Prehistoric Origins of

the Chippewa Indians

Ronald A. Janke
Assistant Professor
Valparaiso University
INTRODUCTION
This paper investigates the loca-
tion of precontact Chippewa con-
tacts and the complexities of the
geographic environment in which
they occurred. Reconstructed land
use and settlement maps along with
recent archaeological and linguistic
research have added new ideas con-
cerning the origin, early migrations,
and contacts of the Chippewa
Indians.
Very little is known about the cul-
ture and the area that the Chippewa
occupied before the time of Euro-
pean influence. According to the
legends and traditions of the Chip-
pewa, they originally inhabited the
area next to the Gulf of the St. Law-
rence River, near the Atlantic Ocean,
and gradually moved westward and
settled in the Sault Ste. Marie area.
Here is where the French first con-
tacted the Chippewa. The belief that
the Chippewa originated in the east
is further supported by certain Chip-
pewa ceremonies such as in the tra-
ditions of the "Midewiwin" (Grand
Medicine Society) through which the
tribal history was handed down from
one generation to another.
... the megis (sea shell) I spoke
of means the Me-da-we religion.
Our forefathers, many strings of
lives ago, lived on the shores of
the Great Salt Water in the east.
1
Most of these legends and tradi-
tions such as the "Midewiwin" were
first recorded by William W. Warren
who wrote an early history of the
Chippewa in 1850. Warren lived with
the Chippewa'in the 1820's and 1830's
at the La Point Mission in Wiscon-
sin and, from many oral statements,
recorded the early history of the
Chippewa nation. Warren himself
admits, along with a number of cur-
37
rent anthropologists, that these oral
statements were a mixture of Indian
and French Christian ideas at that
time. Many Christians viewed these
Great Lakes Indian tribes as being
one of the lost tribes of Israel which
arrived in North America via boats
across the Atlantic. This view could
possibly explain the related Chip-
pewa belief of originating at the
"Great Salt Water."
Another author on the Chippewa,
anthropologist Harold Hickerson,
believes that the Chippewa never
occupied that region where they
were first contacted by the French.
2
This area extended from the east at
Lake Nipissing, along the north
shore of Lake Huron, and then split
around the north and south shore of
Lake Superior. Archaeological stud-
ies in the 1950's and 1960's also
agree with Hickerson that the Chip-
pewa occupied this area as early as
the start of the sixteenth century.3
More recent archaeological studies
have discovered, however, that the
Chippewa have occupied the north
shore of Lake Superior since the
tenth century.4 Could it be that the
original precontact movement of the
Chippewa was an eastern rather
than a western movement? In order
that a clearer picture of precontact
Chippewa movements can be estab-
lished, it is necessary to understand
the economic and cultural proces-
ses of the upper Great Lakes region.
Spatial analysis of the physical and
cultural landscape of the Great
Lakes should add insight into the
prehistoric contacts of these Chip-
pewa Indians.
PRE-HISTORIC
CHIPPEWA CONTACTS
The upper Great Lakes is a large
region, most of which lies in present
38
day Michigan, Wisconsin, and On-
tario. The region, except for clear-
ings of prairies in the extreme south-
ern sections, was forested with mix-
tures of deciduous hardwoods in the
southern half and with conifers in
the northern half. In the coniferous
forest, moose abounded but they
probably were not numerous enough
except north of the Straits of Macki-
nac for the Indians to depend upon
moose flesh for more than an occa-
sional luxury meal. Deer were com-
mon and served as an important
food supply. They survived particu-
larly well and were plentiful in the
deciduous forest. A number of smal-
ler animals such as beaver, badger,
rabbit, muskrat, and raccoon were
important sources of food for the In-
dians living here.
The upper Great Lakes region,
particularly in the north, was domi-
nated by many miles of shoreline
and numerous lakes and rivers. Few
parts of the world were so well sup-
plied with such unlimited numbers
of large fresh-water fish. The largest
fish of this area was the sturgeon
which reached an average weight of
sixty pounds. At Sault Ste. Marie
and in many other similar channels,
whitefish were so plentiful in cer-
tain seasons that the number of fish
caught was limited only by the num-
ber of Indians who were fishing.
Pike, pickerel, lake trout, and bass
also were common throughout the
numerous lakes and rivers of this
region. However, in the northern
Great Lakes region, the landforms
consisted primarily of glacially-
eroded features and as a result, few
areas had fertile soils.
In the southern section the land-
forms consisted primarily of glaci-
ally-deposited features which con-
tained many gently rolling, fertile
sections. Besides the more ferti Ie
soil
alo
whi
sist
Fur
can
culf
sou
sue
sur
cor
sisf
eve
reg
wei
it IJ
fiftl
of1
wit
gis
the
by
ale
pel
rici
ca:
an
,
ror
the
sp
arE
sic
rie
ad
mE
thl
ch
ca
db
La
hi:
ce
ar,
rei
cr
ce
te
Gl
In-
u-
h-
x-
le
in
IS
!y
h
i-
n
i-
l-
It
1-
soils, climatic conditions produced
a longer and warmer growing season
which encouraged agricultural sub-
sistence in the southern section.
