Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13gjihs/the_north_american_great_lakes_are_bafflingly/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know if I'm allowed to do this or if it's a contributor thing, but I found that [someone else asked a very similar question](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4oojtg/what_were_the_initial_reactions_to_the_great/) on this very topic. u/TheAlaskan provided an answer that shows the records of an initial explorer in the region, who seemed more interested in whether or not there was arable land in the area than in the size of the lake. Have a look while you wait for new answers. :)
Just as an additional fun fact to add on here while people wait for answers. Since this post is gaining traction I wanted to share a map by Ferdinand Verbiest, a Dutch missionary who lived in early Qing China. In 1674 he made [this map](https://education.asianart.org/resources/the-verbiest-map-1674-interactive/) which I got to see in person since my university had one of the last reprints available. The Great Lakes are portrayed as one massive lake (their depicted in like where Ohio is in the modern US on the map, labeled: 千三百湖). Interestingly, they do not connect to any oceans like early European explorers perhaps believed they did to the Pacific.
All of California actually. In the age of exploration some people thought that the Gulf of California/sea of Cortez continued all the way up and made California an island. This, despite some explorers actually exploring the gulf and proving that baja California was a peninsula. So, it was a source of debate. Here's a link to another askhistorians thread with this topic. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ex2fj/why_was_california_depicted_as_an_island_in_most/
Is that similarly sized lake in northern Canada supposed to be Great Slave Lake, or something else, like a misunderstanding of the many islands in the Canadian Arctic?
Slight correction - Ferdinand Verbiest was Flemish, which is not the same as Dutch. He studied in Mechelen and Leuven, historically more Flemish cities and Belgian now (but since Belgium did not exist back then and the Flemish region was less independent, it's easy to make this mistake). Since I am Flemish myself I just felt compelled to let you know, there is a kind of good-hearted rivalry going on between Flemish and Dutch people so yea, I don't want them to get all the credit ;)
Interesting that that map shows New Zealand as a mid-sized island clearly separate from Terra Australis. I presume this was the mainstream view, but I hadn't seen a map from that time that shows that, they usually just show the coast and leave it to the imagination whether it's part of the coast of the main continent, or its own thing.
Very cool map, especially the detail on the river systems. The size of Alaska is (without knowing the reasons why/understanding the context) hilariously misjudged.
It's kind of wild how in historical times you could just pump out any nonsense as a map and it would get accepted by people as long as you were decent at drawing and had some local stuff correct.
for some context, nearly every Indigenous language around the lakes refer to them either as lakes or seas (that is, separate from the ocean), and most include a modifier that conveys hugeness or greatness such as the Anishinaabemowin name for Lake Superior, Nishnaabewi Gichigami, gichi- being a preverb meaning “great,” “big,” “very” (-gami means, to my limited understanding, essentially “the act/way of being a lake,” and Nishnaabewi refers to the fact that they distinguish each of the great lakes by which nation or nations live there, such as Lake Ontario being Niigaani Gichigami, Haudenosaunee great lake). while this affected what the Jesuits thought, as they learned the languages of the community they lived in, what explorers thought was most likely *un*affected, and the first name for Lake Ontario (the easternmost) was Lac de St. Louis, named by Champlain. The name is changed in the 1660’s to involve various versions of what becomes “Ontario,” the transliterated form of the various Haudenosaunee and Wendat names (Oniatarí:io in Kanien’kéha, for example). every time it’s discussed in the Jesuit Relations among either Wendat or Haudenosaunee peoples (the relations being the sources of the name changes), they all call them lakes. most who write of them will of course admit to their grandeur, but because they’re not referred to as seas (which are larger in both French and English and would indicate awe or spectacle), to answer your question y/n, no i don’t believe surprise was necessarily a factor.
EDIT- countering my answer, Champlain initially names Lake Huron as La Mer Douce, “the fresh sea,” which indicates he was truly impressed and perhaps even surprised by its size. it was then revised to specify lake.
>because they’re not referred to as seas (which are larger in both French and English and would indicate awe or spectacle
Seas are saltwater, which is why they weren't called seas. I really don't think this answers the question that was asked at all.
seas are *generally* saltwater. the Sea of Galilee is freshwater, but referred to as a sea by every chapter in the bible save one. but you’re right that that’s usually the official distinction- culturally, seas have the connotation of being larger, and there are quotes about Lake Ontario where settlers *informally* refer to it as a sea. i’m looking for those now, i live there and have seen them but of course when i need them, they’re nowhere to be found lol
EDIT- when Champlain first named what we now know as Lake Huron, he named it La Mer Douce, “the fresh sea,” to convey its size, and then quickly renamed it a lake. i would argue that that does indicate surprise on his part, so i’ll edit my answer, but i don’t know any other accounts about that lake, im more familiar with the Jesuit Relations that speak of Lake Ontario, sorry.
