Native American
Women--from
Princesses to Wenches
EIRLYS M. BARKER
As we discovered in Reading 3, most colonial women were subordinate to their husbands legally and socially throughout the colonial period. Their independent action took ,place within the context of other
women, exchanging goods, such.as clothing and fabric and services
such as caring for the sick and helping with births. But not all women
in North America were treated as part of their husband’s household
once they were married. Some European women experienced a brief
time early in the colonial period when they were more powerful than
their European counterparts. This was especially true of women who
lived in colonies when the number of women was small. Moreover, in
many colonies some women who outlived their mates experienced
brief control of a considerable estate and a few refused to remarry to
prolong their control. In fact, one historian has argued that these inde~
pendent women threatened male-dominated society and that, at least
at Salem, some accused of being witches were targets partly because
they were independent.
Native American women led much more independent lives.
Although tribal differences prevent.s~eping generalization, many
Native women held positions of power and resp6nsibi[ity unknown in
European society. For instance, many perfo~rmed most of the agricultural work in their societies unlike European women. Moreover, in
some tribes goo~s were inherited through the femaJe r~tber t.han the
male line. In almost every way these native American women challenged the common practices of Europeans. In one particular region,
71
L
72
P~rt [[ ~ The New
the South#astern area, ancient tribal traditions placed women in important positions. Native women had more freedom over their choice
of a mate and often in the education of children than virtually any
European colo~!st or their progeny. One wonders if some colonial
wives envied the indeper~ence of Native women or if they were too
focused on the differences betweeo the two worlds to notice.
This essay concentrates on how colonists’ views of Native women
in the Southeast changed over. the colonial period. As you read, look
for when and why they went from valued trade partners to wenches in
European eyes and how Native societies changed to marginalize their
former importance.
By the eighteenth century white males in North America and Europe knew
exactly what the status of women was, both in the home and in the world at
large, Women of European orlgdn were born into a patriarchal society, They
were reared from birth to be obedient to their fathers and szthmis~ive helpmeets for their rotate husbands. This was not so in Nadve American society.
Many of the earliest colonists commented on what seemed to them awoman’s
high degree of freedom over personal matters, including choosing a husband
and even, in some instances, making tile decision to end a marital relationship. In the southeastern tribes women exercised control over their persona!
lives and bodies to a greater extent than did contemporary women of European descent. The structure of native society led to the high degree of respect
and freedom that Native American women experienced,
The area of the American Southeast is vast, extending from the Aflmlfic
coast west to the Mississipp;l River and from the Ohio River to the Gulf of
Mexico. It is an area containing many Indian tribes--more properly referred to
as nations--descended from peoples of varied traditions and language groups.
These included the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Catawbas, the Yamasees, the
Ghoctaws, the Chickasaws, and the Natchez. By the beginning of the seventeenth century these nations had experienced times of great upheaval and
change. Thronghout the Americas the native inhabitants suffered a dramatic
decline £n population as a result of European contact. The consequences of
this disaster forced rerrmants of nations that were once nnmerous to seek an
existence as part of new units or federations that European invaders called, for
example, Creek and Catawba, by the eighteenth century. Yet, the old dan mad
family structures remained in place. Most of the southeastern tribes mainrained a traditional matrilinear system of irthefitance. They were not matfiFrom [irly~ M. Barker, "Princesses, Wiyes, and Wenches: White Perceptlon~ of Southeastern Inflian Women to
Native American Women--from Princesses to Wenches ¯ Eirlys M, Barker 73
archies, and the division of labor was gender-based; however, outsiders often
believed Indian women had more personal freedom and wielded more influence over the lives of their families and villages than their European peers did.
Among the cultural baggage that the first European setters brought with
them to North 2anefica was the concept of patriarchy, one at odds with
Indian ideas of an orderly society, The trend toward a nuclear family composed of husl~and, wife, yomlg children, and perhaps some servants was accelerating, along with an increase in the wish for privacy. This removed influential female roie models, such as grandmothers or mothersdm-law, from the
household. In contrast, Native American society in the Southeast at the time
of contact was based on extended families living together in dwellings headed
by an older female member.
