The Project Gutenberg eBook, Ancient Society, by Lewis Henry Morgan

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the
terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Ancient Society
Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through
Barbarism to Civilization
Author: Lewis Henry Morgan
Release Date: June 13, 2014 [eBook #45950]
Language: English
Character set encoding: UTF-8
***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANCIENT
SOCIETY***

E-text prepared by Julie Miller, Turgut Dincer,

and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive/American Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/americana)

Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet

Archive/American Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/ancientsociety00morg
 Ancient Society
OR

RESEARCHES IN THE LINES OF HUMAN PROGRESS FROM

SAVAGERY, THROUGH BARBARISM TO CIVILIZATION

BY

LEWIS H. MORGAN, LL.D.

Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Author of “The League of the

Iroquois,” “The American Beaver and his Works,” “Systems of
Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family,” Etc.

Nescit vox missa reverti.

Nescit vox missa reverti. HORACE.

NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1877

C , 1877,
By HENRY HOLT.
 TO THE REVEREND

J. H. McILVAINE, D.D.,
LATE PROFESSOR OF BELLES-LETTRES IN PRINCETON COLLEGE,

THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED,

IN RECOGNITION OF HIS GENIUS AND LEARNING,

AND IN APPRECIATION OF HIS FRIENDSHIP.

Cum prorepserunt primis animalia terris,

Mutum et turpe pecus, glandem atque cubilia propter
Unguibus et pugnis, dein fustibus, atque ita porro
Pugnabant armis, quæ post fabricaverat usus:
Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent,
Nominaque invenere: dehinc absistere bello,
Oppida coeperunt munire, et ponere leges,
Ne quis fur esset, neu latro, neu quis adulter.
Ne quis fur esset, neu latro,—Horace, Sat., I, iii, 99.

“Modern science claims to be proving, by the most careful and exhaustive study of man and his
works, that our race began its existence on earth at the bottom of the scale, instead of at the top, and
has been gradually working upward; that human powers have had a history of development; that all
the elements of culture—as the arts of life, art, science, language, religion, philosophy—have been
wrought out by slow and painful efforts, in the conflict between the soul and the mind of man on the
one hand, and external nature on the other.”—Whitney’s Oriental and Linguistic Studies, p. 341.

“These communities reflect the spiritual conduct of our ancestors thousands of times removed. We
have passed through the same stages of development, physical and moral, and are what we are to-day
because they lived, toiled, and endeavored. Our wondrous civilization is the result of the silent efforts
of millions of unknown men, as the chalk cliffs of England are formed by contributions of myriads of
foraminifera.”—Dr. J. Kaines, Anthropologia, vol. i, No. 2, p. 233.
 PREFACE.
The great antiquity of mankind upon the earth has been conclusively
established. It seems singular that the proofs should have been discovered
as recently as within the last thirty years, and that the present generation
should be the first called upon to recognize so important a fact.
Mankind are now known to have existed in Europe in the glacial period,
and even back of its commencement, with every probability of their
origination in a prior geological age. They have survived many races of
animals with whom they were contemporaneous, and passed through a
process of development, in the several branches of the human family, as
remarkable in its courses as in its progress.
Since the probable length of their career is connected with geological
periods, a limited measure of time is excluded. One hundred or two hundred
thousand years would be an unextravagant estimate of the period from the
disappearance of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere to the present time.
Whatever doubts may attend any estimate of a period, the actual duration of
which is unknown, the existence of mankind extends backward
immeasurably, and loses itself in a vast and profound antiquity.
This knowledge changes materially the views which have prevailed
respecting the relations of savages to barbarians, and of barbarians to
civilized men. It can now be asserted upon convincing evidence that
savagery preceded barbarism in all the tribes of mankind, as barbarism is
known to have preceded civilization. The history of the human race is one
in source, one in experience, and one in progress.
It is both a natural and a proper desire to learn, if possible, how all these
ages upon ages of past time have been expended by mankind; how savages,
advancing by slow, almost imperceptible steps, attained the higher
condition of barbarians; how barbarians, by similar progressive
advancement, finally attained to civilization; and why other tribes and
nations have been left behind in the race of progress—some in civilization,
some in barbarism, and others in savagery. It is not too much to expect that
ultimately these several questions will be answered.
Inventions and discoveries stand in serial relations along the lines of human
progress, and register its successive stages; while social and civil
institutions, in virtue of their connection with perpetual human wants, have
been developed from a few primary germs of thought. They exhibit a
similar register of progress. These institutions, inventions and discoveries
have embodied and preserved the principal facts now remaining illustrative
of this experience. When collated and compared they tend to show the unity
of origin of mankind, the similarity of human wants in the same stage of
advancement, and the uniformity of the operations of the human mind in
similar conditions of society.
Throughout the latter part of the period of savagery, and the entire period of
barbarism, mankind in general were organized in gentes, phratries and
tribes. These organizations prevailed throughout the entire ancient world
upon all the continents, and were the instrumentalities by means of which
ancient society was organized and held together. Their structure, and
relations as members of an organic series, and the rights, privileges and
obligations of the members of the gens, and of the members of the phratry
and tribe, illustrate the growth of the idea of government in the human
mind. The principal institutions of mankind originated in savagery, were
developed in barbarism, and are maturing in civilization.
In like manner, the family has passed through successive forms, and created
great systems of consanguinity and affinity which have remained to the
present time. These systems, which record the relationships existing in the
family of the period, when each system respectively was formed, contain an
instructive record of the experience of mankind while the family was
advancing from the consanguine, through intermediate forms, to the
monogamian.
The idea of property has undergone a similar growth and development.
Commencing at zero in savagery, the passion for the possession of property,
as the representative of accumulated subsistence, has now become
dominant over the human mind in civilized races.
The four classes of facts above indicated, and which extend themselves in
parallel lines along the pathways of human progress from savagery to
civilization, form the principal subjects of discussion in this volume.
There is one field of labor in which, as Americans, we have a special
interest as well as a special duty. Rich as the American continent is known
to be in material wealth, it is also the richest of all the continents in
ethnological, philological and archæological materials, illustrative of the
great period of barbarism. Since mankind were one in origin, their career
has been essentially one, running in different but uniform channels upon all
continents, and very similarly in all the tribes and nations of mankind down
to the same status of advancement. It follows that the history and
experience of the American Indian tribes represent, more or less nearly, the
history and experience of our own remote ancestors when in corresponding
conditions. Forming a part of the human record, their institutions, arts,
inventions and practical experience possess a high and special value
reaching far beyond the Indian race itself.
When discovered, the American Indian tribes represented three distinct
ethnical periods, and more completely than they were elsewhere then
represented upon the earth. Materials for ethnology, philology and
archæology were offered in unparalleled abundance; but as these sciences
scarcely existed until the present century, and are but feebly prosecuted
among us at the present time, the workmen have been unequal to the work.
Moreover, while fossil remains buried in the earth will keep for the future
student, the remains of Indian arts, languages and institutions will not. They
are perishing daily, and have been perishing for upwards of three centuries.
The ethnic life of the Indian tribes is declining under the influence of
American civilization, their arts and languages are disappearing, and their
institutions are dissolving. After a few more years, facts that may now be
gathered with ease will become impossible of discovery. These
circumstances appeal strongly to Americans to enter this great field and
gather its abundant harvest.
R ,N Y , March, 1877.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PART I.
GROWTH OF INTELLIGENCE THROUGH INVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES.

CHAPTER I.

ETHNICAL PERIODS.

Progress of Mankind from the Bottom of the Scale.—Illustrated by Inventions, Discoveries

and Institutions.—Two Plans of Government—one Gentile and Social, giving a Society
(Societas); the other Political, giving a State (Civitas).—The former founded upon
Persons and Gentilism; the Latter upon Territory and Property.—The First, the Plan of
Government of Ancient Society.—The Second, that of Modern or Civilized Society.—
Uniformity of Human Experience.—Proposed Ethnical Periods—I. Lower Status of
Savagery; II. Middle Status of Savagery; III. Upper Status of Savagery; IV. Lower
Status of Barbarism; V. Middle Status of Barbarism; VI. Upper Status of Barbarism;
VII. Status of Civilization. 3

CHAPTER II.

ARTS OF SUBSISTENCE.

Supremacy of Mankind over the Earth.—Control over Subsistence the Condition.—Mankind

alone gained that Control.—Successive Arts of Subsistence—I. Natural Subsistence; II.
Fish Subsistence; III. Farinaceous Subsistence; IV. Meat and Milk Subsistence; V.
Unlimited Subsistence through Field Agriculture.—Long Intervals of Time between
them. 19

CHAPTER III.

RATIO OF HUMAN PROGRESS.

Retrospect on the Lines of Human Progress.—Principal Contributions of Modern

Civilization.—Of Ancient Civilization.—Of Later Period of Barbarism.—Of Middle
Period.—Of Older Period.—Of Period of Savagery.—Humble Condition of Primitive
Man.—Human Progress in a Geometrical Ratio.—Relative Length of Ethnical Periods.
—Appearance of Semitic and Aryan Families. 29
 PART II.
GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT.

CHAPTER I.

ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY UPON THE BASIS OF SEX.

Australian Classes.—Organized upon Sex.—Archaic Character of the Organization.—

Australian Gentes.—The Eight Classes.—Rule of Marriage.—Descent in the Female
Line.—Stupendous Conjugal System.—Two Male and Two Female Classes in each
Gens.—Innovations upon the Classes.—Gens still Rudimentary. 49

CHAPTER II.

THE IROQUOIS GENS.

The Gentile Organization.—Its Wide Prevalence.—Definition of a Gens.—Descent in the

Female Line the Archaic Rule.—Rights, Privileges and Obligations of Members of a
Gens.—Right of Electing and Deposing its Sachem and Chiefs.—Obligation not to
marry in the Gens.—Mutual Rights of Inheritance of the Property of deceased
Members.—Reciprocal Obligations of Help, Defense and Redress of Injuries.—Right of
Naming its Members.—Right of Adopting Strangers into the Gens.—Common
Religious Rites, Query.—A Common Burial Place.—Council of the Gens.—Gentes
named after Animals.—Number of Persons in a Gens. 62

CHAPTER III.

THE IROQUOIS PHRATRY.

Definition of a Phratry.—Kindred Gentes Reunited in a Higher Organization.—Phratry of the

Iroquois Tribes.—Its Composition.—Its Uses and Functions.—Social and Religious.—
Illustrations.—The Analogue of the Grecian Phratry; but in its Archaic Form.—
Phratries of the Choctas.—Of the Chickasas.—Of the Mohegans.—Of the Thlinkeets.—
Their Probable Universality in the Tribes of the American Aborigines. 88

CHAPTER IV.

THE IROQUOIS TRIBE.

The Tribe as an Organization.—Composed of Gentes Speaking the same Dialect.— 102

Separation in Area led to Divergence of Speech, and Segmentation.—The Tribe a
Natural Growth.—Illustrations.—Attributes of a Tribe.—A Territory and Name.—An
 Exclusive Dialect.—The Right to Invest and Depose its Sachems and Chiefs.—A
Religious Faith and Worship.—A Council of Chiefs.—A Head-Chief of Tribe in some
Instances.—Three successive Forms of Gentile Government: First, a Government of
One Power; Second, of Two Powers; Third, of Three Powers.

CHAPTER V.

THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

Confederacies Natural Growths.—Founded upon Common Gentes, and a Common

Language.—The Iroquois Tribes.—Their Settlement in New York.—Formation of the
Confederacy.—Its Structure and Principles.—Fifty Sachemships Created.—Made
Hereditary in certain Gentes.—Number assigned to each Tribe.—These Sachems
formed the Council of the Confederacy.—The Civil Council.—Its Mode of Transacting
Business.—Unanimity Necessary to its Action.—The Mourning Council.—Mode of
Raising up Sachems.—General Military Commanders.—This Office the Germ of that of
a Chief Executive Magistrate.—Intellectual Capacity of the Iroquois. 122

CHAPTER VI.

GENTES IN OTHER TRIBES OF THE GANOWÁNIAN FAMILY.

Divisions of American Aborigines.—Gentes in Indian Tribes; with their Rules of Descent

and Inheritance.—I. Hodenosaunian Tribes.—II. [Pg xii]Dakotian.—III. Gulf.—IV.
Pawnee.—V. Algonkin.—VI. Athapasco-Apache.—VII. Tribes of North-west Coast.—
Eskimos, a Distinct Family.—VIII. Salish, Sahaptin, and Kootenay Tribes.—IX.
Shoshonee.—X. Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico and Central America.—XI.
South American Indian Tribes.—Probable Universality of the Organization in Gentes in
the Ganowánian Family. 151

CHAPTER VII.

THE AZTEC CONFEDERACY.

Misconception of Aztec Society.—Condition of Advancement.—Nahuatlac Tribes.—Their

Settlement in Mexico.—Pueblo of Mexico founded, A. D. 1325.—Aztec Confederacy
established, A. D. 1426.—Extent of Territorial Domination.—Probable Number of the
People.—Whether or not the Aztecs were organized in Gentes and Phratries.—The
Council of Chiefs.—Its probable Functions.—Office held by Montezuma.—Elective in
Tenure.—Deposition of Montezuma.—Probable Functions of the Office.—Aztec
Institutions essentially Democratical.—The Government a Military Democracy. 186

CHAPTER VIII.

THE GRECIAN GENS.

Early Condition of Grecian Tribes.—Organized into Gentes.—Changes in the Character of 215
the Gens.—Necessity for a Political System.—Problem to be Solved.—The Formation
of a State.—Grote’s Description of the Grecian Gentes.—Of their Phratries and Tribes.
—Rights, Privileges and Obligations of the Members of the Gens.—Similar to those of
the Iroquois Gens.—The Office of Chief of the Gens.—Whether Elective or Hereditary.
—The Gens the Basis of the Social System.—Antiquity of the Gentile Lineage.—
Inheritance of Property.—Archaic and Final Rule.—Relationships between the
Members of a Gens.—The Gens the Center of Social and Religious Influence.

CHAPTER IX.

THE GRECIAN PHRATRY, TRIBE AND NATION.

The Athenian Phratry.—How Formed.—Definition of Dikæarchus.—Objects chiefly

Religious.—The Phratriarch.—The Tribe.—Composed of Three Phratries.—The Phylo
Basileus.—The Nation.—Composed of Four Tribes.—Boulê, or Council of Chiefs.—
Agora, or Assembly of the People.—The Basileus.—Tenure of the Office.—Military
and Priestly Functions.—Civil Functions not shown.—Governments of the Heroic Age,
Military Democracies.—Aristotle’s Definition of a Basileus.—Later Athenian
Democracy.—Inherited from the Gentes.—Its Powerful Influence upon Athenian
Development. 235

CHAPTER X.

THE INSTITUTION OF GRECIAN POLITICAL SOCIETY.

Failure of the Gentes as a Basis of Government.—Legislation of Theseus.—Attempted

Substitution of Classes.—Its Failure.—Abolition of the Office of Basileus.—The
Archonship.—Naucraries and Trittyes.—Legislation of Solon.—The Property Classes.
—Partial Transfer of Civil Power from the Gentes to the Classes.—Persons unattached
to any Gens.—Made Citizens.—The Senate.—The Ecclesia.—Political Society partially
attained.—Legislation of Cleisthenes.—Institution of Political Society.—The Attic
Deme or Township.—Its Organization and Powers.—Its Local Self-government.—The
Local Tribe or District.—The Attic Commonwealth.—Athenian Democracy. 256

CHAPTER XI.

THE ROMAN GENS.

Italian Tribes Organized in Gentes.—Founding of Rome.—Tribes Organized into a Military

Democracy.—The Roman Gens.—Definition of a Gentilis by Cicero.—By Festus.—By
Varro.—Descent in Male Line.—Marrying out of the Gens.—Rights, Privileges and
Obligations of the Members of a Gens.—Democratic Constitution of Ancient Latin
Society.—Number of Persons in a Gens. 277

CHAPTER XII.
 THE ROMAN CURIA, TRIBE AND POPULUS.

Roman Gentile Society.—Four Stages of Organization.—1. The Gens; 2. The Curia,

consisting of Ten Gentes; 3. The Tribe, composed of Ten Curiæ; 4. The Populus
Romanus, composed of Three Tribes.—Numerical Proportions.—How Produced.—
Concentration of Gentes at Rome.—The Roman Senate.—Its Functions.—The
Assembly of the People.—Its Powers.—The People Sovereign.—Office of Military
Commander (Rex).—Its Powers and Functions.—Roman Gentile Institutions essentially
Democratical. 300

CHAPTER XIII.

THE INSTITUTION OF ROMAN POLITICAL SOCIETY.

The Populus.—The Plebeians.—The Clients.—The Patricians.—Limits of the Order.—

Legislation of Servius Tullius.—Institution of Property Classes.—Of the Centuries.—
Unequal Suffrage.—Comitia Centuriata. [Pg xiv]—Supersedes Comitia Curiata.—
Classes supersede the Gentes.—The Census.—Plebeians made Citizens.—Institution of
City Wards.—Of Country Townships.—Tribes increased to Four.—Made Local instead
of Consanguine.—Character of New Political System.—Decline and Disappearance of
Gentile Organization.—The Work it Accomplished. 323

CHAPTER XIV.

CHANGE OF DESCENT FROM THE FEMALE TO THE MALE LINE.

How the Change might have been made.—Inheritance of Property the Motive.—Descent in
the Female Line among the Lycians.—The Cretans.—The Etruscans.—Probably among
the Athenians in the time of Cecrops.—The Hundred Families of the Locrians.—
Evidence from Marriages.—Turanian System of Consanguinity among Grecian Tribes.
—Legend of the Danaidæ. 343

CHAPTER XV.

GENTES IN OTHER TRIBES OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.

The Scottish Clan.—The Irish Sept.—Germanic Tribes.—Traces of a prior Gentile System.

—Gentes in Southern Asiatic Tribes.—In Northern.—In Uralian Tribes.—Hundred
Families of Chinese.—Hebrew Tribes.—Composed of Gentes and Phratries Apparently.
—Gentes in African Tribes.—In Australian Tribes.—Subdivisions of Fejees and Rewas.
—Wide Distribution of Gentile Organization. 357
 PART III.
GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF THE FAMILY.

CHAPTER I.

THE ANCIENT FAMILY.

Five successive Forms of the Family.—First, the Consanguine Family.—It created the
Malayan System of Consanguinity and Affinity.—Second, the Punaluan.—It created the
Turanian and Ganowánian System.—Third, the Monogamian.—It created the Aryan,
Semitic, and Uralian System.—The Syndyasmian and Patriarchal Families Intermediate.
— [Pg xv]Both failed to create a System of Consanguinity.—These Systems Natural
Growths.—Two Ultimate Forms.—One Classificatory, the other Descriptive.—General
Principles of these Systems.—Their Persistent Maintenance. 383

CHAPTER II.

THE CONSANGUINE FAMILY.

Former Existence of this Family.—Proved by Malayan System of Consanguinity.—Hawaiian

System used as Typical.—Five Grades of Relations.—Details of System.—Explained in
its origin by the Intermarriage of Brothers and Sisters in a Group.—Early State of
Society in the Sandwich Islands.—Nine Grades of Relations of the Chinese.—Identical
in Principle with the Hawaiian.—Five Grades of Relations in Ideal Republic of Plato.—
Table of Malayan System of Consanguinity and Affinity. 401

CHAPTER III.

THE PUNALUAN FAMILY.

The Punaluan Family supervened upon the Consanguine.—Transition, how Produced.—

Hawaiian Custom of Punalua.—Its probable ancient Prevalence over wide Areas.—The
Gentes originated probably in Punaluan Groups.—The Turanian System of
Consanguinity.—Created by the Punaluan Family.—It proves the Existence of this
Family when the System was formed.—Details of System.—Explanation of its
Relationships in their Origin.—Table of Turanian and Ganowánian Systems of
Consanguinity and Affinity. 424

CHAPTER IV.

THE SYNDYASMIAN AND THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILIES.

The Syndyasmian Family.—How Constituted.—Its Characteristics.—Influence upon it of the 453

 Gentile Organization.—Propensity to Pair a late Development.—Ancient Society should
be Studied where the highest Exemplifications are found.—The Patriarchal Family.—
Paternal Power its Essential Characteristic.—Polygamy subordinate.—The Roman
Family similar.—Paternal Power unknown in previous Families.

CHAPTER V.

THE MONOGAMIAN FAMILY.

This Family comparatively Modern.—The Term Familia.—Family of Ancient Germans.—Of

Homeric Greeks.—Of Civilized Greeks.—Seclusion [Pg xvi]of Wives.—Obligations of
Monogamy not respected by the Males. —The Roman Family.—Wives under Power.—
Aryan System of Consanguinity.—It came in under Monogamy.—Previous System
probably Turanian.—Transition from Turanian into Aryan.—Roman and Arabic
Systems of Consanguinity.—Details of the Former.—Present Monogamian Family.—
Table of Roman and Arabic Systems. 468

CHAPTER VI.

SEQUENCE OF INSTITUTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE FAMILY.

Sequence in part Hypothetical.—Relation of these Institutions in the Order of their

Origination.—Evidence of their Origination in the Order named.—Hypothesis of
Degradation Considered.—The Antiquity of Mankind. 498

PART IV.
GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF PROPERTY.

CHAPTER I.

THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE.

Property in the Status of Savagery.—Slow Rate of Progress.—First Rule of Inheritance.—

Property Distributed among the Gentiles.—Property in the Lower Status of Barbarism.
—Germ of Second Rule of Inheritance.—Distributed among Agnatic Kindred.—
Improved Character of Man.—Property in Middle Status.—Rule of Inheritance
imperfectly Known.—Agnatic Inheritance Probable. 522

CHAPTER II.
 THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE—CONTINUED.

Property in the Upper Status of Barbarism.—Slavery.—Tenure of Lands in Grecian Tribes.—

Culture of the Period.—Its Brilliancy.—Third Rule of Inheritance.—Exclusively in
Children.—Hebrew Tribes.—Rule of Inheritance.—Daughters of Zelophehad.—
Property remained in the Phratry, and probably in the Gens.—The Reversion.—
Athenian Inheritance.—Exclusively in Children.—The Reversion.—Inheritance
remained in the Gens.—Heiresses.—Wills.—Roman Inheritance.—The Reversion.—
Property remained in the Gens.—Appearance of Aristocracy.—Property Career of the
Human Race.—Unity of Origin of Mankind. 537
 PART I. - GROWTH OF INTELLIGENCE
THROUGH INVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES.

