DOCSLIB.ORG

The Algonquian Migration from Plateau to Midwest: Linguistics and Archaeology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Algonquian Migration from Plateau to Midwest: Linguistics and Archaeology The Algonquian Migration from Plateau to Midwest: Linguistics and Archaeology J. PETER DENNY University of Western Ontario By means of linguistic research, hypotheses have been developed about the history of the Algonquian languages, which assert the times and places in which these languages and their ancestor languages were spoken. This historical geography of Algonquian needs to be connected to the archaeology of the same times and places, as has been done, most impressively, for the California languages (Moratto 1984: Chapter 11) and for African languages (Ehret and Posnansky 1982). In this paper,1 I offer a hypothesis linking archaeology and linguistics for one crucial phase of Algonquian history, the entry into the Midwest. The Algonquian languages are widely distributed in the northeast quar­ ter of the North American continent, yet linguistic evidence and oral tra­ dition suggests that Proto-Algonquian, the ancestor language of the group, was spoken in the Columbia Plateau. (All places named are shown in Fig­ ure 1.) In the present study I argue that the Proto-Algonquians moved east as one culture, and then their language spread and diversified into the daughter languages in the Northeast. I propose an archaeological identity for the starting-point of the Proto-Algonquian migration in the Plateau, and another archaeological identity for its end-point in the Midwest. This study of Algonquian culture history is a part of my research in cross-cultural differences in thinking processes. It is recognized that the habitual cognitive styles which characterize a culture arise at particular 'Thanks are due to Michael Spence and Christopher Ellis for their guidance concerning archaeology and to Chet Creider for advice on historical linguistics. The first version of this paper was read at the 1990 Midwest Archaeological Con­ ference. I am grateful to those who offered valuable comments on that occasion, especially Robert Salzer, Robert Hall and James Griffin. The paper has bene­ fited greatly from suggestions made following its presentation to the Algonquian Conference, especially by Eric Hamp. 103 FIG. 1 MAP OF PLACE NAMES THE ALGONGUIAN MIGRATION 105 points in its past history. The best known case is the development of the de-contextualized thought style of Western Europe in classical Greece, which is first codified in Plato's insistence on studying each thought in and of itself (Havelock 1963). For Amerindian groups, we must try to achieve culture histories which are detailed enough so that we can, in future, discern the development of their intellectual preferences. Proto-Algonquian in the Midwest An Algonquian migration from the west has long been considered. It is reported in the oral traditions of Algonquian peoples: the Delaware told one of their missionaries, John Heckewelder (1819), that many hundreds of years ago they lived in a very distant country in the western part of the American continent. Also, it has been hypothesized on linguistic grounds: Sapir (1916) argued that since the three languages which had most anciently separated from the Algonquian group, Wiyot, Yurok and Blackfoot, were all found in the west it was likely that the rest of the Algonquians had moved east. To study this migration it is strategic to determine the end-point first, since there are two linguistic methods which scholars have used to work back from the current Algonquian languages to the likely location in the Midwest from which they spread. The first of these is to use the words for biological taxa which are common to all the languages in order to establish the eco­ logical zone in which Proto-Algonquian must have been spoken. This was first done by Siebert (1967) who identified the region between Lakes Huron and Ontario as the Proto-Algonquian homeland in the Northeast; however. there does not seem to be any archaeological unit in this region which might be the Proto-Algonquians. In addition, Snow (1976) has claimed that this pioneering investigation used too many species whose ranges are hard to determine, or are too widespread to be helpful. Snow re-did the analysis and claimed that this technique only limits the Proto-Algonquian homeland to the much larger region of overlap of the larch (tamarack) and the beech, i.e., the mixed forest zone running from Lake Michigan to the Atlantic. In this case, other methods will be needed to find the homeland within this