Since the day when Columbus miscalled the aborigines of America
"Indians," believing that he had discovered India, popular fallacies
respecting them have been numerous and widespread. Some of the more
important of them will be discussed here.
Origin of the Indians. As soon as, or even before, the
newly discovered continent was found to be not connected with Asia,
theories of the origin of the Indians began to be formulated by the
learned, and, consistently with the religious spirit of the age, a
solution of the problem was sought in Hebrew tradition. In the Indians
were recognized the descendants of the "lost tribes of Israel." The
latest and most earnest supporters of the Hebrew origin are the Mormons,
whose statements are alleged to have the authority of direct revelation.
Absurd as the theory is in the light of present knowledge, anthropology
owes to it several valuable treatises on the habits and characteristics
of the Indians, which it could ill afford to lose, notably Lord
Kingsborough's Mexican Antiquities (1830-48) and Adair's History of the
North American Indians (1775). the latter book being filled with fancied
similarities to Jewish customs, rites, and even traditions. (See Lost
Ten Tribes.)
Equally absurd, but less widespread, was the myth of a
tribe of Welsh Indians, descendants of a colony reputed to have been
founded by prince Madoc about 1170. The myth placed them, with their
Welsh language and Welsh Bible, first on the Atlantic coast, where they
were identified with the Tuscarora, and then farther and farther west,
until about 1776 we find the Welsh, or " white," Indians on the
Missouri, where they appeared as the Mandan (according to Catlin), and
later on Red River. Later still they were identified with the Hopi of
Arizona, and finally with the Modoc of Oregon, after which they vanish.
(See Croatan; White Indians; consult Mooney in Am. Anthrop., iv, 393,
1891, and Bowen, America Discovered by the Welsh, 1876. )
Other seekers of a foreign origin for the American
aborigines have derived them in turn from Greeks, Chinese, Japanese,
Phenicians, Irish, Polynesians, and even from the peoples of
Australasia. Most of these theories are based on fortuitous analogies in
habits, institutions, and arts; but the attempt is frequently made to
strengthen them by alleged similarities of language. The general
similarity of the human mind in similar stages of culture in every part
of the world, with its proneness to produce similar arts, institutions,
religious ideas, myths, and even material products, sufficiently
explains the former class of facts, whilst the hypotheses of identity of
language, based, as they invariably are, on a small number of verbal
similarities in the nature of coincidences, are wholly disproved on
adequate examination and analysis.
Indian languages are so utterly unlike European
speech in sound and so different in structure and character that it is
not surprising that erroneous conceptions concerning them should arise.
The unlearned conceived the idea that the speech of all Indians of
whatsoever tribe was practically the same, that it was little more than
a sort of gibberish, that it contained but a small number of words, that
to eke out its shortcomings the Indian was compelled to use gestures,
that it was hardly human speech, much less orderly and well developed
language.
A comprehension of the manifold variety of Indian
linguistic families, embracing a multitude of languages and dialects, of
their rich vocabularies, flexible grammatical methods, and general
sufficiency to express any and all concepts the Indian mind is capable
of entertaining, above all, of their capacity, shared with more advanced
tongues, of indefinite expansion corresponding culture growth, was
reserved for a later period and more complete study. The intricacies of
Indian languages are even yet but partially understood; their proper
study has hardly begun, so vast is the field.
Indians not nomadic. One of the common fallacies of
early historians, by no means yet entirely dissipated, was the idea that
the Indians were generally nomadic, having no fixed place of abode, but
wandering hither and yon as fancy or the necessities of existence
demanded. The term nomadic is not, in fact, properly applicable to any
Indian tribe. Every tribe and every congeries of tribes, with exceptions
to be noted, laid claim to and dwelt within the limits of a certain
tract or region, the boundaries of which were well understood, and were
handed down by tradition and not ordinarily relinquished save to a
superior force. Between many of the tribes, indeed, were debatable
areas, owned by none but claimed by all, which from time immemorial
formed the cause of disputes and intertribal wars.
