This paragraph will contain a survey of the economic state of the group of hunting tribes, extending across North America, from the Montagnais near the Atlantic Coast to the Apaches of Texas. Besides hunters in the proper sense this group includes the Cheyennes and Comanches, who, though slight traces of agriculture were found among them, subsisted almost entirely on the products of the chase.

1º Abundance of food. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, [237]says: “The savages are almost always hungry”216. The Chepewyans “are not remarkable for their activity as hunters, owing to the ease with which they snare deer and spear fish”217. Among the Kutchins a good hunter can always, except in very unfavourable circumstances, procure sufficient food218. The Beaver Indians, according to Mackenzie, seemed to live in a state of comparative comfort219. The Comanches in the summer, when the buffaloes remove to the North, often suffer from want of food220. Lewis and Clark tell us, that the Shoshones “suffer the extremes of want; for two-thirds of the year they are forced to live in the mountains, passing whole weeks without meat, and with nothing to eat but a few fish and roots”221. Grinnell, speaking of the inland Indians in general, remarks: “The life of the Indian was in some respects a hard one, for the question of food was an ever-present anxiety with him”222.

Considering the foregoing statements, and remembering Tanner’s narrative that gives a description of a continual struggle for mere existence, we may safely conclude that, though a few of these tribes lived rather comfortably, food, among the Indians of Central North America in general, was not nearly so abundant as on the Pacific Coast.

2º. Whereas the tribes of the Pacific Coast subsist chiefly by fishing, the Indians of Central North America are, nearly all of them, hunters (See § 2 of this chapter).

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. In a general description of the “vast but thinly populated interior of Northern America” we read that, with regard to the mode of living, a distinction is to be made between the thick-wood Indians and the prairie Indians. The thick-wood Indians consist of small groups. During the summer they live on waterfowl, fish, berries, etc. In the winter they often suffer from want of food. The prairie Indians during the whole year live on the buffalo. Their groups number on an average 400 people223. The Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, were wandering and few in number; their life consisted of feasting as long as they had [238]anything; they lived from hand to mouth and did not lay up any provision224. The same writer calls the Algonquins a wandering tribe225. The Ojibways, according to Keating, are divided into small groups, each containing a few families. They do not lay up any provision for winter use. Jones also remarks, that they are very improvident. Kohl, however, gives a long description of the fruits preserved by them226. The Knisteneaux often, at one feast, consume what would have been enough for several weeks227. The Blackfeet tribes are nomadic in their habits228. Ross tells us, that the Eastern Tinneh “are obliged to lead a wandering life, in order to procure food either by fishing or hunting”229. The Indians on the Upper Yukon are very improvident. When fish is abundant, they gorge themselves with it, instead of drying it for winter use230. The Kutchins live in transportable dwellings. According to Kirby they “are divided into many petty tribes”. Hardisty, however, states that they generally live in large groups231. Mackenzie speaks of a Beaver Indian establishment of about 300 inhabitants232. The Sioux live in small bands, owing to the scarcity of game233. The Osages are nomadic. Our informant speaks of an Osage town of 1500 inhabitants234. Apache tribes of 100–200 people, of whom 25–50 are warriors, are headed by a captain. They are “nomadic and roving in their habits”. “Seldom do they remain more than a week in one locality”235. The Comanches “usually roam in small subdivisions, varying according to caprice or the scarcity or abundance of game”. These subdivisions consist of 20–110 families. Brancroft remarks about the Comanches: “No provision is made for a time of scarcity, but when many buffalo are killed, they cut portions of them into long strips, which, after being dried in the sun, are pounded fine. This pemican they carry with them in their hunting expeditions, and when unsuccessful in the chase, a small quantity boiled in water or cooked with grease, serves for a [239]meal”236. These details do not quite agree with Bancroft’s assertion that “no provision is made”. Grinnell remarks, that the Indians are often undeservedly taxed with improvidence. “We are told in books much about the Indian’s improvidence, and it is frequently stated that however abundant food might be with him to-day, he took no thought for the needs of the morrow. Such statements are untrue and show but superficial observation. The savage does not look so far ahead as does the civilized man, but still the lessons of experience are not wholly lost on him. He remembers past hardships, and endeavours to provide against their recurrence; and these people were rather remarkable for their foresight, and for the provision which they were accustomed to make for the future”237.

