Last updated Iroquois women at work grinding grains and dried fruits (engraving from 1664).
The economy of the Iroquois, as encountered by early European settlers, was based on a collective system of production that integrated agriculture with hunting and gathering. This economic structure was shared across the tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy, a political alliance of initially five tribes (Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk), later joined by the Tuscarora, forming the Six Nations. This system was also prevalent among other northern Iroquoian-speaking peoples, such as the Hurons, who inhabited regions corresponding to present-day New York State and the Great Lakes area. Despite historical rivalries, these groups maintained similar economic practices.
The Iroquois were primarily agriculturalists, cultivating the "Three Sisters" (maize, beans, and squash), which were dietary staples common among Native American societies. As semi-sedentary communities, they supplemented their diet through fishing in spring and hunting during autumn and winter, with men typically leaving villages for these activities. Their cultural practices were closely tied to this economic lifestyle, influencing their views on nature and property management.
The Iroquois economy differed significantly from Western economic models. It featured collective land ownership, a gendered division of labor, and a gift-based exchange system. Social homogeneity was disrupted by the incorporation of captives from frequent conflicts with neighboring groups, with surviving prisoners facing outcomes ranging from enslavement to adoption.
Sustained contact with Europeans, beginning in the late 16th century, profoundly affected Iroquois society. Initially, they became key trading partners, but European colonial expansion disrupted their traditional economy. By the early 19th century, the Iroquois were largely confined to reservations in the United States and in Canada, prompting adaptations to their economic system. In the 20th century, some Iroquois communities leveraged reservation autonomy to establish businesses such as casinos, while others integrated into the broader economy. Elements of their traditional economic practices continue to influence contemporary Iroquois communities, particularly in their approach to resource management and cultural heritage preservation on reservations.
Conditions and types of production
Environment and natural resources
Territories occupied by the Iroquois tribes around 1650.
Iroquoia was situated in the central portion of the eastern forest region of North America, an intermediate environment between the Arcticenvironment, which prevails in the far north of the continent, and that of the Great Plains, which extend to the Rocky Mountains[1]. In the 17th century, Iroquois territory encompassed the area south of Lake Ontario, from the shores of Lake Erie to those of the Hudson. Bounded to the west and north by Lakes Erie and Ontario as well as the St. Lawrence River, and to the east by the Appalachian Mountains, the region lacked significant internal natural barriers or environmental discontinuities. This position afforded defensive security while enabling offensive mobility, as the Iroquois occupied the higher elevations from which numerous waterways descended, facilitating rapid outward movement. The landscape featured hills covered with temperate forests including hemlock, maples, pines, oaks, and other species, interspersed with fertile valleys and alluvial plains.[1]
Natural resources for tools and construction were equally plentiful. Animal hides and furs were used for clothing and equipment, while horns, bones, tendons, and mollusk shells served in tool and utensil manufacture. Timber was sourced from forest trees, with bark from ash, elm, arborvitae (white cedar), balsam fir, and spruce used for coverings. White ash wood and slippery elm bark were employed in canoe construction, and hemlock for snowshoes. Fibers from the inner bark of slippery elm, leatherwood (Dirca palustris), and wild hemp were processed into cordage and thread. Reed and maize leaves were woven into mats. Clay deposits supported pottery production. The region, however, contained little copper ore (the primary metal worked by Indigenous peoples) and stone tools were used sparingly. Prior to European contact, metal implements were absent.[1]
The Huron territory, located on the peninsula between Lakes Erie, Ontario, and Huron (Georgian Bay), exhibited comparable environmental characteristics. Its more open terrain was slightly more conducive to agriculture, though it offered fewer hunting resources; fishing opportunities, however, were superior.[1]
The moose, called orignal in America, was the largest game of the Iroquois (engraving from the Encyclopédie).
Primary activities
The primary productive activities of the Iroquois included gathering fruits and roots, trapping, hunting, fishing, and agriculture. Fruits and roots contributed regularly to the diet and formed a notable portion of it. Successful harvests and maple syrup production often led to communal feasts. These resources, however, were secondary to game, which the Iroquois pursued both within their territory and in distant regions.[1]
Winter served as the principal hunting season, although birds were hunted in autumn and spring, and trapping occurred year-round. Early cold weather focused on deer and beaver. Bears were primarily hunted during their hibernation period from January to May. Starting in October, hunting parties ranged across the region, venturing east and north into the Adirondacks and present-day Canada, as well as west and south to the Niagara area and the territories now comprising Ohio and Pennsylvania. By January, these groups typically returned to their villages. Fishing employed various methods from mid-March until early winter, with salmon and eel providing the most abundant yields. Among the Hurons, fishing continued nearly year-round.[1]
Agriculture entailed a series of extended and intricate processes. Maize cultivation involved four main stages: clearing, sowing, plant growth, and harvesting. This cycle generally spanned the entire growing season. In cases of challenging clearing, initial harvests might require several years of preparation. Due to extensive farming practices and associated village relocations, fields were fully renewed every 10 to 12 years. Portions of cleared land were allocated to melons and, to a lesser extent, sunflower and tobacco[1]. The majority, however, was dedicated to intercropping the "Three Sisters" .