Most or all of the
tribes east of the Mississippi except in the north, and some west of it,
were to a greater or less extent agricultural and depended much for food
on the products of their village. During the hunting season such tribes
or villages broke up into small parties and dispersed over their domains
more or less widely in search of game; or they visited the seashore for
fish and shellfish. Only in this restricted sense may they be said to be
nomadic. The so-called "horse Indians" and the Plains Indians, at least
after the latter acquired the horse, wandered very widely in search of
their chief dependence, the buffalo. Though most of these had no fixed
and permanent villages, they yet possessed some idea as to the extent of
their own territory as well as that of their neighbors. The Athapascan
and Algonquian tribes of the far north, where absence of agriculture,
the wide expanses of desolate territory and the nature of the game
necessitated frequent changes of abode and forbade any form of fixed
village life, most nearly approached nomadic life.
Indian ownership of laud. The exact nature of Indian
ownership of land appears not to have been understood by the early
settlers, and the misunderstanding was the fruitful source of trouble
and even bloodshed. Neither the individual Indian nor the family
possessed vested rights in land. The land belonged to the tribe as a
whole, but individual families and clans might appropriate for their own
use and tillage any portion of the tribe's unoccupied domain. Hence it
was impossible for a chief, family, clan, or any section of a tribe
legally to sell or to give away to aliens, white or red, any part of the
tribal domain, and the inevitable consequence of illegal sales or gifts
was bad feeling, followed often by repudiation of the contract by the
tribe as a whole. Attempts by the whites to enforce these supposed legal
sales were followed by disorder and bloodshed, often by prolonged wars.
(See Land Tenure.)
Ideas of royalty.-It is perhaps not strange that the
early emigrants to America, habituated to European ideas of royal
descent and kingly prerogative, should describe the simple village and
tribal organizations of the Indians with high sounding phrases. Early
treatises on the Indians teem with the terms "king," "queen," and
"princess," and even with ideas of hereditary privilege and rank. It
would be difficult to imagine states of society more unlike than one
implied by such terms and the simple democracy of most of the Indians.
On the northwest coast and among some tribes of the south. Atlantic
region ideas of caste had gained a foothold, principally founded on a
property basis, but this was exceptional. Equality and independence were
the cardinal principles of Indian society. In some tribes, as the
Iroquois, certain of the highest chieftaincies were confined to certain
clans, and these may be said in a modified sense to have been
hereditary, and there were also hereditary chieftaincies among the
Apache, Chippewa, Sioux, and other tribes.
Practically, however, the offices within the limits of
the tribal government were purely elective. The ability of the
candidates, their courage, eloquence, previous services, above all,
their personal popularity, formed the basis for election to any and all
offices. Except among the Natchez and a few other tribes of the lower
Mississippi, no power in any wise analogous to that of the despot, no
rank savoring of inheritance, as we understand the term, existed among
our Indians. Even military service was not compulsory, but he who would
might organize a war party, and the courage and known prowess in war of
the leader chiefly determined the number of his followers. So loose were
the ties of authority on the warpath that a bad dream or an unlucky
presage was enough to diminish the number of the war party at any time
or even to break it up entirely.
The idea prevalent among the colonists of a legal
executive head over the Indians, a so-called king, was acceptable on
account of the aid it lent to the transaction of business with the
Indians, especially to the enforcement of contracts. It enabled the
colonists to treat directly and effectively with one man, or at most
with a few, for the sale of land, instead of with the tribe as a whole.
The fact is that social and political organization was of the lowest
kind; the very name of tribe, with implication of a body bound together
by social ties and under some central authority, is of very uncertain
application. (See Chiefs)
Knowledge of Medicine. Many erroneous ideas of the
practice of medicine among the Indians are current, often fostered by
quacks who claim to have received herbs and methods of practice from
noted Indian doctors. The medical art among all Indians was rooted in
sorcery; and the prevailing idea that diseases were caused by the
presence or acts of evil spirits, which could be removed only by sorcery
and incantation, controlled diagnosis and treatment. This conception
gave rise to both priest and physician. Combined with it there grew up a
certain knowledge of and dependence upon simples, one important
development of which was what we know as the doctrine of signatures,
according to which, in some cases, the color, shape, and markings of
plants are supposed to indicate the organs for which in disease they are
supposed to be specifics. There was current in many tribes, especially
among the old women, a rude knowledge of the therapeutic use of a
considerable number of plants and roots, and of the sweating process,
which was employed with little discrimination. (See Medicine and
Medicine-men.)