However this may be, it is evident that the supplies these wandering tribes (as they subsist on hunting, we may safely suppose that they are all of them nomadic, whether this be explicitly stated or not) were able to store for winter’s use, cannot compare with those of the tribes of the Pacific Coast.

4º. Trade and industry. The Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, bought maize from the Hurons for elk-skins238. The Algonquins, according to the same writer, used to sell furs to the French239. The Blackfeet tribes sold peltries which they procured in the Northern part of their country240. Jones calls the Kutcha Kutchin traders: “they make very little for themselves, but buy from the other Indians.” And Hardisty tells us, that they live by trading; they exchange beads, which are their circulating medium, for the peltries of other tribes241. The Osages, too, carried on the fur-trade in Hunter’s time242.

We see that trade does not hold a large place in the economic life of these Indians, and that only raw products are exchanged.

Grinnell enumerates the branches of industry existing among them. “Food supply and defence against enemies depended on the warrior’s weapons. These were his most precious possessions, and he gave much care to their manufacture. Knowing nothing of metals, he made his edge tools of sharpened stones.” [240]“The most important part of the warrior’s equipment was the bow, and over no part of it was more time and labour spent.” “The stone axe, the maul, and the lance were all simple weapons.” “A very important part of the warrior’s outfit was the shield, with which he stopped or turned aside the arrows of his enemy. It was usually circular in shape, and was made of the thick, shrunken hide of a buffalo bull’s neck.” “Clothing was made of skins tanned with or without the fur.” “Many tribes—especially those to the south—made a simple pottery.… Among the northern tribes, where pottery was least known, ladles, spoons, bows, and dishes were usually formed from horn or wood”. “The different tribes had but slight knowledge of the textile art, and this knowledge seems to have been greatest in the south and on the coast.” “Three vehicles were known to the primitive Indian—the travois in the south and the sledge in the north for land travel, and the canoe wherever there were water ways.” “The Indian’s ideas of art are rude.” “It is in the art of carving, however, that the greatest skill was shown”243. So these tribes do not seem to have attained to a high industrial development; the less, as most of the instances Grinnell gives of their skill in carving relate to tribes of the Pacific Coast.

5º. Property and wealth. Whereas on the Pacific Coast influence and power depend on wealth, we shall see that in Central North America it is otherwise. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, remarks: “Rhetoric controls all these tribes, as the captain is elected for his eloquence alone, and is obeyed in proportion to his use of it, for they have no other law than his word”244. Roosevelt states that among the Algonquins the war-chief “wielded only the influence that he could secure by his personal prowess and his tact”245. The power of an Ojibway chief depended upon his wisdom, courage, and hospitality246. Of the Blackfeet we are told: “Chiefs never receive a gift, considering it a degradation to accept anything but what their own prowess or superior qualities of manhood acquire for them. Their hearts are so good and strong that they scorn to take [241]anything, and self-denial and the power to resist temptation to luxury or easily acquired property is a boast with them. On these men, in time of peace, when difficulties occur among themselves, the tribe relies, and in time of war they are their leaders to the scene of action”. And Schoolcraft states that the chiefs “have little or no power, unless they have distinguished themselves as warriors and are supported by a band of braves”247. Among the Kutchins, according to Jones, the chiefs are elected for their wisdom and courage. Hardisty, however, states that the power of the chiefs depends on the number of beads they own; for these afford a means of injuring those who displease them. And Whymper remarks: “The chiefs, who are without exception good hunters or fishers, often procure or strengthen their position by periodical distributions of their chattels. They not seldom have the worst clothing and food of all inhabitants”248. Among the Cheyennes generally the bravest and wisest man is elected as a chief249. Mrs. Eastman tells us of the Sioux, that formerly “their bravest men, their war chief too, no doubt exercized a control over the rest.” The chief lived like the common people and Neill remarks: “The individual who desires to improve his condition is not only laughed at, but maltreated. Moreover, if he acquires any property, there is no law which secures it to him, and it is liable to be taken away at any time by any ill-disposed person”250. Among the Apaches, according to Schoolcraft, “the chiefs are the wealthiest men, the most warlike, the first in battle, the wisest in council”. According to Ten Kate the power of the chiefs depends on their success in forays. And Bancroft remarks: “Sometimes it happens that one family retains the chieftaincy in a tribe during several generations, because of the bravery or wealth of the sons”251. Comanche chiefs, according to Schoolcraft, “are selected for their known or pretended prowess in war”. In another place he states, that they [242]are made chiefs for their “superior cunning, knowledge or success in war”252.

