Narrating Sovereignty: The Covenant Chain in Intercultural Diplomacy

This article considers Haudenosaunee recitals of the history of the Covenant Chain as a powerful communicative mechanism to define and assert sovereign identity and rights in the context of intercultural diplomacy. It reflects initially on the metaphorical language used to structure these historical narratives and how it enabled the Haudenosaunee to articulate self-understandings of their sovereignty. Contending that the narrative’s main power stemmed from its application in specific diplomatic contexts, the article then examines three instances when the Haudenosaunee recounted the entire history of the Chain during mid-eighteenth century treaty councils with the British. It explores the reasons underpinning the narrative’s use on these occasions and its overall implications. Finally, the article discusses the adoption of the narrative by one British diplomat, Sir William Johnson, considering his motivations for using the Covenant Chain and its intended effects.

continue to prevent wider scholarly engagement and critical analysis. Such doubts stem from a belief in the superiority of the written record and deeply rooted understandings, within European culture, that history reveals the processes of social development. During the Enlightenment philosophers proposed that societies moved through a progressive sequence, from primitive to civilised.
'Primitive' societies, such as indigenous nations encountered in North America, were considered as incapable of possessing, or even constructing their own history. 8 For Europeans, the purpose of history was the objective quest for historical truth and historical accounts were organised in a chronological manner. Constructions of the past which failed to conform with these understandings were dismissed, and societies who posed differing historical formulations classified as 'without history'.
Related to the theory of stadial historical development Enlightenment philosophers also proposed hierarchies of language based on societal progression. Although many colonists were impressed by the oratorical skills of indigenous speakers, eloquence during this period was theorised as 'linguistic poverty'. It was believed that indigenous people lacked the words to express abstract concepts, instead having to rely on figurative elements of speech to convey complex ideas. 9 In the eighteenth century metaphorical language was severely criticised for being imprecise, deluding and manipulative. For example John Locke, one of the staunchest critics of figurative language, proclaimed metaphors served only to 'insinuate wrong ideas, move the passions, and thereby mislead the judgement'. 10 In comparison to indigenous languages which were heavily metaphorical, European languages were classified as civilised for they had 'transcended the figurative stage and become analytical.' 11 Europeans were thus thought to possess the linguistic capabilities necessary to accurately construct historical accounts. Such beliefs, it appears, continue to shape scholarly thinking, with many considering oral histories as 'rich and useful' but lacking the 'specific time-stamped details' they crave. 12 Yet confining historical constructions to one semiotic systemalphabetic text -is immensely problematic for it continues to perpetuate imperialist attitudes of what constitutes 'real history' and overlooks historical perspectives recorded in non-alphabetic formats. 13  was formed with the aim of ending a period of chronic warfare between these nations, and in response to external threats by common enemies. 14 A Grand Council of chiefs was formed and met regularly to ensure peace was maintained. Councils were also a forum for inter-tribal diplomacy, in which negotiations over territory, trade, war and peace took place, and a venue in which cross-cultural alliances were established and sustained.
The Confederacy's commitment to peace and the idea that relationships needed to be frequently revisited and renewed, via customary forms, continued to influence Haudenosaunee diplomacy with Europeans. Councils were considered fundamental to the process of alliance building and maintenance of relations for they provided a venue for allies to negotiate and come to a consensus regarding terms governing specific relationships. 15  Although explicit indigenous use of the term 'sovereignty' is absent from historic treaty documentation, the Covenant Chain demonstrates one way in which indigenous nations forcefully expressed political independence and rights under diplomatic agreement. As Craig Yirush notes, despite the acknowledgement that the early modern world was characterised by 'divided sovereignty' many scholars continue to overlook the 'legal, political and constitutional ideas' of indigenous nations. Those who have considered indigenous political speeches, made during intercultural diplomacy, have examined them for what they reveal about cultural contact rather than scrutinising the ideas and arguments the orations contain. 19 However, political thought is not a Eurocentric construct, grounded in Greco-Roman ideals, it was present also in pre-modern non-Western societies. 20 For the Haudenosaunee sovereignty was not a fixed notion, it was 'a historically contingent construct' based on conquest over other nations, ancestral claims to land, access to trade goods and hunting territory and the capacity to protect the people within your society. 21 Envisioning sovereignty differently many British officials, especially in formal correspondence, represented the Haudenosaunee as subjects of the Crown, whose rights existed solely in the Crown's recognition of them. 22 However, analysis of treaty council documentation presents a more complex picture; the British did not interact with the Haudenosaunee as they would with 'subjects' during many mid-eighteenth century diplomatic councils and the Haudenosaunee certainly were not passive recipients of rights. Translations of Haudenosaunee council oratory reveal that they continually reminded colonial officials of their sovereign identity and rights during diplomatic transactions which were of Native design and followed Native protocol.  The Covenant Chain metaphor was 'a synthesis of words, concepts and political aspirations derived from two very different linguistic and cultural traditions.' 34 The term 'chain' for example was perhaps an English (mis)translation for the indigenous expression of 'linking arms in friendship' that became common parlance. 35 The word 'covenant' also derives from English terminology but has its roots in the Latin verb convenire, meaning to 'agree'. For the British, this term had biblical origins, explaining how the Haudenosaunee anchored a European vessel, sometimes specifically identified as a Dutch ship, to the shore on its arrival with grass cord or bark. The orator would typically then proceed to recount the ways in which the bonds of friendship evolved over time. For example, the grass cord was replaced by an iron Chain to represent the strengthening of the Haudenosaunee-Dutch relationship which was later changed to a silver Chain to represent the even stronger union between the Haudenosaunee and the British. Changes to the method of securing the Chain also symbolised the strengthening of the respective alliances. The need to keep the Chain 'bright' and free from rust was also repeated, reflecting the Haudenosaunee belief that links of kinship must be regularly confirmed and renewed via customary forms. Covenant Chain narratives were a means to articulate sovereign independence in relation to European arrival in North America.
Significantly, the narrative depicts indigenous people as accepting and securing European vessels to the landscape, signifying that European presence in indigenous territory was subject to indigenous permission.
As can be seen from the narrative, the idea of alliance began as a naturalistic concept, the original means of binding the European vessel to the shore was with organic materials -grass and bark. After the arrival of Europeans, the manner for metaphorically representing a political alliance was changed to a chain to better reflect European ideas. The bonds of alliance became an iron or silver chain, materials foreign to Haudenosaunee society. Pictorial representations of the Chain produced by the British demonstrate their understanding of this metaphorical expression, and how it changed over time. Figure 1  Also, less present in this image is idea of political independence. Instead Johnson, the figure presenting the medal, appears to be leading council proceedings and rewarding his indigenous allies for remaining committed to previous agreements. The iconography here is at odds with how the Haudenosaunee understood the Covenant Chain.