The Great Spirit. Among the many erroneous conceptions
regarding the Indian none has taken deeper root than the one which
ascribes to him belief in an overruling deity, the "Great Spirit." Very
far removed from this tremendous conception of one all-powerful deity
was the Indian belief in a multitude of spirits that dwelt in animate
and inanimate objects, to propitiate which was the chief object of his
supplications and sacrifices. To none of his deities did the Indian
ascribe moral good or evil. His religion was practical. The spirits were
the source of good or bad fortune whether on the hunting path or the war
trail, in the pursuit of a wife or in a ball game. If successful he
adored, offered sacrifices, and made valuable presents. If unsuccessful
he cast his manito away and offered his faith to more powerful or more
friendly deities.
In this world of spirits the Indian dwelt in
perpetual fear. He feared to offend the spirits of the mountains, of the
dark wood, of the lake, of the prairie. The real Indian was a different
creature from the joyous and untrammeled savage pictured and envied by
the poet and philosopher. (See Mythology, Nanabozho, Religion.)
Happy hunting ground. If the term be understood to
imply nothing more than a belief of the Indian in a future existence, it
answers, perhaps, as well as another. That the Indian believes in a
future life his mortuary rites abundantly testify. It may he confidently
stated that no tribe of American Indians was without some idea of a life
after death, but as to its exact nature and whereabouts the Indian's
ideas, differing in different tribes, were vague. Nor does it appear
that belief in a future life had any marked influence on the daily life
and conduct of the individual. The American Indian seems not to have
evolved the idea of hell and future punishment.
Division of labor. The position of woman in
Indian society, especially as regards the division of labor, has been
misunderstood. Historians have generally pictured her as a drudge and
slave, toiling incessantly, while her indolent husband idles away most
of the time and exists chiefly by the fruits of her labor. While the
picture is not wholly false, it is much overdrawn, chiefly because the
observations which suggest it were made about the camp or village, in
which and in the neighboring fields lay the peculiar province of woman's
activity. In addition to the nurture of children, their duties were the
erection and care of the habitation, cooking, preparation of skins, and
the making of clothing, pottery, and basketry, and among many tribes
they were expected also to help bring home the spoils of the chase.
Among agricultural tribes general tillage of the fields was largely
woman's work. Thus her tasks were many and laborious, but she had her
hours for gossip and for special women's games. In an Indian community,
where the food question is always a serious one, there can be no idle
hands. The women were aided in their round of tasks by the children and
the old men. Where slavery existed their toil was further lightened by
the aid of slaves, and in other tribes captives were often compelled to
aid in the women's work.
The men did all the hunting, fishing, and
trapping, which in savagery are always toilsome, frequently dangerous,
and not rarely fatal, especially in winter. The man alone bore arms, and
to him belonged the chances and dangers of war. The making and
administration of laws, the conduct of treaties, and the general
regulation of tribal affairs were in the hands of the men, though in
these fields woman also had important prerogatives. To men were
entrusted all the important ceremonies and most of the religious rites,
also the task of memorizing tribal records and treaties, as well as
rituals, which involved astonishing feats of memory. The chief manual
labor of the men was the manufacture of hunting and war implements, an
important occupation that took much time.
The manufacture of canoes,
also, was chiefly man's work, and, indeed, in some tribes the men did
the skin dressing and even made their wives' clothing. Thus, in Indian
society, the position of woman was usually subordinate, and the lines of
demarcation between the duties of the sexes were everywhere sharply
drawn. Nevertheless, the division of labor was not so unequal as it
might seem to the casual observer, and it is difficult to understand how
the line could have been more fairly drawn in a state of society where
the military spirit was so dominant. Indian communities lived in
constant danger of attack, and their men, whether in camp or on the
march, must ever be ready at a moment's warning to seize their arms and
defend their homes and families.
Where Indian communities adopted settled village life,
as did the Pueblo peoples, or where the nature of tribal wealth was such
as to enable women to become property holders on a large scale, as among
the Navaho, whose women own the sheep, or where slavery was an
established institution and extensively practiced, as among the
northwest coast tribes, the position of women advanced, and there
ensued, among other social changes, a more equal division of laborious
tasks. (See Labor, Women.)
Degeneracy of mixed-bloods. It has long been an
adage that the mixed-blood is a moral degenerate, exhibiting few or none
of the virtues of either, but all the vices of both of the parent
stocks. In various parts of the country there are many mixed-bloods of
undoubted ability and of high moral standing, and there is no evidence
to prove that the low moral status of the average mixed-bloods of the
frontier is a necessary result of mixture of blood, but there is much to
indicate that it arises chiefly from his unfortunate environment.
