1 6 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



was done by O. H. Marshall, L. H. Morgan and others in obtaining 

 names from the Indians themselves, with their definitions and origin. 

 The former treated Seneca names alone^ while Morgan's work took 

 in all the New York Iroquois names which he could obtain, system- 

 atically arranged. In their conquests the Iroquois gave names to 

 distant places. In the Algonquin field the best local results are due 

 to J. Hammond Trumbull and W. Wallace Tooker, the latter dealing 

 mostly with Long Island names and those near the city of New 

 York. Along Long Island and Hudson river E. M. Ruttenber did 

 conscientious work. In 1893 the writer published an account of 

 the Indian names of New York, embracing all those then accessible 

 and many from original sources. Valuable results have come from 

 others in more restricted fields. 



While H. R. Schoolcraft is an authority, yet on many points it is 

 now conceded that in eastern matters he was often fanciful. His 

 names and definitions will be quoted with this necessary reservation. 

 Mr Tooker said : " Schoolcraft attempted the translation of many 

 Algonquin names in the east, but, by employing Chippewa element- 

 ary roots or syllables, with which he was familiar, he failed in nearly 

 every instance . . . His erroneous translations are still quoted and 

 are very persistent." This dialect, however, did aflfect some names 

 in northern New York. His most conspicuous failure was in Iro- 

 quois names, but in a general treatment it seemed proper to give 

 them here, their cHaracter being well understood. 



The question of credibility becomes more important when we 

 turn to such an authority as John Heckewelder, the Moravian mis- 

 sionary. No one can fail to see that his derivations and definitions 

 often seem farfetched, some being contested at the very outset. 

 Some stand well, but good philologists do not hesitate to discard 

 others. The result is that while his name carries weight, it is not 

 now the end of discussion. 



In the North American Review of 1826, Hon. Lewis Cass sharply 

 questioned Mr Heckewelder's reliability in Indian matters, and was 

 answered by William Rawle in the Pennsylvania Historical Society 

 memorial of that year. Mr Cass made an elaborate and critical 

 reply in the Review for 1828. In criticizing words he sometimes 

 impugned their correctness, but part of his contention was that 

 many of these were Monsey rather than Delaware. To us this is 



