The Lenâpé and their Legends

Gischcu, or Gisckquik, day.

B. Continuous successful action.

Gischten, clear, light, shining.

Gischachsummen, to shine, to enlighten.

Gischuten, warm, tepid.

Numerous other derivatives could be added, but the above are sufficient to show the direction of thoughts flowing from this root. Howse considers it identical with the root kitch, great, large[167]. This would greatly increase its derivatives. They certainly appear allied. In Cree, Lacombe gives kitchi, great, and kije, finished, perfect, both being terms applied to divinity[168].

A. First form, wul.

Wulit, well, good, handsome, fine.

Wullihilleu, it is good, etc.

Wuliken, it grows well.

Wulamoe, he truth-speaks.

Wulamoewagan, truth.

Wulistamen, to believe, to accept as truth.

Wulenensin, to be fine in appearance, to dress.

Wulenensen, to be fine to oneself, to be proud.

B. Second form, won or win.

Winu, ripe, good to eat.

Wonita, he is ripe for it, he can, he is able.

Wingan, sweet, savory.

Winktek, done, boiled, fit to eat.

Winak, sassafras. From its sweet leaves.

Wingi, gladly, willingly.

Winginamen, to delight in.

The figure 8 in the above represents the "whistled w," like the wh in "which," when strongly pronounced.

From this root, as I have already said, is derived also the word Walam, red paint, from the sense "to be fine in appearance, to dress," as the Indian accomplished that object by painting himself.

Grammatical Structure of the Lenape

It would not be worth while for me to enter into the intricacies of Lenape grammar, particularly as I can add little to what is already known.

The Delaware Grammar of Zeisberger remains our only authority, and in spite of its manifest shortcomings and state of incompletion, the unprejudiced student must acknowledge, with Albert Gallatin[169], that it is "most honestly done," and showed the Delaware as it actually was spoken, though perhaps not as scientific linguists think it ought to have been spoken.

A few general observations will be sufficient.

As in other languages of the class, the theme is indifferently nominal, verbal or adjectival; that is, it performs the functions of either of these grammatical categories, according to its connection.

Nominal themes are either animate or inanimate. The characteristic of all animate plurals is k (ak, ik, ek). Inanimate plurals are in al, wall or a. As usual, the distinction between animate and inanimate nouns is partly logical, partly grammatical, various objects being conceived as animate which are in fact not so.

The possessive relation is generally indicated by placement alone, the possessor preceding the thing possessed, as lenno quisall, the man's son; but one could also say lenno w'quisall, the man his son.

Adjectives precede nouns, and when used attributively assume a verbal form by adding the termination wi, which indicates objective existence (like the Chip. -win). Thus, scattek, burning; scattewi w'dehin, a burning-heart – literally, it-is-a-burning-thing his-heart.

The degrees of comparison are formed by prefixing allowiwi, more, and eluwi, most. Both of these are from the same radical ala which may perhaps come from the admirationis particula, ala' (Abnaki, ara') found in the northern dialects as expressive of astonishment[170].

There being no relative pronoun in Delaware, dependent clauses are either included in the verbal of the major clause, or include it as a secondary.

The scheme of the simple sentence is usually subject-verb-object; but emphasis allows departures from this, as in the following sentence from Bishop Ettwein's MSS.: —

Of the formal affixes, the inseparable pronouns are the most prominent. They are the same for nouns and verbs, and are —

Past time is indicated by the terminal p, with a connective vowel, and future time by tsch, which may be either a prefix or suffix, as —

The change or "flattening" of the vowel of the root in suppositive propositions, was recognized as a fact of speech, but not grammatically analyzed by Zeisberger.

Its effect on verbal forms may be seen from the following examples from his Grammar: —

Examples of Vowel Change in Lenape

Another omission in his Grammar is that of the "obviative" and "super-obviative" forms of nouns. These are used in the Algonkin dialects to define the relations of third persons. They prevent such obscurity as appears in the following English sentence: "John's brother called at Robert's, to see his wife." Whose wife is referred to is left ambiguous; but in Algonkin these third persons would have different forms, and there would be no room for ambiguity. In his writings in Lenape, Zeisberger makes use of obviatives, with the terminations al and l, but does not treat of them in his Grammar.

