Beyond Rise and Fall: Size, Power, and Survival in the Gulf South

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Julia Lewandoski
{"title":"Beyond Rise and Fall: Size, Power, and Survival in the Gulf South","authors":"Julia Lewandoski","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beyond Rise and Fall:Size, Power, and Survival in the Gulf South Julia Lewandoski (bio) DURING the long eighteenth century, the Petites Nations of the Lower Mississippi Valley practiced a political system that allowed them strength and flexibility—or, rather, strength through flexibility. Whether in times of crisis or alliance building, Petites Nations peoples often formed multinational settlements, and their shared customs of offering refuge to migrants enabled them to rebuild after epidemics or deadly violence. But just as fundamental to this system was the ability of nations or smaller groups within them to break away. These processes of disintegration and reconstitution made survival possible under successive colonial regimes and in the midst of an economy shaped by enslavement. And they enabled the Petites Nations to nimbly direct the wider political geography of the Gulf South for more than a century. Elizabeth N. Ellis's portrait of the eighteenth-century Petites Nations in The Great Power of Small Nations is carefully researched and richly rendered. She conveys the complexities of multinational diplomacy in part with a vivid description of the corn porridge, which was ground, boiled, and thickened with venison and bear fat, that Biloxi women offered in greeting to international visitors. She invokes the sounds of the French medals worn by Tunica leader Lattanash—clinking alongside his copper and shell bracelets and anklets—as he asserted his multiple alliances and displayed Tunica power. Vignettes such as these reveal the ways that Ellis skillfully and imaginatively interprets the colonial archives of Louisiana. The men, women, and nonbinary leaders and members of these small nations appear as complex humans, making difficult choices under changing circumstances. Ellis has not drawn an idealized or flattened portrait of noble Indigenous resistance based on unilateral cooperation. She describes a political system that enabled long-term opposition, renegotiation, and independence under colonialism. Ellis roots the power of the Petites Nations in a \"culturally institutionalized approach to negotiating refuge\" (29), facilitated through a common repertoire of ceremonies, gifts, speeches, and diplomacy. Nations with more land and resources offered refuge to migrants [End Page 751] fleeing violence or enslavement, as the Tensas welcomed the Mosopeleas in the 1670s, and as the Natchez folded in the Tioux and Grigras in the early eighteenth century. The specificity and equanimity of this portrait of Petites Nations geopolitics should provoke scholars to reimagine Indigenous power far beyond the Gulf South. Historians of Native North America often highlight the histories of large nations, confederacies that commanded European respect, and territorial empires as they expanded and contracted.1 The identification of these examples of early American Indigenous power has been a welcome corrective to prior narratives of victimhood and dependency. But that historical emphasis has implicitly assumed that Native peoples required equivalent size and political organization to compete with settler formulations. In contrast, Ellis describes Petites Nations' power without relying on an underlying European definition of national or imperial dominance. She accomplishes this by observing closely how Petites Nations' politics and territoriality functioned across the Gulf South. The precision of her approach has produced a model for scholarship on alternate forms of Native power reflecting on-the-ground realities in early America. She unpacks forms of control rooted in the cultures and epistemologies of the nations who developed these systems over centuries, rather than in European assumptions about what constituted power. Historians look for patterns and narratives, and they often prefer change to continuity, as revealed in the popularity of the rise-and-fall trope. Ellis pushes us to reconsider the temporal frames that historians often impose on Native peoples. Throughout their century of control over the Lower Mississippi Valley, Petites Nations peoples never consistently sought political consolidation. They drew power from periods of multinational organization, even when such agreements were impermanent, and they also drew strength from the disintegration of alliances. They repeatedly declined to develop centralized political systems or to confederate into larger polities over several centuries—and this did not diminish their potency. Previous scholars have taken quite different views, often interpreting this lack of confederation as a temporary lapse between eras of centralization. They have portrayed the Petites Nations as \"remnants\" (8) of the [End Page 752] disintegration of grand...","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910406","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Beyond Rise and Fall:Size, Power, and Survival in the Gulf South Julia Lewandoski (bio) DURING the long eighteenth century, the Petites Nations of the Lower Mississippi Valley practiced a political system that allowed them strength and flexibility—or, rather, strength through flexibility. Whether in times of crisis or alliance building, Petites Nations peoples often formed multinational settlements, and their shared customs of offering refuge to migrants enabled them to rebuild after epidemics or deadly