Amerindian war and religion in the Eastern Woodlands of North America, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on violent conflict among indigenous groups in the Eastern Woodlands of North America from the seventeenth to the late eighteenth century. Amerindian groups struggled here against European domination and among themselves for various reasons. However, warfare was conceived in spiritual and religious terms and remained a highly ritualized affair. With their long and intense history of martial interaction and the prominent role of women in the war complex, the Iroquoian Amerindians of the Eastern Woodlands are an interesting case of collective violence in non-state societies. In contrast to many stratified pre-industrial societies, neither war nor religion had to legitimize domination by an elite class. Both spheres were individual, kinship, or communal affairs. But religious beliefs played a role in motivating and justifying raids and warfare, which were sanctified by the need to satisfy the souls of dead kinsmen. Failure to avenge a relative’s death meant provoking the wrath of the deceased’s soul. The torture and killing of captives was often a sacrifice to deities and a means to renew the spiritual strength of lineages, clans and villages. While Iroquois women did not go on the war path themselves, the female elders of the clans had, in contrast to most other societies, a say on issues of war and peace and female relatives played a crucial role in instigating raids in revenge for killed relatives. Beyond this, they actively participated in the ritual torture of captives.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethnohistory
• war
• religion
• social organization
• indigenous North America
• Iroquois

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Anthony Wallace (1966, 84–88) suggested a useful typology of religious or cult institutions: While rituals can be performed by everybody in individualistic cults, this task is assumed by part-time practitioners in shamanic cults, groups of laymen in communal cults, and a professional clergy in ecclesiastical cults. As he made clear, several cult institutions may coexist in any community (see also Winkelman 1986; Waal Malefijt 1989, 228–240; Earle 1997, 143–192, 204–208; Harris and Johnson 2007, 273–284; Boyer and Bergstrom 2008, 123–124; Otterbein 2009, 23–33).

2 The expansion of European settlement is discussed in detail in Salisbury (1996).

3 See, for example, the map in Salisbury (1996, 454).

4 The Iroquois League – also called the Five Nations by the British and, in analogy to their dwellings, ‘People of the Longhouse’ (in Seneca: Haudenosaunee) by themselves – was a confederation of several groups of horticulturalist villagers akin in culture and speaking related languages of the Iroquoian family. They lived in several villages in the area Southeast of Lake Ontario. The five groups that founded the confederation probably in the late fifteenth century were the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. They were joined by the Tuscarora in the early eighteenth century, so after then also referred to as the Six Nations (Wolf 1982, 165; Richter 1992, 1, 31).

5 The Huron or Wendat (‘Dwellers of the Peninsula’ or ‘Islanders’, alluding to their settlement area between the Lakes Huron and Ontario) were a confederacy of several groups who were culturally similar to the Five Nations and also spoke languages of the Iroquoian family. The Huron confederay was composed of ‘four different collections or assemblages of grouped family stocks’, the individual names were Attignawantan, Attigneenongnahac, Arendahronons, and Tohontaenrat (Jesuit Relations, vol. 16, 227). In the following, the term ‘Iroquois’ will be employed for the groups pertaining to the League while ‘Iroquoian’ refers to members of the language group including both Iroquois and Huron, among others.

6 The Iroquois were estimated at 20,000 to 30,000 around 1600 (Richter 1992, 40; see also Tooker 1978, 421 for the number of warriors during the seventeenth century). There were between 18,000 and 22,000 Huron in the early seventeenth century (Heidenreich 1978, 369–370).

7 Tribe is used here not as a synonym for ethnic group or community but as an analytic term. It refers to a particular type of social and political organization, i.e., to collectivities integrated by the means of pan-tribal associations, such as clans or age-sets, that cross-cut residential groups (cf., e.g., Service 1971, 99–132). As many authors have argued, most of these non-state societies were not clearly bounded units of language, culture and self-identification (cf. already Southall 1970). As a matter of fact, differences in language, culture, political affiliation, and self-identification did rarely if ever coincide. Pre-colonial notions of membership and distinction and the meaning and historicity of the concepts ethnic community and nation are discussed in Gabbert (2006, 2015) and Bird-David (2017). In present-day North America ‘tribe’ is a legal concept denoting political units of North American Indians recognized as such by the U.S. government and accepted as such by the indigenous people (see, e.g., McCulloch and Wilkins 1995).

8 However, women played an important role in hunting and trading among the Iroquois (Trigger 1987, 39; MacLeitch 2011, 136).

9 Each clan-segment possessed a certain number of titles that denoted the function of civil headmen at the different levels. In case of a headman's death, the title was passed to his successor who was generally chosen among the deceased's brothers or nephews. Since there were no rules of succession, personal qualities, such as generosity, eloquence, and intelligence, were important. If none of the deceased's brothers or nephews was considered qualified for the function another male clan member was chosen (Lafitau 1724, vol. 1, 471–472; Morgan 1851, 87–88; Tooker 1978, 424). In any case, candidates needed the support of the other headmen (Trigger 1987, 54–59; Lafitau 1724, vol. 1, 469–472; Jesuit Relations, vol. 10, 229–231).

10 Morgan similarly stressed that the ‘class of chiefs’ consisted of all ‘the celebrated orators, wise men, and military leaders’ (1851, 101).

