The treatment accorded captives was governed by those limited ethical
concepts which went hand in hand with clan, gentile, and other
consanguineal organizations of Indian society. From the members of his
own consanguineal group, or what was considered such, certain ethical
duties were exacted of an Indian which could not be neglected without
destroying the fabric of society or outlawing the transgressor.
Toward other clans, gentes, or bands of the same tribe
his actions were also governed by well recognized customs and usages
which had grown up during ages of intercourse, but with remote bands or
tribes good relations were assured only by some formal peace-making
ceremony. A peace of this kind was very tenuous, however, especially
where there had been a long-standing feud, and might be broken in an
instant. Toward a person belonging to some tribe with which there was
neither war nor peace, the attitude was governed largely by the interest
of the moment. In such cases the virtues of the clan or gentile
organizations as peace-making factors made themselves evident, for if
the stranger belonged to a clan or gens represented in the tribe he was
among, the members of that clan or gens usually greeted him as a brother
and extended their protection over him. Another defense for the stranger
was, what with civilized people is one of the best guaranties against
war, the fear of disturbing or deflecting trade. If he brought among
them certain much desired commodities, the first impulse might be to
take these from him by force and seize or destroy his person, but it
would quickly be seen by wiser heads that the source of further supplies
of this kind might thereby be imperiled, if not entirely cut off. If
nothing were to be had from the stranger, he might be entirely ignored.
And finally, the existence of a higher ethical feeling toward strangers,
even when there was apparently no self-interest to be served in
extending hospitality, is often in evidence. There are not wanting
stories of great misfortune overtaking one who refused hospitality to a
person in distress, and of great good fortune accruing to him who
offered succor.
At the same time the attitude assumed toward a person
thrown among Indians too far from his own people to be protected by any
ulterior hopes or fears on the part of his captors was usually that of
master to slave. This was particularly the case on the north Pacific
coast, where slavery was an institution. Thus John Jewitt, at the
beginning of the 19th century, was preserved as a slave by the Nootka
chief Maquinna, because he was in ironworker and would be valuable
property. Most of the other whites who fell into the hands of Indians on
this coast were treated in a similar manner.
The majority of captives, however, were those taken in
war. These were considered to have forfeited their lives and to have
been actually dead as to their previous existence. It was often thought
hat the captive's supernatural helper had been destroyed or made to
submit to that of the captor, though where not put to death with torture
to satisfy the victor's desire for revenge and to give the captive an
opportunity to show his fortitude, he might in a way be reborn by
undergoing a form of adoption.
It is learned from the numerous accounts of white
persons who had been taken by Indians that the principal immediate
hardships they endured were due the rapid movements of their captors in
order to escape pursuers, and the continual threats to which they were
subjected. These threats were not usually carried out, however, unless
they attempted escape or were unable to keep up with the band, or unless
the band as pursued too hotly. Each person taken was considered the
property of the one who first laid hands on him, and the character of
this individual had much to do in determining the extent of his
hardships.
When two or more claimed a prisoner he was sometimes
kept by all conjointly, but sometimes they settled the controversy by
torturing him to death on the spot. The rapid retreat of a war party
bore particularly hard upon women and children, yet a certain amount of
consideration was often shown them. Sometimes the male captives were
allowed to help them along, sometimes they were drawn on an improvised
sledge or travois, and if there were horses in the party these might be
placed at their disposal, while one instance is recorded in which the
child of a female captive was carried by her master for several days. It
is worthy of remark that the honor of a white woman was almost always
respected by her captors among the tribes east of the Mississippi; but
west of that limit, on the plains, in the Columbia River region, and in
the southwest, the contrary was often the case.
Among the eastern tribes, on arriving at the village a
dance was held, at which the captives were expected to play a
conspicuous part. They were often placed in the center of a circle of
dancers, were sometimes compelled to sing and dance also, and a few were
usually subjected to revolting tortures and finally burned at the stake.
Instances of cannibalism are recorded in connection with these dances
after the return from war, and among some of the Texas and Louisiana
tribes this disposition of the bodies of captives appears to have been
something more than occasional. The Iroquois, some Algonquians, and
several western tribes forced prisoners to run between two lines of
people armed with clubs, tomahawks, and other weapons, and spared, at
least temporarily, those who reached the chief's house, a certain post,
or some other goal. Among many other tribes an escaped captive who
reached the chief's house was regarded as safe, while the Creek peace
towns also secured immunity from pursuit to the persons who entered
them. Offering food to a visitor was usually equivalent to extending the
host's protection over him.
From the experiences of the Spaniard Juan Ortiz, taken
prisoner by the Florida chief Ucita, in 1528, as well as those of other
whites, it would appear that captives were sometimes held in a sort of
bondage elsewhere than on the north Pacific coast, but usually where
their lives were spared they were held for ransom or adopted into the
tribe. J. O. Dorsey says of some Siouan tribes, however, that their
captives were allowed either to go home or settle among themselves, but
were neither tortured nor regularly adopted. Although the custom among
the eastern Indians of holding white prisoners for ransom dates from
early times, it is questionable whether it was founded on aboriginal
usage. The ransoming or sale of captives, however, was common among the
plains and southwest tribes, while the custom of ransoming slaves on the
north Pacific coast was certainly pre-Columbian.
