The determination to use names of this connotive character is shown by the objective translation, whenever possible, of such European names as it became necessary for them to introduce frequently into their speech. William Penn was called Onas, that being the word for feather-quill in the Mohawk dialect. The name of the second French governor of Canada was De Montmagny, erroneously translated to be “great mountain,” which words were correctly translated by the Iroquois into Onontio, and this expression becoming associated with the title has been applied to all successive Canadian governors, though the origin having been generally forgotten, it has been considered to be a metaphorical compliment.
The persistence of titles is shown by the fact that the Abnaki of New Brunswick to-day call Queen Victoria, “King James,” with a feminine addition.
Gov. Fletcher was named by the Iroquois Cajenquiragoe, “the great swift arrow,” not because of his speedy arrival at a critical time, as has been supposed, but because they had somehow been informed of the etymology of his name, “arrow-maker” (Fr. fléchier). A notable example of the adoption of a graphic illustration from a similarity in the sound of the name to known English words is given in the present paper, in Fig. [919], where Gen. Maynadier is represented as “many deer.”
While, as before said, some tribes give names to children from considerations of birth and kinship according to a fixed rule, others conferred them after solemn deliberation. Even these were not necessarily permanent. A diminutive form is frequently bestowed by the affection of the parent. On initiation into one of the cult associations a name is generally received. Until this is established a warrior is liable to change his name after every fight or hunt. He will sometimes only acknowledge the name he has himself assumed, perhaps from a dream or vision, though he may be habitually called by an entirely different name. From that reason the same man is sometimes known under several different epithets. Personal peculiarity, deformity, or accident is sure to fix a name against which it is vain to struggle. Girls do not often change names bestowed in their childhood. The same precise name is often given to different individuals in the same tribe, but not so frequently in the same band, whereby the inconvenience would be increased. For this reason it is often necessary to specify the band, sometimes also the father. For instance, when the writer asked an Indian who Black-Stone, a chief mentioned in the Lone-Dog winter counts, was, the Indian asked, first, what tribe was he; then, what band; then, who was his father; and, except in the case of very noted persons, the identity is not proved without an answer to these questions. A striking instance of this plurality of names among the Dakotas was connected with the name Sitting-Bull, belonging to the leader of the hostile band, while one of that name was almost equally noted as being the head soldier of the friendly Dakotas at Red-Cloud Agency.
The northeastern tribes sometimes formally resurrected the name of the dead and also revived it by adoption. See Jes. Rel., 1639, p. 45, and 1642, p. 53.
Among the peculiarities connected with Indian personal names, far too many for discussion here, is their avoidance of them in direct address, terms of kinship or relative age taking their place. Maj. J. W. Powell states that at one time he had the Kaibab Indians, a small tribe of northern Arizona, traveling with him. The young chief was called by white men “Frank.” For several weeks he refused to give his Indian name and Maj. Powell endeavored to discover it by noticing the term by which he was addressed by the other Indians, but invariably some kinship term was employed. One day in a quarrel his wife called him Chuarumpik (“Yucca-heart”). Subsequently Maj. Powell questioned the young chief about the matter, who explained and apologized for the great insult which his wife had given him and said that she was excused by great provocation. The insult consisted in calling the man by his real name.
Everard F. im Thurn (g) gives the following account of the name-system of the Indians of Guiana, which might have been written with equal truth about some tribes of North America:
The system under which the Indians have their personal names is intricate and difficult to explain. In the first place, a name, which may be called the proper name, is always given to a young child soon after birth. It is said to be proper that the peaiman, or medicine-man, should choose and give this name, but, at any rate now, the naming seems more often left to the parents. The word selected is generally the name of some plant, bird, or other natural object. But these names seem of little use, in that owners have a very strong objection to telling or using them, apparently on the ground that the name is part of the man, and that he who knows the name has part of the owner of that name in his power. One Indian, therefore, generally addresses another only according to the relationship of the caller and the called, as brother, sister, father, mother, and so on. These terms, therefore, practically form the names actually used by Indians amongst themselves. But an Indian is just as unwilling to tell his proper name to a white man as to an Indian, and, of course, between the Indian and the white man there is no relationship the term for which can serve as a proper name. An Indian, therefore, when he has to do with a European, asks the latter to give him a name, and if one is given to him always afterwards uses this. The names given in this way are generally simple enough—John, Peter, Thomas, and so on.
Fig. 581.—Signature of Running Antelope, Dakota.