As a question in philosophical grammar, it may be doubted whether the Lenape has any true passive voice. Cardinal Mezzofanti was accustomed to deny the presence of any real passives in American languages; and he had studied the Delaware among others.

The sign of the Delaware passive is the suffix gussu or cusso. In the Cree dialect, which, as I have already said, preserves the ancient forms most closely, this is k-ussu, and is a particle expressing likeness or similarity in animate objects[171]. Hence, probably, the original sense of the Lenape word translated, "I am loved," is "I am like the object of the action of loving."

CHAPTER V

Historical Sketches of the Lenape

§ 1. The Lenape as "Women"

§ 2. Recent Migrations of the Lenape

§ 3. Missionary Efforts in the Provinces of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

§ 1. The Lenape as "Women"

A unique peculiarity of the political condition of the Lenape was that for a certain time they occupied a recognized position as non-combatants – as "women," as they were called by the Iroquois.

Indian customs and phraseology attached a two-fold significance to this term.

The more honorable was that of peace-makers. Among the Five Nations and Susquehannocks, certain grave matrons of the tribe had the right to sit in the councils, and, among other privileges, had that of proposing a cessation of hostilities in time of war. A proposition from them to drop the war club could be entertained without compromising the reputation of the tribe for bravery. There was an official orator and messenger, whose appointed duty it was to convey such a pacific message from the matrons, and to negotiate for peace[172].

Another and less honorable sense of the term arose from a custom prevalent throughout America, and known also among the ancient Scythians. Its precise purpose remains obscure, although it has been made the subject of a careful study by one of our most eminent surgeons, who had facilities of observation among the Western tribes[173]. Certain young men of the tribe, apparently vigorous and of normal development, were deprived of the accoutrements of the male sex, clothed like women, and assigned women's work to do. They neither went out to hunt nor on the war-path, and were treated as inferiors by their male associates. Whether this degradation arose from superstitious rites or sodomitic practices, it certainly carried to its victims the contempt of both sexes.

In their account of the transaction the Delawares claimed that they were appointed as peace-makers in an honorable manner, although the Iroquois deceived them as to their object.

The Lenape account is as follows: —

"The Iroquois sent messengers to the Delawares with the following speech: —

"'It is not well that all nations should war; for that will finally bring about the destruction of the Indians. We have thought of a means to prevent this before it is too late. Let one nation be The Woman. We will place her in the middle, and the war nations shall be the Men and dwell around the Woman. No one shall harm the Woman; and if one does, we shall speak to him and say, 'Why strikest thou the Woman?' Then all the Men shall attack him who has struck the Woman. The Woman shall not go to war, but shall do her best to keep the peace. When the Men around her fight one another, and the strife waxes hot, the Woman shall have power to say: 'Ye Men! what do ye that ye thus strike one another? Remember that your wives and children must perish, if ye do not cease. Will ye perish from the face of the earth?' Then the Men shall listen to the Woman and obey her.'

"The Delawares did not at once perceive the aim of the Iroquois, and were pleased to take this position of the Woman.

"Then the Iroquois made a great feast, and invited the Delawares, and spoke to their envoys an address in three parts.

"First, they declared the Delaware nation to be the Woman in these words: —

"'We place upon you the long gown of a woman, and adorn you with earrings.'

"This was as much as to say that thenceforward they were not to bear arms.

"The second sentence was in these words: —

"'We hang on your arm a calabash of oil and medicine. With the oil you shall cleanse the ears of other nations that they listen to good and not to evil. The medicine you shall use for those nations who have been foolish, that they may return to their senses, and turn their hearts to peace.'

"The third sentence intimated that the Delawares should make agriculture their chief occupation. It was: —

"'We give herewith into your hands a corn pestle and a hoe.'