The southeastern Indians lived in setfled villages where a woman’s clan
built huts closely clustered together. The women were in charge of providing
food for their extended households, from planting seeds of corn, squash, and
beans, to gathering berries and nuts. They also dried meat into jerky and
turned deerskins and furs into clothing. Older women taught the children to
fish and to ta-ap small animals such as rabbits mad directed all such daily operations for their extended family network. The men were often absent for long
periods of time pursuing th#~r primary economic function, hunting to provide their kin with meat. With the presence of Europeans came a new market
demand for furs and skins--deerskins became the major commodity and currency of the area. It became necessary to go ~arther afield to acqtfire enough
skins to exchange for essential trade goods. This also led to an increase in
warfare when Indians roamed into and poached on their neighboring tribes’
traditional hunting grounds. The longer men are absent, the more women
exercise effective control in any situation.
Outsiders sometimes depicted Indian womeu as embodying the savagery of
the "New World," as being too free, too close to nature, and too apt to follow
their own whims and desires. The earliest European accounts often commented on the minimal clothing worn by the natives, and this was reflected ha
the popular engravings made of Caribbean and Florida Indians and those
based on John White’s 1580s watercolors of the Carolina tribes closest to the
Roanoke colony. They especially dweIt on the scant nature of women’s dress-a contrast to the European woman, who, bumble or noble, hid most of her
body under layers of heavy fabrics. Indima women had to be licentious if they
did not follow the basic Christian rtfles of dress and decorum. According to
Amerigo Vespucd at the earn of the gLxteenth cgpeary, the "women go about
naked and are very libidh~ous .... Urged by ex{esfive lus[, they defiled and
prostituted themselves." The perceived "lusty" and libertine nature of Indian
women was often used as an excuse for rape by the "Christian" soldiers.
Some of the early English writers, such as Robert Beverley in Vii-ginia, tried
to dispel the idea that tl~e women were "Incontinent" in their affections. They
were merely "insplr’d with Mirth and good Humor," he said. Beverley was also
unusual in promoting the idea of intermarriage with the Indians as a means
74
Part fl o The New Nation
of gaining and keeping their fi-iendship. By the mid-eighteenth century most
writers stressed the "mild, amiable, soft disposition" of the women and the
modesty o£ their clothing.
During the seventeenth century an increas’mg number of Europeans
moved into the inteli6r of the eOlytfinent. Some were soldiers, others prospective planters. Among the first wave who both observed and cohabited with
lhdian women for lengthy pefiodfi of time were those men who risked much
in the luc[afive but dangerous Indian trade. The Europeans active in the
southeastern deerskin trade--confusingly called Indian traders--realized that
to be accepted, the best tactic was to marry Ix~dian women mad thus have a
fLxed place ha native society. Many of these traders and the agents and soldiers
who policed Indian-White relations and trade have given us the most accurate
glimpses of the status and expectations of Indian women in their own societies, although the observdrs imposed their Eurocentric interpretations on
much of what they saw and did not dwell on the minute details of everyday rife.
The master traders always boasted that their consorts were important leaders in their tribes who had freely entered into lucrative relations with the newcomers.James Adair declared that he wrote his History of the American indians
while enjoying the company of a "Chikkasah ~’emale, as great a princess as
ever lived mnong the ancient Peruvians, or Mexicans." In the early years of
the trade, even humble traders wielded great power in their native villages.
