966: 83) states "this common little instrument was to become one of the most persistent of the Mesoamerican technological traditions." In view of the probable advent of other Mesoamerican traits into the Mississippi Valley in Poverty Point times, a Mesoamerican origin for the microflint industry seems appropriate. One can only conjecture why this tool maintained its popularity only through Poverty Point and Hopewell times."
Okay, let's see: at this point you have B mt DNA from South America/ Central America along with microliths, and copper coming down from the Lake Superior region. That is not the "chalcolithic" culture you posit:
"The Chalcolithic period corresponds with the beginning of the most major increase in projectile point production. This reaches its peak at the late archaic (Bronze Age). In the late Archaic, the greatest quantity of projectile points was made."
The following does not hold:
"A more realistic approach is working with more than one million laborers during the Chalcolithic copper age, each relaying the earthen construction materials over a highly refined tribute network in one season."
You can pitch the one season. What you probably have there at Cahokia is multiple mounds, each succeeding mound incorporating the earlier one. For that matter nearby earlier mounds could have been re-used to build the later ones.
You have to remember that colored earths would only have been a "veneer", and you have left out canoe transport of them. And they could have been re-used as well.
Aside from isolated items, the main trade routes for lake superior copper did not extend down the Mississippi River until that peak in lithics that you show after 1,000 BCE. Note its decline as well.
Now I understand why you were taken in by the Burrow's frauds: for you they evidence a vast copper trade running down the Mississippi River, one controlled from Cahokia.
But there are no way points further south on the Mississippi River.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
The text that you have cited does not show "literally hundreds" of dates. on the contrary, it does show a staging for the Partial data that only relates to the Mississippian period. Thus enlies is the problem, and this is presented by merely extracing only data that falls within the "accepted" range of "mississippian" era. Your page numbers cited only present a partial data. It even clears up how this decision was made to do this: "a timescale at the 1971 conference". Thus you would have us ignore all the data to the contrary, continue on like a lemming, and do not ever consider any evidence. Ed, You either did not bother to read the book with any comprehension or you cannot be trusted.
Ed, you are also wrong about the Welch butterfly. It is not fake, it is real as the four winds.
The dress is entirely unlike people in the late 1800's, and is shown in similar shell spiro engravings.
The dating of 4300 BCE for it is shown in the Harvey's Bannerstones: A Native American Art tradition. .
Even the best data is not able to show the exact route of DeSoto or his army. There is a description in his journal that he did arrive at Cahokia, as I have shown. There is a lot of scrap brass fragments, large glass beads, and other metallic objects found on monks mound. Also a painting from the 16th century that depicts DeSoto and his men in front of Monks Mound.
Ed, we will talk when you can present some data to support your partial view.
-
The text that you have cited does not show "literally hundreds" of dates.
Yes it does, and as anyone can pick up a copy of it and read it for themselves, why claim otherwise?
on the contrary, it does show a staging for the Partial data that only relates to the Mississippian period.
Thus enlies is the problem, and this is presented by merely extracing only data that falls within the "accepted" range of "mississippian" era. Your page numbers cited only present a partial data. It even clears up how this decision was made to do this: "a timescale at the 1971 conference". Thus you would have us ignore all the data to the contrary, continue on like a lemming, and do not ever consider any evidence. Ed, You either did not bother to read the book with any comprehension or you cannot be trusted.
Vince, I wrote about the comet impacts that killed the mammoth some 4 years before Firestone and Kennett published. If the copper trade had of gone down the Mississippi River I would have had no problem with detailing it.
But it didn't. The Andaste copper traders are remembered by the Menominee, Ho-chunk (Hotcegea), Ojibwe, Wendat, Five Nations, Shawnee, Cherokee, and the first English colonists. Their artifacts and sites are as I set out in "Man and Impact in the Americas".
While the lithic frequency chart you cite is interesting, and your citation of micro blades and copper working, given that the Welsh butterfly is a fraud, and the Burrow's objects are frauds, I'd have to re-examine your citations of them in depth to assure myself that they were legitimate.
Ed, you are also wrong about the Welch butterfly. It is not fake, it is real as the four winds.
Oh, its a real fake alright. Anyone can tell by looking at the iconography, which dates from 1879.
The dress is entirely unlike people in the late 1800's, and is shown in similar shell spiro engravings.
Let's see - on the one side a woman in 19th century representation of classical greco-roman dress, on the other a 19th century representation of a medieval representation of roman dress.
The dating of 4300 BCE for it is shown in the Harvey's Bannerstones: A Native American Art tradition.
When the original was done is one thing, when the engravings added another.
Again, without further citation, I'll simply state that it appears to me to be a fraud. One problem here, as with Burrow's objects, is that the frauds are so obvious that no serious scientist will waste their time with them. Otherwise, high power microscopic examination of the tool markings would immediately reveal them as frauds.
Others may take a look and form their own opinion.
Even the best data is not able to show the exact route of DeSoto or his army.
Hudson and his colleagues disagree.
There is a description in his journal that he did arrive at Cahokia, as I have shown. There is a lot of scrap brass fragments, large glass beads, and other metallic objects found on monks mound. Also a painting from the 16th century that depicts DeSoto and his men in front of Monks Mound.
Your reading, Vince. Your identification of Kaskaskia was tempting, but once again, you have to trace the whole route back from Cahokia and Kaskaskia to Burnt Corn Alabama, the site of the battle with the Mauvila.
Ed, we will talk when you can present some data to support your partial view.
You own my book. Read it. The copper traders are detailed in it, as are their routes to the Atlantic Ocean.
Your copper trading empire running through Cahokia is a figment of your imagination, Vince. There are no other early copper sites on the Mississippi River. Show me several of them and we'll talk.
In other words, trace the copper down from Isle Royale to the mouth of the Mississippi River and we'll talk.
-
Cahokia was a major copper trading center and the Welch butterfly is authentic.
Hudson and his colleagues admit his map is but one interpretation of DeSoto's route.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/DeSoto/?action=view¤t=Image0069.jpg
Hammering out the Facts:
Cahokia Copper:
http://www.cahokiamounds.com/explore/mound34_report2007.pdf
http://www.siue.edu/ANTHROPOLOGY/Seniorassignment/AY2008/lori.pdf
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Copper%20Artifacts/
Etowah Copper
http://books.google.com/books?id=JcEp9_6TPtMC&pg=PA84&dq=etowah+copper#v=onepage&q=etowah%20copper&f=false
Poverty Point, Louisiana Copper
http://books.google.com/books?id=JcEp9_6TPtMC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=poverty+point+copper&source=bl&ots=LlbXBc8DNl&sig=o4rjKcia-_yJb5HVGtKxexSgCPo&hl=en&ei=KXN_SuPfIdH7tgfD5MzcAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=poverty%20point%20copper&f=false
Welch Butterfly Bannerstone:
http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/welchbutterfly.htm
-
Hi Vince, Lori
Cahokia was a major copper trading center...
In Mississippian times, but small compared to Etowah. Why?
Because "Hopewell" and "Mississippian" copper nearly all came from
Copper Hill, Tennessee.
I see from your wife Lori's paper that she knows nothing of this copper source either.
Mississippian is several thousand years different than your "Chalcolithic", Vince.
The same goes for the published Poverty Point claims of Lake Superior copper, which is strange as they document other trade goods from the Copper Hill, Tennesee area. You have multiple site reports from "Hopewell" sites where they claim Lake Superior copper, without spectral analysis.
In sum, all copper did not come from the Lake Superior region.
and the Welch butterfly is authentic.
Like I said Vince, if they ever bother to put the Welsh Butterfly under a high power microscope, the tool marks will show it to be a fraud. Same as will happen to Burrow's frauds.
