Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology Volume 11 | Issue 1 Article 11 6-21-2011 The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta': Oral Tradition and the Founding of the Iroquois League Jonathan Bernier The University of Western Ontario Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem Part of the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Bernier, Jonathan (2003) "The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta': Oral Tradition and the Founding of the Iroquois League," Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: Vol. 11: Iss. 1, Article 11. Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol11/iss1/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta': Oral Tradition and the Founding of the Iroquois League Keywords oral history, Iroquois League, Tekanawi·ta' Myth Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. This article is available in Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol11/iss1/ 11 Bernier: The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta' The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta': Oral Tradition and the Founding of the Iroquois League In North America, "tribal historians and religious leaders frequently rely on oral tradition as literal records of ancient history" (Echo-Hawk 2000:268). Alternatively, "most academically trained scholars respond with skeptical rejection of verbal literature as a vehicle for transmitting useful information over long time spans" (Echo-Hawk 2000:268). Although I do not believe that we should unClitically accept oral literatures as literal representations of the past, I do believe that an a priori rejection of such literatures as potential sources of historical data is equally unwarranted. We must evaluate the sources and overall reliability of any historical data with which we work; this is necessary whether the historical data is transmitted in writing or orally. One such myth that must be considered in this fashion is the so-called "Tekanawfeta -I Myth". This tradition purports to record the founding of the Iroquois League and today is part of the I Tekanawi la' is a figure in the League Tradition who is often referred to as the Peacemaker in English. There are a number of variant spellings for Tekanawi la': Dekanahwideh (parker, 1968), Dekanawida (Parker. 1968), Tekanawitagh (Klinck and Talman, 1970) or Tekanawi ta' (Gibson, 1992). The same is true for Hayehwritha' (often called Hiawatha) and Thatota 110', Here. I have chosen the spellings found in Gibson (1992), Of note. this is the only full-length lroquoian language version of the Iroquoian League Tradition in print. larger "Iroquois League Tradition" (see Gibson 1992: xix-Ix, for a discussion of this); this larger tradition discusses the philosophy behind the League and includes rules governing its operation. In this paper, I will consider the formation of the League of the Iroquois; specifically, I will ask to what extent we can rely upon the "Tekanawfeta' Myth" to provide biographical details about Tekanawfeta's life and his role in the formation of the League. The Iroquois are not one but rather five nations which were located just south of Lake Ontario in what is now upstate New York at the time of European contact; from east to west, they were the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk (Engelbrecht 1985; Snow 1994; Tooker 1978). They all were part of a language family called Northern Iroquoian; they were not the only members of this family, with the Erie, HuronPetun, Neutral, St. Lawrence Iroquoians, Susquehannock, Tuscarora, Wenro and also being classified as Northern Iroquoian (Lounsbury 1978l There were also the Southern Iroquoians, represented by the various dialects of Cherokee; these dialects are mutually intelligible to one another and linguistically related yet quite distinct from the Northern Iroquoians (Lounsbury 1978l At some point, the Seneca, the Cayuga, the Onondaga, the Oneida and the Mohawk came together to form the League of the Iroquois (Engelbrecht 1985; Snow 1994; Tooker 1978). According to tradition, the League was formed by Tebinawfeta' and his colleague, Hayehwatha' (i.e. For more infonllation on the various groups, see also Boyce 1978; Trigger (ed,) 1978:296-544; Trigger 1985, 1987 3 For more infom1ation on the Cherokee, see also Anderson 1991; Mooney 1891. 1900; Schroedl 1995, 2 '1'01'1':1" '0] 1] 211112-:'1111,) Cop",'ight Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2003 ijJ 21111,) T01'l-:~]: The UWO Journal of .