Talk:Beaver Wars

1

I've rewritten/expanded the article a bit. I actually wrote an entire article on the "Beaver Wars" before realizing this article existed, and have attempted to splice them together. The existing article was in great depth about the French-Canadian theater of the conflict but did not mention the larger context of Iroquois expansion, nor did it mention the fur trade at all, which was at the root of much of the conflict. It could still use some more rounding out about the direct conflict between the Iroquois and Algonquins in the west. -- Decumanus 18:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Go ahead and incorporate all that you know. If you have more precise dates, include them. I found only two issues after reading over quickly: we should be saying Algonquian speaking peoples not algonquin and the Hurons spoke an Iroquoian language, not an Algonquian language. -- Mathieugp 21:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yes you're right. I've been linking to Algonquin language anyway, without knowing it redirected "Algonquian". A more accurate term, of course. I didn't realize that about the Hurons, but I see you're right. Like the Erie, then were Iroquoian-speaking but not part of the Confederation. -- Decumanus 23:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Title

I don't want to nitpick, but doesn't the title oversell the french

involvement in these conflicts at the expense of the Huron, Algonkin, and other allies--not to mention the Mahican or Lenape.  I know "French and Iroquois Wars" is more fashionable than Beaver Wars among scholars of Iroquois history these days, but the Iroquois were certainly not the only Native nation involved.  Leo1410 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Beaver Wars" also gets about 18,800 ghits, while "French and Iroquois Wars" gets 3,710, many of them evidently Wikipedia mirrors. It's also the name I've always seen when reading about Anishinaabe/Ojibwe history. I wasn't aware the term "French and Iroqois Wars" was preferred among scholars of Iroquois history, but if it's a relatively recent term, and "Beaver Wars" is more common, and writings not by Iroquoian historians use "Beaver Wars", it seems to me that's probably the better term for the article. --Miskwito 23:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the "French and Iroquois War" and the "Beaver War" the same war? While there is a huge overlap, they may not be identical. For example, Jennings says that the "Beaver Wars" began in 1638 and that the Champlain's attacks in the 1610's are not part of the Beaver Wars. BradMajors (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, it's hard to justify the title unless it has a narrow focus on battles between French and Iroquois forces. I'm not sure such an article would be worthwhile taken out of the context of the larger series of conflicts involving the Cree, Innu, Lenape, Mahican, Susquahannock, Algonkin, Odawa, Nipissing, Potawatomi, Ojibwe, Fox, Sauk, Kickapoo, Miami, Illinois, Shawnee, Huron, Tobacco, Neutral, Erie, Dutch, and British nations to name some (but not all of the parties involved). Currently, the title mentions New France (one nation) and Iroquois (5 later 6 nations) and leaves out all the rest. Granted, some of those are small nations, but some aren't. The Anishinabek are a larger group than the 6 Nations. It's hard to leave the Huron-Petun Confederacy out too given their significant role in the story. I've seen the argument that "French" and "Iroquois" are categories that include all the other nations. I don' buy it. Can you really say that the Odawa, Fox, and Illinois were part of some monolithic entity called "French." Yes, the colonial governor may have wished he could call all the shots from Quebec, but the truth is the French role was largely limited and that of a mediator mostly against the shared threat. The bottom line is, when Champlain and his tiny group of men went out in 1610, they did not control the mission and were taking part in a war that had already been goin for 30+ years. The alliances were shifting and were not centrally controlled. Nations attacked or were attacked during these wars with little or no French involvement. "Beaver Wars" has its problems (they weren't all about beavers), but it's still a more NPOV title. Leo1410 (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article? Is it wars which somehow involve the French and/or Iroquois before 1701? Does it include wars between Iroquois and Huron before 1601? Does it include wars between Huron and Iroquois which had no French involvement? Does it include wars between the Mohawk and Mahican? etc. BradMajors (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Beaver Wars" outdated?

Dr. Jose Brandao presents a very thorough argument against the common conception of the French Iroquois Wars as motivated exclusively or primarily by the fur trade: "Your Fyre Shall Burn No More": Iroquois Policy Towards New France and Its Native Allies to 1701 (University of Nebraska Press, 1997; Paperback edition, 2000). There is good reason to believe, instead, that Iroquois hostility was a reaction to the encroaching French culture. Their attempt to stamp out the "fyre" of expanding French influence involved not only attacks against the French, but also against those Indian groups allied with the French.

The Beaver Wars interpretation was originally inspired by an ethnocentric view of Indian policy which assumed that savage greed motivated any Indian policy. The title of "Beaver Wars" is both inaccurate and disparaging.

I just wanted to put this out there.

71.120.130.214 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is giving a single name for multiple wars over one hundred years between multiple parties which sometimes involved beavers and sometimes not. BradMajors (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Then why did they focus their efforts on other neighbouring tribes? Why did they not mind Dutch too much? Beaver Wars had miriad of reasons to start, both economical and the poltical. Treating them like scared children is both patronizing and frankly racist.