The emphasis on each activity varied among tribes, with those in less densely forested areas prioritizing agriculture. Overall, the selection of high-quality soil for village sites and their relative permanence suggest that agriculture predominated in both diet and daily life for the Iroquois, and even more so for the Hurons, despite the significant roles of hunting and fishing.[1]
Maize, the quintessential Native American cereal, in a 1633 flora.
Capital and consumption goods
In addition to primary productive activities, the Iroquois engaged in various handicrafts, particularly during the relatively idle period following the return from winter hunting.[1] Manufactured items encompassed both consumer goods and capital tools. Key general-purpose implements included the knife, crafted from wood, bone, shell, or stone and used in hunting, combat, and daily tasks, and the stone-bladed axe, employed in numerous activities including tree felling in conjunction with fire.[1]
Specialized tools addressed specific needs. For hunting, the bow was central, typically human-sized and made from red cedar or comparable wood, fire-hardened, and strung with hemp or deer tendon. Arrows, approximately one meter long, were sometimes fletched with two feathers to enhance accuracy through rotation. Tips were usually stone, though wood, bone, or horn was also used. Traps and snares consisted of hemp ropes or bark. Fishing equipment primarily featured harpoons of horn or bone and nets woven from hemp or bark fiber, with efficacy improved by various weirs. Agricultural implements included the rake (a large wooden fork) for clearing debris after burning and axing, the digging stick (a curved wooden tool with a long handle) for soil preparation, and hoes of wood or deer scapula attached to handles for weeding.[1]
Transportation equipment formed another category. Overland portage employed wooden stretchers or woven bark fiber straps worn across the forehead or chest. In winter, wooden sleds were pulled by individuals on snowshoes. Water travel utilized bark and wood canoes, ranging from 4 to 12 meters in length and accommodating 2 to 30 people.[1]
Consumer products derived from hunting, fishing, and especially agriculture using the described methods. Maize, prepared in forms such as sagamité, formed the dietary staple and primary stored surplus. Game meat and fish supplemented reserves when smoked or dried. Animal products supplied most clothing materials. Housing consisted of wood and bark structures; portable hunting shelters contrasted with longhouses^, which, enclosed by palisades, formed semi-permanent villages.[1]
Onondaga, a fortified Iroquois village,after a sketch by Samuel de Champlain .
Forms of economic organization
Land ownership
Among the Hurons, land was owned collectively. French missionary Gabriel Sagard noted that the Hurons, possessing ample land, allocated portions to individual families while retaining a substantial common reserve.[3] Any Huron could clear and sow unused land, retaining possession through continued cultivation and use; upon abandonment, it reverted to communal property available to others.[3] Although individual holdings existed, evidence from centrally placed grain storage in longhouses (shared by multiple related families) indicates that household production was pooled.[4]
The Iroquois employed a comparable system. Tribes owned all lands, assigning territories to clans, which then distributed plots to households for farming. Land was periodically redistributed among households every few years. Clans could petition the Clan Mothers' Council for reallocation.[1] The council issued warnings to clans for land abuse or neglect, with the severest penalty being reassignment of their territory to another clan.[5] Women controlled land ownership, consistent with their role in food cultivation.[1]
The Clan Mothers' Council also designated certain plots for communal cultivation by women from all clans. Produce from these fields, known as kěndiǔ"gwǎ'ge' hodi'yěn'tho, was used for feasts and large gatherings.[5]
Division of labor: fields and forest
The division of labor in Iroquois society reflected a dualistic cultural framework, symbolized by the twin gods Hahgwehdiyu (Young Tree, East) and Hahgwehdaetgah (Flint, West), representing complementary roles. Labor was distinctly divided by gender, with women managing agricultural tasks and men handling forest-related activities such as clearing and woodworking.[5] Men primarily engaged in hunting, fishing, trade, and warfare, while women were responsible for farming, foraging, and household duties. Handicraft tasks were also gender-specific: men constructed buildings and produced most equipment, including agricultural tools used by women, whereas women crafted smaller trapping gear, pottery, household utensils, furniture, textiles, and clothing.[1] This gender-based specialization formed the core of Iroquois labor organization.[6] At the time of European contact, women contributed approximately 65% of goods produced, with men accounting for 35%.[5] The diversified food production system, spanning most of the year, minimized risks of shortages and famine, earning admiration from early European settlers for its efficiency.[5]
The labor structure aligned with the Iroquois system of communal land ownership. Women organized into large groups to assist one another in field tasks, moving collectively from plot to plot. During communal sowing, a designated "field mistress" allocated seeds to each participant.[6] Each group selected an elderly, active woman as a work leader for the year, whose directives were followed. Women also collaborated in other tasks, such as cutting wood, with the leader overseeing its collective transport to the village.[1] According to Mary Jemison, an European woman assimilated into Iroquois society, this collective approach prevented jealousy by ensuring equitable effort among participants.[1]
Powhatans fishing in a manner similar to the Iroquois, after an engraving by John White published by Theodor de Bry in his Grands Voyages (1590).Sketch of a deer hunt among the Hurons, by Samuel de Champlain. The Hurons make noise and drive the animals along a V-shaped barrier to the apex where they are captured and killed .