They came with desirable goods that enhanced the quality of life, so that
tribal leaders encouraged marriage ~ith their relafiyes. The marriage of the
Powhatan "princess" Pocahontas to the Virginia planter John Rolfe was
merely one of the first and most famous o£ such alliances. One of the most
prominent Native Americans in the early eighteenth cenmzy was the Creek
leader Coosaponakeesa, the much-married Mary Mnsgrove Mathews
Bosomworth. She was Georgia’s counterpart to Pocahontas in the "Indian
Princess" mystique. Despite her promhaence, her lineage is obscure and
much debated. She was probably closely related through her mother to the
Lower Creek "Emperor" Brims and thus exerted influence over his successor,
ChigelIy. Mary’s father was a British trader named Griffin, but it was her
Creek connections that gave her authority among the Indians. By her later
years she acquired the status of "Beloved Woman," which enabled her to be
an effective interpreter of culture ?rid language to the early Georgia co!onists.
The Indian women who were leaders in their tribes insisted on receiving
privileges such as their share of the presents the colonial governments issned.
When im-quential InO]tans visited Charles Tovm, the center of government in
South Carolina, for formal conferences with the governors, their wives and
other female relatives expected to receive gifts and often took part in the ceremonies. Senawki, wife of Tomochichi, the Yamacraw chief, who welcomed
the first Georgia colonists, not only visited London and attended the royal
court with her hv, sband ha 1734, but two years later took the initiative in talks
with Johla Wesley, one-time Indian agent for Georgia.
Most Indian women had a freer choice of marriage partners than most
Native American Women--from Princesses to Wenches o Eirlys M. Barker 75
European women of this dmq, for "a marriage is settled by the agreement of
both people," meaning those directly involved, not their parents. It was the
woman’s freely-given acceptance that sealed an alliance. There were no essential religions ceremonies or .vows, merely an aclmowledgment by the couple
and their town that an acceptable union was taking place. Surveyor Bernard
Komans in the 1760s was struck with the simplicity of Creek marriage. It was
"without much ceremony, seldom ally more than to make some presents to
the parents, and to have a feast. A 1683 description of Lousiana’s InCFlanS
mentioned that "very frequently they marry without any noise," although
there would often be "feasts with pomp and rejoicing." Sexual relationships
with unattached Indian women were acceptable to most of the southern
tribes as long as the women consented, for young girls "are the mistresses of
their own bodies," as related to a young Frenchman in the 1720s.
Because these clans were exogamous--it was necessary to marry outside
the clans--Indian women were free to marry any foreigners. Although a new
husband moved to live with his wife’s clan, he did not become a member of
that dan. Even so, the union gave him a whole new group of relatives.
Initially, it was probably not much more exotic for a Creek woman to cohabit
with a white Carolinian than for her to marry a Chickasaw or a Cherokee.
According to South Carolina’s first Indian agent, Thomas Nairne, the sou~eastern Indians believed that marriage within one’s own clan or one’s father’s
clan was "an unclean thing.., the greatest crime in the world," comparable
to the "worst sort of Incest" in European society. This, combined with the catastrophic decline in population, underscored the need for new sources of
skra~gers to serve as marriage partners. As early as 1708 Nairne had commented on the "break up of their Townships . . . since the use of firearms the
fatell small pox and other European distempers. There were possibly ten
times as many women as men among the tribes by the mid-eighteenth cenmly, indicating another practical reason for accepting- European husbands,
whatever qualifies particular individuals might bring with them.
The wives of Indian traders chose a lavish and exotic way of life, compared
with most of their peers. The traders came with goods that made lives easier
for all, but especially for the women. Many Europeans had commented that
the women were "the Chief, ff not the only manztfactnrers." Some, such as
William Byrd II of ¥irginia, thought they did "the little Work" that was~done in
native society, regarding them as mere beasts of burden. As the women’s primary economic function was to be in charge of the food, the trader wives
gained stares by being the first to acquire metal hoes, axes, and knives, sturdy
but lightweight copper kettles to cook the food’/i~stead of having to fashion
earthenware pots that were brittle and heavy, and metal fishhooks and needies. Such items freed them from much of the .drudgery of their lives, as did
mauufacklred cloth. Byrd seemed particularly iacensed that the men were "at
most employ’d only in thE Gentlemanly Diversions of Hunting and Fishing."