Source?

If this website is a source for this article, then most of this article is a blatant copyvio and has been so since 2004 (somewhat unlikely, but I'm not sure). If, on the other hand, the website has taken the text from Wikipedia, then it shouldn't be used as a reference as it is now (for the statement "Then, they drove the Algonquin-speaking Shawnee out of the Ohio Country and seized control of the Illinois Country as far west as the Mississippi River.").--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to clear up this potential copyright infringement, before continuing to edit this version of the article. There's quite obviously a fair bit of "borrowed" material in the article from the source you've pointed out and a "copyright 2008" notice is featured at the bottom of the page linked to. Is this a case of material lifted from Wiki, or vice versa? We really should determine this before continuing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

There is tag questioning the neutrality of this article. If anyone questioning that could please provide a description of their specifics of their problem I would be glad to address it. I would like to begin working on this article to move it up to GA quality. Thanks Charles Edward (Talk) 18:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Charles Edward, I didn't notice this posting until after I had completed my own addition to the talk page. I've laid out a few of what I consider to be some of the problems associated with the article below. Scholarly literature associated with this conflict has grown a fair bit over the past decades, so I find it kind of disappointing that many of the old stereotypes continue to be perpetuated unchallenged in articles dealing with it. One perspective that often continues to be ignored is the important assimilative/"adoptive" aspects of Five Nations military campaigns during this period, in order to increase their population due to large scale losses to disease and warfare. The capture and assimilation (rather than outright killing) of large numbers of people during Iroquois campaigns of the era is often claimed (as is implied in the current version of this article) to be restricted to "woman and children" alone. This misrepresentation is often played up (and its alternative played down) in order to create the impression of idiosyncratic Iroquois savagery and "barbarism", without the benefit of a complete examination of the relevant historical circumstances. One of the sources that I've found particularly useful in 'balancing out' the Iroquois and Euro North American historical accounts is: Schmalz, Peter S. (1991). The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-2736-9. If I can give you a hand with this article, please let me know. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and other issues

A large percentage of the supporting citations for this article are attributed only to "Wallace" in the footnotes section, although no information is provided in the bibliography regarding further identification of this source. In my opinion this article is non-npov in the sense that both the tone and the choice of information selected for inclusion in it slants decidedly against the Iroquois, in some cases without the benefit of any supporting references or attempts at counter balancing at all. Using phrases like "killed thousands" and "sneak attack" applied exclusively to the description of Iroquois military campaigns, while ignoring the military tactics of their opponents and large scale losses on the Five Nations side as well, seem designed to perpetuate old stereotypes at the expense of historical accuracy in my opinion. Apart from its extremely confusing final section, this article also completely ignores the actual final outcome of this conflict, the eventual defeat and driving out of the Five Nations armies from most of the territories they had conquered by the Anishinaabe people and their allies. In my opinion, this article needs a fair amount of work. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, that as the article is it is mostly negative of the Iroquois and could benefit from more information on the European role in perpetuating the conflict for their own benefit. I have several good sources that and I am going to try and get some more information added in over the next few days to hopefully balance things out. Charles Edward (Talk) 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Material was added on the Wallace source, but I've since discovered his book was first published in 1961 and focused on American Indians in PA. It's hard to tell how much was updated for the 2007 version, but I've added the first date to the list of references. Have started to edit some POV language (e.g. "sneak attack") but think much reliance on such a dated and narrow source is a questionable strategy.--Parkwells (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take note that I've replaced the existing template with one disputing both the neutrality and factual accuracy of the content of the current version of the article. In my opinion, I think it might be advisable that before additional major edits occur, that discussion should take place here on the talk page regarding proposed content, which would allow other editors to contribute suggestions. After a quick look, amongst other things, I see several major problems with the new map that has been added to the article, including a misspelling of the word "Iroquois" and several very serious errors involving the proposed 17th century "location" of a number of nations. I know that the addition of the map was well intentioned, however because of the seriousness of the errors involved in its content, I believe it should be completely removed from the article as extremely misleading. I'm presently quite busy with personal commitments, however later I will try to take a closer look at the overall changes that have been made in greater detail and at least attempt to make some comments. Thank you for your obvious interest in improving the article, but perhaps we should slow this process down slightly and seek input from other editors.Deconstructhis (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I based the map on maps that in my source books. All three of them show very a very similar placement of the tribes - I understand there are smaller tribes and klans that are part of the larger territories as shown on the map. As the article was, there was pretty much no sourcing at all. What I am most interested in adding is more information to better explain the actual warfare and the campaigns. The map was intended to just give a fairly basic understanding of where the warfare was carried out. Please feel free to adjust or alter things as you feel appropriate and have sources for. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if I removed the colouring and left only the tribal names that would be better for the map? The the exact "borders" or spheres of control were rather ambiguous. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have done that, I have also provided a source for the basis of the map, it is available online for verification. I don't believe anything I have added to be controversial (that I am aware of)I am only summarizing the information available in history books. I we put the facts in they should speak for themselves. Perhaps if we added a section to describe some of the more modern concepts of the war. The book by Jennings, some of which is available online, has some very interesting information in that respect, as to how far the Europeans were guilty in provoking conflicts and exploiting teh various tribes for their own benefit. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Augustin Herrman printed the "Sussquahana" and "Sinaicus" Indians went over to the Black Mincquaas' River and destroyed that Nation, a contemporary telling of trade, mountain's weather and Iroquois nation building, 1670.