The mixed-blood often finds little favor with
either race, while his superior education and advantages, derived from
association with the whites, enable him to outstrip his Indian brother
in the pursuit of either good or evil.
Absorption into the dominant race is likely to be
the fate of the Indian, and there is no reason to fear that when freed
from his anomalous environment the mixed-blood will not win an honorable
social, industrial, and political place in
the national life. (See Mixed-bloods.)
Indian pigmies and giants.-All times and all peoples
have had traditions of pigmies and giants. It is therefore nowise
surprising that such myths were early transplanted to American soil. The
story of an ancient race of pigmies in Tennessee, familiar to most
archeologists, owes its origin to the discovery, in the early half of
the last century, of numerous small stone coffins or cists containing
skeletons. The largest, measured by Featherstonhaugh, was 24 in. long by
9 in. deep. The small size of the cists was assumed by their discoverers
to be proof of the existence of a race of dwarfs, and the belief gained
ready credence and exists to the present day in the minds of a few. In
many cases the skeletons of the supposed dwarfs proved to be those of
children, while, as pointed out by Jones and Thomas, the skeletons of
the adults found in the cists had been deprived of flesh, a common
Indian mortuary custom throughout the mound region, and then disjointed,
when the bones of an adult could be packed into very small space.
A race of dwarfs has also been popularly ascribed
to the cliff-dweller region of New Mexico and Arizona, partly owing to
the finding of shriveled and shrunken mummies of children, too hastily
assumed to be those of dwarfs, and partly owing to the discovery of
small apartments in the cliff-dwellings, of the nature of cubby-holes
for the storage of property, the entrances to which were too small to
permit the passage, erect, of an ordinary man; hence, in the mind of the
discoverers, they must have been used by dwarfs. The Pueblo peoples are,
indeed, of relatively small stature, but they are as far from being
dwarfs as other Indians from being giants. (For details respecting the
dwarfs of Tennessee, see Haywood, Natural and Aboriginal History of
Tennessee, 1823; Jones, Antiquities of Tennessee, 10, 1876.)
The myth of the discovery of giant skeletons,
perennial in newspapers, is revived at times by the finding of huge
fossil mammalian remains of ancient epochs, erroneously supposed by the
ignorant to be human; at others by the discovery of buried skeletons the
bones of which have in the course of time become separated, so as to
give the impression of beings of unusual height.
There was considerable diversity of stature among
Indian tribes, some, as the Pueblos, being of rather small size, while
among the tribes of the lower Colorado and the Plains were many men of
unusual size. Now and then, too, as among other peoples, a man is found
who is a real giant among his kind; a skeleton was exhumed in West
Virginia which measured 7½ ft in length and 19 in. across the shoulders.
(See Anatomy, Physiology.)
Mound-builders and Cliff-dwellers. The belief was
formerly held by many that the mound-builders of the Mississippi valley
and the cliff-dwellers of the southwest border were racially distinct
from the Indians or had reached a superior degree of culture. The more
thoroughly the mounds and cliff ruins have been explored and the more
carefully the artifacts, customs, and culture status of these ancient
peoples are studied, the more apparent is it that their attainments
builders of the mounds and the dwellers in the cliffs are the ancestors
of the tribes now or recently in possession of the same regions.
Stolidity and taciturnity. The idea of the Indian, once
popular, suggests a taciturn and stolid character, who smoked his pipe
in silence and stalked reserved and dignified among his fellows.
Unquestionably the Indian of the Atlantic slope differed in many
respects from his kinsmen farther west; it may be that the forest Indian
of the north and east imbibed something of the spirit of the primeval
woods which, deep and gloomy, overspread much of his region. If so, he
has no counterpart in the regions west of the Mississippi. On occasions
of ceremony and religion the western Indian can be both dignified and
solemn, as befits the occasion; but his nature, if not as bright and
sunny as that of the Polynesian, is at least as far removed from
moroseness as his disposition is from taciturnity. The Indian of the
present day has at least a fair sense of humor, and is very far from
being a stranger to jest, laughter, and repartee.
Handbook of American Indians, Frederick W. Hodge,1906
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/indianfallacies.htm
BACK TO ARTICLE/CHAPTER LIST
NEXT >> |
