204 



CAPTIVES 



[b. a. e. 



greeted him as a brother and extended 

 their protection over him. Another de- 

 fense for tiie stranger was — what with 

 civilized people is one of the best guaran- 

 ties against war — the fear of disturbing or 

 deflecting trade. If he brought among 

 them certain much-desired commodities, 

 the first impulse might be to take these 

 from him by force and seize or destroy 

 his person, l)ut it would quickly be seen 

 by wiser heads that the source of further 

 supplies of this kind might thereby be 

 imperiled, if not entirely cut off. If noth- 

 ing were to be had from the stranger, he 

 might be entirely ignored. And finally, 

 the existence of a higher ethical feeling 

 toward strangers, even when there was 

 apparently no self-interest to be served 

 in extending hospitality, is often in 

 evidence. There are not wanting stories 

 of great misfortune overtaking one who 

 refused hospitality to a person in distress, 

 and of great good fortune accruing to him 

 who offered succor. 



At the same time the attitude assumed 

 toward a person thrown among Indians 

 too far from his own people to be pro- 

 tected by any ulterior hopes or fears on 

 the part of his captors was usually that 

 of master to slave. This was particu- 

 larly the case on the n. Pacific coast, 

 where slavery was an institution. Thus 

 John Jewitt, at the beginning of the 19th 

 century, was preserved as a slave by the 

 Nootka chief Maquinna, because he was 

 an ironworker and would be valuable 

 property. Most of the other whites who 

 fell into the hands of Indians on this 

 coast were treated in a similar manner. 



The majority of captives, however, were 

 those taken in war. These were consid- 

 ered to have forfeited their lives and to 

 have been actually dead as to their pre- 

 vious existence. It was often thought 

 that the captive's supernatural helper had 

 been destroyed or made to submit to that 

 of the captor, though where not put to 

 death with torture to satisfy the victor's 

 desire for revenge and to give the cap- 

 tive an opi^ortunity to show his fortitude, 

 he might in a way be reborn by under- 

 going a form of adoption. 



It is learned from the numerous ac- 

 counts of white persons who had been 

 taken by Indians that the principal im- 

 mediate hardships they endured were due 

 to the rapid movements of their captors 

 in order to escape pursuers, and the con- 

 tinual threats to which they were sub- 

 jected. These threats were not usually 

 carried out, however, unless they at- 

 tempted escape or were unable to keep 

 up with the band, or unless the band 

 was pursued too hotly. Each person 

 taken was considered the property of the 

 one who first laid hands on him, and the 

 character of this individual had much to 



do in determining the extent of his hard- 

 ships. When two or more claimed a 

 prisoner he was sometimes kept by all 

 conjointly, but sometimes they settled 

 the controversy by torturing hiu) to death 

 on the spot. The rapid retreat of a war 

 party bore particularly hard upon women 

 and children, yet a certain amount of 

 consideration was often shown them. 

 Sometimes the male captives were al- 

 lowed to help them along, sometimes 

 they were drawn on an improvised sledge 

 or travois, and, if there were horses in 

 the party these might be placed at their 

 disposal, while one instance is recorded 

 in which the child of a female captive 

 was carried by her master for several 

 days. It is worthy of remark that the 

 honor of a white woman was almost al- 

 ways respected by her captors among the 

 tribes e. of the Mississippi; but w. of 

 that limit, on the plains, in the Columbia 

 r. region, and in the S. W., the contrary 

 was often the case. 



Among the eastern tribes, on arriving 

 at the village a dance was held, at which 

 the captives were expected to play a con- 

 spicuous part. They were often placed in 

 the center of a circle of dancers, were 

 sometimes compelled to sing and dance 

 also, and a few were usually subjected to 

 revolting tortures and finally burned at 

 the stake. Instances of cannibalism are 

 recorded in connection with these dances 

 after the return from war, and among 

 some of the Texas and Louisiana tribes 

 this disposition of the bodies of captives 

 appears to have been something more 

 than occasional. The Iroquois, some Al- 

 gonquians, and several western tribes 

 forced prisoners to run between two 

 lines of people armed with clubs, toma- 

 hawks, and other weapons, and spared, 

 at least temporarily, those who reached 

 the chief's house, a certain post, or some 

 other goal. Among many other tribes an 

 escaped captive who reached the chief's 

 house was regarded as safe, while the 

 Creek peace towns also secured immunity 

 from pursuit to the persons who entered 

 them. Offering food to a visitor was usu- 

 ally equivalent to extending the host's 

 protection over him. 



From the experiences of the Spaniard 

 Juan Ortiz, taken prisoner by the Flor- 

 ida chief Ucita, in 1528, as well as 

 those of other whites, it would appear 

 that captives were sometimes held in 

 a sort of bondage elsewhere than on 

 the N. Pacific coast, but usually where 

 their lives Avere spared they were held 

 for ransom or adopted into the tribe. J. 

 O. Dorsey says of some Siouan tribe's, 

 however, that their captives were allowed 

 either to go home or settle among them- 

 selves, but were neither tortured nor regu- 

 larly adopted. Although the custom 



