Map of Algonquian Linguistic Family Area

Map of Archaic Cultures

Map of Hokan-Siouan Linguistic Family

Map of Archaic Period http://www.cfne.org/docs/maps/Archaic.pdf Map of Tradiional Hunting Grounds Ontario http://www.cfne.org/docs/maps/Map_of_ ... tario_Hunting_Grounds.pdf Map showing Extent of Agriculture http://www.cfne.org/docs/maps/Map_of_ ... tario_Hunting_Grounds.pdf Proof of In situ Iroquian Burials Serpent Mound and Petroglyphs are of Iroquian Origin https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bit ... Vol%205%20%232%201986.pdf Here is the reference for Anderson's original document: Anderson, J.E. 1968 The Serpent Mounds site physical anthropology. Royal Ontario Museum Art and Arch. Occasional Paper, 11. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:M ...

td/Osteology/jerkic.html+(+Serpent+Mound)+Burials+In+Situ+Iroquois+Jerry&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca This is Google's cache of https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/Osteology/jerkic.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 24 Feb 2009 09:36:10 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more Text-only version These search terms are highlighted: serpent mound burials situ iroquois jerry Published by the CITDPress, November 2001 Copyright Information Production Team The Influence of James E. Anderson on Canadian Physical Anthropology Sonja M. Jerkic Associate Professor Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada The influence a person has on a period in history, a place in the world, or on an individual or individuals may have many origins. In “the real world,” it may arise from circumstances - turn of historical events—or it may arise from the person him—or herself acting extraordinarily in ordinary circumstances, or perhaps being able to act in an ordinary way during extraordinary circumstances. When assessing the influence a person has had on an academic or scientific field it is somewhat the same: the influence felt is both the product of the times in which the person was working and the product of the person’s reaction to the circumstances. The result may be a new methodological or technological way of data-gathering; it may be the body of work produced from these new ways; and/or it may be how the new ways or works have been utilized and expanded by others. However, often the most influential people in a field are those who not only think the thoughts or produce the work but are

the ones whose enthusiasm for their area of interest is contagious, whose personalities touch people and, therefore, inspire others to pursue the field as well. This, to me, is the influence and legacy of James E. Anderson 1 to Canadian osteology and physical anthropology. James Edward Anderson was born in Perth, Ontario, in 1926. A local lad. A small town boy. He was orphaned while still young, an event that could have resulted in a bleak future during that middle and latter part of the Depression. However, drawn strongly to education and to people, following a period in which he served in the Navy, he entered the University of Toronto, from which he graduated in 1953 as an MD. The anatomy training during his university years brought him into contact with the well-known anatomy professor, J. C. B. Grant. Although under Grant the anatomy taught was of the classical school as presented in his books, Grant’s Method of Anatomy and Grant’s Atlas of Anatomy, Grant, himself, was interested in more than straight dissection and learning of body parts and structure. His courses included human morphological variation, growth and development, evolution, and obviously human skeletal anatomy and pathology. He was, therefore, a physical anthropologist in all but name. This interest had even included collection of anthropometric data among the Chippewayan Native American communities. Anderson followed in Grant’s footsteps. He not only picked up his fascination with morphology, variation, and growth and development but his fascination with teaching as well. Upon completing his medical internship, Dr. Anderson returned to the U of T Anatomy Department in 1956 as a Lecturer in Anatomy. Over the next two years he taught not only a full load in anatomy but a course in human osteology for pre-med students for the Department of Anthropology as well. Through this contact with Anthropology he met J. Norman Emerson and became a participant in Ontario archaeological excavations. In 1958, he was appointed to the Department of Anthropology as Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology. Over the next five years, in addition to a full teaching load in Anatomy, he initiated and taught a variety of graduate half courses for the Anthropology Department, including Human Osteology, Human Growth and Development, Human Evolution, Dental Anthropology, Human Genetics, Archaeology and Biomedical Statistics. He set up an osteology lab that became the temporary home for skeletal collections being studied. Some were old, previously excavated samples such as the Montgomery and Boyle Osteology Collection from the ROM, a Late Woodland population from Manitoba. Others were from recently excavated sites such as Fairty and Serpent Mounds in Ontario. Some samples were small—for example, the 15 skeletons from the Ontario Bennett Site - and some were awesome in number—the 36,000 bones and fragments from the 500+ individuals from the Fairty Ossuary.

