There are many stories of disputes between husbands
and wives, some of which have a mythological stamp to them
(see, for example, Jacque LePique’s "Wampum Hair")1 What
is clear is that when the mutual home of the couple was
destroyed by either party, the relationship was also
finished. What happened to the wife then depended upon her
influence within the community. If the home was in the
territory of her family, the husband having moved to his
in-law’s band on marriage, she could enlist her family to
help her…in that case, the husband would have a doubly
difficult time in convincing the community that he was not
the cause of the breakdown. If, on the other hand, the move
was the more normal one, i.e. to the husband’s community,
the woman brought with her the prestige and status of her
position in her family, but had to begin at the level of all
young women in constructing the significance of their home…
she had to convince community members of her worth and
character.
The key to this was apparently modesty and a
reluctance to move aggressively in talk or manners. If she
had been successful, she could appeal to the chief or
members of the elders to support her in her claims against
her husband. Unless the charges against her were of such a
sort that band members might be fearful of her (for example,
she was known to use witchcraft), she might well received a
favourable reception. If she had been successful in
convincing her husband’s neighbours of her worth, she would
find support within the band for some kind of redress.
Redress could take many forms: a return of her estranged
husband and the re-establishment of their home; marriage to
another man of greater community stature than her
ex-husband; her vindication through some kind of trial or
accomplishment; the return of her children to her, as well
as some of the family’s possessions, and the right to live
in the band in peace; the support of the band in her return
to her family’s home, so long as her father was still alive
and accepted her back; the support of someone powerful in
the band for her to set up a house on the fringes of the
group, or in the territory outside the village and to live
there alone, but technically under the protection of the
band.
Decisions as to redress were initiated by the woman,
but they could be addressed by an elder or counselor within
the band, who would present her case before the leaders of
the community. If they decided in the affirmative, she could
then stay permanently. If they objected, then the woman had
no alternative but to move out of the village, or move back
home. However, her children were hers, and her husband could
not prevent her from taking the children with her. In many
ways, the best thing for the band to do was to re-marry her
to another powerful person in the community, thus preserving
her abilities as well as her children. This had the
advantage of acknowledging that her troubles were not
entirely of her doing. If her husband died, what she did was
entirely up to her. She could take her belongings and
children and return to her home band, in which case she
needed the approval of her father to do so. If he did not
approve, or he was dead, she remained with the relatives of
her husband and attempted to promote another marriage with a
man from that group. If that did not succeed, she was free
to marry whomever she pleased, but she had to abandon any
claims from her husband’s family if she left that group. So
long as she remained in the community she had claims to
food and support. |