\nthropo]og" Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 11 [2003], Iss. 1, Art. 11 larger "Iroquois League Tradition" (see Gibson 1992: xix-Ix, for a discussion of this); this larger tradition discusses the philosophy behind the League and includes rules governing its operation. In this paper, I will consider the formation of the League of the Iroquois; specifically, 1 will ask to what extent we can rely upon the 'Tekanawfota' Myth" to provide biographical details about Tekanawfota's life and his role in the formation of the League. The Iroquois are not one but rather five nations which were located just south of Lake Ontario in what is now upstate New York at the time of European contact; from east to west, they were the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk (Engelbrecht 1985; Snow 1994; Tooker 1978). They all were pa11 of a language family called Northern Iroquoian; they were not the only members of this family, with the Erie, HuronPetun, Neutral, St. Lawrence Iroquoians, Susquehannock, Tuscarora, Wenro and also being classified as Northern Iroquoian (Lounsbury 1978i, There were also the Southern Iroquoians, represented by the various dialects of Cherokee; these dialects are mutually intelligible to one another and linguistically related yet quite distinct from the Northern Iroquoians (Lounsbury 1978l At some point, the Seneca, the Cayuga, the Onondaga, the Oneida and the Mohawk came together to form the League of the Iroquois (Engelbrecht 1985; Snow 1994; Tooker 1978). According to tradition, the League was formed by Tekanawfota' and his colleague, Hayehwarha' (i,e. The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta': Oral Tradition and the Founding of the Iroquois League In North America, "tribal historians and religious leaders frequently rely on oral tradition as literal records of ancient history" (Echo-Hawk 2000:268). Alternatively, "most academically trained scholars respond with skeptical rejection of verbal literature as a vehicle for transmitting useful information over long time spans" (Echo-Hawk 2000:268). Although I do not believe that we should uncritically accept oral literatures as literal representations of the past, I do believe that an a priori rejection of such literatures as potential sources of historical data is equally unwarranted. We must evaluate the sources and overall reliability of any historical data with which we work; this is necessary whether the histmical data is transmitted in writing or orally. One such myth that must be considered in this fashion is the so-called "Tebinawfota ,I Myth". This tradition purports to record the founding of the Iroquois League and today is part of the I Tekanawi ta' is a figure in the League Tradition who is often referred to as the Peacemaker in English. There are a number of variant spellings for Tekanawi la': Dekanahwideh (parker, 1968), Dekanawida (Parker, 1968), Tekanawitagh (Klinck and Talman, 1970) or Tekanawi ta' (Gibson, 1992). The same is true for Hayehwatha' (often called Hiawatha) and Thatota ho'. Here, I have chosen the spellings found in Gibson (1992). Of note, this is the only full-length Iroquoian language version of the Iroquoian League Tradition in print. HHI':,\I Copnight http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol11/iss1/11 For more infoffilation on the various groups, see also Boyce 1978; Trigger (ed.) 1978:296-544; Trigger 1985,1987 3 For more information on the Cherokee, see also Anderson 1991; Mooney 1891. 1900; Schroedl 1995. 2 mill 211112-21111.1 © 21111.1TOTI ':~1: The UWO .Journal of\nthropolog\' Bernier: The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta' Parker 1968; Snow 1994; Tooker 1978). Most scholars would suggest that this occUlTed sometime between A.D. 1400 and 1600 (Tooker 1978:420). Snow (1994:60), on the basis of Seneca oral tradition, suggests that the formation of the League was completed in 1536 or, less likely, in 1451. Most attempts to date the formation of the League make use of oral traditions from one source or another; however, the historical reliability of these traditions suffers from the same limitations that I will discuss below. All surviving versions of the Iroquois League Tradition are the product of oral tradition rather then oral history. Echo-Hawk (2000:270) defines oral literature as any literature which is transmitted verbally and he further distinguishes between oral history and oral traditions. Oral history consists of "verbal memoirs of first-hand observers" while oral traditions are "verbal memoirs that first-hand observers have passed along to others" (EchoHawk, 2000:270). Oral history is created when individuals tell their own stOlies; oral history is transformed into oral tradition when individuals begin to tell the stOlies of others. However, what degree of factual accuracy can we expect from individuals who are composing and producing their own oral history? Loftus and Ketcham (1991 :77) assert that " ... facts don't come into our memory and passively reside there untouched and unscathed by future events... [Memory is] a constructive and creative pmcess ... After a week, memory is less accurate than after a day"; consequently, even within one's own lifetime, one will edit one's own oral history. Further. what degree of factual accuracy can we expect will be maintained when oral history is transformed into an oral tradition via transmission from one individual to another? These questions speak to the ability of oral literature to accurately transmit information over time. In seeking to address these questions, both Echo-Hawk (2000) and Mason (2000) cite Vansina's (1985:19-20) example of three versions of a conflict between groups of Hopi and Navaho sometime between 1853 and 18564. Two versions were recorded in 1892. At least one of these accounts was provided by an eyewitness; it is quite possible that both were (Vansina 1985:19-20). The first was short and generalized; the second was longer and more detailed (Vansina 1985: 19-20); nonetheless, Coprright f;. Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2003 T<lTl·:i\! 21111"T<lTl·:i\!: despite the difference in details, both are primarily concerned with narrating a sequence of events (Vansina 1985:20). The third was recorded in 1936 and displays significant vmiation; indeed. a "lot of invention took place in the years between the history and the tradition" (Mason 2000:251). The story is framed in terms of traditional Hopi mythology (Eggan 1967:4751; Vansina 1985:20); this was not the case in the 1892 versions (Vansina 1985:20). There was, in tllis case, Following Echo-Hawk (2000)"s distinction between oral history and oral tradition we can identify the two 1892 accounts as oral history and the 1936 version as oral tradition. In this case, then, there is an unknown amount of vmiation between the actual events and the recording of the oral history: even though the stories are similar to each other, we must recognize that these are not independent accounts as the individuals who gave them lived in adjoining villages (1967:37). Additionally, there is a measurable and significant amount of variation between these records and that of the oral tradition. As in the above case of the Hopi oral history and tradition. there are several extant, written, versions of the Iroquois League Tradition. These provide insight into the tradition's content at different periods in its development. Three versions to be considered in this paper date from the 1910s and two date from 100 years earlier. As the more recent are better known, we shall consider these first. In 1911 Duncan Campbell Scott (1911) published the socalled 'Chiefs' Version'; this was a document originally prepared by a group of Six Nations Iroquois chiefs around 1900. The next year, 1912, saw the Seneca chief John A. Arthur transcribing an Onondaga text to anthropologist A.A. Goldenweiser; it was not, however, published until 1992 (Gibson 1992). Often called the Gibson-Goldenweiser Version. this version has become the only, complete. lroquoian language version of the League Tradition ever to appear in print (Gibson 1992: xi-xv). Four years later, 1916, Parker published his Constitution of the Iroquois, later republished in Parker (1968). These documents. of course. cannot be seen as independent sources. Indeed, John Arthur Gibson, a Seneca chief. was a key figure in the formation of the Chiefs League Tradition (Gibson 1992). Therefore. one would expect a significant conespondence between his version and the Chiefs' Version. Parker made use of the Chief s version. along with the editorial services of Albert Cusick and earlier manuscripts prepm'ed II 211112-21111" The L'\X'(l.lournal of ,\nthropolog\' \'01 Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 11 [2003], Iss. 1, Art. 11 by Seth Newhouse (Gibson 1992; Parker 1968:12-13). To the best of my knowledge, none of the earlier Newhouse manusClipts have been published. Although they vary, these texts seem to agree on several major points about Tekanawfota's life. I will briefly summarize those points I believe to be most relevant to this discussion. First. in each text. a woman and her daughter reside together. The daughter was a virgin yet conceived a child (Gibson 1992:3; Parker 1968: 14: Scott 1911: 198). Her mother does not believe the daughter when she claims not to have had sexual relations with any men (Gibson 1992:4; Parker 1968: 14; Scott 1911:198). The woman mistreats her daughter (Gibson 1992:6; Parker 1968:14: Scott 1911: 198) and only stops after miraculous signs convince her that the child is blessed (Gibson 1992:7; Parker 1968:14: Scott 1911:198). Once born this child, Tekanawfota', grows rapidly and becomes exceptionally strong and healthy (Gibson 1992:7: Parker 1968:14; Scott 1911:198). When he reaches manhood, Tekanawfota' leaves his home and journeys to the land of the Five Nations Iroquois to preach the message of the Great Peace (Gibson 1968: 15; Parker 1968: IS: Scott 1911: 199). The accounts differ in the order and circumstances of the events but all agree upon the introduction of two other key characters, Hayehwritha' and Thatota ho' (Gibson 1968:101; Parker 1968:23: Scott 1911 :203). In each account, Hayehwatha' is an Iroquois chief whose daughters (or granddaughters) die within the narrative (Gibson 1968:133-8: Parker 1968:18-19: Scott 1911 :205-6). Hayehwatha' is grief-stlicken and searches out Tekanawfota' (Gibson 1968: 139: Parker 1968:23-24; Scott, 