ANCIENT SOCIETY

CHAPTER I. - ETHNICAL PERIODS.

P M B S .—I I D
I .—T P G — G S , S ,
(Societas); P , S , (Civitas).—T P
G ; T P .—T F , P
G A S .—T S , M C S .—
U H E .—P E P —I. L S
S ; II. M S S ; III. U S S ; IV. L S
B ; V. M S B ; VI. U S B ; VII. S
C .

The latest investigations respecting the early condition of the human race,
are tending to the conclusion that mankind commenced their career at the
bottom of the scale and worked their way up from savagery to civilization
through the slow accumulations of experimental knowledge.
As it is undeniable that portions of the human family have existed in a state
of savagery, other portions in a state of barbarism, and still other portions in
a state of civilization, it seems equally so that these three distinct conditions
are connected with each other in a natural as well as necessary sequence of
progress. Moreover, that this sequence has been historically true of the
entire human family, up to the status attained by each branch respectively, is
rendered probable by the conditions under which all progress occurs, and
by the known advancement of several branches of the family through two
or more of these conditions.
An attempt will be made in the following pages to bring forward additional
evidence of the rudeness of the early condition of mankind, of the gradual
evolution of their mental and moral powers through experience, and of their
protracted struggle with opposing obstacles while winning their way to
civilization. It will be drawn, in part, from the great sequence of inventions
and discoveries which stretches along the entire pathway of human
progress; but chiefly from domestic institutions, which express the growth
of certain ideas and passions.
As we re-ascend along the several lines of progress toward the primitive
ages of mankind, and eliminate one after the other, in the order in which
they appeared, inventions and discoveries on the one hand, and institutions
on the other, we are enabled to perceive that the former stand to each other
in progressive, and the latter in unfolding relations. While the former class
have had a connection, more or less direct, the latter have been developed
from a few primary germs of thought. Modern institutions plant their roots
in the period of barbarism, into which their germs were transmitted from the
previous period of savagery. They have had a lineal descent through the
ages, with the streams of the blood, as well as a logical development.
Two independent lines of investigation thus invite our attention. The one
leads through inventions and discoveries, and the other through primary
institutions. With the knowledge gained therefrom, we may hope to indicate
the principal stages of human development. The proofs to be adduced will
be drawn chiefly from domestic institutions; the references to achievements
more strictly intellectual being general as well as subordinate.
The facts indicate the gradual formation and subsequent development of
certain ideas, passions, and aspirations. Those which hold the most
prominent positions may be generalized as growths of the particular ideas
with which they severally stand connected. Apart from inventions and
discoveries they are the following:

I. Subsistence, V. Religion,
II. Government, VI. House Life and Architecture,
III. Language, VII. Property.
IV. The Family,

First. Subsistence has been increased and perfected by a series of

successive arts, introduced at long intervals of time, and connected more or
less directly with inventions and discoveries.
Second. The germ of government must be sought in the organization into
gentes in the Status of savagery; and followed down, through the advancing
forms of this institution, to the establishment of political society.
Third. Human speech seems to have been developed from the rudest and
simplest forms of expression. Gesture or sign language, as intimated by
Lucretius,1 must have preceded articulate language, as thought preceded
speech. The monosyllabical preceded the syllabical, as the latter did that of
concrete words. Human intelligence, unconscious of design, evolved
articulate language by utilizing the vocal sounds. This great subject, a
department of knowledge by itself, does not fall within the scope of the
present investigation.
Fourth. With respect to the family, the stages of its growth are embodied in
systems of consanguinity and affinity, and in usages relating to marriage, by
means of which, collectively, the family can be definitely traced through
several successive forms.
Fifth. The growth of religious ideas is environed with such intrinsic
difficulties that it may never receive a perfectly satisfactory exposition.
Religion deals so largely with the imaginative and emotional nature, and
consequently with such uncertain elements of knowledge, that all primitive
religions are grotesque and to some extent unintelligible. This subject also
falls without the plan of this work excepting as it may prompt incidental
suggestions.
Sixth. House architecture, which connects itself with the form of the family
and the plan of domestic life, affords a tolerably complete illustration of
progress from savagery to civilization. Its growth can be traced from the hut
of the savage, through the communal houses of the barbarians, to the house
of the single family of civilized nations, with all the successive links by
which one extreme is connected with the other. This subject will be noticed
incidentally.
Lastly. The idea of property was slowly formed in the human mind,
remaining nascent and feeble through immense periods of time. Springing
into life in savagery, it required all the experience of this period and of the
subsequent period of barbarism to develop the germ, and to prepare the
human brain for the acceptance of its controlling influence. Its dominance
as a passion over all other passions marks the commencement of
civilization. It not only led mankind to overcome the obstacles which
delayed civilization, but to establish political society on the basis of
territory and of property. A critical knowledge of the evolution of the idea
of property would embody, in some respects, the most remarkable portion
of the mental history of mankind.
It will be my object to present some evidence of human progress along
these several lines, and through successive ethnical periods, as it is revealed
by inventions and discoveries, and by the growth of the ideas of
government, of the family, and of property.
It may be here premised that all forms of government are reducible to two
general plans, using the word plan in its scientific sense. In their bases the
two are fundamentally distinct. The first, in the order of time, is founded
upon persons, and upon relations purely personal, and may be distinguished
as a society (societas). The gens is the unit of this organization; giving as
the successive stages of integration, in the archaic period, the gens, the
phratry, the tribe and the confederacy of tribes, which constituted a people
or nation (populus). At a later period a coalescence of tribes in the same
area into a nation took the place of a confederacy of tribes occupying
independent areas. Such, through prolonged ages, after the gens appeared,
was the substantially universal organization of ancient society; and it
remained among the Greeks and Romans after civilization supervened. The
second is founded upon territory and upon property, and may be
distinguished as a state (civitas). The township or ward, circumscribed by
metes and bounds, with the property it contains, is the basis or unit of the
latter, and political society is the result. Political society is organized upon
territorial areas, and deals with property as well as with persons through
territorial relations. The successive stages of integration are the township or
ward, which is the unit of organization; the county or province, which is an
aggregation of townships or wards; and the national domain or territory,
which is an aggregation of counties or provinces; the people of each of
which are organized into a body politic. It taxed the Greeks and Romans to
the extent of their capacities, after they had gained civilization, to invent the
deme or township and the city ward; and thus inaugurate the second great
plan of government, which remains among civilized nations to the present
hour. In ancient society this territorial plan was unknown. When it came in
it fixed the boundary line between ancient and modern society, as the
distinction will be recognized in these pages.
It may be further observed that the domestic institutions of the barbarous,
and even of the savage ancestors of mankind, are still exemplified in
portions of the human family with such completeness that, with the
exception of the strictly primitive period, the several stages of this progress
are tolerably well preserved. They are seen in the organization of society
upon the basis of sex, then upon the basis of kin, and finally upon the basis
of territory; through the successive forms of marriage and of the family,
with the systems of consanguinity thereby created; through house life and
architecture; and through progress in usages with respect to the ownership
and inheritance of property.
The theory of human degradation to explain the existence of savages and of
barbarians is no longer tenable. It came in as a corollary from the Mosaic
cosmogony, and was acquiesced in from a supposed necessity which no
longer exists. As a theory, it is not only incapable of explaining the
existence of savages, but it is without support in the facts of human
experience.
The remote ancestors of the Aryan nations presumptively passed through an
experience similar to that of existing barbarous and savage tribes. Though
the experience of these nations embodies all the information necessary to
illustrate the periods of civilization, both ancient and modern, together with
a part of that in the Later period of barbarism, their anterior experience
must be deduced, in the main, from the traceable connection between the
elements of their existing institutions and inventions, and similar elements
still preserved in those of savage and barbarous tribes.
It may be remarked finally that the experience of mankind has run in nearly
uniform channels; that human necessities in similar conditions have been
substantially the same; and that the operations of the mental principle have
been uniform in virtue of the specific identity of the brain of all the races of
mankind. This, however, is but a part of the explanation of uniformity in
results. The germs of the principal institutions and arts of life were
developed while man was still a savage. To a very great extent the
experience of the subsequent periods of barbarism and of civilization have
been expended in the further development of these original conceptions.
Wherever a connection can be traced on different continents between a
present institution and a common germ, the derivation of the people
themselves from a common original stock is implied.
The discussion of these several classes of facts will be facilitated by the
establishment of a certain number of Ethnical Periods; each representing a
distinct condition of society, and distinguishable by a mode of life peculiar
to itself. The terms “Age of Stone,” “of Bronze,” and “of Iron” introduced
by Danish archæologists, have been extremely useful for certain purposes,
and will remain so for the classification of objects of ancient art; but the
progress of knowledge has rendered other and different subdivisions
necessary. Stone implements were not entirely laid aside with the
introduction of tools of iron, nor of those of bronze. The invention of the
process of smelting iron ore created an ethnical epoch, yet we could
scarcely date another from the production of bronze. Moreover, since the
period of stone implements overlaps those of bronze and of iron, and since
that of bronze also overlaps that of iron, they are not capable of a
circumscription that would leave each independent and distinct.
It is probable that the successive arts of subsistence which arose at long
intervals will ultimately, from the great influence they must have exercised
upon the condition of mankind, afford the most satisfactory bases for these
divisions. But investigation has not been carried far enough in this direction
to yield the necessary information. With our present knowledge the main
result can be attained by selecting such other inventions or discoveries as
will afford sufficient tests of progress to characterize the commencement of
successive ethnical periods. Even though accepted as provisional, these
periods will be found convenient and useful. Each of those about to be
proposed will be found to cover a distinct culture, and to represent a
particular mode of life.
The period of savagery, of the early part of which very little is known, may
be divided, provisionally, into three sub-periods. These may be named
respectively the Older, the Middle, and the Later period of savagery; and
the condition of society in each, respectively, may be distinguished as the
Lower, the Middle, and the Upper Status of savagery.
In like manner, the period of barbarism divides naturally into three sub-
periods, which will be called, respectively, the Older, the Middle, and the
Later period of barbarism; and the condition of society in each,
respectively, will be distinguished as the Lower, the Middle, and the Upper
Status of barbarism.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to find such tests of progress to mark the
commencement of these several periods as will be found absolute in their
application, and without exceptions upon all the continents. Neither is it
necessary, for the purpose in hand, that exceptions should not exist. It will
be sufficient if the principal tribes of mankind can be classified, according
to the degree of their relative progress, into conditions which can be
recognized as distinct.
I. Lower Status of Savagery.
This period commenced with the infancy of the human race, and may be
said to have ended with the acquisition of a fish subsistence and of a
knowledge of the use of fire. Mankind were then living in their original
restricted habitat, and subsisting upon fruits and nuts. The commencement
of articulate speech belongs to this period. No exemplification of tribes of
mankind in this condition remained to the historical period.
II. Middle Status of Savagery.
It commenced with the acquisition of a fish subsistence and a knowledge of
the use of fire, and ended with the invention of the bow and arrow.
Mankind, while in this condition, spread from their original habitat over the
greater portion of the earth’s surface. Among tribes still existing it will
leave in the Middle Status of savagery, for example, the Australians and the
greater part of the Polynesians when discovered. It will be sufficient to give
one or more exemplifications of each status.
III. Upper Status of Savagery.
It commenced with the invention of the bow and arrow, and ended with the
invention of the art of pottery. It leaves in the Upper Status of Savagery the
Athapascan tribes of the Hudson’s Bay Territory, the tribes of the valley of
the Columbia, and certain coast tribes of North and South America; but
with relation to the time of their discovery. This closes the period of
Savagery.
IV. Lower Status of Barbarism.
The invention or practice of the art of pottery, all things considered, is
probably the most effective and conclusive test that can be selected to fix a
boundary line, necessarily arbitrary, between savagery and barbarism. The
distinctness of the two conditions has long been recognized, but no criterion
of progress out of the former into the latter has hitherto been brought
forward. All such tribes, then, as never attained to the art of pottery will be
classed as savages, and those possessing this art but who never attained a
phonetic alphabet and the use of writing will be classed as barbarians.
The first sub-period of barbarism commenced with the manufacture of
pottery, whether by original invention or adoption. In finding its
termination, and the commencement of the Middle Status, a difficulty is
encountered in the unequal endowments of the two hemispheres, which
began to be influential upon human affairs after the period of savagery had
passed. It may be met, however, by the adoption of equivalents. In the
Eastern hemisphere, the domestication of animals, and in the Western, the
cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation, together with the use of adobe-
brick and stone in house building have been selected as sufficient evidence
of progress to work a transition out of the Lower and into the Middle Status
of barbarism. It leaves, for example, in the Lower Status, the Indian tribes
of the United States east of the Missouri River, and such tribes of Europe
and Asia as practiced the art of pottery, but were without domestic animals.
V. Middle Status of Barbarism.
It commenced with the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere,
and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-
brick and stone in architecture, as shown. Its termination may be fixed with
the invention of the process of smelting iron ore. This places in the Middle
Status, for example, the Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico, Central
America and Peru, and such tribes in the Eastern hemisphere as possessed
domestic animals, but were without a knowledge of iron. The ancient
Britons, although familiar with the use of iron, fairly belong in this
connection. The vicinity of more advanced continental tribes had advanced
the arts of life among them far beyond the state of development of their
domestic institutions.
VI. Upper Status of Barbarism.
It commenced with the manufacture of iron, and ended with the invention
of a phonetic alphabet, and the use of writing in literary composition. Here
civilization begins. This leaves in the Upper Status, for example, the
Grecian tribes of the Homeric age, the Italian tribes shortly before the
founding of Rome, and the Germanic tribes of the time of Cæsar.
VII. Status of Civilization.
It commenced, as stated, with the use of a phonetic alphabet and the
production of literary records, and divides into Ancient and Modern. As an
equivalent, hieroglyphical writing upon stone may be admitted.
RECAPITULATION.
Periods. Conditions.
I. Older Period of Savagery, I. Lower Status of Savagery,
II. Middle Period of Savagery, II. Middle Status of Savagery,
III. Later Period of Savagery, III. Upper Status of Savagery,
IV. Older Period of Barbarism, IV. Lower Status of Barbarism,
V. Middle Period of Barbarism, V. Middle Status of Barbarism,
VI. Later Period of Barbarism, VI. Upper Status of Barbarism,
VII. Status of Civilization.