Men employed cooperative strategies in warfare, hunting, and fishing.[1] Hunting expeditions often utilized collective techniques, such as constructing a large V-shaped brush barrier in the forest. Beaters set fire to the open end, driving game toward an apex where village hunters waited, sometimes killing up to 100 deer in a single drive. Fishing expeditions involved large groups deploying canoes, nets, and weirs to capture substantial quantities of fish, occasionally up to 1,000 in half a day. Catches from hunting or fishing were treated as communal property, either pooled and redistributed by the expedition leader or brought to the village for consumption, primarily among men, during feasts.[1] While individual hunting and fishing occurred, group efforts generally yielded greater success.[1][2]
The collective production and distribution of goods in Iroquois society constrained the development of internal trade. However, regional variations in natural resources and lifestyles facilitated exchanges with neighboring tribes. The Iroquois traded surplus grain and tobacco for furs from northern tribes and wampum (ceremonial shell belts) from eastern tribes.[1] They also acquired high-quality birch bark canoes from the Algonquins, as birch trees were absent in Iroquois territory.[1]
The predominant mode of exchange was the gift and counter-gift system, reflecting the reciprocal nature of Iroquois social relations. This practice involved one clan offering goods to another tribe or clan, anticipating a useful item in return.[1] Rooted in the Iroquois emphasis on shared property and cooperative labor, these exchanges lacked explicit agreements or fixed prices. Instead, a service or gift was provided for the benefit of the community or an individual, with the expectation of a reciprocal gesture.
External trade provided limited opportunities for individual initiative. An individual who established a new trade route gained exclusive rights to it. However, clans could collectively control trade routes to secure monopolies over specific types of trade.[1]
Aftermath of contact with Europeans
Trade and dependence
Iroquois with Western products, probably acquired through exchange (French engraving, 1722).
European demand for furs was substantial, driven by the perception that North America offered inexhaustible supplies. In exchange, Europeans provided goods not produced by Indigenous peoples, including metal tools and utensils (such as iron axes, knives, awls and fish hooks of iron, kettles of copper), textiles (wool blankets, linen shirts), jewelry, glass beads, and firearms.[7]
Indigenous groups developed dependencies as European items supplanted traditional ones. Intensified trapping depleted fur-bearing animals, heightening conflicts over hunting territories. During the first half of the 17th century, wars and European-introduced epidemics drastically reduced Native populations, disrupting traditional lifestyles.[8] Exploiting the gift and counter-gift system, the Dutch and later the British, established near the Hudson River mouth, supplied the Iroquois with gifts like iron axes and muskets to secure alliances against the French. Once traditional weapons were discarded, the Iroquois relied on continued trade for gunpowder and ammunition.[9]
To access desired European goods, the Iroquois sought control over beaver-abundant areas south of the Canadian Shield. In 1628, armed with Dutch-supplied firearms, they displaced the Mahicans eastward. In the 1630s, they targeted the Algonquins of the Ottawa Valley and, from the early 1640s, New France and its Algonquin and Montagnais allies.[10] The 1640s and 1650s witnessed the Five Nations subjugating or dispersing neighboring Iroquoian and Algonquian groups. The Hurons, key French allies and trading partners, abandoned their territory after the 1649 destruction of two major villages. Most other Iroquoian groups met similar fates over the next decade.[11] The Susquehannock in the south were assimilated by 1675. With local fur animals depleted, the Iroquois expanded westward into the Ohio Valley, occupied by the Illinois and Miami,[10] waging exterminatory wars in the late 17th century to monopolize hunting grounds without permanent settlement.[12]
Despite dominating surrounding tribes, the Iroquois did not achieve anticipated prosperity. Devastated by warfare and disease, they replenished populations through large-scale adoption of Iroquoian-speaking captives and refugees.[8] Over the next century, attacks from French-allied Algonquins and British colonial expansion confined them to original borders. As mass adoption was restricted to Iroquoian peoples, numbers declined to 12,000 by 1768 and 8,000 by 1783.[13] Traditional captivity evolved into commercial slavery, supplying non-adopted prisoners to meet colonial demands, including raids on southern Black slaves. This practice contributed to internal social differentiation and weakening.[14]
Prisoner of war and his Iroquois escort (American drawing from 1849).
