Lecture

 2  
Pre-­‐Contact  History,  Early  European  Contact  and  Conflict  
 
This  lecture  includes  a  few  supplemental  notes  on    

• Pre-­‐Contact  History  
• The  Iroquois  Confederacy  
• Early  Contact    
• Trade  and  Intercourse  
• The  Formation  of  the  U.S.    

 
 
Pre-­‐Contact  American  Indian  History  
 
Often  American  Indian  history  is  taught  from  the  point  of  European  contact  forward.  However,  
American  Indian  history  did  not  start  in  1492.  Rather,  American  Indian  history  started  tens  of  
thousands  of  years  before  that.  In  fact,  the  500  years  or  so  of  European  presence  in  the  
Americas  is  only  an  extremely  small  sliver  of  American  Indian  History.  As  such,  it  is  important  
that  we  dedicate  a  significant  amount  of  time  to  the  pre-­‐contact  era.  Your  assigned  course  
materials  do  a  good  job  of  discussing  this.  Here  are  just  a  few  notes  to  supplement  the  reading.    

1. Note  challenges  to  the  “Land  Bridge”  theory.  While  dominant  scientific  discourse  says  that  
American  Indians  are  the  descendants  of  Asians  who  crossed  the  Bering  Straight  during  an  
ice  age,  this  has  been  problematized  by  a  number  of  things,  mainly:    
• The  “land  bridge”  theory  contradicts  the  traditional  beliefs  of  most  Native  communities.    
• Most  Native  creation  stories  do  not  reference  cold  weather  and  large  land  mammals.  
You  would  think  if  people  came  over  the  Bering  Straight  hunting  large  land  mammals,  
that  this  would  be  included  in  creation  stories.    
• Most  Native  creation  stories  tell  of  people  emerging  directly  from  the  land  that  they  
lived  on  (and  not  coming  from  somewhere  else).  
• See  iLearn  page  for  additional  articles  on  this  that  you  can  read  for  extra  credit.    

2. When  considering  Native  communities  before  European  contact  please  note:    

• The  highly  developed  systems  of  agriculture,  trade,  and  political  organization.      
• The  numerous  cities  that  supported  large  populations      

Often,  pre-­‐European  contact  Native  communities  are  described  as  primitive,  small,  and  
loosely  organized.  However,  this  is  not  the  case.  For  example,  Native  nations  had  highly  
organized  networks  of  trade  that  spanned  the  entire  continental  United  States  and  
beyond.  Additionally,  some  cities  like  Cahokia  had  populations  of  over  40,000  people.  
This  was  the  largest  city  in  the  U.S.  until  the  19th  century!  With  cities  that  large,  and  
with  the  development  of  large-­‐scale  agriculture  to  support  these  populations,  it  
necessitated  highly  developed  political  organization.      

  1  
  

3. By  1492,  there  were  over  500  distinct  Nations  of  Native  people  living  in  the  Americas.  The  
map  on  the  next  page  shows  their  approximate  locations  at  contact.  What’s  important  to  
note  here,  however,  is  that  these  are  only  the  locations  at  contact.  This  map  is  a  snapshot  of  
one  historical  moment  after  tens  of  thousands  of  years  of  history.  The  time  before  1492  was  
filled  with  shifts  to  accommodate  changing  needs  and  shifting  political  and  environmental  
climates.      

At  this  point,  take  some  time  to  watch  the  selections  from  500  Nations  to  learn  about  some  
specific  pre-­‐contact  Native  cultures  and  communities.    

   
 
  2  
  
The  Iroquois  Confederacy  

As  a  way  to  transition  from  pre-­‐contact  Native  communities  to  European  contact,  we  are  going  
to  focus  on  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  of  Nations.  This  segment  will  give  you  some  important  
information  about  early  Native/European  interactions  and  an  insight  into  how  they  shaped  the  
United  States  as  a  country.    

