This manuscript is entitled “A Report to the Hon. Isaac I. Stevens, Governor of Washington Territory, on the Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri, by Edwin Thompson Denig.” It has been edited and arranged with an introduction, notes, a biographical sketch of the author, and a brief bibliography of the tribes mentioned in the report.

The report consists of 451 pages of foolscap size; closely written in a clear and fine script with 15 pages of excellent pen sketches and one small drawing, to which illustrations the editor has added two photographs of Edwin Thompson Denig and his Assiniboin wife, Hai-kees-kak-wee-lÃh, Deer Little Woman, and a view of Old Fort Union taken from “The Manoe-Denigs,” a family chronicle, New York, 1924.

The manuscript is undated, but from internal evidence it seems safe to assign it to about the year 1854.

The editor has not attempted to verify the statements of the author as embodied in the report; he has, however, where feasible, rearranged some portions of its contents by bringing together under a single rubric remarks upon a common topic which appeared in various parts of the report as replies to closely related but widely placed questions; and he has attempted to do this without changing the phraseology or the terminology of Mr. Denig, except in very rare instances, and then only to clarify a statement. For example, the substitution of the native term for the ordinary English expression, the Great Spirit, and divining in the place of “medicine” in medicine man, practically displacing medicine man, by the word diviner.

In his letter of transmittal “To his Excellency, Isaac I. Stevens, Governor of Washington Territory,” Mr. Denig writes: “Being stimulated with the desire to meet your wishes and forward the views of government, I have in the following pages endeavored to answer the ‘Inquiries’ published by act of Congress, regarding the ‘History, Present Condition, and Future Prospects of the Indian Tribes’ with which I am acquainted. * * * Independent of my own personal observation and knowledge acquired by a constant residence of 21 years among the prairie tribes, in every situation, I have on all occasions had the advice of intelligent Indians as to the least important of these inquiries, so as to avoid, if possible, the introduction of error. * * *

“It is presumed the following pages exhibit a minutiÆ of information, on those subjects not to be obtained either by transient visitors or a residence of a few years in the country, without being, as is the case with myself, intimately acquainted with their camp regulations, understanding their language, and in many instances entering into their feelings and actions.

“The whole has been well digested, the different subjects pursued in company with the Indians for an entire year, until satisfactory answers have been obtained, and their motives of speech or action well understood before placing the same as a guide and instruction to others.

“The answers refer to the Sioux, Arikara, Mandan, Gros Ventres, Cree, Crow, Assiniboin, and Blackfeet Nations, who are designated as prairie, roving, or wild tribes—further than whom our knowledge does not extend.

“I am aware of your capacity to judge the merits of the work and will consider myself highly honored if I have had the good fortune to meet your approbation; moreover I shall rejoice if I have contributed in any degree toward opening a course of policy on the part of the Government that may result in the amelioration of the sad condition of the savages. Should the facts herein recorded ever be published or embodied in other work it is hoped the errors of language may be corrected, but in no instance is it desired that the meaning should miscarry.”

Elsewhere in this letter Mr. Denig writes: “Some of their customs and opinions now presented, although very plain and common to us who are in their daily observance, may not have been rendered in comprehensible language to those who are strangers to these things, and the number of queries, the diversity of subjects, etc., have necessarily curtailed each answer to as few words as possible.”

The report was made in response to a circular of “Inquiries, Respecting the History, Present Condition, and Future Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States,” by Henry R. Schoolcraft, Office of Indian Affairs, Washington, D. C., printed in Philadelphia, Pa., in 1851. This circular is a reprint of the circular issued in July, 1847, in accordance with the provisions of section 5, chapter 66, of the Laws of the Twenty-ninth Congress, second session, and approved March 3, 1847, which read, “And be it further enacted, That in aid of the means now possessed by the Department of Indian Affairs through its existing organization, there be, and hereby is, appropriated the sum of five thousand dollars to enable the said department, under the direction of the Secretary of War, to collect and digest such statistics and material as may illustrate the history, the present condition, and future prospects of the Indian tribes of the United States.”

The original circular recites that it was addressed to four classes of individuals, namely, “I. Persons holding positions under the department, who are believed to have it in their power to impart much practical information respecting the tribes who are, respectively, under their charge. II. Persons who have retired from similar situations, travelers in the Indian Territory, or partners and factors on the American frontiers. III. Men of learning or research who have perused the best writers on the subject and who may feel willing to communicate the results of their reading or reflections. IV. Teachers and missionaries to the aborigines.”