Furthermore, the southern Indians
came into direct contact with agri-
cultural ideas which spread from
southern cultures. This resulted in
such crops as corn, beans, squash,
sunflowers, and tobacco becoming
common agricultural products. Sub-
sistence by agriculture alone, how-
ever, was very rare throughout this
region. The average Indian patches
were seldom larger than an acre and
it was unusual for yields to exceed
fifteen bushels of corn.
5
In sections
of this region where lakes were thick
with mud and streams were slug-
gish, wild rice grew unattended
though it was sometimes harvested
by local Indians. This was very prev-
alent in the region south of Lake Su-
perior near Green Bay. Again, wild
rice, like garden crops was in most
cases just a supplement to the Indi-
an diet.
We can conclude from this envi-
ronmental information, and the fact
that Indians were geographically
spread throughout the Great Lakes
area, that there must have been con-
siderable regional variability. A se-
ries of gradual adaptations and
adjustments to the physical environ-
ment resulted at prehistoric times in
the Great Lakes region. Recent ar-
chaeological information also indi-
cates that considerable economic
diversity existed among the Great
Lakes Indian population at the pre-
historic period, 1400-1600. Four con-
centrations of archaeological sites
are clearly visible in the Great Lakes
region (Fig. 1).6 A large number of ar-
chaeological sites have been dis-
covered east of Lake Huron, clus-
tered between Lake Simcoe and
Georgian Bay. A reconnaissance of
prehistoric sites in Michigan reveals
a cluster of sites in the north-central
part of the state. In Wisconsin, pre-
historic Indian archaeological sites
are concentrated around the Green
Bay peninsula. Another group of
sites exists along the northeastern
coast of Lake Superior with a dis-
tinct clustering of sites near the
present-day city of Sault-Sainte
Marie.
Chippewa Indian culture was al-
most certainly manifested in a num-
ber of northern sites that have been
investigated along the northeast
shore of Lake Superior and the
Straits of Mackinac.? All of these
sites had similar characteristics
that were distinct from the sur-
rounding sites. The abundance of
fish, especially lake trout, whitefish,
and sturgeon, and the means with
which they were caught for food
were the foundations for the early
Chippewa culture. Large fishing vil-
lages, perhaps with 100 to 150
people, developed along the shores
to take advantage of the food re-
sources. Also important for selec-
tion of a village site was the availa-
bility of a good place for landing
birchbark canoes. This factor was
important because those villages
were occupied only in spring and
summer when food was plentiful.
During the winter months, instead
of fishing, they hunted non-migra-
tory game animals such as deer,
moose, bear, and beaver.
These Chippewa Indians made all
their essential articles. In the sum-
mer they constructed weirs, nets,
bone fishhook, and spears with
barbed harpoon heads that were
used for fishing. Wooden bows and
arrows were used in winter for hunt-
ing. They made containers from bark
and stone. Generally this pottery
consisted of long-bodied jars orna-
39
MILES
FREOUENCY OF St1(S ARE REPRESENTED BY DOTS
ON!; OOT REPRESENTS ONE SITE
Fig.1
mented with simple punctates. The
birch bark canoe was the most im-
portant item for transportation.
However, in the winter they c r o s s ~ d
the snow and frozen lakes with
raquette type snow shoes and trans-
ported the animals they killed by
means of wooden tobaggans.
Another concentration of archae-
ological sites occurred in northeast-
ern Wisconsin, just west of the
known Ch ippewa sites (Fig. 1). Ar-
chaeologists believe that the Indi-
ans most likely to inhabit these sites
were the Winnebago Indians. These
Indians devoted approximately equal
time to farming and hunting. They
raised corn, squash, beans, and to-
bacco, and further supplemented
thei r diet with wild rice which they
gathered from nearby lakes. The In-
dians of this culture lived in rather
large, permanent villages, and also
40
had pottery, tools and ornaments
which have been classified by ar-
chaeolog ists.
8
Intermingling between these peo-
ple and the Chippewa appears to be
slight during the precontact period.
