Biloxi shaman-kings*?

As I’ve been working on my ethnographic sketch of the Biloxi nation to eventually accompany the Biloxi dictionary as my thesis, I’ve been synthesizing the works of various authors over the past century, pulling together some of the bits and pieces that have been written. Also, while in Washington DC to do research at the National Anthropological Archives this past summer, I ordered copies of all of Albert Gatschet’s notes, which finally arrived the other day. Gatschet was the first linguist to do fieldwork on Biloxi in 1886, and he determined that it was indeed a Siouan language, not Muskogean as previously assumed.

During my research, I’m finding mounting, primarily linguistic, clues as to the political make-up of pre-contact Biloxis. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC), which incorporates many of the peoples and cultures traditionally associated with Mississippian or "mound-building" cultures, of which Biloxis were apparently a part, was largely agricultural and, as has happened to many agricultural economies through history, became socially non-egalitarian and stratified, including an elite class of ruling nobles. (This was nowhere better represented in the SECC than by Biloxis’ neighbors, Natchez, whose society was divided into an elite ruling nobility carried around on litters who referred to the "common" folks as "Stinkards.") There is mounting evidence that these ruling nobles were also members of an elite priesthood, which makes them quite similar to what we've learned about Mayan societies of ancient Mesoamerica. There is some linguistic evidence that Biloxis may have shared a similar system of nobles vs. commoners.

The evidence? In Gatschet’s materials, there is a term yaaxi (also ąyaaxi), literally 'mysterious' or 'sacred' person, which Gatschet states meant ‘conjurer’ but was also sometimes used for ‘chief.’ Traditional Native American shamans, usually referred to as medicine men or women, could be either beneficent healers of the sick and injured, or they could be malevolent "sorcerers" or "witches" who could cause illness or injury with the help of evil spirits. The term ‘conjurer’ of course is usually associated with the malevolent sorcerer. It thus appears in the data that Biloxi conjurer = chief. In Biloxi oral tradition, there is also reference to their chief being seated in an elevated position, perhaps on a raised chair, platform, or throne. Thus, I think it seems reasonable to hypothesize a Biloxi "shaman-king" who was not only ruler of his people but also the head healer and sorcerer.

As stated before, this would put the Biloxi chief in line with what anthropologists are learning of other SECC societies AND with ancient Mesoamerican societies. Imagine the power wielded by these kings, who could control their citizenry through its manipulation of its citizenry's fear of the unknown spirit world that the chief could control, and who, in line with typical shamanism, could "transform" into powerful animal spirits such as a panther (or jaguar in Mesoamerica) or a raptorial bird such as the eagle. What better way to "earn" the respect, obedience, and worship of your populace!

Anyway, this is what I've come up with through my research so far.

UPDATE: Please be aware that I employ the term "shaman-king" loosely as it is still very much debated as to whether the priests or sorcerers of Native America, or anywhere outside of Siberia where the term shaman originated (a Tungus term), should be called "shamans". They technically do not fit the specifications of the term as applied in Siberia. My colleague and friend, Alice Beck Kehoe, is adamantly opposed to this term being employed by anthropologists outside of the confines of Siberia.

The Lady of Cofitachequi

I’ve been doing some research and reading on the pre-Columbian southeast (US), partially in trying to piece together more of possible Biloxi sociopolitical history in an overall geopolitical and geocultural context. I’ve discovered some interesting tidbits brought down to us via the journals of the De Soto expeditions of the sixteenth century.

Among these tidbits is evidence of definite social stratification and class structure, including reverence for high chiefs or kings (and, at least in one case, a queen). One of these “paramount chiefs” who commanded a number of chiefdoms distributed over an area of at least one thousand square kilometers (Smith & Hally 1992) was named by the Spaniards “The Lady of Cofitachequi.” She was carried in a litter on the shoulders of some of her subordinates to meet the De Soto expedition. She was not treated very well by her Spanish visitors, however, and in fact was kidnapped by De Soto’s men after they pillaged her primary village and supplies. They apparently took her captive to use as a guide in locating another chiefdom at Coosa. At one point on the journey, she and one of her female slaves escaped, apparently never to be seen again by De Soto (luckily for her!).

Such encounters with Native American chiefs or kings (or queens) being carried on litters was apparently rather frequent, as the paramount chief at Coosa was also carried on a litter by his subordinates, and Natchez chiefs were also carried about on litters.

Natchez chief carried on litter

I find this particularly interesting in regards to the Native southeastern US, as there seems to be mounting evidence that the pre-Columbian Southeastern Cultural Complex (SECC) may have had more in common sociopolitically with Mesoamerica (Olmec and Maya) than we may have ever thought given the evidence of class distinction, high reverence for the ruling elite, and the layouts and monumental architecture of Mississippian and SECC cities (e.g., Cahokia, Moundville, Poverty Point).

Reference:

Smith, M. and D. Hally. 1992. Chiefly Behavior: Evidence from Sixteenth Century Spanish Accounts. In Lords of the southeast: social inequality and the native elites of southeastern North America, 1992 Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 3. Barker, A. and T. Pauketat, eds.