Wampum

Hey, it might have worked.. It certainly would have been a good start.

Posted by: VJ at November 26, 2004 03:27 AM

I'm sorry, but there is so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin. The so-called "Pilgrim Fathers" (who didn't call themselves Pilgrims) and the "First Thanksgiving" (which wasn't a Thanksgiving) have been so mythologized over the years that corrections are long overdue, but this sort of counter-mythologizing, of simply flipping them from brave heroes to crude villains, is every bit as bad and every bit as inaccurate.

- By "Europeans," I assume what's meant is the settlers at Plymouth. That must be it, because otherwise Samoset was hardly the first native to meet them. In fact, Europeans from several nations had been fishing the coast between Cape Cod and the Grand Banks since about 1510, so by the time Plymouth was settled (i.e., Plymouth, not Pawtuxet), there had been regular contact for about 110 years. (I further assume we're talking about what's now New England, since there were already French, Dutch, Spanish, and other English settlements on the continent. Oh, wait, they're all just "Europeans" with no distinctions, yes? I guess that's supposed to be the counterweight to their tendency to think of the Indians as all one people, all the same. Of course, settlers quickly learned the natives were not all the same and the Indians had no trouble making distinctions between French, English, et. al., but then again, they weren't trying to score political points.)

- The settlers were not spending their time grave robbing, they were not hungry, and they did not eat the seed they found. They did disturb some graves in the course of exploring but first, they they were Nauset, not Pawtuxet, and second,

"[w]e, musing what it might be, digged and found a bow, and, as we thought, arrows, but they were rotten. We supposed there were many other things, but because we deemed them graves, we put the bow again and made it up as it was, and left the rest untouched, because we thought it would be odious to them to ransack their sepulchres."

They did take a kettle and several bushels of seed corn, which they clearly should not have done. But

"if we could find the people, and come to parley with them, we would give them the kettle again, and satisfy them for their corn,"

which they did the following June when they were able to open trade with the Nauset. Again, they unquestionably should not have done it but they did intend to, and did, pay for it, which should be a mitigating factor.

Finally, the corn they found "will serve us sufficiently for seed." It was used for seed, not to eat.

- "Wampanoag" is a modern, general term for the natives of the area; it's a word meaning roughly "people of the east" or "people of the dawn" and could refer to anyone living to the east of you. The Indians would not have called themselves "Wampanoag" as it would have been nonsensical; it would have meant something like "I live to the east of where I live."

- Samoset did not "report" the settlers to the local Indians; they were well aware the settlement was there. Rather, he was sent as an emissary to make first contact. And there was no "Pawtuxet sachem," as the people of the town had died in a plague (no one knows exactly what - personally, I suspect measles - but it was very deadly) and the place was abandoned.

- Finally on this, the Abenaki had not "starved out the English at a place they call Popham." First, George Popham was a person, not a place. Second, after Popham died and his replacement as colony leader returned to England for family reasons, the other settlers gave it up and abandoned it. They might not have ultimately succeeded - many attempts at colonization failed - but they were not starved out by the Indians.

What we have done to the Indians of the Americas is quite bad enough without having to dress it up with historical inaccuracies.

Posted by: LaryE at November 28, 2004 06:48 AM

LaryE:

Let me preface this reply with a disclaimer: I am an ethnohistoric archaeologist specializing in the New England Contact Period. My partner, Eric, who wrote the above piece does not have the formal training in the discipline that I do, but that does not diminish his knowledge on the subject.

First off, WE here at Wampum are the Indians of the Americas of whom you speak. The sources you quote are European ethnohistorical writings. Are you asserting that they are more accurate sources of the actual events than the oral tradition which has passed down through generations of families who were eyewitnesses to the history of our land?

But I'll take off my Indian hat, and throw back on my ethnohistorian's hat.

Wampanoag is not a "modern" term, any more than "Wabanaki" is (and both mean "people of the dawn", not East.) Eastern Algonquin tribes were organized both by band and tribe/nation. There were many bands within a larger nation. When we discuss with our 8 year old child the history of our non-Abenaki relations, we will often use band/tribe interchangably. But Massasoit was principal sachem of all Wampanoag bands, so it is appropriate to use both band and nation in this context.

In addition, we often associate a location with a person - hence the location at Phippsburg where George Popham and his band of 100 merry men is to this day known as Popham Beach and Ft. Popham (http://outdoors.mainetoday.com/news/040711parks.shtml) Originally, we called it Sagadahoc. And it was well documented (written and oral) that the local Indians, my own Pemaquid ancestors included, were quite hostile to Popham's "colony", particularly since one of Popham's first gestures was to take Indian hostages to ensure "good behavior". Over the first winter, the fort's storehouse was destroyed after colonists fired a cannon upon Indian traders during some "sporting" event. Some of the Europeans (many of whom were nabbed from English jails) fled the fort, and subsequently fell to ticked off locals. After the storehouse burned, hunger was widespread, as the colonists were too afraid of the Pemaquid and other Kennebecs to leave the settlement to hunt. So, although the Washington Post's travel section declared that life was great in Popham, further ethnohistoric snooping indicates things were not so hot.

The term "report" does not indicate primacy - Samoset, due to his extensive contact with Europeans along the Maine coast, had greater knowledge of their ways (including their propensity for theft and abduction), and thus could "report" that information to his local hosts.