From these collections, Anderson began to build the framework of osteological analysis for which he is best known—the use of discrete traits along with metric data to characterize and compare skeletal populations. Among his earliest publications is “The Development of the Tympanic Plate” published in 1962. In this, he presented a description of the tympanic plate and the differences that occur in the final osseous structure as an example of a hypostotic / hyperostotic variation in the range of discrete traits. This concept is familiar to human osteologists today—but 40 years ago it was new. This examination of the development of a single morphological trait opened a door, both descriptive and quantitative, for two succeeding generations of researchers to follow and expand. Anderson’s use of discrete traits as well as metrics and pathology was not a new idea, but the extent to which he emphasized them in his analyses was. By 1964, when he published “The People of Fairty: An Osteological Analysis of an Iroquois Ossuary,” there was already a body (pardon the expression) of previous work on skeletal remains from Ontario including his own report on the burials from the Donaldson site ( Wright and Anderson 1963) and a pre-Iroquoian burial site (Anderson 1962). He noted work by Knowles (1937), Harris (1949), Churcher and Kenyon (1960) but these often relied heavily on craniometry only to describe the people. Anderson stated in his Introduction to the Fairty description that “The present report emphasizes morphology and variation, particularly of the infracranial skeleton, which is often neglected.” (1964:29) Today, the idea of ignoring the major portion of the skeleton is beyond comprehension (at least I hope it is), but not so 40 years ago. He concluded: “The goal has been the quantitative description of variation and pathology in the skeletons of one Iroquois population. Rather than being the end of a project, the completion of this report is really the beginning of a larger task: the comparison of the Fairty data with those of other Iroquois sites separated from it both geographically and temporally. Unfortunately, there is at the moment a dearth of published observations of Iroquois morphology and pathology. When such information becomes available, comparisons may explain much concerning the genetic basis of morphological variation, the patterns of disease, and the relationships of the earlier inhabitants of Ontario” (1964:60). He certainly opened that research door. Throughout the decade of the 1960s, Anderson did his part to rectify this lack of data. Analysis and reports on Iroquoian skeletal material included the Bennett Site (Wright and Anderson 1969) and the Dawson Site Physical Anthropology (Anderson 1972). He also expanded his Ontario research temporally when he undertook investigation of the Serpent Mounds burials (Anderson 1968). This analysis and report was an example of the type of population comparison, using metrics, as well as morphology and pathology, he

had advocated in the conclusion to the Fairty report. In attempting to ascertain whether the Middle Woodland mound burials and Late Woodland pit burials from the site represented two different biological populations, he utilized both skeletal and dental data to demonstrate genetic and cultural differences in the people. By then comparing his data to data from skeletal populations of Ontario Iroquois, he demonstrated in situ microevolutionary trends in the genetic population profiles from Middle Woodland to the Iroquois in that area. Throughout this decade Anderson also applied himself to research outside Ontario. Analyses of skeletons from more exotic areas such as the Tehuacan Valley in Mexico (1965; 1967), Nubia (1968) and Newfoundland (1976) all followed the principles of utilizing metrics and morphology of the entire skeleton to describe and compare the populations. Perhaps one of his most memorable publications was not a research report at all. The Human Skeleton: A manual for Archaeologists (1962) was a portable handbook for archaeologists. It provided a simple description with illustrations of the human skeletal elements and briefly outlined what could be learned from the bones if they were properly retrieved. With this in hand, archaeologists (and physical anthropologists) could proceed with excavation of burials knowing better what to expect and where care should be taken particularly. For at least a decade Canadian archaeologists should have had the motto: The Human Skeleton: do not leave home without it. And during these years, while researching and writing himself, James Anderson began training human osteologists and physical anthropologists, first at Toronto, then at the University of New York at Buffalo as well. The training included both students and interested non-professionals. It ranged from formal classes and labs to simple experience with cleaning and labeling specimens by students and members of the Ontario Archaeological Society to intensive research of the material by Anderson and his graduate students. The first of these Canadian physical anthropologists snuck in through the door marked “Anatomy.” Nancy Cameron, now Dr. Nancy Ossenberg, became Dr. Anderson’s first graduate student in human osteology in 1958. Becoming involved first with his current research project on the Montgomery Collection, Ossenberg focused on those remains for her Master’s thesis. Her PhD continued to define, develop and use discrete trait categories as begun by Anderson. When, in 1963, Dr. Anderson became an Associate Professor of Physical Anthropology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the numbers of his graduate students increased dramatically. Most followed him back to the University of Toronto in 1966, to continue their graduate work under his supervision. There, the numbers of Anderson’s graduate students, either personally under his supervision or affected by his interest and enthusiasm in

