Chapter XXIX: Appendix: Notes

A. LOCATION OF MOHAWK VILLAGES.

There is much confusion and apparent discrepancy in the various accounts given of Mohawk villages in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as may be seen by consulting the works of O'Callaghan, Parkman, Martin, Schoolcraft, Morgan, and others. A few prominent and unmistakable facts, however, are accepted by all. There were certainly three principal fortified towns in the Mohawk Valley all through the early colonial days, built and occupied by the _Caniengas_ (_Kanienkehaka_), or "People of the Flint," as they chose to call themselves, but who were known to the Dutch as _Maquaas_, to the French as _Agnies_, and to the English as _Mohawks_. These people were divided into three clans or _gentes_, each named for a certain animal, and each governing a town or castle of its own. Their three towns varied in name and location, but seem always to have borne the same relation to one another. As General Clark briefly expresses it: "The castles _first_, _second_, and _third_ (from the east) correspond to _Lower_, _Middle_, and _Upper_, and also to the _Turtle_, _Bear_, and _Wolf_." Kateri Tekakwitha dwelt at the first, or Turtle Castle, which was nearest to the Dutch settlers. These last worked their way up the Mohawk Valley from the Hudson; while the Indians on their part were also moving gradually westward, rebuilding their villages after short intervals, sometimes on the northern and sometimes on the southern bank of the Mohawk, but always in the same relative order,--that is, Turtles to the east, Bears in the centre, and Wolves to the west.

The following extracts from letters of Gen. John S. Clark to the author of this volume will be of interest to all who wish to know what sort of proofs and arguments have been used in locating the sites of the Mohawk villages which were in existence during the times of Isaac Jogues and Kateri Tekakwitha:--

FEBRUARY 10, 1885.

The determination of the exact position of all the so-called
Mohawk Castles at definite dates can never be ascertained. This
you can readily understand by reading Father Pierron's account
in 1668 (Relation, 1669), where he speaks of seven large
villages extending over a space of seven and a half leagues
(nearly nineteen miles), and that from many causes they often
changed to new locations, where, according to circumstances,
they might remain five, ten, and in rare instances fifteen
years. I have identified in the neighborhood of forty different
sites occupied at some time between 1620 and 1750. Fortunately
the very particular account of Father Jogues' captivity and the
death of Goupil furnished a sufficient number of references to
the topography of the locality, to enable me, after many years'
study, to identify with almost absolute certainty the exact
site of this one castle, OSSERNENON. This gave the key to the
second and third. These determined, Father Pierron, in 1667
(the next year after the three castles were burned by the
French), speaks of visiting the third castle, which had been
_rebuilt a quarter of a league above_. This gave me a test
fact. In company with some friends living near there, and who
were well acquainted with all sites, as they supposed, where
Indian relics had ever been found, I pointed out the precise
point on the map, and said we must find a site here, or my
theory must fall to the ground. They answered that then my
theory must fail, for certainly if any Indian village had ever
existed at that point they would have heard something of it. My
answer was, "I have more confidence in Father Pierron than I
have in your opinion." We visited the spot, and on inquiring of
the farmer who owned the land, if any evidences existed, at the
particular point in question, of Indian occupation, he
answered: "We have found great quantities of relics, and you
can find plenty of them to-day,"--as we did. Since that they
have never questioned facts mentioned in the "Relations."

Greenhalgh visited all the castles in 1677, and found them on
the _north side_. His description gives sufficient facts to
warrant a _reasonable probability_ as to the locations of the
four principal castles at that date, but not absolutely
certain. Apparently at this date the lower castle, Kaghnawaga,
was on the west bank of the Cayudutta, near Fonda; and here my
conclusions must end for the present, until I collect all the
facts possible to be obtained having a bearing on the question.
These are references to topography, distances from other known
points, and anything that by hint or direct evidence can be
used in the solution of the problem.... My present opinion is
that your mission chapel of 1676 was northwest of Fonda, on the
west side of Cayudutta Creek....

You mention the fact of small-pox prevailing in her town in
1660, and ask, Would they be likely to move the site of the
village for that reason? Most certainly. I have evidence that
they did remove in 1659, but have never been able to ascertain
the cause. Quite possibly this may have been the reason. This
removal, as I suppose, was made to the west bank of Auries
Creek, on top of a high hill and about a mile west of
Ossernenon.