Although both of these tribes had
similar material goods, such as pot-
tery, hunting and fishing tools, to-
bacco, pipes, etc., there was con-
siderable cultural diversity in their
styles, which would indicate a lack
of contact. Trade between the Win-
nebago and the Chippewa was prob-
ably absent for two distinct reasons:
first, the Winnebago economy was
very diversified and consisted of
both hunting 'and agricultural activi-
ties; second, the Winnebago and
Chippewa settlements were approx-
imately 500 miles apart with no Indi-
an cultural sites existing between
them at this time. Archaeologists
ha\
per
rep
cor
SpE
sitE
the
Me
ear
the
gat
tha
the
to I
gat
ad(
Ch
tor
in
sal
thE
of
wa
a
eCI
gal
iml
cia
USI
bei
un
COl
sitl
tur
reI,
fre
pu
OCI
wa
cu
brc
tor
I
wa
co
slil
no
we
have discovered very few sites in up-
per Michian and those known sites
represent a period just before French
contact. However, it is generally
speculated that some of these early
sites might have been occupied by
the prehistoric ancestors of the
Menominee Indians.
9
Much of the
early Menominee culture, including
the use of the dugout canoe and
gathering wild rice, was related to
that of the Winnebago. Here, as with
the Winnebago, contact was limited
to the Chippewa, and such ideas as
gathering wild rice were never
adopted in precontact times by the
Chippewa.
Another concentration of prehis-
toric archaeological sites is located
in central Michigan. A reconnais-
sance of these sites suggests that
they represent the early ancestors
of the Potawatomi Indians.
10
Pota-
watomi culture was characterized by
a hunting, fishing, food-gathering
economy, accompanied by limited
gardening. Hunting was the most
important economic activity, espe-
cially in the winter. Animals they
usually hunted were the elk, deer,
beaver, and raccoon. These people,
unlike the Chippewa, placed primary
concern on their choice of a land
site that was suitable for agricul-
ture. However, agriculture was of
relatively little importance. The most
frequently consumed crops were
pumpkins, although some corn was
occasionally used. Pottery, which
was distinct from the neighboring
cultures, consisted primarily of
broad-mouth jars with round bot-
toms.
Connections between the Pota-
watomi and the Chippewa at the pre-
contact period also appears to be
slight. Trade was probably lacking,
not only because the Potawatomi
were engaged in both hunting and
agriculture, but also because they
were not direct neighbors (Fig. 2).
Again the area between the Potawa-
tomi and Chippewa cultures is
another region which archaeolo-
gists have failed to classify. The
only completed excavated site is
near the Straits of Mackinac and
this site could have existed at the
contact period.
11
Generally it was
concluded that this area was
sparsely settled by a variety of Al-
gonkian-speaking Indians, possibly
Sauk, Fox, and Kickapoo. These
tribes only occasionally occupied
this region of northern Michigan
during the precontact period.
The last concentration of archae-
ological sites around the Great
Lakes was located along the south
shore of Lake Huron's Georgian Bay
and clearly represents Huron settle-
ments (Fig. 1). After 1000 A.D. the
Huron Indians of this area became
increasingly dependent upon agri-
culture and the population tended
to cluster into large villages. Unlike
the Chippewa villages, these vil-
lages were generally situated in po-
sitions away from navigable water-
ways.12 The Huron raised corn,
beans, squash, sunflowers, and
some tobacco. All of these plants
were of southern origin, the sun-
flower being indigenous to the east-
ern United States, the remainder to
Mesoamerica. Maize and tobacco
appear to have been present in this
section of Ontario prior to 1000 A.D.,
but the sunflower did not arrive until
1300 and beans and squash not be-
fore 1400.
13
The Huron engaged in fishing and
hunting to a lesser degree, but later
began to rely on their neighboring
groups of Indians. Because of their
unique location at a northern bound-
ary of corn agriculture, and being
surrounded by hunters, an interac-
41
\
\
UPPER GREA T LAKES
INDIAN TRIBES - 1600
CHIPPEWA
CUL TURE
) --
,,_ v '00 OTTAWA
FOX
v l
: c "1- n
," .. SAUK ) \ - .. HURON
MENOMINEE
I
)
,
I
I " C, CULTURE
POTAWATOMI ( I
WINNEBAGO
.
CULTURE
::
CULTURE I \ I
1...-/ / \.
.r LA K [
ONTARIO
, \ ) I "--
ARkC .... (()NIA(.l BEl WEE.N THE CHIPP[WA AND THEIR NEIGHBORS -DIRECT - INDIRECT CONTACT
MILES '
Fig. 2
tion of trade developed. The Chip-
pewa had surplus furs, dried fish,
and meat to trade with the Huron,
and were anxious to obtain stores of
corn to sustain them over the winter.
They were also eager to acquire to-
bacco and other products from the
south. Archaeologists have discov-
ered Huron pottery as far north as
the mouth of the Michipicoten River,
located on the east shore of Lake
Superior, indicating that the Huron
had direct contact with the Chip-
pewa during the prehistoric period
(Fig. 2).14
From the above knowledge of the
precontact period of the Upper Great
Lakes, it appears that most of the
Chippewa contacts were concen-
trated in the east. Generally, be-
cause of Chippewa self-sufficiency,
they had very little contact with their
neighbors. However, because of the
42
difficulty of obtaining food during
the winter months, and because the
Chippewa had a surplus of fish dur-
ing the summer, trade developed
with the Hurons, their agricultural
neighbors to the east (Fig. 2). There
is evidence that these contacts be-
tween the Chippewa and the Huron
developed in pre-contact times and
that over the years a symbiotic rela-
tionship developed between the in-
habitants of these two regions.