He neither understood the men’s role in helping to clear t-he land for farming
nor realized their role in providing meat for their communities.John BrickelI,
76
Par~ll ¯ TheNewNation
who in the 1730s updated Lawson’s work on North Carolina, noted that the
"Industry of Wives" produced crops without the use of plows, with the "Men’s
minds being wholly taken up in Hunting." Adair, however, that long-term resident in Indian country, knew that Creek men would not go to war until they
had "helped the women to pla~2t a sufficient plenty of provisions." Still, the
wom~ en’s crncial economic role gave them influence over clan or village decisions. If they were against a war sortie, they could refuse to parch corn, dry
jerky, or make the moccasins that were needed for such a venture.
The social ties that came through marrying Indian women were crucially
important to the newcomers. All the nations were subdivided into totemic
clans, which were the most meaningfxfl social element for the southeastern
Indians. Within Cherokee society, "to be without a clan.., was to be without
any rights, even the right to l~ve." Itwas fellow clansmen who avenged a murder. Nairne described the Chickasaws’ dan system and its usefulness to
Europeans: "It i~ the easyest thing in the world, for an English Traveller to
procure kindred among the Indians, It’s but taking a mistress of such a name,
and he has at once relations in each Village, from Charles Town to the
Mi.ssisipi." This was illustrated many times; for example, in 1758 some Indians
refused to surrender to South Carolina authorities Samuel Jarron, who had
"escaped the Watch" at Keowee, a Cherokee tow~. The Indians’ leader explained, "We look upon him.., as one of our Brothers. He has lived among
us several Years; he has had some of our Women, and has got Children by
them. He is our Relation, and shan’t be ~aken up." Adair also recounted some
instances of wives saving their husbands’ lives with the help of their families.
One trader was told by Ms wife to run away when foreign Indians raided his
storehouse, and he had a few qualms about leaving her because "her family
was her protection."
One of the most confusing differences observed by Europeans was the
Indian system of matrilineal inheritance. Inheritance in societies derived
from Germanic antecedents came through the male line; primogeniture had
become the norm in Western Europe, with the oldest son claiming his father’s property, or, if there were no direct male heirs, the closest legitimate
male relative. For Native Americans, because inheritance was matrilineal, a
foreign father did not disrupt their society. Nairne understood that "the
Chiefs sisters son alwaies succeeds and never his own." A Frenchman in
Louisiana in 1703 had asked why this was so and was told that "nobility can
come only from the woman, because the woman is more certain than the man
about whom the children belong to." Alien blood would not therefore confuse issues of clan, town, or tribal status, so it was not essential to police the
personal aspect of women’s lives.
The Indian conception of property was also very different, again benefitring females. Under English law a married woman owned nothing "without
the license of her husband. For all her personal chattels are absolutely his
own." Indim~s in North America owned what the~ used every day or what they
fashioned themselves. Males, therefore, traditionally owned the weapons they
Native American Women--from Princesses to Wenches ¯ Eirlys M. Barker
used, as well as their clothes aad what Europeans regarded as personal possessions. Dwellings and agricultural tools, used mostly by women, were owned
by the women. Thus, the gender-based division of labor gave women ownership over the products £rom, ~3ad the implements used in, those tasks.
’ Because husbands lived in their wives’ dwel]ings, it was easy for a man to remove his possessions from his wife’s home if the relationship ended, for everything he owned was portable.
Divorce f6r most of the southeastern tribes was "at the choice of either of
the parties," another shock to Europeans, whose women enjoyed no such inherent fight. Among the Creeks the man could remar~ immediately, but the
wife had to watt until the end of the annual harvest festival, the Busk, with its
pur’~fication ceremonies and significance. Divorce for the Native Americans,
as compared with Europeans, was a matter with more religious than civic significance. Widows, as in Europe, were free to marry ~fter a set period of
mourning and purification, This varied from "the tedious space of four years"
among the Creeks, to three years among the Chickasaws.