About 1649 the Iroquois entered on their policy of conquering
their neighbors and making of them one family and one people,
as they expressed it. From that date to 1675, great numbers
were added,--many more than could be provided for in the way of
adoption into families; consequently they were permitted to
settle in villages by themselves in the near vicinity of the
large ones. In this way was the number increased from three in
1640 to seven in 1668, and this also accounts for an apparent
discrepancy as to numbers in accounts of different writers.
One party finding a village in two parts near each other would
describe it as _two_; another would consider it as one.

I suspect your _petit village_, Gandawague, was one of this
character; that is, a small village near the greater one. One
other fact occurs to me, that may be of use to you. Gandawague
was a district along the river,--ordinarily meaning "at the
rapids." A slight variation may make it mean _above_ or _below_
or the _other side_; and so on in numerous relations of
localities to the rapids. It will be found exceedingly
difficult to determine the precise meaning of these words.

In the early part of June, 1885, General Clark, in company with Rev. C. A. Walworth, of Albany, and the author of this biography, revisited all the castle-sites in the Mohawk Valley which were supposed to be in any way connected with the lifetime of Kateri Tekakwitha. What follows was written soon after this expedition.

AUBURN, N. Y., June 29, 1885.

Since my return home I have given my time to a review of all
the evidence relating to sites of first and second castles from
1640 to 1680, and have framed a theory that apparently
harmonizes _all the facts_, and shall be much obliged for any
argument or presentation of facts that will be inconsistent
with it.

First, I assume that in all the changes of the Bear clan during
this time, they did not remove more than a mile and a half from
their original position on the high hill;[82] second, that soon
after 1666 they removed to the opposite side of the river, on
the Fox farm, where Greenhalgh found them in 1677, "_on a flat
a stone's-throw from the river_." You will remember that this
site was on an elevated plain, unlike any other site visited.

Now after Ossernenon was abandoned, say about 1650 or 1655, all
subsequent descriptions place Gandawague _two leagues_ from
Andagoron until 1668, when the people of Gandawague removed to
the Cayudutta (Kaghnawaga), and when the accounts all place
the two castles near each other,--in Dr. Shea's translation
_two miles_. Theoretically, this makes a change of three miles
for the lower castle,--a distance exactly corresponding to that
between the high hill at Auries Creek and Kaghnawaga on the
Cayudutta,--the village Andagoron having remained substantially
stationary. I firmly believe that the site on the Fox farm was
the one visited by Greenhalgh. If this be correct, it
determines approximately the other; for they were near each
other, one chapel answering for both villages.

On applying the test of distance to the battle-ground,[83] this
is found correct; and measuring the four leagues as we did to
Teonnontogen, it also corresponds.

Now the removal from the west bank of Auries Creek was not made
bodily, but gradually. The villages were destroyed in October,
1666. They could do nothing in the way of establishing
themselves in a new position that year, having to make
themselves shelter for the winter. The next year, _after the
bark would peel_, they could commence building their new houses
on a new site, and during the spring clear new fields for corn,
and in the course of the year a partial removal could take
place. The palisading could be completed during the year, and
in 1668 the village could be said to have changed. The new
chapel was built in 1669, and in this year also they were
attacked by the Mohegans. When Gandawague was visited in 1667
no mention is made of a removal; but the fact is mentioned of
the removal of Teonnontogen a quarter of a league higher up. I
conclude that if Gandawague or Andagoron had either of them
been removed, the fact would have been mentioned, and that
indeed they returned temporarily to the old sites, which may
not have been so completely destroyed as was Teonnontogen. This
will reconcile all the facts, and I am unable to see any
material antagonism at any point. The name Gandawague must not,
however, be confounded with Caughnawaga, although for a time
it may have been transferred to the new site.