One  thing  that  many  people  don’t  know  is  that  the  U.S.  Constitution  was  in  many  ways  shaped  
by  the  pre-­‐contact  indigenous  political  philosophy  of  the  Iroquois  Confederacy.  Around  1000  
C.E.,  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  created  a  written  constitution.  During  the  1700s  when  the  U.S.’s  
“founding  fathers”  were  developing  the  U.S.  Constitution,  they  were  significantly  influenced  by  
the  Iroquois  Constitution  and  Iroquois  political  philosophy.    

This  week  you  were  assigned  part  of  “Traditional  Tribal  Governments”  as  well  as  an  excerpt  
from  a  Senate  hearing  on  the  Iroquois  Confederacy’s  impact  on  the  U.S.  Constitution.  
“Traditional  Tribal  Governments”  does  a  good  job  of  refuting  the  dominant  stereotype  that  pre-­‐
contact  Native  communities  were  lacking  in  political  organization  and  government.  The  first  
case  study  on  the  Haudenosaunee  (aka  the  Iroquois  League  or  Iroquois  Confederacy)  is  a  prime  
example.  This  short  case  study  shows  how  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  is  a  union  of  many  nations  
with  a  complex  political  structure  codified  in  a  written  constitution.  The  second  excerpt  is  from  
Congressional  testimony  from  Oren  Lyons  (Chief  of  the  Onandaga  Nation,  one  of  the  member  
nations  of  the  Iroquois  Confederacy).  Chief  Lyons  gives  details  on  how  the  U.S.  Constitution  was  
in  many  ways  modeled  after  the  Iroquois  Constitution.  The  last  excerpt  shows  the  
Congressional  resolution  to  officially  recognize  the  contribution  of  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  to  
the  development  of  the  U.S.  Constitution.    

To  help  you  conceptualize  this,  I’ve  created  some  visual  aides:    

This  first  image  is  a  picture  of  a  wampum  belt  that  the  Iroquois  used  to  create  a  written  record  
of  their  constitution.  The  5  symbols  on  the  belt  below  represent  the  5  original  nations  in  the  
confederacy.    

 
  3  
  
 

The  image  below  gives  you  an  idea  of  where  these  different  nations  were  located.  The  map  
shows  upstate  New  York  on  the  border  with  Canada.  On  the  right  is  an  interpretation  of  the  
vision  of  the  Great  Peacemaker  (aka  Deganwidah)  who  envisioned  the  Iroquois  Confederacy.    

Haudenosaunee)
“People'of'the'Long'House”'

 
   
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
  4  
  
 
As  noted  in  the  “Traditional  Tribal  Governments”  excerpt,  Iroquois  political  structure  consists  of  
a  council  of  50  with  representation  from  each  nation  based  on  population.  The  council  of  50  is  
divided  into  “Older  Brothers”  and  “Younger  Brothers”  and  is  moderated  by  the  Onondaga.  A  
model  of  the  governing  structure  is  posted  below.  The  number  of  representatives  that  each  
nation  had  in  the  Council  of  50  is  noted  in  parentheses.  This  number  was  based  on  population.    

   

Iroquois(Political(Structure(
(

Head(
Council( Council((
of(50(

Keepers(of(the(
Older( Younger( Council(Fire(
Brothers( Brothers( (moderators)(

Mohawk( Seneca( Oneida( Cayuga( Onondaga((

(9)( (9)( (8)( (10)( (14)(

 
 
Iroquois  political  theory  is  rooted  in  natural,  inalienable  rights.  To  the  Iroquois,  rights  are  given  
by  God,  not  by  the  government.  In  order  to  protect  these  rights,  the  Iroquois  believed  that  
people  may  create  a  system  of  government,  but  this  government  should  only  function  with  the  
consent  of  the  people  who  created  it.    