vast area. However, an important by-product of these investigations is the assurance, provided by the many words for Northeastern species which are the same in the Algonquian languages, that Algonquian speech arrived in the east as the single ancestral language, Proto-Algonquian, prior to the development of the descendant languages (probably excepting Blackfoot). The large region established by the first linguistic technique can be narrowed by the second one, which involves identifying the region of max­ imum diversity of the languages. Since the only genetic sub-group within Proto-Algonquian as yet established is Proto-Eastern Algonquian (God- 106 J. PETER DENNY dard 1978a), it is thought that Proto-Algonquian split into the following 12 languages: Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Cree, Ojibway, Menomini, Potawotami, Fox, Illinois, Miami, Shawnee, and Proto-Eastern Algonquian. The area that holds the largest number of these is the Lake Michigan-Ohio River area where 6 of them occur: Menomini, Potawotami, Fox, Illinois, Miami and Shawnee.2 This region is the most likely homeland, according to Dyen's (1956) migration theory, because it requires fewer moves (6) for the other languages to leave this region, than would be required for a larger number of languages to emigrate out of the Plains, the boreal forest, or the Atlantic seaboard regions, given that each of these ends up with fewer languages in it. In a previous study (Denny 1989), I reviewed the various archaeological traditions of the Lake Michigan-Ohio River region for the time period in which Proto-Algonquian was diversifying into its daughter languages, about 1000 to 500 B.C. (Goddard 1978a),3 and found that the twinned Red Ocher and Glacial Kame burial complexes were the only ones which could be used to account for the geographic spread of Algonquian speech.4 If we understand these to be the alliance-building activities of a single culture (Morse and Morse 1964:85), they explain the first wave of expansion which brings Algonquian speech: 1) up both sides of Lake Michigan, poised for later entry into the boreal forest; 2) northeast as far as Lake Champlain, in position for its later spread along the Atlantic Coast; and 3) east as far as the Scioto River.5 During a period of a thousand years, beginning about 1400 B.C., participants in the Red Ocher and Glacial Kame networks 2 Linguists and ethno-historians claim there is substantial evidence for placing Fox-Sauk-Kickapoo-Mascouten at contact between lower Lake Michigan and lower Lake Huron, with Potawotami just to the north (Goddard 1978b), despite earlier doubts (Wakefield 1966; Fitting 1970). This appears compatible with the detailed hypothesis for their locations in Late Woodland times (after A.D. 1000) given by Stothers and Graves (1985). 3Similar dates are suggested by Siebert (1967) and Haas (1965). 4The alternative proposals are reviewed in detail in Denny (1989). The main one is that Point Peninsula (200 B.C. to A.D. 1000) accounts for the spread of Al­ gonquian speech (Walker 1975; Fiedel 1987, 1989; Seeber 1982). Although Point Peninsula did have influences on the Atlantic Coast (Allen 1982), it dates rather late to align with linguists' estimates that Proto-Algonquian starts splitting up between 1000 B.C. and 500 B.C. More importantly, since the continuities from Point Peninsula to the modern Iroquoian tribes are very clear, Point Peninsula was almost certainly Iroquoian-speaking. Proposals that several of the Lauren- tian traditions (4000-2000 B.C.) were Algonquian-speaking (Tuck 1977; Snow 1980:233) can be ruled out on linguistic grounds: to cover the large geographic ranges involved, even the chain of related Proto-Algonquian dialects that Snow (1977) envisages would have had to diverge into separate languages long before they are believed to have done so. The northeast spread of Proto-Algonquian along the north shore of Lake THE ALGONGUIAN MIGRATION 107 of exchange, alliance and ceremonialism gradually developed bilingualism in Algonquian and eventually abandoned their old languages in favour of Algonquian. Hypotheses about the further spread of Ojibway and Cree into the boreal forest, and of Eastern Algonquian languages along the Atlantic Coast are given in Denny (1989).6 Proto-Algonquian in the Columbia Plateau There are several lines of linguistic and archaeological evidence which make it likely that Proto-Algonquian was spoken in the Columbia Plateau. First, Proto-Algonquian is known to be related genetically to two northern Cal­ ifornia languages, Wiyot and Yurok (Haas 1958; Goddard 1975). Second, speakers of these latter