The map with the caption, "Map showing the approximate location of major tribes and settlements in 1645" by Jennings 1984, is incorrect for two reasons. The term Shawnee derives from Shanwans circa 1690s or so, and, Shawnoe with the agents of the 1st Ohio Company and trappers of our Kanawhan Region. At this time the Shawnee were called "Chouanons" (also, "Chouenons") at this time (ca. 1650 and before). The indeginous up to circa 1650 were the Fort Ancient Culture. There neighbours north of the Ohio River were Black Mincquaas on our Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. Chief "Old Britton" ancestors were of the Miami tribe on the Scioto River in western Ohio. These were kindred to the Chouanons of the Wabash drainage system who were later invited by King Moytoy I of Central and Western Kentucky circa mid-1670s.

Captain Arent Schuyler returned to New York from the Minisink Indians of New Jersey in February, 1694. He was told by them that, “six days agoe three Christians and two Shanwans Indians who went about fifteen months agoe with Arnout Vielle into the Shanwans Country were passed by the Minnissinek going for Albany to fech powder for Arnout and his Company.”[4] On September 11, 1694, Henri de Tonti made his report to the France saying, "We have even been advised that one named Annas (Arias?), of the English nation, accompanied by the Loup[5] savages has had some speech with the Miami in order to draw them to them, which will give them a strong foothold for the success of their enterprise, if he corrupts them.”[6] With the help of a large number of Shawnee, and some from seven other "nations", portering beaver furs with Arnoult Vielle, they arrived in Albany New York with very lucrative end of a two year hunt on the Ohio River Valley. "A band of Shawnee left their hunting grounds on the Cumberland (River, Ky) to follow Viele east to the Delaware river where they established a settlement."

Augustin Herrman printed the "Sussquahana" and "Sinaicus" Indians went over to the Black Mincquaas' River and destroyed that Nation, a contemporary telling of trade, mountain's weather and Iroquois nation building, 1670.

Jenning's observations from more than 25 years ago (from the 1970s) is a bit out-dated in as much as placing "Shawnee" in our Kanawhan Region ancestors during the 17th Century. The term did not happen at that earlier date, although, an aculturation in Kentucky is in the historical record for the 17th century. Is it not true that the "Shawnee" descend from the Mississippian Culture? At that time, our "Iroquis" ancestors were acculturating with the latest Fort Ancients in our ancestor's Kanawhan Region, on the south side of the Ohio River as Jennings shows on the map in the Kanawhan Region. It is true the Page Ceramics appear sparingly in highly mobile, temporary, villages... Who were these coming and going from the Kanawha Valley-- trading with the latest Fort Ancients?

Thankyou kindly for your attention concerning the map, Rick Conaughy (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies... I checked the source of the 1645 map and discovered it is not by Mr Jennings, my mistake. The map will be more correct for during the middle 18th Century and the Lenepe will be "Chief White Eyes" and Heckwilder's congregation and a clan of Ohio Deleawre from J Le Torts Trading House of mixed whites and Native American from about 1739. Our ancestor's were assimilated at that time as half-breeds as Cher the singer would sing... Conaughy (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No the map is not the one created by Jennings, that one is copyrighted. The map above is one I made using the map in his book as guide. Could you please be more specific regarding the tribes location. He put the Shawnee in both the lower and upper Ohio Valley with the Deleware (Lenape) somewhere between their two main areas, the Miami further west into what is now Indiana. Are you saying that a Shawnee label should also be added to central Ohio? Or that the current Shawnee label is incorrectly placed? Do you have map that we could use to double check this map? Thanks Charles Edward (Talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Charles Edward, thank you for your continuing expressions of good faith with other editors, it's greatly appreciated. I'm glad to see that you have removed the colour indicators on the map. Although it's possible to present a "snapshot" indication of where particular nations were probably based at a given moment in time, assigning definite "national borders" in this context tends to be misleading, as unlike the situation in modern nation states, boundaries between groups were fairly nebulous. Even though it's difficult to be precise, it is possible to roughly assign general areas that might be considered traditional "homelands", that are fairly well agreed upon by mainstream historians and archaeologists in the literature. Currently, I don't have the map that you're utilizing from Jennings in front of me, but there remain several entries in the labelling on the map that's presently in the article that I have a difficult time accepting that someone like Jennings would agree to, in terms of accuracy of placement. Perhaps further examination of your source map might clear up these discrepancies. Amongst others, I'm utilizing the following sources in support of my conclusions:

Bruce G. Trigger: The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660 (McGill-Queen's University Press; Kingston and Montreal; 1987; ISBN 0-7735-0626-8

(1990) The Archaeology Of Southern Ontario To A.D. 1650. Ontario Archaeological Society; ISBN 0-919350-13-5.