Hudson and his colleagues admit his map is but one interpretation of DeSoto's route.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/DeSoto/?action=view¤t=Image0069.jpg
Drawing a series of lines through Mississippian sites is not sufficient, Vince.
You have to match your route to Cahokia with the marches/distances described in the chronicles. While I do find it strange that no major Mississippian complex has been documented at Harrisburg, that does not change Burrow's fraud. Again, we have descriptions of Mississippian ancestor shrines, and they were above ground.
Most of this would more properly be under the head of the Burrow's Cave fraud instead of under the Walam Olum.
In closing this exchange, I thank you for your images of the gorgets from Piqua, and your citation of their finding. IMO, they are real, and likely to be Lenape, but we'll see.
-
Ed,
Your comments are foolish because Lori is NOT my wife!!! However, Lori shows in her presentation native copper use in southern Illinois dating to 3,000 BC and this is the correct date. Cahokia chronology that is proposed by your sources does not acknowledge or include this valuable information.
The copper used at Cahokia was matched to the type from upper michigan.
Your conjecture about the engravings on the Welch Butterfly unfortunately cannot be disproven or proven. The piece at the Smithsonian is only a plaster cast of the original Banded Slate artifact. The original banded slate example is unknown and may be in someones collection.
Your claim about the DeSoto map also falls short, for the photo that i have shown is actually source material used by Hudson and His associates to map DeSoto's route. The Green dots are the locations of Spanish artifacts.
This time frame is called Chalcolithic - and the similarities between Iberian Peninsula stone work, and that of Northern India are noted by a broad study of world archaeology. As such, birchbark scrolls were also found among both cultures, and relavent because microblades were probably used to incise the birchbark. Microblades at Cahokia were found with copper workshop evidence and this lithic chronology has not been included in your source.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Erb%20and%20Mathews%20collections/Microblade%20Core/
Further Documentation of "Old-world and New-world" Microblade Chronology:
The gap between this upper palaeolithic and the neolithic-chalcolithic cultures has
now been bridged in some regions such as Uttar Pradesh, Karnatak and SE. Rajasthan
by microlithic cultures, for which we have dates ranging from 8000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. There
is no doubt that in some parts of India microlithic cultures continued to flourish side by
side with other advanced cultures (Misra 1971).
(Prehistoric colonization of India)
The Ahar culture, as revealed by the excavations at Ahar, has been found to be a purely
copper-using culture (I.A.R. 1961-2: 50). At Gilund (Rajasthan), however, a few microliths
were found associated with this culture (I.A.R. 1959-60: 41).
Ahar Culture (1700-1500 BC)
(New Light on the Prehistoric Cultures of Central India)
At most of the excavated sites of the Upper Gangetic Valley the Ochre Coloured
Pottery is succeeded by the Painted Grey Ware but at two of them, Atranjikhera 6,
and Noh '), an ill-defined Black-and-Red Ware horizon is interposed between
these two levels. Nothing is known about the cultural identity of this Black-and-Red
Ware except that it XI-as associated at Atranjikhera with "microlithic cores and copper."
A clear appraisal must await fuller investigation
(Prehistoric Ganges)
While a wide variety of microlithic implements along with a more or less extensive use of Copper
form the basic technological ingredient, the primary crop cultivated was rice.
There was a wide assortment of plain and painted wheelmade wares among which a
Black-and-Red Ware formed the dominant element. This Black-and-Red Ware
has been discovered as far as Rajghat l) and Sohgaura 2, in East U.P. The C-14 dates
suggest a beginning around I roo B.C. 3). The origin is obscure but there is little
evidence for a migration of the chalcolithic elements from South-east Rajasthan,
Central India or Deccan. This chalcolithic level gradually merged into an iron-using
stage around 700 B.C. 4). This aspect of the gradual merger between the chalcolithic
and iron-using stages is clear from the sequences of Chirand and Mahisdal where
chalcolithic elements including pottery and microlithic tools continue significantly
in the iron-using level. Early historic period began, as in the Upper Gangetic Valley,
in the sixth century B.C.
(Prehistoric Ganges)
The technological traditions of the Franco-Iberian
Solutrean were firmly rooted in those of the
Gravettian (middle Upper Paleolithic) of western
Europe. Depending on the local availability and quality
of lithic raw materials, as well as on site function,
blanks used for making stone implements were
flakes, blades, and bladelets ("micro-blades" in
American terminology), although the Solutrean leaf,
shouldered, and stemmed points were usually made
on blades often produced from diverse specific forms
of prismatic cores. The hallmark of Solutrean lithic
technology is indeed its projectile component, consisting
of both a variety of single-element tips (of
widely varying sizes and weights, including many
"laurel leaves" that may actually have been used as
knives) and (especially in later Solutrean contexts)
backed bladelets that were used multiply as barbs
and/ or tips of projectiles, whose other elements were
basally beveled antler points.
(soulterian)
Microblades, tanged and
shouldered points-all common in various Solutrean
assemblages-are absent in the far more limited technological
repertoire of Clovis. While there are superficial
similarities (e.g., some concave base foliate
projectile points, some organic points or foreshafts
with anti-skid engraved lines on basal bevels), these
are most parsimoniously explainable as independent
developments-similar solutions to similar functional
problems, given limited available lithic and
osseous materials and manufacturing techniques.
The fact that red ochre was used by people in both
techno-complexes-as cited by Stanford-is meaningless,
as such pigment use is virtually a cultural
universal among Homo sapiens foragers worldwide.
(Soulterian)
The creativity of the Solutrean extended
beyond the "arms race" that is attested by the plethora
of lithic and antler point sizes and types (and even
224 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 20001
backed micro-blade elements) and by the invention
of the spearthrower.
(souterian)
Yet such pieces in the Solutrean are
found only at a handful of sites in a small area of
northern Spain-not in France or in the rest of Iberia.
Nor are the Solutrean points fluted, a feature which
is absolutely diagnostic of Clovis points. Shouldered
and stemmed points, as well as micro-blades, all so
common in the Solutrean, are completely absent
from the Clovis lithic repertory. And beveled antler
points (or foreshafts), common in the Solutrean, are
very rare in Clovis.
(soulerian)
The microliths
are consistently found in association with pottery and bifacially
worked projectile points of the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of the third and second millennia B.C.
(USSR)
The above observations as well as data from
I. V. Sinitsyn's excavations on the Volga (Berezhnov
I1 cemetery), from those on the left bank
of the Dniepr (Bader 1950), and in Crimea
(Krainov 1957), indicate a persistence of microlithic
technology as late as the age of metal,
allowing us to place microlithic sites in Asia as
being Chalcolithic. Pottery found with microliths
in Dzhanbas-Kala, Dzhebel Cave, and a
series of eroded sites enables us to date microlithic
sites in Kazakhstan and Central Asia in
the main to the third and early second millennia
B.C. This same chronological placement is
indicated by the type of bifacially retouched
projectile points-the triangular point with an
indentation in the base. Points of this type are
common in the third and second millennia B.C.
and possibly were manufactured as early as the
end of the fourth millennium.
(USSR)
Triangular Points of this type were found at Cahokia Mounds in abundance.
The excavations of I. V.
Sinitsyn in the Berezhnov I1 cemetery definitely
linked the microlithic cultures of the lower
Volga with the Yamno cultures of the third
millennium B.C. Here in Kurgan (burial
mound) 9, with Burials 3, 5, 9, and 17 were
found two microblades, three end-scrapers
made on blades, three rounded microscrapers,
a composite tool, and two other artifacts quite
usual in lower Volg-a sites. Thus, in the third
millennium B.C. geometric tools were still being
produced in the lower reaches of the Volga.
