Part 1 - Chapter 3 

Discussions of the social organizations and customs of the Southeast Indians that identified them regionally and individually.

Most of the Indian tribes did not call themselves by the names that have become familiar in history. A number of the tribes called themselves, in their own language, "the real people" or "principal people". Many of the names that are familiar today are derived from the Mobilian trade language - a dialect that was understood by the Gulf state tribes. Mobilian was a corruption of the Choctaw language; thus, many of the names appear to have been derived from the language of the Choctaws.1

Two of the earliest spellings of the present name "Cherokee" were "Chalaque" and "Cheraqui". These were thought to have been derived from the Choctaw word "choluk" or "chiluk" referring to the caves in the mountains where the Cherokees once lived.2 Swanton, in BAE 137, listed Indian tribal names and their interpretations:

"Cherokee - Probably from the Muskogee word tciloki, `people of a different speech.' [This interpretation is different from that of Mooney.]

Creek Confederation - The name `Creek' resulted from a shortening of `Ochesee Creek,' the name by which the Ocmulgee River was known to the English.

Seminole - People living at a distance from the settled towns and hence sometimes called ` renegades' in Muskogee; but the word does not necessarily carry an opprobrious significance.

Tunica - Meaning in their own language `the people' or `those who are the people.'"3

Furthermore, many of the appellations are nicknames borrowed from the lexicon of neighboring tribes and not always complimentary to the particular tribe.4

The smallest social unit in any society is the family. Descent, throughout the majority of the Gulf area, was matrilineal (through the mother's line). The blood father of a child was not responsible for raising that child. The duty was the responsibility of the child's maternal uncle.

Since descent was matrilineal, children were born into the mother's clan or group of blood relatives; this affiliation, also was passed through the female line making all of the children in one family members of their mother's clan.

Since Indians felt a close affinity to both plants and animals, many of the clans (also known as gentes) were totemic - pertaining to a relationship to a particular animal. It was believed that in the "remote legendary past" the animal was the originator of the clan.5

Clans had a very important role in the Indian's society. They, automatically, prevented incest from occurring because of the very strict taboo of never marrying into one's own clan. Other taboos were specific to a particular clan. The clans among the Choctaw were known as Iksa. "[They were] established and regulated upon principles of unity, fidelity, and charity."6

The clan also was the inheritor of the property of the deceased and was responsible for providing for indigent clan members.7  Sometimes two or more clans joined together for religious purposes and formed a phratry8. Within the phratry, intermarriage was also forbidden.9

The next largest division in a tribe was a moiety10. The Chickasaws, for example, were divided into two moieties, the Imosaktea and the Intcukwalipa. They distinguished themselves by painting their cheekbones. The former group painted across and above their cheekbones, and the latter painted below their cheekbones.11

Clans, as stated before, were exogamous; moieties, however, were usually endogamous. While a person was required to marry outside of his clan, he was usually required to marry inside of his moiety.12

Indian towns were composed of moieties. Among the Creek Confederation, the towns were divided into white towns and red towns. The white towns symbolized peace and wisdom and were in charge of executive functions while the red towns stood for war and prowess and were responsible for legislative and judicial functions. These colors, as with the Chickasaws' placement of paint, were used to distinguish affiliations. The clans were also distinguished as being red or white. However, members of a red clan could live in a white town. During times of peace, the white towns ruled; during times of war, the red towns assumed control of the tribe as a whole.13

"In almost every Indian nation, there are several Peaceable towns, which are called `old-beloved,' `ancient, holy,' or white towns; they seem to have formerly been `towns of refuge,' for it is not in the memory of their oldest people, that ever human blood was shed in them;...."14

The clans regulated their own internal affairs. Each clan had an Elder Man, who was usually the oldest. He acted as teacher or advisor and his authority was great.15

Likewise, the education of the children was regulated by this same Elder man. The daily conduct of the children was regulated by the child's mother's brother. The father of the child was in charge of his sister's children. The tribal form of government where one person reigned over the entire tribe was initiated and forced upon the Indians by the Europeans. Since the European form of government centered around one powerful personage, the Europeans found it impossible to deal with all the autonomous or semi-autonomous groupings of Indians. The Europeans instituted the concept of a chief who was in charge of the entire tribe. This chief might be recognized by the European community, but he was not, necessarily, recognized by the tribe.

"When John Sibley became Indian agent in 1807, he summoned the North Louisiana Choctaw to Natchitoches and directed them to select a chief. Displeased with their choice, Sibley eventually managed to replace him with a friendlier chief."16

This type of manipulation, historically, led to many problems, especially as it could directly affect the solemnization of political treaties.