courses he taught, increased still more. The names of those 1960s graduate students are a bit like a Who’s Who of human osteologists in Canada and the U.S. To name a but a few: Dr. Nancy Ossenberg (Queen’s University, Kingston). Dr. Jerry Melbye (University of Toronto). Dr. Jerry Cybulski (Museum of Civilization, Ottawa). Dr. Christopher Meicklejohn (University of Winnipeg). Dr. Michael Spence (University of Western Ontario). Dr. Sonja Jerkic (Memorial University of Newfoundland). Dr. Jim MacDonald (Northern Illinois). Dr. Joyce Siranni (SUNY-Buffalo). Dr. Robert Sundick (Michigan State University, Kalamazoo). Dr. Michael Pietrusewski (University of Hawaii). Each of them learned from Jim Anderson and each likely viewed him much as Ossenberg has described him: dedicated, energetic, funny, an inspiring teacher and a superb supervisor and mentor. As she has written and others might concur, “Through him, my love of skeletal morphology and fascination with questions raised by skeletal variations were permanently ingrained.” (Ossenberg, personal c.v.). With his training well in their hands, these students’ research expanded Anderson’s in scope and in breadth. From skeletal populations in Ontario to the Northwest Coast of British Columbia to the Great Lakes area, from the South Pacific and Africa to European Mesolithic and Neolithic samples, his students have studied and described skeletal populations around the world. At the same time, in their “day jobs” as teachers, they have continued to teach osteology to new generations of students, one hopes with the same energy and enthusiasm with which they were taught. Jim Anderson left U of T in 1967 to become chair and professor of Anatomy at the new medical school at McMaster University. His ties to the Hamilton area were already strong from his participation in the long-term Burlington Growth Study. Although not directly a part of his own osteological research, the data from the Burlington study continue to provide material for the research of current osteologists, notably recent work done by Dr. Shelley Saunders and Todd Garlie. His influence persists. Dr. Anderson was in all senses an anthropologist, by nature if not by training. The osteological and paleopathological data that he collected and that, in turn, he taught his students to observe and collect were, first and foremost, scientific information. But it ultimately was part of once living humans and, in his teaching of skeletal genetic and metric data, he sought to talk about the people they once were—how they lived, what they suffered from, how they may have migrated and interbred as part of groups. He could humanize the dry bone. One of his other contributions, to physical anthropology students and researchers alike, was literary—or, at least, had to do with writing well. His advice on writing a good paper was concise—as he felt a well-executed paper or book should be. The advice has stood the test of time and I still tell it to my

students who may or may not follow its three simple points. In writing a paper: 1) Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2) Tell them. 3) Tell them what you have told them. So. I have said what I was going to say about Jim Anderson. I have said it. Now I will say it to you again. James E. Anderson was not the first person to study human skeletal remains—in Ontario, in Canada, or in North America. He is certainly not the last person to do so. Just looking around this room both at the speakers for the day and at the audience, this is evident. Unlike researchers today, his first degree was not in Anthropology nor was he trained specifically in the methodology of collecting osteological data. By some standards, his body of published work is small and he was only directly involved in studying human skeletal populations for perhaps 15 years. Yet the influence he had on both his students and, truly, many of the people with whom he came in contact daily, is extraordinary. As was said very well in one of his obituaries, “...his ideas, insights, and sense of humour were absorbed and are still being passed on to new students today.” This last quote were words written by today’s “man of the hour,” F. Jerome Melbye. If Jim Anderson’s career in anatomy and osteology was molded by his mentor, J.C.B Grant, then Jerry’s was surely molded by his mentor, Jim Anderson. From Jerry’s interest in, if not actual love of, human skeletal remains to the energy of his teaching and his interest in his students, he is a product of Dr. Anderson’s influence. From my own experience, I know that Jerry has days or parts of days when his “seriousness quotient” may be profoundly compromised. I know that, if you have recently heard a bad joke, a pun, or some other old chestnut, you might actually be hearing Jim Anderson with Jerry’s voice. I also know that I would not be doing what I am doing today if it were not for each of these men. I would like to thank them both. Literature Cited Anderson JE. 1961 The Montgomery and Boyle Osteology collections. R.O.M. Arts and Archaeology Division; Annual Report. p 67-72 Anderson JE. 1962 The development of the tympanic plate. Canadian National Museum. Bulletin 189;143-53 Anderson JE. 1962. A Pre-Iroquoian burial site. Ontario Archaeological Society, Publication No. 7, Series B No. 2:39-46, Toronto. Anderson JE. 1964 The people of Fairty: an osteological analysis of an Iroquois ossuary. Canadian National Museum. Bulletin 193:28-129. Anderson JE. 1965. The human skeletons of Tehuacan. Science, 148 (3669):496-97. Anderson JE. 1967. The human skeletons. In The prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley. Vol. 1:91-113. D. S. Byers, editor. Anderson JE. 1968. Late Palaeolithic skeletal remains from Nubia. In The

