Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

maxanderson350 t1_j555lwq wrote

Very cool map.

Only question I have is what is the time period for this? I think it's misleading to claim this is a map of original native american tribes and I'm not sure there is any evidence that these boundaries were static over thousands of years. Rather than calling this a map of original or indigneous tribes, it should be described instead as a snapshot in time - likely of the period during which first contact with Europeans were made?

69

Kolzig33189 t1_j55cghv wrote

I had the same thought - Mohegans and Pequot fought over land/territory constantly and land close to their respective “borders” changed hands frequently. I’m sure the same thing happened with other neighboring tribes in nearby states, just not as familiar with their history. So it’s helpful to know when they are basing this map.

On a side note - didn’t Algonquin tribes occupy a bunch of land in New England and NY? Don’t see them on here.

17

Independent_Source97 t1_j55mxzm wrote

>Algonquin

IIRC, the Algonquin tribe were mostly in Canada around Ontario. The Algonquin language and its dialects were spoken by about 24 different tribes in the northeast.

10

Whaddaulookinat t1_j55tyjb wrote

There do seem to be outposts of Algonquin settlers in the New England/NYS area that probably arrived only a century or two before European contact... But the numbers may be fairly small and likely would've had more political contact with surrounding tribes.

2

Swede577 t1_j56bccs wrote

The Quinnipiac's that spoke Algonquin at one point controlled all of CT.

Since 1997, more extensive research, based on linguistics and early historical records, has extended the boundaries of the 1500-1600 AD Quiripi/Renapi/Quinnipiac confederacies to include all of what is now Connecticut, eastern New York, northern New Jersey, and half of Long Island (prior to the immigration of the Pequot/Mohegan peoples into eastern CT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac

6

maxanderson350 t1_j55ejuw wrote

True; and I would suspect that there were countless tribes inhabiting Connecticut before the tribes listed on this map even came into existence.

4

CTHistory42 OP t1_j55lq8b wrote

Good questions and points all. I just posted it to get the discussion started - with the disclaimer that no one is saying it's perfect. Most of all, the group itself.

Here's the website for them: https://native-land.ca/

12

maxanderson350 t1_j55oj2q wrote

Thank you very much for sharing the link. A few things I noticed on the website that I found interesting:

  1. Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are more or less empty of indigenous peoples. I found that particularly odd because those are the parts of the world historians know the most about due to extensive records and archeological finds.
  2. From a quick review of CT tribes, it does appear that this is a map not of the "original" peoples of Connecticut but rather the people who the European settlers found. I consider "original" misleading because, for example, while the Tunxis were found living along the Farmington River by Europeans in the early 1600s, there is no basis to believe (and seems quite far-fetched to suggest) that the Tunxis were in fact the "original" people of that land. Simply put, the idea that the land did not change hands over thousands of years is hard to believe.
13

CTHistory42 OP t1_j567h9m wrote

Your Native American historical knowledge is far superior to mine. You're right about the use of the word "original". But it's always interesting to see how r/Connecticut will respond. There are some very talented/knowledgeable folks on this site

7

mistiklest t1_j56hyer wrote

> Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are more or less empty of indigenous peoples. I found that particularly odd because those are the parts of the world historians know the most about due to extensive records and archeological finds.

The way they seem to be using the term indigenous peoples seems to be in distinction to colonizers. In this sense, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East don't have indigenous people, because they've not been colonized.

Then again, Europeans, Asians, and Middle Easterners also spent a lot of time conquering and killing each other.

2

Lost_city t1_j56x87a wrote

But even parts of Europe were colonized. For example, Latvia was one of the last parts of Europe to become Christian. Germans conducted a series of crusades to conquer the people, and established a ruling structure over the indigenous people there for centuries that resembled later colonies all over the world.

3

mistiklest t1_j56xv0q wrote

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I had in mind with my last sentence.

1

maxanderson350 t1_j5702er wrote

Perhaps that is how they are using the term. But if the term "indigenous" is being used solely to convey the inhabitants of land prior to being conquered then Europe, Asia, and the Middle East would have an almost unlimited number of indigenous peoples.

I'm not sure I understand any distinction though regarding spending "a lot of time conquering and killing each other" as I wouldn't assume the Americans were any different.

1

Swede577 t1_j56a5gm wrote

The state found a PaleoIndian site in Avon on the Farmington River that was radiocarbon dated to 12500 years old. They would have been some of the first human inhabitants after the last ice age.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2019/CTDOT-ARCHAEOLOGICAL-INVESTIGATIONS-ENCOUNTER-EARLY-NATIVE-AMERICAN-SITE-IN-TOWN-OF-AVON

3

maxanderson350 t1_j570iu6 wrote

yes, that's a fascinating discovery and speaks directly to my point. Thanks for sharing.

0

mistiklest t1_j56ogid wrote

> Only question I have is what is the time period for this?

I think it's more of an archive of the places that still extant Indigenous groups count as their homelands than it is a historical or archaeological document.

3