Before the Europeans exerted their power over the Indians, the political unit was the talwa (in Creek) or town. A chiefdom consisted of one town or a group of towns. The authority of the chief (governor of a town) varied regionally and also historically. When Creek towns merged together in an alliance, they were said to be "of the same fire"17, which referred to the sacred and eternal fire kept in each household and drawn from the fire of the town or talwa.18

The position of chief was basically hereditary; however, in some tribes, if a chief, to use the European designation, was becoming too old to govern wisely, another could be appointed to take his place. The position of chief did not pass from father to son, partrilinealy, but through the female line. "A man's son was never made chief in his father's stead. His uncle was the nearest kin, being his mother's brother, and having the same blood as his mother."19

As previously stated, most of the Indian tribes didn't have what the Europeans called Emperors or Kings although some of the tribes in the gulf area (Natchez) had almost their equivalent in the form of the Great Sun (the highest appellation in their nation) who ruled over the tribe.

"Their [the Indians] highest title, either in military or civil life, signifies only a chieftain. They have no words to express despotic power, arbitrary kings, oppressed or obedient subjects......The power of their chiefs is an empty sound."20

In some of the Indian societies, women were allowed to become chiefs through decent or appointments. This was mainly true in the Eastern Siouan area and the Tidewater area of Virginia.21

The town chief among the Creeks, was appointed from the principal clan.

"Whenever another clan increased in numbers and importance so as to exceed that of the principal clan, a part or a whole of this clan would separate from the village and establish a new one." 22

However, sometimes one clan governed a number of towns.Councils were the basic decision making bodies.

"Although each chiefdom had a council as its central political body, its actual powers were severely restricted. The Cherokees in particular, were opposed to any form of coercion within the chiefdom...."23

Since the Indians had no written laws, their government rested alone on custom and usage.

".......and it is apparent to an impartial observer, who resides but a little time amongst them, that it is from the most delicate sense of the honor and reputation of their tribes and families, that their laws and customs receive their force and energy."24

Their basic philosophy was "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth". In the Chickasaw code of conduct, as with most of the other tribes, the clan's council of Elders usually metered out punishment. However, the laws were a part of the everyday life of the people and the responsibility for criminal actions was known and adhered to. The kinship structure dictated that murder was to be punished by the family of the victim. If the killer could not be found, a relative had to die in his place. Since allegiance to kin was extremely sacred, this rarely happened.

If the cultural body forming a tribe was large, for example in the case of the Chickasaws, Creeks, and Choctaws, eminent domain of land was controlled by the entire body. Land could not be given away to outsiders, especially the Whites, without the counsel of the entire body of the tribe. For private use within the tribe, use of land signified ownership and was only in effect as long as the land was in use.25 Furthermore:

"It is an established principal with the Cherokees in common with all Indians, that Air, Water, and Land are a free gift of the Creator to all men, and when land is traded it is always understood that only the right to use it is meant."26

The aim of this book is not to deal with the political relation between the Indians and the Europeans. Nevertheless, the vast differences in the concepts of government and land use can be seen to have been the trigger for misunderstandings and extreme clashes between the two vastly different societies.

Whereas the chiefdomship was usually passed down simply through the maternal line, in some tribes it was passed to the chief's sister's son, the nephew. This concept insured that the rulers would always be of the same clan. With this ranked clan system, one kin group held the power autocratically. The Tunican tribe followed this system, but like the Creek, they had a peace chief and a war chief.27

Another and different system was that of the Natchez and Chitimacha. This segmentary lineage system boasted a highly stratified society. Among the Natchez, the system was in the form of a pyramid of basically two classes: Suns, Nobles, and Honored people comprised the nobility and commoners, called Stinkards, comprised the lower class.

Suns
Nobles
Honored People
Common people called Stinkards

In this system, Nobles were forced to marry commoners; but descent was still matrilineal and the children's rank was determined by which parent was the parent from the Noble class. The children could, then, because of the forced marriage assumed a rank lower than the parent's nobility ranking. "Some anthropologists have pointed to statistics indicating that if class or rank exogamy had continued among the Natchez, the tribe would have run out of eligible marriage partners within a century."28

The Choctaws regarded each other and their society in a very different manner than did the Natchez. "There were no degrees of society among them, no differences in social gatherings; all felt themselves equal, of the same standing, and on the same terms of social equality."29

The attitudes of the larger units were mirrored in the smaller units. As was stated above, the Cherokees did not believe in coercion to enforce group laws. In addition, "They would not even coerce their children; they were horrified at British headmasters who caned their pupils."30 Once again, the difference in European and Indian values was extremely vast and polarized.

