North American Indian Beliefs and Practices file:///C:/Users/James%20Heffernan/Documents/american_indian_beliefs.

htm

James D. Heffernan

Course: American Indian Thought and Religion

A Critique of Dr. Ruth Underhill's Red Man's Religion

Tribal Variances Regarding Belief
Vision Interpretation
Shaman, Medicine Man and Priest Distinctions
Mexico's Influences on Northern Tribes

Tribal Variances Regarding Belief

The first section of this report addresses overstated generalities concerning the simplicity and unity among North American Indian
beliefs and practices. Dr. Underhill's great work lacks the philosophical distinctions among tribal religions and secondly does not
fully differentiate the meaning of tribal "belief" itself. My basis, by and large, for constructively challenging the author is both
philosophical as well as geophysical.

Dr. Underhill does carefully classify the variables that constitute North American Indian religious life, but in the process equates them
to tribes in general. Beliefs surrounding life, death, war and hunting that Shamans, Priests and Spirits were associated with, contained
distinct philosophical meanings among different tribes. The historical evidence also shows, and validates, that many different
interpretations existed concerning very basic beliefs of life, creation and destruction. The Naskapi tribe, for instance, do not possess
a creation story in their myths. The Washo, on the other hand, do have creation stories. This basic belief difference alone has
separated the two groups philosophically and religiously. This is just one example that disputes the notion of common universal tribal
beliefs. The harmony regarding tribal belief practices Dr. Underhill suggests of North American Indians obviously does not exist
among the two tribes mentioned in the religious sense, independent of the already physical separation of the two tribes.

Why is this the case? What made tribal belief practices diverge? One answer lies in tracing the shift from "Old World" pre-Americas
patterns (defined here as the Eurasian Continent (or Plate) / Siberia) to "New World" practices (North American Continent (or Plate)
/ Alaska). Belief systems that were "deeply rooted in the Old World" were applied to basic ceremonies, games and gods in the New
World particularly in and thru Mexico.

It is important to note that "New World", contextualized above, should not be misconstrued with the traditions and ways of Indian
tribes that evolved when residing in North America. "Old World" in that context is traditionally referenced to as Mexico, and "New
World" as North America. This context is used from now on.

Socioeconomic and ecological changes, that the New World offered, altered existing basic beliefs. Transformations in tribal culture
and religion became more compatible with the new environment ("old" bizarre practices by some tribes became despised by simpler
tribes). Changes in belief concepts brought about new complexities in religion and philosophy, triggered again by new belief-
associated variables (elaborated in this section), resulting in some significant differences and new meanings among tribes.

One such variable Dr. Underhill talks about is the death avoidance syndrome among American Indians. It is from Mexico we find
mass killings in accordance with sun ceremonies. Some tribes of the north that inherited these ceremonies treated the chosen people
as gods before their death. On the other hand, the Washo tribe seclude the dying and burn his or her home at death for fear of returning
spirits. Conversely, the Naskapi believe in reincarnation and believe the dead return to earth in some other form. Belief variations
concerning the dead among North American Indian tribes is obvious. Funerals also had variant meanings for different social
groupings. For the Pauite, fear accompanied the ceremony along with a sense of no return. The Natchez have an attitude quite unlike
the Pauite - they sacrifice humans to accompany the dead in adoration. This respect for the dead sharply contrasts with other
representative tribes such as the Pauite, Diggers and Washo.

The economic activities of various tribes served as another variable disuniting basic religious practices. For instance, in hunting
societies, the Shaman is the central figure. In farming communities, it is the Priest who possesses little or no magical powers. The
most sacred objects to the hunters are bones of animals while with the farmers, it's the sacred crop. The gods of the hunters are
closely associated to human beings and are feared. The gods of the farmers are high gods - separate from man and rarely feared. The
underlying point here is that ideologies concerning the basic principals of life are philosophically challenged among tribes. The term

1 of 3 6/19/2010 7:46 PM
North American Indian Beliefs and Practices file:///C:/Users/James%20Heffernan/Documents/american_indian_beliefs.htm

"belief" itself gets harder to define here. Many questions concerning the degree, association and absence of beliefs among American
Indians makes each tribal religion seem unique. What is a sacred reality to a hunter is not necessarily a sacred reality to a farmer. The
term "simplicity" is too uncompounded a term to use when environmental and economic factors alone play a crucial role on the
religious practices of it's inhabitants.