The circular closes with an expression of the “anxiety which is felt to give to the materials collected the character of entire authenticity, and to be apprised of any erroneous views in the actual manners and customs, character, and condition of our Indian tribes which may have been promulgated. The Government, it is believed, owes it to itself to originate a body of facts on this subject of an entirely authentic character, from which the race at large may be correctly judged by all classes of citizens, and its policy respecting the tribes under its guardianship, and its treatment of them, properly understood and appreciated.”

The 348 inquiries in the circular embrace the history (and archeology), the tribal organization, the religion, the manners and customs, the intellectual capacity and character, the present condition, the future prospects, and the language, of the Indian tribes of the United States.

But the report of Mr. Denig consists of brief and greatly condensed replies to as many of the questions propounded in the circular in question as concerned the native tribes of the upper Missouri River, to wit, the Arikara, the Mandan, the Sioux, the Gros Ventres, the Cree, the Crows, the Assiniboin, and the Blackfeet, tribes with whom he was thoroughly acquainted, although the Assiniboin seem to have been the chief subjects of his observations. It should be noted that the answers to some of the questions, if adequately treated, would have required nearly as much space as was devoted to the entire report.

While the facts embodied in the replies of Mr. Denig are, when unqualified, affirmed of all the eight tribes mentioned in his letter of transmittal, he is nevertheless careful, when needful, to restrict many of his answers to the specific tribes to which their subject matter particularly related. But, of course, all the tribes mentioned belonged measurably to a single cultural area at that time.

That Mr. Denig made use of the circular issued by Mr. Schoolcraft is clearly evident from the fact that on the left-hand margin of the manuscript he usually wrote the number of the question to which he was giving an answer.

In the manuscript there appear two quite distinct handwritings, and so it is possible that this particular manuscript is a copy of an original which was retained by the author.

Dr. F. V. Hayden made extensive use of this report in preparation of his “Contributions to the Ethnography and Philology of the Indian Tribes of the Missouri Valley,” Philadelphia, C. Sherman & Son, 1862. But he did not give Mr. Denig proper credit for using verbatim numbers of pages of the manuscript without any indication that he was copying a manuscript work from another writer whose position and long experience among them made him an authority on the tribes in question. This piece of plagiarism was not concealed by the bald statement of Doctor Hayden that he was “especially indebted to Mr. Alexander Culbertson, the well-known agent of the American Fur Co., who has spent 30 years of his life among the wild tribes of the Northwest and speaks several of their languages with great ease. To Mr. Andrew Dawson, superintendent of Fort Benton; Mr. Charles E. Galpin, of Fort Pierre; and E. T. Denig, of Fort Union, I am under great obligations for assistance freely granted at all times.”

Mr. Edwin Thompson Denig, the author of this manuscript report, was the son of Dr. George Denig and was born March 10, 1812, in McConnellstown, Huntingdon County, Pa., and died in 1862 or 1863 in Manitoba, probably in the town of Pilot Mound, in the vicinity of which his daughters live, or did live in 1910. His legally married wife was the daughter of an Assiniboin chief, by whom he had two daughters, Sara, who was born August 10, 1844, and Ida, who was born August 22, 1854, and one son, Alexander, who was born May 17, 1852, and who was killed by lightning in 1904.

To his early associates Mr. Denig was a myth, more or less, having gone West as a young man and having died there. He lost caste with his family because of his marriage with the Assiniboin woman.

Mr. Denig entered the fur trade in 1833 and became very influential among the tribes of the upper Missouri River. He was for a time a Government scout; then a bookkeeper for the American Fur Co. Earlier he had gone to St. Louis and became connected with the Chouteaus and the American Fur Co. Before he was 30 years of age he was living among the Indians as the representative of these two companies in that vast and almost unknown region between the headwaters of the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers inhabited by tribes of the Sioux.

Mr. Denig became a bookkeeper for the American Fur Co. at Fort Union, situated near the mouth of the Yellowstone River, of the offices of which for a time, about 1843, he was superintendent. Because of his thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the Indians of his adopted tribe, their language, customs, and tribal relations, he was consulted by most of the noted Indian investigators of that period—Schoolcraft, Hayden, and others.