I. Lower Status of Savagery, From the Infancy of the Human

Race to the commencement of
the next Period.
II. Middle Status of Savagery, From the acquisition of a fish
subsistence and a knowledge of
the use of fire, to etc.
III. Upper Status of Savagery, From the Invention of the Bow
and Arrow, to etc.
IV. Lower Status of Barbarism, From the Invention of the Art of
 Pottery, to etc.
V. Middle Status of Barbarism, From the Domestication of
animals on the Eastern
hemisphere, and in the Western
from the cultivation of maize
and plants by Irrigation, with
the use of adobe-brick and
stone, to etc.
VI. Upper Status of Barbarism, From the Invention of the
process of Smelting Iron Ore,
with the use of iron tools, to etc.
VII. Status of Civilization, From the Invention of a
Phonetic Alphabet, with the use
of writing, to the present time.

Each of these periods has a distinct culture and exhibits a mode of life more
or less special and peculiar to itself. This specialization of ethnical periods
renders it possible to treat a particular society according to its condition of
relative advancement, and to make it a subject of independent study and
discussion. It does not affect the main result that different tribes and nations
on the same continent, and even of the same linguistic family, are in
different conditions at the same time, since for our purpose the condition of
each is the material fact, the time being immaterial.
Since the use of pottery is less significant than that of domestic animals, of
iron, or of a phonetic alphabet, employed to mark the commencement of
subsequent ethnical periods, the reasons for its adoption should be stated.
The manufacture of pottery presupposes village life, and considerable
progress in the simple arts.2 Flint and stone implements are older than
pottery, remains of the former having been found in ancient repositories in
numerous instances unaccompanied by the latter. A succession of
inventions of greater need and adapted to a lower condition must have
occurred before the want of pottery would be felt. The commencement of
village life, with some degree of control over subsistence, wooden vessels
and utensils, finger weaving with filaments of bark, basket making, and the
bow and arrow make their appearance before the art of pottery. The Village
Indians who were in the Middle Status of barbarism, such as the Zuñians,
the Aztecs and the Cholulans, manufactured pottery in large quantities and
in many forms of considerable excellence; the partially Village Indians of
the United States, who were in the Lower Status of barbarism, such as the
Iroquois, the Choctas and the Cherokees, made it in smaller quantities and
in a limited number of forms; but the Non-horticultural Indians, who were
in the Status of savagery, such as the Athapascans, the tribes of California
and of the valley of the Columbia, were ignorant of its use.3 In Lubbock’s
Pre-Historic Times, in Tylor’s Early History of Mankind, and in Peschel’s
Races of Man, the particulars respecting this art, and the extent of its
distribution, have been collected with remarkable breadth of research. It
was unknown in Polynesia (with the exception of the Islands of the Tongans
and Fijians), in Australia, in California, and in the Hudson’s Bay Territory.
Mr. Tylor remarks that “the art of weaving was unknown in most of the
Islands away from Asia,” and that “in most of the South Sea Islands there
was no knowledge of pottery.”4 The Rev. Lorimer Fison, an English
missionary residing in Australia, informed the author in answer to inquiries,
that “the Australians had no woven fabrics, no pottery, and were ignorant of
the bow and arrow.” This last fact was also true in general of the
Polynesians. The introduction of the ceramic art produced a new epoch in
human progress in the direction of an improved living and increased
domestic conveniences. While flint and stone implements—which came in
earlier and required long periods of time to develop all their uses—gave the
canoe, wooden vessels and utensils, and ultimately timber and plank in
house architecture,5 pottery gave a durable vessel for boiling food, which
before that had been rudely accomplished in baskets coated with clay, and
in ground cavities lined with skin, the boiling being effected with heated
stones.6
Whether the pottery of the aborigines was hardened by fire or cured by the
simple process of drying, has been made a question. Prof. E. T. Cox, of
Indianapolis, has shown by comparing the analyses of ancient pottery and
hydraulic cements, “that so far as chemical constituents are concerned it
(the pottery) agrees very well with the composition of hydraulic stones.” He
remarks further, that “all the pottery belonging to the mound-builders’ age,
which I have seen, is composed of alluvial clay and sand, or a mixture of
the former with pulverized fresh-water shells. A paste made of such a
mixture possesses in a high degree the properties of hydraulic Puzzuolani
and Portland cement, so that vessels formed of it hardened without being
burned, as is customary with modern pottery. The fragments of shells
served the purpose of gravel or fragments of stone as at present used in
connection with hydraulic lime for the manufacture of artificial stone.”7
The composition of Indian pottery in analogy with that of hydraulic cement
suggests the difficulties in the way of inventing the art, and tends also to
explain the lateness of its introduction in the course of human experience.
Notwithstanding the ingenious suggestion of Prof. Cox, it is probable that
pottery was hardened by artificial heat. In some cases the fact is directly
attested. Thus Adair, speaking of the Gulf Tribes, remarks that “they make
earthern pots of very different sizes, so as to contain from two to ten
gallons, large pitchers to carry water, bowls, dishes, platters, basins, and a
prodigious number of other vessels of such antiquated forms as would be
tedious to describe, and impossible to name. Their method of glazing them
is, they place them over a large fire of smoky pitch-pine, which makes them
smooth, black and firm.”8
Another advantage of fixing definite ethnical periods is the direction of
special investigation to those tribes and nations which afford the best
exemplification of each status, with the view of making each both standard
and illustrative. Some tribes and families have been left in geographical
isolation to work out the problems of progress by original mental effort; and
have, consequently, retained their arts and institutions pure and
homogeneous; while those of other tribes and nations have been adulterated
through external influence. Thus, while Africa was and is an ethnical chaos
of savagery and barbarism, Australia and Polynesia were in savagery, pure
and simple, with the arts and institutions belonging to that condition. In like
manner, the Indian family of America, unlike any other existing family,
exemplified the condition of mankind in three successive ethnical periods.
In the undisturbed possession of a great continent, of common descent, and
with homogeneous institutions, they illustrated, when discovered, each of
these conditions, and especially those of the Lower and of the Middle Status
of barbarism, more elaborately and completely than any other portion of
mankind. The far northern Indians and some of the coast tribes of North and
South America were in the Upper Status of savagery; the partially Village
Indians east of the Mississippi were in the Lower Status of barbarism, and
the Village Indians of North and South America were in the Middle Status.
Such an opportunity to recover full and minute information of the course of
human experience and progress in developing their arts and institutions
through these successive conditions has not been offered within the
historical period. It must be added that it has been indifferently improved.
Our greatest deficiencies relate to the last period named.
Differences in the culture of the same period in the Eastern and Western
hemispheres undoubtedly existed in consequence of the unequal
endowments of the continents; but the condition of society in the
corresponding status must have been, in the main, substantially similar.
The ancestors of the Grecian, Roman and German tribes passed through the
stages we have indicated, in the midst of the last of which the light of
history fell upon them. Their differentiation from the undistinguishable
mass of barbarians did not occur, probably, earlier than the commencement
of the Middle Period of barbarism. The experience of these tribes has been
lost, with the exception of so much as is represented by the institutions,
inventions and discoveries which they brought with them, and possessed
when they first came under historical observation. The Grecian and Latin
tribes of the Homeric and Romulian periods afford the highest
exemplification of the Upper Status of barbarism. Their institutions were
likewise pure and homogeneous, and their experience stands directly
connected with the final achievement of civilization.
Commencing, then, with the Australians and Polynesians, following with
the American Indian tribes, and concluding with the Roman and Grecian,
who afford the highest exemplifications respectively of the six great stages
of human progress, the sum of their united experiences may be supposed
fairly to represent that of the human family from the Middle Status of
savagery to the end of ancient civilization. Consequently, the Aryan nations
will find the type of the condition of their remote ancestors, when in
savagery, in that of the Australians and Polynesians; when in the Lower
Status of barbarism in that of the partially Village Indians of America; and
when in the Middle Status in that of the Village Indians, with which their
own experience in the Upper Status directly connects. So essentially
identical are the arts institutions and mode of life in the same status upon all
the continents, that the archaic form of the principal domestic institutions of
the Greeks and Romans must even now be sought in the corresponding
institutions of the American aborigines, as will be shown in the course of
this volume. This fact forms a part of the accumulating evidence tending to
show that the principal institutions of mankind have been developed from a
few primary germs of thought; and that the course and manner of their
development was predetermined, as well as restricted within narrow limits
of divergence, by the natural logic of the human mind and the necessary
limitations of its powers. Progress has been found to be substantially the
same in kind in tribes and nations inhabiting different and even
disconnected continents, while in the same status, with deviations from
uniformity in particular instances produced by special causes. The argument
when extended tends to establish the unity of origin of mankind.
In studying the condition of tribes and nations in these several ethnical
periods we are dealing, substantially, with the ancient history and condition
of our own remote ancestors.