Europeans were started by the disposition of children from dissolved
Indian ufflous, for the children stayed with the mother, John Lawson, raised
in the English patriarchal system at the turn of the eighteenth century, commezated with surprise on both the ease of divorce and how "all the Children
go along with the Mother." William Bartram, the Quaker namlaYlSt, mentioned that Indians seldom separated once they had children, but it~ they did,
"the mother takes the children under her own pr(?tection." This was in stark
contrast to English law; before 1837 mothers imBritain had no guardianship
rights at all.
As many Europema fathers would find to their astonishment, they had little
control over the education of any metis (half4ndian) children--even teaching
sons the arts of war and hunting was a role for the mother’s brother or another close male relative within the mother’s clan. Indian wives and their clan
kin expected to remain in charge of the children’s education and upbringing. It cane as a shock to traders even toward the end of the eighteenth century when their wives refused to Iet them send their sons to be educated in
Charleston or Savannah. A Creek trader, James Germany, had marfied a
Creek women [sic] "of a very amiable and worthy character and disposition
industrious, prudent, and affectionate." But even this paragon to British eyes
refused to be parted from her children. It was her and her dan’s re*sponsibflity to educate them. Access to European ideas and customs was not regarded
as necessary for the children~m fact, devoted mothers who had experienced
Eurocentrie attitudes Mthin their households might believe that the children
would lose, not gain, freedom ff exposed to Charleston or Savannah and
racial prejudice. A woman’s traditional role gave her the freedom to dictate
how her offspring should be educated.
.
Although divorce was a cqmmon occurrence, and marriages often resembled serial monogamy, adultery was a heinous crime in all the southeastern
nations except, perhaps, the Cherokees. In some nations it was punished
78
Parf ]l ¯ The New Nation
merely by cutting off a ~voman’s hair. In others the penalty could be death.
The Chickasaws were "very jealot~s of their wives," and adulter~ was punished
by "the loss of the tip of the [male adulterer’s] nose, which they sometimes
cut, but more generally bite off." The Creeks tended to punish both parties
equally by "severe Ftagellafions~; a trader named Cockran lost his ears in the
1730s for this crime. The Cherdkees did not punish either, believing that
adhltery was a meaningless concept, given either marriage partner’s freedom
to separate., at any time.
Polygyny was allowable, but most Indian marriages were probably monogamous. A few chiefs might have more than one wife, but this became less
prevalent with time anong the nations closest to the Em’opemas. An observer
of the Yuchis of Georgia in the 1730s, a tribe close to the setters, remarked
that "among them no one knows of polygamy. Sutural polygyny, however, remained common: a man might take a wife’s mamarried or widowed sister as a
second wife, but only with the first wife’s consent. William Bartram beIieved
that the Creeks continued to allow polygimy, but even if "evep/mma" could
take as many wives as he pleased, "the first is queen, and the others her handmaids and associates."...
Indian women.., had the freedom to decide the fate of captives taken in
war. Women who had lost family members and parmers could opt to save captires from death, to take the place of the deceased family members through
adoption. Adoption was never automatic, although it became more common
with the depopulation of the eighteenth centnK¢ and especially after the devastating 1738 smallpox epidemic. If the captive’s fate was death, women made
it a long, drawnout affair, inflicting pains and mutilations as the tim7 tort-are
was prolonged over several days. It was they who scalped and dismembered
the victim, all the while singing "with religions joy." In 1750 South Carolina’s
governor Jmnes Glen referred to the Indians as "Cruel & Barbarous .... Even
their Women, those who in all other Nations are called the Soft & tender Sex,
with them are Nursed up in Blood, & taught to delight in Murders &
Torturing."
While it is tempting to view trader wives as persons used by the foreign participants in the trade, this is a gross oversimplification. In the Southeast no
Indian woman could be forced into a marriage against her will, and divorce,
or at least an informal end to a relationship, was possible on either side without stigma or punishment. The Indian wives of the European traders freely
chose that role. It gave them an enviable position, providing the latest technical innovations and luxuries and allowing them an easier and more comfortable existence than that enjoyed by many of their peers. This element of
choice sometimes led wives to act against their own village, as during the outbreak of the Cherokee War in 1760, when some women tried to sneak provisions to the soldiers in Fort Loudoun during the Cherokee siege of that fort.
