﻿1 
  6 
  NEW 
  YORK 
  STATE 
  MUSEUM 
  

  

  was 
  done 
  by 
  O. 
  II. 
  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 
  en 
  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 
  affect 
  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 
  

  

  