1911 :207). Hayehwatha' is Tekanawfota" s first 'convert' and works with him to bring the Iroquois nations together into a confederacy (Gibson, 1968; Parker, 1968: Scott, 1911). Thc construction of the League requires that the fl\'(: nations agree to join and that the Great (hut evil) Sorcerer, Thatota 110', also agrees to join (Gibson, 1992; Parker, 1968; Scott, 1911). Thc rest of the narrative is focused upon cllling this cannibalistic sorcerer of his evil and insanity. At the end, he becomes the head of the Lcaguc (Gibson, 1992:232-4; Parker 1968:90-91: SCOl! 1911:218-9). Tekanawfota' then gives a set of rules to govern the operating of the Leaguc (Gibson 1992; Parker 1968; Scott 1911). For purposes of this discussion, I have identified five key biographical details of Tekanawfota"s life as given by the Gibson (1992), Parker (1968) and Scott (1911) traditions. First, Tekanawfota' is born outside of lroquoia; he is an outsider both geographically and socially. Second, his birth is miraculous: like Jesus or the Buddha, he is conceived in some sort of supernatural fashion. Third, the stories begin with his birth and move promptly to his mission to spread the Great Peace; he is the plimary actor who sets the crucial events in motion. Fourth, he is responsible for cuting Thatota 110'. Fifth, he provides rules for the governance of the League. As mentioned above, these may be the best known versions of the Iroquois League Tradition. However, they are not the only or even the earliest ones, Indeed, they are relatively late redactions. About a century before these three versions were produced in the 191Os, Joseph Brant (Boyce 1'973) and John Norton (Klinck and Talman 1970) provided accounts of the fonnation of the League. They are significantly different from the Gibson (1992), Parker (1968) and Scott (1911) versions. Boyce (1973:288) observes that Brant's account lacks any magical or symbolic language; he further suggests that Brant's account, therefore, has a greater historical credibility (Boyce 1973:288). However, the absence of magical or symbolic language does not necessarily mean that this version contains more accurate historical data. The lack of magical symbolic language may have more to do with the format of the account: The other accounts were wlitten with an intention to either entertain others or to preserve tradition whereas Brant's account was given as a response to a questionnaire (Boyce 1973). Brant's and Norton's accounts present a very different understanding of Tekanawfota' then that presented by the Gibson, Parker or Scott versions. First, in both accounts, Tekanawfota' is born within Iroquoia. He is desclibed as a respected Mohawk chief (Boyce 1973:288; Klinck and Talman 1970: 102): unlike the Pcacemaker of the later versions, we see here a man who is fully integrated into Iroquois society. COITespondingly, there is no mention in either Brant or Norton of his bil1h: hence, there is no suggestion that he did not have a father. In Gihson (1992), Parker (1968). and Scott (1911) his origins are moved both outside the realms of Iroquois society and he is conceived in an atypical fashion: he is extrasocietal and extrahuman. Further. as in the Gibson, Parker and Scott accounts, in the Brant account (Boyce 1973:288) 'I ( ) 1I \ I \ "I I 1 211112 Copyright http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol11/iss1/11 t' ::!lI(1) '1'< YI I \ 1. 1"I1l I \\ ( ).It 21111) Illrlulo! .\nthroro]ogy Bernier: The Quest for the Historical Tekanawi·ta' Tekanawiota' is the primary actor in the formation of the League; from the beginning of the account, he is actively seeking to unite the tribes in some sort of confederacy. In Norton (Klinck and Talman 1970:102), however, he does not appear until the middle of the story. Hayehwatha', seeking aid in dealing with Thatota oo"s anger, travels to a Mohawk viJIage whereupon he meets Tekanawiota'. As in the later accounts, both Brant and N0l1on portray Tekanawiota' as instrumental in the "conversion" and restoration of Thatota 00' (Boyce 1973:288-9: Klinck and Talman 1970: 102-104); Brant (Boyce 1973:288-9) portrays Thatota 00' as an obstinate Onondaga chief rather then as an evil sorcerer. Finally, contrary to the 20th century accounts, neither account suggests that Tekanawfota' provided any sort of rules for governing the League. There is significant variation between the conceptions of Tekanawfota' put forward by Brant (Boyce 1973) and Norton (Klinck and Talman 1970) in the 19th century and Gibson (1992), Parker (1968) and Scott (1911) in the 20th. It would be tempting to suggest that the early versions are more accurate. However, we cannot do that. Unfortunately, they, too, are far removed from the events they purport to record. The oral tradition appears to have changed in the 19th century; as in the case described by Eggan (1967) and Vansina (1985), we cannot determine how much variation occurred between the initial events and the first recording of the tradition. Given