Being a Government scout, Mr. Denig was able to conciliate the Indians during the expedition of Audubon in 1843, making it possible for the great Frenchman to collect his wonderful specimens. A very colorful description of Fort Union was written by Mr. Denig July 30, 1843. This description is found in Volume II, page 180, of “Audubon and His Journals.” In it Mr. Denig writes: “Fort Union, the principal and handsomest trading post on the Missouri River, is situated on the north side, about 6½ miles above the mouth of the Yellowstone River; the country around it is beautiful and well chosen for an establishment of the kind.” Then after describing in detail the structure and furnishings of the fort, he says: “The principal building in the establishment, and that of the gentleman in charge, or bourgeois, is now occupied by Mr. Culbertson, one of the partners of the company,” and farther on, “Next to this is the office, which is devoted exclusively to the business of the company. * * * This department is now under my supervision [viz., E. T. Denig].”

During this period Audubon sojourned with him for some time and spoke of him not only as an agreeable companion but also as a friend who gave him valuable information and enthusiastic assistance. One of his frequent companions at Fort Union was the Belgian priest, Father De Smet. Their correspondence was continued after De Smet had returned to Belgium. (See Life, Letters and Travels of Father De Smet, Chittenden and Richardson, 4 vols., New York, 1905.)

Several plausible but nevertheless quite unsatisfactory etymologic interpretations of the name, Assiniboin, have been made by a number of writers. Among these interpretations are “Stone Roasters,” “Stone Warriors,” “Stone Eaters,” etc. These are unfortunately historically improbable. It appears that difficulty arises from a misconception of the real meaning of the limited or qualified noun it contains, namely, boin. This element appears in literature, dialectically varied, as pour, pouar, poil, poual, bwÂn, pwan, pwÂt, etc. Evidently, it was the name of a group of people, well known to the Cree and the Chippewa tribes, whom they held in contempt and so applied this noun, boin, bwÂn, pwÂt, etc., to them. The signification of its root bwÂ(n) or pwÂ(t) is “to be powerless, incapable, weak.” So that PwÂtak or BwÂnug (animate plurals) is a term of contempt or derision, meaning “The Weaklings, The Incapable Ones.” This name was in large measure restricted to the nomadic group of Siouan tribes in contradistinction from the sedentary or eastern group of Siouan peoples who were called Nadowesiwug, a term appearing in literature in many variant spellings. The name Dakota in its restricted use is the appellation of the group of tribes to which the name BwÂnug, etc., was applied. This fact indicates that the Assiniboin, or AssinibwÂnug, were recognized as a kind of Dakota or Nakota peoples. Nakota is their own name for themselves. The rupture of the Dakota tribal hegemony thrust some of these peoples northward to the rocky regions about Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan and Assiniboin rivers. So it was these who were called Rock or Stone Dakota (i. e., BwÂnug). It would thus appear that the rupture occurred after there were recognized the two groups of Siouan tribes in the past, namely, the nomadic or western, the Dakota, and the sedentary or eastern, the Nadowesiwug of literature.

Traditionally, the Assiniboin people are an offshoot of the Wazikute gens of the Yanktonai (IhaÑktoⁿwaⁿna) Dakota.

Dr. F. V. Hayden in his “Contributions to the Ethnography and Philology of the Indian Tribes of the Missouri Valley” says that Mr. Denig was “an intelligent trader, who resided for many years at the junction of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers as superintendent of Fort Union, the trading post for the Assiniboins.” Of the vocabulary of the Assiniboin language, recorded by Mr. Denig, Doctor Hayden wrote that it is “the most important” one theretofore collected. From the citation from Mr. Denig’s description of Fort Union in a preceding paragraph it appears that Doctor Hayden is in error in making Mr. Denig superintendent of the fort rather than of the office of the American Fur Co. at that point.

In one of his letters Reverend Father Terwecoren wrote that Mr. Denig, of the St. Louis Fur Co., is “a man of tried probity and veracity.”

From references in Audubon, Kurtz, De Smet, Hayden, and Schoolcraft, and as well from a perusal of this manuscript, it is evident that Mr. Denig was an exceptional man, and for more than 20 years was a prominent figure in the fur trade of the upper Missouri River.

In this summary report to Governor Stevens Mr. Denig has succinctly embodied in large measure the culture, the activities, the customs, and the beliefs of the native tribes who occupied the upper Missouri River 75 years ago, more than 75 per cent of which has been lost beyond recovery by contact with the white man. For more than 40 years the native life with which Mr. Denig was in contact has been largely a thing of the past, so that it is futile to attempt to recover it from the remnants of the tribes who formerly traded with Mr. Denig at Fort Union.