violence. But just as fundamental to this system was the ability of nations or smaller groups within them to break away. These processes of disintegration and reconstitution made survival possible under successive colonial regimes and in the midst of an economy shaped by enslavement. And they enabled the Petites Nations to nimbly direct the wider political geography of the Gulf South for more than a century. Elizabeth N. Ellis's portrait of the eighteenth-century Petites Nations in The Great Power of Small Nations is carefully researched and richly rendered. She conveys the complexities of multinational diplomacy in part with a vivid description of the corn porridge, which was ground, boiled, and thickened with venison and bear fat, that Biloxi women offered in greeting to international visitors. She invokes the sounds of the French medals worn by Tunica leader Lattanash—clinking alongside his copper and shell bracelets and anklets—as he asserted his multiple alliances and displayed Tunica power. Vignettes such as these reveal the ways that Ellis skillfully and imaginatively interprets the colonial archives of Louisiana. The men, women, and nonbinary leaders and members of these small nations appear as complex humans, making difficult choices under changing circumstances. Ellis has not drawn an idealized or flattened portrait of noble Indigenous resistance based on unilateral cooperation. She describes a political system that enabled long-term opposition, renegotiation, and independence under colonialism. Ellis roots the power of the Petites Nations in a "culturally institutionalized approach to negotiating refuge" (29), facilitated through a common repertoire of ceremonies, gifts, speeches, and diplomacy. Nations with more land and resources offered refuge to migrants [End Page 751] fleeing violence or enslavement, as the Tensas welcomed the Mosopeleas in the 1670s, and as the Natchez folded in the Tioux and Grigras in the early eighteenth century. The specificity and equanimity of this portrait of Petites Nations geopolitics should provoke scholars to reimagine Indigenous power far beyond the Gulf South. Historians of Native North America often highlight the histories of large nations, confederacies that commanded European respect, and territorial empires as they expanded and contracted.1 The identification of these examples of early American Indigenous power has been a welcome corrective to prior narratives of victimhood and dependency. But that historical emphasis has implicitly assumed that Native peoples required equivalent size and political organization to compete with settler formulations. In contrast, Ellis describes Petites Nations' power without relying on an underlying European definition of national or imperial dominance. She accomplishes this by observing closely how Petites Nations' politics and territoriality functioned across the Gulf South. The precision of her approach has produced a model for scholarship on alternate forms of Native power reflecting on-the-ground realities in early America. She unpacks forms of control rooted in the cultures and epistemologies of the nations who developed these systems over centuries, rather than in European assumptions about what constituted power. Historians look for patterns and narratives, and they often prefer change to continuity, as revealed in the popularity of the rise-and-fall trope. Ellis pushes us to reconsider the temporal frames that historians often impose on Native peoples. Throughout their century of control over the Lower Mississippi Valley, Petites Nations peoples never consistently sought political consolidation. They drew power from periods of multinational organization, even when such agreements were impermanent, and they also drew strength from the disintegration of alliances. They repeatedly declined to develop centralized political systems or to confederate into larger polities over several centuries—and this did not diminish their potency. Previous scholars have taken quite different views, often interpreting this lack of confederation as a temporary lapse between eras of centralization. They have portrayed the Petites Nations as "remnants" (8) of the [End Page 752] disintegration of grand...
超越兴衰:南海湾地区的规模、权力和生存
超越兴衰:南海湾的规模、权力和生存朱莉娅·莱万多斯基(生物)在漫长的18世纪,密西西比河下游河谷的小部落实行一种政治制度,这种制度允许他们强大和灵活——或者更确切地说,通过灵活获得力量。无论是在危机时期还是在建立联盟时期,小民族往往形成多民族定居点,他们向移民提供庇护的共同习俗使他们能够在流行病或致命暴力之后进行重建。但是,对于这个体系来说,同样重要的是国家或其中较小的群体脱离的能力。这些解体和重建的过程使在连续的殖民政权下和在由奴役形成的经济中生存成为可能。它们使小部落能够在一个多世纪的时间里灵活地领导南海湾地区更广泛的政治地理。伊丽莎白·n·埃利斯(Elizabeth N. Ellis)在《小国的大国》一书中对18世纪小国的描绘经过了仔细的研究和丰富的渲染。她通过对玉米粥的生动描述,在一定程度上表达了多国外交的复杂性。玉米粥是由鹿肉和熊脂肪磨碎、煮熟、增稠而成的,是比洛克西妇女在欢迎国际游客时提供的。她引用了图尼察领导人拉塔纳什佩戴的法国勋章的声音——他的铜和贝壳手镯和脚镯叮当作响——当他宣称他的多个联盟并展示图尼察的权力时。像这样的小插曲揭示了埃利斯巧妙而富有想象力地解释路易斯安那州殖民档案的方式。这些小国的男女、非二元领导人和成员都是复杂的人类,在不断变化的环境下做出艰难的选择。埃利斯并没有把基于单方面合作的高尚的土著抵抗描绘成理想化或扁平的形象。她描述了一个在殖民主义统治下允许长期反对、重新谈判和独立的政治制度。埃利斯将小民族的权力根植于一种“文化上制度化的方式来协商避难”(29),通过仪式、礼物、演讲和外交的共同保留来促进。拥有更多土地和资源的国家为逃离暴力或奴役的移民提供庇护,就像17世纪70年代田纳西人欢迎莫斯科人一样,18世纪初纳奇兹人在Tioux和Grigras中屈服。这幅关于小国地缘政治的描绘的特殊性和平稳性,应该会促使学者们重新想象远远超出南海湾地区的本土力量。研究北美土著的历史学家经常强调一些大国的历史,那些博得欧洲人尊敬的联盟,以及那些扩张和收缩的领土帝国这些早期美国土著力量的例子的识别是对先前受害者和依赖性叙述的一种受欢迎的纠正。但是,这种对历史的强调隐含地假设,土著人民需要同等的规模和政治组织来与定居者竞争。相比之下,埃利斯在描述小民族的力量时,并没有依赖于欧洲对国家或帝国统治的基本定义。为了做到这一点,她仔细观察了小国在南海湾地区的政治和领土是如何运作的。她方法的精确性为研究反映美国早期实际情况的本土权力的不同形式的学术研究提供了一个模型。她揭示了根植于几个世纪以来发展这些体系的国家的文化和认识论的控制形式,而不是欧洲人对权力构成的假设。历史学家寻找模式和叙事,他们往往更喜欢变化而不是连续性,正如盛衰比喻的流行所揭示的那样。埃利斯敦促我们重新考虑历史学家经常强加给土著人民的时间框架。在他们控制密西西比河下游河谷的整个世纪中,小矮人民族从未一贯寻求政治巩固。他们从多国组织时期汲取力量,即使这些协议是临时的,他们也从联盟的解体中汲取力量。几个世纪以来,他们一再拒绝发展中央集权的政治体系或联合成更大的政体——这并没有削弱他们的力量。以前的学者们有完全不同的观点,他们经常把这种邦联的缺乏解释为中央集权时代之间的暂时中断。他们把小民族描绘成大……解体的“残余”(8)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信