(USSR)
The Introduction
of microblades is now seen as a regional tradition
lasting from at least 1200 B.C. until around A.D. 400.
(Microblades)
Microblades and cores were next reported
from the top horizon of DjRi3 in the Fraser Canyon,
but the relation of these objects to the
radiocarbon date given for the horizon, 410 B.C.
60 (S-112), is not made clear (Borden 1961:
1). (Microblades)
As Table 1 indicates, date estimates for assemblages,
including microblades or cores, range
from 1210 B.C. 2 130 (GSC437) as the earliest
to A.D. 370 f 140 (S-19) as the most recent.
(Microblades)
New World are in the
far north and Mesoamerica. The Northwest
Microblade tradition is estimated by MacNeish
(Willey 1966: 415) to have begun about 6000
B.C. The Arctic Small Tool tradition, starting at
4000-3000 B.c., spread from Alaska to Greenland
and lasted until about 500 B.C. In Mesoamerica,
the Tehuacin Valley sequence showed
obsidian blades struck from prepared polyhedral
cores in the Abejas phase, dated by MacNeish
(1962) at 3400-2300 B.C. Willey (1966: 83)
states "this common little instrument was to
become one of the most persistent of the Mesoamerican
technological traditions." In view of
the probable advenr of other Mesoamerican
traits into the Mississippi Valley in Poverty
Point times, a Mesoamerican origin for the
microflint industry seemq appropriate. One can
only conjecture why this tool maintained its
popularity only through Poverty Point and
Hopewell times.
(poverty Point)
-
Ed,
Your comments are foolish because Lori is NOT my wife!!! However, Lori shows in her presentation native copper use in southern Illinois dating to 3,000 BC and this is the correct date. Cahokia chronology that is proposed by your sources does not acknowledge or include this valuable information.
The copper used at Cahokia was matched to the type from upper michigan.
My apologies to Lori; from your comments, I misunderstood your relationship with her. Does she think there was a Norse-Algonquin copper trade?
Vince, have you ever considered studying archaeology in school, or actually working on a professional excavation? I think you would be far happier if you did.
The Pennino excavation copper was sheet fragments, where sheet is the usual form from the Copper Hill, Tennessee deposits.
Your conjecture about the engravings on the Welch Butterfly unfortunately cannot be disproven or proven. The piece at the Smithsonian is only a plaster cast of the original Banded Slate artifact. The original banded slate example is unknown and may be in someones collection.
Oh, I would not be so sure about that, Vince. First off, you were the one who insisted that the Welch butterfly and not a plaster cast of it was in the Smithsonian. You would probably be very surprised to learn what can be revealed by a plaster cast.
Your claim about the DeSoto map also falls short, for the photo that i have shown is actually source material used by Hudson and His associates to map DeSoto's route. The Green dots are the locations of Spanish artifacts.
Again, Vince, the route lines are yours - it may be Hudson's artifacts, but they're your lines. The problem is that you have to show how any of your routes matches the chronicles' itineraries.
This time frame is called Chalcolithic - and the similarities between Iberian Peninsula stone work, and that of Northern India are noted by a broad study of world archaeology. As such, birchbark scrolls were also found among both cultures, and relavent because microblades were probably used to incise the birchbark. Microblades at Cahokia were found with copper workshop evidence and this lithic chronology has not been included in your source.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Erb%20and%20Mathews%20collections/Microblade%20Core/
You keep on talking about "my source". Please associate a specific point with a specific source; it makes discussion easier.
Vince, maybe someday you'll bother to talk with some mide and learn what they use to incise their birchbark scrolls. If you do meet mide, please stop talking long enough to remember to listen to what they have to say to you very very carefully, and try to remember exactly what they tell you.
Further Documentation of "Old-world and New-world" Microblade Chronology:
The gap between this upper palaeolithic and the neolithic-chalcolithic cultures has now been bridged in some regions such as Uttar Pradesh, Karnatak and SE. Rajasthan by microlithic cultures, for which we have dates ranging from 8000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. There is no doubt that in some parts of India microlithic cultures continued to flourish side by side with other advanced cultures (Misra 1971).
(Prehistoric colonization of India)
The Ahar culture, as revealed by the excavations at Ahar, has been found to be a purely copper-using culture (I.A.R. 1961-2: 50). At Gilund (Rajasthan), however, a few microliths were found associated with this culture (I.A.R. 1959-60: 41). Ahar Culture (1700-1500 BC)
(New Light on the Prehistoric Cultures of Central India)
At most of the excavated sites of the Upper Gangetic Valley the Ochre Coloured Pottery is succeeded by the Painted Grey Ware but at two of them, Atranjikhera 6, and Noh '), an ill-defined Black-and-Red Ware horizon is interposed between these two levels. Nothing is known about the cultural identity of this Black-and-Red Ware except that it XI-as associated at Atranjikhera with "microlithic cores and copper." A clear appraisal must await fuller investigation (Prehistoric Ganges)
While a wide variety of microlithic implements along with a more or less extensive use of Copper form the basic technological ingredient, the primary crop cultivated was rice. There was a wide assortment of plain and painted wheelmade wares among which a Black-and-Red Ware formed the dominant element. This Black-and-Red Ware has been discovered as far as Rajghat l) and Sohgaura 2, in East U.P. The C-14 dates suggest a beginning around I roo B.C. 3). The origin is obscure but there is little evidence for a migration of the chalcolithic elements from South-east Rajasthan, Central India or Deccan. This chalcolithic level gradually merged into an iron-using stage around 700 B.C. 4). This aspect of the gradual merger between the chalcolithic and iron-using stages is clear from the sequences of Chirand and Mahisdal where
chalcolithic elements including pottery and microlithic tools continue significantly in the iron-using level. Early historic period began, as in the Upper Gangetic Valley, in the sixth century B.C.
(Prehistoric Ganges)
Vince, you fail to mention early African microliths, and the excavation contamination dating problems for their sites, currently a hot topic, or their relationship or lack of one with Anatolian microliths. You fail to note the wide differences in dates for microliths versus microliths+copper in the sources you cite.
Your use of a OCR scanner without correcting the scans is irritating. As is your mis-use of "chalcolithic" in other contexts.
I note also your inability to organize materials along a time line.
The technological traditions of the Franco-Iberian Solutrean were firmly rooted in those of the Gravettian (middle Upper Paleolithic) of western Europe. Depending on the local availability and quality of lithic raw materials, as well as on site function, blanks used for making stone implements were flakes, blades, and bladelets ("micro-blades" in American terminology), although the Solutrean leaf, shouldered, and stemmed points were usually made on blades often produced from diverse specific forms of prismatic cores. The hallmark of Solutrean lithic technology is indeed its projectile component, consisting
of both a variety of single-element tips (of widely varying sizes and weights, including many "laurel leaves" that may actually have been used as knives) and (especially in later Solutrean contexts) backed bladelets that were used multiply as barbs and/ or tips of projectiles, whose other elements were
basally beveled antler points.
(soulterian)
Microblades, tanged and shouldered points-all common in various Solutrean
assemblages-are absent in the far more limited technological repertoire of Clovis. While there are superficial similarities (e.g., some concave base foliate
projectile points, some organic points or foreshafts with anti-skid engraved lines on basal bevels), these are most parsimoniously explainable as independent
developments-similar solutions to similar functional problems, given limited available lithic and osseous materials and manufacturing techniques.
