The historical treatment of Native American captives is a topic steeped in complex ethical concepts and varied societal structures, reflecting the intricate social fabric of indigenous communities across North America. Far from a monolithic experience, the fate of Native American captives, whether taken in war or encountered as strangers, was profoundly shaped by the specific customs, intertribal relations, and individual circumstances of their captors. Understanding these diverse experiences reveals a nuanced picture of resilience, adaptation, and cultural exchange.
The Complex Ethics of Captivity in Native American Societies
The ethical frameworks governing the treatment of individuals within Native American societies were deeply intertwined with clan, gentile, and other kinship-based organizations. Members of a given group were bound by specific duties, and neglecting these could threaten the social order or result in the transgressor being ostracized. Actions towards other clans or bands within the same tribe were guided by established customs, developed over centuries, ensuring a certain level of predictability. However, relations with more distant bands or tribes often required formal peace-making ceremonies, which could prove very tenuous, especially in the context of long-standing feuds that might erupt at any moment.
For individuals from tribes with whom there was neither formal war nor peace, interactions were often driven by immediate self-interest. In such situations, the influence of clan organizations as stabilizing factors became evident; if a stranger belonged to a clan represented within the host tribe, they were typically welcomed as a brother and offered protection. Another significant factor was the fear of disrupting trade. While the initial impulse might be to seize a stranger’s valuable commodities by force, wiser leaders quickly recognized that such actions could imperil future supplies. Conversely, if a stranger brought nothing of value, they might be entirely ignored. It is also important to acknowledge the presence of higher ethical sentiments towards strangers, even when no obvious self-interest was at play. Numerous accounts detail misfortunes befalling those who refused hospitality to individuals in distress, and conversely, great good fortune accruing to those who offered aid.
War Captives: Enslavement, Adoption, and Ransom
The Fate of War Captives
The majority of Native American captives were individuals taken during warfare. These captives were often considered to have forfeited their previous lives, metaphorically ‘dead’ to their former existence. It was frequently believed that their supernatural protector had been subdued by that of the captor. While some faced torture and death, intended to satisfy the victors’ desire for revenge and allow the captive to demonstrate fortitude, many were offered a form of rebirth through adoption into the tribe.
White settlers captured by Native Americans frequently documented their initial hardships. These primarily stemmed from the captors’ rapid movements to evade pursuers and the constant threats they endured. These threats, however, were generally not carried out unless the captive attempted to escape, struggled to keep pace with the group, or if the pursuing party became too aggressive. Each prisoner was considered the property of the individual who first laid hands on them, meaning the captor’s personal character significantly influenced the captive’s experience.
In instances where multiple individuals claimed a prisoner, the dispute was sometimes resolved by torturing the captive to death on the spot, though other times, they were held jointly. The swift retreat of a war party was particularly challenging for women and children. Yet, a degree of consideration was often extended; male captives might be permitted to assist them, or they could be transported on improvised sleds or travois. If horses were available, they might be offered for transport. One notable account describes a master carrying a female captive’s child for several days. It is also significant that, among tribes east of the Mississippi River, the honor of white women was almost invariably respected. However, west of this boundary, on the plains, in the Columbia River region, and the Southwest, the contrary was often the case.
Village Arrival and Rituals
Upon arrival at the captors’ village, particularly among eastern tribes, a dance was often held in which captives played a conspicuous role. They were frequently positioned in the center of a dancing circle, sometimes compelled to sing and dance themselves. Tragically, a few were subjected to gruesome tortures, culminating in being burned at the stake. Records even mention instances of cannibalism associated with these post-war dances. Among certain tribes in Texas and Louisiana, this consumption of captives’ bodies appears to have been more than an occasional practice. The Iroquois, some Algonquian peoples, and several western tribes implemented a gauntlet ritual where prisoners were forced to run between two lines of armed individuals wielding clubs and tomahawks. Those who successfully reached a designated safe point, such as the chief’s house or a specific post, were temporarily spared. Among many tribes, reaching the chief’s house provided sanctuary for an escaped captive, and the simple act of offering food to a visitor was typically understood as an extension of the host’s protection.
Bondage, Ransom, and Adoption
Historical accounts, such as that of the Spaniard Juan Ortiz, captured by Florida Chief Utica in 1528, indicate that some captives were held in a form of bondage. More commonly, however, their lives were spared for ransom or through adoption into the tribe. Certain Siouan tribes even permitted their captives to return home or settle among them without torture. While the custom of ransoming white prisoners by eastern Indians dates back to early colonial times, its origin in aboriginal usage is debated. However, the ransoming or sale of captives was certainly prevalent among the Plains Indians and Southwest tribes. On the North Pacific Coast, the practice of ransoming slaves was definitively pre-Columbian.