Prehistory of Nubia. F. Wendorf, editor. Anderson JE. 1968. The Serpent Mounds site Physical Anthropology. R.O.M. Arts and Archaeology Division. Occasional Paper 11. Anderson JE. 1969. The human skeleton: a manual for Archaeologists, National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Anderson JE. 1972. Dawson site Physical Anthropology. In Cartier’s Hochelaga and the Dawson site. By J.F. Pendergast and B.G. Trigger. p 309-320. Anderson JE. 1976. The human skeleton. In The ancient people of Port au Choix. by James A. Tuck, ISER publication. St. John’s, Newfoundland. Churcher CS, Kenyon WA. 1960. The Tabor Hill ossuaries: a study in Iroquois demography. Human Biology 32: 249-73. Harri, RI. 1949. Osteological evidence of disease amongst the Huron Indians. University of Toronto Medical Journal XXVII:71-75 Knowles Sir FHS. 1937. Physical Anthropology of the Roebuck Iroquois. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 87, Anthrop. Ser. No. 22, Ottawa. Wright JV, Anderson JE.1963. The Donaldson site. Canada National Museum, Bulletin 184; p 113. Wright JV, Anderson JE. 1969. The Bennet site. Canadian National Museum, Bulletin 229. 1. I once heard Jim Anderson say that, on any given day, by noon, he had used up his “seriousness quotient” for those 24 hours. After that time, you shouldn’t expect a serious or straight answer from him. And he laughed. Not a remark you often hear from an academic or a medical doctor. Not necessarily the remark you would expect from someone regarded as an influential person in his field. Yet that remark embodies James E. Anderson—informal, drinking coffee, and joking in the grad student offices but, at the same time, the serious professor who, through example, honed students’ research and communication skills and was unimpressed with less than the very best work Author's Information Sonja M. Jerkic Associate Professor Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada Citation Information Article Title: Sonja M. Jerkic Author: The Influence of James E. Anderson on Canadian Physical Anthropology

Publication Date: 02-May-2001 Publication: Out of the Past: The History of Human Osteology at the University of Toronto Editors: Larry Sawchuk and Susan Pfeiffer Publisher: CITDPress, University of Toronto at Scarborough URL: http://citdpress.utsc.utoronto.ca/osteology/pfeiffer.html File last modified: 30-October, 2001 Copyright and citation information 29.05.2008 09:54:36 QUIT THE FRAUD! NOTICE TO BOGUS ALGONQUINS TO QUIT THEIR FRAUDULENT CLAIM TO HAUDENOSAUNEE TERRITORY By Rastia’ta’non:ha MNN. May 27, 2008. This is a notice to the counterfeit Algonquins to immediately quit their claim to Haudenosaunee Territory and their claim to be Algonquins. They are “visitors”, not the “owners” either historically or culturally. By their swindling actions they are dissolving the treaty rights of the real Algonquins. They are also interfering with the treaty rights of other nations who are part of the 1701 “Peace of Montreal” with the French that set out trade and commerce relations; and the 1701 “Nan-Fan Treaty” with the British which respects the sovereignty of all the signatories. Some help is needed on how to file an international complaint to stop these con artists. The “sting operation” is being committed by Ontario, Canada, the mining-military-industrial-banking complex and archeologists against the Haudenosaunee for the part of our traditional territory that is south of the Ottawa River. Mother Joan Holmes, has been hired to create “Algonquins” out of thin air. That’s why we call them “No’gonquins”. She has helped them set up nine “Algonquin” Disneylands. They are about to illegally sell Haudenosaunee land and resources they have no claim to. Fronting this scam are Algonquin “pretenders”, “Chief” Doreen Davis, “chief” Paula Sherman, “chief” Harold Perry, former “chief” Robert Lovelace, “chief” Chris Nahrgang and numerous “Algonquin Negotiation Representatives” under the control of ambulance chasers, Robert Potts and Chris Reid and Ontario Minister of Aboriginal