Both contain numerous maps and are regarded as authoritative in this subject area. The Petun label, currently shown in southern Quebec, is misplaced and in actuality should be relocated to the vicinity of the modern day community of Collingwood, Ontario. The label for the "Huron" nation is most accurately placed in the area surrounding modern day Penetanguishene, Ontario and Lake Simcoe. Placing the "Huron" label, as it is, in several locations spread out across the entire southern Ontario peninsula is somewhat inaccurate and quite misleading in terms of the extent of their homeland. The Nipissing label, currently shown at the southern end of Georgian bay, should be placed in the area of Lake Nipissing. The "Ottawa" label placed in the vicinity of modern day Ottawa is incorrect, although their label being placed in the northern part of modern day Michigan is acceptable, it would be more accurate to also indicate their presence on the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island as well. And finally, I would suggest that for greatest accuracy the Erie nation should be specifically placed in the southeast corner of Lake Erie, placing in as far west as it currently is, suggests an extended area of occupancy that doesn't match what modern scholarship tells us. I'd also like to point out the following spelling errors:

Abenaki, Sioux, Neutral, Catawba, Penobscot, Odawa, Nipissing, Susquehannock

Again, thank you for attempting to increase the accuracy of the article as it appears in the encyclopedia. I'd like to remind you that sometimes it's preferable to take these changes slowly, so that other editors have an opportunity to contribute their ideas as well, we all want to create the best article we can of course. I still haven't had an opportunity to completely review all the recent contributions, I'll try to do that shortly. I'm glad to see that Jenning's book is taking a more prominent role. take care cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I will make the changes to the map that you have noted here. You can actually view part of the book I have used online here: [1] Check the page numbers as they are listed in my refs. There are two different maps that can be viewed online in that book. There are several more that are not viewable. The spelling I utilized where what was in my sources and like most Indian names are likely subject to numerous different spellings, I will go through and bring them into more uniformity as you noted above. Most of the native American articles I have worked on in the past are mainly to do with the Miami, Pottowatomie, and the others in the Illinois Country, which is what led me to this article. I have read many books about the Iroquois impact on their development, which also later impacted the later settlement and their configuration during the regions colonial error. This article helps to put all that into context. And I certainly would be glad to work with other editors at improving this article. Thanks Charles Edward (Talk) 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making and working on this map. This kind of article definitely benefits from maps. If I can add a quibble, it would be to suggest the Cherokee are placed too far west, more in the territory of the Chickasaw. Also, need they be on the map at all? They are unmentioned in the article. Anyways, thanks again. Maps are harder to make than many think, and even harder to make well! Pfly (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, while I was making it I thought it looked a bit off. I though they should be in Georgia, but my source map placed them in more into Mississippi, where I though the Creeks and Chickasaws should probably be. It appears to be hard to try an pin down where all these tribes where four hundred years ago. I put them on because they are mentioned in my source books as taking in refugees from the Susqehanocks, although that was not added into the article. I will correct that on that map and try to look that back up and add it in with a page number. Thanks Charles Edward (Talk) 03:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to take possible variant spellings of the names of the nations on the earlier version of the map into account when I pointed those out, I know how difficult it can be sometimes with so many versions out there, my ultimate intention was to cull examples like "Soiux" and "Nuetral" and their correction is greatly appreciated, along with your other efforts. Also, thank you for providing the link to the map in the Jennings book. I now have a better understanding of why you chose some of your territorial designations on the maps. Because of its 'dated' nature Jennings choice of utilizing the map he did from the 'handbook' skewed the accuracy. After circa 1950 or so, especially in the 70's, a major reexamination of the historical record occurred and new archaeological data contributed to a complete reassessment of previous aspects of the study of Great Lakes native history. A few moments ago I added a few details to the article myself and removed the template I placed on the weekend as most of my personal concerns have diminished because of your recent revisions. Once again, thanks for contributing what you have to the article, great work! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cherokee took in Susquehannock refugees? That's interesting. I know very little about the French and Iroquois Wars, or the early colonial era as a whole in the north--more about events in the south. I made a map a while ago for the Yamasee War on which I tried to place the Cherokee as accurately as I could, for circa 1715. Perhaps that map might be of interest. One of these days I'll get around to delving into this kind of history for more northernly areas. Pfly (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Mr Edward, removing the 1645 date was the correct thing to do, Sir. It is now showing the time frames of about 1690s through to the French and Indian War (Seven Years War) and before "Pontiac's War" ending 1763 along the Upper Ohio River. This was, about 1671, the time frame of our region's arrival of the Fur Trade, well documented. It was the end of the "Clover Complex" archaelogical culture of fort building farmers period who built rectangular houses within and farmed very large bottoms here. Prior to about 1650s, these were a different people, before the Fur Trade arrival, than you have the Shawnee located on the map. So, Just as our Calicuas ancestors were not called "Cherokee" in the 17th Century (upper most), nor were the "Shawnee" called thus before the Fur Trade arrived in our area after the early 1670s upper Ohio Valley. The Calicuas were simply an "Iroqoian" along side the Mincqua (generally Mingo) and some of these desceneded for various reasons to some of the tribals of the historical you ment. Concerning our area this is to point out that a great author specializing in a far off region may miss a few things in another. Deconstructhis is a fine righter of these matters in Canada, his contributions are also appreciated for the northerly of our region questions. .Remember La Salle and Tonti's back voyoages to the Mississippi Valley and Wabash Valley. And, as often cited, Col A Woods and his agents discovered the Kanawha Valley. For several years now, our regional scholars and university doctorites have held "Round Table" discussions and weekend meetings. These various displines of study of both historians and archaeologist are nearing a time of scientific publishings which those of us following very closely, very closely. Thanks again for your contribtutions Mr Edward., It's appreciated Conaughy (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Clip From a French Map published in 1671-- an example of several Carte' to show you what I mean.

