They marched along the sandy shore about four leagues, and then struck inland. If we turn to the map of 1632, on which a line is drawn to rudely represent their course, we shall see that on striking inland they proceeded along the banks of a small river to which several small lakes or ponds are tributary. Little Salmon River being fed by numerous small ponds or lakes may well be the stream figured by Champlain. The text says they discovered an excellent country along the lake before they struck inland, with fine forest-trees, especially the chestnut, with abundance of vines. For several miles along Lake Ontario on the north-east of Little Salmon River the country answers to this description.—Vide MS. Letters of the Rev. James Cross, D.D., LL.D., and of S. D. Smith, Esq., of Mexico, N.Y.
The text says they continued their course about twenty-five or thirty leagues. This again is indefinite, allowing a margin of twelve or fifteen miles; but the text also says they crossed a river flowing from a lake in which were certain beautiful islands, and moreover that the river so crossed discharged into Lake Ontario. The lake here referred to must be the Oneida, since that is the only one in the region which contains any islands whatever, and therefore the river they crossed must be the Oneida River, flowing from the lake of the same name into Lake Ontario.
Soon after they crossed Oneida River, they met a band of savages who were going fishing, whom they made prisoners. This occurred, the text informs us, when they were about four leagues from the fort. They were now somewhere south of Oneida Lake. If we consult the map of 1632, we shall find represented on it an expanse of water from which a stream is represented as flowing into Lake Ontario, and which is clearly Oneida Lake, and south of this lake a stream is represented as flowing from the east in a northwesterly direction and entering this lake towards its western extremity, which must be Chittenango Creek or one of its branches. A fort or enclosed village is also figured on the map, of such huge dimensions that it subtends the angle formed by the creek and the lake, and appears to rest upon both. It is plain, however, from the text that the fort does not rest upon Oneida Lake; we may infer therefore that it rested upon the creek figured on the map, which from its course, as we have already seen, is clearly intended to represent Chittenango Creek or one of its branches. A note explanatory of the map informs us that this is the village where Champlain went to war against the "Antouhonorons," that is to say, the Iroquois. The text informs us that the fort was on a pond, which furnished a perpetual supply of water. We therefore look for the site of the ancient fort on some small body of water connected with Chittenango Creek.
If we examine Champlain's engraved representation of the fort, we shall see that it is situated on a peninsula, that one side rests on a pond, and that two streams pass it, one on the right and one on the left, and that one side only has an unobstructed land-approach. These channels of water coursing along the sides are such marked characteristics of the fort as represented by Champlain, that they must be regarded as important features in the identification of its ancient site.
On Nichols's Pond, near the northeastern limit of the township of Fenner in Madison County, N.Y., the site of an Indian fort was some years since discovered, identified as such by broken bits of pottery and stone implements, such as are usually found in localities of this sort. It is situated on a peculiarly formed peninsula, its northern side resting on Nichols's Pond, while a small stream flowing into the pond forms its western boundary, and an outlet of the pond about thirty-two rods east of the inlet, running in a south-easterly direction, forms the eastern limit of the fort. The outlet of this pond, deflecting to the east and then sweeping round to the north, at length finds its way in a winding course into Cowashalon Creek, thence into the Chittenango, through which it flows into Oneida Lake, at a point north-west of Nichols's Pond.
If we compare the geographical situation of Champlain's fort as figured on his map of 1632, particularly with reference to Oneida Lake, we shall observe a remarkable correspondence between it and the site of the Indian fort at Nichols's Pond. Both are on the south of Oneida Lake, and both are on streams which flow into that lake by running in a north-westerly direction. Moreover, the site of the old fort at Nichols's Pond is situated on a peninsula like that of Champlain; and not only so, but it is on a peninsula formed by a pond on one side, and by two streams of water on two other opposite sides; thus fulfilling in a remarkable degree the conditions contained in Champlain's drawing of the fort.
If the reader has carefully examined and compared the evidences referred to in this note, he will have seen that all the distinguishing circumstances contained in the text of Champlain's journal, on the map of 1632, and in his drawing of the fort, converge to and point out this spot on Nichols's Pond as the probable site of the palisaded Iroquois town attacked by Champlain in 1615.
We are indebted to General John S. Clark, of Auburn, N.Y., for pointing
out and identifying the peninsula at Nichols's Pond as the site of the
Iroquois fort.—Vide Shea's Notes on Champlain's Expedition into
Western New York in 1615, and the Recent Identification of the Fort,
by General John S Clark, Pennsylvania Magazine of History,
Philadelphia, Vol. II. pp. 103-108; also A Lost Point in History, by
L. W. Ledyard, Cazenovia Republican, Vol. XXV. No 47; Champlain's
Invasion of Onondaga, by the Rev. W. M. Beauchamp, Baldwinsville
Gazette, for June 27, 1879.
We are indebted to Orsamus H. Marshall, Esq., of Buffalo, N.Y., for proving the site of the Iroquois fort to be in the neighborhood of Oneida Lake, and not at a point farther west as claimed by several authors.—Vide Proceedings of the New York Historical Society for 1849, p. 96; Magazine of American History, New York, Vol. I. pp. 1-13, Vol. II. pp. 470-483.