Eric probably should have used the village name Pokanoket rather than Pawtuxet, although Massasoit, as principal sachem of the Wampanoag, was sachem of both his home village, Pokanoket, and Pawtuxet. In addition, refugees who had abandoned Pawtuxet during the 1619 pandemic (which probably was not measles, as measles cannot sustain itself in a small population with nearly 100% acquired immunity for the month-long voyage across the Atlantic) removed to Pokanoket.

I could go on for an entire thesis over the European graverobbing both in the vicinity around Plimouth as well as throughout Southern New England. (In fact, I gave a number of papers on the subject in the early 90's.) But suffice it to say that you're entire argument is based purely on English reflections (which you failed to cite), not on either archaeological evidence or indigenous accounts.

Posted by: MB at November 28, 2004 10:01 AM

I doubt there is much point to continuing this, so this will be my last word on the subject.

-- WE here at Wampum are the Indians of the Americas of whom you speak. --

I'm fully aware of that. When I said "we" I was referring to dominant US culture, as I thought should have been obvious from the context. Perhaps it wasn't.

-- The sources you quote are European ethnohistorical writings. Are you asserting that they are more accurate sources of the actual events than the oral tradition which has passed down through generations of families who were eyewitnesses to the history of our land? --

The "European ethnohistorical writing" - a term you make sound like a four-letter epithet - I cited was also by eyewitnesses. Oral traditions can be remarkably accurate - but are you suggesting, as you apparently are, that they are to be preferred to contemporaneous written accounts?

-- Wampanoag is not a "modern" term, any more than "Wabanaki" is (and both mean "people of the dawn", not East.) --

The word itself is not modern, but its use to describe all the native people of what's now eastern Massachusetts and part of Rhode Island is. (And since we're translating, not defining, the word, arguing over whether it referred to people of the "dawn" or "east," which is after all the direction of the dawn, seems pointless.) And I am quite aware of how tribes organized themselves; it doesn't change the fact that people of the time would not have called themselves Wampanoag. I was, that is, referring to the time the events described took place. Perhaps again that was not clear, although I would think it was since I used the past tense.

-- we often associate a location with a person ... it was well documented (written and oral) that the local Indians...were quite hostile to Popham's "colony" ... although the Washington Post's travel section declared that life was great in Popham.... --

One thing I will concede is that the original item says "the place they *call* Popham," which I misread as "the place they *called* Popham." Beyond that, what I see here is exactly that of which you accuse me: selective reading of sources and information. There is no question but that the Indians were hostile to Popham's colony, no question but that it struggled, no question but that it was abandoned. But the author of the piece said they were "starved out" by the Indians. That ignores a)the loss of leadership, b)the failure of follow-up supply, and c)the difficulty in growing any English crops because of the climate, which d)was much harsher than they expected. The hostility of the natives was certainly a factor, but to say they "starved out" the English, particularly as if that was the only reason for the colony's failure, is untrue.

The reference to "the Washington Post's travel section" was pointless and snide and unworthy of you.

-- The term "report" does not indicate primacy - Samoset...had greater knowledge of their ways (including their propensity for theft and abduction), and thus could "report" that information to his local hosts. --

Which makes sense only if based on the incorrect assumption that the Indians of Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bay had little or no contact with Europeans. Indeed, they had had some very painful experiences with Europeans - both English and French - in the not-too-distant past, which is one of the reasons they kept their distance at first and why they sent someone not from the area to make first contact (so that if the settlers did prove hostile Samoset could run away and the settlers would still know nothing about the locals).

-- Eric probably should have used the village name Pokanoket rather than Pawtuxet ... the 1619 pandemic (which probably was not measles) --

Pokanotket would have been accurate, yes. As for the source of the pandemic, the fact is, as I'm sure you're aware, no one knows what it was. Measles is just my guess based on second-hand descriptions of the disease and its relatively long incubation period: Whatever it was, it was likely brought by Europeans and so something of which the natives had no experience and to which they had no immunity. If any visiting European had been visibly sick, they would have known to keep away from him. "Near 100% immunity" rather overstates the case; 90% was more like it.

-- suffice it to say that you're entire argument is based purely on English reflections (which you failed to cite), not on either archaeological evidence or indigenous accounts. --

The quotes were from a book popularly called "Mourt's Relation," written by first settlers to Plymouth and published in England in 1622. I didn't cite it because I didn't think we were engaged in a footnoted debate and because, frankly, I assumed - perhaps incorrectly - you would be familiar with it. But here again, you prove my point for me, referring to "English reflections" as if it's to be doubted - even though it's a contemporaneous written account - simply because it's English.

I said originally that my complaint was that an attempt was being made to simply reverse mythologies, to flip the settlers at what became Plymouth "from brave heroes to crude villains." Frankly, I see nothing in your response to make me change my mind about that.

Posted by: LarryE at November 28, 2004 05:12 PM

There are a number of things that one could do in the blogoshere that would always be a mistake.

I plan to never argue economics with Brad DeLong.

I hope to never argue issues of book publication with Teresa.

I know that I will never argue the history of the Abenaki with either MB or Eric, much less both.

The reason for each rule is the same. I do not relish looking silly.

MB: You write:

"I could go on for an entire thesis over the European graverobbing both in the vicinity around Plimouth as well as throughout Southern New England. (In fact, I gave a number of papers on the subject in the early 90's)."

That is one of the best ideas I have heard in a very long time. Eric, too. Well, maybe not a thesis all at once.

There are a number of audiences here at Wampum, and those of us low on the learning curve could use both a good overview of the history and in depth exploration of specific events.

Posted by: dwight at November 28, 2004 09:27 PM