You mention showing a map ref, this is one of several from the middle 17th Century. For the Upper Ohio Valley, which is off the eastern Slopes of the Allegheny Mountains shown in the clip her in West Virginia on the Ohio River, the map shows what is likely an early occurance of Kanawha(n), "Canaragay" an early French variant, maybe. The other people shown on the rolling hill area of the Upper Ohio Valley are the ancient Calcuas I mention. Our region is still occulturating and assimilating yet today in that people here are not the same as say 1810, always new arrivals coming to join us as today's Kanawhans, still mixing and every slowly changing our demi-culture (regional subculture, Brittanica had our dialect American English as Dialect Region 13 in the 1988 edition). So, for what mine is worth, I read this article well while stepping away from my location's point of view, here where you place the term "Shawnee". Citation of Jennings in the last couple of sentences closes the article in a fair way, for what my opinion is worth. May I again compliment your fine article & thankyou for your attention, Conaughy (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Conaughy, although I am far from an expert on this topic, may I ask, are you saying the Calcaus/Canaragay/Kanawha are roughly equivalent to the Cherokee? Or to the "Mingo", or Shawnee? Or is is more complicated than that? I'm just curious and you seem quite knowledgeable. Thanks. Pfly (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Sir, it is a bit more complicated-- this thing of mixing of either trade or invasion of cultures. Eventually, the dominate culture, although, changes a little by the assimilation of the weeker culture. (ie Acculturation Cultural assimilation [[QuThe "Cherokee" term was not used during the middle 17th Century.

"the historic Overhill Cherokee, has a date range beginning at A.D. 1600 and continuing until A.D. 1838 or removal (Davis 1990:56)...Dickens (1976) suggests that the relationship between the Overhill phase culture and the Dallas phase culture involves a complex process of cultural hybridization. The later Dallas phase villages were significantly different from the earlier villages and they are much more like Overhill phase sites. They were larger, they do not have palisades or platform mounds, public and domestic structures were different and individual households are more widely dispersed in the villages."--Middle Tennessee Chapter 12: The Late Mississippian Period (AD 1350-1500) - Draft By Michaelyn Harle, Shannon D. Koerner, and Bobby R. Braly

This citation is one of a number concerning the Central Kentucky and Tennessee drainage system. It does not apply to the greater Kanawhan region in the details inasmuch as more to "a complex process of cultural hybridization." The Mohetan, Calicuas, Black Minquas, Messawomeck (MASSAWOMECK ROUND-TABLE, June 3-4, 2006, Bavarian Inn, Shepherdstown, West Virginia) and who were the

Monetons

? All of these terms apply to the people who occupied the Upper Ohio Valleys just sout of the Cat Nation who feuded with the Nation of Fire and their Kindred in the western Ohio-Indiana-lower Michigan area (Chouanons variant later invited by King Moytoy I) during this same time frame. The article is about the Iroquois Nation Building and as the article subject, The Fur Trade Wars. Remember, the trade good, beaver first became deminished in the old Mohawk-Dutch, New Holland trade at 1st. Although, it was bit more complicated than that as the article points out in places. The next area of the "Invasion" was around the Eastern Great Lakes as the article continues. The