This  political  philosophy  was  very  appealing  to  the  early  English  colonists  who  were  fleeing  
political  oppression  under  the  British  monarchy.  As  Oren  Lyons  points  out,  there  were  many  
times  in  which  the  colonists  and  “founding  fathers”  studied  the  Iroquois  government  and  
invited  the  Iroquois  to  be  present  at  the  drafting  of  important  documents  in  American  history.  
One  such  document  was  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Take  a  few  moments  and  read  the  
excepts  from  it  below:    

  5  
 Excerpt(from(the(Declaration(of(Independence:(July(4,(1776(

•  We(hold(these(truths(to(be(self@evident,(that(all(men(are(created(
equal,((
•  that(they(are(endowed(by(their(Creator(with(certain(unalienable(
Rights,((
•  that(among(these(are(Life,(Liberty(and(the(pursuit(of(Happiness.(
•  That(to(secure(these(rights,(Governments(are(instituted(among(Men,(
deriving(their(just(powers(from(the(consent(of(the(governed,(@@(
•  That(whenever(any(Form(of(Government(becomes(destructive(of(
these(ends,(it(is(the(Right(of(the(People(to(alter(or(to(abolish(it(
 
 
 

Sound  familiar?  It  should!  These  are  many  of  the  core  beliefs  central  to  Iroquois  political  
philosophy  mentioned  above  and  in  the  reading!    

There  is  ample  evidence  in  addition  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  document  the  
influence  of  Iroquois  political  philosophy  on  the  “founding  fathers.”  The  next  few  slides  show  
the  similarities  between  the  Iroquois  Constitution  and  the  U.S.  Constitution:    

Iroquois(and(U.S.(Constitution((

•  Leaders(elected(by(the(people(
•  Votes(are(weighted(equally(
•  Membership(proportional(to(population(
•  Power(of(impeachment(
•  Bicameral(legislature(
•  Checks(and(balances(between(executive(and(legislative(branch(
•  Domestic(matters(handled(by(states,(interstate(matters(by(federal(
government((
   
 
 

  6  
More  similarities  between  the  U.S.  and  Iroquois  Constitutions:    

 
English( Iroquois( United((
( Confederacy( States(
Political( Vertical:* Horizontal** Horizontal*
Organization(( Hierarchical*
Leadership( Hereditary* Elected*official** Elected*official*
Monarchy*
Rights( Granted*by*King* Inherent** Inherent**
(granted*by*God)*** (granted*by*God)*
Suffrage( English*Male*
Suffrage( English*Male* Universal* White*Male*
Ruled(By( Force,*Coercion*
Ruled(By( Force,*Coercion* Consensus* Majority*
Authority( Taken*by*force*or*
Authority( Taken*by*force*or*
given*by*monarch* Earned,*maintained* Earned,*maintained*
given*by*monarch*
People(are:( Subjugated*
People(are:( Subjugated* Free*Individuals* Free*Individuals**

 
   
 
As  Oren  Lyons  points  out,  and  as  the  chart  above  shows,  one  of  the  main  differences  between  
Iroquois  political  structure  and  the  U.S.  political  structure  was  universal  suffrage.  The  Iroquois  
valued  equality  of  all  people  (regardless  of  nationality/ethnicity  and  gender).  Despite  this,  the  
“founding  fathers”  insisted  on  excluding  people  of  color  and  women  from  civic  participation.  
Imagine  how  different  American  history  would  have  been  if  the  “founding  fathers”  
incorporated  Iroquois  philosophy  on  gender  and  racial  equality!    

Take  a  moment  to  watch  the  [AV]  assignment  Injunuity,  “The  Great  Law”  posted  on  iLearn  to  
review  these  ideas.  

 
 
 
Early  Contact  (1492-­‐Late  1500s)    
 
At  the  time  of  contact  in  1492,  the  land  that  would  later  become  the  United  States  of  America  
was   home   to   more   than   500   distinct   sovereign,   autonomous   Native   nations,   each   with   their  
own  distinctive  history,  culture,  and  political  organization.  And  while  Native  people  and  nations  
had   managed   their   own   communities   for   tens   of   thousands   of   years,   we   see   the   arrival   of  
Europeans   in   the   Americas   signal   the   beginning   of   rapid   and   catastrophic   change   for   Native  
people.    
 