"Each sentence was accompanied with a belt of wampum. These belts have ever since been carefully preserved and their meanings from time to time recalled."[174]

Opinions of historians about this tradition have been various. It has generally been considered a fabrication of the Delawares, to explain their subjection in a manner consoling to their national vanity. Gen. Harrison dismisses it as impossible;[175] Albert Gallatin says, "it is too incredible to require serious discussion;"[176] Mr. Hale characterizes it as "preposterous;"[177] and Bishop de Schweinitz as "fabulous and absurd"[178].

On the other hand, it is vouched for by Zeisberger, who furnished the account to Loskiel, and who would not have said that the wampum belts with their meaning were still preserved unless he knew it to be a fact. It is repeated emphatically by Heckewelder, who adds that his informants were not only Delawares but Mohegans as well, who could not have shared the motive suggested above[179].

There can be no question but that the neutral position of the Delawares was something different from that of a conquered nation, and that it meant a great deal more. They undoubtedly were the acknowledged peace-makers over a wide area, and this in consequence of some formal ancient treaty. This is distinctly stated by the Stockbridge Indian, Hendrick Aupaumut, in his curious Narrative: —[180]

"The Delawares, who we called Wenaumeen, are our Grandfathers, according to the ancient covenant of their and our ancestors, to which we adhere without any deviation in these near 200 years, to which nation the 5 nations and British have commit the whole business. For this nation has the greatest influence with the southern, western and northern nations."

Hence Aupaumut undertook his embassy directly to them, so as to secure their influence for peace in 1791.

To the fact that they exerted this influence during the Revolutionary War, may very plausibly be attributed the success of the Federal cause in the dark days of 1777 and 1778; for, as David Zeisberger wrote: "If the Delawares had taken part against the Americans in the present war, America would have had terrible experiences; for the neutrality of the Delawares kept all the many nations that are their grandchildren neutral also, except the Shawanese, who are no longer in close union with their grandfathers."[181]

When at the close of the French War, in 1758, the treaty of Easton put a stop to the bloody feuds of the border, "the peace-belt was sent to our brethren, the Delawares, that they might send it to all the nations living toward the setting sun,"[182] and they carried it as the recognized pacific envoys.

The Iroquois, however, assumed a most arrogant and contemptuous tone toward the Delawares, about the middle of the eighteenth century. In 1756 they sent a belt to them, with a most insulting message:[183] "You will remember that you are our women; our forefathers made you so, and put a petticoat on you, and charged you to be true to us, and lie with no other man; but now you have become a common bawd," etc.

Two years later, the Cayuga chief, John Hudson, said, at a council at Burlington,[184] "The Munseys are women, and cannot make treaties for themselves."

These were but repetitions of the famous diatribe of the Onondaga chieftain, Canassatego, at a council at Philadelphia, in 1742. Turning to the representatives of the Lenape, he broke out upon them with the words: —

"How came you to take upon you to sell land? We conquered you. We made women of you. You know you are women, and can no more sell land than women. * * * We charge you to remove instantly. We don't give you the liberty to think about it. We assign you two places to go to, either Wyoming or Shamokin. Don't deliberate, but remove away; and take this belt of wampum."

And as he handed the belt to the Lenape head chief he seized him by his long hair and pushed him out of the door of the council room!

It was notorious at the time, however, that this was a scene arranged between the Governor of the Province, Mr. George Thomas, and the Iroquois deputation. The Lenape had been grossly cheated out of their lands by the trick of the so-called "Long Walk," in 1735, and they refused to vacate their hunting grounds. The Governor sent secret messengers to the powerful and dreaded Six Nations to exert their pretended rights, and paid them well for it.[185]

What could the Lenape do? They were feeble, and undoubtedly had been brought under the authority of their warlike northern neighbors. They found themselves in the position of the Persian chieftain Harmosar, as he stood before the caliph Omar, and heard the latter revile the patriot cause:

"In deinen Händen ist die Macht,

Wer einem Sieger widerspricht, der widerspricht mit Unbedacht."