15
Contact during prehistoric times ap-
pears to be slight between the Chip-
pewa, Potawatomi, and Winnebago
cultures. The lack of archaeological
data in the region between these
cultures clearly illustrates that con-
tact was minimal. Therefore, it ap-
pears that the Chippewa occupied
the north shore of Lake Superior ap-
proximately since the tenth century,
and as agricultural ideas began to
sp
gr<
thE
se
me
ea
th,
sir
in!
wi
HI
uc
sc

kr
ta
th
of
ar
S'
se
ti,
01

pi
TI
rr
w
c
c
g
c
s
o
e
s
ir
t i
spread to the Huron, the Chippewa
gradually moved southeast along
the north shore of Lake Huron. Con-
sequently, prehistoric Chippewa
movements most likely were in an
eastern direction toward the Huron.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we must think of
the Chippewas as a comparatively
simple culture, being enriched dur-
ing the prehistoric period by contact
with other tribes, especially the
Huron Indians. These contacts grad-
ually caused the Chippewa to move
southeastward along the north
shore of Lake Huron. Very little is
known about the prehistoric con-
tacts of the Chippewa Indians. Fur-
ther insight into the understanding
of Chippewa contacts results from
analyzing the regional landscape.
By investigating the physical land-
scape, basic economic specializa-
tion of Indian groups can be devel-
oped. However, an important part of
this remains left by those who occu-
pied the region in prehistoric times.
To map, measure, describe, and
make an interpretation of what life
was like centuries ago reveals more
clearly and precisely the prehistoric
contacts of existing societies. By a
geographical reconstruction of ar-
chaeological works, this interplay of
several social groups can be devel-
oped. The links between these soci-
eties is then recreated, in certain re-
spects, by the trade which resulted
in two otherwise economically dis-
tinct societies.
FOOTNOTES
1. Warren, William, W. , History of the Ojibway Nation
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross and Haines, Inc. 1957),
pp. 78-80.
2. Hickerson, Harold, The Chippewa and their Neighbors,
A Study of Ethnohistory (San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1970).
3. Wilford, Loyd, "History of the Chippewa", The Minne
sota Archaeologist, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1951).
4. Wright , James, U., " An Archaeologi cal Survey Along the
North Shore of Lake Superior", Anthropology Papers,
No.3 (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1963), and
J. U. Wright , The Ontariolroquois Tradition, No. 210 (Ot
tawa: National Museum of Canada, 1966).
5. Hinsdale, W. B. , "Distribution of the Aboriginal Popula
tion of Mi chigan", Michigan University Museum of An
thropology, No.2 (June 1933), pp. 22-24.
6. All known archaeological settlement sites are mapped
in Figure 1. By spatially analyzing these archaeological
locations, a general pattern of Indian settlement can be
derived. Those areas with few sites represent regions
where no Indian culture can be proven to have existed,
while clusters of archaeological sites represent evi
dence of Indian cultural areas.
7. Binford, Lewis, R. , and Quimby, George, I., Indian sites
and Chipped Stone Materials in the Northern Lake Mich
igan Area, Vol. 36, No. 12 (Chicago: Fieldiana Anthropol
ogy, 1952), McPherron, Alan, L. , " Late Woodland Ceram
ics in the Straits of Mackinac", Papers of the Michigan
Academy of SCience, Arts and Letters, No. 48 (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1958), pp. 567- 576,
and James V. Wright , op. cit.
8. Hall , Robert , L. , The Archaeology of Carcajou Point with
an Interpretation of the Development of Oneota Culture
in Wisconsin, 2 vols. , (Madison, Wisconsi n: 1962).
9. Binford and Quimby, op. cit.
10. Quimby, George, I. , Indian Culture and European Trade
Goods
11 . McPherron, op. cit. , pp. 567-568.
12. QUimby, George, I. , Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes:
1100 B.C. to 1800 A.D. (Chicago: Universit y of Chicago
Press, 1960), pp. 98-99 and 113-122.
13. Trigger, Bruce, G. , "The Historic Location of the Huron",
Ontario History, Vol. 54 (1972), pp. 137-148.
14. Ridley, F. , "The Lake Superior Site at Michipicoten",
Pennsylvania Archaeologist, Vol. 31 (1961), pp. 131-147.
15. Trigger, Bruce, G. , The Huron: Farmers of the North
(New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1969), pp. 17-25.
43