Native Nations of the Northeast: Algonkians and Iroquois

In Chapter 3 of Native Nations, Bonvillain describes the practices of the Algonkians. Bonvillain recalls the classic tale of European injustice in regard to land, trade, and overall relations. One thing I always thought was oxymoronic is when I read about things such as the "Mashantucket Pequot Land Claims Settlement Act" of 1983, which grated Pequots federal recognition and funds for land acquisition - so the Pequots had to pay for their land with funds provided by the government that initially stole their land in the first place? It just doesn't make much sense. If anything, the Pequots should be given back their land and compensated moreso for the grief they suffered because of it. I liked reading about the different moeties, or descent groups, because it reminded me of the Cahuilla, who I just studied in field school. The Cahuilla were divided into bobcats and coyotes. Due to the limited numbers of individuals for the gene pool, it made me think of another society limited in numbers - the Amish. I haven't read much about inbreeding within these smaller societies, but it appears that Native Americans had a higher awareness of these consequences, such as by taking actions to ensure no mixing within the clan itself, who were considered siblings. All too common in Amish societies are genetic mutations, such as polydactyly, which are caused by the small gene pool and therefore, Amish have had to bring in members of society from other states to increase the genetic variation.

Bonvillain transitions over to the Iroquois by stating the structure of the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois consist of five nations: the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. I will probably often refer to Native Americans' egalitarian societal structure and all of the benefits reaped on account of it throughout this blog. I like the fact that the clan chiefs were chosen by leading women of their group, and impeachment could be implemented if deemed necessary because this provides a much more even keeled stance on politics. It makes a lot of sense to create the political structure like this because then the women make their best choice known, and the men respect and work with the women's decision. All decisions of the Confederacy must be unanimous. When I first heard this, I thought how hard that would be for American society with people pulled in all different directions, but again, on a smaller scale of individuals, it's a lot easier to come to a unanimous decision. Not only do the limited numbers assist this unanimous decision, but the fact that Iroquois practice entails creating a sound and dignified solution come about through peace and understanding is a powerful thing. "One heart, one mind, one law."

Also, I enjoyed reading about the "mourning wars" as I flashed back to a class I took on Colonial America. During raids, the Iroquois would take captives to replace the losses suffered during these times. The Iroquois literally couldn't afford to lose any bodies, so they had to replenish their numbers. More often than not, when Europeans would attempt to gain back their stolen people, the captives didn't want to return to European society! I'm a little ambivalent about this - I'm not sure whether to think that would be a shock or a no-brainer. The shock aspect entails wondering why these captives would be so eager to stay, given their ethnocentric upbringing. The no-brainer aspect entails complete understanding as to why these captives would want to stay given the peaceful, egalitarian nature of the Iroquois. I suppose each case would be different, however.

Coastal and Island Archaeology

As I gear up and get ready to apply to graduate school, I've figured out what I specifically want to specialize in. I contacted Dr. Jon Erlandson of the University of Oregon to see what direction their program is headed and he said that coastal and island archaeology is where it's at. I want to work with indigenous archaeology of the Pacific Northwest, specializing in human migration and settlement patterns, so coastal and island archaeology jive with this quite nicely.

I just read an article about an excavation conducted by the University of Liverpool in regard to the transition to farming during the Neolithic period: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/uol-eoi092011.php. Archaeological findings include bones from farming cattle and 4th/5th millenium pottery. What this possibly means is that when Europeans migrated to Britain, they brought their farming practices with them. This transition from hunter-gatherer to farming happened in seven or so locations independently across the world, and at different times - not only in the Middle East as Jared Diamond states in his New York Best Seller Guns, Germs, and Steel. Without going into too much detail, Diamond relies too heavily on geographic determinism and ethnocentric ideals of technology in the attempts to prove why Eurasians dominated history- but that's a whole different issue all together. These excavations in the British Isles shine light on the travel link between the seas and the mainland, which provides a stronger record of seafaring migrations.

On a similar note and tying things back into my graduate studies, the University of Oregon conducted an excavation at the Channel Islands, off the coast of California, this past March. This excavation shed new light on North America's earliest record of seafaring migrations: http://smithsonianscience.org/2011/03/californias-channel-islands-may-have-once-held-north-americas-earliest-seafaring-economy/. Archaeological findings include stemmed, chert projectile points and crescents dating back from 12,200 to 11,400 years ago, as well as remains of shellfish, seals, geese, cormorants, and fish. Dr. Erlandson worked intimately with this project as he is the Director of the Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the University of Oregon. These serrated, thin, barbed projectile points are unlike anything by Clovis or Folsom peoples, so it's quite an exciting find for better understanding the peopling of North America and some of the first seafaring migrations!

Where the White Man Went Wrong

Chapter 2 of Native Nations states the injustices Native Americans endured with the arrival of Europeans. We've all heard it before - disease, conflict, greed, murder. Native peoples' cultures became completely transformed and assimilated into European society... for the most part. One interesting notion that I remember learning in my Colonial American class last year was that pigs were not readily accepted among native peoples (among other things) because they competed for food resources, such as nuts, berries, and the like of hunter-forager societies. However, the natives eventually accepted these pigs and domesticated them to then be sold at the market. European Christians should have seemingly been please by these actions, but instead, they ridiculed natives because they tagged the ears of the pigs. Natives had to keep track of their pigs somehow, but Europeans decided tagging was unfit; Europeans often haggled natives for their pigs, or simply stole them altogether since the only means the natives had of tracking them was taken away.

