Dwight L. Smith

Shawnee Captivity Ethnography

One of the fruits of the strife and warfare between European Whites and the North American Indians is a considerable body of rather unique literature commonly referred to as captivities. The captivity has remained a neglected field of scholarly pursuit although it is certainly a legitimate one, particularly from the standpoint of North American literature, I ethnology, and history.2 Aside from a few articles in professional journals little has been published on the captivities.3 It is the purpose of this study to determine the value of the captivity for ethnologists and historians. A raid on a pioneer settlement, an attack on an unsuspecting traveller on a Midwestern river or in the Old Northwest wilderness, or formal military combat quite often resulted in the Indians taking White prisoners. Some of these prisoners died of wounds incurred while being captured. Some were tomahawked or else ingeniously tortured to a slow death to satisfy the anger of an intoxicated captor, to quench the sadistic thirst of a tribal gathering, to punish the captive if suspected of attempting to escape, to revenge the death of a member of the group, or because it was much easier to carry a scalp than to bother with a prisoner.4 But some captives survived. Several factors motivated Indians to take prisoners. Capture frequently occurred as a natural outcome of war; and the captives were sometimes considered as much a wai trophy as scalps. Revenge or retaliation led to capture and torture, but often resulted in death. When

A Footnote to Dwight L. Smith's Shawnee Captivity Ethnography

In a recent issue of ETHNOHISTORY Dr. Dwight L. Smith, specifically dealing with the Shawnee, makes use of the Indian captivity narratives as a means of evaluating the utility of these sources for ethnologists and historians.1 One important potential use of the captivities which which has tended to be neglected might be added to the aspects presented in Dr. Smiths account. In a pioneer study, perhaps easily overlooked since the journal in which it appeared is not frequently consulted by anthropologists, Dr. Erwin H. Ackerknecht explored the value of the captivity narratives as case studies in acculturation.2 He noted, on the basis of a series of narratives dealing with the captivity of white children, that residence among the Indians had in fact made them Indians and enumerated those aspects where acculturation was most pronounced. Dr. Ackerknecht only briefly touches upon other potential problem areas that are more thoroughly explored by Dr. Clyde Kluckhohn in his monograph, The Personal Document in Anthropological Scienqe.3 In this study Dr. Kluckhohn deplored the fact that anthropologists, with a few exceptions, are notorious among social scientists for their neglect of library research. This would appear to be an aspect in process of being rectified by the growing interest in the field of ethnohistory. At the same time it would be well to keep in mind the broad problem interests of anthropology lest ethnohistory define its boundaries too narrowly.