Affairs, Michael Bryant. Brian Laforme, a Mississauga of New Credit, is also working on selling the Haudenosaunee land of Toronto. [See contacts at end] Who are the “real” Algonquins and who are these fake “No’gonquins” that are giving the real ones a bad rap! In 8,000 BC there were people known as the “Plano Paleo”. They hunted large animals with non-fluted spear points on the plains west of the Mississippi River. They lived there until 4,500 BC. As the climate warmed up and the glaciers melted, they began to move into the area known today as “Manitoba”, the “Lake of the Woods” and the northern plains of "Canada". They remained west of the Mississippi River. As they moved into the Canadian Shield area, they developed into the “Shield Archaic” and continued their “paleo” ways of life, as hunters, fishers and gatherers. They traveled and set up temporary camps and shelters. They were not an agricultural people. Like their Plano Paleo ancestors, they cremated their dead because the land was rocky and had little soil. Unlike the Iroquoian, the Algonquoians did not build burial mounds. Just before 1,000 BC, there was another glacial age. They were forced to migrate back onto the plains, following the Missouri River to its source in present day Montana. After spending many years there, they decided to get further away from the cold by crossing over the “Great River”, the Mississippi, to the east and make their way to the other side of Onowaregeh, Turtle Island. They followed the Missouri River down to the Mississippi River convergence. At that point they found a race of "Giants" known as the “Alleghans”, the ancestors of the Iroquois, living on the east side of the Great River. They built mounds for burials and ceremonials. According to the Algonquoians, known as the “Lenape”, they had to get permission from the Alleghans to pass through THEIR land!! Just like they have to get OUR permission to stay on our land today! The Alleghans allowed them to cross until they saw the large numbers of Lenape crossing over. They had taken advantage of our goodwill. The Alleghans became concerned they would be overtaken. Then a 100 year war broke out. It took the Lenape 700 years to pass through the Land of the Alleghans, which was from the Mississippi River to the East Coast. Finally the Lenape reached the mouth of the Susquehanna River at Chesapeake Bay, where

they "settled". From the Lenape “settlers” sprang other Algonquian speaking people who continued their migration northward up the east coast homeward bound. Once again they returned to the Canadian Shield from where they had migrated westward so long ago. They finally arrived home. From the attached maps the Lenape (Algonquians) never occupied any land in the Southeast, Southwest, Great Basin near the West Coast, Northwest Coast and the Arctic areas. They originated from the Great Plains, migrated to the Sub-Artic and to a very limited degree to the Plateau and some areas in California. The Algonquian Language Family is known as the “Macro-Algonquian Phylum”. [Phylum means a member or tradition from a certain language family]. [See below for the list of Algonquoian language groups]. The attached maps and list of linguistic families prove that the Algonquians did not occupy the large areas being promoted by twistorians, anthro’apologists, and grave robbers [archaeologists]. Also the Algonquoians (Lenape) are not the “Alleghans” or “Ancient Mound Builders”. Anthropologists have referred to the ancient “Mound Builders” by different names, such as “Adena”, “Hopewell”, “Lamoka”, “Cahokia” and “Mississippi, etc. We called ourselves the “Alleghans” or “Alligewi”. None of these names have any connection to the Lenape or the Algonquians. DNA sampling of the “Serpent Mounds”, near Peterborough, Ontario, determined irrefutably that the "mound builders" are Iroquois. The petroglyphs at “Petroglyphs Park” in Peterborough are not Ojibway or Algonquian. The symbols on the rock are from the “Hokan-Siouan” linguistic family of which the Iroquois are a part. These are the same at Safe Harbour in Pennsylvania, Black Hand Gorge in Ohio and near the Circle Mounds in Newark. The maps also show the correlation with our evolution as Hokan-Siouan which includes numerous nations, beginning with the “Clovis-Folsum Paleo” and the “Laurentian Archaic”, the ancestors of the Alleghans, to the present day “Haudenosaunee”. We were never Algonquian, and never will be!! The Laurentian Archaic [Iroquois], who existed below the Canadian Shield from 8,000 BC, were the first to begin burying their dead using red ochre. We continued this practice up to 100 AD. Our ancestors placed these mounds in the

