This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Monacan isn't a synonym for Moneton. The Monetons occupied the New River/Kanawha River watershed in West Virginia and southwestern Virginia, while the Monacans occupied the Virginia Piedmont. One synonym for "Moneton" is "Moheton". 184.108.40.206 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The above comment is correct. The name "Monacan" should be removed from the Siouan and Siouan-Catawban articles. There is evidence that Moneton (Monyton, etc.) was a Siouan language closely related to Tutelo. Unfortunately there is no such evidence for Monacan. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am misreading, this page and the page Siouan-Catawban languages claim to be about the same thing. Merge into the simpler name "Siouan languages"? Pfly 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Siouan-Catawban includes Catawba--Catawba forming one subgroup of the family, and the Siouan languages forming the other. So it's not really correct to include Catawba as a Siouan language, only as a Siouan-Catawban language --Miskwito 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see I did misread. The hierarchical list on this page is very similar to the one at Siouan-Catawban languages. But I see now that Catawban languages isn't included here. Sorry, I'll remove the merge tags. I had just been reading about Mooney and Swanton's apparently long-rejected notion of Catawba and a bunch of other languages (Pedee, Wateree, Congaree, etc) as being "southeastern Siouan". So when I saw both pages listed a family called "Ohio Valley (a.k.a. Southeastern)", I jumped to a false conclusion. Should have read more closely. I was also confused by the way the Siouan-Catawban page doesn't sub-divide the Ohio Valley family, while this page breaks it into Virginia Siouan and Mississippi Siouan. The latter name being confusingly similar to "Mississippi Valley", ie "Central Siouan".
Anyway, sorry for the false alarm, I'm just learning about this topic. Up until the other day I had been coming from the apparently false theories about lots of southeastern tribes being called "Siouan". Frustrating how lots of old guesswork about Native American history tends to stick around long after being shown erroneous. Pfly 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the authoritative Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 13-1, p.476, Osage mythology describes a migration from a more easterly location, which some scholars interpreted as meaning the Ohio River valley (McGee 1897:191; LaFlesche 1917; Dorsey 1884:211-213). The thesis that this migration occurred during the protohistoric period, just prior to French Contact, has not been verified archeologically since prehistoric and protohistoric Osage sites have not been identified. The same is true of Omaha-Ponca and Kansa (Kaw). In the light of this and other more authoritative sources, I deleted Parkwells claim that the Kaw, Osage, and Ponca were driven out of the Ohio River valley in present-day Kentucky about 1200 CE by the Iroquois, based in western New York. The peoples moved west across the Mississippi and into their historical territories by about 1600 because it is credited to an inadequately footnoted non-academic web-based source. Moreover, this article is about the Siouan languages, not peoples. Vihelik (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Northen Lakota be linked with the North Dakota article? I am quite new in this and confused in tribal distinctions, so I may well be completely wrong about this. Twipley (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)