Fur War

really didn't arrive here until about 1701 with the arrival of the refugee Guyandotte (half century later Wendat mix of old Huron Confederacy). Albeit, the 1690s brought an invatation of the Upper Shanoes who were called by the British official, Sauvanoos in the Lower Monongahela and Allegheny rivers. They came from the eastern Georgia and South Carolina. Nobody can doubt in earnest that there were Savanoos & Shanwans there before 1701. So, in the meantime on the uppe valley and tributaries of the Ohio River.South of this part of the Ohio River was ancient Eastern Siouan and dialect variants of Iroquois, Proto-Overhill Cherokee. Simply these ancients were not what we would think in terms of historical (Classic) "Cherokee". It might be that I'm talking about the greater grandparents before historical acculturaion of the upp Cherokee who during the middle 17th Century were not termed nor had a culture as the better known historics from circa 1701 (1692 expedition of Captain Ville of Albany). By about 1643, the Iroquois had taken the Monongahela Culture and a small clan of these took refuge in central Virginia in the 1630s. These Clover Complex fort building farmers here has one of our villages returning 1650s and 1680s carbon dates--has been highly scrutinized by region universaity and contract archaeologist scientests of late. Your map has and element of Mississippi Culture (Shanwans els modern term Shawnee) where the Monongahela Culture and latest Fort Ancient culture were in the early half 17th Century. Ask the scientists who work with the three recognized "Cherokee" Nations where they derived from...These answers are in this WIKIPEDIA, too. Mohetan, Calicuas, Black Minquas were similar dialect Iroquois at this earlier period and the Messawomeck became middlemen on the upper Potomac and Mongahel-Alleghy river drainage system to the Baltimores as early as the 1630.Thankyou for your question and, may I apologize for lenghthy reply... Conaughy (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) apologies, I got to get used to this new keyboard in poor lighting. I corrected the 1780 to 1680. I had some things of time progression I was thinking about telling (with solid CitationS), but that's out of scope here. Conaughy (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple WIKI linked to Indiana Land Company

Please accept the WIKI link to the Indiana Land Company. For more than 4 decades I've studied this with the help of varios scholars throgh the decades, point me to the orginal sources. This link is to an "OK" article that provides a proper overview to the most part. There are a lot of details that could be added to that article, but, most can be found in other WIKI articles to suppliment the school child's research, legit history for our region.

The author & we editors argeed that my section in the West Virginia History which main article was becoming very much too large. The author went to our region's source for our colonial hisotry. Ofcoarse, I monitored his writings-- waiting for a slip-up. His efforts has provided a good summary in this subject area. More details can be easily added, however as many volumes through the past few centuries have. Many of these "books" are just plain non-sense and a few a sourced from actual documents (letters). I guess I care little for some, but not all, historical themed novalists. http://www.wvculture.org/HISTORY/journal_wvh/wvh40-4.html

Another source of tribal locations

Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society By American Antiquarian Society Published, 1898--: Dr. James Smith's map 1720, gives the mitural features correctly ; the lakes, the rivers, the gulf coast, and the sea coast. It also gives the ludian tribes as they were located at this time." The Oniasontke or Nation du Chat on the Ohio Uiver; the " Tionontatecaga who inhabit in caves to defend themselves from the great heat," on the Tennessee, village* of the Chicacbas, villages of the Shawnees [Cbaouenons] and also of the Taogarias, villages of the Caskinampos [the Caskighej on the Cumberland; villages of the Cbaouenons on the Santce Kiver. The Cherokces [Cbalaqiie] and the Apulaclilaus [Apalache] on the Apalache Uiver villages of the Choctuws [Chactas] or Flat Head Indians; also village of Chicacbas on the head waters of the Mobile; villages of the Natchez, also of the Colapissas and the Taensa, on the Lower Mississippi; village of Tamoroa and of the Illinois and Kahokia near the mouth of the Missouri Kiver; the Kicapou on the Illinois River, the Mascoutcns on the Rock Kiver, the Miamis on Miami Kiver, the Osagrs on Osage Kiver and an inscription on the Illinois as follows: "The Matigamea formerly lived here." Another inscription on the Tennessee Kiver, is as follows: " The road the French take to go to Carolina." This map and the following one indicate the state of the country the location of the Indian villages at the time of the first permanent settlement of the Mississippi Valley." the spelling is an OCR error & left as such in the original notes here. One might infer the actual spelling if used here in the article. Conaughy (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent move

Prior to the previous merger of the article "Beaver Wars" into "French and Iroquois War", I had never heard of the latter term (nor, to my knowledge, had much of anyone else). In fact, the only places in which one can find the phrase "French and Iroquois War" sustituted for the otherwise universal "Beaver Wars" are mirrors of Wikipedia. Therefore, "Beaver Wars" is not only more accurate than "French and Iroquois War", but more established. As I understand it, it is against Wikipedia policy to make up new terms in place of older established terms. The wars involved the Five Nations against other tribes rather than against the French who were only peripherally involved and one of the chief causes was disputes over the beaver trade. I've moved both the article and the Talk page. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mosapelea, Casa

The migration legends definitely relate that the Akansa (Siouan Quapaw branch) once lived in the Upper Wabash and Ohio country. Another Siouan tribe, the Ofo are also supposed to have lived in Ohio, and were known as the Mosopelea (Mosapelea, etc).