The  reading  gives  a  great  background  on  this  time  period.  Please  take  note  of  a  few  things  to  
supplement  the  reading:    
 

  7  
1. Justifications  for  early  conquest:  Law  and  Ideology  
The  primary  motivation  for  Columbus’s  expedition  to  the  so-­‐called  “New  World”  was  primarily  
economic.   Columbus   was   eager   to   seize   both   the   lands   and   resources   that   he   encountered   in  
order  to  satisfy  those  who  financially  backed  his  expedition.  However,  there  was  one  problem—
these  lands  and  resources  were  already  occupied  by  distinct,  sovereign  indigenous  nations.  As  
we  discussed  last  week,  this  is  the  first  instance  of  the  “Indian  Problem.”  So  how  did  Columbus  
and   other   early   colonizers   “solve”   this   “problem”?   They   used   two   (2)   main   tools   to   do   this:   Law  
and  Ideology.  You  will  see  this  theme  reappear  throughout  this  course.    
 
Law  
• In   order   to   legitimize   his   claims   to   Native   lands   and   resources,   Columbus   used   law.   If   he  
could   assert   some   sort   of   legal   claim   to   Native   resources,   then   it   would   legitimate  
seizing   it   from   people   who   clearly   had   a   pre-­‐existing   right   to   them.   The   laws   that   he  
used  were  called  Papals  Bulls.    
• Papal   Bulls   were   essentially   laws   that   were   written   by   the   Catholic   Pope.   Around   the  
time  of  first  contact,  the  Pope  had  issued  two  Papal  Bulls  which  said:    
1. All  non-­‐Christian  lands  could  be  seized  and  the  inhabitants  enslaved  
2. The  “New  World”  would  be  divided  up  between  Spain  and  Portugal.    
• With  this  legal  justification  in-­‐hand  by  the  time  of  their  voyages,  Columbus  and  others  
were  able  to  justify  their  conquests.  
 
Ideology  
• In   addition   to   using   legal   justifications   for   seizing   lands   and   resources,   early   colonists  
used   ideological   justifications.   At   the   time   of   first   contact   we   see   Native   people   being  
constructed   by   Europeans   (and   later   Euro-­‐Americans),   as   a   subhuman   “other.”   This   is  
important   because   if   they   were   able   to   construct   an   image   of   Native   people   as  
somehow   not   like   themselves,   then   it   became   easier   to   justify   violence   against   them  
and  seizing  their  resources.    
 
• From  contact  on,  there  have  been  2  primary  ideological  constructions  of  Native  people  
that  we  will  see  throughout  the  course:  
o The   “Noble   Savage”:   Native   people   are   seen   as   stoic,   dumb,   child-­‐like   and  
incapable  of  managing  their  resources.  Therefore  their  resources  can  be  seized.  
o The   “Savage   Savage”:   Native   people   are   seen   as   inherently   violent   and  
bloodthirsty,  meaning  that  violence  against  them  was  always  justified  as  an  act  
of  self-­‐defense.  
 

             
  8  
  
These   pictures   illustrate   the   Noble/Savage   Savage   dichotomy.   On   the   left   you   have   a  
Native   man   who   is   stoic   and   almost   childlike.   This   represents   the   “Noble   Savage.”   On  
the   right   you   have   the   “Savage   Savage”:   blood   thirsty,   violent,   uncivilized   and  
threatening  to  Euro-­‐Americans.  (Here,  Euro-­‐America  is  represented  by  a  white  woman).    
 
Early  Colonies  
 
After  Columbus’s  initial  voyages,  and  the  carving  of  the  “New  World,”  Spain  and  Portugal  begin  
to  expand  rapidly  throughout  the  “New  World.”  Spain  returns  to  the  Caribbean,  expanding  into  
Central   and   South   America,   violently   colonizing   the   Aztec   and   Incan   empires   while   expanding  
into  the  southern  part  of  what  would  become  the  United  States.  
 