The fact that red ochre was used by people in both techno-complexes-as cited by Stanford-is meaningless, as such pigment use is virtually a cultural
universal among Homo sapiens foragers worldwide. (Soulterian)
The creativity of the Solutrean extended beyond the "arms race" that is attested by the plethora of lithic and antler point sizes and types (and even
224 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 20001 backed micro-blade elements) and by the invention of the spearthrower. (souterian)
Yet such pieces in the Solutrean are found only at a handful of sites in a small area of northern Spain-not in France or in the rest of Iberia. Nor are the Solutrean points fluted, a feature which is absolutely diagnostic of Clovis points. Shouldered and stemmed points, as well as micro-blades, all so
common in the Solutrean, are completely absent from the Clovis lithic repertory. And beveled antler points (or foreshafts), common in the Solutrean, are
very rare in Clovis.
(soulerian)
The microliths are consistently found in association with pottery and bifacially
worked projectile points of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the third and second millennia B.C. (USSR)
The above observations as well as data from I. V. Sinitsyn's excavations on the Volga (Berezhnov I1 cemetery), from those on the left bank of the Dniepr (Bader 1950), and in Crimea (Krainov 1957), indicate a persistence of microlithic
technology as late as the age of metal, allowing us to place microlithic sites in Asia as being Chalcolithic. Pottery found with microliths in Dzhanbas-Kala, Dzhebel Cave, and a series of eroded sites enables us to date microlithic
sites in Kazakhstan and Central Asia in the main to the third and early second millennia B.C. This same chronological placement is indicated by the type of bifacially retouched projectile points-the triangular point with an
indentation in the base. Points of this type are common in the third and second millennia B.C.and possibly were manufactured as early as the end of the fourth millennium.(USSR)
Triangular Points of this type were found at Cahokia Mounds in abundance.
These authors notes on functionality dictating similarity seems to have
passed you by, as did the difference between barbs for bone tips and microliths for other uses. Note carefully the 4,000 year time difference between Cahokia and Central Asian sites.
The excavations of I. V. Sinitsyn in the Berezhnov I1 cemetery definitely
linked the microlithic cultures of the lower Volga with the Yamno cultures of the third millennium B.C. Here in Kurgan (burial mound) 9, with Burials 3, 5, 9, and 17 were found two microblades, three end-scrapers made on blades, three rounded microscrapers, a composite tool, and two other artifacts quite
usual in lower Volg-a sites. Thus, in the third millennium B.C. geometric tools were still being produced in the lower reaches of the Volga. (USSR)
The Introduction of microblades is now seen as a regional tradition
lasting from at least 1200 B.C. until around A.D. 400. (Microblades)
Microblades and cores were next reported from the top horizon of DjRi3 in the Fraser Canyon, but the relation of these objects to the radiocarbon date given for the horizon, 410 B.C. 60 (S-112), is not made clear (Borden 1961:
1). (Microblades)
As Table 1 indicates, date estimates for assemblages, including microblades or cores, range from 1210 B.C. 2 130 (GSC437) as the earliest to A.D. 370 f 140 (S-19) as the most recent.(Microblades)
New World are in the far north and Mesoamerica. The Northwest
Microblade tradition is estimated by MacNeish (Willey 1966: 415) to have begun about 6000 B.C. The Arctic Small Tool tradition, starting at 4000-3000 B.c., spread from Alaska to Greenland and lasted until about 500 B.C. In Mesoamerica, the Tehuacin Valley sequence showed obsidian blades struck from prepared polyhedral cores in the Abejas phase, dated by MacNeish
(1962) at 3400-2300 B.C. Willey (1966: 83) states "this common little instrument was to become one of the most persistent of the Mesoamerican
technological traditions." In view of the probable advenr of other Mesoamerican
traits into the Mississippi Valley in Poverty Point times, a Mesoamerican origin for the microflint industry seemq appropriate. One can only conjecture why this tool maintained its popularity only through Poverty Point and Hopewell times.
(poverty Point)
Vince, you have not demonstrated to me Lake Superior copper trade down the Mississippi River at 3,000 BC. No way points. If I had of found it, I would have written it up.
I mentioned to you earlier what I did find. I traced the copper trade and copper traders in my book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and gave some of the peoples' proto-historical and historical memories of them.
The gross diagnostics are polished stone tools and serated edges.
I now know more about why you think Burrow's objects are legitimate, at least on a superficial and not a deep level, but more importantly I know much more about how you think that, and how you manage to continue to think that.
You have not convinced me that there was a Norse-Algonquin copper trading empire running down the Mississippi River and carrying copper to Europe.
Vince, I'm very very tired, and they are not paying me enough. The usual rates for this kind of work are around $125 per hour, unless you can find a willing and very kind professor and are willing to pick up the tab for the sherry. $125/hr is roughly double the dollar per minute rate of some other trades... but my mind is wandering.
Vince, may I suggest to you that you make a VERY generous donation to the NAFPS committee to help them pay the operating costs of this forum?
In closing this exchange, I so want to thank you for your note of the Piqua gorgets. Now if someone would only come through with several tens of thousands of dollars, I would undertake learning the fates of the Lenape mede.
Or add three fires materials, including the tradition of the shells to "Man and Impact in the Americas".
Vince, perhaps someone you will meet will know where John Moss is buried.
My offer to Oestreicher for a trade still stands.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
-
Your assumptions are very troublesome. The only time that I have heard Lori was when she gave that presentation to the Cahokia Mounds. She stated that she tested the copper and confirmed it was from upper Michigan.
I stated clearly that the Welch Butterfly cast was photographed at the museum.
"A plaster cast of the “Welch Butterfly” was made and donated at some time to the Smithsonian Institute, where the cast (Figure 2) was photographed by your author during a collections tour with David Rosenthal."
"Again, Vince, the route lines are yours - it may be Hudson's artifacts, but they're your lines. The problem is that you have to show how any of your routes matches the chronicles' itineraries. "
Wrong again, the pink line is Hudson's line, green is Brain, red is swanton Yellow is Weinstein, and Blue is Atkinson. See the source: The Mississippi De Soto Trail Mapping Project by David Morgan.
Eds source is Cahokia and the Hinterlands - which mentions nothing of microblades found at Cahokia, for one. Nor does it mention any of the archaic evidence. That is because this source is limited to the "mississippian" paradigm.
" Note carefully the 4,000 year time difference between Cahokia and Central Asian sites."
This is one point that I disagree with Ed. His view of selecting the time frame from "1000 years ago" is partial and simply ignoring all the evidence from earlier and later peoples seems bizarre.
-
Your assumptions are very troublesome.
Not half as troubling as your Norse-Algonquin cognates, your imaginary copper trade routes, your endorsing frauds as real, and your cave "investigations".
The only time that I have heard Lori was when she gave that presentation to the Cahokia Mounds.
Does Lori endorse any of your conclusions at all, Vince?
She stated that she tested the copper and confirmed it was from upper Michigan.
That information was not in her presentation which you linked to.
I stated clearly that the Welch Butterfly cast was photographed at the museum."A plaster cast of the “Welch Butterfly” was made and donated at some time to the Smithsonian Institute, where the cast (Figure 2) was photographed by your author during a collections tour with David Rosenthal."
Which doesn't matter. The Welch butterfly is still a fake; perhaps someone will bother to examine the cast and prove it conclusively before more damage is done to impressionable minds.
"Again, Vince, the route lines are yours - it may be Hudson's artifacts, but they're your lines. The problem is that you have to show how any of your routes matches the chronicles' itineraries. "
Wrong again, the pink line is Hudson's line, green is Brain, red is swanton Yellow is Weinstein, and Blue is Atkinson. See the source: The Mississippi De Soto Trail Mapping Project by David Morgan.
Since Hudson et al do not have deSoto going anywhere near Cahokia, I am still left to wonder how you imagine that they do.
Eds source is Cahokia and the Hinterlands - which mentions nothing of microblades found at Cahokia, for one. Nor does it mention any of the archaic evidence. That is because this source is limited to the "mississippian" paradigm.
" Note carefully the 4,000 year time difference between Cahokia and Central Asian sites."