In addition to preparing this report to Governor Stevens Mr. Denig also recorded a Blackfoot Algonquian vocabulary of about 70 words, a Gros Ventres Siouan vocabulary, and an Assiniboin Siouan vocabulary of more than 400 words, which was published by Schoolcraft in his fourth volume.

From a letter written February 27, 1923, by Dr. Rudolph Denig, of 56 East Fifty-eighth Street, New York, N. Y., the following interesting biographical matter relating to the ancestry of Mr. Denig is taken:

The Denigs, or “Deneges,” trace their descent from one Herald Ericksen, a chieftain, or “smaa kongen,” of the Danish island of Manoe in the North Sea, from whose descendant Red Vilmar, about 1460, they derive an unbroken lineage. They were seafarers, commanding their own vessels, and engaged in trade in the North and Baltic Seas.

About 1570 Thorvald Christiansen changed the tradition of the family by becoming a tiller of the soil, having obtained possession of a large farm near Ribe in northern Slesvig, which to this day bears its ancient name of Volling gaard. Christian Thomsen, 1636-1704, was the first of the family to take up a learned profession; he studied theology, and being ordained a minister in the Lutheran Church, he was also the first biographer of the family, in that he left a kind of genealogy inscribed on the flyleaves of his Bible.

His grandson, Frederick Svensen, took part as corporal in a Danish auxiliary corps at the age of 17 in Marlborough’s operations in the Netherlands in the war of the Spanish Succession. Following the disbanding of his corps he took up his residence in Cologne, and after a few years he found a permanent home, about 1720, in Biebrich-Mosbach, opposite Mayence.

The two branches of the family at present are the descendants of Philip George and Johan Peter, both sons of Frederick. Johan Peter emigrated to America in 1745, leaving among his descendants Edwin Thompson Denig, the subject of this treatise; Commodore Robert Gracie Denig, United States Navy, his son; Major Robert Livingston Denig, United States Marine Corps, a distinguished soldier of the World War, and Dr. Blanche Denig, a well-known woman physician of Boston.

The descendants of Philip George include Dr. Rudolph C. Denig, professor of clinical ophthalmology in Columbia University, New York, N. Y.

Ethnologically, it may be of more than passing interest to know that the name Denig was originally Denek(e), then Deneg, which was taken as a family name by Frederick Svensen at the time he left Denmark in 1709. Until then the family had followed the old Scandinavian custom of the son taking his father’s first name with the suffix sen or son as his family name.

The Denigs came to their present name in the following manner: After the Kalmar War, 1611-1613, conditions in Denmark became critical, and the Danes were hard pressed for all the necessaries of life, especially foodstuffs. They were therefore forced to import grain from neighboring countries. So it happened that Ludvig Thorvaldsen, born in 1590, was sent by his father, Thorvald Christiansen, to Valen in Westphalia, a district still renowned for its agriculture, to buy corn.

Ludvig went there every fall for three or four successive years. Eventually the Westphalians nicknamed him Deneke; “Den” meaning Dane, and the suffix “eke,” like “ike,” “ing,” and “ig,” a diminutive, derivative, or patronymic. Naturally this surname was not used at home, but it became useful when occasional trips took members of the family outside of Denmark.

The use of such a nom de guerre has always been popular with Scandinavian and kindred races like the Friesians. As the supply of available names did not meet the demand, frequent similarity of names made it difficult to avoid losing one’s identity.

When Frederick Svensen Deneg had settled in Biebrich-Mosbach the name Deneg had to undergo another change. While in the north the syllable “eg” is pronounced like “ek,” the Chatto-Franconian dialect around Mayence pronounces it like “esh.” Automatically, for euphonic reasons the name was dialectically changed to Denig. In former times such capricious changes in names were frequently made. In perusing old chronicles many names are found written in three or four different ways within one century. An instance to the point is the Frankish name of King Meroveg, who was also called Merovig, and his descendants were called Meroveger, Meroviger, and Merovinger, according to dialects spoken in the different regions of the former Frankish empire. This parallels the change of Deneg to Denig.

