_Journal_."

A proof that this people of Iroquet were not originally Algonquins is
that by their own testimony they had cultivated the ground, one of them
actually took up a handful of the soil and called attention to its
goodness; and they also directly connected themselves in a positive
manner with the Hochelagans by the dates and circumstances indicated
in their remarks as above interpreted. The use of the term "Algonquin"
concerning them is very ambiguous and as they were merged among
Algonquin tribes they were no doubt accustomed to use that language.
Their Huron-Iroquois name, the fact that they were put forward to
interpret to the Iroquois in Champlain's first excursion; and that a
portion of them had joined the Iroquois, another portion the Hurons, and
the rest remained a little band by themselves, seem to add convincingly
to the proof that they were not true Algonquins. Their two names
"Onontchataronons" and "Iroquet" are Iroquois. The ending "Onons" (Onwe)
means "men" and is not properly part of the name. Charlevoix thought
them Hurons, from their name. They were a very small band and, while
mentioned several times in the Jesuit Relations, had disappeared by the
end of the seventeenth century from active history. It was doubtless
impossible for a remnant so placed to maintain themselves against the
great Iroquois war parties.

A minor question to suggest itself is whether there is any connection
between the names "Iroquet" and "Iroquois". Were they originally forms
of the same word? Or were they two related names of divisions of a
people? Certainly two closely related peoples have these closely similar
names. They were as clearly used as names of distinct tribes however,
in the seventeenth century. The derivation of "Iroquois" given by
Charlevoix from "hiro"--"I have spoken" does not seem at all likely;