This is one point that I disagree with Ed. His view of selecting the time frame from "1000 years ago" is partial and simply ignoring all the evidence from earlier and later peoples seems bizarre.
I am not ignoring evidence from earlier or later peoples. I also don't confuse them by ignoring stratigraphy and dating, which is something you regularly and consistently do.
You show no way points demonstrating a trans-atlantic copper trade down the Mississippi River, Vince. Once more, if it had of been there I would have mentioned it.
The Burrows frauds will be addressed on that thread. Except for the Piqua gorgets, all of this more properly belongs there, rather than here.
I still wonder if the Indian Crafts Act may apply to Burrow's objects. I am very hopeful that Obama's new appointees to the BIA will bring an end to it.
-
1. Norse - Algonquian cognates were covered by Sherwin.
2. Read the copper trade routes in Lori's Presentation on page 2, then see poverty point, Wulfing plates, copper plates, etc.
3. Ed's opinion of "frauds" is based on no factual evidence.
4. Geological Caves in southern Illinois were far more common that Ed would have us know.
5. Welch Butterfly is authentic. And someone will probably take another close look at the cast of the relic and prove its importance as a colonial Mayan engraving, just as I have done.
6. Hudson's map is far from complete. Did De Soto have a GPS device, Ed?
7. Ignoring evidence seems to be the trend here, and as this thread has devolved into No-its-not, Yes-it-is, We should leave it at that.
-
1. Norse - Algonquian cognates were covered by Sherwin.
2. Read the copper trade routes in Lori's Presentation on page 2, then see poverty point, Wulfing plates, copper plates, etc.
3. Ed's opinion of "frauds" is based on no factual evidence.
4. Geological Caves in southern Illinois were far more common that Ed would have us know.
5. Welch Butterfly is authentic. And someone will probably take another close look at the cast of the relic and prove its importance as a colonial Mayan engraving, just as I have done.
6. Hudson's map is far from complete. Did De Soto have a GPS device, Ed?
7. Ignoring evidence seems to be the trend here, and as this thread has devolved into No-its-not, Yes-it-is, We should leave it at that.
And now we get down to it. Speaking of ignoring evidence, over on the Burrow's Cave fraud, Vince.
-
And now we get down to it. Speaking of ignoring evidence, over on the Burrow's Cave fraud, Vince.
Ed, What evidence have you presented? I have seen none.
-
Coming in late to this facinating thread I was curious about a few things. Maybe someone could clarify a few loose ends for me.
In the fleeting references to the Lenape mediwak it struck me that the term is awfully similar to Megwa. Which would seem to be closer to the Lenape culture than the annishabi Mediwin.(sp) society.
Another coinsidental theme has been the flood/ cultural references, yet no one correlated it to the same story the Mohawk have along the St.Lawrence river. As far as cataclysmic events go.
Again in no particular order, altho there was mention of the "green bridge" as a possible migration route, how would you reconcile this with the Tunit, or Thule peoples or even the Beothunk/Micmac? Seeing as there aren't oral stories or hints to an influx of native peoples from the east?
I have been wondering despite all the diverse opinions on the validity of the Wallum Olum the common thread of all the posters seems to be backtracking thru time to the origins of Lenape as a people. Debating whether the WO is a legitimate roadmap of sorts seems to be more of a way to avoid digging for the Lenape origins.
That is maybe too simplistic a way to look at things.
another question I had , well more an observation , is the Anishabe Mediwin have been more forthcoming in the release of some of their knowledge. Robert Blackwolf's book" Listening to the Drum" is an example of that. Another was the return of some scrolls to the Annishabe of Pic River Reserve from a museum in Ottowa during a public Pow-Wow. Another prime example would be via the artwork of Norval Morresseau as some of it comes with the Medi explaination of the symbols contained within.
I mean no disrespect, these are just questions that occured to me as I read thru the thread.
-
Coming in late to this fascinating thread I was curious about a few things. Maybe someone could clarify a few loose ends for me.
In the fleeting references to the Lenape mediwak it struck me that the term is awfully similar to Megwa. Which would seem to be closer to the Lenape culture than the annishabi Mediwin.(sp) society.
Bear? I don't know about that. But then I don't know the etymology, or if there is one, or if it is a root word.
Oneota should have come into contact with Mississipian historical pictographics about 1000 CE.
I set out what it would take in the way of resources to track the Lenape medewak through the conquest.
Another coinsidental theme has been the flood/ cultural references, yet no one correlated it to the same story the Mohawk have along the St.Lawrence river. As far as cataclysmic events go.
Which Mohawk flood tradition are you referring to?
Again in no particular order, altho there was mention of the "green bridge" as a possible migration route, how would you reconcile this with the Tunit, or Thule peoples or even the Beothunk/Micmac? Seeing as there aren't oral stories or hints to an influx of native peoples from the east?
Excuse me, but there are multiple traditions of the red paint peoples arrival held by many peoples. Separately, I seem to remember that in Ketowah tradition there is a very different tradition of a migration to the east.
If memory serves, Thule were pretty much extincted by Norse diseases around 1275 CE.
I can't speak to Beothunk/Micmac.
I have been wondering despite all the diverse opinions on the validity of the Wallum Olum the common thread of all the posters seems to be backtracking thru time to the origins of Lenape as a people. Debating whether the WO is a legitimate roadmap of sorts seems to be more of a way to avoid digging for the Lenape origins.
That is maybe too simplistic a way to look at things.
A simple way is a perfectly valid way. You can start with Lenape villages at contact, and work back to the Great Turtle traditions.
another question I had , well more an observation , is the Anishabe Mediwin have been more forthcoming in the release of some of their knowledge. Robert Blackwolf's book" Listening to the Drum" is an example of that. Another was the return of some scrolls to the Annishabe of Pic River Reserve from a museum in Ottowa during a public Pow-Wow. Another prime example would be via the artwork of Norval Morresseau as some of it comes with the Medi explaination of the symbols contained within.
I mean no disrespect, these are just questions that occurred to me as I read thru the thread.
These releases are happening more and more, and in my view it is a good thing, as it stops some very confused people from making up their own imaginary histories.
One can key the Tradition of the Shells using the dates established in my book "Man and Impact in the Americas". The journey west starts ca 350 CE. If I can get permission, raise the funds, and M'si Manitou allows, I will include this and other Three Fires materials in a second edition.
Paselo -
Ed
-
I'm not referring to the term "Megwa" as bear, altho I understand in some native languages that's exactly what it means. My spelling of the word may be off, as I'm not fluent in Lenape language. I backtracked "Megwa" as one of the creation beings similar to a " Manitou" via a trip to the Renape Reserve in NJ.
As for the Lenape ceremonial societies I was thinking your reference to the Mediwak seemed more a derivitive of the Lenape creation being than the Annishabe term.
Being neither a historian, or scholar(SP) after reading the Red Record, and in my travels visiting those very facinating carvings at Judiculla rock, the one at Sanilac MI, and the rock at Kelly's Island I was a bit confused as how Lenape pictoglyphs could be present, but not within the replica of the Red Record.
Of Course I could be putting two and two together and getting six.
You seem to be doing your backtracking of history from "contact" back....I went the other route of using oral history and then tying it to historical events.
But seriously, it's not like I'm an expert or anything.
-
I'm not referring to the term "Megwa" as bear, altho I understand in some native languages that's exactly what it means. My spelling of the word may be off, as I'm not fluent in Lenape language. I backtracked "Megwa" as one of the creation beings similar to a " Manitou" via a trip to the Renape Reserve in NJ.
As for the Lenape ceremonial societies I was thinking your reference to the Mediwak seemed more a derivitive of the Lenape creation being than the Annishabe term.
