Gleach

Powhatan’s World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures. By Frederick W. Gleach. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

The book Powhatan’s World & Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures, by Frederic A. Gleach, slides from fascinating to incomprehensible in equal measures. The central points of this study are the attacks in 1622 and 1644 by Powhatan warriors against the growing English presence in Algonquin lands. A sample of his research approach can be seen herein, in which he attaches great cultural significance and subtle undercurrent to the violence incurred by the Powhatans against the colonists.

In his analysis of the 1622 event alone, Gleach determines that the attack could have been a part of a complex Powhatan understanding of relations between tribes of equal and unequal strength,requiring a show of force in this manner to restore the proper balance. He also deduces that complex mystical or religious undertones drove the Powhatans to this violence in a way of denouncing the English Church, with which they had had a long series of frustrating and confusing encounters. Though he dances around the obvious (that being that the 1622 attack was based upon English encroachment into Powhatan territory), Gleach seemingly brushes aside this realistic assessment for more esoteric faire, having already invested a large portion of his study in complex Algonquin cosmology. In time, he does seemingly accept the theory that the attacks were, indeed, reactions to English incursion. However, much of his analysis up to this point seemed unnecessary or forced.

In spite of this, Gleach does demonstrate a talent for understanding the undertones of Algonquin and colonial interactions. His choice of the term ‘coup’ to describe both the 1622 and 1644 outbursts of violence is a much more accurate definition that the popularly accepted terms ‘massacre’ or ‘uprising.’ Massacre denotes a spontaneous or brutal outburst of violence, and uprising implies the domination of one culture over the other. Gleach insists, quite accurately, that the attacks by the Powhatans were carefully plotted, and brilliantly executed,well beyond the scope of a simple massacre. Further, the Powhatans viewed themselves (as did the English) as a political power to be reckoned with, according to the complex nature of their own social rules. While the English felt themselves to be in a position or moral or cultural superiority, they certainly recognized the existence and potency of a Powhatan nation as independent from that of English possessions. Gleach excels at illustrating this point.

Unfortunately, many of his arguments become inundated in what appear to be a bias towards the Powhatans in general. While it cannot be argued that European incursions into North America were unwelcome and less than beneficial to those residents already on the continent, Gleach seems to place undue favor on the Powhatans. He is critical of the English for misunderstanding Powhatan cultural quirks, yet forgiving of Powhatan confusion. A prime example can be found at the beginning of Gleach’s chapter on the 1622 coup itself, in which a warrior named Nemattanew called upon a colonist named Morgan. It was understood that Morgan had items that Nemattanew wished to trade for, and in a show of trust, Morgan went with Nemattanew to a township called Pamunkey to finalize the trade. A week later, Nemattanew returned to Morgan’s estate wearing his hat, and informing Morgan’s servants that their master was dead. When they tried to bring the Powhatan to the governor, the man refused, in which case they shot him. He would later die of his wounds.

The tone of the paragraph seems to imply fault with the English over this event. It is difficult to tell if there is wry sarcasm in this characterization, as Gleach goes on to theorize that Nemattanew’s death may have been part of an overarching plot by the Powhatan chief Opechencanough to justify an attack on the English. However, given the tone before and after, it is clear that Gleach places a great emphasis on the Powhatan’s abilities in manners political and cultural, to the point of giving every significant historical event or affair some sort of loose or direct connection to an Algonquin plan or purpose.

Which is a shame, considering Gleach’s excellent breadth of resource. He merrily pulls from primary and secondary sources of various events within colonial Virginia, offering tantalizing views of how the colonists and the native inhabitants of the region viewed themselves and each other. The assessments range from the insightful to the grossly inaccurate, demonstrating the full breadth of opinions and prejudices that colonists and Powhatans brought with them in their dealings with each other.

Further credit must be given to Gleach’s assessment of the changing dynamics of Powhatan society and colonial society. From the founding of a successful colony at Jamestown to the eventual dominance of English townships over the native tribes in the 1640’s, Gleach shows the clear shift in power from the Powhatans to the English. And the characterization of the two coups as reactions against English invasion is sound, and well thought out. Unfortunately, much of Gleach’s analysis of Powhatan and English culture at the time feels unnecessary, an robbed his more quantifiable assertions of their impact.