Morals and acceptable behavior is yet another variable that must be included. What one tribe deems moral might appear too strict to
another tribe. For example, different tribes have different laws concerning marriage, incest and sexual behavior. In childhood, for
instance, depending on the tribe, boys and girls may or may not experience different types of sexual repression.

In the area of guardian spirits and visions, there is also some controversy. West of the Rockies, where life was not as hazardous as
for instance, British Columbia, visions were not generally sought. The religious implication here is that in the food-gathers'
philosophy, religion (belief) was earthly and practical. The hunters of the north sought vision(s) for survival and incorporated them in
their ceremonies respectfully (see below for more on "visions"). The "Great Spirit" or "boss of the world" again is seen primarily in
hunting societies while in basin gatherers, a great spirit is generally absent. For the basin gatherers, life is a spatial reality; religion
(belief) is an everyday life practice.

I do agree with Dr. Underhill's substratum thesis concerning the universally accepted tribal belief regarding "women power". The
many roles women play, notably as child bearers, nurturers and food producers, and the depth of these roles, make women a powerful
central figure in all tribal traditions.

My conclusion though, as the evidence presented here obviously tries to project, is that a basic belief theory is not applicable to all
tribes. Since the Old World never knew the follow-on complexities of peyote cults, visions, trances, myths and tales, the New World
becomes incompatible with the Old. The simple beliefs of the Old World were either discounted or forgotten. Some, of course, were
inherited, but the New World's increasingly independent theme involved one's own concept of one's self in relation to the world.
Association became tribal; not universal. Case in point, human sacrifice, for the Aztec, is not universal in North America. Either were
temples for that matter. This will be explored in follow on sections.

Dr Underhill's belief generalizations can be applied to all man's activities - we are all involved in rituals everyday. What is missed
here is that they are not tribally equal; there are variances of belief and non-belief systems that depend on many factors, such as
sacred importance, that are uniquely found inter-tribally.

Vision Interpretation
Dr. Underhill makes a notable contribution in the area of vision interpretation. A vision was a sort of helper to a person in daily life.
Although she sometimes interchanges the term "spirit possession" with "vision", she does separate the two by stating a "spirit" is a
man-animal tangible relationship while a "vision" is defined as a personal spiritual interaction with a spirit power unknown to the
physical world. Unfortunately, the confusion still lies in the subtle interchangeability and interpretation of the terms "possession" and
"interaction" (possession, to me, is clearer when discussing Shaman spirit possession - see below). Underhill mentions that a form of
spirit possession does exist in the Pacific Coast area and limits visions to the Great Lakes region. From studying the Washo alone, I
can add (contradict) that a vision was used by boys for hunting.

I agree with Dr. Underhill's analysis of the Kwakiutl and the forced vision theory. In citing Franz Boaz, she explains the behavior and
desires of the rich and warlike enable spiritual phenomenon (or vision) to be attainable as a general tone of life. This distinction
regarding what types of people really searched for a vision may be a stereotyped point of view, but shows how opportunistic tribes,
in search of fame and possession, ventured further into vision consciousness for their own purposes. The result is a vision caste
system that coincides with social status.

Finally, difficulties arise when the topics involved in vision search include pity, vengeance, material gain, power gain, etc. For
instance, what to a tribe such as the Algokians served as an aid, served the Kwakiutl as the basis for social eminence.