The Indians cherished their children. They considered them to be riches, not just charges.31   In writing about the Southern Indians, Hennepin stated:

"These women have so great care of their children, that they avoid all carnal commerce with their husbands 'til the child be three or four years old."32

Chickasaw women desired that the infant have free access to their milk for as long as the child desired.33  Indian children were reared to be hardy. They were dipped in cold water soon after birth.

"They believed that if a child was not tempered like a piece of metal it was likely to die and so they plunged infants into water just after birth. Then they took them back to the house, put them in out of the wind, and let their clothing dry on them."34

According to Hennepin, Indian infants were swathed like the European children except bands of large skins and cotton were used so that the child would not be too hot.35

Beverley stated, in reference to the Virginia Indians, that the infants were bound naked to a board (a little longer than the length of the child) with a hole in it for evacuation. Between the child and the board was soft cotton, wool, or fur or any soft material for the baby to lie on. The child was kept this way until his bones had hardened and he was ready to crawl about36.

While in the cradle, some of the Southeast tribes (see Chapter 1 - Salient Attributes of Different Cultural Subdivisions) flattened their infant's heads. Different tribes used different methods, "but it is chiefly the crown of the head they depress, in order to beautify themselves, as their wild fancy terms it; for they call us [White men] long heads, by way of contempt.37 "

Lawson stated that the Waxhaw tribe flattened the male infant's head so that his "Sight was much strengthened and quicker thereby to discern the game in hunting at larger distances"38

"The instrument I spoke of before, being a sort of press,.... in which they make the child's head flat, it makes the eyes stand a prodigious way asunder and the hair hangs over the forehead like the eves of a house which seems very frightful."39

The Choctaws fixed the infant boy's head into a recess or hollow in the cradle board in order to change the shape of the head. A bag of sand was, also, placed on the boy's forehead to create a high and lofty forehead that sloped off toward the back.40 The child spent about the first year of his or her life in this cradle board and was only taken out for washing, greasing, and dressing.

"This curiously made little cradle (for such it may truly be called) was often highly ornamented with all the paraphernalia that a mother's love and care could suggest or obtain. The little fellow's face, [applied to both sexes] which was always exposed to view, was carefully protected by a piece of wood bent a few inches above it.41"

The mother carried this cradle board with her wherever she went. When the child reached crawling age, she still carried the infant around with her; however, this time, she carried it on her back in the summer or in the hollow of her match-coat in the winter leaving nothing but the head visible. The description of the infant being carried is from drawings of the Virginia Indians.42

Chickasaw mothers never placed their babies "upon their feet before the strength of their limbs would safely permit [it]."43

"Their [the Chickasaws'] male children they chuse [choose] to raise on the skins of panthers, on account of the communicative principle, which they reckon all nature is possest [possessed] of, in conveying qualities according to the regimen that is followed: and, as the panther is endued [endowed] with many qualities, beyond any of his fellow animals in the American woods, as smelling, strength, cunning, and prodigious spring, they reckon such a bed is the first rudiment of war. But it is worthy of notice, that they change the regimen in nurturing their young females; these they lay on the skins of fawns or buffalo calves, because they are shy and timorous."44

Children were named at birth and, then, again upon reaching puberty. Among the Cherokees, the name for the child was selected by the father's family, and a prominent old woman of the tribe named the child. This name was considered to be only a baby name and, thus, not very important.45

The Creeks named their infants for a special event or fortune that happened to the family;46 other tribes named the child according to its appearance or temperament.47 As the child got older, he or she received other names that reflected their character, bravery, temperament, etc.

Among the majority of the tribes, the Cherokee excepted, "the father had no more to do with the discipline and education of his children than an alien."48 As stated previously, it was the responsibility of the mother's brother to supervise the education and discipline of her children.49 The Cherokees also followed this practice, but they waited until the children were older and could learn "adult type tasks"- hunting, basket making, etc. At this time, also, they were divided according to the sex of the child.50

While the children were still young, both the girls and boys were taught by an Elder Man of the clan who would tell them tales, instruct them in obedience to their uncles and mothers, and instruct them in ethical conduct.

