|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Comment
- 2 Comment
- 3 Claims regarding the Erie Nation and the "ohio moundbuilders"
- 4 Removal of External Link to "Erie Indian Moundbuilders Tribal Nation" Website
- 5 Something missing
- 6 Referenced for your consideration
- 7 Some Current Context To Consider When Editing Lower Great Lakes Natives Historical Articles
- 8 Assessment comment
- 9 Irish
- 10 Problem With Eries' Location
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_poison#cite_note-16 is not correct and the statement in the artcle is incorrect that poisoned arrows were not in use in North America. http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exjonpoi.html--18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC) http://www.lipanapache.org/Museum/museum_weapons.html the official website of this tribe claims on this page that poisoned arrows were used.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The Westo theory is interesting info. Please reference. Thanks!
--Erielhonan 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought I had at least mentioned the author's name, oops! Anyway, added a reference to the book. It is an interesting theory, although like most ideas about this era, will probably remain a theory.. the timing, geography, and described characteristics make an intriguing link though.. Pfly 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Claims regarding the Erie Nation and the "ohio moundbuilders"
The claims that were being made in that contribution are not supported by the mainstream social sciences of history or archeology. Please do not repost that material unless you can provide a citation from a reputable previously published source as per Wikipedia policy in WP:PROVEIT. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm kind of surprised that the "Erie Indian Moundbuilders Tribal Nation" don't have a Wikipedia article about them yet. Someone should go to work on that. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- They're unrecognized, with very little documentation. In order for them to even have an article, there needs to be some authorative scholarly source for citation... their own webpage and their name popping up in a handful of newspaper articles on matter not regarding them don't count... interesting to read, but not good enough for stand-alone citations. CJLippert (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
All things considered, I find it interesting that even the "Erie Moundbuilders" website itself appears to make no assertion to be able to demonstrate the veracity of their claims apart from their own private interpretation of the historical sources they say they're utilizing:
"Assertions herein based primarily upon research among primary materials written at or near the time depicted. No secondary sources we know of have discovered the complex but coherent picture of us as you will read herein. Refinements will be made of these assertions we claim are true. Also additional information will reinforce their validity, since the more information we found only helped."
Removal of External Link to "Erie Indian Moundbuilders Tribal Nation" Website
I have removed the external link to this website as per WP:EL and WP:LINKS. I did some Google sampling of this part of the site:
and discovered that for the most part it appears to be cut and pasted verbatim from a number of different online sources of material, some of which are obviously protected by current copyright, but presented without any indication of permission for use. The Moundbuilder site includes a number of citations,some of which may reflect true original sources, but apart from a section roughly in the middle of the page, I was unable to locate *any* material that hadn't been quoted verbatim from uncited sources. This situation is compounded by the fact that the Moundbuilder site makes a claim at the bottom of the page that the material included on their site is protected by their own current copyright, without any apparent acknowledgement of the rights of what appears to be the actual original copyright holders themselves.
"Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Deconstructhis (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Referenced for your consideration
"In the Genesee country and along Lake Erie were the Seneca and Erie tribes, who were in constant intercourse and perhaps allied for defense. On both sides of the Niagara River were the villages of the Attiwandaronk or Neuter tribe looked upon as an old and parent body of all the Huron-Iroquois stock. Ji-gon-sa-she (Ye-gowane), the "Mother of Nations," the woman who was recognized as a lineal descendant of "the first woman on earth," e. g., the direct descendant of the first Iroquoian family, lived in a Neuter village near the Niagara; and the tribe enjoyed enhanced prestige in consequence. Some eastern settlements were occupied by a band known as the Wenro; they were of the neuter tribe.
When the idea of an Iroquian confederacy was conceived, presumably by the Seneca, the Erie nation could not be persuaded, and the southern Iroquois were not at all attracted. The neuters seemed to see no need of entering the league, for in their distinctive place as the parent nation they did not anticipate that either of the main branches--their Huron and Iroquois kin--of the parent stock would cease to respect their ancient authority. Hence, only the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca tribes subscribed tot he articles of friendship which created the Iroquois Confederacy, or Long House as it was otherwise called." -- The History of New York State, Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1927 [Authorities--this chapter is based mainly upon, and indeed may be considered an abridgment of, the excellent and exhaustive "Archeological History of New York," written by Arthur C. Parker, State Archeologist, and published in 1922 by the University of the State of New York, as Nos. 235, 236, 237, 238 of the "New York State Museum Bulletin." Another principal source is "Aboriginal occupation of New York," by Dr. Wm. M. Beauchamp, published in "New York State Museum Bulletin," 1900, No. 32. Conaughy (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Other sources include other works by Beauchamp and Parker: "Jesuit Relations," and allied documents, 1810-1791. Thwaite's Edition; "Documents Relating to the colonial History of New York," by O'Callaghan; "ancient Man in America." By Frederick Larkin; "Ancient Monuments in Western New York," T. Apoleon Cheney, in "Thirteenth Report State Cabinet of Natural History," (1859), and "Senate Documents," 1860, No. 89; bulletins of "United States Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution,"; Francis Parkman's Works; Severance's Niagara Frontier works; Brodhead's "History of State of New York."; Sagard's "Histoirie du Canada" (1636); "History of Brooklyn and Queens, and Counties of Nassau and Suffolk, Long Island," by Henry Isham Hazelton, 1925; "History of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania." H. M. J. Klein and E. Melvin Williams, 1924; "Pennsylvania Archives; League of The Ho-de-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois." By L. H. Morgan, and "History of the Five Indian Nations Depending on the Province of New York" (1727), by Cadwallader Colden.]