Texas Christian University John McCarron

Powhatan’s World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures. By Frederick W. Gleach. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

In Powhatan’s World and Colonial Virginia, author Frederic W. Gleach endeavors to create a better understanding of the events concerning the Powhatan Indians and the European colonists of Virginia and the relationships that developed from the founding of the Spanish Jesuit mission in 1570 through the aftermath of the second Powhatan “coup” of 1644. He intends to expose the western biases present in practically all studies of this era by incorporating more native perspective and hopefully beginning to clear up some misconceptions about events involving both groups.

Gleach begins his work by presenting a cultural context for both the Powhatan peoples and the seventeenth century English colonists. Gleach’s unique approach to the subject stems from his research of the culture of the Algonquian peoples, which include the Powhatans. Through this he reconstructs a Powhatan perspective and world-view that was previously lost to the historical record. These two groups each thought they were the superior one, which affected the way they interacted with each other. Gleach feels that it is essential to understand the world-views of both groups to really appreciate the events of time period.

After establishing this background information, Gleach focuses on the changes in leadership both among the colonists and the natives as well as the major conflicts of the era including the capture of John Smith in 1608, the coup of 1622, the coup of 1644, and, to a lesser degree, Bacon’s Rebellion. Each of these events marks a change in the relationships of the groups. Perhaps the most important of Gleach’s findings is the Powhatan motivations for these clashes. He claims that although the natives initiated the violence of these encounters, they had no intention of eradicating the colonists. They had ample opportunity to simply wait until the English ran out of food and starved, but they continued to trade with them. These “uprisings” were instead carefully calculated attacks meant to encourage the colonists to remain settled in one area and abide by the earliest negotiations between the two peoples.

Gleach concludes that to truly understand the history of colonial Virginia, one must understand the Powhatan culture, especially their construction of reality, their relationship with the natural world, their aesthetic sense of action. Because these specific aspects of Powhatan culture are so different from European cultural characteristics, they are often at the root of the misunderstandings between the two groups. Understanding these motivations can change the way historians see the era.

On the whole, Powhatan’s World was an interesting read. It is a different kind of work because it is not just a synthesized history of the events of early Virginia. In fact, Gleach admits that he has no intention of trying to tell an entire history. Because half of his work concerns a people without written records of the time period of interest, Gleach incorporates elements of historical anthropology into his study. This can get somewhat complicated, but overall is helpful for a more complete understanding of the material. The cultural background, taking up more than half of the book, can get a little tedious at times, but, again, is generally useful. I do like the fact that Gleach includes extensive quotations from primary sources. He even includes a disclaimer that he may use too many quotes, but he feels that using the original voices is the best way to tell these stories. Despite being a bit complicated at times, the book makes good use of numerous sources, both primary and secondary, and accomplishes its goal of better explaining the interactions of the colonists and natives in early Virginia.

Powhatan’s World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures, By Frederic Gleach (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997).

Frederic Gleach is a historical anthropologist, with experience in archival, archeological, museum based, and ethnographic research; he earned his doctorate from the University of Chicago and is currently a visiting professor at Cornell University.
His main goal in this book is to explain the meanings of particular events that took place during the seventeenth century leading to conflicts between the Powhatan Indians and the English colonists of Virginia. Frederic Gleach does this by exploring the various historical definitions held by the two conflicting groups concerning their meanings of trade, warfare, military strength, and cultural superiority. The author’s interpretations come from the study of ethno-history and anthropological research, combined with his interpretations of the colonists’ fragmented historical records on the Powhatan conflict and first contacts.

According to the author, the colonists and natives misunderstood each other continuously throughout their ordeal beginning with the first contacts. Gleach focuses on the following: the failed attempts by Spanish Jesuits to establish missions in 1570, an attempted English colony at Roanoke Island, the English settlement of Jamestown in 1607, the captivity of Captain John Smith in 1607-1608, and the opposing cultures’ views of superiority. These events were key components to the warfare and conflict that ensued during the seventeenth century (pg. 12). The recorded histories of these events would develop into a European characterization of Native Americans that lasted for well over three centuries.