CHAPTER II. - ARTS OF SUBSISTENCE.

S M E .—C S T C .—
M C .—S S .—I. N
S ; II. F S ; III. F S ; IV. M M
S ; V. U S F A .—L I T
.

The important fact that mankind commenced at the bottom of the scale and
worked up, is revealed in an expressive manner by their successive arts of
subsistence. Upon their skill in this direction, the whole question of human
supremacy on the earth depended. Mankind are the only beings who may be
said to have gained an absolute control over the production of food; which
at the outset they did not possess above other animals. Without enlarging
the basis of subsistence, mankind could not have propagated themselves
into other areas not possessing the same kinds of food, and ultimately over
the whole surface of the earth; and lastly, without obtaining an absolute
control over both its variety and amount, they could not have multiplied
into populous nations. It is accordingly probable that the great epochs of
human progress have been identified, more or less directly, with the
enlargement of the sources of subsistence.
We are able to distinguish five of these sources of human food, created by
what may be called as many successive arts, one superadded to the other,
and brought out at long separated intervals of time. The first two originated
in the period of savagery, and the last three, in the period of barbarism.
They are the following, stated in the order of their appearance:
I. Natural Subsistence upon Fruits and Roots on a Restricted Habitat.
This proposition carries us back to the strictly primitive period of mankind,
when few in numbers, simple in subsistence, and occupying limited areas,
they were just entering upon their new career. There is neither an art, nor an
institution, that can be referred to this period; and but one invention, that of
language, which can be connected with an epoch so remote. The kind of
subsistence indicated assumes a tropical or sub-tropical climate. In such a
climate, by common consent, the habitat of primitive man has been placed.
In fruit and nut-bearing forests under a tropical sun, we are accustomed, and
with reason, to regard our progenitors as having commenced their
existence.
The races of animals preceded the race of mankind, in the order of time. We
are warranted in supposing that they were in the plenitude of their strength
and numbers when the human race first appeared. The classical poets
pictured the tribes of mankind dwelling in groves, in caves and in forests,
for the possession of which they disputed with wild beasts9—while they
sustained themselves with the spontaneous fruits of the earth. If mankind
commenced their career without experience, without weapons, and
surrounded with ferocious animals, it is not improbable that they were, at
least partially, tree-livers, as a means of protection and security.
The maintenance of life, through the constant acquisition of food, is the
great burden imposed upon existence in all species of animals. As we
descend in the scale of structural organization, subsistence becomes more
and more simple at each stage, until the mystery finally vanishes. But, in
the ascending scale, it becomes increasingly difficult until the highest
structural form, that of man, is reached, when it attains the maximum.
Intelligence from henceforth becomes a more prominent factor. Animal
food, in all probability, entered from a very early period into human
consumption; but whether it was actively sought when mankind were
essentially frugivorous in practice, though omnivorous in structural
organization, must remain a matter of conjecture. This mode of sustenance
belongs to the strictly primitive period.
II. Fish Subsistence.
In fish must be recognized the first kind of artificial food, because it was
not fully available without cooking. Fire was first utilized, not unlikely, for
this purpose. Fish were universal in distribution, unlimited in supply, and
the only kind of food at all times attainable. The cereals in the primitive
period were still unknown, if in fact they existed, and the hunt for game was
too precarious ever to have formed an exclusive means of human support.
Upon this species of food mankind became independent of climate and of
locality; and by following the shores of the seas and lakes, and the courses
of the rivers could, while in the savage state, spread themselves over the
greater portion of the earth’s surface. Of the fact of these migrations there is
abundant evidence in the remains of flint and stone implements of the
Status of Savagery found upon all the continents. In reliance upon fruits and
spontaneous subsistence a removal from the original habitat would have
been impossible.
Between the introduction of fish, followed by the wide migrations named,
and the cultivation of farinaceous food, the interval of time was immense. It
covers a large part of the period of savagery. But during this interval there
was an important increase in the variety and amount of food. Such, for
example, as the bread roots cooked in ground ovens, and in the permanent
addition of game through improved weapons, and especially through the
bow and arrow. This remarkable invention, which came in after the spear
and war club, and gave the first deadly weapon for the hunt, appeared late
in savagery.10
It has been used to mark the commencement of its Upper Status. It must
have given a powerful upward influence to ancient society, standing in the
same relation to the period of savagery, as the iron sword to the period of
barbarism, and fire-arms to the period of civilization.
From the precarious nature of all these sources of food, outside of the great
fish areas, cannibalism became the dire resort of mankind. The ancient
universality of this practice is being gradually demonstrated.
III. Farinaceous Subsistence through Cultivation.
We now leave Savagery and enter the Lower Status of barbarism. The
cultivation of cereals and plants was unknown in the Western hemisphere
except among the tribes who had emerged from savagery; and it seems to
have been unknown in the Eastern hemisphere until after the tribes of Asia
and Europe had passed through the Lower, and had drawn near to the close
of the Middle Status of barbarism. It gives us the singular fact that the
American aborigines in the Lower Status of barbarism were in possession
of horticulture one entire ethnical period earlier than the inhabitants of the
Eastern hemisphere. It was a consequence of the unequal endowments of
the two hemispheres; the Eastern possessing all the animals adapted to
domestication, save one, and a majority of the cereals; while the Western
had only one cereal fit for cultivation, but that the best. It tended to prolong
the older period of barbarism in the former, to shorten it in the latter; and
with the advantage of condition in this period in favor of the American
aborigines. But when the most advanced tribes in the Eastern hemisphere, at
the commencement of the Middle Period of barbarism, had domesticated
animals which gave them meat and milk, their condition, without a
knowledge of the cereals, was much superior to that of the American
aborigines in the corresponding period, with maize and plants, but without
domestic animals. The differentiation of the Semitic and Aryan families
from the mass of barbarians seems to have commenced with the
domestication of animals.
That the discovery and cultivation of the cereals by the Aryan family was
subsequent to the domestication of animals is shown by the fact, that there
are common terms for these animals in the several dialects of the Aryan
language, and no common terms for the cereals or cultivated plants.
Mommsen, after showing that the domestic animals have the same names in
the Sanskrit, Greek and Latin (which Max Müller afterwards extended to
the remaining Aryan dialects11) thus proving that they were known and
presumptively domesticated before the separation of these nations from
each other, proceeds as follows: “On the other hand, we have as yet no
certain proofs of the existence of agriculture at this period. Language rather
favors the negative view. Of the Latin-Greek names of grain none occur in
the Sanskrit with the single exception of ζέα, which philologically
represents the Sanskrit yavas, but denotes in Indian, barley; in Greek, spelt.
It must indeed be granted that this diversity in the names of cultivated
plants, which so strongly contrasts with the essential agreement in the
appellations of domestic animals, does not absolutely preclude the
supposition of a common original agriculture. The cultivation of rice among
the Indians, that of wheat and spelt among the Greeks, and that of rye and
oats among the Germans and Celts, may all be traceable to a common
system of original tillage.”12 This last conclusion is forced. Horticulture
preceded field culture, as the garden (hortos) preceded the field (ager); and
although the latter implies boundaries, the former signifies directly an
“inclosed space.” Tillage, however, must have been older than the inclosed
garden; the natural order being first, tillage of patches of open alluvial land,
second of inclosed spaces or gardens, and third, of the field by means of the
plow drawn by animal power. Whether the cultivation of such plants as the
pea, bean, turnip, parsnip, beet, squash and melon, one or more of them,
preceded the cultivation of the cereals, we have at present no means of
knowing. Some of these have common terms in Greek and Latin; but I am
assured by our eminent philologist, Prof. W. D. Whitney, that neither of
them has a common term in Greek or Latin and Sanskrit.
Horticulture seems to have originated more in the necessities of the
domestic animals than in those of mankind. In the Western hemisphere it
commenced with maize. This new era, although not synchronous in the two
hemispheres, had immense influence upon the destiny of mankind. There
are reasons for believing that it required ages to establish the art of
cultivation, and render farinaceous food a principal reliance. Since in
America it led to localization and to village life, it tended, especially among
the Village Indians, to take the place of fish and game. From the cereals and
cultivated plants, moreover, mankind obtained their first impression of the
possibility of an abundance of food.
The acquisition of farinaceous food in America and of domestic animals in
Asia and Europe, were the means of delivering the advanced tribes, thus
provided, from the scourge of cannibalism, which as elsewhere stated, there
are reasons for believing was practiced universally throughout the period of
savagery upon captured enemies, and, in time of famine, upon friends and
kindred. Cannibalism in war, practiced by war parties in the field, survived
among the American aborigines, not only in the Lower, but also in the
Middle Status of barbarism, as, for example, among the Iroquois and the
Aztecs; but the general practice had disappeared. This forcibly illustrates
the great importance which is exercised by a permanent increase of food in
ameliorating the condition of mankind.
IV. Meat and Milk Subsistence.
The absence of animals adapted to domestication in the Western
hemisphere, excepting the llama,13 and the specific differences in the
cereals of the two hemispheres exercised an important influence upon the
relative advancement of their inhabitants. While this inequality of
endowments was immaterial to mankind in the period of savagery, and not
marked in its effects in the Lower Status of barbarism, it made an essential
difference with that portion who had attained to the Middle Status. The
domestication of animals provided a permanent meat and milk subsistence
which tended to differentiate the tribes which possessed them from the mass
of other barbarians. In the Western hemisphere, meat was restricted to the
precarious supplies of game. This limitation upon an essential species of
food was unfavorable to the Village Indians; and doubtless sufficiently
explains the inferior size of the brain among them in comparison with that
of Indians in the Lower Status of barbarism. In the Eastern hemisphere, the
domestication of animals enabled the thrifty and industrious to secure for
themselves a permanent supply of animal food, including milk; the
healthful and invigorating influence of which upon the race, and especially
upon children, was undoubtedly remarkable. It is at least supposable that
the Aryan and Semitic families owe their pre-eminent endowments to the
great scale upon which, as far back as our knowledge extends, they have
identified themselves with the maintenance in numbers of the domestic
animals. In fact, they incorporated them, flesh, milk, and muscle into their
plan of life.14 No other family of mankind have done this to an equal extent,
and the Aryan have done it to a greater extent than the Semitic.
The domestication of animals gradually introduced a new mode of life, the
pastoral, upon the plains of the Euphrates and of India, and upon the steppes
of Asia; on the confines of one or the other of which the domestication of
animals was probably first accomplished. To these areas, their oldest
traditions and their histories alike refer them. They were thus drawn to
regions which, so far from being the cradle lands of the human race, were
areas they would not have occupied as savages, or as barbarians in the
Lower Status of barbarism, to whom forest areas were natural homes. After
becoming habituated to pastoral life, it must have been impossible for either
of these families to re-enter the forest areas of Western Asia and of Europe
with their flocks and herds, without first learning to cultivate some of the
cereals with which to subsist the latter at a distance from the grass plains. It
seems extremely probable, therefore, as before stated, that the cultivation of
the cereals originated in the necessities of the domestic animals, and in
connection with these western migrations; and that the use of farinaceous
food by these tribes was a consequence of the knowledge thus acquired.
In the Western hemisphere, the aborigines were enabled to advance
generally into the Lower Status of barbarism, and a portion of them into the
Middle Status, without domestic animals, excepting the llama in Peru, and
upon a single cereal, maize, with the adjuncts of the bean, squash, and
tobacco, and in some areas, cacao, cotton and pepper. But maize, from its
growth in the hill—which favored direct cultivation—from its useableness
both green and ripe, and from its abundant yield and nutritive properties,
was a richer endowment in aid of early human progress than all other
cereals put together. It serves to explain the remarkable progress the
American aborigines had made without the domestic animals; the Peruvians
having produced bronze, which stands next, and quite near, in the order of
time, to the process of smelting iron ore.
V. Unlimited Subsistence through Field Agriculture.
The domestic animals supplementing human muscle with animal power,
contributed a new factor of the highest value. In course of time, the
production of iron gave the plow with an iron point, and a better spade and
axe. Out of these, and the previous horticulture, came field agriculture; and
with it, for the first time, unlimited subsistence. The plow drawn by animal
power may be regarded as inaugurating a new art. Now, for the first time,
came the thought of reducing the forest, and bringing wide fields under
cultivation.15 Moreover, dense populations in limited areas now became
possible. Prior to field agriculture it is not probable that half a million
people were developed and held together under one government in any part
of the earth. If exceptions occurred, they must have resulted from pastoral
life on the plains, or from horticulture improved by irrigation, under
peculiar and exceptional conditions.