Dr. Smith's 1720 map shows the Erie on the upper Ohio Valley. Kentaientonga, Honniasont (or Black Minqua), and Rigué, and shared an Iroquoian language similar to that of the Huron. A farming people, they lived in permanent palisaded towns (fortified with a fence of stakes), and had an aggressive reputation. Tribal warfare from 1635, particularly with the Iroquois, diminished their population by 1680 and their tribal identity was lost. Survivors were absorbed into the Iroquois although some joined the Seneca of Ohio, where they became known as the Mingo. -- This is long known info, nothing new here... Conaughy (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately at the moment I'm away from my own sources in terms of being able to cite exactly on this topic, but I am aware that the mainstream of modern archeology has moved decisively away from the notion that Iroquoian cultures are all derived from a "single source", an idea that was quite popular at one time. The modern perspective is that although obviously these cultures are closely related and various forms of exchanges occurred through time, that each of them can be demonstrated archaeologically to have been derived from preexisting cultures in situ, in the geographical regions that we've learned to associate them with. I have no objection in principle in laying out in an article the various past dominant paradigms explaining Iroquoian cultural development through time, but I question the value of them appearing in every article dealing with each specific Iroquoian nation. It seems to me that one possible 'best fit' for presenting those ideas is in the "Iroquoian" article itself. When I regain access to my own sources, I'll post more specifics. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Deconstructhis. Our own regional archaeological findings here in the Ohio Valley tend to support your comments as well. Ohio State University has been involved in DNA studies and these reports are not commonly placed in the public. West Virginia is anticipating further DNA studies reasonably soon which will be cooperative with OSU. Our local field science is finding, also as you say, "each of them can be demonstrated archaeologically to have been derived from preexisting cultures in situ". I do keep in close contact with our state's archaeological officials and museum for personal reasons. It seems, only to me, that old sources tend to be more readily accepted by other WIKI editors, perhaps I'm wrong in this observation though. These new scientific methods seems to be breaking old molds of thought about our prehistory. I'll be looking forward to reading your findings from those sources. We are learning more as time passes. Again, thanks Conaughy (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
reference from Smithsonian via GENWEB
Some Current Context To Consider When Editing Lower Great Lakes Natives Historical Articles
In my opinion those editors who are interested in contributing to articles regarding historical Iroquoian/Mississauga cultural matters in the Toronto region in general, may be interested in reading the following. A quick Internet search for Mr. "Redwolf" [Nexus news is best] and connected interests, indicates to me that many of the (in my opinion) "questionable" editing choices in Toronto regional historical native articles, over the past while, reflect a theoretical bias toward the ideas of a U.S. based group who call themselves the "Erie Moundbuilders Tribal Nation", with whom Mr. "Redwolf" apparently now publicly self identifies. Those of you who have edited articles in the recent past on these subjects will probably quickly recognize this group. (see news story link above and past versions and discussion pages of Neutral Nation and Teiaiagon articles.) regards Deconstructhis (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Bit more than stub. Maybe never much more than a stub unless someone has more detail. Skookum1 - 14 May 06|
Substituted at 00:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Problem With Eries' Location
I've been researching a variety of things long term to figure out who Ohio's original inhabitants were. Unfortunately, I need to point out that, it appears, the Petun, Susquehannocks & Calicua controlled most of the land being attributed to the Erie. In the book "The Manitous" by Basil Johnson, it also seems that the Cat nation were a major issue to them in Lake Huron historically, which would push them into Canada. I will try to put in resources here, but I also edited the "History of Ohio" page. You can check out my research points and ideas there if you want. I want to say more, but I don't have time. Will try again another day. Thank you. Bobbotronica (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
-- Ok. Sorry about before. I'm at a library & it was closing. Anyway, I found a major article here-- "EARLY INDIAN MIGRATION IN OHIO". GenealogyTrails.com. Retrieved August 17, 2017 -- that's a bit long winded and wordy, but it seems to show that prior to the Beaver Wars, the entire area between the Genesee River in New York & the Cuyahoga River in Ohio belonged to the Petun/ Wenro & that the Wyandot split off from them. The Erie also don't appear to have been in the area very long because they invaded during the Beaver Wars, and were later destroyed during the same war.
It doesn't bring up the Eries original location (that I can find) in general, but a few other things that were bothering me makes me believe they weren't there before. As I said, Basil Johnson brings up wars between the Ojibwe (Northern Michigan) and the Cat Nation, which is apparently the Erie. Plus, there is the whole point made with the Wiki pages of two other nations-- Neutral Nation & Mascouten-- who claim that the Neutral Nation and the Huron joined forces to destroy the Mascouten. However, it also says that they claimed that the Mascouten were larger than both nations put together. With the land that the Huron originally owned, the Mascouten would have to have controlled a massive area surrounding the Great Lakes, and we know enough about other nations in the area to know that they couldn't have and it points to a misunderstanding that the Neutral Nation joined forces with a second, much smaller nation in order to do this (potentially with help from others. Who knows).
Plus, I had originally assumed that the Neutral Nation controlled all of the northern shore of Lake Erie, but had never explicitly read any such thing anywhere. I've also never seen the land being claimed by the Huron on any old maps. So, I feel pretty positive that the Eries actually controlled a region along Lake Huron's eastern shoreline and down to Lake Erie, at the very least. That would also give a more logical explanation for the name "Long Tail People." I don't know for sure if they had any land in Ohio prior to this conflict, or not, but I am absolutely positive on this issue. Thank you. Bobbotronica (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)