Shaman, Medicine Man and Priest Distinctions

The distinctions Dr. Underhill makes regarding the Shaman, Medicine Man and Priest dismisses some obscurities I had myself on this
subject. The shaman, according to Underhill, is a "prophet". Initially, he or she is called by a spirit who possesses and demands he or
she be a shaman. Although the power is un-wanted, it is eventually accepted. The shaman's method of cure was to go into a trance and
do what was expected. Various activities included pacifying animals for killing, curing of illnesses, and finding lost souls. One is led
to believe that even though soul retrieving was the major task of the shaman, sucking at the place of affliction sometimes occurred
(Underhill does not supply the details for the type of illnesses the shaman would attempt to correct). The "medicine man", on the other
hand, used the sucking technique extensively. His specialty was removing the foreign element that caused the physical sickness.
Finally, as mentioned previously, the "priest" is described as a professional for ceremonial duties usually associated with no special

2 of 3 6/19/2010 7:46 PM
North American Indian Beliefs and Practices file:///C:/Users/James%20Heffernan/Documents/american_indian_beliefs.htm

powers. This is clear.

These distinctions expose the similarity question involving the shaman and the medicine man and their interrelationships. Even Dr.
Underhill hints that the two are sometimes synonymous among tribes. It seems to me that the claim to power could be the same for
both. I would suggest, with the evidence presented in Underhill's writings, that in times of desperation, absolute identities might be
altered. Although Underhill makes the narrow distinction of foreign and internal (non-foreign) elements separating the targets of the
medicine man and shaman respectively, the generality of curing illnesses alone leaves me with the feeling that spiritual cohesion
among the two healers could / did exist.

Mexico's Influences on Northern Tribes

The influences of Mexico on North American Indian religions can be seen from the development of farmland and beyond. Dr.
Underhill places a date of 1500 B.C. as being the time when Mexico was beginning it's village societies. Maize became the number
one crop and eventually cities grew around farming villages. The affect on the north was agricultural, but also spiritual. As stated
previously, many "customs" and ceremonies left Mexico that were later inherited or discarded. One important custom was the use of
temples and as Underhill has stressed, American tribes inherited that custom to the degree as seen in how a 'room' or 'place' were
favored. This maybe an overstatement for all tribes but at least it does make sense where sacred dwellings are involved. The
Natchez's use of temples is a good illustration of this.

The "ceremony" itself is probably the most influential factor Mexico introduced. The Aztec, and others, performed many ceremonies
year round. The many gods of fire, war, death, wind, etc. were honored with dances and concessions. The American ceremony
counterparts can be seen in the Sioux Sun Dance adoring the sun, undying fires lit to honor the sun's power and the Woodland Indian
ceremony of giving gifts to honored spirits. Mexico is also responsible for introducing the ceremonial ball court. Again, Underhill
points out the inheritance is directly evident as shown by the Cherokee, who played the same game and called on the gods for power
before the game commenced.

Another remnant of Mexico was the ritual of human sacrifice. Mass killings were carried out for the super naturals. This was
characteristic of the Aztec. The Natchez were followers of this ritual but of course this ritual, as well as others, were not universally
accepted by all tribes.

The use of ceremonies and customs were also filtered to the north through traders. This interaction, coupled with the characteristics
within the domain of Mexico, caused changes to occur in ceremonial practices for both planter and warrior tribes. For example, the
planter philosophy would be quite different from the warrior philosophy in dealing with super naturals. The opposite is also true. The
Pawnees, a planter tribe, practiced human sacrifice as did the warriors from Mexico. The point here is ceremonial and ritual
variations erupted tribally. Conversely, new discoveries we made in the north that discounted old practices (as seen in Mexico) and
independent of Mexico as well.

Still, the many tales and myths of various tribes make reference to the old traditional life in Mexico. Although, as I have pointed out
previously, they are not universal among all tribes. Some dis-similarities do exist as in the Pueblos for instance, who tell a different
creation story than the Zuni while the Naskapi have none. Why is this the case? Again, I feel, that the influences of Mexico's religious
practices as well as interactions with other tribes were primary factors. Secondarily, interchange with traders was a factor as well.
These factors erupted independent forces, both geographical and philosophical, that contributed to the formation of uniquely
identifiable tribes.

[1] Underhill, Ruth M., Red Man's Religion. The University of Chicago Press - Revised Edition 1965.

[2] Underhill, Ruth M., Red Man's America. The University of Chicago Press - Revised Edition 1971.

[3] Boas, Franz, "The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl," Report of the United States National Museum,
1895. Washington D.C., 1897.

3 of 3 6/19/2010 7:46 PM