Influence and power depend thus on bravery, wisdom, eloquence, not on wealth. Only among the Apaches does it depend on wealth, though not on wealth exclusively. The distributions of property among the Kutchins somewhat resemble those on the Pacific Coast, but are not indicative of quite the same development of wealth; for on the Pacific Coast wealth consists to a large extent of more durable goods, such as houses, canoes, etc.

A few other statements also tend to prove, that wealth is not highly developed; the economic life of some tribes shows rather communistic features. Among the Kutchins, “unless he is alone, a hunter cannot take and appropriate the meat of the animal he kills. Should he do so, he would be considered mean. And this feeling is strong. When two good hunters go together, good and well, the one has as good a chance of getting meat as the other; but when one is a bad hunter and the other a good one, the former gets all the meat and the real hunter has nothing, and loses his ammunition into the bargain”253. Among the Chepewyans the game is distributed among those who shared in the chase. The game which a man catches in his share is his private property; “nevertheless any unsuccessful hunter passing by may take a deer so caught, leaving the head, skin, and saddle for the owner”254.

Among the Osages, too, wealth was formerly unknown; for in Hunter’s time the old men disapproved of the fur-trade, which gave abundance and thereby led to effeminacy255.

6º. Condition of women. Le Jeune states, that among the Montagnais the sex has great influence. Household affairs are left to the discretion of the women, without any male interference. The women “cut and decide and give away as they please”256. Ojibway women, according to Jones, do the hardest work, are slaves of the men, get the worst food and the worst place in the wigwam; and Long states, that the wives are the slaves of their husbands. According to Kohl, nearly all [243]kinds of work, except the chase, fell to the share of the women, who were even obliged to bring home the bears killed by the men257. Mackenzie tells us, that among the Knisteneaux women are in the same subjected condition as among other wild tribes258. Among the Blackfeet the husband may send his wife away when he likes; she then takes her property with her; the children remain with the father. Many men have 6 or 8 wives; they readily lend them to whites for brandy259. Chepewyan wives are subjected to their husbands, who are very jealous and “for very trifling causes treat them with such cruelty as sometimes to occasion their death”260. Among the Kutchins, as we have seen in § 2, the condition of women is a rather bad one261. Mackenzie speaks of the “extreme subjection and abasement” of Beaver Indian women262. Cheyenne women perform all the drudgery. Yet they have some influence in government matters; they do not attend the councils; but their wishes, privately uttered, are not generally disregarded263. Among the Sioux women as children and wives are despised, as girls a little more honoured. And Schoolcraft states that they exercise some influence in tribal matters by expressing their desires at home, but are not admitted to the council264. Bancroft, speaking of the Apache family in general (including Apaches, Comanches, and several other tribes), remarks: “Womankind as usual is at a discount. The female child receives little care from its mother, being only of collateral advantage to the tribe. Later she becomes the beast of burden and slave of her husband.” But another statement of the same writer proves that the women’s condition is not so very bad: “The marriage yoke sits lightly; the husband may repudiate his wife and take back the property given for her; the wife may abandon her husband, but by the latter act she covers him with such disgrace that it may only be wiped out by killing somebody—anybody whom he may chance to meet”265. The wife may thus with impunity leave her husband, the latter venting his anger upon “somebody”. [244]Schoolcraft states that Comanche women are not thought much of, even by themselves; the husband has unlimited sway over his wife266. Among the Shoshones, according to Lewis and Clark, “the man is the sole proprietor of his wives and daughters, and can barter them away, or dispose of them in any manner he may think proper.” “The mass of the females are condemned, as among all savage nations, to the lowest and most laborious drudgery”267.

