Talk:Mosopelea

Hanna, Charles The Wilderness Trail

Not very clear, got a detail?

This book is on google books, [1] and I didn't notice any mention on those 2 pages listed as references (97 and 125) as containing the word "Mosopelea". In fact 125 deals almost exclusively with the Shawnees who were in the location where you state the Mosopelea were. Who are you contending they are User:Til Eulenspiegel? This reference does not seem to support your additions. As for the "1688 French map of Jean-Baptiste Franquelin", I cant seem to find a clear enough version of it to see if those villages are mentioned. Do you have a link to one? I found this one on commons, but as you can see, none of the text in the area can be read. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hanna's is a two-volume work; no doubt you have looked at the wrong volume. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Connections to a Mound Building group

Parkwells, a quick couple questions I've been having for awhile and was wondering what your thoughts on them were. Alot of this info seems to be a little strange and runs counter to some stuff I read about the general time period and location. According to the info added recently(note my and Eulenspiegels exchange above, which I did eventually find the correct volume and the info added was there) the Mosopelea were located in Southern Ohio, between the Scioto and Muskingum Rivers. Alot of archaeo stuff has been done there, and if the Mosopolea were mound builders, they'd be Fort Ancient, not Mississippian culture. Although, I've never read any where that they are contenders for being the descendants of the Ft Ancient. Hanna says they were Mound Builders, but from what I read he offers no proof that they actually built any of the mounds in the area. Have your read anything anywhere about them other than Hannas book? They seem to have been Siouan, which would seem to make them an anomoly in the area, as most other groups there were Algonquian and Iroquian(hope I spelled those correctly, didn't look them up, lol). Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Hanna suggests a theory that they were the Ohio Mound-builders by comparing them with what is known of the Natchez people. I didn't want to get into all that, so I felt keeping it simple and safe would mean to say "corresponding with the heart of mound builder country"... I still prefer that wording... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what I figured. I'm just wondering if it should be in at all. Mound building would've ceased by the time of European contact in the Ohio River valley, so doubtful if Hannas 17th century sources would've described them as Mound builders. Seems like it was prolly Hanna wanting to associate them with the mounds. Thoughts? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Also, Siouan is no longer considered an anomaly in the region; there is now talk about the "Ohio Valley Branch of Siouan" consisting of Ofo, Biloxi, Tutelo, and Quapaw (Akansea), and possibly closer than the others to Catawba and Woccon. Linguistically speaking, of course. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Weren't the Biloxi from the Gulf coast? And the only stuff I've seen for the Quapaw is ethnographic(being from up the Ohio anyway), but that was from 10 yrs ago. An archys supporting nowadays? Would love to read it if they do. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know for sure, but I can say for sure that searching for "Ohio Valley Siouan" would bring up lots of interesting stuff...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Theres a chapter in "Perspectives on the Southeast-Linguistics, Archaeology and Ethnohistory", article=Ethnic Identities and Cultural Change in the Protohistoric Period of Eastern Arkansas by Michael P. Hoffman that discusses the origins of the Quapaw, but havent read anything new since then. Although, most consider the Quapaw to be Dhegiha Siouan, not part of an "Ohio Siouan', unless there is something new. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

All I remember is the ethnographic stuff you mentioned, so you may be right about the Quapaw being Deghiga... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

According to our own page Siouan languages, it is. Ohio Valley Siouan is a few of the Virginia Siouan peoples, Quapaw is part of Mississippi Valley Siouan (a.k.a. Central Siouan). Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense, as the Quapaw tribe are said to have spread from the Ohio Valley to the Mississippi Valley, and then founded a new branch from which the other Deghiga languages sprang. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May I offer this as assitance to you in clarification in quelling confusion in terminology? The terms, mound building, has a broad connotation. An example widely accepted in Archaeology can be found in Prof Dragoo of Carnegy (1963 Mounds For the Dead) and according to Prof Chard. (1961, p. 21-25) "burial mound complex is unlikely related to those in Asia because it was not in use in northeastern Asia at an early enough date", according to Chard. For our region in the upper Ohio Valley, the Adena is very often distinguished from the other 'Mound Builder' groups across the globe and the USA as Ohio Valley Mound Builders which people often are not the same kind in other places. The phraseology 'Mound Builder', mound builders in itself is very broad in defintion which can be subdivided into both regions of varying people and geography. There are many phases and complexes of the following Fort Ancient Tradtion. The Ohio Historical Society shows the Fort Ancient Tradition elements as: Madison Phase, Anderson Phase, Feurt Phase, Baldwin Phase, Brush Creek Phase, Baum Phase, Philo Phase, Clovis Complex, Holcombe Complex, Crowfield Complex, Barnes Complex, Gainey Complex, Enterline/Lux Complex. Some of these various groups phased out mound building within their later generations while others within this Tradition of groups post dates mound building altogether within their generations. New ways of living here progressed for a numbers of reasons... The Ofo of Ohio were on the area of the earlier Baum Phase and Feurt Phase, and, latest Orchard Phase. Before these here were the Watson Phase of the Woodland People whom were contemporaneous with the Late Hopewell on their westerly direction. The Adena Mound Builders predate all of these people in the upper Ohio Valley. Respectfully yours, Conaughy (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)::