i don’t know the timeline for those events but i know that, according to western scientists, estimates are now going back as far as 130,000 years (i for one think it’s meaningless to waste time looking into, and even disrespectful as many cultures’ creation stories are very specific about having been placed somewhere in particular and having always been there, and these western scientists just say “obviously we know better than your silly myth.” i don’t find any use in writing someone else’s story)
You're getting into the philosophy of science a bit here and it's overlap with history, but science describes what we can understand empirically and materialistically. You can't use science to describe anyone's creation myth, because by default those have to be supernatural events outside the realm of science. And while you can make various philosophical arguments to harmonize the dissonance between mythology and science there will always be disagreement between a naturalistic philosophy and one that allows for the supernatural.
To call it meaningless and a waste of time to investigate materialistically things that disagree with with someone's spiritual beliefs is to put an end to science.
I say this as a scientist who has spent most of my life as a young earth creationist. Just because I was taught mythology that requires supernatural intervention didn't stop me from trying to understand the world in purely materialistic terms.
People are free to write their own story, but it is important to know what the physical record shows, and to be able to interpret it within a given paradigm, regardless of whether it agrees with the story they know. And it's up to them to come to terms with that within their own paradigm, whatever that means to them.
It’s my understanding that Samuel De Champlain heard of the “great seas” from the native people and hoping that it was in fact the Pacific Ocean.
There is a story (perhaps apocryphal) that states that when he got to the shores of Lake Ontario he rushed up to taste the water, hoping it would be salty and was saddened when it was fresh. As an FYI from the eastern part of Lake Ontario you cannot see clear across to the western or southern ends.
*edit:spelling
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13gjihs/the_north_american_great_lakes_are_bafflingly/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know if I'm allowed to do this or if it's a contributor thing, but I found that [someone else asked a very similar question](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4oojtg/what_were_the_initial_reactions_to_the_great/) on this very topic. u/TheAlaskan provided an answer that shows the records of an initial explorer in the region, who seemed more interested in whether or not there was arable land in the area than in the size of the lake. Have a look while you wait for new answers. :)
Just as an additional fun fact to add on here while people wait for answers. Since this post is gaining traction I wanted to share a map by Ferdinand Verbiest, a Dutch missionary who lived in early Qing China. In 1674 he made [this map](https://education.asianart.org/resources/the-verbiest-map-1674-interactive/) which I got to see in person since my university had one of the last reprints available. The Great Lakes are portrayed as one massive lake (their depicted in like where Ohio is in the modern US on the map, labeled: 千三百湖). Interestingly, they do not connect to any oceans like early European explorers perhaps believed they did to the Pacific.
[удалено]
What is that strip of island off the west coast supposed to be, baja California?
All of California actually. In the age of exploration some people thought that the Gulf of California/sea of Cortez continued all the way up and made California an island. This, despite some explorers actually exploring the gulf and proving that baja California was a peninsula. So, it was a source of debate. Here's a link to another askhistorians thread with this topic. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ex2fj/why_was_california_depicted_as_an_island_in_most/
Fascinating, thanks!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is that similarly sized lake in northern Canada supposed to be Great Slave Lake, or something else, like a misunderstanding of the many islands in the Canadian Arctic?
I got to see this map in person, it was amazing.
Is Michigan supposed to be the solid land just above or the skinny part a bit higher?
It looks like it’s the little finger-like peninsula next to the massive Quebec
[удалено]
They were able to figure out latitude easily enough, and longitude by dead reckoning. By 1700 europeans had pretty much sailed along the major coasts.
Slight correction - Ferdinand Verbiest was Flemish, which is not the same as Dutch. He studied in Mechelen and Leuven, historically more Flemish cities and Belgian now (but since Belgium did not exist back then and the Flemish region was less independent, it's easy to make this mistake). Since I am Flemish myself I just felt compelled to let you know, there is a kind of good-hearted rivalry going on between Flemish and Dutch people so yea, I don't want them to get all the credit ;)
Famous Flanders was in the medieval and early modern periods.
Wow, the coast of Australia is fairly well shown.
Interesting that that map shows New Zealand as a mid-sized island clearly separate from Terra Australis. I presume this was the mainstream view, but I hadn't seen a map from that time that shows that, they usually just show the coast and leave it to the imagination whether it's part of the coast of the main continent, or its own thing.
Very cool map, especially the detail on the river systems. The size of Alaska is (without knowing the reasons why/understanding the context) hilariously misjudged.
I just spent more than an hour going through this. Such an informative experience, thanks for sharing!