One of the saddest consequences that still resonates heavily with Native Americans today is the introduction of guns and liquor. I remember in my own personal experience and travels out west having encountered several drunken Native Americans who looked so weathered and worn by the treacherous ways of society. Interestingly enough, the fact that liquor was given to natives in such high quantity violated European policy since guns and liquor were negatively associated, so these “offerings” were clearly given with maliciously, among other things. This affected the way Native Americans dealt with conflict and unleashed violent potential. Out at field school, we learned that the Cahuilla Indians would sings songs to each other to express anger in a non-violent way that still got the point across. What a non-animalistic and respectful way to deal with these types of situations! And to think, Europeans called Native Americans savages….

Another injustice that Bonvillain states in the chapter is in regard to “land rights”. Native Americans and Europeans held much different concepts of what it meant to own land. For instance, a tribe might own a piece of territory by way of conquering it, but when they give permission for another tribe to live on the property, the land still technically belongs to the conquering tribe, while the other tribe simply resides there. Europeans felt that land was bought and sold entirely, with no further attachments. Therefore, when land sales came about, Native Americans and Europeans weren’t under the same assumptions when these transactions occurred.

Leaving with an uplifting note, I always thought this picture was pretty funny, explaining where the white man went wrong…

Petroglyphs and Pictographs

I've just read this article about Lee University's excavation at a Central Western Colorado rock shelter site: http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_208795.asp. This site has the potential to yield data about Colorado's prehistory and was inhabited by the Fremont and Anazasi cultures. The article is pretty superficial in regard to the extent of information revealed about the excavation, but it made me think of my own experiences with petroglyphs and pictographs at my field school this past summer in the San Jacinto Mountains of Southern California.
One of my field school professors, Daniel McCarthy, is a tribal relations program manager who has over 30 years of experience in Southern California archaeology. One of Daniel's specialties is rock art, among other things such as ethnobotany, aboriginal trails, and lithics. On our weekend field trip to Joshua Tree National Monument, Daniel showed us several petroglyphs (carved rock art) and pictographs (painted rock art) primarily produced by the Cahuilla and Serrano Native Americans. Daniel had a special type of software on his camera called D-Stretch, which enhances the color and quality of the pictographs. With this, we were able to see details a lot better. There are too many photos to post, so I'll only post a couple samplings. One really neat thing we were exposed to was the harsh reality behind what Daniel called "paper pushers" - meaning people who work for the park services as archaeologists and simply "push paper" so that there aren't any problems. A clear example of this was at Disney Rock (figure to the right) where when the Disney movie Chico the Coyote was being filmed, the producers wanted the real petroglyphs to be more visible and vibrant for them film, so they vandalized and defaced the rock art and produced their own false pictographs. This film is locked away in the Disney vault, naturally. The park service remains ambiguous to this case, and instead of providing historical context of the original petroglyphs, or stating the injustice caused by Disney film producers, the sign only hints at this by stating: "[petroglyphs] have been traced over with paint. This type of vandalism prevents others from seeing the petroglyphs in their original form. Please help us by reporting any vandalism you observe."
We saw several pictographs which depicted the rites of passage women took when they went through puberty. The ritual that ensued was that these young women would paint diamond shapes on the rock and be buried in the sand for days during their menstruation period. Us womenfolk joked about what it must've been like to be buried in the sand when you're cramping! Petroglyphs and pictographs are an important parts of the archaeological record and give insight into what people saw, what they did, what they ate, etc.

Native Nations: Preface/Ch. 1

This is the first entry for Native Nations: Cultures and Histories of Native North America by Nancy Bonvillain. Primarily, the Preface outlines the structure of the book. Bonvillain states in Chapter 1 that the book describes aboriginal and “traditional” cultures; I assume “traditional” is in quotation marks so as to play off of European influences that intruded North America.

Egalitarian ethics underlay relations amongst Native Americans. One thing that always made me appreciate Native American relations was the fact that this egalitarian ethic wasn’t exclusive to just the workplace or whatnot, but all encompassing, including gender, sexual activity, and marital relations. It’s pretty telling that rape and beatings are so prevalent in western culture when they’re virtually non-existent among Native Americans. Europeans imposed inequality when they invaded North America, and this is solely due to the Christian notion of sin, in that Eve was the first to eat the apple.

Another under-appreciated aspect of Native American society, which ties into egalitarianism, is the concept of the third gender category – “two-spirits”. What struck me as accepting thought is the notion that this need not specifically be a biological classification, but that one could become a two-spirit by way of spiritual calling or just mere personal inclination. If only westernized culture were so accepting! Sure, there still appear to be distinctions among genders, but Native Americans seemingly embrace all of them as opposed to excluding one or another. Also, I thought that the concept of dreaming to give assurance to assume the third gender is really a very personal thing – regardless of external influence or pressures. And since dreams carry messages of spirit powers to Native Americans, dreams are very important to intuit and pay close attention to.