When the children were older, they were separated according to sex so that, at least among the Creeks, there would not be any danger of carnal intercourse among the children. They were kept separate until the males took wives or were beyond the age of indiscretion. The girls were instructed by an Elder Women and the boys by an Elder Man.51

Among the Chickasaws, the boys were separated around the age of twelve, and the village elders instructed them in the skills of hunting, swimming, wrestling, etc.52

While the Indians of the Southeast did not believe in severely disciplining their children, they did put them through ordeals to harden them from childhood through puberty, but they did not punish them along the same lines as did their European counterparts. To discipline children, the child's uncle or clan elder might scratch the child with dried snake's teeth, appeal to his honor, pour cold water on him, or simply scold him.53

The women, at least among the Choctaw, were not permitted to correct their male children. If a woman struck her son, she in turn, would be reprimanded and possibly struck herself.54

Scratching was done as a form of punishment or as a method of hardening the child. Once a year, the boy after the age of six until the age of fifteen was scratched on his calves and thighs so that the scratches bled. "It was regarded as an honor for a young man at the ball games to show his scratches in regular order on his arms and legs."55

As stated earlier, puberty rites, especially male, varied from tribe to tribe. Among the Algonquian tribes and Eastern Siouans, both sexes underwent strict and punishing ordeals. Basically, they were shut up in separate houses away from the body of the tribe, forced to dance, fast, and often take hallucinatory drugs. These events were called Husquenaws. Meanwhile, young Creek males (except for doctors) underwent the same tests as did the other warriors in the tribe. Creek girls did not have to undergo any special test.56

Among all the tribes, women were separated at the time of their menses. Before returning to their own homes, and the community in general, they had to cleans themselves and change their clothing.57

The taboos and procedures for childbirth were similar among the Southeastern tribes. Childbirth was accompanied by the same taboos as was menstruation. Women birthed their child, alone or with a midwife, separate from their immediate community.58 Men, also had rituals to follow and theirs involved fasting.59

Premarital freedom among women, varied from tribe to tribe. However, once married, the punishment for adultery was severe. Divorce was acceptable in some tribal societies. The degree of ease for its attainment varied. The way children were divided between the spouses also varied. Some tribes approved of polygamy especially among the chiefs. Marriages were considered serious affairs.

"An offer of marriage seems to have emanated sometimes from a youth, sometimes from the people of the youth's clan, and sometimes from the people of the girl's clan. The father and his people had nothing to do with it."60

A practice common among the Choctaws was for a potential suitor to approach the girl without speaking and see if she noticed him. If she did, she would send him a small token of recognition. Then, he would offer presents to her family and a day for the festivities would be set.61

The Chickasaw male suitor would present a bundle of clothes to the intended bride's mother. She would then give it to her daughter a few days later. If the girl accepted, then a wedding date was set.62

Robert Beverley stated in his treatise on Virginia that:

"Intermarriage [with the White Man] had been induced as a method proposed very often by the Indians in the beginning, urging it frequently as a rule; that the English were not their friends if they refused."63

Among the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Alabama tribes, the husband was instructed to avoid his mother-in-law.64 If the girl's mother and her husband had to be in the same room, a partition between the two would be erected to insure that they did not gaze upon each other.65

All tribes observed special customs of burial and mourning. The particular custom depended on the tribe and also on the position of the deceased and that person's sex. The higher the position, the more ornate was the burial ritual. The proscribed mourning period was usually longer for a widow than a widower. The three basic modes of burial were: immolation, burial of the whole body soon after death, and burial of just the bones.

The Chickasaws, dressed in their finest clothes and with their material positions around them, were buried under the house in which they had dwelt after first being removed to the outside of their home immediately after their death in order not to contaminate their abode. They were placed on a skin in a sitting position facing west.66 If the deceased were a husband, the widow had to mourn for a period of at least three years and to not indulge in any diversions. If she did partake in festivities, she would have to suffer the penalty of adultery. Likewise, she was not allowed to anoint her hair but had to let it be free flowing. Males did not need to mourn for as long a period of time if their wife died.67

The Choctaw practiced a different custom of burial. When a person died, they erected a scaffold high enough to prevent wild beasts from disturbing the corpse and placed the person wrapped in a skin on the scaffold. The person remained there until their flesh rotted away and, then, an official bone picker removed all the flesh from the bones with their long finger nails of their thumb, index, and middle fingers (which were never cut). The cleaned bones were placed in a reed type basket and put in a bone-house. When the bones house was filled, all the hampers were place in one location and earth put over them forming mounds.68

Both the Choctaws and Chickasaws had specific cries which were uttered over the corpse, sometimes, by entire villages and their neighbors.69  The Choctaws, also, hired mourners to wail and cry around the deceased thereby magnifying the dead.70

The Creek tribes buried their dead with all their possessions in a four foot deep hole under a rock or under the house.