If I could hazard a guess, I'd say the name Mosopelea itself is a considerably ancient one for the region, but unfortunately, we cannot say this in the article without any sources! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Today, their are those who study the Mosopolea and the others as such as the group of Siouans with Robert Rankin, professor emeritus of linguistics at the University of Kansas, Siouan linguistics. Otherwise, One book published by Anthropologist James B. Griffin in 1942 only provided one sentenced about Mosopolea occupation on the Ohio Valley. This is often the case in this research. The few earlier 'books' containing the subject seems to be outdated and suspect do to conjecture and so on. Maybe a modern scholar will write a new book that can be better used in citation here on wiki. I do have some abstracts and correspondence on the subject, shortingly providing informal paper for citation. But No, I generally agree with you-- "...we cannot say this in the article without any sources!" The general public will just have to wait... Wishing you wellbeing, Conaughy (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohio, July, 2017

I was hoping to find some help from people who are more informed than me. I've been trying to work out the Native History for the History of Ohio page, which is ridiculously outdated. I'm still learning how things work on this site & only just managed to make my first edits stick (After 3 attempts). But, I was only able to go as far as Mosopelea & Erie & I'm hoping to find people who know more than me on this subject to help reference things further.

Beyond this, I do have some useful information for others. I would like to add, I found the map in question which was brought up at the beginning. It can be found here, https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3300.ct000656/ , on the Library of Congress website & can be zoomed in on in perfect HD & copied however one wishes. It did not allow me to add it to my work on this site, but it exists. However, between that & the map above (which I can, mostly, read by the way) I'm starting to worry about how well these maps can be used as sources. For instance, the map at the top of this page does not show the Shawnee, places the Mascouten (a tribe normally associated with Michigan) in their territory in Kentucky. Meanwhile, it places the Illinois Confederacy in Michigan & no one in Illinois. Plus my map also brings up two other groups in Ohio, as far as I was able to decipher- the Casa & the Attawaderon. I know the Attawaderon are the Chonnonton Iroquois, or the Neutral Nation. The Casa I'm not sure about. I think the name is meant as Kansa and, due to other information, I think it's referring to the Tunica. All of these villages are being marked as "destruit," having been destroyed & none of them have confirmed locations, just general areas.

How I'm choosing to understand this is that Franquelin may have been trying to backtrack data, much the same as we are now, to discover who was really supposed to go where. I know the Illinois, or Illiniwek, were swamped by a massive refugee crisis of other Algonquin natives moving west. I'm assuming that there were so many interviewees who claimed that they came from Michigan & Ohio, Franquelin mistakenly placed the Illinois there- explaining why he shows a blank in Illinois. This should also be taken to the Chonnonton & Mascouten pages-- if the map up top really dates from 1688, then changes need to be made as I'd read many accounts claiming the Chonnonton drove out the Mascouten in the 1720s or 30s. This places everything back in line with the accepted time frame of the Beaver Wars. However, this also confuses things with the Illinois. I think we're missing information there. As to all the destroyed villages on the other map, I think he was intentionally trying to learn that specific information & that may just be relative to how many abandoned villages locals were aware of, rather than pinpointing when, or how, such things happened.

And, to add more confusion, I recently discovered that Cat, or Chat, is an accepted name for the Erie Iroquois. This would be great, although it adds more confusion for me. I've read a great anthology of Ojibwe myths (Ojibwe being from the northern peninsula of Michigan) that brings up the Cat as part of their oral heritage. Plus, some of the earliest records people have been able to find claim a river capable of being caught on fire was just east of Erie territory, that the Petun Iroquois territory may have extended all the way to Cleveland before the Beaver Wars & the Wyandot are a splinter group of them, & that there were either Susquehannock or a whole other Iroquoian nation immediately below them- the given name being Andastes, which sounds Siouan in origin. Now, I'm not taking that last thing too seriously, as I think if you traveled in a vaguely southerly direction from the accepted Petun territory, you might end up managing to just graze into accepted Susquehannock territory. But, this calls to mind the confusing scenario presented by the Westo Nation-- we know they exist, but still can't understand where they came from. All of this is brought up here, http://genealogytrails.com/ohio/early_indian_migration_in_ohio.htm, as well as giving an Iroquoian name to the Mascouten &, possibly, showing a connection between Ohio tribes who went extinct during the Beaver Wars & the Mingo Iroquois, who later splintered off from the Seneca.

PS- I should also bring up the fact that between two books, 'Lakota Myth' & 'the Lakota/ Dakota Star Map Constellation Guide,' I was able to piece together a sensible explanation for the Serpent Burial Mound. I don't know if that's acceptable to be bringing such a thing up with concerns to the Hopewell, thought, because it isn't addressed directly.

So, I hope all this is useful to the group. Thank you. 66.213.89.4 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Issues

This page represents Mosopolea as Siouans and ancestral to Ofo as a fact, presumably generally accepted by scholars. Is this really the case? As far as I can tell it is more a plausible hypothesis.

Where are the translations of the names on the map from? A Lakota dictionary is cited but searching it I cannot find anything dealing with this. 70.77.37.23 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This article was recently pov-flipped from the previously discussed consensus, without any discussion or consensus. Because this is unprocedural, it's time I revert to the last good version pending a discussion for consensus. 208.54.87.197 (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)