In most of North America, however, it was probably a
rare procedure, especially since many tribes are said to have disowned
any person who once had been taken prisoner. Doubtless it became common
in dealing with white captives owing to the difficulty of reconciling
adult whites to Indian life and customs, while captives taken from
another tribe no doubt settled down into their new relationships and
surroundings very contentedly.
The usual object in thus adopting a prisoner was that
he might fill the place of someone who had died, and it is affirmed by
one writer that, whatever his own character, he was treated exactly as
if he possessed the character of his predecessor. John Gyles, who was
captured by the Abnaki in 1689, informs us that a prisoner was brought
out to be beaten and tortured during the war dances unless his master
paid over a certain amount of property. Women and children were
generally preserved and adopted, though there are instances in which
white women were tortured to death, and it is said of the Ute that
female captives from other Indian tribes were given over to the women to
be tortured, while male prisoners who had distinguished themselves were
sometimes dismissed unhurt.
Among tribes possessing clans the adoption of captured
women was of special importance, as it often resulted in the formation
of a new clan from their descendants. Such, no doubt, was the origin of
the Zuņi and Mexican clans of the Navaho. The Ute clan of the latter was
recruited by a systematic capture and purchase of Ute girls undertaken
with the object of supplying the tribe with good basket makers (Culin).
Among the Plains tribes captives, especially children, were sometimes
taken for the express purpose of being trained to the performance of
certain ceremonial duties. Besides the numbers of white persons carried
away by Indians and subsequently ransomed, it is evident from all the
accounts that have reached us that many of English, French, and Spanish
descent were taken into the tribe of their captors and, either because
carried off when very young or because they developed a taste for their
new life, never returned. Some of these even rose to high positions, as
in the case of a Frenchman who became chief of the Attacapa, of a
Mexican who is recorded as the most prominent and successful war thief
of the Comanche in 1855, and of another Mexican still a man of influence
among the Zuņi. The present chief of the Comanche, Quanalt Parker (q.
v.), is the son of a captive American woman. The confederated tribes of
Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa Apache still hold at least 50 adopted white
captives, and it is probable that fully one-third of the whole
population have a traceable percentage of captive blood. The same is
probably true in nearly equal measure of the Apache of Arizona.
From Oregon to south Alaska a different treatment of
captives was brought about by the existence of a slave class. Since
slaves were the most valuable property a man could have, the lives of
those taken in war were always spared unless such captives had committed
some great injury to the victorious tribe that prompted immediate
revenge. After this they might be killed at any moment by their masters;
but such a fate seldom overtook them until they grew too old to work,
unless their masters became involved in a property contest, or the
people of the town from which they had been taken had committed
depredations.
Among the Tlingit, however, slaves were killed during
mortuary feasts, and bodies of slaves were thrown into the holes dug for
the posts of a new house. Slave women, especially if they were known to
be of noble descent, sometimes married their captors and became free.
Four prominent Haida clans and one clan among the Tsimshian are said to
have originated from marriages of this kind, while another prominent
Haida clan was called "the Slaves," though it is impossible to say
whether they were descended from slaves or whether the term is applied
ironically. Whether male slaves ever rose to a high position is
doubtful, owing to the strong caste system that here prevailed. Instead
of receiving commendation, a slave who had escaped suffered a certain
opprobrium which could be removed only by the expenditure of a great
amount of property. At the same time it is related of the greatest
Skidegate chief that he had been enslaved in his youth.
Consult Baker, True Stories of New England Captives,
1897; Drake, Indian Captivities, 1851; Eastman, Seven and Nine Years
among the Camanches and Apaches, 1874; Gentl. of Elvas. in Hakluyt Soc.
Puhl., ix, 1861; Harris, Life of Horatio Jones, 1903; Herrick, Indian
Narr., 1854; Hunter, Captivity among the Indians, 1823; Johnston,
Incidents attending the Capture, etc., of Charles Johnston, 1827; Kelly,
Narr. of Captivity among the Sioux, 1880; Larimer, Capture and Escape,
Or Life among the Sioux, 1870: Leo, Three Years among the Camanehes,
1859; Mooney in 17th Rep. 13. A. E:, 1898; Relation of Alvar Nufiez
Caber;a de Vaca, B. South transl., I87l, Severance (ed.), Captivity of
Benj. Gilbert, 1904; Spurs (led.), Dangers and Sufferings of Robert
Eastburn, 1904; Spencer, Indian Captivity, 1834; Stratton, Captivity of
the the Oatman Girls, 1857; Tanner, Narr. of Captivity, 1830.
Handbook of American Indians, Frederick W. Hodge,1906
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/indiancaptives.htm
BACK TO ARTICLE/CHAPTER LIST
NEXT >> |