"The corpse is placed in a hole in a sitting position, with a blanket wrapped about it, and the legs bent under it and tied together. The relations howl loudly and mourn publicly for four days."71

Among the Creek, the dead are buried dressed but without moccasins so that their friends will not hear them walk about. Also, they are buried with a handkerchief in each hand.72 The more prominent the tribal member was, the more elaborate and of longer duration was the mourning period.

The Natchez Buried their dead in ossuaries or sacred houses built to house eminent tribal members. The flesh was picked by bone pickers and then burnt. The ashes along with the bones were placed in the deceased's skin and the whole erected on a shelf in the ossuary. In some tribes the ossuary was only for eminent tribal members or chiefs; while in other tribes, everyone was placed in an ossuary.73

"Among the Natchez the death of any of their Suns, as I have before observed, is a most fatal event; for it is sure to be attended with the destruction of a great number of people of both sexes."74

As stated above, when a Sun died, many were buried along with him. It was considered an honor, and parents even strangled their infants so that they could accompany the Sun to the spirit world. Spouses of the Suns were mandatorily killed to accompany them on their journey.75

The accounts for the burial of the Cherokee's differ. Timberlake stated that "They seldom bury their dead, but throw them into the river.76

However, Gilbert stated that in each of the Cherokee towns there was a man whose function was to bury the dead. They were either buried under their home or by a rock with more stones heaped on top or buried in the earth. Often, all of the deceased's clothing was buried with him.77  Men were not required to weep at the death of a relative, but women were, and their loud lamentations were excessive and repeated.78

The mounds found throughout the Mississippian Ceremonial Complex Area served different purposes. Anthropologists believe that they were used as burial mounds, temple mounds, or for other purposes that are still unknown.

The Southeast Indians believed that their world was basically predictable and orderly. When there were illness, droughts, etc. these were usually thought to have been brought on by improper human actions. They had a religious class of specialists called Priests. These priests could also be curers since most ills of mankind were based on a person's breaking taboos or creating chaos in his life. The priests, would also use medicinal herbs combined with incantations and ritualistic ceremonies to cure illnesses.

Priests had to undergo special training and initiation ceremonies. The Priests were distinct and different from the class of Diviners. These latter people were born with special abilities themselves to create changes in the environment.79

If a Cherokee were ill, an elder of his lineage would first try to cure him. If he were not able, then a blood relative would call upon a priest.80

Fasts and visions were an important component of the priesthood. Visions often were invoked by drinking certain medicinal herbs. The hallucinations that would occur were believed to be instructive. During the trainee's initiation, hallucinatory medicines played an important role. Also, fasting was not only a method of cleansing the whole self but of inducing visions.81

The Indian's life was not segmented; his religious beliefs and laws were entwined. His spiritual beliefs influenced his daily actions. William Bartram regarding the Choctaw wrote:

"It appears to me from observation, and what information I could get, that the Indians entertain rational notions of the soul's immortality, and of a future state of social existence; and accordingly, in order to inculcate morality, and promote human happiness, they applaud praise-worthy actions, as commendable and necessary for the support of civil society, and maintaining the dignity and strength of their nation or tribe, as well as securing an excellent and tranquil state and degree in the world of spirits after they decease. And they say the Great Spirit favors all good and brave men."82

While Bartram wrote concerning the Choctaw Indians, Beverley described the Powhatan Indians of Virginia:

"The Indians have no sort of letters among them. As has been before observed, they can have no written law; nor did the constitution in which we found them seem to need any. Nature and their own convenience having taught them to obey one chief who is arbiter of all things among them."83

Different crimes had different penalties among the various tribes. The Creeks, according to Hewitt-Swanton, believed that the act of punishment cleansed the culprit and removed his guilt. "Criminals carried no guilt with them out of this world."84

The one crime that was treated in basically the same manner in all Southeastern tribes was that of murder. However, the term "murder" is a misnomer because the Indians did not recognize degrees of murder. Death caused by another man was death, regardless of how it happened. Retaliation was the key. Retaliation, according to Hudson, was not a punishment but a method of preventing intra-tribal civil war because the responsible party or a member of his clan had "paid the price" for the killing. It was the responsibility of the clan of the victim to avenge his death.85

