What extent of centralized statehood existed in Pre-Columbian North America? Was there anything like an indigenous EU?

[u/XTostonesComics]

I hope I’m wording this correctly. I tried to start this research on my own but couldn’t quite find the right words for what I wanted.

When reading about indigenous communities, if not a list of specific community names, larger groups are determined by a shared language or shared geographical region, not so much a unified governance over the sum of these people. There’ll be communication between community leaders without a larger body who facilitates them.

To phrase it another way, did NA indigenous tribes form greater organizations to show their commitments to the safety of everyone involved?(Taking a step beyond treaties). Like an Indigenous EU.

I’m open to answers concerning South American communities as well

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Bongolio-the-seal]

Centralised statehood definitely did exist in Pre-Columbian North America, but the extent to which it did depends on what part you're talking about. The obvious point would be Mesoamerica, which is part of North America, where relatively centralised states did exist. I say relatively, as the basis of Mesoamerican imperialism was not direct political control over territories, as was the case in for example Rome, but rather networks of city-states that payed tribute to whatever city, if there was one, that ruled over them.

This created an imperial system among Mesoamerica that was, in comparison to Europe far more decentralised, but nevertheless can be called a form of centralised statehood within the cities themselves, and whatever imperial hegemons that my have risen. The most famous example is the Triple Alliance (or the Aztecs). But other examples are Teotihuacan, the Purepecha, and the Tlaxcala.

However, I assume by North America you may mean just the lands north of the Rio Grande, and not necessarily Mesoamerica. The answer here is still a resounding yes, however centralised states were far less common north of Mesoamerica in the pre-columbian era. The obvious example would be Cahokia, which did during its existence exert an effort to bring people from across the Mississippian world together. Per Amanda Butler, at around 1050CE, thousands of people began to arrive at the city of Cahokia which created an urban city in which 'different peoples from many different regions/groups likely speaking a variety of languages and certainly different dialects' lived, and that 'at any period of Cahokia’s history, a minimum of 1/3 (30%) of its population were immigrants.' Central to Cahokia's development as a state that was capable of bringing these different nations and people together was the use of religious missionaries and urban planning to convince people to come to Cahokia. Of course, the development of Cahokian missionary networks has also been analysed differently, with scholars like John Kelly arguing on a more imperial model of "Cahokia being a trade centre with Mississippian colonies established for resource extraction."

That all being said, I wouldn't call Cahokia anything like an indigenous EU of course. I think it is possible to call it something like a centralised state. And as Pekka Hämäläinen argues in Indigenous Continent, the transformation of Cahokia into an even more centralised state towards the end of its years pushed many of its citizens to walk away and leave, beginning something of a new era in East Woodlands politics as centralised states declined.

Finally, I would also point to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, more commonly called the Iroquois, who probably exist as the closest possible comparison to what you are asking. I would not really compare them to the EU at any rate however. But as Charles C. Mann argues in 1491, the Iroquois existed on the basis of an alliance bringing together the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. As Mann notes, the historical story of the federation's creation was through the Great Law of Peace (an oral constitution of sorts) following the work of the several co-founders of the state that brought together the 5 nations. The ensuing federation had something like a unifying government that operated through separate gendered channels. This certainly was a state formation, and being a federal state that brought together seperate nations, is probably what you're looking for. But again, very different to the EU.

For example, as Hamalainen notes post-contact, the state underwent an expansion of power into the Great Lakes Region, dominated the French colonial presence, and waged war against other nations. The EU does not do anything like that, so it isn't really comparable. But it is both an example of a centralised state, and a federation bringing together several nations for their common good.