APPENDIX I
INDIAN NATIONS IN CHAMPLAIN’S WORLD, 1603–35

A NOTE ON LANGUAGE

Throughout this book Indians are called Indians, a choice that after a generation of political correctness, requires an explanation. A few years ago I was invited to the Newberry Library in Chicago, to meet leaders from many Indian nations throughout the United States. They had requested a meeting with historians to discuss problems of concern in the literature of American history. In the course of our conversations, I asked what they would prefer to be called. The answers were the same, from Apaches in the southwest to Wampanoags in the northeast. Without exception they wanted to be called by the name of their own nations. I asked what word we should use to refer to all of them together, and they said that “Indian” was as good as any other, and better than some. They used it with pride, and it is adopted here. The pattern of usage is now changing. In the United States, “Indian” is returning to favor without pejorative connotation. In Canada, “first nations” is still preferred, but “Amerindiens” is frequently used. Champlain called the indigenous people of the West Indies “Indiens,” and those of eastern woodlands of North America “Sauvages,” which in the usage of his age meant native forest dwellers. Champlain always wrote of major groups as “nations,” never as tribes. That usage is preferred by many Indians and is adopted here.

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 near 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