By   this   time—knowing   that   there   was   vast   wealth   to   be   had   through   colonization-­‐-­‐other  
European  powers  including  the  English,  the  Dutch  and  the  French  reject  the  Pope’s  claim  that  
the   “New   World”   belongs   to   Spain   and   Portugal   and   try   to   set   up   their   own   colonies.   At   first  
they  fail,  but  eventually  they  are  able  to  set  up  colonies  on  the  east  coast  of  what  is  now  the  
US.  
 
The   reading   provides   a   great   discussion   on   this   time   period.   Please   take   note   of   a   few   things   to  
supplement  the  reading:  
 
1. Important  differences  between  Spanish  colonization  of  the  Caribbean/Central  America  and  
European  colonization  of  the  east  coast.    
• Spain  was  able  to  spread  rapidly  throughout  Mexico  and  the  Caribbean.  This  was  in  part  
due  to  the  relatively  mild  climate  in  this  area.    
• By  contrast,  European  colonies  on  the  East  coast  were  very  difficult  to  establish.  Many  
early  colonies  failed  as  they  struggled  against  cold  weather  and  lack  of  food.  
• Often  students  ask,  “Why  didn’t  Native  people  on  the  east  coast  simply  band  together  
to  fight  off  European  colonists?”  
o One   of   the   main   reasons   that   this   didn’t   happen   was   because   the   first   European  
colonists  were  not  a  threat  at  all!  At  first,  they  appeared  to  be  small  groups  of  
starving,  ill-­‐equipped  foreigners  that  could  barely  survive.    
o Native   people,   therefore   didn’t   see   them   as   a   threat   and   instead   saw   them   as  
potential  trading  partners  and  allies.  
o At   first,   Native   nations   clearly   had   the   upper-­‐hand   when   interacting   with  
European   colonists   on   the   east   coast,   and   interactions   between   Native   nations  
and  Europeans/Euro-­‐Americans  were  characterized  by  relative  equality.  
 
2. However,  this  began  to  change  as  the  first  European  colonies  became  more  established.    
• As   the   first   European   colonies   became   more   self-­‐sufficient,   their   populations   began   to  
grow.   This   necessitated   expansion   and   consumption   of   more   resources.   This   led   to  
resistance   by   Native   nations   whose   lands   and   resources   were   being   seized   by   Euro-­‐
Americans.  This  led  to  violence,  which—to  Europeans—confirmed  the  “Savage  Savage”  
ideological   construction   and   therefore   justified   violence   against   Native   people.   This  
became  a  pattern  that  we  will  see  throughout  the  course  and  can  be  visualized  with  the  
following  chart:    
 

  9  
  
You  can  use  this  chart  to  help  you  visualize,  for  example,  the  expansion  of  the  Jamestown  
colony  as  the  result  of  the  tobacco  industry.    
 
 
 
Trade  and  Intercourse  (Early  1600s-­‐mid/late  1700s)  
 
Despite   the   violence   and   disease   that   accompanied   the   establishment   and   expansion   of   the  
early   colonies,   at   this   point   Native   nations   in   eastern   areas   still   enjoyed   relative   economic  
independence.     For   the   most   part,   they   were   recognized   as   political   sovereigns,   autonomous  
nations,  and  important  allies/trading  partners  by  the  Euro-­‐American  colonists  on  the  east  coast.  
This   was   due   in   part   to   a   highly   complex   system   of   trade   and   political   alliances   between   the  
indigenous  peoples  of  the  east  coast  and  Canada  with  (mostly)  French  and  English  colonists.    
 
Central  to  this  developing  system  of  trade  were  the  pelts  of  fur-­‐bearing  animals  that  were  used  
to  make  a  variety  of  goods  in  Europe.    
 