To the chroniclers, their actions stemmed from their appreciation of the ribbons and oth~r baubles ?the soldiers had given them; a better explanation,
Native American Women--from Princesses to Wenche~ ~ Eirlys M. Barker 79
however, is their loyalty to men considered their lawful parmers in their society. Interestingly, the Cherokees did not regard ~hese actions as treasonable
but understood tlxat the women were acting on behalf of family members.
Whatever the official colonial policy on interracial anions, such liaisons
were inevitable, given the lack of European women on the frontier. As e~rly as
1737 a~n agent for Georgia commented on the huge number of nfmed offspring: "All the Indian Traders had Mves among the Indians... and he believed there were 400 children So begotten1." Unfortunately, we know few of
these wives or offspring by name except for those who were extraordinary in
one way or another, perhaps through their talents as interpreters or for being
victimized in some way.
Indian women had the fiberty of choosing a nontmdifional career without
being ridiculed. A feature of native sodety that struck nearly all European ~isitors was their hospit,~ty toward strangers. One common custom in the South
was to offer a stranger an unmarried woman as a "She-Bed Fellow" for the
length of his stay. John Lawson and ~rzllJam Byrd II early in the eighteenth
century had noted this custom among the North Carolina nations. There, the
trading gfrls sported a haircut that set them apart from the other, unavailable
women. These women were not outcasts in their villages. ~l~ney could retire
from their profession to marry a man of their choice without loss of status and
with a dowry. Nor was this a localized custom. Emperor Brims unsuccessfully
offered "Bedf~IIows" to a royai official and his cIerical cot~aveler on their
cial 1729-31 visit to Creek country. In Louisiana Father Hennepin remarked
that a trading girl’s parents found nothing to "censt~re in this; very far from
that, they are glad to have their daughters earn some clothes or some furs."
Other women volunteered tO take part in the hunting expeditions that became an integral part of village life with the increasing demand for deerskins
and other fttrs. This ~s an extension of th(ir food-prepa~rafion function;
women g~ound the corn for making bread. In March 1740 the Indians attackhag St. Augustine with General George Oglethorpe of Georgia had to be
given "rice . . . hav~ng no women with them to parch or pound their Corn."
Women also began the work of prepm-ing the sldns tbr market, including
scraping away excess meat and fur, soaking them in a solution of brains, and
finally smoking the prepared skins. If this process was not begtm in a timely
fashion, these valuable tra~Ymg items would rot. On those occasi~ons when a
hunting band was attacked by enemy Indians, the women would "sing their
enlivening war song," which spurred their mep to "become as fierce as lions."
Among the Chickasaws, women on expeditions did more than such household-type chores--they had the choice to ~o into combat if they wished.
Nairne had himself seen Chickasaw women in battle, and Bernard Romans
mentioned that he had" "seve~o2 dmes seen armed women.., going in pro’suit of the invading enemy." Acconnts of wdmen warriors typically mix admiration for their bravery with condemnation of the "savagery," or primitiveness, of their actions, When summoned to fight against Hernando de Soto’s
80
Part ll o The New Nation
men in a life-and-death situation, the women of Ma~vila "attacked with utter
rage and determination, thus showing well that the desperation and courage
of women in whatever they are determined to do is greater and more unbridled than that of men." Women were usually treated more leniently when
captured by native enemies, butsome were killed and scalpeyt.
Bythe 1760s Indians were regarded increasingly as a barrier to expansion,
rather than as allies against the French and Spanish or as partners in a incratire trade. Paralleling this, Indian women in the official records are increasingly disparaged as %ver~ches," a word reserved in the British Empire for
women of the lowest ranks, including prostitutes, servants, and slaves. The
women described in early accounts were usually called "wives." By 1751 even
women who warned their trader husbands that their lives were in danger from
a ro~iug band of enemy Indians are officially dismissed as the "Wenches kept
by the white Men." There were no more accounts of Indian "princesses" and
their virtues. Mary Bosomworth’s Indian ancestry was used increasingly to explain her defidencies--her frequent temper tantrums, her obesity, and her
occasional drunkenness were examples of an excess of freedom and her failure to control herseLf---even by her last, very proper English husband.