The Six Nations Iroquois are recorded as having conquered this area only after 1600, in the Beaver Wars. However, with all the warfare, these valleys were still unexplored by Europeans until the late 17th century.

La Salle in 1681 mentioned the "Mosopelea" among the nations subdued by the Iroquois within the previous decade. The 9 villages of the Mosopelea and one village of "Casa" along the Ohio were marked as Destroyed Villages ("villes detruits") on the 1684 Franquelin map.

Also interestingly enough, in 1680 La Salle scoffed at Joliet's report of finding the Mosopelea in Mississippi in 1673, saying this was proof of his inaccuracy, since he knew the Mosopelea had already been destroyed. But La Salle discovered his own error in 1682 when he went down the Mississippi and found them himself, where Joliet said they were.

I realize that some scholars postulate that the Iroquois conquest drove the Siouans out of the Ohio Valley as early as 1200. But others say this happened during the late Beaver Wars of the 1600s, and their evidence seems better. The Nahyssans and Tutelo, Siouan tribes south of the Ohio (in WVa) were also subdued by the Iroquois during this timeframe. Perhaps the statements dating this conquest to the 1200s should be qualified. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Til Eulenspiegel - That's a good suggestion to note the qualification of this theory. I'm just learning about the period (up to the Beaver Wars), but thought there might have been some consensus since the material was summarized in the Osage section in the Oklahoma Encyclopedia. Thanks for the additional information about other reports - learning about the many migrations has been interesting. (Have been reading about the Choctaw migration story.)--Parkwells (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have learned a lot in just the past few months myself. This is indeed a fascinating and overlooked topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - as near as I know now, the Mosopelea were located at the major complex at Mound City, Illinois and later became known as the Ofo Goula. The Arkansas were located at the Angel Mounds complex, but conquered by an Oneota culture people (Lenape?) by 1275 CE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.45.14 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Origins

Bruce Trigger had a chapter devoted to the disappearance of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians in which he makes a case for it being the result of Mohawk warfare. I've added the cite.--Parkwells (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources have to be improved beyond referring to 1961 American Heritage publications. There has been considerable research on the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, as well as on the borderlands of upstate NY, Quebec, New England areas, as well as to the west around the Great Lakes, emphasizing the fluid nature of the conflicts and alliances. There really were not national border and national actors, and Native American territories were changing under pressure of warfare, as well as losses from disease.Parkwells (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ohio and Illinois Country

The following sentence regarding Tassinong needs to be purged from this article section:

"Beginning in the 1670s, the French began to explore and settle the Ohio and Illinois Country from the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. There they discovered the Algonquin tribes of that region were locked in warfare with the Iroquois. The French established the post of Tassinong to trade with the western tribes. The Iroquois destroyed it to retain control of the fur trade with the Europeans"

• First: the statement adds to information to the paragraph.
• Second: the references are unstated and those I've investigated are unsustantiated.
  • The most prominent is a road sign along Indiana 49, which gives an unverified date for French Settlement of 1670. The same source, "History of Porter County", Hubert Skinner, 1878, states that the French had a trading post at Tassinnong. Meanwhile, Weston and Charles Blanchard's book, Counties of Lake and Porter County, 1882 also refer to It is probable that there was a French trading post here at a very early day. Meanwhile, no other references after that time mention any French activity in this area.
• The earliest community documented were Potawatomi Indians in 1830, see Atlas of Great Lakes Indians; Helen Hornbeck Tanner; University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma; 1986; Map 25. A review of French letters, journals and military orders for expeditions to this area, contain no mention of such a post, or French trading activity.Chris Light (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been considerable work by historians, archeologists and ethnologists on these borderlands since the late 20th century, so editors should continue to seek more updated sources. Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

French Defeat

I read a book by the highly respectable Lewis H. Morgan which stated that the French were defeated in that they couldn't locate the populace or warriors in open battle (still destroying villages) yet, the Iroquois were constantly attacking settlements inflicting a sustainable casualty ratio. [2]. The page is 16. If any1 has the book please let us have a discussion on who has the most credible opinion. 216.223.90.33 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"For these reasons the French were extremely anxious, either to detach the Iroquois from the English and gain their alliance, or to reduce them to subjection by conquest. They tried each successively, and in both were equally defeated. The untractable and politic Iroquois were averse to the former, and too powerful for the latter. | To retaliate for these frequent inroads, and to prevent their recurrence, the country of the Iroquois was often invaded by the French. On several occasions they drew out the whole force of the colony, to devastate the villages of the League ; but after the most toilsome expeditions into the heart of the wilderness of New York, they returned without having accomplished sufficient to reward them for the fatigues and perils of the enterprise. The Iroquois invariably retired into the depths of the forest, leaving nothing but their deserted tenements and fields of corn to await the invader." 16