– Van Platen-Hallermunde.

Such were the respective claims of the Lenape and Iroquois. Instead of discussing the antecedent probability of one or the other being true, I shall endeavor to ascertain from the early records the precise facts about this curious transaction. It is certain that toward the close of the sixteenth century the unending wars between the Delaware confederacy and the Iroquois had reduced the latter almost to destruction. The Jesuit missionaries tell us this.[186] The turning point in their affairs was the settlement of the Dutch on the Hudson. Quick to appreciate the value of firearms, they bought guns and powder at any price, and soon had rendered themselves formidable to all their neighbors.[187] About 1670 they attacked successfully that family of the Minsi called the Minisink.

This was probably the victory to which the Five Nations referred at a treaty at Philadelphia, in 1727, when they stated that their conquest of the Delawares was about the time William Penn first landed, and that he sent congratulations to them on their success – an obvious falsehood.[188]

They were certainly at that period pressing hard on the Susquehannocks and destroying their remnant in the valley of that river. Mr. William P. Foulke is quite correct in his conclusion that, "Upon the whole we may conclude that the Lancaster lands fell into the power of the Five Nations at some time between 1677 and 1684."[189]

Yet their conquest of the Minsi was not complete. The latter had the mind and the will to renew the combat. In 1692 they appealed to the government of Pennsylvania to aid them in an attack on the Senecas, but the Quakers declined the foray. The next year the Minsi asked Governor Benjamin Fletcher at least to protect them against these Senecas, adding that with assistance they were ready to attack them, for "although wee are a small number of Indians, wee are Men, and know fighting."[190]

Evidently there was neither subjection nor womanhood with the Minsi at that date.

There is also positive evidence that the Five Nations at that time regarded the Delawares as a combatant nation, and worthy of an invitation to join a war. On July 6th, 1694, Governor Wm. Markham met in conference the famous chief Tamany and others; and the Delaware orator, Hithquoquean, laid down a belt of wampum, and said: —[191]

"This belt is sent us by the Onondagas and Senecas, who say: 'You Delaware Indians do nothing but stay at home and boil your pots, and are like women; while we, Onondagas and Senecas, go abroad and fight the enemy.'"

"The Senecas would have us Delaware Indians to be partners with them, and fight against the French, but we, having always been a peaceful people, and resolving to live so; and being but weak and verie few in number, cannot assist them, and having resolved among ourselves not to go, doe intend to send back, this their Belt of Wampum."

The Lenape, therefore, did not, at that date, occupy any degrading position, although they were under the general domination of the Iroquois League.

Both these points are proved yet more conclusively by the proceedings at a conference at White Marsh, May 19th, 1712, between Governor C. Gookin and the Delaware chiefs. Gollitchy, orator of the latter, exhibited thirty-two belts of wampum, which they were on their way to deliver to the Five Nations, adding "that many years ago they had been made tributaries to the Mingoes." He also shewed "a long Indian pipe, with a stone head, a wooden shaft, and feathers fixt to it like wings. This pipe, they said, upon making their submission to the Five Nations, who had subdued them, and obliged them to be their tributaries, those Nations had given to these Indians, to be kept by them." All the tribute belts, however, were sent by the women and children, as the speaker explained at length, "as the Indian reckons the paying of tribute becomes none but women and children."[192]

Fortunately, however, we are able to fix the exact date and circumstances of the political transformation of the Delawares into women. It is by no means so remote as Mr. Heckewelder thought, who located the occurrence at Norman's Kill, on the Hudson, between 1609 and 1620; [193] and it was long after 1670, which is the date assigned by Mr. Ruttenber,[194] from a study of the New York records.

It was in the year 1725, and was in consequence of the Delawares refusing to join the Iroquois in an attack on the English settlements.

These data come to light in a message of the Shawnee chiefs, in 1732, to Governor Gordon, who had inquired their reasons for migrating to the Ohio Valley.