care of the Six Nations Confederacy. This is an old agreement under the KAIANEREH’KO:WA, GREAT LAW OF PEACE, between the Erie/Neutral/Susquehanna/Wenro and the Five Nations, later Six Nations Confederacy. No caretaking agreement was ever made with the Algonquians because they weren’t here. The land in question is under the trusteeship of the Six Nations Confederacy and governed by our law. Under the 1701 Great Peace of Montreal, the Algonquians had no leadership status. They had to abide by the KAIANEREH’KO:WA. The Six Nations Confederacy has exclusive trusteeship over the entire “Beaver Hunting Grounds”, also known as the “Nan-Fan Treaty” of 1701. [See MNN April 28, 2008 article] The imposter Algonquins and the real ones have no sole treaty rights to the territory south of the Ottawa River or the Ottawa River basin since this land is part of the 1701 Great Peace of Montreal. There are over 30 nations who share this treaty. Each has to consult all the other nations and the Six Nations Confederacy as the leaders to make any claim. Otherwise their claims are fraudulent. It also dissolves any rights they have under the 1701 Peace Treaty of Montreal because they are trying to violate the rights of the other nations. These claims to our land are, in our view, invalid. Rastia'ta:nonha, ogetgwiaotahioni@cogeco.ca Posted by MNN Mohawk Nation News ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGE FAMILY Macro-Algonquian Phylum- Northeast: Abenaki, Algonkin, Chippewa ( Ojibway), Chowanoc, Conoy, Coree, Fox (Mesquaki), Hatteras, Illinois, Kickapoo, Lenni Lenape ( Delaware), Machapunga, Mahican, Maliseet (Malecite), Massachuset, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montauk, Moratok, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Niantic, Nipmuc, Noquet, Ottawa, Pamlico (Pomeiak), Passamaquoddy,Paugussett, Penacook, Penobscot, Pocomtuc, Potowatomi, Powhatan, Roanoke, Quinnipiac, Sac (Sauk), Sakonnet, Secotan, Shawnee,Wampanoag, Wappinger, Weapemeoc None in the Southeast Area- All are from Hokan-Siouan Linguistic Family **Note: All Muskogean Nations of this language family belong to Hokan-Siouan, not Algonquian, and all Natchesan Nations belong to the Hokan-Siouan and not Algonquian, therefore leaving the southeast without any nations of any

Algonquian linguistic stock. **Note on Southwest Area, No Nations of Algonquian Linguistic family has lived there. **Note on Great Basin Area, No Nations of Algonquian Linguistic family has lived there. Plateau Culture Area- Kutenai Language Isolate-Macro Algonquian Phylum-Kootenai Northwest Coast Culture Area- No Nations that have any definite Algonquian connection or phylum determination. California Culture Area- Algonquian Language Family- Macro Algonquian Phylum Wiyot, Yurok Great Plains Culture Area- Algonquian Language Family, Macro-Algonquian Phylum: Arapaho, Blackfeet, Blood, Cheyenne , Atsina, Piegan, Plains Cree, Plains Ojibway (Chippewa), Tonkawa Subartic Culture Area- Algonquian Language Family-Macro-Algonquian Phylum- Chippewa (Ojibway), Cree, Montagnais (Innu), Naskapi, Beothuk Artic Culture Area- No Algonquian Nations living in area. [Map of Algonquian Language Family attached] The Hokan-Siouan Family is divided into 6 Divisions: 1.) Iroquoian - Neutral/Susquehannock/ Erie, Huron/Wendat,Cherokee, Tobacco Nation aka Petun, Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Tuscarora, Meherrin, Honnniasont, Neusiak, Nottoway, Wenro 2.) Siouan- Kansa, Sioux, Dakota, Lakota, Wahpekute, Mdewakantonwan, Wahpetonwan, Sisitonwan (who together formed the Santee or Eastern division, sometimes referred to as the Dakota), the Ihanktonwan, or Yankton, and the Ihanktonwana, or Yanktonai (who form the Middle division, sometimes referred to as the Nakota), and the Titonwan, or Teton (who form the Western division, sometimes referred to as the Lakota). The Tetons, originally a single band, divided into seven sub-bands after the move to the plains, these seven including the Hunkpapa, Sihasapa, Oglala, Hidasta aka Minitari and the Gros Ventre, Crow, Washo, Acoma and Leguna Pueblo,Tutelo, Saponi, Monacan, Eno, Woccon, Sugeree, Yuchi, Cheraw, Wateree, Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Ioway (Iowa), Kaw(Kansa), Missouria(Missouri), Omaha, Osage, Otoe(Oto),Ponca, Ofo, Yazoo Tunica, Biloxi, Ofos (Mosopeleas), Quapaw (Arkansa), Omaha, Catawba, Ponca, Winnebago, Iowa, Mandan, Assinboin, Cape Fear, Cheraw, Congaree, Keyauwee, Lumbee, Manahoac, Monacan, Moneton, Nahyssan, Occaneechi, Sante ( Issati), Sewee, Shakori, Sississpahaw, Waccamaw,