Upon his arrival, September 5, 1851, at Fort Union, 3 miles above the mouth of the Yellowstone River on the Missouri, Mr. Frederick Kurz, the Swiss artist, of Berne, Switzerland, who had heard some ugly rumors about Mr. Denig, wrote in his Journal (yet in manuscript): “Bellange delivered the letter he brought to a small, hard-featured man, wearing a straw hat, the brim of which was turned up in the back. He was my new bourgeois, Mr. Denig. He impressed me as a rather prosy fellow.... He ordered supper delayed on our account that we might have a better and more plentiful meal. A bell summoned me to the first table with Mr. Denig and the clerks. My eyes almost ran over with tears. There was chocolate, milk, butter, omelet, fresh meat, hot bread—what a magnificent spread. I changed my opinion at once concerning this new chief; a hard, niggardly person could not have reconciled himself to such a hospitable reception in behalf of a subordinate who was a total stranger to him” (pp. 205-206). Kurz remained with Denig three years.

Again, Kurz wrote: “In his relations with me he is most kind and agreeable. Every evening he sits with me either in my room or in front of the gate and relates experiences of his earlier life. As he has held his position in this locality for 19 years already, his life has been full of adventure with Indians—particularly since the advent of the whisky flask. He wishes me to paint, also, a portrait of himself and his dog, Natah (Bear), a commission I am very glad to execute” (p. 211).

Again, in speaking of the duties of Mr. Denig, Kurz wrote: “It goes without saying that a bourgeois who occupies the position of responsible warden, chief tradesman, and person in highest authority at a trading-post far removed, where he has fifty men under his direction, may regard himself of more importance than a man who directs five men” (p. 213).

Again Kurz wrote: “As a matter of course, Denig keeps the subordinate workmen strictly under his thumb—what is more, he has to, if he is to prevent their overreaching him. He feels, however, that one man alone is not sufficient to enforce good order among these underlings, for every one of them is armed and, though not courageous in general, are, nevertheless, touchy and revengeful. So, for purposes of order and protection he has attached to himself the clerks who stand more nearly on the same level with him in birth and education and afford, besides, the only support, moral as well as physical, upon which he can reckon” (p. 216).

Again Kurz wrote: “He talks to me continually about Indian legends and usages. As he writes the best of these stories for Pere De Smet, by whom they are published, there is no need of my preserving more than some bits of memoranda” (p. 238). This explains why the writings on these matters of Father De Smet have a close family resemblance with those of Mr. Denig.

Again Kurz wrote: “Mr. Denig has been reading to me again from his manuscript, which is extremely interesting. He is very well educated and he has made a thorough study of Indian life—a distinct advantage to him in trade. He is so fond of the life in this part of the country that he is averse to any thought of going back to his Pennsylvania home in the United States. For the reason, as he says, that he may avoid political carryings-on that disgust him” (p. 242).

Another entry in the Kurz Journal reads: “September the 24th. Began a portrait of Mr. Denig—life-size, knee-length. This work is to be finished before Mr. Culbertson’s return from Fort Laramie” (p. 254).

The following citation is from the Kurz Journal at page 577: “February the 26th, Mr. Denig is a Swedenborgian and at the same time he is a Freemason. He mentioned to me that it would be of great advantage on my travels if I were a Freemason.”

It seems appropriate to insert here briefly what another intimate friend of Mr. Denig, the Reverend Father De Smet, thought of the knowledge and attainments of our author. Father De Smet in speaking of the source of his information in a particular instance wrote: “I have it from two most reliable sources—that is to say, from a man of tried probity and veracity, Mr. Denig of the Saint Louis Fur Company....”1

On page 1215 of this same work Father De Smet in a personal letter to Mr. Denig, dated September 30, 1852, wrote: “I do not know how to express my gratitude for your very interesting series of narratives concerning the aborigines of the Far West.... Nothing could be more gratifying to me than the beautiful and graphic details which you have given me of the religion, manners, customs, and transactions of an unfortunate race of human beings.”

It is hoped that these excerpts from the writings of Frederick Kurz and Father De Smet, both intimately associated with Mr. Denig, will supply some data concerning our author not otherwise accessible.

The Swiss artist, Friedrich Kurz, who painted many pictures of the region around Fort Union, lived with Denig for some time, and in 1851 painted his portrait.

The Indians called Mr. Denig “The Long Knife,” which simply meant that they knew him as “an American.”

In the manuscript Mr. Denig employs the word “band” to denote “a gens of a tribe,” the word “clans” to denote “societies” or “corporations,” and the “orders of doctors” he calls “shamans or theurgists.” To understand Mr. Denig these meanings must be kept in mind.

The Editor.