Fig. 2.
Although the Haudenosaunee allowed their understanding of Covenant Chain to be translated into European terminology and iconography, they retained their own naturalistic concept of alliance as evidenced visually on wampum belts. The depiction of the Chain rendered on wampum belts was not one of metal but was represented through the image of linked arms. As can be seen on the 24 nations belt (see fig.3, middle belt) the Covenant Chain was an indigenous understanding of a relationship with intruders which acknowledged the interdependent nature of parties within an alliance through the union of bound hands/arms. 43 However, as demonstrated by the European vessel remaining forever moored offshore, at a great distance from the mountain, it was a conception of alliance but not at the cost of losing political independence. Thus, although the terminology 'chain' was of European origin recitals of the history of the Covenant Chain allowed the Haudenosaunee to forcefully assert their sovereign identity and demand particular rights precisely because the narrative remained intrinsically embedded within Haudenosaunee worldviews. Presenting deeds to prove they had legally acquired the land from the Susquehannock Indians, the commissioners argued they had been in possession of the area for 'above one hundred years.  Six Nation claims to conquest have been treated sceptically by many historians. Some believe they were a Haudenosaunee 'fiction' whereas others view them as a kind of British 'donation', in that recognising Haudenosaunee claims to conquest in tandem with seeing them as dependents would allow the British to argue that all territory conquered by the Haudenosaunee also belonged to them. 53 However, such arguments are predicated on European understandings of conquest and overlook the possibility that the Haudenosaunee may have possessed different understandings of the term. Unlike Europeans the primary aim of war for the Haudenosaunee was not territorial conquest, its purpose was to take captives who were incorporated into Haudenosaunee society to replace deceased members of the Confederacy. 54 The Haudenosaunee  releasing one prisoner, Mr Brown, to Weiser. 67 Here the Covenant Chain narrative functioned as a diplomatic tool that diffused conflict, for it emphasised that allies did not go to war with one another over disagreements, and that issues should be resolved peacefully via negotiation. It also allowed the Seneca to assert their identity as a sovereign power and demand their rights to reciprocal treatment and respect as politically independent parties in alliance. 68

Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768
The Oneida spokesman also demanded that all unpatented land east of the boundary belonging to members of the confederacy should be considered as their 'sole property and at their disposal both now, and so long as the sun shines.' He also insisted that recent land arrangements be considered 'independent of the boundary' so the Haudenosaunee would not lose the benefit of sale. 73 This important clause underscored Haudenosaunee control over the remaining land east of the boundary and emphasised their right to sell lands to whomever they pleased. 74  'brothership' between the British and the Six Nations. The reasoning for this, Johnson argued, was that 'there are several among you who seem to forget it'. Johnson then stated that they may find a foreigner knowing this narrative strange but that he had learnt the history of their relationship from 'some old writings of our forefathers.' 91 Here Johnson sought to demonstrate, to the Grand Council, that the customs of Haudenosaunee diplomacy would continue to be observed. By reciting the history of the Covenant Chain Johnson was demonstrating his awareness that this had been, and would remain, the key structuring element of their relationship. Agreement.' 93 Like Canasatego and Taraghrisson, he was claiming the actions of one party were threatening to break the alliance their forefathers had created. The fact that Johnson narrated the history of their relationship before he issued Governor of New York's demands gave his words greater authority. Narrating the history of their mutually beneficial long-standing alliance allowed Johnson to argue the Six Nation's desire to travel to Canada, to rescue their relatives, was in opposition to their alliance. It further allowed Johnson to accuse the Six Nations of being neither 'sincere or hearty in your Brothers cause'. 94 Through his use of the Chain metaphor Johnson was seeking to illustrate his understanding of the Haudenosaunee concept of alliance as a careful balance of autonomy and obligation. It enabled him to request that the Six Nations adhere to the New York Governor's demand and not travel to Canada, for the Chain's central idea was that sovereignty was not only the freedom to act autonomously but was also the recognition of obligations to another power.

Conclusion
Analysis of the contexts in which the Covenant Chain narrative was employed, by both the Haudenosaunee and the British, reveals it was much more than a political principle governing intercultural relations, or a metaphorical speech-act for establishing and renewing alliances. It was a powerful communicative mechanism for asserting sovereign identity and rights, instrumental in an era where overlapping sovereignties were the rule rather than the exception.