Waxhaw, Winyaw, Yadkin, Opelousa, Patiri 3.) Muskogean-Choctaw,Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, Coushatta, Cusabo, Tuskegee, Chakchiuma, Alabama, Yamasee, Apalachee, Taensa, Natchez, Houma, Chitimacha, Pensacola, Chatot, Tohome, Napochi, Chiaha, Hitchiti, Timuccua, Ais, Calusa, Tekesta, Caparuz, Ibitoupa, Jeaga, Kaskinampo, Miccosuke, Muklasa, Napochi, Oconee, Okelousa, Okmulgee, Osochi, Pascagoula, Pawokti, Quinipissa, Sawolkli, Tamathli,Tanggipahoa, Taposa, Tawasa, Tekesya, Chine, Chiaha (Chehaw), Guacata, Guale, Hitchiti, Ibitoupa, Jeaga, Kaskinamp, Acolapissa, Amacano, Apalachee, Apalachicola, Avoyel, Bayogoula, Calusa, Caparuz. SEE HOW MANY THE COLONISTS KILLED OFF! 4.) Caddoan-Caddo, Arikara, Pawnee, Wichita, Bidai, Atakapa, Kichai, Tawakoni, Tawehash, Waco, Yascani, Adai, Eyeish 5.) Yuman-Marricopa, Yuma, Mohave, Cocopah, Havasupai, Halchidhoma, Halyikwamai, Hualapai (Walapai),Kohuana, Kamia, Maricopa, Yavapaí, Quechan 6.) Hokan-Pomo, Akwaala, Diegueno, Kamia, Konoomihu, Okwanuchu, Shasta, Salinas, Achomawi, Atsugewi, Karok, Esselen, Chumash, Chimariko, Coahuiltec, Send your comments to: QUEEN ELIZABETH II, Buckingham Palace, LONDON UK; M. MICHAELLE JEAN, Governor General of CANADA, 1 Rideau Hall, OTTAWA, ONTARIO info@gg.ca; Hon. STEPHEN HARPER, PRIME MINISTER, CANADA, House of Commons, OTTAWA, ONTARIO harper.s@parl.gc.ca; Hon. DALTON McGUINTY, PREMIER, ONTARIO, Queen’s park, TORONTO, ONTARIO; Chief Doreen Davis, 3102-RR #2, Sharbot Lake, ONTARIO K0H 2P0 chiefdoreen@aol.com: ONTARIO MINISTRY of NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT & MINES, Whitney Block, Room 5630, 99 Wellesley West, TORONTO M7A 1W3; RICHARD MOORE, MDR Associates, 201-280 Albert St., OTTAWA, ONTARIO K1P 5b8 613-230-8671; CHRISTOPHER M. REID, 154 Monarch Park Ave., TORONTO ONTARIO M4J 4R6 lawreid@aol.com; STEVE REYNOLDS, 18 Byward Market Square, OTTAWA, ONTARIO K1N 7A1, 613-244-4488 stevereynolds@rogers.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchRes ... aspx?Q=%22Hokan-Siouan%22 Hokan -Siouan Language Family

http://www.wildlandspa.org/Rivers/pdf ... 20Cultural%20Reources.pdf Lenape & Alligewi http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:iuAF756ykEEJ:groups.msn.com/ HOROSCOPESCHAT/mythology.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=14893&LastModified =4675404404842211066+Lenape+War+with+Alligewi&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=ca Click on News & See Category: “Sharbot Lake 2008“ poster: katenies