Their reply was as follows: —

"About nine years agoe the 5 nations told us att Shallyschohking, wee Did nott Do well to Setle there, for there was a Greatt noise In the Greatt house and thatt in three years time, all Should know whatt they had to Say, as far as there was any Setlements or the Sun Sett."

"About ye Expiration of 3 years affore Sd, the 5 nations Came and Said our Land is goeing to bee taken from us, Come brothers assistt us Lett us fall upon and fightt with the English. Wee answered them no, wee Came here for peace and have Leave to Setle here, and wee are In League with them and Canott break itt."

"Aboutt a year after they, ye 5 nations, Told the Delawares and us, Since you have nott hearkened to us, nor Regarded whatt we have said, now wee will pettycoatts on you, and Look upon you as women for the future, and nott as men. Therefore, you Shawanese Look back toward Ohioh, The place from whence you Came, and Return thitherward, for now wee Shall Take pitty on the English and Lett them have all this Land."

"And further Said now Since you are Become women, He Take Peahohquelloman, and putt itt on Meheahoaming and He Take Meheahoaming and putt itt on Ohioh, and Ohioh He putt on Woabach, and thatt shall bee the warriours Road for the future." (Penna Archives, Vol. I.)

The circumstances attending the ceremony were probably pretty much as Loskiel relates.

The correctness of this account is borne out by an examination of law titles.

That the river tribes at the time of Penn's treaties (1680-1700) could not sell their lands without the permission of the Iroquois has never been established. Mr. Gallatin states that William Penn "always purchased the right of possession from the Delawares, and that of sovereignty from the Five Nations."[195] This may have been the case in some later treaties of the colony, but certainly there is no intimation of it in the celebrated "First Indian Deed" to Penn, July 15th, 1682.[196] Furthermore, in the Release which the Iroquois did give of their Pennsylvania lands in 1736, the boundaries are defined as "Westward to the Setting of the Sun, and Eastward to the furthest springs of the Waters running into the said River," i. e., the Susquehannah;[197] and to do away with any doubt that the tract thus defined included all the land in this part to which they had a claim, the Release goes on to recite that "our true intent and meaning was and is to release all our Right, Claim and Pretensions whatsoever to all and every the Lands lying within the Bounds and Limits of the Government of Pennsylvania, Beginning Eastward on the River Delaware, as far Northward as the sd Ridge or Chain of Endless Mountains." In other words, although the Six Nations advanced no claim to land east of the Susquehanna watershed, the Proprietors chose to include the Delaware watershed so as to avoid any future complication. It seems to me this Release does away with any "right of sovereignty" of the Iroquois over the Delaware Valley south of the mountains, and brands Canassatego's remarks above quoted as braggart falsehoods.

As for land east of the Delaware river, Mr. Ruttenber correctly observes: "The Iroquois never questioned the sales made by the Lenapes or Minsis east of that river. * * The findings of Gallatin in this particular are confirmed by all the title deeds in New York and New Jersey."[198]

It was only to the Susquehannock lands, purchased by Penn in 1699, that the confirmation of the Iroquois was required.[199]

The close of this condition of subjection was in 1756. In that year Sir William Johnson formally "took off the petticoat" from the Lenape, and "handed them the war belt."[200] The year subsequent they made the public declaration that "they would not acknowledge but the Senecas as their superiors."[201]

Even their supremacy was soon rejected. At the Treaty of Fort Pitt, October, 1778, Captain White Eyes, when reminded by the Senecas that the petticoats were still on his people, scornfully repudiated the imputation, and made good his words by leading a war party against them the following year.

The Iroquois, however, released their hold unwillingly, and it was not until 1794, shortly before the Treaty of Greenville, that their delegates came forward and "officially declared that the Lenape were no longer women, but men," and the famous chief, Joseph Brant, placed in their hands the war club.[202]

§ 2. Historic Migrations of the Lenape

It does not form part of my plan to detail the later history of the Lenape. But some account of their number and migrations will aid in the examination of the origin and claims of the Walum Olum.