two languages are known to have arrived on the California coast bearing cultures typical of the Plateau region (Moratto 1984:564-565). Third, they are thought to have migrated there recently, the Wiyot about A.D. 900 and the Yurok about A.D. 1100 (Whistler 1979, cited in Moratto 1984:540). Fourth, as argued by Sapir, since the languages most anciently related to Proto-Algonquian, Wiyot and Yurok, occur in the West, it is likely that the split between them and Proto-Algonquian devel­ oped there. Unfortunately, this inference cannot be strengthened by Dyen's migration theory, because Berman (1982) has shown that the split produced only two languages, Proto-Algonquian and Ritwan, the latter splitting sub­ sequently into Wiyot and Yurok. Since there are only two languages, we cannot argue that the movement of Proto-Algonquian eastwards is more probable than the movement of Ritwan westwards.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: the Algonquian-Wakashan 110-Item Wordlist
    Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist In the third part of my complex study of the historical relations between several language families of North America and the Nivkh language in the Far East, I present an annotated demonstration of the comparative data that was used in the lexicostatistical calculations to determine the branching and approximate glottochronological dating of Proto-Algonquian- Wakashan and its offspring; because of volume considerations, this data could not be in- cluded in the previous two parts of the present work and has to be presented autonomously. Additionally, several new Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan and Proto-Nivkh-Algonquian roots have been set up in this part of study. Lexicostatistical calculations have been conducted for the following languages: the reconstructed Proto-North Wakashan (approximately dated to ca. 800 AD) and modern or historically attested variants of Nootka (Nuuchahnulth), Amur Nivkh, Sakhalin Nivkh, Western Abenaki, Miami-Peoria, Fort Severn Cree, Wiyot, and Yurok. Keywords: Algonquian-Wakashan languages, Nivkh-Algonquian languages, Algic languages, Wakashan languages, Chimakuan-Wakashan languages, Nivkh language, historical phonol- ogy, comparative dictionary, lexicostatistics. The classification and preliminary glottochronological dating of Algonquian-Wakashan currently remain the same as presented in Nikolaev 2015a, Fig. 1 1. That scheme was generated based on the lexicostatistical analysis of 110-item basic word lists2 for one reconstructed (Proto-Northern Wakashan, ca. 800 A.D.) and several modern Algonquian-Wakashan lan- guages, performed with the aid of StarLing software 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Dawn Clark Netsch # ISL-A-L-2010-013.07 Interview # 7: September 17, 2010 Interviewer: Mark Depue
    Interview with Dawn Clark Netsch # ISL-A-L-2010-013.07 Interview # 7: September 17, 2010 Interviewer: Mark DePue COPYRIGHT The following material can be used for educational and other non-commercial purposes without the written permission of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. “Fair use” criteria of Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 must be followed. These materials are not to be deposited in other repositories, nor used for resale or commercial purposes without the authorization from the Audio-Visual Curator at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, 112 N. 6th Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701. Telephone (217) 785-7955 Note to the Reader: Readers of the oral history memoir should bear in mind that this is a transcript of the spoken word, and that the interviewer, interviewee and editor sought to preserve the informal, conversational style that is inherent in such historical sources. The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library is not responsible for the factual accuracy of the memoir, nor for the views expressed therein. We leave these for the reader to judge. DePue: Today is Friday, September 17, 2010 in the afternoon. I’m sitting in an office located in the library at Northwestern University Law School with Senator Dawn Clark Netsch. Good afternoon, Senator. Netsch: Good afternoon. (laughs) DePue: You’ve had a busy day already, haven’t you? Netsch: Wow, yes. (laughs) And there’s more to come. DePue: Why don’t you tell us quickly what you just came from? Netsch: It was not a debate, but it was a forum for the two lieutenant governor candidates sponsored by the group that represents or brings together the association for the people who are in the public relations business.