Now let us inquire what Grinnell, who is so well acquainted with Indian life, has to say about the treatment of women among the Indians in general. “A word or two with regard to the position of the wife in the household may not be out of place here. The Indian woman, it is usually thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations extend, this notion is wholly an erroneous one. It is true that the women were the labourers of the camp, that they did all the hard work about which there was no excitement. They cooked, brought wood and water, dried the meat, dressed the robes, made the clothing, collected the lodge poles, packed the horses, cultivated the ground, and generally performed all the tasks which might be called menial, but they were not mere servants. On the contrary, their position was very respectable. They were consulted on many subjects, not only in connection with family affairs, but in more important and general matters. Sometimes women were even admitted to the councils and spoke there, giving their advice. This privilege was very unusual, and was granted only to women who had performed some deed which was worthy of a man. This in practice meant that she had killed or counted coup on an enemy, or had been to war. In ordinary family conversation women did not hesitate to interrupt and correct their husbands when the latter made statements with which they did not agree, and the men listened to them with respectful attention, though of course this depended on the standing of the woman, her intelligence, etc. While their lives were hard and full of toil, they yet found time to get together for gossip and for gambling, and on the whole managed to take a good deal of pleasure in [245]life”268. And Ten Kate, a careful observer, remarks that the Indians do not, as has often been asserted, regard woman as a beast of burden and a drudge. Her condition, as compared with that of the women of the lower classes in civilized countries, is rather better than worse269.

So the lot of the Indian woman is not so hard as at first sight it seems. Yet the fact, that several ethnographers picture it in such dark colours, whereas the describers of the tribes of the Pacific Coast agree, that the sex command great respect, tends to prove, that the condition of women is not quite so good here as on the Pacific Coast.

7º. Militarism. These tribes are very warlike. Roosevelt states that warfare and hunting were the chief occupations of the Algonquins270. Among the Ojibways the end of education is to make good hunters and warriors271. According to Mackenzie, warfare and hunting, among the Knisteneaux, are the occupations of the men. They are continually engaged in warfare272. The Blackfeet were very warlike, and always fighting with their neighbours273. Mackenzie tells us, that it was a custom with Chepewyan chiefs “to go to war after they had shed tears in order to wipe away the disgrace attached to such a feminine weakness”274. The Beaver Indians were even more warlike than the Chepewyans275. Mrs. Eastman calls the Sioux “brave, daring, revengeful”276. The Apaches, according to Bancroft, “are in their industries extremely active,—their industries being theft and murder, to which they are trained by their mothers, and in which they display consummate cunning, treachery, and cruelty”277. And the same writer tells us that “the Comanches, who are better warriors than the Apaches, highly honour bravery on the battle-field. From early youth, they are taught the art of war, and the skilful handling of their horses and weapons; and they are not allowed a seat in the council, until their name is garnished by some heroic deed”278. [246]

We see that the Indians of Central North America present a strongly marked contrast with such tribes as the Koniagas who are “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting” and the Chinooks who “were always a commercial rather than a warlike people”. Therefore all available men are wanted in warfare; they cannot afford to have male slaves living among them, who do not share in their military operations. They are very much in need of warriors, and little of labourers. Accordingly among many of these tribes such prisoners of war as are allowed to live, are adopted into the tribe or into some family within the tribe279.

Concluding, we may remark, that the Indians of Central North America differ from the tribes of the Pacific Coast in many respects. They have no abundance of food, are hunters and nomadic; wealth does not exist, and militarism prevails to a great extent. The groups in which they live, though larger than in Australia, are smaller than on the Pacific Coast. Food is preserved, but not so systematically as on the Pacific Coast. The condition of women, though not so bad as in Australia, is not quite so good as among the slave-keeping tribes of the North-West Coast of North America. Their trade consists only in exchanging raw products; and industry is little developed.