In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • A Longhouse Fragmented: Ohio Iroquois Autonomy in the Nineteenth Century by Brian Joseph Gilley
  • William S. Tress
Brian Joseph Gilley. A Longhouse Fragmented: Ohio Iroquois Autonomy in the Nineteenth Century (Albany: State University of New York Press 2014). Pp. 167. Illustrations, notes, works cited. Cloth, $70.00.

Brian Joseph Gilley’s A Longhouse Fragmented is a study of the Iroquois movements from their ancestral home, called the “Six Nations” in New York State, to Ohio where they became the Seneca of Sandusky, through migration to their eventual home in Oklahoma where they became the Seneca-Cayuga of Oklahoma. An ancillary theme of this text is an effort to establish that the Seneca-Cayuga were true Iroquois and not a fragmented assimilated people. Gilley disagrees with the conclusions of most Iroquois scholars on this topic, who say, “Those Western people are not Iroquois as we think of the Six Nations. They have kinship, a longhouse, but they’re not actually Iroquois.” Gilley’s thesis is that they are true Iroquois just like the people of the Six Nations because of their contiguous customs and traditions. He further believes that, tragically, these Western people are ignored by Iroquois scholars.

The intended audience for this book is those scholars whose special interest is Iroquois studies. The author forcefully challenges the claims of the scholars who disagree with him and implies that current Iroquois studies are flawed. He is so confidently adamant in his position that he suggests the possibility of a conspiracy by Iroquois scholars to keep his position from being published.

Gilley may have been better served if he had started this book with a chapter on what made the Six Nations special among Native Americans. He does tell us that their form of democracy was a precursor of the American model, and their innovations in agriculture were highly successful, and their ability [End Page 223] to govern helped in creating the Iroquois empire that covered most of the eastern United States. This may be a topic for another book, yet expansion of this topic by Gilley would have made the picture of fragmentation clearer.

By chapter 2, the style of writing takes a narrative form as the author defines and explains the longhouse tradition. The longhouse is his primary weapon in defense of his thesis for continuity. He uses it in the book’s title, the longhouse is pictured on the cover, and he repeatedly points to its importance to the Iroquois as a democratic tool employed in each crisis as they were pushed west. The longhouse is a connecting custom between Six Nation people through the Seneca of Sandusky and finally the Seneca-Cayuga of Oklahoma.

The narrative style flows and is connected by time frame, location, and historical context. The chapters capture the flow of the Iroquois migration through American history and the historical time frame by referencing the period of the French and Indian War, the British occupation, American independence, the Civil War, and American “Manifest Destiny.” This approach is quite good and answers the following questions: why was the migration necessary, how and when the move took place, and who benefited and who suffered because of the migration.

As Gilley presents his case for the continuity of political and socioreligious practices and community values, he paints a very interesting picture of the various common ceremonies, such as the Midwinter ceremony, also called the Dog Dance, and even the game of lacrosse. The discussions of customs and traditions are the strength of this book.

Gilley presents a balanced argument for his belief in continuity, yet, the argument for multicultural fragmentation is more compelling. The original migrants to Ohio were Six Nations people, yet the case cannot be sustained when other factors are considered that change individuals and cultures from their historical roots. Even the authors Gilley cites don’t embrace the continuity principle. For instance, in the text Lewis Henry Morgan is quoted as saying, “Can the residue of the Iroquois be reclaimed?” Gilley’s answer is yes, while the evidence says no. On page 5, Gilley quotes Chatterjee and then Gilley concludes, “Thus the communities who Trans located to the western frontier (Ohio Territory) in...

pdf