Indigenous peoples also traded for alcohol, unknown prior to European contact. Pennsylvania delegates, including Benjamin Franklin, noted such requests in reports to provincial authorities.[5] Alcohol remained integral to the fur trade, increasing as fur resources dwindled and land cessions rose.[7]
Relegation and integration into the modern economy
Following the American Revolutionary War, in which most Iroquois nations allied with the British, their territories were subjected to United States incursions. Many Iroquois sought refuge in Canada, where approximately half the population has resided since. In the United States, significant portions of their lands were sold to New York speculators. From the early 19th century, both nations implemented policies of relocation and confinement to reservations.[15] Nonetheless, maize cultivation persisted as a key subsistence practice in some communities until mid-century, primarily managed by women, while men continued annual hunting expeditions lasting several weeks.[16]
Iroquois woman in deerskin ornamented with beadwork (photograph from 1898).
Land reduction and game scarcity prompted diversification. Iroquois women developed handicrafts tailored to the growing tourist market, with Tuscarora artisans achieving notable success. Proximity to Niagara Falls, a premier 19th-century attraction, enabled Tuscarora women to secure exclusive vending rights for beadwork after the War of 1812, adapting products to Victorian preferences. This enterprise continued for over a century.[17]
Wage labor emerged as the predominant trend for men, initially in logging, metallurgy, and canoe manufacturing. This shift disrupted traditional gender roles; by the mid-19th century, women were increasingly marginalized economically.[18] From the late 19th century, generations of Iroquois specialized in structural steelwork. The practice began in 1886 during construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge over the St. Lawrence, where Mohawks from Kahnawake were employed in exchange for land access. Mohawks subsequently gained renown for contributions to skyscrapers and bridges in New York and Pittsburgh, with some drawing parallels between this mobile, high-risk labor and ancestral hunting practices.[19]
In remote reservations, limited employment and education opportunities fostered poverty and reliance on government assistance by the early 20th century. Post-Great Depression urbanization accelerated, continuing thereafter, though migrants maintained ties through frequent visits, returns during unemployment, or retirement. Traditional subsistence activities like hunting, gathering, and fishing became marginal, while agriculture declined amid population growth, land fragmentation, technological changes, and evolving gender task allocation.[8]
Many Iroquois are now integrated into the Canadian and United States economies. Others operate within reservation frameworks, though activities are increasingly shaped by national and global forces. Economic challenges persist on reservations; for instance, unemployment on the U.S. portion of the Mohawk reserve reached 46%. Successful ventures include those of the Oneida, Seneca, and Cayuga. The Seneca reservation includes Salamanca, a hardwood industry center where Native Americans comprise 13% of the population.[20] Leveraging sovereignty, Senecas offer tax-free gasoline and cigarettes and operate high-stakes bingo. In New York, they manage the Seneca Niagara Casino near Niagara Falls and Seneca Allegany Casino in Salamanca, with plans for the Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino in Buffalo.
The Oneida operate casinos in New York and Wisconsin reservations. In Wisconsin, the tribe ranks among the largest employers in the northeast region, with over 3,000 workers, including 975 in tribal government. It administers more than $16 million in federal and private grants and diverse programs under legislation such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Tribal enterprises have generated substantial revenue, enhancing community living standards.[21]
Contemporary extensions of the traditional model
The current flag of the Iroquois Confederacy reproduces the design of an ancient wampum, the Hiawatha Belt.