Despite these practices, the return of former prisoners to their original communities was likely rare across much of North America, as many tribes reportedly disowned individuals who had been taken captive. The practice of dealing with white captives through ransom likely became more common due to the inherent difficulty of fully integrating adult whites into indigenous life and customs. In contrast, captives taken from other tribes often adapted contentedly to their new relationships and surroundings. The primary purpose of adopting a prisoner was often to fill the void left by a deceased tribe member. One observer noted that, regardless of the captive’s own character, they were treated precisely as if they embodied the character of their predecessor. John Gyles, captured by the Abnaki in 1689, reported that a prisoner could only avoid being beaten and tortured during war dances if his master paid a certain amount of property. Women and children were generally preserved and adopted, though there are documented instances of white women being tortured to death. The Ute, for example, were known to give female captives from other Indian tribes to their own women for torture, while male prisoners who had distinguished themselves were sometimes released unharmed.
Slavery and Social Integration in Specific Regions
Clan Formation and Purposeful Captivity
Among tribes structured around clans, the adoption of captured women held particular significance, often leading to the formation of new clans through their descendants. This process is believed to be the origin of the Zuni and Mexican clans within the Navajo nation. The Ute clan of the Navajo, for instance, was systematically augmented by the capture and purchase of Ute girls, specifically to enhance the tribe’s skill in basket-making. Among the Plains Indians, captives, especially children, were occasionally taken with the explicit intention of training them for specific ceremonial duties. Beyond the many white individuals carried off by Indians and subsequently ransomed, numerous accounts confirm that a substantial number of English, French, and Spanish descendants were absorbed into their captors’ tribes. Many, taken at a young age or developing an affinity for their new way of life, never returned to their original communities.
Integration of Captives: Stories of Prominence
Some of these assimilated individuals even ascended to positions of considerable influence. Examples include a Frenchman who became chief of the Attacapa, a Mexican recorded as the most prominent and successful war chief of the Comanche in 1855, and another Mexican who remained a man of influence among the Zuni. Notably, Comanche Chief Quanah Parker was the son of a captive American woman, Cynthia Ann Parker. During this era, the confederated tribes of the Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa Apache were known to hold at least 50 adopted white captives, and it is estimated that fully one-third of their entire population possessed a traceable percentage of captive blood. Similar proportions were likely true for the Apache of Arizona.
Slavery on the North Pacific Coast
A distinct approach to the treatment of Native American captives was prevalent from Oregon to southern Alaska, driven by the entrenched institution of slavery. In these societies, slaves represented a man’s most valuable property. Consequently, the lives of war captives were almost always spared, unless they had inflicted a severe injury upon the victorious tribe, prompting an immediate desire for revenge. After capture, slaves could theoretically be killed by their masters at any moment, but this fate rarely befell them until they became too old to work, or if their masters became embroiled in a property dispute, or if their original town committed depredations. Among the Tlingit, however, slaves were sometimes killed during mortuary feasts, and their bodies were occasionally interred in the holes dug for the posts of new houses.
Slave women, particularly those of noble descent, sometimes married their captors and thereby gained their freedom. Four prominent Haida clans and one Tsimshian clan are said to have originated from such marriages, while another significant Haida clan was ironically named ‘the Slaves.’ It remains uncertain whether this name indicated descent from slaves or was applied satirically. Given the rigid caste system of the region, it is doubtful whether male slaves ever achieved high social standing. Paradoxically, an escaped slave, rather than receiving commendation, suffered a certain disgrace that could only be removed through the expenditure of considerable property. Yet, one of the greatest Skidegate chiefs was rumored to have been enslaved in his youth, illustrating the occasional complexities and contradictions within these systems.
Conclusion
The experience of Native American captives was incredibly diverse, shaped by a complex interplay of tribal ethics, social structures, warfare traditions, and individual circumstances. From adoption into new families to a life of bondage, and from opportunities for assimilation to ritualistic torture, the paths taken by captives varied dramatically across different indigenous cultures and geographical regions. Understanding these varied realities moves beyond simplistic narratives, revealing the intricate tapestry of human experience, resilience, and cultural adaptation in early North America. The legacies of these historical practices continue to inform our understanding of intertribal relations and the profound impact of captivity on both individuals and societies.