Describing in detail the differing views held by the English and the Powhatan natives concerning religion, trade, war, and the art of negotiation, the author is able to explain clearly the reasons for perceived injustices where self-interests lay. For example, the natives considered trade as a means of generosity, while the English conducted trade in order to accumulate items of worth. The English separated their use of religion when conducting economic business while the Indians’ spirituality was interwoven into their culture and used in most issues concerning daily affairs. The English described the natives as childlike and considered them inferior; the colonists’ emphasized permanent settlements as a means to civilizing the Powhatan peoples, which implies an agenda beyond English self-preservation. The natives’ use and understanding of coup or war was a part of the aesthetic and irony of Powhatan daily life but varied greatly when compared to the English writings and definitions of native uprisings or massacres when they wrote about the attacks (coup raids) by natives on English settlements. In short, both groups’ misconceived notions of cultural motives resulted in the opposing groups trying to civilize one another with what they deemed a superior cultural view. The English were trying to gain a new colony and the Powhatan’s were trying to keep the status quo.

The author explains how the balance of power shifted away form the Powhatan’s control when Captain John Smith, their adopted brother (previously a captive in 1607-1608), departed for England in 1609 as the colonists encroached further into native lands. Unbeknownst to the English, the Powhatans considered the adoption of the English military leader as symbol of superiority over the colonist. Conflicts and violence continued until the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas (daughter of Powhatan) in 1614. The Powhatans failed to understand that the English viewed this marriage as a defeat of the natives’ superiority. Pocahontas subsequently died in 1617 while touring England, and Powhatan turned over leadership to his brother Itoyatan and his cousin Opechancanough. By 1620, the English had expanded deep into native lands and they controlled the James River. The combination of encroachment of native lands and the imposition of English religious doctrine on the natives led to the successful planned massacre (or coup) of 1622 by the natives. The Powhatans attacked the English again in 1644; the natives viewed both attacks as a means of control over “unruly colonists”(pg. 4). Such events described by the author detail the misunderstanding between the colonists and natives concerning motives for ownership of resources and definitions over who had the superior culture.

The author appears to detail a historically accurate worldview of the Native American and European cultures based on evidence from various sources. Gleach assumes that the primary documents are always in need of interpretation and he appears to be careful in his explanation of primary sources when applying them to Natives’ motives. He attributes the bulk of the conflict to irreconcilable views held by opposed cultures fighting for self-preservation. With the use of anthropology, archeology, linguistics, ethno-history, and primary sources, the author gives the reader a diverse view of the conflict and how it developed and ended. One major issue for me concerning this book is questioning if one could find a consensus view on the author’s interpretation of the primary sources. His use of chronological order and topic development makes the book easier to understand and the topic itself is very interesting. The book is informative and offers a unique thesis into the worldview of Native Americans during the first contact.

In Powhatan’s World, Fredrick Gleach aims to create a model of the Powhatan understanding of reality, especially in its relation to the Jamestown colonists. He consciously tries to separate himself from earlier works on the subject, which he states “have been based primarily on generalized psychological models that are ultimately rooted in western culture” (1). In place of this, Gleach prefers to use the cultural patterns of other Algonquian Indian groups as instructive examples along with careful use of existing primary sources.

In the first two chapters, Gleach provides his readers with a basic worldview analysis of both the Powhatans and the English. As opposed to terminology used at the time and some historians since, the Powhatans did not have a single “king” or “head chief.” Rather, they used a dual structure consisting of a “peace chief,” in charge of internal affairs, and a “war chief,” who dealt with external issues. The English never recognized this, but instead, viewed Powhatan as the sole leader of his people. This carried back over into their cosmology, which also contained a pair of primary deities that served similar purposes.

