MVS 'eight'

[David Costa]

>> My geographic objection is more hypothetical, but the gist of it is that when
>> you start to trace where the M-I speakers were in the earliest historical
>> times, or where they would have been pre-1492, the evidence strongly hints
>> that they were a good deal further EAST than they were at first contact. From
>> all evidence, the Illinois were very recent arrivals into what is now
>> Illinois, possibly not entering that area at all until the Iroquois Wars.
>> When you go further back in time, it starts looking like the M-I speakers
>> were in Indiana before they were in Illinois, and in Ohio before they were in
>> Indiana. That puts them in a place where it's more likely they would have
>> interacted with Tutelo speakers than with I-O speakers, and WAY more likely
>> than them interacting with Michigamea speakers. The M-I speakers' presence in
>> the Michigamea area was probably very recent.

> Would this still be an objection if the early I-O speakers were originally
> located further to the east themselves? The sacred Legend recorded in Fletcher
> and La Flesche specifies that the Iowa were with the Omaha (Dhegihans?) when
> the latter made their luckless migration across the Mississippi after moving
> down the Ohio.

Well, that would have been my next question... I imagine that when M-I
speakers entered Indiana and Illinois (early 1600's?) whoever they bumped
out probably spoke some kind of Siouan language. Maybe these were Chiwere
speakers, maybe they were Dhegihans. This is really the realm of
archaeology, tho, where I'm not qualified to speak. Does anyone know
anything about where those groups were thought to be 400-500 years ago,
based on archaeology?

Anyway, my point is just that *before* the early population disruptions
triggered by the Iroquois wars, I suspect the M-I speakers were closer to
OVS speakers than to MVS speakers.

> Do we know who was living in the Indiana-Illinois area prior to the spread of
> the Miami-Illinois southwest from Lake Erie and the Maumee river region?  I
> think we need to establish that these were not early Chiwere speakers before
> we rule out John's suggestion on geographical grounds.

I understand your point. And this is why I consider my linguistic
argumentation to be more important here than the geographical argumentation.
Making arguments based on who was where in North America 500 years ago is
always going to be conjectural.

> Oh, and exactly where is the Michigamea area?  I think I missed this.

According to Ives's map, southeastern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas.
Tho who *knows* where they were before that...

Dave