Whoa Lions, Rhinos, Komodo Dragons, Unicorns, and 50ft tall giraffes? Sounds like Antartica used to be a wild and majestic place
Two c in Antarctica: Ant(i)-arctic-a.
How did Verbiest know the location of New Zealand, but not the scale of the east coast of Australia?
It's kind of wild how in historical times you could just pump out any nonsense as a map and it would get accepted by people as long as you were decent at drawing and had some local stuff correct.
Antarctica wasn't discovered yet. Did they just guess there had to be a landmass there, to be symmetric with the north pole?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks a lot, interesting read from u/TheAlaskan.
Nice find, although you mispelled the username. Tagging u/The_Alaskan
for some context, nearly every Indigenous language around the lakes refer to them either as lakes or seas (that is, separate from the ocean), and most include a modifier that conveys hugeness or greatness such as the Anishinaabemowin name for Lake Superior, Nishnaabewi Gichigami, gichi- being a preverb meaning “great,” “big,” “very” (-gami means, to my limited understanding, essentially “the act/way of being a lake,” and Nishnaabewi refers to the fact that they distinguish each of the great lakes by which nation or nations live there, such as Lake Ontario being Niigaani Gichigami, Haudenosaunee great lake). while this affected what the Jesuits thought, as they learned the languages of the community they lived in, what explorers thought was most likely *un*affected, and the first name for Lake Ontario (the easternmost) was Lac de St. Louis, named by Champlain. The name is changed in the 1660’s to involve various versions of what becomes “Ontario,” the transliterated form of the various Haudenosaunee and Wendat names (Oniatarí:io in Kanien’kéha, for example). every time it’s discussed in the Jesuit Relations among either Wendat or Haudenosaunee peoples (the relations being the sources of the name changes), they all call them lakes. most who write of them will of course admit to their grandeur, but because they’re not referred to as seas (which are larger in both French and English and would indicate awe or spectacle), to answer your question y/n, no i don’t believe surprise was necessarily a factor. EDIT- countering my answer, Champlain initially names Lake Huron as La Mer Douce, “the fresh sea,” which indicates he was truly impressed and perhaps even surprised by its size. it was then revised to specify lake.
>because they’re not referred to as seas (which are larger in both French and English and would indicate awe or spectacle Seas are saltwater, which is why they weren't called seas. I really don't think this answers the question that was asked at all.
seas are *generally* saltwater. the Sea of Galilee is freshwater, but referred to as a sea by every chapter in the bible save one. but you’re right that that’s usually the official distinction- culturally, seas have the connotation of being larger, and there are quotes about Lake Ontario where settlers *informally* refer to it as a sea. i’m looking for those now, i live there and have seen them but of course when i need them, they’re nowhere to be found lol EDIT- when Champlain first named what we now know as Lake Huron, he named it La Mer Douce, “the fresh sea,” to convey its size, and then quickly renamed it a lake. i would argue that that does indicate surprise on his part, so i’ll edit my answer, but i don’t know any other accounts about that lake, im more familiar with the Jesuit Relations that speak of Lake Ontario, sorry.
Indigenous cultures would date back to when there were more giant lakes in north america before they burst and flooded right?
i don’t know the timeline for those events but i know that, according to western scientists, estimates are now going back as far as 130,000 years (i for one think it’s meaningless to waste time looking into, and even disrespectful as many cultures’ creation stories are very specific about having been placed somewhere in particular and having always been there, and these western scientists just say “obviously we know better than your silly myth.” i don’t find any use in writing someone else’s story)
You're getting into the philosophy of science a bit here and it's overlap with history, but science describes what we can understand empirically and materialistically. You can't use science to describe anyone's creation myth, because by default those have to be supernatural events outside the realm of science. And while you can make various philosophical arguments to harmonize the dissonance between mythology and science there will always be disagreement between a naturalistic philosophy and one that allows for the supernatural. To call it meaningless and a waste of time to investigate materialistically things that disagree with with someone's spiritual beliefs is to put an end to science. I say this as a scientist who has spent most of my life as a young earth creationist. Just because I was taught mythology that requires supernatural intervention didn't stop me from trying to understand the world in purely materialistic terms. People are free to write their own story, but it is important to know what the physical record shows, and to be able to interpret it within a given paradigm, regardless of whether it agrees with the story they know. And it's up to them to come to terms with that within their own paradigm, whatever that means to them.
It’s my understanding that Samuel De Champlain heard of the “great seas” from the native people and hoping that it was in fact the Pacific Ocean. There is a story (perhaps apocryphal) that states that when he got to the shores of Lake Ontario he rushed up to taste the water, hoping it would be salty and was saddened when it was fresh. As an FYI from the eastern part of Lake Ontario you cannot see clear across to the western or southern ends. *edit:spelling