The English, on the other hand, were very hierarchical in their worldview, starting from the king and working downward. Gleach points to the missionary emphasis of Christianity as one of the primary motivations for which the colonists came, but says they paired with this a desire for wealth at almost all costs. Especially in the early years of the settlement, the colonial leaders were essentially military men, and acted from that perspective. To relax such discipline would have been disastrous, as the colonists at that point were so self centered that the settlement as a whole would have perished. There is, of course, the required discussion and criticism of their ethnocentrism in respect to the “savages.”

Gleach next provides a bit of warm up to the colonization process before diving in to the establishment of Virginia with both feet. When he does, he focuses specifically on John Smith’s captivity, which he believes to be an elaborate ceremonial adoption procedure. The English failed to understand that the Powhatans, according to their worldview, had essentially placed themselves in a superior position to the colony. The English failure to comprehend this led to many unhappy instances.
The next chapter covers the “Coup” of 1622, when the Powhatans quietly infiltrated the scattered English settlements and killed over 400 colonists with their own tools. Gleach objects to this being interpreted as a sign that the Indians had embarked on a war of extermination, or even that it was a “massacre.” Instead, he argues that it was a sort of chastisement of naughty subjects. Powhatan could not brook the spread of the Jamestown settlers and organized the attack as a way of pushing them back onto their original land. Again, Gleach emphasizes that the Indians continued to see themselves as superior to the whites.
Chapters seven and eight deal with the years between 1622 through the next major attack in 1644. The English, misinterpreting the first assault, withdrew and began a campaign of starvation against the Powhatans. In 1644, the Powhatans struck again, with much the same intent as before. Once again, the English felt betrayed and reacted with force. The final chapter chronicles the relations of the two groups after 1646, as the Indians were increasingly pushed onto reservations. Here, Gleach sees the first time in which the Powhatans actually view themselves as inferior to the colonists.

While critical of the English, Powhatan’s World makes heavy use of sources that spring from that tradition, stating that, in particular reference to Smith’s accounts, “when used carefully they may be taken as essentially truthful” (109). As he promised, he also relies heavily on comparisons to other Algonquian-speaking Indian groups, though he gives no explicit reason why a common language must mean common customs.

Probably the greatest difficulty this book presents is its relatively uneven treatment of the opposing sides. Gleach seems to be pro-Powhatan in his leanings, and this becomes clear in his depiction of both, even though he does give number of disclaimers. For instance, he argues that the English were out of line in ignoring their adoption by Powhatan, and makes much of the gravity of the occasion. But when the English present a crown to Powhatan, convincing him to kneel and become part of the British Empire, the tone is one of “there go those stupid English.”

Trailing from this is Gleach’s apparent less than complete understanding of English culture. For instance, in his chapter setting up the colonial mindset, he describes the state of affairs in the old country, but completely ignores the vocal presence of Puritan and Separatist groups. Instead, he focuses on creating a monolith involving the Anglican Church. He seems to simply accept that everyone who claims to be a part of a religion, must act in accordance with their stated beliefs. Hence, instead of allowing for groups or individuals to behave in ways inconsistent with their creeds, he tries to find a way to explain it within that framework. The most prominent occurrence within the book comes when he states that, in effect, by accumulating riches, the settlers thought that they were in fact giving glory to God. Therefore, they were actually obeying a moral imperative when cheating and killing Indians (69). The fact that none of his sources explicitly tie praise and individual wealth together, while one flatly repudiates the idea, does not seem to bother him.

In short, the book fails to distinguish many finer shades that exist between the primary colors with which he paints. It seems that if there were mixed motives for colonization, then each individual had to adhere to every one of them. The possibility that some settlers came for religious reasons and others for greed does not seem to be a real option. If the majority came to simply make money and the minority to evangelize, each could remain relatively consistent to their stated motives, while giving the appearance of a fragmented whole. As a result, in theory there would be no need to go to such lengths to explain the relation between power and righteousness in the English context.

Despite it all, Gleach seems to be correct in his statement that his approach provides his readers with better insight into the Powhatan worldview. He gives more solid evidence than can be simply gleaned from general human psychology. His method of setting the stage by topic and then switching to chronological examination is also helpful, especially to a neophyte reader of Indian relations. Overall, this is an informative book on an interesting topic, but must be employed as Gleach did his colonial sources: “carefully.”