Being neither a historian, or scholar(SP) after reading the Red Record, and in my travels visiting those very facinating carvings at Judiculla rock, the one at Sanilac MI, and the rock at Kelly's Island I was a bit confused as how Lenape pictoglyphs could be present, but not within the replica of the Red Record.
Of Course I could be putting two and two together and getting six.
You seem to be doing your backtracking of history from "contact" back....I went the other route of using oral history and then tying it to historical events.
But seriously, it's not like I'm an expert or anything.
Hi Tberri -
It wasn't backtracking. Let me try to explain what came to me.
My project started out as a simple catalogue of impact events in the Americas to try and establish as accurately as possible the hazard to peoples' lives. Then I realized:
1) That most of the histories I was quoting were unavailable
2) That many of them had been dismissed as "myths" because they described impact events
3) That I had an incredibly powerful tool.
I used comet impacts to place the traditions (oral histories) in time and space, and then to lock them onto the archaeological record. Cusick's "Sketches of the Ancient History of the Six Nations" and his counts of the wampum were really key in this.
Re: Judaculi Rock, The Cherokee were describing Tsunihl'gul, the giants, actually the Andaste proper, as the carvers. The nearby soapstone bowls indicate the same.
If you turn the picture shown of it upside down, (so the farmer is upside down), it looks like it was not hands that were shown, but comets with multiple tails. Why this rock was chosen was probably because of the soapstone. Why the other markings were made, including The Great Turtle shown nearby, and the man with the elk horn staff, I do not know. They were probably later additions.
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/rock_art/judaculla.html
The same kind of comet/hands may be seen at Sanilac, but these perhaps date from the 536 CE encounter with Comet Encke, and the subseqent game collapse caused by the climate effects of its dust veil. Note the bows and arrows(?).
Kell(e)y's Island - in the right place for Andaste.
One big problem with petrogyphs is later additions, and that seldom are any datable artifacts or other cultural remains found with them.
That said, minimally I think one can assert that these petroglyphs are not Lenape.
As far as Lenape origins goes, in my opinion like most Algonquin peoples they probably started as sea turtle hunters along what were before 10,900 BCE the balmy shores of today's British Columbia. mt DNA haplogroup A.
But as I have been wrong before, and I reserve the right to be wrong about this as well. It's simply the best estimate I can form now.
As for the Walam Olum, my offer of a trade with Oestreicher still stands, and I will still hold with those Lenape who hold that it contains a portion. I can not accept Oestreicher's denial of the earlier existence of Lenape medewak; their fate is of interest to me.
I also can not accept Oestreicher's reconstruction of Shawnee history, period.
Unfortunately I will miss being with the Lenape at the Anderson powwow this year, as I will be with Shawnee descendants in Ohio. I really enjoyed it there last year, particularly the social dances late at night. I am sure they will have a good powwow. I hope some day to visit their Allegheny Reservation.
-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10108406/The-Banner-Stone-Conundrum
I missed this. This sets back studies of the Piedmont Culture 30 years!!! You have obliviously never visited a archaeology site let alone read a report. Bannerstones have been found in situ with their Antler hooks and handles. They have also been found unfinished, in large caches. Very few found on the East Coast have been engraved. They were probably considered the "Power" behind the atlatl so "heirloom" bannerstones that were broken were sometimes reworked into, or used as ornaments.
Boatstones have been found on the East Coast on Adena-Middlesex sites. Birdstones on Meadowood sites.
-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10108406/The-Banner-Stone-Conundrum
I missed this. This sets back studies of the Piedmont Culture 30 years!!!
[/quote]
Coe's Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont did not describe any finds of the hook and weight found together but instead stated:
"Atlatl Weights: One of the more unusual finds at the Gaston Site was a series of small stone objects that resembled the half of a large hickory nut. These objects were unusually oval in plan and hemispherical in section..."
At the hardaway site, Coe described a single antler hook found in a separate square than some drilled stones, and Coe conflated the two by putting them together in one photograph on page 81.
You have obliviously never visited a archaeology site let alone read a report.
I reject the ipse dixit assumption that bannerstones were "Thought to be weights for spear throwers". Problems with the assumption include bannerstone weight is too heavy for an effective spear thrower. Secondly, the drilled hole size is too small to go around the stick of a spear thrower. Third, the placement of majority of bannerstone with burials does not support a merely functional use. Fourth, the copper plates such as the Rogan, Wulfing, and Peoria plates shown with bannerstone shapes in the top-of head area of human figures with full regalia. Evidence just does not support the Atl-atl assumption for most types.
Bannerstones have been found in situ with their Antler hooks and handles.
The singular type found in situ with antler hooks were "hourglass" shaped bannerstones from the Indian Knoll Site. If you know of any other types found with antler hooks, please provide sources. As far as I know, the remaining 35 styles of bannerstones were not found with antler hooks.
They have also been found unfinished, in large caches.
Lutz and Harvey show many examples of three variations found together with burials.
Very few found on the East Coast have been engraved.
Engraved bannerstones are among the rarest of all artifacts. The bannerstone conundrum report shows three figurally engraved examples. Dozens of others have been found that were engraved, and some with very light geometric designs are shown by Lutz.
They were probably considered the "Power" behind the atlatl so "heirloom" bannerstones that were broken were sometimes reworked into, or used as ornaments.
Powerful indeed, heirlooms, possibly,
Boatstones have been found on the East Coast on Adena-Middlesex sites. Birdstones on Meadowood sites.
My hypothesis is that Boatstones were used as rattles. Source:
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/tejas/ancestors/images/jshort5.html
My guess is that Birdstones may have been bridal headdress adornments.
-
I have a copy of Bodewatomi Walam Olum handwritten, translated and added to by the Mide, Shup Shewana of Chicago. His Walam Olum was (published) in doutangs for the Potawatomi Nation in Canada or the Northern Lakes Pottawatomi. Being from a Bodewatomi family myself, we were entitled to a copy. I poured over it many times. Over the years, I have had three copies of Shepshe's walam Olum. My brother's uncle, who was a student of his recognized my interest in history and suggested I go to Chicago and learn from him myself. Sadly, Shepshe passed before I could learn from him. I did however, learn many things from his Walam Olum. Shepshe provided a scroll which was not a part of the Walam Olum provided to Samuel Rafinesque. He also added: about a dozen Midewewin Scrolls which teach medicines and ceremonies; a Sacred Alphabet and a common alphabet; basic numerical characters 1-10, 100, 1000, and legends which he properly placed with the correct ideogram. To date, I have read every published version and excerpt since I was sixteen (1984). Shepshe's version is unique in that it is a translation based on the retelling of it in his Bodewatomi language. Interestingly, his translation is from a known LIVING language which gives (in its inherent way) some direction as to the validity and mistranslations of non-Native versions. Over the last six years I have focused on the Walam Olum and the trouble with translations. I have read David Oestreicher and David McCutchen's works. There is something which all the historians and academics have missed, and that is the Walam Olum which has come to us through rafinesque is actually out of order and is the history of at least two Record Keepers (one Lenape and the other potentially Nishnawbeg). It only makes sense that historians consider it a hoax if the timeline does not add up.
-
hi patrick, thanks for this post. maybe you can clear up some of the questions i have on the Walam Olum. first how and when did Midewiwin Scrolls get mixed up in the Rafinesque material objects. when you look at pics of the objects in the Walam olum and compare then to the Midewiwin Scrolls (which were added later) they are markedly different to my eyes. As well the migration story flies in the face of Mi'kmaq Oral Tradition, which states (as told in the Seven Fires Prophecy) that the Mi'kmaq Nation split into two, this great Exodus occured 92 generations ago (according to the Midewiwin Grandmothers who came to the Maritimes and visited us last year) and were sent West later to create the Nations of Ojibwa, Odawa, Potawatomi, Algonquin, Nipissing and the Mississaugas. So these progeny of the Mi'kmaq Nation originated here in the Maritimes, not the bering strait as stated in the Walam olum. Does the Tradition that Shepshe relates match the the tale as told in the Rafinesque??
