The covenant chain of peace : metaphor and religious thought in seventeenth century Haudenosaunee council oratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phrase 'Covenant Chain' is unique in the English language and along with its antecedents---'linked arms', 'the rope', and the 'iron chain'---the Haudenosaunee established relationships with the Europeans. The 'Covenant Chain' has been the subject of extensive discussion since the mid-1980s when a group of scholars in Iroquois Studies published several volumes on the diplomacy of the Haudenosaunee during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Most studies focus on the political aspects of the Covenant Chain and the role it played in creating and sustaining alliances. This study examines the meaning of the word 'covenant' and related ideas in the context of Haudenosaunee cosmology, history, culture and religious traditions. The numerous metaphors employed by the Haudenosaunee in council oratory and the many meanings associated with these different metaphors are discussed with a view to better understanding the Covenant Chain in relation to what Mohawk scholar Deborah Doxtator calls 'history as an additive process'. In order to facilitate this discussion, the religious dimensions of covenant in European thought during this period are examined. While the basis of post-Reformation covenant theology differs radically from Haudenosaunee ideas of covenant, points of convergence do exist particularly in the area of political theory making. Johannes Althusius' (1557-1638) concept of 'symbiosis' is one such example. Surprisingly, Europeans who were involved in or who had knowledge of the Covenant Chain provide no theological discourse on it. Philosophical and theological discussions of the chain come from the Haudenosaunee themselves. These relationships went well beyond contractual obligations and along with the idea of the 'middle line' which separates people and at the same time joins them together. Contrary to the widely accepted scholarly view that the chain---either the 'Covenant Chain' or the 'Iron Chain'---was associated only with alliances between the Haudenosaunee and the British, this study shows that the Haudenosaunee used the same expressions in their alliances with the French as well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".