the paucity of data, we simply cannot chart the development of the tradition as it moved through the. time. We must recognize that we cannot verify the factual veracity of these traditions. This recognition is not to say that these traditions are without meaning or that they are untrue. Indeed, I believe that they are very true. They convey social and cultural meaning. That is perhaps more important then any factual data they may or may not provide. The really important questions are questions that I have not addressed in this paper. Those are questions which locate these traditions within contemporary Iroquois culture. Why did the League Tradition undergo change in the 19th century? What were the discursive reasons for these changes? What do these traditions mean to Iroquois peoples today? These questions transcend epistemology and move toward a more existential realm. That realm is a discourse more of the heart rather then one of the mind. In the end. that discourse far more Cop\Tigh[ Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2003 important; unlike attempts to detemline "what actually happened", this discourse is the one that can make, unmake or remake the world. Anderson, William L. (editor). 1991. Cherokee Removal: Before and After. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Boyce, Douglas. 1973. "A Glimpse of Iroquois Culture History Through the Eyes of Joseph Brant and John Norton". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 117:286-294. 1978. "Iroquoian Tribes of the VirginiaNorth Carolina Coastal Plain". In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15. Bruce Trigger. ed. Pp.282-95. Washington: Smithsonian. Echo-Hawk, Roger. 2000. "Ancient History in the New World: Integrating Oral Traditions and the Archaeological Record in Deep Time". American Antiquity. 65:267-90. Eggan, Fred. 1967. "From History to Myth: A Hopi Example." In Studies in Southwestern Ethnolinguistics: Meaning and History in the Languages of the American Southwest. Dell Hymes and William Bittle, ed. Pp 33-53. The Hague: Mouton &Co. Engelbrecht, William. 1985. "New York Iroquois Political Development". In Cultures in Contact: The Impact of European Contacts on Native American Cultural Institutions, A.D. 1000-1800. William Fitzhugh, ed. Pp. 163-83. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press. Gibson, John A. 1992. Concerning the League: the Iroquois League Tradition as Dictated in Onondaga. Hanni Woodbury, trans. Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics. Ton·:I-.1 m] ] I 211112-21111.1 © 211113'1'0'1'1':1\1: The U\X'O Journal of .\mhropologl" Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 11 [2003], Iss. 1, Art. 11 Snow, Dean. 1994. The Iroquois. Oxford: Blackwell. Klinck, Carl and James Talman. 1970. The Journal of Major John NOlton. Toronto: The Champlain Society. Loftus, E., and K. Ketcham. 1991. Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial. New York: St. Martin's Press. Lounsbury, Floyd. 1978. "Iroquoian Languages". In Handbook of North American Indians, Vo1.l5. Bruce Trigger, ed. Pp. 334-43. Washington: Smithsonian. Mason, Ronald. 2000. "Archaeology and Native North American Oral Traditions". American Antiquity. 65:239-66. Mooney, James. 1891. Sacred Fornmlas of the Cherokee. Washington: Smithsonian. 1900. Myths of the Cherokee. Washington: Smithsonian. Parker, Arthur. 1968. "The Constitution of the Iroquois". In Parker on the Iroquois. Willaim Fenton, ed. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Schroedl, Gerald. 1995. "Cherokee Ethnohistory and Archaeology from 1540 to 1838". In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Bonnie McEwan, ed. Gainsville, Florida: University Press of Florida. pp.204-241. Tooker, Elizabeth. 1978. "The League of the Iroquois: Its History, Politics and Ritual". In Handbook of NOlth American Indians, Vo1.l5. Bruce Trigger, ed. Pp.418-441. Washington: Smithsonian. ---. 1991. An Ethnography of the Huron Indians, 1615-1649. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Trigger, Bruce. 1985. Natives and Newcomers: Canada's "Heroic Age" Reconsidered. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. 1987. The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Trigger, Bruce (ed.). 1978. NOltheast. Handbook of North American Indians, v. 15. Washington: Smithsonian. Vansina, Jan. 1980. "Memory and Oral Tradition". In The African Past Speaks: Essays on Oral Tradition and History. Joseph Miller, ed. Pp. 26279. Folkestone: Wm. Dawson & Sons. ---. 1985. Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Scott, Duncan C. 1911. "Traditional History of the Confederacy of the Six Nations, Prepared by a Committee of the Chiefs". Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada. 3rd Series. 5(2): 195-246. TOTI·:i\1 C,,[wright http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol11/iss1/11 © ~IIII.)TCYIV,\l: ,.,,1 II ~II"~-~"II) The U\,\'O Journal "f ,\mhrorol,,!,',"
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz