While the popular myth of Indian people claims that there was no history before the European invasion, this is not true. Indian people have always had an interest in their history and recorded their history in a variety of ways. In some instances Indian people recorded their history in the form of rock art: pictographs (pictures and concepts painted on rock), effigy mounds (massive earth works depicting animals), petroglyphs (pictures and concepts carved into rock), and geoglyphs (images made by arranging rocks or carving the desert floor). Among some tribes historical events were recorded on wooden sticks known as calendar sticks. Sometimes strings with special knots were used to help remember history; sometimes history was written on birchbark scrolls. The tribes of the Northeast used wampum belts to record agreements and treatiees. Images painted on tipis and on clothing, as well as the designs which were tattooed into the flesh served as a form of history. Anne Vitart (1993: 44) writes: “Far from being simple decorations, though, the paintings on the coats and clothes, like tattoos and body paintings, were actually a nonalphabetical form of writing that served as a social record and situated an individual within the group and society.”

Among many of the Indian nations of the Plains Culture Area (particularly the Blackfoot, Sioux, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Kiowa), tribal historians would make a pictographic record of the events of the previous year. Candace Greene (2001: 1043) reports: “A tribal historian gave each year a name based on a memorable occurrence of the season, and other events could be placed in time by reference to that year name.” This record, usually recorded on a hide, is called a Winter Count.

Candace Greene (2001: 1043) also notes: “Like other pictorial art, calendars were transferred from hide to paper and muslin when these materials became commonly available.”  

The Winter Count chapters are intended to be a modern Winter Count. As a Winter Count, there are several points that should be kept in mind while consulting the entries:

• While the traditional Winter Count uses pictures to convey events, in this Winter Count the events are told in words.

• In a traditional Winter Count, years were named. In this Winter Count the European system of numbering the years is used. In this way it forms a type of chronology of Indian events.

• Like the traditional Winter Count, the recording of events in this Winter Count is brief. The purpose is to simply record that the event happened.

• In the traditional Winter Count, events are recorded within a year or so after they happen. In the present Winter Count, the events are recorded many years after they happened, but are described in the Winter Count entries in the present tense to give a more traditional feeling to them.

• Because many of the events in this Winter Count have been recorded long after they happened, in a few of the entries we are able to include the comments and observations by historians, anthropologists, tribal elders, and others about the importance of the event and its meaning to the people.

• In the traditional Winter Count, events are recorded because they happened and therefore should be remembered. In some instances, events may not have great historic significance. In this Winter Count, some of the events fall into this category. Some of the nations have disappeared or the individuals may be forgotten, so we record these things lest they be forgotten by our children and our grandchildren’s grandchildren.

• In the traditional Winter Count, events are recorded by Indian people. While this Winter Count is recorded from a traditional Indian perspective and bias, events are most frequently taken from the writings of non-Indians.

All Winter Counts, including this one, are recorded for two reasons:

• The Winter Count records historic events. These are events which happened and which were important to Indian people – not necessarily the European invaders – at the time they happened.

• The Winter Count is used as a way of teaching people about tribal culture and tribal history. Once again, the Winter Count events are not necessarily those events which are important to the Europeans.

There are some special features about the Winter Counts in our books which should be kept in mind:

• The first mention of a tribe in a Winter Count entry has been put in bold.

• The spelling and designation of tribal names will vary. Many tribes are spelled different ways in different sources and the spellings used in the Winter Count entry reflect the source of the information.

• When the Winter Count entry deals with the activities of an identifiable Indian person, the Indian name for the person is used and the English version of the name is also shown. Spelling of the Indian name may vary.

• With regard to geography, the Winter Count entry uses modern state names. Often, these names were not in use at the time of the event.