I have been unable to find any data from which to determine
when or about when Ossernenon was transferred to Auries Creek.
The asking of the Dutch for men and horses in 1659 to draw
palisades, _according to the translators_, was to repair their
castles, and in one case for the "castles which you are
building." They don't agree. The name on the Vanderdonck map,
1656, and that on Vischer's, 1659, of "Canagero," give a hint
that the transfer had been made as early as 1655; and the very
remarkable language of the Jesuit Fathers Fremin, Pierron, and
Bruyas, which describes Gandawague as "_the very place watered
by the blood of Jogues_," etc., almost leads one to think the
removal may have been made as early as 1646; but I conclude
that Ossernenon and Gandawague being only a mile apart, the
description "_this is the place_" would be sufficiently
specific as to locality, the village (people) being the same. A
critical study of the original Dutch may enable us to determine
whether in 1659 they were building a _new_ or repairing an _old
castle_.

In a letter to Rev. C. A. Walworth, March 3, 1885, General Clark wrote as follows:--

"Gandawague was in 1677 unquestionably on the hill northwest of
Fonda, about a mile back from the river. A fine spring on the
west bank of the Cayudutta marks the central point of the
village, and the pits some distance to the north were their
granary where they stored their corn. A smaller village was
probably near Mr. Veeder's house."

B. THE WORDS "GANDAWAGUE" AND "TEKAKWITHA."

Gandawague may possibly mean, as General Clark has suggested, neither more nor less than "At the Turtle Village." In compound words the Indians frequently drop syllables, and certain letters are interchangeable as follows:

{ KAN[/A]DA--[/A][/N][/A]WA[/R][/A]--KE }
{ GAN----DA--------------WA----------GE }
{ _Village_-----------_Turtle_------_At_}

The name of this first, or Turtle, Castle of the Mohawks has been written in many different ways, as may be seen by a glance at the list here given:--

OSSERNENON
Asserue
Oneougoure
GANDAWAGUE
Gannaouage
Gandahouague
Andaraque
Kachnuge
Kaghnuwage
Kaghenewage
Kahnawake
Caghnawagah
Cahaniaga
CAUGHNAWAGA

With all this variety of spelling, only three or four distinct names are represented. An Indian word had no written form of its own. Consequently an Englishman, a Dutchman, and a Frenchman, each putting it down in black and white for the first time, would naturally represent the sound of the word by very different letters. The three forms thus arising could not be identified at once as the same in meaning and sound without a knowledge of several languages. Since such scholars as Dr. O'Callaghan and M. Cuoq, however, have taken up the task, new light has been thrown on the subject, and much that at first sight seemed hopelessly confused in the early colonial accounts has been made clear and intelligible.

There is quite as much variety in the different ways of spelling Tekakwitha's own name as in the case of her birthplace and early home. Here are some of the forms used:--

TEGAKOUITA
Tegahkouita
Tehgahkwita
Tehgakwita
TEGAKWITA
Tekakoueita
Tegahcouita
Tekahkouitha
Takwita
TEKAKWITHA

A grammatical explanation of this name is given in a note to the "Lexique de la Langue Iroquoise," by J. A. Cuoq, _pretre de Saint-Sulpice_, as follows:--

TEKAKWITHA est la 3 p. fem. sing, de pres. de l'ind. du v.
_tekkwitha_, cis-locatif de KKWITHA,[84] et consequemment ce
mot signifie; _elle approche,--elle meut qq. ch. en avant._

C. TAWASENTHA.

Tawasentha, or "The Place of Many Dead," is near the mouth of the Norman's Kill, just south of Albany. Many Indians were buried there, as numerous bones and skulls brought to light from time to time bear witness. Schoolcraft once visited the spot, and examined these relics. It was there, too, that the Song of Hiawatha was sung, as Longfellow tells us:--

"In the vale of Tawasentha,
In the green and silent valley,
By the pleasant water-courses
Dwelt the singer Nawadaha.
There he sang of Hiawatha,
Sang the Song of Hiawatha."

Another couplet might be added to the above, with less of poetry in it, to be sure, but quite as much or more of Indian history,--

There the Mohawks went a-fishing
In the days of Tekakwitha.

D. MOHAWK TRAILS.

In the summer of 1885 the Rev. C. A. Walworth, in company with the author, drove from Amsterdam on the Mohawk River to Jessup's Landing on the Hudson, following as closely as possible the route (described in