The many nations of eastern North America were rapidly forming confederacies when Champlain arrived, a process that had been underway for a long period before European contact.
No definitive taxonomy exists for the Indian nations that Champlain knew. Many lists have been compiled, and no two are the same. Most attempts begin with language groups, and then subdivide them into nations, of which there were many. Every nation had its own name for itself, and also the names it was given by Indian neighbors and Europeans. Many nations also acquired names in Spanish, Portuguese, Basque, Breton, Dutch, French, and English. (See Sources, pp. 613–14.)
INUIT LANGUAGE GROUP
Inuit nations were Esquimaux to the French, Eskimo to English speakers. They lived in Labrador and the subarctic region of Canada.
BÉOTHUK LANGUAGE GROUP
Béothuk or Terre Neuve or Newfoundland Indians, after the island where they lived.
NORTHERN INDIANS
The Naskapis, Mistassins, Peribonka, and Ashuamouchuan were hunting nations who lived many days journey north of the Saguenay River. They lived on rivers of similar names that flowed into Lake St. John and Lake Mistassini, and some could “see the salt sea” of Hudson Bay. Champlain knew them through their Montagnais trading partners to the south.1
ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGE GROUPS (VAR. ALGONKIAN)
Among scholars, Algonquian or Algonkian refers to the larger language groups. Algonquin, or Algonkin, denotes some of the nations who spoke Algonquian languages.
Montagnais or Innu
Today this nation calls itself Innu, not to be confused with Inuit. The French called them Montagnais, or mountain dwellers. They were a hunting people with many subgroups, which included:
Papinachois
Kakouchaki (Porcupine)
Attikameque (White Fish)
Chicoutimi
Tadoussac
Nekubaniste
Chomonchouaniste
Outabitibec
Algonquin
(Algoumekins to the French; Algonkin to English; they call themselves Anishinabe, the humans) (DC)
Andataouat, Outaouac, or Ottawas
Cheveux Relevés to the French; High Hairs to the English (CWB, CM)
Ouescharini or Weskarini
Petite-Nation Algonquin to Champlain and French (CM)
Kichesperini, Algonquin of the Island; Champlain knew their headman Tessoüat
Allumette to the French; Morrison Island Algonquin to the English (DC)
Kinouchepirini, Muskrat Lake Algonquin
Champlain met their headman Nibachis
Onontchataronon, Iroquet’s Algonquin
Atontrataronnon to the Huron, with whom they wintered; Champlain worked with their headman Iroquet (CWB, DC, CH)
Matouweskarini
Madawaska River Algonquin
Bastisquan Algonquin (CWB’s map of 1612) lived east of the Ottawa River near the St. Maurice River; Champlain named them for their headman Batiscan. Some ethnographers believe they were Montagnais (DC)
Otagouttouenmin, Kotakoutouemi, Mataouchkairini and Ounchatarounounga were hunting people north of the Kischesperini (DC)
Sagnitaouigama, Sagaigunini lived north of the Huron on Georgian Bay
Attikameks (Têtes de Boule) lived on the upper St. Maurice River
Northwestern Algonquian-speaking Nations who were not Algonquin
Epicerini; Called sorcerers by their Algonquin neighbors, who regarded them as a people apart. They were Nipissing to Champlain, who visited them near the lake of the same name. They spoke an Algonquian language but were distinct from Algonquin nations (M, CH, DC)
Abitibi, who lived around Lake Abitibi, south of James Bay (DC)
Temiskaming, who lived around Lake Temiskaming, south of Lake Atibibi
Suk and Renard to French; Sac and Fox to English. They were Na-Nà-Ma-Kee’s people who lived “near Montreal” and later moved west and south
Cree
O’pimittish Ininiwac (Gens de Terre)
Kilistinon
Ojibwa (Chippewa)
Mississague (Oumisagi)
Nocquet (Nokes)
Pauoitigoueieuhak (Sauleurs)
Roquai
Mantoue
Outchibous (O’chiiboy, Chippewa)
Eastern Algonquian-speaking Nations
Eastern Wabenaki or Abenaki Confederacy (FMW)
Etchemin (Champlain’s Estechemins)
Passamaquoddy
Penobscot
Malicite (Maliseet)
Abenaki
Mi’kmaq Confederacy
Souriquois to French, Micmac to English
A Confederacy with seven subgroups (FMW)
Canadaquoa (Canadaquois; Canadien) (CWB)2
Southern Algonquian-speaking Nations
Almouchiquois or Saco (CM)
Penacook-Western Wabenaki Confederacy (FMW)
Penacook
Western Abenakis
Pawtucket (Wamesit)
Massachusett-Coastal Indian Confederacy (KJB)
Massachusetts
Pokanokets (Wampanoag)
Nauset (Cape Indians)
Narragansett
Mountain Indians
Mahigan to the French; Mohican to the English (FMW)
Wappinger
Mohegan-Pequot-River Indian Confederacy (FMW)
Mohegan-Pequot
Nehantic
Nipmuck
Podunk
Tunxis
Nanatuck
IROQUOIAN LANGUAGE GROUPS included three large confederations: the Iroquois, Huron, the Neutral Nation, and many other nations.