    [Show full text]
  • Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, Edited by William Cowan
    Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, edited by William Cowan. Ottawa: Carleton University, pp. 119-163 A Comparison of the Obviation Systems of Kutenai and Algonquian Matthew S. Dryer SUNY at Buffalo 1. Introduction In recent years, the term ‘obviation’ has been applied to phenomena in a variety of languages on the basis of perceived similarity to the phenomenon in Algonquian languages to which, I assume, the term was originally applied. An example of a descriptive use of the term occurs in Dayley (1989: 136), who applies the terms ‘obviative’ and ‘proximate’ to two categories of demonstratives in Tümpisa Shoshone, the obviative category being used to introduce new information or to reference given participants which are nontopics, the proximate category for topics. But unlike the obviative and proximate categories of Algonquian languages, the Shoshone categories for which Dayley uses the terms are categories only of a class of words he calls ‘demonstratives’, and are not inflectional categories of nouns or verbs. Similarly, Simpson and Bresnan (1983) use the term ‘obviation’ to refer to a system in Warlpiri in which certain nonfinite verbs occur in forms that indicate that their subjects are nonsubjects in the matrix clause. These phenomena in non-Algonquian languages to which the term ‘obviation’ has been applied may bear some remote resemblance to the Algonquian phenomenon, but I suspect that most Algonquianists examining them would conclude that the resemblance is at best a remote one. The purpose of this paper is to describe an obviation system in Kutenai, a language isolate of southeastern British Columbia and adjacent areas of Idaho and Montana, and to compare it to the obviation system of Algonquian languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Researching and Reviving the Unami Language of the Lenape
    Endangered Languages, Linguistics, and Culture: Researching and Reviving the Unami Language of the Lenape By Maureen Hoffmann A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Linguistics Bryn Mawr College May 2009 Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures................................................................................................................. 5 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 II. The Lenape People and Their Languages .................................................................. 9 III. Language Endangerment and Language Loss ........................................................ 12 a. What is language endangerment?.......................................................................... 12 b. How does a language become endangered?.......................................................... 14 c. What can save a language from dying?................................................................. 17 d. The impact of language loss on culture ................................................................ 20 e. The impact of language loss on academia............................................................. 21 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Languages, Indigenous Languages of the Native Peoples of North, Middle, and South America
    Native American Languages, indigenous languages of the native peoples of North, Middle, and South America. The precise number of languages originally spoken cannot be known, since many disappeared before they were documented. In North America, around 300 distinct, mutually unintelligible languages were spoken when Europeans arrived. Of those, 187 survive today, but few will continue far into the 21st century, since children are no longer learning the vast majority of these. In Middle America (Mexico and Central America) about 300 languages have been identified, of which about 140 are still spoken. South American languages have been the least studied. Around 1500 languages are known to have been spoken, but only about 350 are still in use. These, too are disappearing rapidly. Classification A major task facing scholars of Native American languages is their classification into language families. (A language family consists of all languages that have evolved from a single ancestral language, as English, German, French, Russian, Greek, Armenian, Hindi, and others have all evolved from Proto-Indo-European.) Because of the vast number of languages spoken in the Americas, and the gaps in our information about many of them, the task of classifying these languages is a challenging one. In 1891, Major John Wesley Powell proposed that the languages of North America constituted 58 independent families, mainly on the basis of superficial vocabulary resemblances. At the same time Daniel Brinton posited 80 families for South America. These two schemes form the basis of subsequent classifications. In 1929 Edward Sapir tentatively proposed grouping these families into superstocks, 6 in North America and 15 in Middle America.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages of the World--Native America