In the course of these pages it will become necessary to speak of the family
as it existed in different ethnical periods; its form in one period being
sometimes entirely different from its form in another. In Part III these
several forms of the family will be treated specially. But as they will be
frequently mentioned in the next ensuing Part, they should at least be
defined in advance for the information of the reader. They are the
following:
I. The Consanguine Family.
It was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters in a group.
Evidence still remains in the oldest of existing systems of Consanguinity,
the Malayan, tending to show that this, the first form of the family, was
anciently as universal as this system of consanguinity which it created.
II. The Punaluan Family.
Its name is derived from the Hawaiian relationship of Punalua. It was
founded upon the intermarriage of several brothers to each other’s wives in
a group; and of several sisters to each other’s husbands in a group. But the
term brother, as here used, included the first, second, third, and even more
remote male cousins, all of whom were considered brothers to each other,
as we consider own brothers; and the term sister included the first, second,
third, and even more remote female cousins, all of whom were sisters to
each other, the same as own sisters. This form of the family supervened
upon the consanguine. It created the Turanian and Ganowánian systems of
consanguinity. Both this and the previous form belong to the period of
savagery.
III. The Syndyasmian Family.
The term is from συνδυάζω, to pair, συνδυασμός, a joining two together. It
was founded upon the pairing of a male with a female under the form of
marriage, but without an exclusive cohabitation. It was the germ of the
Monogamian Family. Divorce or separation was at the option of both
husband and wife. This form of the family failed to create a system of
consanguinity.
IV. The Patriarchal Family.
It was founded upon the marriage of one man to several wives. The term is
here used in a restricted sense to define the special family of the Hebrew
pastoral tribes, the chiefs and principal men of which practiced polygamy. It
exercised but little influence upon human affairs for want of universality.
V. The Monogamian Family.
It was founded upon the marriage of one man with one woman, with an
exclusive cohabitation; the latter constituting the essential element of the
institution. It is pre-eminently the family of civilized society, and was
therefore essentially modern. This form of the family also created an
independent system of consanguinity.
Evidence will elsewhere be produced tending to show both the existence
and the general prevalence of these several forms of the family at different
stages of human progress.
 CHAPTER III. - RATIO OF HUMAN PROGRESS.
R L H P .—P C M
C .—O A C .—O L P B .—O M P .
—O O P .—O P S .—H C P M .—H
P G R .—R L E P .—A
S A F .