Freedom clearly meant very different things to Native Amerlcan.women
and to European males. To most native women it meant a continuation of
their traditional way of life, one that had struck so many early European observers as a free, Lfnot libertine, existence. Whatever the actual status of the.
women within their own societies, mosg colonial venturers initially responded
to the women in two ways. One response came from the men who for trade or
diplomatic reasons were destined to live in the interior of the colony for at
least part of the year. Tiaey might rationalize that an Indian consort’s status in
her society would help him, but, as many noted, such aid was forthcoming
only if the woman saw advantages to her and her possible offspring from such
an alliance. Initially, such tmions were of great benefit to both parties, and
the Europeans wrote in terms of Indian princesses and leaders of their nations helping them in their common economic venture. The other response
was the one that, with time, became the norm, As the European peddlers of
trade goods wiflfin the nations became increasingly" smaller cog~ iln the great
machine of the British Empire, they minimized the part played by their Native
American wives. By the 1770s women were regarded merely as personal sexual
perks and sources of comfort in anincreasingly hostile environment.
By the 1770s the decline in status of the Indian trade and Indian diplomacy was reflected in a return to the original perception of Indian women as
wantons. Trade and a desire for peace were no longer the prime motivations
for Indian policy. As setters advanced into "Indian country," the old way of
life changed for those at the edges. Over time, changes affected all Indian
women, even in remote ~Alages, as their society was modified by the goods,
diseases, and doctrines imported by traders and missionades. The new doctrines of ChfisfiarA.ty and patriarchy stripped women of their age-old control
Native American Women--from Princesses to Wenches ¯ Eirlys M. Barker 81
over their homes and the means of production, as well as their freedom to enter into and leave marital an’allgements,
REV~I EW QUESTIONS
How did the first Europeans view Native women? Now did this view of
their dress and "disposition" change by the mid-eighteenth century? Why
did it change?
What did the marriage between Pocahontas and John Rolfe symbolize?
How did native marriage customs and attitudes toward sexual relations give
Native women power and flexibility? How did clan practice of exogamy play an
important role? What was the role of disease in expanding women’s impor[ance?
Define the matrilineal inheritance system and conception of property. How
were they different from European beliefs?
5. Who controlled the children in a divorce, and what culture was responsible
for the education of children of Native mothers? Why?
6. Identify some of the occupations Indian women chose, and compare their options to those of colonial women¯
7. Why were Native women viewed as wenches by 17607
FOR FURTHER READING
For a unique look at the original sources see james Axtell (Ed.), The Indian Peoples of
Eastern America: A Documentary History of the Sexes (1981). Fgr the South see J.
Leitch Wright, The Only Land They Knew: The Tragic Story of the American I#dians
in the Old South (1981). For one newly-created tribe see James H. Merrell, The
indians" New World: Catawbas and Their Neighbors from European Contact through
the Era of Removal (1989). For a discussion of slavery and one prominent nation in
the region see Theda Perdue, Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society, 15401856 (1979). On the fur trade see Calvin Martin, Keepers of the Game: IndianAnimal Relationships and the Fur Trade (1978). For Indians in another area see
Daniel Usher, Jr., lndiansz Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The
Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783 (1992). On the role of southern women in one
area see Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, andAnxious Patriarchs:
Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia (19961. For native women in the
North see Carol Devens, Countering Colonization: N~tive American Women and
Great Lakes Missions, 1630-1900 (1992). For an overview of native peoples see
james Axtell, The European and the indian (1981), and for all colonial people see
Gary B. Nash, Red, White, and Black: The Peoples o[ Early North Amerida, 3rd ed,
(1992).
, ....