THE IROQUOIS LEAGUE
They called themselves Hodenosaunee, People of the Long House. The French called them Yroquois, Hroquois or Iroquois, which was in its origin a Basque-Montagnais-French pidgin word. English called them the Five Nations in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
Agniehrononnon (Agniers in French, Mohawk in English; Champlain called them Yroquois and used the word both for the Mohawk and the larger league)
Oneiochronnon (Onneiouts in French, Oneida in English; Champlain called them Entohonorons after the Huron word for them)
Onontagereronnon (Onontagués in French, Onondaga in English; Champlain called them Entohonorons from the Huron)
Ouioenrthonnon (Cayuga in English; Champlain called them Entohonorons from the Huron)
Sonnontouan (Seneca in English, Tsonnontouans in French; Champlain called them Chouontouarpuon or Sonontoerrhonons after the Huron)3
The Huron Confederacy
The name by which they are most often called is from the French hure, for the hair of a wild boar. Champlain called them Ochateguins from the Bear Clan below (CM). They called themselves by many names. Some took the name of Ouendat, Wendat (Islanders). Most referred to themselves by the names of their Clans or Phrartries, of which there were as many as five or more (T749):
Attigouautan (CWB 3:55) or Attignawantan (People of the Bear) (T, CM);
Atinouaentans may have been the same or a sub group (CWB);
Arendarhonon (People of the Rock) (T30);
Attigneenongnahac (People of the Barking Dogs) (T30);
Tahontaenrat (People of the Deer) (T30);
Ataronchronon (People of the Marshes) (T30).
The Neutral Confederacy
Champlain called them Les Neutres. The Huron spoke of them as the Attiwandarons, “people of a slightly different language.” The Iroquois were said to call them Atirhagenrat, or Adirondacks, a name they also used for other Iroquoian-speaking people. Champlain wrote: “The Neutral nation is one which holds itself aloof from all the others, and carries on no war except with the Assista-queronons. It is very large, having 40 very populous villages”4 (CWB 6:249). Like the Huron and Iroquois they were a confederacy of nations:
Onguiarahronon or people of the Ongniarah (Niagara) River, the leading nation, which were called the “Neutrals proper” (GKW 6)
Wenrohronon or Wenroes, who lived ne
ar Iroquoia in what is now New York
Aondironon, who lived near the Huron in what is now southern Ontario
Attiouendarankhronon, who lived west of the Niagara River and north of Lake Erie
The nations of this confederacy were attacked and destroyed by the Iroquois after the death of Champlain (GKW).
Western Iroquoian-speaking Nations
Eriehronnen (Erie in English)
Khionontateronnon (Tobacco in English, Petun in French)
Nation de Chat (the Cat Nation in English) (SP 16/53)
Mascoutens (Nation de Feu in French; Fire People to the English (SC 16/53; CM 326M)
Southern Irooquoian-speaking Nations
Andastes, called Andastoéronons by the Hurons, Carantouanais by the French and Susquehannocks or Susquehannah to the English (T 504)
SIOUAN-SPEAKING NATIONS
Winnebago, who lived in what is now Wisconsin. Champlain’s interpreter met them and called them Oinipigous, as did the Jesuits. They may have been the nation that Champlain called Puan. The French were quick to discover that they spoke a different language.