"I have known the Indians to go a thousand miles, for the purpose of revenge, in pathless woods; over hills and mountains; through large cane swamps full of grape-vines and briars; etc..........to satisfy the supposed craving ghosts of their deceased relations."86

If the murderer could not be found, then his brother, uncle or another immediate blood relative was substituted. However, if the murderer were deemed important enough to the tribe, the victim's family would adopt him as their own and remove themselves from the position of having to avenge this death. There were also other ways the murderer could atone for his deed.87

Once married, the marital partners were supposed to stay faithful. Some of the tribes recognized polygamy making it an accepted custom. Adultery was punished in various ways. In some tribes, both parties were judged responsible; in other tribes, just one of the parties was deemed responsible. (See Salient Attributes of Different Cultural Subdivisions, Part 1 Chapter 1 .) All tribes had a law that considered adultery a serious crime not only against the husband but, by inference, against the whole tribe. Hewitt-Swanton cited the Chickasaw tribe as an example of how a tribe dealt with "offenders".

"The tribe practiced a mixed system of private and public punishment for law violations. The clan council of elders passed the judgement on most crimes. Since retaliation and vengeance pervaded their legal customs, more often than not the council simply served as a detached tribunal to see that the aggrieved or his family did their duty in exacting proper retribution."88

War, as well as peace, was treated so seriously by the Southeastern Indians that the Creeks, for example had White-peace towns and Red-war towns. Each type of town was responsible for fulfilling and directing its mission and had jurisdiction over pertinent activities. The Calumet Ceremony was a peace oriented ceremony. It was usually performed by an individual or a group representative as a greeting to demonstrate peaceful intentions. The Calumet was described by Pénicaut:

"The calumet is a stick, or hollow cane, about one ell89 long, decorated all over with feathers of parrots, birds of prey, and eagles. All these feathers tied together around the stick look just about like several lady's fans from France joined together. At the end of this stick is a pipe which they call calumet."90

The "singing of the calumet" or the "calumet dance" was a method of exchanging civilities that extended from the upper Mississippi to the Gulf area. Usually a single line of warriors marched toward their goal with the lead warrior carrying the calumet to signify that they came on a peaceful mission. If smoking of the pipe was rejected by those visited, then it signified that peace wasn't desired and the warriors returned home to prepare for war.91

The calumet dance was sometimes accompanied by flute playing. However, the Indians also used the flute, alone or accompanied with singing, to signify that they came on a peaceful mission.92

Another tool the Indians used as a symbol of peace was a swan's wing. "He carries a swan's wing in his hand, painted all over with streaks of white clay, as an expressive emblem of their embassy [of good will and peace]."93

The Indian in regards to his "savagery and love of war" has probably been under dispute and attack since Europeans first saw the North American Indians. The attitude of the European authors, who wrote from minimal first hand experience, usually depicted the Indians as being extremely warlike; however, upon closer examination and upon reading personal accounts of the Indians by authors, especially traders who lived among them, a different picture is presented. Hennepin who traveled through the Southeast was an example of the former. He wrote:

"The savages of America have almost all of them a strong propension [propensity] for war because they are very revengeful. When once they have taken a disgust to anyone that is not of their own nation, they must be revenged sooner or later, though they want an opportunity to the third or fourth generation."94

However, James Adair who lived among the Indians for many years wrote:

"Indians are not fond of waging war with each other, unless prompted by some of the traders: when left to themselves, they consider with the greatest exactness and foresight, all the attending circumstances of war."95

The following statement, also, from Adair sheds further light on their attitude toward war:

"They are now satiated for the present and return home. Tradition, or the native divine impression on human nature, dictates to them that man was not born in a state of war; and as they reckon they are become impure by shedding human blood, they hasten to observe a fast for three days."96

As previously stated, fasts were a method of cleansing and purification. Another example of the Indians' attitude toward war was expressed by D.L. Rights:

"Before the intrusion of Europeans, the Indians, it is thought, did not frequently engage in war. Conflicts became more common because of the disturbances occasioned after the founding of the colonies. Nevertheless, they resented injuries; they were a proud people and revengeful. The loss of one of their lowliest tribesmen might bring a grievous war."97

The Indian tribes did not purposely antagonize each other. They would rather change their habitation in order to acquire fresh land for planting or a new range for hunting than to "cause contentious wars with their confederates and neighboring tribes".98