It is well to obtain an impression of the relative amount and of the ratio of

human progress in the several ethnical periods named, by grouping together
the achievements of each, and comparing them with each other as distinct
classes of facts. This will also enable us to form some conception of the
relative duration of these periods. To render it forcible, such a survey must
be general, and in the nature of a recapitulation. It should, likewise, be
limited to the principal works of each period.
Before man could have attained to the civilized state it was necessary that
he should gain all the elements of civilization. This implies an amazing
change of condition, first from a primitive savage to a barbarian of the
lowest type, and then from the latter to a Greek of the Homeric period, or to
a Hebrew of the time of Abraham. The progressive development which
history records in the period of civilization was not less true of man in each
of the previous periods.
By re-ascending along the several lines of human progress toward the
primitive ages of man’s existence, and removing one by one his principal
institutions, inventions and discoveries, in the order in which they have
appeared, the advance made in each period will be realized.
The principal contributions of modern civilization are the electric telegraph;
coal gas; the spinning-jenny; and the power loom; the steam-engine with its
numerous dependent machines, including the locomotive, the railway, and
the steam-ship; the telescope; the discovery of the ponderability of the
atmosphere and of the solar system; the art of printing; the canal lock; the
mariner’s compass; and gunpowder. The mass of other inventions, such, for
example, as the Ericsson propeller, will be found to hinge upon one or
another of those named as antecedents: but there are exceptions, as
photography, and numerous machines not necessary to be noticed. With
these also should be removed the modern sciences; religious freedom and
the common schools; representative democracy; constitutional monarchy
with parliaments; the feudal kingdom; modern privileged classes;
international, statute and common law.
Modern civilization recovered and absorbed whatever was valuable in the
ancient civilizations; and although its contributions to the sum of human
knowledge have been vast, brilliant and rapid, they are far from being so
disproportionately large as to overshadow the ancient civilizations and sink
them into comparative insignificance.
Passing over the mediæval period, which gave Gothic architecture, feudal
aristocracy with hereditary titles of rank, and a hierarchy under the headship
of a pope, we enter the Roman and Grecian civilizations. They will be
found deficient in great inventions and discoveries, but distinguished in art,
in philosophy, and in organic institutions. The principal contributions of
these civilizations were imperial and kingly government; the civil law;
Christianity; mixed aristocratical and democratical government, with a
senate and consuls; democratical government with a council and popular
assembly; the organization of armies into cavalry and infantry, with military
discipline; the establishment of navies, with the practice of naval warfare;
the formation of great cities, with municipal law; commerce on the seas; the
coinage of money; and the state, founded upon territory and upon property;
and among inventions, fire-baked brick, the crane,16 the water-wheel for
driving mills, the bridge, aqueduct and sewer; lead pipe used as a conduit
with the faucet; the arch, the balance scale; the arts and sciences of the
classical period, with their results, including the orders of architecture; the
Arabic numerals, and alphabetic writing.
These civilizations drew largely from, as well as rested upon, the inventions
and discoveries and the institutions of the previous period of barbarism. The
achievements of civilized man, although very great and remarkable, are
nevertheless very far from sufficient to eclipse the works of man as a
barbarian. As such he had wrought out and possessed all the elements of
civilization, excepting alphabetic writing. His achievements as a barbarian
should be considered in their relation to the sum of human progress; and we
may be forced to admit that they transcend, in relative importance, all his
subsequent works.
The use of writing, or its equivalent in hieroglyphics upon stone, affords a
fair test of the commencement of civilization.17 Without literary records
neither history nor civilization can properly be said to exist. The production
of the Homeric poems, whether transmitted orally or committed to writing
at the time, fixes with sufficient nearness the introduction of civilization
among the Greeks. These poems, ever fresh and ever marvelous, possess an
ethnological value which enhances immensely their other excellences. This
is especially true of the Iliad, which contains the oldest as well as the most
circumstantial account now existing of the progress of mankind up to the
time of its composition. Strabo compliments Homer as the father of
geographical science;18 but the great poet has given, perhaps without
design, what was infinitely more important to succeeding generations:
namely, a remarkably full exposition of the arts, usages, inventions and
discoveries, and mode of life of the ancient Greeks. It presents our first
comprehensive picture of Aryan society while still in barbarism, showing
the progress then made, and of what particulars it consisted. Through these
poems we are enabled confidently to state that certain things were known
among the Greeks before they entered upon civilization. They also cast an
illuminating light far backward into the period of barbarism.
Using the Homeric poems as a guide and continuing the retrospect into the
Later Period of barbarism, let us strike off from the knowledge and
experience of mankind the invention of poetry; the ancient mythology in its
elaborate form, with the Olympian divinities; temple architecture; the
knowledge of the cereals, excepting maize and cultivated plants, with field
agriculture;19 cities encompassed with walls of stone, with battlements,
towers and gates; the use of marble in architecture;20 ship-building with
plank and probably with the use of nails;21 the wagon and the chariot;22
metallic plate armor;23 the copper-pointed spear and embossed shield;24 the
iron sword;25 the manufacture of wine, probably;26 the mechanical powers
excepting the screw; the potter’s wheel and the hand-mill for grinding
grain;27 woven fabrics of linen and woolen from the loom;28 the iron axe
and spade;29 the iron hatchet and adz;30 the hammer and the anvil;31 the
bellows and the forge;32 and the side-hill furnace for smelting iron ore,
together with a knowledge of iron. Along with the above-named
acquisitions must be removed the monogamian family; military
democracies of the heroic age; the later phase of the organization into
gentes phratries and tribes; the agora or popular assembly, probably; a
knowledge of individual property in houses and lands; and the advanced
form of municipal life in fortified cities. When this has been done, the
highest class of barbarians will have surrendered the principal portion of
their marvelous works, together with the mental and moral growth thereby
acquired.
From this point backward through the Middle Period of barbarism the
indications become less distinct, and the relative order in which institutions,
inventions and discoveries appeared is less clear; but we are not without
some knowledge to guide our steps even in these distant ages of the Aryan
family. For reasons previously stated, other families, besides the Aryan,
may now be resorted to for the desired information.
Entering next the Middle Period, let us, in like manner, strike out of human
experience the process of making bronze; flocks and herds of domestic
animals;33 communal houses with walls of adobe, and of dressed stone laid
in courses with mortar of lime and sand; cyclopean walls; lake dwellings
constructed on piles; the knowledge of native metals,34 with the use of
charcoal and the crucible for melting them; the copper axe and chisel; the
shuttle and embryo loom; cultivation by irrigation, causeways, reservoirs
and irrigating canals; paved roads; osier suspension bridges; personal gods,
with a priesthood distinguished by a costume, and organized in a hierarchy;
human sacrifices; military democracies of the Aztec type; woven fabrics of
cotton and other vegetable fibre in the Western hemisphere, and of wool
and flax in the Eastern; ornamental pottery; the sword of wood, with the
edges pointed with flints; polished flint and stone implements; a knowledge
of cotton and flax; and the domestic animals.
The aggregate of achievements in this period was less than in that which
followed; but in its relations to the sum of human progress it was very great.
It includes the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, which
introduced in time a permanent meat and milk subsistence, and ultimately
field agriculture; and also inaugurated those experiments with the native
metals which resulted in producing bronze,35 as well as prepared the way
for the higher process of smelting iron ore. In the Western hemisphere it
was signalized by the discovery and treatment of the native metals, which
resulted in the production independently of bronze; by the introduction of
irrigation in the cultivation of maize and plants, and by the use of adobe-
brick and stone in the construction of great joint tenement houses in the
nature of fortresses.
Resuming the retrospect and entering the Older Period of barbarism, let us
next remove from human acquisitions the confederacy, based upon gentes,
phratries and tribes under the government of a council of chiefs which gave
a more highly organized state of society than before that had been known.
Also the discovery and cultivation of maize and the bean, squash and
tobacco, in the Western hemisphere, together with a knowledge of
farinaceous food; finger weaving with warp and woof; the kilt, moccasin
and leggin of tanned deer-skin; the blow-gun for bird shooting; the village
stockade for defense; tribal games; element worship, with a vague
recognition of the Great Spirit; cannibalism in time of war; and lastly, the
art of pottery.
As we ascend in the order of time and of development, but descend in the
scale of human advancement, inventions become more simple, and more
direct in their relations to primary wants; and institutions approach nearer
and nearer to the elementary form of a gens composed of consanguinei,
under a chief of their own election, and to the tribe composed of kindred
gentes, under the government of a council of chiefs. The condition of
Asiatic and European tribes in this period, (for the
Aryan and Semitic families did not probably then exist), is substantially
lost. It is represented by the remains of ancient art between the invention of
pottery and the domestication of animals; and includes the people who
formed the shell-heaps on the coast of the Baltic, who seem to have
domesticated the dog, but no other animals.
In any just estimate of the magnitude of the achievements of mankind in the
three sub-periods of barbarism, they must be regarded as immense, not only
in number and in intrinsic value, but also in the mental and moral
development by which they were necessarily accompanied.
Ascending next through the prolonged period of savagery, let us strike out
of human knowledge the organization into gentes, phratries and tribes; the
syndyasmian family; the worship of the elements in its lowest form;
syllabical language; the bow and arrow; stone and bone implements; cane
and splint baskets; skin garments; the punaluan family; the organization
upon the basis of sex; the village, consisting of clustered houses; boat craft,
including the bark and dug-out canoe; the spear pointed with flint, and the
war club; flint implements of the ruder kinds; the consanguine family;
monosyllabical language; fetishism; cannibalism; a knowledge of the use of
fire; and lastly, gesture language.36 When this work of elimination has been
done in the order in which these several acquisitions were made, we shall
have approached quite near the infantile period of man’s existence, when
mankind were learning the use of fire, which rendered possible a fish
subsistence and a change of habitat, and when they were attempting the
formation of articulate language. In a condition so absolutely primitive,
man is seen to be not only a child in the scale of humanity, but possessed of
a brain into which not a thought or conception expressed by these
institutions, inventions and discoveries had penetrated;—in a word, he
stands at the bottom of the scale, but potentially all he has since become.
With the production of inventions and discoveries, and with the growth of
institutions, the human mind necessarily grew and expanded; and we are led
to recognize a gradual enlargement of the brain itself, particularly of the
cerebral portion. The slowness of this mental growth was inevitable, in the
period of savagery, from the extreme difficulty of compassing the simplest
invention out of nothing, or with next to nothing to assist mental effort; and
of discovering any substance or force in nature available in such a rude
condition of life. It was not less difficult to organize the simplest form of
society out of such savage and intractable materials. The first inventions
and the first social organizations were doubtless the hardest to achieve, and
were consequently separated from each other by the longest intervals of
time. A striking illustration is found in the successive forms of the family.
In this law of progress, which works in a geometrical ratio, a sufficient
explanation is found of the prolonged duration of the period of savagery.
That the early condition of mankind was substantially as above indicated is
not exclusively a recent, nor even a modern opinion. Some of the ancient
poets and philosophers recognized the fact, that mankind commenced in a
state of extreme rudeness from which they had risen by slow and successive
steps. They also perceived that the course of their development was
registered by a progressive series of inventions and discoveries, but without
noticing as fully the more conclusive argument from social institutions.
The important question of the ratio of this progress, which has a direct
bearing upon the relative length of the several ethnical periods, now
presents itself. Human progress, from first to last, has been in a ratio not
rigorously but essentially geometrical. This is plain on the face of the facts;
and it could not, theoretically, have occurred in any other way. Every item
of absolute knowledge gained became a factor in further acquisitions, until
the present complexity of knowledge was attained. Consequently, while
progress was slowest in time in the first period, and most rapid in the last,
the relative amount may have been greatest in the first, when the
achievements of either period are considered in their relations to the sum. It
may be suggested, as not improbable of ultimate recognition, that the
progress of mankind in the period of savagery, in its relations to the sum of
human progress, was greater in degree than it was afterwards in the three
sub-periods of barbarism; and that the progress made in the whole period of
barbarism was, in like manner, greater in degree than it has been since in
the entire period of civilization.
What may have been the relative length of these ethnical periods is also a
fair subject of speculation. An exact measure is not attainable, but an
approximation may be attempted. On the theory of geometrical progression,
the period of savagery was necessarily longer in duration than the period of
barbarism, as the latter was longer than the period of civilization. If we
assume a hundred thousand years as the measure of man’s existence upon
the earth in order to find the relative length of each period,—and for this
purpose, it may have been longer or shorter,—it will be seen at once that at
least sixty thousand years must be assigned to the period of savagery.
Three-fifths of the life of the most advanced portion of the human race, on
this apportionment, were spent in savagery. Of the remaining years, twenty
thousand, or one-fifth, should be assigned to the Older Period of barbarism.
For the Middle and Later Periods there remain fifteen thousand years,
leaving five thousand, more or less, for the period of civilization.
The relative length of the period of savagery is more likely under than over
stated. Without discussing the principles on which this apportionment is
made, it may be remarked that in addition to the argument from the
geometrical progression under which human development of necessity has
occurred, a graduated scale of progress has been universally observed in
remains of ancient art, and this will be found equally true of institutions. It
is a conclusion of deep importance in ethnology that the experience of
mankind in savagery was longer in duration than all their subsequent
experience, and that the period of civilization covers but a fragment of the
life of the race.
Two families of mankind, the Aryan and Semitic, by the commingling of
diverse stocks, superiority of subsistence or advantage of position, and
possibly from all together, were the first to emerge from barbarism. They
were substantially the founders of civilization.37 But their existence as
distinct families was undoubtedly, in a comparative sense, a late event.
Their progenitors are lost in the undistinguishable mass of earlier
barbarians. The first ascertained appearance of the Aryan family was in
connection with the domestic animals, at which time they were one people
in language and nationality. It is not probable that the Aryan or Semitic
families were developed into individuality earlier than the commencement
of the Middle Period of barbarism, and that their differentiation from the
mass of barbarians occurred through their acquisition of the domestic
animals.
The most advanced portion of the human race were halted, so to express it,
at certain stages of progress, until some great invention or discovery, such
as the domestication of animals or the smelting of iron ore, gave a new and
powerful impulse forward. While thus restrained, the ruder tribes,
continually advancing, approached in different degrees of nearness to the
same status; for wherever a continental connection existed, all the tribes
must have shared in some measure in each other’s progress. All great
inventions and discoveries propagate themselves; but the inferior tribes
must have appreciated their value before they could appropriate them. In
the continental areas certain tribes would lead; but the leadership would be
apt to shift a number of times in the course of an ethnical period. The
destruction of the ethnic bond and life of particular tribes, followed by their
decadence, must have arrested for a time, in many instances and in all
periods, the upward flow of human progress. From the Middle Period of
barbarism, however, the Aryan and Semitic families seem fairly to represent
the central threads of this progress, which in the period of civilization has
been gradually assumed by the Aryan family alone.
The truth of this general position may be illustrated by the condition of the
American aborigines at the epoch of their discovery. They commenced their
career on the American continent in savagery; and, although possessed of
inferior mental endowments, the body of them had emerged from savagery
and attained to the Lower Status of barbarism; whilst a portion of them, the
Village Indians of North and South America, had risen to the Middle Status.
They had domesticated the llama, the only quadruped native to the
continent which promised usefulness in the domesticated state, and had
produced bronze by alloying copper with tin. They needed but one
invention, and that the greatest, the art of smelting iron ore, to advance
themselves into the Upper Status. Considering the absence of all connection
with the most advanced portion of the human family in the Eastern
hemisphere, their progress in unaided self-development from the savage
state must be accounted remarkable. While the Asiatic and European were
waiting patiently for the boon of iron tools, the American Indian was
drawing near to the possession of bronze, which stands next to iron in the
order of time. During this period of arrested progress in the Eastern
hemisphere, the American aborigines advanced themselves, not to the status
in which they were found, but sufficiently near to reach it while the former
were passing through the last period of barbarism, and the first four
thousand years of civilization. It gives us a measure of the length of time
they had fallen behind the Aryan family in the race of progress: namely the
duration of the Later Period of barbarism, to which the years of civilization
must be added. The Aryan and Ganowánian families together exemplify the
entire experience of man in five ethnical periods, with the exception of the
first portion of the Later Period of savagery.
Savagery was the formative period of the human race. Commencing at zero
in knowledge and experience, without fire, without articulate speech and
without arts, our savage progenitors fought the great battle, first for
existence, and then for progress, until they secured safety from ferocious
animals, and permanent subsistence. Out of these efforts there came
gradually a developed speech, and the occupation of the entire surface of
the earth. But society from its rudeness was still incapable of organization
in numbers. When the most advanced portion of mankind had emerged
from savagery, and entered the Lower Status of barbarism, the entire
population of the earth must have been small in numbers. The earliest
inventions were the most difficult to accomplish because of the feebleness
of the power of abstract reasoning. Each substantial item of knowledge
gained would form a basis for further advancement; but this must have been
nearly imperceptible for ages upon ages, the obstacles to progress nearly
balancing the energies arrayed against them. The achievements of savagery
are not particularly remarkable in character, but they represent an amazing
amount of persistent labor with feeble means continued through long
periods of time before reaching a fair degree of completeness. The bow and
arrow afford an illustration.
The inferiority of savage man in the mental and moral scale, undeveloped,
inexperienced, and held down by his low animal appetites and passions,
though reluctantly recognized, is, nevertheless, substantially demonstrated
by the remains of ancient art in flint, stone and bone implements, by his
cave life in certain areas, and by his osteological remains. It is still further
illustrated by the present condition of tribes of savages in a low state of
development, left in isolated sections of the earth as monuments of the past.
And yet to this great period of savagery belongs the formation of articulate
language and its advancement to the syllabical stage, the establishment of
two forms of the family, and possibly a third, and the organization into
gentes which gave the first form of society worthy of the name. All these
conclusions are involved in the proposition, stated at the outset, that
mankind commenced their career at the bottom of the scale; which “modern
science claims to be proving by the most careful and exhaustive study of
man and his works.”38
In like manner, the great period of barbarism was signalized by four events
of pre-eminent importance: namely, the domestication of animals, the
discovery of the cereals, the use of stone in architecture, and the invention
of the process of smelting iron ore. Commencing probably with the dog as a
companion in the hunt, followed at a later period by the capture of the
young of other animals and rearing them, not unlikely, from the merest
freak of fancy, it required time and experience to discover the utility of
each, to find means of raising them in numbers and to learn the forbearance
necessary to spare them in the face of hunger. Could the special history of
the domestication of each animal be known, it would exhibit a series of
marvelous facts. The experiment carried, locked up in its doubtful chances,
much of the subsequent destiny of mankind. Secondly, the acquisition of
farinaceous food by cultivation must be regarded as one of the greatest
events in human experience. It was less essential in the Eastern hemisphere,
after the domestication of animals, than in the Western, where it became the
instrument of advancing a large portion of the American aborigines into the
Lower, and another portion into the Middle Status of barbarism. If mankind
had never advanced beyond this last condition, they had the means of a
comparatively easy and enjoyable life. Thirdly, with the use of adobe-brick
and of stone in house building, an improved mode of life was introduced,
eminently calculated to stimulate the mental capacities, and to create the
habit of industry,—the fertile source of improvements. But, in its relations
to the high career of mankind, the fourth invention must be held the greatest
event in human experience, preparatory to civilization. When the barbarian,
advancing step by step, had discovered the native metals, and learned to
melt them in the crucible and to cast them in moulds; when he had alloyed
native copper with tin and produced bronze; and, finally, when by a still
greater effort of thought he had invented the furnace, and produced iron
from the ore, nine-tenths of the battle for civilization was gained.39
Furnished with iron tools, capable of holding both an edge and a point,
mankind were certain of attaining to civilization. The production of iron
was the event of events in human experience, without a parallel, and
without an equal, beside which all other inventions and discoveries were
inconsiderable, or at least subordinate. Out of it came the metallic hammer
and anvil, the axe and the chisel, the plow with an iron point, the iron
sword; in fine, the basis of civilization, which may be said to rest upon this
metal. The want of iron tools arrested the progress of mankind in barbarism.
There they would have remained to the present hour, had they failed to
bridge the chasm. It seems probable that the conception and the process of
smelting iron ore came but once to man. It would be a singular satisfaction
could it be known to what tribe and family we are indebted for this
knowledge, and with it for civilization.
The Semitic family were then in advance of the Aryan, and in the lead of
the human race. They gave the phonetic alphabet to mankind and it seems
not unlikely the knowledge of iron as well.
At the epoch of the Homeric poems, the Grecian tribes had made immense
material progress. All the common metals were known, including the
process of smelting ores, and possibly of changing iron into steel; the
principal cereals had been discovered, together with the art of cultivation,
and the use of the plow in field agriculture; the dog, the horse, the ass, the
cow, the sow, the sheep and the goat had been domesticated and reared in
flocks and herds, as has been shown. Architecture had produced a house
constructed of durable materials, containing separate apartments,40 and
consisting of more than a single story;41 ship building, weapons, textile
fabrics, the manufacture of wine from the grape, the cultivation of the
apple, the pear, the olive and the fig,42 together with comfortable apparel,
and useful implements and utensils, had been produced and brought into
human use.43 But the early history of mankind was lost in the oblivion of
the ages that had passed away. Tradition ascended to an anterior barbarism
through which it was unable to penetrate. Language had attained such
development that poetry of the highest structural form was about to embody
the inspirations of genius. The closing period of barbarism brought this
portion of the human family to the threshold of civilization, animated by the
great attainments of the past, grown hardy and intelligent in the school of
experience, and with the undisciplined imagination in the full splendor of
its creative powers. Barbarism ends with the production of grand
barbarians. Whilst the condition of society in this period was understood by
the later Greek and Roman writers, the anterior state, with its distinctive
culture and experience, was as deeply concealed from their apprehension as
from our own; except as occupying a nearer stand-point in time, they saw
more distinctly the relations of the present with the past. It was evident to
them that a certain sequence existed in the series of inventions and
discoveries, as well as a certain order of development of institutions,
through which mankind had advanced themselves from the status of
savagery to that of the Homeric age; but the immense interval of time
between the two conditions does not appear to have been made a subject
even of speculative consideration.