• This Winter Count is laid out in a traditional European linear time line or chronology. While traditionally Indian people have acknowledged different ways of dealing with time, this form allows for comparisons with non-Indian events. While it is common to use the abbreviations BC and AD to indicate the placement of years, these are Christian designations and thus using them overlays the Indian story with a Christian framework. There are many authors, particularly archaeologists and Indian historians, who prefer to use the designations BCE (Before Current Era) instead of BC and CE (Current Era) instead of AD. The years remain numbered in the same way, just the designation changes.

Knowing the Past

While a Winter Count tells of the past, it is important to understand that there are many ways of knowing about the past. Europeans have traditionally stressed history as the primary way in which the past is described and revealed. History is based on writing and therefore written accounts of the past are somehow more believable, more real, more accurate. Thus, when oral traditions—stories told from one generation to the next—get written down, they become history and thus more believable. While many feel that the Christian Bible, or at least some versions of it, are a true history, there are others that point out that this is simply a collection of oral traditions which have been written down.

History is only one way of knowing about the past. For many people, oral traditions (sometimes called oral history) is very important in understanding what happened. There are also other academic disciplines which can describe the past: archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics.

 Indian History

There are a number of problems which we encounter when we talk about Indian history. The first of these is the barrier of false information and misconceptions which have been perpetuated in history textbooks, history classes, movies, and popular books. In his review of high school history books entitled Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, James Loewen (1995: 91) writes: “Historically, American Indians have been the most lied-about subset of our population.”  Historian Virgil Vogel (1972: 285) puts it this way: “To some historians, the American Indian is an unperson, or nearly so. Incredible as it may seem, there are American history books in which the aborigines are nearly or even totally consigned to oblivion.”

With regard to the Indian people of the Northeast, anthropologist Kathleen Bragdon (2001: 64) writes: “The history of the native people who remained in Atlantic coastal regions, especially in New England, has been neglected by scholars, and the people themselves too often became invisible in the land that had once been theirs.”

Archaeologist David Hurst Thomas (1994: xviii) writes: “Echoing Hollywood’s stereotypes, today’s textbook historian misreads Native American culture through a curious blend of racism, sexual imagery, and Victorian sentimentality.” Micmac poet Rita Joe (1996: 36) writes: “The non-Natives recorded things as if they saw the truth, but they did not always see the truth.”

The purpose of the lies is often quite simple: it is important for non-Indians to justify their conquest of Indians, their claims to the land, and their treatment of Indian people. Thus, it is easier to talk about American history if it is seen as a wilderness inhabited by wild animals and wild people. According to Indian writer Vine Deloria (1991: 430): “American history is usually cast in the light of progress—how a wilderness was tamed and brought to production by a hardy people who created a society in which the benefits of the earth were distributed to the largest percentage of people.” With regard to the non-Indian literature written about Indians, historian John Alley (1986: 601) puts it this way: “much of that literature was written from an ethnocentric point of view that glorified the achievements of European culture at the expense of American Indians.” Lynne Goldstein and Keith Kintigh (2000: 186) put it this way: “Americans tend to divide the country’s history into two parts—Indian history and European history, and Indian history is often not considered the good or interesting part of the past.”

Historian Timothy Braatz (2003: 16) describes the imperialist history of American Indians this way: “The logic is clear: U.S. forces represented peace and order, Americans were the rightful possessors of foreign lands, and victims of American conquest were responsible for their own demise.” This type of imperialistic history can be seen in the words used by the historians in describing Indian actions:

• Indians on reservations are described as “pacified” or as “friendly” while those who are not on reservations are described as “hostiles,” “outlaws,” “renegades,” and “rebels.”

• Indian men are described as “warriors” who go on the “warpath” but they are seldom described as husbands, fathers, care-givers, and workers.

• When American soldiers kill Indians, the incidents are called “punishment” or “justice;” but when Indians kill the soldiers who invade their lands, the incidents are called “outrages,” “depredations,” “hostile acts,” and “massacres.”

• Indians “steal” horses, while non-Indian soldiers “capture” them.

First published at: http://spirittalknews.com/WinterCount.htm

Continue Winter Count