The traditional Iroquois land management system underwent significant changes following European contact and subsequent confinement to reservations. In pre-contact society, land functioned as communal property, accessible to group members based on need. Although plots were allocated to individual families, land was not viewed as a commodity, contrasting with Western perspectives.[22] Post-contact adaptations aligned more closely with European models, yet Iroquois communities retained distinct property concepts. Contemporary Iroquois author Doug George-Kanentiio articulates this view: the Iroquois hold "no absolute right to claim territory for purely financial reasons. Our Creator entrusted us with Aboriginal lands, with very specific rules regarding their use. We are the guardians of Mother Earth, not the lords of the soil. Our claims are valid only insofar as we know how to remain on her in peace and harmony."[23]
A 1981 statement by the Haudenosaunee Council of Chiefs further distinguishes "Western European concepts of land ownership" from the Iroquois perspective that "the land is sacred" and "was created for the use of all and for all time (not for the exclusive benefit of the present generation)." It asserts that "land is not a mere commodity" and "under no circumstances is land for sale." The statement elaborates: "According to Haudenosaunee law, Gayanerkowa, land is owned by the women of each clan. It is primarily women who are responsible for the land, who cultivate it and preserve it for future generations. When the Confederacy was formed, the separate nations formed a union. The territory of each nation became confederal land, although each nation continued to have a special interest in its historic territory." This reflects the enduring unique Iroquois approach to property.[24]
In Canada, the Six Nations Reserve incorporates traditional structures into modern governance. Established in the 18th century via two notarial acts, the reserve grants undivided ownership to the Six Nations collectively.[22] Individuals may secure perpetual leases from the Confederacy.[22] Principles from pre-contact systems persist, such as land reverting to communal control upon abandonment.[22] In disputes, the Iroquois Council favored parties who improved and cultivated the land over those who neglected it.[22] Subsurface resources belong to the tribe, not plot holders; for instance, stone quarrying is leased with royalties distributed collectively. Following natural gas discovery, the Six Nations assumed direct control of wells, compensating surface users only for extraction-related damages. These practices echo historical tribal ownership of land with distributed usufruct rights.[22]
The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe in New York provides another example, acquiring land for casinos that generate collective revenue, alongside bingo halls, gas stations, and cigarette factories. The reserve's current resource management directly stems from pre-European land ownership concepts.[25]
1 2 Sagard, Gabriel (1632), Le Grand Voyage du pays des Hurons[The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons], Paris: Denys Moreau, retrieved 29 October 2025
↑ Trigger, Bruce G. (1969), The Huron Farmers of the North, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p.130, ISBN978-0-03-079550-3
1 2 Innis, Harold Adams (1999). The fur trade in Canada (Reprinting of the 1970's ed., with a new introductory essayed.). Toronto Buffalo London: University of Toronto press. ISBN978-0-8020-8196-4.
↑ Johansen, Bruce E. (1982). Forgotten founders: how the American Indian helped shape democracy. A Gambit book. Boston, Mass: Harvard Common Press. ISBN978-0-87645-111-3.
Noon, John A. (1949), Law and Government of the Grand River Iroquois, New York: The Viking Fund
Sagard, Gabriel (1632), Le Grand Voyage du pays des Hurons[The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons], Paris: Denys Moreau, retrieved 29 October 2025
Speck, Frank G. (1945), The Iroquois, Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Press
Stites, Sara Henry (1905), Economics of the Iroquois, Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, retrieved 29 October 2025
Trigger, Bruce G. (1969), The Huron Farmers of the North, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p.130, ISBN978-0-03-079550-3
Wallace, Anthony F.C. (1969), The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca, New York: Vintage Books, ISBN978-0-394-71699-2
Bruce G. Trigger (1990). Les Indiens, la fourrure et les Blancs: Français et Amérindiens en Amérique du Nord[Indians, Fur, and White People: French and Native Americans in North America] (in French). Montréal: Boréal. ISBN978-2-89052-274-9.
Bruce G. Trigger (1991). Les Enfants d'Aataentsic: L'histoire du peuple huron[The Children of Aataentsic: The History of the Huron People] (in French). Libre Expression. ISBN978-2-89111-364-9.
Bruce G. Trigger (1992). Les Amérindiens et l'âge héroïque de la Nouvelle-France[Native Americans and the Heroic Age of New France] (in French). Société historique du Canada. ISBN978-0-88798-166-1.
Roland Viau (1997). Enfants du néant et mangeurs d'âmes: Guerre, culture et société en Iroquoisie ancienne[Children of Nothingness and Soul Eaters: War, Culture, and Society in Ancient Iroquoisia] (in French). Montréal: Boréal. ISBN978-2-89052-807-9.
Roland Viau (2000). Femmes de personne: Sexes, genres et pouvoirs en Iroquoisie ancienne[Women of No One: Sex, Gender, and Power in Ancient Iroquois Society] (in French). Montréal: Boréal. ISBN978-2-7646-0052-8.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