Our   reading   discusses   the   importance   of   the   fur   trade.   Just   a   few   notes   and   a   map   to  
supplement  the  reading:  
 

  10  
  
 
1. Native  nations  wielded  significant  political  power  from  the  Fur  Trade  
• Fur  was  highly  desired  by  the  Euro-­‐American  colonists  for  trade  to  Europe,  and  Native  
nations   were   highly   adept   at   providing   these   furs   in   large   quantities.   This   put   Native  
nations  in  positions  of  power.  Because  they  had  the  ability  to  provide  this  resource,  they  
were  able  to  strategically  make  political  and  economic  alliances  with  the  Euro-­‐American  
colonists.    
• At   the   time,   there   were   several   different   European   nations   actively   colonizing   the  
Americas—mainly   England   and   France   on   the   east   coast.   Here,   various   Native   nations  
were   able   to   strategically   make   alliances   with   either   England   or   France   to   enjoy   a  
significant   amount   of   political   and   economic   power.   This   is   known   as   “Play-­‐Off  
Diplomacy.”  
 
2. Play-­‐Off  Diplomacy  
• Essentially,   what   this   means   is   that   Native   people   were   able   to   use   strategic   political  
alliances  (based  on  economic  power)  to  play  European  powers  off  of  each  other.  There  
are  examples  of  this  in  the  pages  noted—make  sure  you  review  these.    
 
3. (3)  Important  Developments  in  the  1770s  
• Up   until   the   1770s,   Native   nations   enjoyed   a   significant   amount   of   economic   and  
political   autonomy   and   advantage.   While   there   was   certainly   frontier   violence   before  
this  point  (see  model  of  American  colonization),  the  Fur  Trade  and  the  fact  that  the  first  
colonies   were   difficult   to   establish,   gave   Native   nations   a   significant   advantage   over  
Europeans.   However   this   dramatically   changed   in   the   second   half   of   the   1700s.   There  
were   3   important   developments   at   this   time   that   had   a   dramatic   impact   on   Native  
nations:    
  11  
  
Development  #1  Increased  Population  
• By  the  second  half  of  the  1700s,  European  colonies  were  very  well-­‐established.  The  first  
European   colonists   struggled   against   cold   and   lack   of   food,   often   relying   on   Native  
nations   for   their   very   survival.   However,   by   this   time,   these   colonies   were   large,   self-­‐
sustaining,  and  highly  populated.  
• From   our   model   of   American   colonization,   we   know   that   increased   populations   mean  
increased  need  for  resources.  Native  people  were  viewed  more  and  more  as  “problems”  
that  were  “in  the  way”  of  these  resources.    
• Because  of  this,  Native  nations  who  were  once  valuable  trading  partners  and  allies  were  
simply  cast  aside.  
 
Development  #2:  Decline  of  the  Fur  Trade  
• By   the   end   of   the   1700s,   most   of   the   fur-­‐bearing   animals   on   the   east   coast   had   been  
hunted   almost   to   extinction.   Because   Native   people   at   this   point   didn’t   have   fur   as   a  
strategic  resource,  they  became  disadvantaged  economically  and  politically.    
• After  fur,  the  only  resource  that  Native  people  had  was  their  land.  And  this  land  was  in  
high  demand  by  the  expanding  colonies.    
• The   decline   of   the   fur   trade   therefore   signaled   the   end   of   play-­‐off   diplomacy.   While  
Native  nations  once  enjoyed  significant  economic  and  political  power,  the  decline  of  the  
fur  trade  signaled  an  end  to  this.      
 
Development  #3:  The  American  Revolution  and  the  Formation  of  the  United  States  
• The  second  half  of  the  1700s  saw  the  American  Revolutionary  War,  the  US  Declaration  
of  Independence  from  England,  the  consolidation  of  the  colonies,  and  the  formation  of  
the   United   States   of   America.   When   that   happened,   Native   nations,   who   had  
strategically   played   off   of   various   competing   European   powers   for   political   gain,   were  
now  faced  with  a  large,  consolidated  single  power.  
• The   formation   of   the   USA   established   one   monolithic   country   that   had   a   centralized  
government   and   military.   From   the   Native   perspective,   one   large   country   was   much  
more   difficult   to   manage   than   smaller   colonies   that   were   often   in   conflict   with   each  
other.  
 

  12