The Indians were prepared from childhood to become honorable warriors to seek "scalp for scalp, blood for blood, and death for death."99   According to Swanton, war was such an integral part of the Creek Confederacy that to give a complete account of that institution would be almost comparable to giving a complete account of the Creek Social System.100

"To honor and glory from warlike exploits the views of every man are directed, and therefore they are extremely cautious and watchful against any action for which they may incur public censure and disgrace."101

The Cherokee Indian tribes were divided among their military into two classes: warriors and fighting men. The latter had not as yet "distinguished themselves enough to be admitted into the rank of warriors."102

The Cherokee, as did other tribes, rewarded bravery by bestowing on the person a special appellation. Man-killer was a singularly impressive title; while old warriors and war-women received the title of "Beloved"103. They also  had a position entitled "War-Woman" or "Pretty Woman". "The institution served in a measure to mitigate the evils of war and had its origin in the clan system."104

Before a war was declared, the tribal head or a specifically designated person assembled a great council to solemnize the war plans.105

"When they meet together to consult about some great design, they sit in a private place, in a profound silence, smoking tobacco, and everyone speaks gravely in his turn. It is to be observed by the by that they never make a treaty, convention, or agreement with anybody 'til they have exchanged presents. They commonly give collars [`collier' in the original French in reference to people means necklace, not collar] - the symbol of union; they have a particular kettle for peace, and another for war. They proclaim Peace with the Calumet and War by great outcries or rather dreadful howling."106

Much ceremonial preparation was required before a group of warriors engaged in battle. Fasting and other purification rites were performed.107

Before they actually left for battle, they feasted, listened to an inspirational speech by a celebrated chief or a noted elder warrior, and then drew of the war-pipe upon a mixture of sumac and tobacco leaves which was lighted and smoked first by the orator; there after as custom demanded, the War-chief took the first puff.108

If the war turned out unsuccessful for the initiating leader, the Indians believed the leader to have been impure. Since they believed the world to be in a harmonic balance, there was no such event as one that happened by pure chance.109


1. Mooney, Myths of the Cherokee, p.15.

2. Ibid., p. 15.

3. Swanton, The Indians of the Southeastern United States, pp. 217-219.

4. Mooney, Myths of the Cherokee, p. 182.

5. Woodbury Lowery, Spanish Settlements Within the Present Limits of the United States, p. 36.

6. Ibid., p. 36.

7.Ibid., p. 36.

8. A Phratry was a term used to define religious or kinship groupings among primitive peoples.

9. Lowery, The Spanish Settlements Within the Present Limits of the United States. p. 36.

10. A moiety when it refers to kinship groupings describes a situation where, for example, in a given town there are only two clans.

11. Arrell Gibson, The Chickasaws, pp. 18-19.

12. Swanton, "Social Beliefs and Usages of the Chickasaw Indians", BAE Annual 44, p. 199.

13. J. N. B. Hewitt & John Swanton, "Notes on the Creek Indians," BAE 123, pp.123-124

14. James Adair, The History of the Indians, 1930 edition, p. 166-167.

15. Hewitt-Swanton, BAE 123, p. 137.

16. Kniffen et al. The Historic Indian Tribes of Louisiana, p. 94.

17. Hudson, The Southeast Indians, pp. 234-235.

18. Lankford, Native American Legends, p. 55.

19. Hewitt-Swanton, BAE 123, p. 134.

20. Adair, History of the Indians, 1930 edition, p. 461.

21. Swanton, "Aboriginal Culture of the Southeast," BAE 42, p. 696.

22. Ibid., pp. 132-133.

23. Hudson, The Southeastern Indians, p. 229.

24. Bartram, Travels of William Bartram, 1955 Dover edition, p. 111.

25. Swanton, "Aboriginal Culture of the Southeast", BAE Annual 42, p. 696.

26. Jack F. Kilpatrick, BAE 196, "The Wahnenauhi Manuscript" paper #77, p. 194.

27. Ibid., pp. 228-330. Quotation is from bottom of 229-to top of 330.

28. Kniffen et al. The Historic Indian Tribes of Louisiana, pp. 228-230.

29. Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians, p. 194

30. Hudson, The Southeastern Indians, p. 229.

31. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, §8, p.9.

32. Hennepin, A Continuation of the Discovery of a Vast Country in America, p. 114.

33. Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, & Natchez Indians, p. 395-396.

34. Swanton, "Choctaw Social and Ceremonial Life", BAE 103, p. 118.

35. Ibid., p. 113.

36. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, §8, pp.9-10.