SOURCES
CWB H. P. Biggar, ed., The Works of Samuel de Champlain, 6 vols. and a portfolio of maps and drawings (CWB) (Toronto, 1922–36, reprinted 1971).
CCE Champlain’s ethnographic map, “Le Canada faict par Sr de Champlain, 1616.” It survives in an unfinished printer’s proof perhaps engraved for Champlain’s Voyages et descouvertures (1619) but not published in it. Copies survive in the John Carter Brown Library, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; and in the National Library of Russia. The plate appears to have been acquired by mapmaker Pierre Du Val, who reused it in 1653 with additions and corrections.
KJB Kathleen J. Bragdon, Native People of Southern New England (Norman, Okla., 1996), 243.
DC Daniel Clément, ed., The Algonquins (Hull, 1996).
RCH R. Cole Harris, Historical Atlas of Canada (Toronto, 1987).
CH Conrad Heidenreich, Huronia (Toronto, 1971), map 24.
CM Christian Morissonneau, in Litalien and Vaugeois, Champlain: The Birth of French America (Montreal, 2004), 162.
HSR Howard S. Russell, Indian New England before the Mayflower (Hanover, 1980) 19–29.
T Bruce G. Trigger, Children of Aataentsic (Montreal, 1976, 1987).
FMW Frederick M. Wiseman, The Voice of the Dawn: An Autohistory of the Abenaki Nation.
GKW Gordon K. Wright, The Neutral Nations (Rochester, N.Y., 1963).
APPENDIX J
THE BATTLE WITH THE MOHAWK IN 1609
Where Did It Happen?
Historians have long debated the location of the battle at Lake Champlain in 1609. Most scholars agree that it could have happened only in one of two places, and monuments have been erected at both spots. One of them is Crown Point; the other is Ticonderoga.
The evidence to settle this dispute comes in two forms: cartography and chronology in Champlain’s accounts. In his 1632 map, Champlain explicitly identified the “place on Lake Champlain where the Iroquois were defeated.” It bears the number 65 in his key and is located between Lake George and Lake Champlain. On this map, Champlain’s sketch of Lake Champlain clearly shows the promontory of Ticonderoga, and Willow Point to the north. His marker 65 is placed between those two points at an indentation that has been called Sandy Beach.1
The second piece of evidence is the chronology of Champlain’s account. He wrote that after the battle he visited the chute that flowed from Lake George to Lake Champlain, and he explored it at least as far as the lowest falls, “un saut d’eau que ie vis, a waterfall that I saw.”2 Champlain also stated that he had only three hours after the battle to go exploring, before his allies headed home. This was his only visit to the area. The distance by canoe from the sandy beach around the promontory at Ticonderoga and into the chute is about 1.8 miles. In the summer of 2007, four of us paddled this route in two canoes (Nick Westbrook, Ann McCarty, my wife, and I). It took us about 45 minutes to go that distance in one direction. Champlain’s round trip from the Sandy Beach to the outlet of the chute would have been about 3.6 miles. He could easily have done the round trip on the lake in an hour and a half, with time enough to paddle or walk up the chute to the lowest rapids, and to return within three hours.
The same test of time and distance rules out Crown Point as the site of the battle. The distance by canoe from Crown Point (Fort St. Frédéric) to the chute is approximately twelve miles. A round trip of twenty-four miles from Crown Point to the chute and back would have taken Champlain six hours at a minimum. Certainly it could not have been done in three hours. If Champlain’s narrative is correct, Crown Point could not have been the site of the battle. Only a site near Ticonderoga is consistent with his account. In short, Champlain’s map of 1632 and his written account both clearly support Ticonderoga as the site and rule out Crown Point. No evidence of that sort exists on the other side of the question.
On both sides, other arguments have been made in terms of Champlain’s description of the terrain. Each site could qualify as a promontory or cape. Each had steep, eroded banks and a sandy beach on part of its shoreline, with level ground and a forest beyond. In my judgment arguments in these terms are inconclusive, but the evidence of Champlain’s map of 1632 and the chronology in his narrative are decisive in favor of Ticonderoga.