    REPOR TRESUMES ED 010 352 46 LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD-NATIVE AMERICA FASCICLE ONE. BY- VOEGELIN, C. F. VOEGELIN, FLORENCE N. INDIANA UNIV., BLOOMINGTON REPORT NUMBER NDEA-VI-63-5 PUB DATE JUN64 CONTRACT MC-SAE-9486 EDRS PRICENF-$0.27 HC-C6.20 155P. ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS, 6(6)/1-149, JUNE 1964 DESCRIPTORS- *AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES, *LANGUAGES, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, ARCHIVES OF LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD THE NATIVE LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS OF THE NEW WORLD"ARE DISCUSSED.PROVIDED ARE COMPREHENSIVE LISTINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LANGUAGES OF AMERICAN INDIANSNORTH OF MEXICO ANDOF THOSE ABORIGINAL TO LATIN AMERICA..(THIS REPOR4 IS PART OF A SEkIES, ED 010 350 TO ED 010 367.)(JK) $. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION nib Office ofEduc.442n MD WELNicitt weenment Lasbeenreproduced a l l e a l O exactly r o n o odianeting es receivromed f the Sabi donot rfrocestarity it. Pondsof viewor position raimentofficial opinions or pritcy. Offkce ofEducation rithrppologicalLinguistics Volume 6 Number 6 ,Tune 1964 LANGUAGES OF TEM'WORLD: NATIVE AMER/CAFASCICLEN. A Publication of this ARC IVES OF LANGUAGESor 111-E w oRLD Anthropology Doparignont Indiana, University ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS is designed primarily, butnot exclusively, for the immediate publication of data-oriented papers for which attestation is available in the form oftape recordings on deposit in the Archives of Languages of the World. This does not imply that contributors will bere- stricted to scholars working in the Archives at Indiana University; in fact,one motivation for the publication
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews and Book Notes
    BOOK REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTES EDITED BY RUSSELL J. FERGUSON University of Pittsburgh Thoinas Jefferson's Farm Book, with Conmmentary and Relevant Excerpts frons Other Writings. Edited by Edwin Morris Betts. (Published for the American Philosophical Society, by Princeton University Press, 1953. Pp. 506. $15.00.) In the new appraisal of American history that is occurring today-that of playing up the scientific-technological forces and playing down the politico- military-a volume such as the one before us assumes very special impor- tance. Here at long last we are able to sit down and read year by year (sometimes even day by day, and month by month) the Farm Book of the nation's most scientific farmer of the late 18th and early 19th century. The first entry was made in January, 1774; the last in May, 1826, a little more than a month before Jefferson died. One feels as he reads this Farmll Book that he is actually talking, walking, and riding with Jefferson as he lays out his plans each season for his farms around Monticello and nearby Poplar Forest. And what a wealth of information he gives us! We learn, for example, that as early as September, 1773, young Thomas (he was 30 years old) was "deeded" a number of slaves by his mother (his father Peter had died), and since, as the editor points out, "Slaves were the backbone of Jefferson's plantation," even this early entry is prophetic. It should be noted at the outset that Jefferson was always looking forward to the day when he could free his slaves, and help bring-about the complete abolition of slavery.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Robert Mandeville # IST-A-L-2013-103 Interview # 1: December 6, 2013 Interviewer: Mike Czaplicki
    Interview with Robert Mandeville # IST-A-L-2013-103 Interview # 1: December 6, 2013 Interviewer: Mike Czaplicki COPYRIGHT The following material can be used for educational and other non-commercial purposes without the written permission of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. “Fair use” criteria of Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 must be followed. These materials are not to be deposited in other repositories, nor used for resale or commercial purposes without the authorization from the Audio-Visual Curator at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, 112 N. 6th Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701. Telephone (217) 785-7955 Czaplicki: Today is Friday, December 6, 2013. My name is Mike Czaplicki. I'm the project historian for the Governor Thompson Oral History Project here at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. I'm with Dr. Robert Mandeville, who was Governor Thompson's budget director for most of his tenure. He's been gracious enough to come in on a very cold day and sit down and chat with us. Thank you, Bob. Mandeville: You're welcome. Czaplicki: We always like to start at the beginning with these things and ask, when and where were you born? Mandeville: Nineteen thirty-one, April 29, in Jacksonville, Illinois. Czaplicki: What is this document we're looking at here? Is this a scrapbook of yours? An autobiography?1 Mandeville: Yes, written about three years ago. Czaplicki: Unpublished? Mandeville: Unpublished, yes. I wrote it for my kids and my grandkids. Czaplicki: Oh, excellent. I'd like to take a look at that at some point in some more detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramapough/Ford the Impact and Survival of an Indigenous
    Antioch University AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses Dissertations & Theses 2015 Ramapough/Ford The mpI act and Survival of an Indigenous Community in the Shadow of Ford Motor Company’s Toxic Legacy Chuck Stead Antioch University - New England Follow this and additional works at: http://aura.antioch.edu/etds Part of the American Studies Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Environmental Health Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Indigenous Studies Commons, Toxicology Commons, United States History Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Stead, Chuck, "Ramapough/Ford The mpI act and Survival of an Indigenous Community in the Shadow of Ford Motor Company’s Toxic Legacy" (2015). Dissertations & Theses. 200. http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/200 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses at AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations & Theses by an authorized administrator of AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Department of Environmental Studies DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PAGE The undersigned have examined the dissertation entitled: Ramapough/Ford: The Impact and Survival of an Indigenous Community in the Shadow of Ford Motor Company’s Toxic Legacy presented by Chuck