"A band of twelve hundred warriors, animated with the fiercest resentment, made a descent upon the island of Montreal. They had covered their plans with such secrecy, and advanced with such celerity, that the inhabitants had no admonition of their approach. Their first intimation of impending danger was the fearful onset of the Iroquois. Unprepared, and without the means of resistance, they were overpowered and slain in every direction. All that were without the fortifications fell under the rifle or the relentless tomahawk. Their houses were burned, their plantations ravaged, and the whole island covered with desolation. About a thousand of the French, according to some writers, perished in this invasion, or were carried into captivity. When the work of destruction was completed, the Iroquois retired, bearing with them the spoils of the island, and about two hundred prisoners."20 216.223.90.33 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Me again. Maybe its a stalemate since the Iroquois were defeated by the Anishnabe'eg Confederacy? 216.223.90.33 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beaver Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709011003/http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs305a,0,6043582.story to http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs305a,0,6043582.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The need to WIN

Let me say up front that I am prepared to accept "battles which pitted x against y and y's allies." What I do not accept is the reasoning given. There is no ambiguity in the phrasing "battles between x and y and y's allies." It does not sound like they are all allies. I don't know why anyone would think that they were all allies.

The sentence was correct. An error was introduced; I reverted the error; it has now been clunkily rephrased for no reason but to allow an editor to save face. There must have been something wrong with it. I suppose this will be the new technique: See? Not a revert! Not an edit-war! But I win! I WIN!

Just noting the event for the record. Regulov (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You were certainly welcome to initiate a civil discussion here regarding whether or not your wording was ambiguous. Instead, you used the opportunity to further your own aggressive agenda. You won. You WON! —Dilidor (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Map showing the approximate location of [...] settlements around 1648"

About the map labelled "Map showing the approximate location of major tribes and settlements around 1648" under "Background", it has some noticeable errors. There seems to have been a past discussion about the tribes on the map, but I'd like to talk about the settlements. Specifically the fact that many of them, such as New Orleans and Halifax, didn't exist in 1648. At first glace I thought the black dots would be settlements that did exist while the white dots were simply added for reference. Note that there's no legend or anything explaining the difference between white and black dots. I quickly realised this is not the case however, as several settlements in white would have been active in 1648, i.e. Port Royal, Boston, New Amsterdam (labelled New York on map) and Jamestown. The latter is also labelled as a "site" for some reason, while Louisbourg which is also abandoned today is not. As such I've reached the conclusion that the underlying map used must be for the mid-1700s, somewhere between 1749 (founding of Halifax) and 1768 (when Louisbourg was abandoned). My guess would be that it's the Seven Years' War. There appears to have been some attempts to correct this, with the Carolinas being merged and Philadelphia being partially removed, but it's far from enough. Speaking of the Carolinas being merged, the colonies shown on the map aren't accurate for 1648 either. While I realise the settlements in question are outside the main area of the Beaver Wars, they are still on the map which is labelled "Map showing the approximate location of [...] settlements around 1648". As such I believe the map needs to be either updated or completely redone, preferably using a blank map as a base, as in the current state it's quite misleading. At the very least the label needs to be changed. I'd also like to point out that on the page of the map itself the description reads "Map of the location of major tribes involved in the Beaver Wars laid against a period map showing colonial settlments[sic]" while under info it says "This represents the approximate configuration of the tribes in 1648". I'd argue that a map showing colonial settlements around 1760 is neither a period map for 1648 nor the Beaver Wars as a whole (1609–1701). - 122.223.210.2 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Since there has been no comments about this for several months I have simply removed the offending map. - 122.223.148.39 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

French counterattack

A number of factual errors in this section needed correction. The roughly 1000 soldiers of the Carignan-Salières Regiment was hardly a small contingent. Canaqueese was not captured during Daniel de Rémy de Courcelle's failed expedition against the Mohawk in the winter of 1666, but arrived at Quebec escorting four unharmed French captives in August 1666. Courcelle's expedition failed because his soldiers were were ill-equipped to operate in the cold and deep snow, not because they were outnumbered. Tracy did not force the Iroquois to learn French and convert to Catholicism after his expedition in the fall of 1666. Some chose to do so but they were not forced. The source cited (Wallace's Indians in Pennsylvania) does not make this claim nor does any reliable source. Griffin's Sword (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

routed

The lead talks about the Iroquois defeating other groups with " some fleeing to neighbouring peoples and others assimilated, routed, or killed." I'm not here to point out that the US English would be "neighboring". I do want to point out that "fleeing to neighboring peoples" is problematic. (What did they do, jump into the arms of these neighbors? Of course not. They either were allowed to assimilate or allowed to form their own households and possibly even communities (or continued to migrate farther afield). That is, they fled to the lands of neighboring peoples. Assimilation occurred both in place and after emigration. (As did, I infer, the deaths of some.) Being "routed" is not an outcome of defeat, it is a type of defeat. (You have surrender, annihilation, withdrawal, fighting retreat, and rout as the major types of defeat (from battle).) I see no reason "routed" is included. It should be removed.72.16.96.150 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)