11 But see Charlevoix (1761, vol. 2, 24).

12 However, according to the French Recollect friar Gabriel Sagard women were ‘not admitted to many of the men's feasts, nor to any of their councils’ (Sagard-Théodat [1632] 1939, 101; see also Heidenreich 1978, 371–372).

13 For the same justification of warfare in other indigenous groups in Eastern North America, see Lee (2007, 713–715).

14 However, there were also cases of large-scale warfare in the late pre-contact period (see, e.g., Brandão 1997, 46).

15 See Jesuit Relations (vol. 1, 271–273; vol. 10, 227, 229; vol. 13, 37–43, 53–79; vol. 15, 171, 173; vol. 18, 31, 33; vol. 22, 259–267; vol. 39, 55–77); Radisson (1885, 47–56); Lafitau (1724, vol. 2, 266–270); Sagard-Théodat ([1632] 1939, 161) for detailed accounts of the treatment and torture of captives.

16 The active role of indigenous women in the torture of captives is also stressed by Felicity Donohoe in her dissertation on gender and ritual violence in Eastern North America (2013, especially 46–52).

17 Captives were burnt to appease the ‘manes’, the worshiped souls of the dead (Charlevoix 1761, vol. 1, 354).

18 For mourning practices, see also Charlevoix 1761 (vol. 2, 177; Nation Iroquoise [c. 1664] 2003; 100–101).

19 Pomedli (1991, 61). This author provides an intriguing analysis of the Huron's and Jesuit missionaries’ world view, focussing on their concepts of the soul.

20 Jesuit Relations (vol. 33, 225), emphasis there. See also Megapolensis ([1644] 1792, 524); Charlevoix (1761, vol. 2, 131); Jesuit Relations (vol. 39, 207; vol. 42, 197). Soutanditenr is not part of the deity's name but a verb meaning ‘have mercy on us’ (Goddard 1984, 232). Agreskwe was invoked in various contexts (Wonderley 2009, 65–66). See Goddard (1984) for a discussion of the term and related concepts. He concludes that Agreskwe was ‘an important member of the aboriginal pantheon. What is not clear is whether he is better considered a war god with certain non-martial functions, or a spirit of generalized functions that included special powers in connection with warfare and other dangerous activities’ (235). That Ondoutaeté referred to the deity's war–related aspect instead of being the name of a separate deity is indicated by the paragraph quoted in the text. Ondoutaeté meant ‘one who bears the reed mat of war’ or war bundle. These were sacks containing sacred items or charms carried along on war parties (Steckley 2007, 196).

21 For similar rituals among other indigenous groups in Eastern North America, see Lee (2007, 720–722).

22 Wonderley (2009, 61, 66, 68) suggests that Agreskwe and Sky Holder designated the same deity or power.

23 The ritual torturing of captives was not universally practiced in the Americas, but was found amongst certain specific groups including the Carib (in the Caribbean), the Indians in the Colombian Cauca Valley, the Araucanians (Southern Chile and Argentina), the Tupinamba (coast of present-day Brazil), Natchez, Pawnee (on the Missouri), and, particularly elaborated, among the Indians of the North East (Montagnais, Huron, Iroquois and Susquehanna) (Gabbert 2020, 103).

24 See, for example, Jesuit Relations (vol. 13, 79; vol. 39, 219–221); Knowles (1940, 189); Trigger (1987, 74–75); Stueck (2012, 104). For extended treatments of anthropophagy among the Iroquois and Huron, see Abler (1980), Abler and Logan (1988) and Stueck (2012, 77–84). A discussion of and further references to the controversial issue of cannibalism in the Americas before and after the European conquest can be found in Schüren and Gabbert (2020, 401–402) and Gabbert (2020, 97–100).

25 The Iroquois population was probably reduced by more than a half due to epidemics in the first half of the seventeenth century (Richter 1992, 58–60).

26 However, Trigger (1987, 664) considers looting as a more possible reason for the raids. In his succinct study of Iroquois warfare in the seventeenth century, Brandão (1997) rightfully rejects any monocausal explanation. However, he also concedes that the Iroquois ‘fought over land’ (90) to defend or acquire hunting grounds for deer and beaver and to push back their enemies thus increasing the distance to their own villages. Participation in the fur trade was necessary as a means to acquire the highly coveted firearms.

27 This is not meant to suggest that these functions were the cause of the institution of warfare. As Wallace already stressed long ago, ‘the motive of a deed, and its effect [i.e., its function], may be very different. Still further, it is absolutely essential to keep in mind that neither intention nor function is a sufficient cause. The cause of the establishment of an institution is a sequence of antecedent circumstances’ (1966, 169–170, emphasis there). However, I would argue that a cultural pattern, such as warfare, will only persist in the long run if it has positive effects for a sufficiently large part of or powerful social category in a society.

28 See, for example, Hoffman (2011, 224–251) for an interesting interpretation of the use of war magic in Sierra Leone.

29 See for example the Mount Hagen people of Papua New Guinea (Strathern and Stewart 2013, 168–169, 177–178).

30 In their otherwise convincingly argued article, Robarchek and Robarchek (2005) fail to address the collective dimension of raids.