But Once the Twain did Meet: A Speculation About Iroquois Origins (original) (raw)
Related papers
Northeastern Archaeological Associates Occasional Papers in Southern Ontario Archaeolog No. 1, 2024
This six chapter book, released in October of 2024 by major booksellers, examines Ontario Woodland Tradition archaeology in the context of archaeological statements of ethnicity and their reliability in the interpretation of the archaeological record. It focuses on southern Ontario in the period circa 1300 to 1650 A.D. - the time of the Algonquin and Huron Alliance (Sioui and Labelle 2014). Evidence is provided for a highly interactive multi-cultural landscape in which Algonquian-speaking peoples did not disappear with the rise and spread of Iroquoian village life. Instead they were part of a regionally unique ethnogenesis, at different times and places, with Iroquoians. Examination of historical records, Indigenous oral tradition and archaeological sites and artifacts suggests a much different pre-contact reality than the preferred narratives of southern Ontario archaeology currently suggest. A unique ethnogenesis of new cultural forms arising from the close interaction of two powerful language groups, Algonquin and Iroquoian, has remained unappreciated. When it is examined through the lens of Indigenous oral tradition and history, balanced with archaeological evidence and ethnohistoric narratives, a more vibrant picture emerges of lower Great Lakes societies both pre- and post-contact with Europeans.
History, Anthropology and the Iroquois
Undergraduate essay, 2016
History has traditionally been the study of literate societies and how they have changed through time. It focussed on political and military history with the nation state as the effective unit of analysis. In studying cause and effect, historians have always emphasised that explanations should be derived from the circumstances of the particular period being studied rather than looking to general, theoretical explanations that could be applied to widely differing historical periods. Anthropology, on the other hand, has been the study of pre-literate societies at a single point in time, studied through direct observation by the anthropologist and then interpreted using general theories, these theories being derived not only from other anthropologists, but from psychology, sociology and any other discipline that the anthropologist feels helps them explain what they have observed. The aim of the anthropologist has not been seen as the explanation of the society being studied in its own terms, but rather the production of models and theories that can be applied to any culture at any point in history (Jelanova 2000 p57-90). Admittedly, these two descriptions of history and anthropology are broad and cannot be said to be wholly true at any single point in their development, however, they do draw out important distinctions that were important at some time in their history. The changes that the disciplines of history and anthropology have undergone are significant and result from sometimes similar, sometimes different causes. The recognition that pre-literate, pre-state peoples also have a history has meant that historians have had to broaden their use of sources beyond documents in order to avoid only allowing these societies a history when they comes into contact with a literate society. For even the most sympathetic historian the temptation under such circumstances must be to compare the relatively rich record provided by the literate culture and treat it as authoritative for both cultures, introducing an obvious risk of bias. This problem becomes particularly stark when a pre-literate culture, such as the Iroquois who in the eighteenth century occupied a large part of pre-colonial up-state New York, through their contact with western historiography develop a literature of their own which draws on oral and folklore sources that has the potential to both enrich and possibly rebalance the western tradition. Equally, anthropologists have realised that the study of pre-literate cultures at a single point in time fails to allow a complete
Review of: The Languages of Native North America
2000
Mithun estimates that at least 300 distinct languages may have been spoken in North America on the eve of European contact. Of these, many disappeared without being adequately recorded or were not recorded at all. Of those that remained long enough to be documented in some appreciable detail, Goddard (I996: 3) lists I20 as already extinct by the mid I990s, and 72 as spoken by only a handful of elderly speakers. Of the remaining languages, 91 are no longer being learned naturally by children, and only 46 are still currently spoken by appreciable numbers of people of all ages. To this Mithun adds precise detail as to the exact number of speakers still extant, though unfortunately even her numbers are now probably a bit optimistic in some cases. This ongoing, catastrophic loss of so much of the continent\u27s linguistic diversity makes Mithun\u27s book all the more important as a record of what is being lost and as a possible inspiration to today\u27s linguists to take up the synchroni...
In Situ Thought in Eastern Iroquois Development: A History
The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association, 2000
A literature review reveals many unresolved discrepancies in the timing and mechanics of 14th-16th century Mohawk, Oneida, and Onondaga "tribal" development. A fresh examination of regional site sequences is suggested to synchronize sites and facilitate comparisons and contrasts.