37. Adair, History of the American Indian, 1930 edition, p. 9.

38. John Lawson, A New Voyage to Carolina, p. 34.

39. Ibid., p. 34.

40. Bartram, The Travels of William Bartram, 1955 edition, p. 404.

41. Cushman, A History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians, p. 175.

42. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, §8, pp. 9 & 10.

43. Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, & Natchez Indians, p. 395.

44. Adair, History of the American Indians, 1930 edition, p. 452.

45. William Harlen Gilbert Jr., "The Eastern Cherokees," BAE 133, Paper # 23, p. 254.

46. Hewitt-Swanton, BAE 123, p. 141.

47. Adair, History of the Indians, 1930 edition, p. 199.

48. Hewitt-Swanton BAE 123, p. 145.

49. Ibid., p.145

50. Gilbert, BAE 133, paper # 23, p. 255.

51. Hewitt-Swanton, BAE 123, p. 145.

52. Gibson, The Chickasaws, p. 21.

53. Ibid., p. 21

54. Swanton, BAE 103, p. 124.

55. Hewitt-Swanton, BAE 123, p. 145.

56. Swanton, "Aboriginal Culture of the Southeast," BAE Annual 42, P. 698.

57. Hudson, The Southeastern Indians, p. 320.

58. Ibid., p. 360.

59. Kniffen et al, The Historic Indian Tribes of Louisiana, p. 240.

60. Swanton, BAE 137, p. 703.

61. Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians, pp. 309-310.

62. Ibid., p. 407.

63. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, §26, p. 25.

64. Swanton, "Aboriginal Culture of the Southeast", BAE Annual 42 p. 700.

65. Swanton, BAE 103, p. 127.

66. Adair, History of the American Indians, 1930 edition p. 190.

67. Ibid., p. 195.

68. Swanton, BAE 103, pp. 176-177.

69. Swanton, "Beliefs and Usages of the Chickasaw", BAE Annual Report 44 p. 232.

70. Ibid., p. 234.

71. Swanton, "Creek Social Organizations and Usages," BAE Annual Report 42 p. 392.

72. Ibid., p. 393.

73. Ibid., p. 701.

74. Le Page Du Pratz, History of Louisiana, p. 335.

75. Kniffen et al, The Historic Indian Tribes of Louisiana, p. 245.

76. Timberlake, Memoirs of Lt. Timberlake, 1948 edition.

77. Gilbert, BAE 133, Anthropology paper #23, p. 347.

78. Ibid., p. 347.

79. Hudson, The Southeastern Indians, pp. 336-337.

80. Ibid., p 434.

81. Swanton, BAE Annual 42, "Creek Religion and Medicine", pp. 617-620.

82. Bartram, The Travels of William Bartram, Dover edition 1955, pp. 404-405.

83. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, §44, p.56.

84. Hewitt-Swanton, BAE 123, p. 147.

85. Hudson, The Southeastern Indians, p. 230

86. Adair, History of the American Indians, 1930 ed. p. 158.

87. Hewitt-Swanton, BAE 123, p.146.

88. Gibson, The Chickasaws, p. 23.

89. An ell is a measurement that is equivalent to 45 linear inches.

90. Pénicaut, Fleur de Lys and Calumet, translated from the French, p. 5.

91. Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians, p. 398.

92. Buckingham Smith, Narratives of the Career of Hernando de Soto, p. 41 & p. 91.

93. Adair, History of the American Indians, 1930 ed. p. 63.

94. Hennepin, A Continuation of the Discovery of a Vast Country in America, p. 94.

95. Adair, History of the American Indians, 1930 edition, p. 407

96. Ibid., p. 416.

97. Douglas L. Rights, The American Indian in North Carolina, p. 255.

98. Bartram, Travels of William Bartram, 1955 Dover edition, p. 315.

99. Swanton, Early History of the Creek Indians, BAE 73, p.77.

100. Swanton, "Creek Social Organization and Usages", BAE Annual Report 42, p. 406.

101. Swanton, BAE 73, p. 77.

102. Timberlake, Memoirs of Lieutenant Timberlake, 1948 edition p. 95.

103. Ibid., p. 94.

104. Mooney, Myths of the Cherokee, p. 489 under topic "War-Woman".

105. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, §24, p. 24-25.

106. Tonti, An Account of M. de la Salle's Last Expedition and Discoveries in North America, pp. 8-9.

107. Adair, History of the American Indians, 1930 edition p. 167.

108. .Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians, p. 399.

109. Adair, History of the American Indians, 1930 ed. p. 416.