-
Hello, Apukjij,
I think your question cuts to the heart of this puzzle. I think I can clear most of this up, but, unfortunately, there are stilll elements of this story that I am still unclear of. I will post my response in parts.
In most books, the 'sticks' which the Walam Olum were carved were said to have been given to Rafinesque as a curiosity by a Dr. Ward from Indiana. A researcher has discovered that Dr. Ward is actually from Kentucky, so the search for corroborating evidence or social history on the circumstances of the Walam Olum making its way to Dr. Ward should begin in local museums/archives/libraries there.
-
The Midewewin Scrolls do look different from the Walam Olum, but that is not to say that the Walam Olum are not a Midewewin. Confusing I know. First, let me say, that the Walam Olum PREDATES the Midewewin in North America. The invention of Wiigwaas Scrolls occurred perhaps 500 B.C. by Olumapi Red Paint Man/Tally Maker; the invention of the Mamalekhikan 'Crooked Lines' (alphabet and handwriting) by Lekhihitin 'The writer/recorder occurred in A.D. 415. As a teenager, I re-learned the skill of beadwork from my mother. As a beadworker, I learned that our use of beads came from earlier quillwork and the patterns from nature as in our floral patterns. The florals developed into curve-linear designs which all the Woodland Peoples use and in time, elements of these made their way into the Mamalekhikan and national symbols. Another element of (ideograms) came from early times in human history that I cannot yet date to any era (yet). I do know in most every and probably every North American tribal nation, symbols during ceremonies were drawn on the floor of the Midewikan or Big House of the Nishnawbeg and Lenape, the Hopi made coloured sand paintings on the floor of their Kivas, the southeastern people also drew with sticks in the soil to explain such things as ceremonial dancing patterns. Many of these images were drawn to explain the Creation Story as remembered by the different tribal nations. So, I think from these types of early archetypal/base imagery, more sophisticated images developed.
When Olumapi invented the scrolls, the Creation story and Migration Story were then written down in ideograms. There was no Mamalekhikan at that time so there would be no accompanying transcript until Lekhihitin. It is my assertion that the Midewewin did not arrive in North America until A.D. 1035 [under a working dating system that I have used (which I won’t divulge just yet)] I believe that the Creation knowledge in the Walam Olum came to us [Nishnawbeg and Lenapewak] from two different directions; the scrolls from the west, through migration and the Midewewin from the east. It is said that the Midewewin came ‘from the Middle of the Earth’; when we Latinize the starting location of the Society it then becomes ‘Mediterranean’. The imagery and knowledge, separated by thousands of years and directional migration can then account for the difference in style of scroll imagery.
Also, the Scrolls were used for different purposes, the songs of the Creation and Migration Walam Olum should be seen more as the spine on which the Medicinal, various malicious spells, Ceremonial Lodge layouts and further histories can be added to.
-
Hello Patrick, apukjij -
I am sorry that I missed reading all the valuable information that you passed on here at the time you passed it on, and that I am only now just catching up. I hope you find the following of value.
First, my guess is that the Three Fires and other nations first saw the use of pictoglyphs when they were brought up from the East Coast of Mexico by the Haustecan ancestors of the Natchez around 300 CE. They were under attack from Teotihuancan, and the Teotihuacanos later conquered the Mayan city of Tikal in 378 CE. This pictoglyphic technique then spread up the Mississippi River, which may account for your 415 CE date (via the Wabash and Ohio Rivers) and 1035 CE date (via the Mississippi River). The other peoples then adopted their own symbols for similar use. The 1035 CE date is also the time R.'s Walam Olum starts to become far more specific in details.
On the other hand, the Five Nations remembered a European contact around 350 CE, which may account for the alphabet.
I am reluctant to comment on "the middle of the Earth" until I have examined it in more detail, but it may reflect Canadian Maritime Archaic (Andaste) influence ca 400 BCE, or maybe not. The Andaste are associated with early petroglyphs.
Second, it is likely that Rafinesque received the Lenape sticks from Dr. Ward Cook Senior, who was visiting Anderson, Indiana as the Lenape were being gathered and sent west and their land was stolen from them and sold. He bought some for his sons. That Chief Anderson could not be midewin because he was of mixed blood was clearly remembered locally. Perhaps the Lenape mede who had survived to this point had died.
Third, I am glad to have someone else here comment on Oestreicher's work. While it is clear that Rafinesque did more than little "reconstruction" as was common for academics in his time, what he was working from is the important point that Oestreicher missed entirely, IMO.
The Lenape may be linked to Oneota material culture in the mid-west, Wellsburg material culture in Ohio, and Monongahela Late Woodland material culture in Pennsylvania and Maryland.
On a personal note, Oestreicher's version of Shawnee history is junk, to put it bluntly, or "very, very mistaken", to put it more politely. Patrick, I hope that you will be able to contend with Oestreicher's confusion here, as I wish to devote most of the resources I have to recovering and preserving Shawnee history instead of Lenape.
On a deeper level, apukjij, the common A mt DNA of the Alqonquian and Siouxian
peoples indicates their survival of the YD impacts of 10,900 BCE on the Pacific coast of Canada for the Algonquian, hence the "Great (Sea) Turtle", and in the inland hunting strip for the Sioux. The migration east appears to come almost immediately afterward.
-
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/article_8d654142-f6a5-5940-a690-d0556c70593a.html
-
Hay, NAFPS Forum Readers!
I am Hitakonanoolaxk, a Lenape descendant, and member of the Big Horn Lenape, a Tribe of non-Federally recognized Lenape. I am an author of a book of Lenape stories, titled "the Grandfathers Speak".
I did not include in my book a translation of the Walam Olum as I didn't feel at the time/ 1994 that I could attempt it. Now, after years of compiling a Dictionary of Old Eastern Unami(what many refer to as Northern Unami) from Moravian Sources, Zeisberger, Heckewelder, etc. i am undertaking an attempt. Would be glad to share what I come up with.
My Uncle Clarence Chamberlain told me of pictographic symbols drawn in red that were used by our Lenape ancestors long ago and often painted onto wood, rocks and even trees. I have no doubt that the Walam Olum is authentic, but it is possible that the Lenape words were attempts by Rafinesque to translate English into Lenape. I do not believe that the whole thing is a fabrication. Oestreicher's work is not the end to the controversy by any means!
The Anishinabe have a migration /chibimoodaywin story of their own. Where we Lenape eventually went to the Atlantic Ocean, the Ojibwe/Anishinabe tell how they left the East Coast because of some Sacred Vision and followed their prophets to go to the Great Lakes, which they did via the St. lawrence River. Many do not know of this story, but I have heard it more than once from traditional Anishinabe.
Another interesting item concerns Lenape Pipe traditions related to me, in that our Pipe Ceremony starts in the North. When i asked why(as most start in the East), I was told "so that we would always remember where we came from in a time long ago".(Wape Gokhos) My Uncle told me that Our People in a time long ago came from the North due to some great natural catastrophe, that we first went west, but came back east, crossing the Mississippi and to the Ocean. He also said that we brought the bones of our dead with us and that we used big dogs to pull these.
I think there is more than just a little truth to the Walam Olum.
Wawooleemileseel! Hitakonanoolaxk
-
hi
I am also a lenape person. My mother was of the wolf clan Unami lenape. I can speak this language but can not spell it. I grew up thinking that there were somewhere tons of Lenape peoples on some reservation, and that they could all speak the Language! LOL
I am not so sure about the red record. I have to say i have never really researched it. I only know the stories that my mother told me.