    [Show full text]
  • Native Milwaukee Bryan C
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette History Faculty Research and Publications History, Department of 1-1-2016 Native Milwaukee Bryan C. Rindfleisch Marquette University, [email protected] Published version. Encyclopedia of Milwaukee Publisher link. © 2016 Encyclopedia of Milwaukee. Used with permission. Search Site... Menu Log In or Register Native Milwaukee Click the image to learn more. The Indigenous Peoples of North America have always claimed Milwaukee as their own. Known as the “gathering place by the waters,” the “good earth” (or good land), or simply the “gathering place,” Indigenous groups such as the Potawatomi, Ojibwe, Odawa (Ottawa), Fox, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Sauk, and Oneida have all called Milwaukee their home at some point in the last three centuries. This does not include the many other Native populations in Milwaukee today, ranging from Wisconsin groups like the Stockbridge-Munsee and Brothertown Nation, to outer-Wisconsin peoples like the Lakota and Dakota (Sioux), First Nations, Creek, Chickasaw, Sac, Meskwaki, Miami, Kickapoo, Micmac, and Cherokee, among others. According to the 2010 census, over 7,000 people in Milwaukee County identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, making Milwaukee the largest concentration of Native Peoples statewide. Milwaukee, then, is—and has always been—a Native place, home to a diverse number of Indigenous Americans. Native Milwaukee’s Creation Story is thousands of years old, when the Mound Builders civilizations, also known as the Adena, Hopewell, Woodlands, and Mississippian cultures, flourished in the Great Lakes, Ohio River Valley, and Mississippi River Valley between 500 BCE to 1200 CE (some scholars even suggest 1500 CE). It is estimated the Mound-Builder civilization spread to southeastern Wisconsin in the Early Woodland Era, sometime between 800 and 500 BCE, and flourished during the Middle Woodland Era (100 BCE to 500 CE).
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying the Ojibwa
    Identifying the Ojibwa THERESA SCHENCK Rutgers University The Ojibwa are generally recognized as one of the largest groups of native peoples of North America. It has long been argued, however, just who should be considered Ojibwa, and how far they extended at the time of first contact (Bishop and Smith 1975; Greenberg and Morrison 1982). Most studies of the Ojibwa have proceded from two premises: first, that all groups now known as Ojibwa were originally Ojibwa, and second, that native cultures were essentially static. Thus it is assumed that those who are considered Ojibwa today were always Ojibwa, but that they were misnamed in early French records. I have found, on the contrary, that the name Ojibwa has been extended far beyond the original boundaries of the 17th-century people. Using historical documents and records of Ojibwa tradition, I propose to identify the Ojibwa in the 17th century, to trace them throughout the early period after contact, and to explain how so many people who were not originally Ojibwa came to be called Ojibwa. The Ojibwa, located in the summer at the rapids or falls between Lake Superior and Lake Huron, were mentioned for the first time in Du Peron's letter of 1639 as the nation of the Sault (Thwaites 1959(15):155). The following year Le Jeune referred to them as Saulteurs, the people who reside at the rapids, and it is as such that they were known throughout much of the French period (Thwaites 1959(18):231). Before identifying these Saulteurs I wish to suggest several principles of naming Amerindian groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The Algonquian Totem and Totemism: a Distortion of the Semantic Field
    The Algonquian Totem and Totemism: A Distortion of the Semantic Field THERESA M. SCHENCK Rutgers University In 1952 A. R. Radcliffe-Brown asked whether "totemism as a technical term has not outlived its usefulness" (1965:117). The question is rather whether it should ever have been used at all. After more than a century of use and abuse, it is time to re-examine the earliest known use of the word, and to trace the development of the idea of totemism through the historic period. It can be shown that the meaning became distorted in the 19th century, and that this distortion has in rum influenced contemporary usage. The earliest recorded form of the Algonquin word totem is 8ten, translated as 'village' by an unknown Jesuit missionary in his Dictionnaire algonquin (Anonymous 1661:48). Since it was usually spoken as nind otem 'my village', the word was soon heard as totem, or dodem. For the Algonquin, however, the word did not connote a permanent group of houses as the word village did for the French. Rather the 8ten was a group of people tied together by kinship, who moved together seasonally. The village was the people, not the place. In general, all the people of the village were related (except, of course, the wives, who were necessarily of different totems), hence "my village" was "my family". In fact, in his Algonquin dictionary, Jean-Andre Cuoq gave the following explanation for ote- 'village' from the Abbe Thavenet, an early 19th-century missionary at Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, Quebec: "it signifies family, all the persons who live in the same lodge under the same chief (Cuoq 1886:312).
    [Show full text]