The Crown Point hypothesis first appeared in Laverdière’s and Biggar’s editions of Champlain’s works. Both were highly skilled editors and scholars, but neither appears to have visited Lake Champlain, and their thesis was asserted with no evidence. Other historians followed them into error. The case for Crown Point was made by the New York Tricentennial Commission, Guy Omeron Coolidge, and Joe Armstrong. Arguments for the Ticonderoga site have been developed by S. H. P. Pell, Morison, Trudel, and other scholars.3
APPENDIX K
THE ATTACK ON THE
IROQUOIS FORT IN 1615
Which Fort? What Nation?
Where was the Iroquois fort that Champlain attacked in 1615? Which Iroquois nation was he fighting? This question has given rise to a controversy that has continued through two centuries.
Champlain’s accounts of the battle are unclear on both issues. He called the enemy that he was attacking the Entohonorons, which was his understanding of their name in the Huron language. Experts on Iroquoian languages conclude that this word might have applied to the Oneida or Onondaga nation, or even the Cayuga. It does not clearly identify any one of these three Iroquois nations.
The precise location of the battleground would solve the problem, but on this question historians have disagreed. Most scholars are of one mind in tracing Champlain’s route from Huronia to the Iroquois country, as far as the town of Brewerton at the outlet of Lake Oneida. They also agree that the fort was on a lake nearby with small streams on either side of it. But which lake, and where exactly? Local historians who know the ground have made claims for many sites in upstate New York. At issue here is not only the location of the fort but also the identity of the Iroquois nation that occupied it.
In the mid-nineteenth century, E. B. O’Callaghan, Francis Parkman, and the Abbé Laverdière believed that the fort stood on Lake Canandaigua, twenty-five miles south of Rochester, New York. This site was in the far west of Iroquoia, the homeland of the Seneca nation, “keepers of the western door” of the confederacy. On further examination, this location was inconsistent with Champlain’s account of his route. The distances were too great given the time available, and no positive evidence of any kind has been found to support it. Parkman abandoned this idea in later editions of his work.1 Other historians have put in a claim for Lake Cayuga and argued that Champlain was attacking the Iroquois nation of the same name. But this also would have required an impossibly long march to the west, and no evidence supports it.
A third thesis came from antiquarians John S. Clark and Lambertus Ledyard, who argued that Champlain attacked an Oneida town on Nichols Pond, in Fenner, Madison County, New York, twenty miles
southeast of Syracuse. On that site, amateur archaeologists found Indian artifacts that persuaded many scholars in the mid-twentieth century. As late as 1972, most students of Champlain believed this was the site, and that Champlain was fighting the Oneida Nation. Samuel Eliot Morison strongly supported this interpretation.2
Professional archaeologists William Ritchie and Peter Pratt excavated the site and found the remains of a precontact Oneida village there, but they concluded that it had been abandoned a century before Champlain’s attack. They also discovered that the palisade on this site did not match Champlain’s description of the fort he attacked, and Nichols Pond was for many centuries (and is today) more a swamp than a lake. We walked the terrain in the summer of 2007 and found that it does not match Champlain’s account.3
Pratt, the leading expert on this question, concludes from many years of study that Champlain’s fort stood at the south end of Lake Onondaga on a site presently occupied by the Carousel Shopping Mall in the city of Syracuse, New York. I visited the site in 2007 and observed that the location and the terrain matches descriptions in Champlain’s accounts. The ground has been much disturbed by development, but many Indian artifacts were found there. That evidence supports the presence of a large Onondaga fort in Champlain’s era. Tests of time and distance confirm that the location of this site fits the chronology of Champlain’s narrative in those terms. Many ethnohistorians now agree. Other sites have also been suggested on the north and east sides of Lake Onondaga, but they are problematic in other ways, by dates of occupation, terrain, and watercourses.4
In light of present evidence, the most probable location of the fort was between two streams on the south end of Lake Onondaga. Champlain was attacking one of the principal towns of the Onondaga nation, who had been very active in raiding fur-trading routes to the north.
Champlain's Dream Page 76
