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 Agniés, 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.
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:—