The North-Americans of yesterday : $b a comparative study of North-American Indian life, customs, and products, on the theory of the ethnic unity of the raceDellenbaugh, Frederick Samuel
History
The North-Americans of yesterday : $b a comparative study of North-American Indian life, customs, and products, on the theory of the ethnic unity of the race
Dellenbaugh, Frederick Samuel
Indians of Mexico; Indians of North America
A. Parasol-shaped hat with totemic design on top and painted in solid
colour on remainder of outside surface. Tlinkit
B. Has wooden appendages representing the beak of the raven. Tlinkit
C. Cedar bark hat. G shows method of plaiting it
E. Top view of D, showing totemic design of hooyeh, the raven. Haida
H. Is method of weaving the top, F of the bottom part of D
See also figures on pp. 146, 160
]
George Bancroft says, “There have been chiefs who could not tell when,
where, or how they obtained power.... Opinion could crowd a civil
chief into retirement, and could dictate his successor.” Opinion was a
most potent factor in all tribes, and this would be largely directed
by those having popularity and power. Officers, in fact all persons,
become extremely well known in the small community of an Amerind
tribe. Every peculiarity of temperament was understood, and the
individual was respected or despised according to his predominating
characteristics. Those who were bold and fierce and full of strategy
were made war-chiefs, while those who possessed judgment and decision
were made civil chiefs or governors. In many tribes the civil and the
military branches of government are separate and distinct. Certain
chieftains were the peace chiefs. “They could neither go to war
themselves, nor send nor receive the war belt—the ominous string of
dark wampum, which indicated that the tempest of strife was to be let
loose. Their proper badge was the wampum belt, with a diamond-shaped
figure in the centre, worked in white beads, which was the symbol
of the peaceful council fire, and was called by that name. War was
declared by the people at the instigation of the ‘war-captains,’
valorous braves, of any birth or family, who had distinguished
themselves by personal prowess, and especially by good success in
forays against the enemy. Nor did the authority of the chiefs extend
to any infringement on the traditional rights of the gens, as, for
instance, that of blood revenge. The ignorance of this limitation of
the central power led to various misunderstandings at the time, on the
part of the colonial authorities, and since then, by later historians.
Thus in 1728 the Delaware Indians on Brandywine were summoned by the
Governor to answer about a murder. Their chief, Civility, answered that
it was committed by the Minisinks, ‘over whom they had no authority.’
This did not mean but that in some matters authority could be exerted,
but not in a question relating to a feud of blood.”[372] War-chiefs as
well as civil chiefs were elected by the council, and could be deposed
also by the council whenever it was desirable.
[Illustration: NORTH-WEST COAST MORTUARY AND COMMEMORATIVE COLUMNS
A. Kaigani. Contains a box holding ashes of the dead
B. Kaigani. Compartment boarded up contains the remains in a box
C. Kaigani. Supported box contains the dead
D. Different form of C
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account