I am aware of the story of coming from the north and then going down south and then across the mississippi, and to the east. But my Grandpa said it was because of a great sickness that killed a lot of people. I wish I would have written down everything back then. I can´t remember all of the details..I do however remeber pipe stories, and have a pipe myself. I also remeber masks and they did in fact have red paint on them, but I don´t know of what it was made. My mother taught me lots of things, but I am not sure if they were 100 prcent tradtionaly correct, how could I be? hehe we are all so mixed now a days.
What I don´t like is the digging up of artifacts, I feel like they shoudl remain were they are. The thought of digging them uop makes me very uncomfortable.
-
Unfortunately, I can not read all of your posts as I type this reply.
I am glad that this topic was left under Research Needed, as there is no question that study of the Walum Olum controversy will continue to provide an excellent introduction to Lenape studies for years to come.
Recently it came to me that Oestreicher entirely missed what drove Rafinesque. Champollignon had just deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphic, and it appears that Rafinesque had a copy of Lenape hieroglyphs for years with no gloss.
Rafinesque was not motivated by money, as Oestriecher claimed.
However the continuing studies turn out, we can rely on the Heckewelder and Sutton records as paraphrases of Lenape medewak traditions with complete confidence, and I thank you for sharing here what you were taught.
I can understand entirely survivors shock; it is now a question of the paths forward, and keeping the con men from their victims, as we do here.
As far as excavations go, recall the memories of disease and disaster you were taught. Right now we're all here, and we can be sure that these will happen again, so it is very important to understand how they happened before.
For example, did the plague of 1275 come from the Norse, or was it an outbreak of Hanta virus from the SW? Or were there two plagues?
And what of the climate collapses?
In my own case, I was simply trying to learn how many times junk from space hit the Earth and killed people.
In my opinion, excavation does not automatically have to incur disrespect for the dead, though that is just my own opinion. But ensuring that respect will always require keeping a tight eye on how archaeologists proceed, as well as trying to remedy the results of their past mistakes.
Ni Ahwe, ouisi katet, paselo...
-
I can tell you this, for a fact, there are very strict rules about the dead. My mother always stressed this to me. She said once in the mothers arms that a person should NEVER under any circumstances be taken out of her arms. Point being there is no respectful way to dig up the remains of our ancestors.
I believe there are reasons for this, that are both spiritual, and just common sence. If someone say way back when in the 12 hundreds died of some unknown sickness, digging up thier body could have meant spreading the illness futhar. The spiritual reasons are things that I am not going to write about.
I myself am teaching my children the ways, so that they will have as much resepect for things like this as I do. I hope you all realsie how painful it has been for the Lenape. How many times we have been put on and then taken off of the list of federaly reconised tribes, and how hard it is to see whole disscussions about us that take place in the past tense.
Just my opinion
-
Hay!
Hello to all those who may have an interest in the Walam Olum! I thank Ed Grondine for suggesting that this topic requires further consideration and research.
Contrary to what Ostreicher assumes about Constantine Rafinesque, that he wrote the Walam Olum and that the whole thing was a hoax, I will herein present my position, that the Walam Olum is indeed a very real document and that Rafinesque should be vindicated of any assumptions that he made the whole thing up and engaged in a hoax of monumental proportions.
Constantine Rafinesque was one of those rare breed of men who had many varied interests. In his own time he was unappreciated by his Scientific Peers because he held to many ideas that were beyond the status quo in Scientific Circles of the time, but he stuck to his guns and pursued his interests and thoughts no matter what others thought of him. He was shunned by the Scientific Community then, his papers all too often rejected from Science Journals of the time, and now to add further insult to this man of great Genius, Ostreicher and such wish to further reap shame upon the man after his death. What a shame! What a sham! What lengths some people will go to in seeking their doctorate degree!
The truth of the matter is that if I wish to prove a thesis, I would be able to show all sorts of suppositions to prove my point or to show that my viewpoint is correct. I can show Rafinesque to be equally an upright individual of rare genius, who was very meticulous in his method and who gave credit to those from whence he gleaned his information. However, it is not proof. No one really knows but Rafinesque himself, all else is conjecture. So, each of us has to make up their mind as to what truth they accept, as neither view, pro or con can be absolutely proven. Thus I will present evidence to show that Rafinesque was not a hoaxer.Many of his views and ideas have been vindicated in recent times, contrary to the abuse reaped upon him in his lifetime by fellow Scientists, such as his pre-darwinistic assertions concerning plant species and their classification; and many today hold to his Bering Land Bridge theories. Read his Medical Botany, his study of fish in the Ohio river system, etc. Get to know the man before you lay judgement on him.
-
I just received a copy of "Unmasking the Walam Olum' by Ostreicher in the bulletin of the Archaeological Society of new Jersey/#49/1994:
First thing I notice wrong: pg.4-5/ Wemi sohalawak yulik yuch aan/ wemi = all/ sohalawak = he causes them/ yulik = these/ yuch = well/ aan = to move(translation of Rafinesque). Ostreicher is puzzled by yuch = well. A mistranslation by Rafinesque.
Ostreicher seizes upon Rafinesque's mistranslation of yuch = well, which in Zeisberger's grammar means "well!" Since yuch is an exclamatory expression therein, Ostreicher seizes upon the moment to show that this is proof that Rafinesque translated from English into Delaware! Ostreicher had a hard time finding the word yuch,but he obviously didn't look too hard as it is in Zeisberger's Spelling Books of 1776 & 1806, written Jucke(German J sounds like y), and in Britton's Dictionary on p.178 written as yucke, meaning "now". In Britton's dictionary, Rev. Albert Seqaqkind Anthony, has yuch as"now".
So, with this rendering of yuch=now, the passage still makes sense " all he causes these now to move". Rafinesque made a mistranslation, so what?! It is just an assumption on Ostreicher's part that Rafinesque translated from English into Delaware. He obviously didn't have the Spelling Books or missed the fact that jucke=yucke/yuch.
He obviously didn't have Britton's dictionary as this was published later. If all he had was Zeisberger's grammar, of course he's going to see yuch =well.
-
When will your translation of the Walam Olum be published?
-
Hello Hair Lady -
It is a troubling matter to consider, and public conversation on it is not possible.
Given the density of native inhabitation of this land, there will be remains found.
Here in Ohio, remains are stumbled across constantly by residents in their everysay activities.
In the field that I work in, there will be remains found which were never properly interred in the first place.
Thus my current thinking is that remains should only be handled by those qualified to do autopsies, and then re-interred (or interred) properly.
As far as the present situation of the Lenape and Lenape descendants, may I suggest to you that you may find reading Vine DeLoria's introduction to "They Say the Wind is Red" to be of some comfort.
-
Hi Hitakonanoolaxk -
It was my pleasure to defend the reputations of both C.S. Rafinesque and Frank Hibben.
I agree with you with the difficulties in knowing absolutely what occurred.
That said, I have particular problems with Oestriecher's version of Shawnee history and his denial of the use of pictographic writing by the Lenape medewak.
You may want to take a look at the new book on the archaeology of Greenville, Ohio. (I will be more specific about this book's title when search services resume here.)
Aside from that, there were three divisions in the Lenape nation, and we have the mystery of the appearance of "Marksvillle" culture here in Ohio.
Finally, although I have made mistakes, and probably will make more in the future, I'd like to mention that I did as well as I could.
-
The book is:
http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Artifacts-County-Elaine-Holzapfel/dp/images/B000CS95WE
I will not comment on it here, other than to advise you that if you are working the Rafinesque problem, you need to get hold of a copy.