[Pg 46]
[Pg 47]
 PART II. - GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF
GOVERNMENT.

[Pg 48]
[Pg 49]

CHAPTER I. - ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY UPON THE

BASIS OF SEX.
A C .—O S .—A C O .—
A G .—T E C .—R M .—D F L .
—S C S .—T M T F C G .—
I C .—G R .

In treating the subject of the growth of the idea of government, the

organization into gentes on the basis of kin naturally suggests itself as the
archaic frame-work of ancient society; but there is a still older and more
archaic organization, that into classes on the basis of sex, which first
demands attention. It will not be taken up because of its novelty in human
experience, but for the higher reason that it seems to contain the germinal
principle of the gens. If this inference is warranted by the facts it will give
to this organization into male and female classes, now found in full vitality
among the Australian aborigines, an ancient prevalence as wide spread, in
the tribes of mankind, as the original organization into gentes.
It will soon be perceived that low down in savagery community of
husbands and wives, within prescribed limits, was the central principle of
the social system. The marital rights and privileges, (jura conjugialia,44)
established in the group, grew into a stupendous scheme, which became the
organic principle on which society was constituted. From the nature of the
case these rights and privileges rooted themselves so firmly that
emancipation from them was slowly accomplished through movements
which resulted in unconscious reformations. Accordingly it will be found
that the family has advanced from a lower to a higher form as the range of
this conjugal system was gradually reduced. The family, commencing in the
consanguine, founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters in a
group, passed into the second form, the punaluan, under a social system
akin to the Australian classes, which broke up the first species of marriage
by substituting groups of brothers who shared their wives in common, and
groups of sisters who shared their husbands in common,—marriage in both
cases being in the group. The organization into classes upon sex, and the
subsequent higher organization into gentes upon kin, must be regarded as
the results of great social movements worked out unconsciously through
natural selection. For these reasons the Australian system, about to be
presented, deserves attentive consideration, although it carries us into a low
grade of human life. It represents a striking phase of the ancient social
history of our race.
The organization into classes on the basis of sex, and the inchoate
organization into gentes on the basis of kin, now prevail among that portion
of the Australian aborigines who speak the Kamilaroi language. They
inhabit the Darling River district north of Sydney. Both organizations are
also found in other Australian tribes, and so wide spread as to render
probable their ancient universal prevalence among them. It is evident from
internal considerations that the male and female classes are older than the
gentes: firstly, because the gentile organization is higher than that into
classes; and secondly, because the former, among the Kamilaroi, are in
process of overthrowing the latter. The class in its male and female
branches is the unit of their social system, which place rightfully belongs to
the gens when in full development. A remarkable combination of facts is
thus presented; namely, a sexual and a gentile organization, both in
existence at the same time, the former holding the central position, and the
latter inchoate but advancing to completeness through encroachments upon
the former.
This organization upon sex has not been found, as yet, in any tribes of
savages out of Australia, but the slow development of these islanders in
their secluded habitat, and the more archaic character of the organization
upon sex than that into gentes, suggests the conjecture, that the former may
have been universal in such branches of the human family as afterwards
possessed the gentile organization. Although the class system, when traced
out fully, involves some bewildering complications, it will reward the
attention necessary for its mastery. As a curious social organization among
savages it possesses but little interest; but as the most primitive form of
society hitherto discovered, and more especially with the contingent
probability that the remote progenitors of our own Aryan family were once
similarly organized, it becomes important, and may prove instructive.
The Australians rank below the Polynesians, and far below the American
aborigines. They stand below the African negro and near the bottom of the
scale. Their social institutions, therefore, must approach the primitive type
as nearly as those of any existing people.45
Inasmuch as the gens is made the subject of the next succeeding chapter, it
will be introduced in this without discussion, and only for the necessary
explanation of the classes.
The Kamilaroi are divided into six gentes, standing with reference to the
right of marriage, in two divisions, as follows:

I. 1. Iguana, (Duli). 2. Kangaroo, (Murriira).46 3. Opossum, (Mute).

II. 4. Emu, (Dinoun). 5. Bandicoot, (Bilba). 6. Black-snake, (Nurai).
Originally the first three gentes were not allowed to intermarry with each
other, because they were subdivisions of an original gens; but they were
permitted to marry into either of the other gentes, and vice versâ. This
ancient rule is now modified, among the Kamilaroi, in certain definite
particulars, but not carried to the full extent of permitting marriage into any
gens but that of the individual. Neither males nor females can marry into
their own gens, the prohibition being absolute. Descent is in the female line,
which assigns the children to the gens of their mother. These are among the
essential characteristics of the gens, wherever this institution is found in its
archaic form. In its external features, therefore, it is perfect and complete
among the Kamilaroi.
But there is a further and older division of the people into eight classes, four
of which are composed exclusively of males, and four exclusively of
females. It is accompanied with a regulation in respect to marriage and
descent which obstructs the gens, and demonstrates that the latter
organization is in process of development into its true logical form. One
only of the four classes of males can marry into one only of the four classes
of females. In the sequel it will be found that all the males of one class are,
theoretically, the husbands of all the females of the class into which they are
allowed to marry. Moreover, if the male belongs to one of the first three
gentes the female must belong to one of the opposite three. Marriage is thus
restricted to a portion of the males of one gens, with a portion of the
females of another gens, which is opposed to the true theory of the gentile
institution, for all the members of each gens should be allowed to marry
persons of the opposite sex in all the gentes except their own.
The classes are the following:

Male. Female.
1. Ippai. 1. Ippata.
2. Kumbo. 2. Buta.
3. Murri. 3. Mata.
4. Kubbi. 4. Kapota.

All the Ippais, of whatever gens, are brothers to each other. Theoretically,
they are descended from a supposed common female ancestor. All the
Kumbos are the same; and so are all the Murris and Kubbis, respectively,
and for the same reason. In like manner, all the Ippatas, of whatever gens,
are sisters to each other, and for the same reason; all the Butas are the same,
and so are all the Matas and Kapotas, respectively. In the next place, all the
Ippais and Ippatas are brothers and sisters to each other, whether children of
the same mother or collateral consanguinei, and in whatever gens they are
found. The Kumbos and Butas are brothers and sisters; and so are the
Murris and Matas, and the Kubbis and Kapotas respectively. If an Ippai and
Ippata meet, who have never seen each other before, they address each
other as brother and sister. The Kamilaroi, therefore, are organized into four
great primary groups of brothers and sisters, each group being composed of
a male and a female branch; but intermingled over the areas of their
occupation. Founded upon sex, instead of kin, it is older than the gentes,
and more archaic, it may be repeated, than any form of society hitherto
known.
The classes embody the germ of the gens, but fall short of its realization. In
reality the Ippais and Ippatas form a single class in two branches, and since
they cannot intermarry they would form the basis of a gens but for the
reason that they fall under two names, each of which is integral for certain
purposes, and for the further reason that their children take different names
from their own. The division into classes is upon sex instead of kin, and has
its primary relation to a rule of marriage as remarkable as it is original.
Since brothers and sisters are not allowed to intermarry, the classes stand to
each other in a different order with respect to the right of marriage, or
rather, of cohabitation, which better expresses the relation. Such was the
original law, thus:

Ippai can marry Kapota, and no other.

Kumbo ” ” Mata, ” ” ”
Murri ” ” Buta, ” ” ”
Kubbi ” ” Ippata, ” ” ”

This exclusive scheme has been modified in one particular, as will hereafter
be shown: namely, in giving to each class of males the right of
intermarriage with one additional class of females. In this fact, evidence of
the encroachment of the gens upon the class is furnished, tending to the
overthrow of the latter.
It is thus seen that each male in the selection of a wife, is limited to one-
fourth part of all the Kamilaroi females. This, however, is not the
remarkable part of the system. Theoretically every Kapota is the wife of
every Ippai; every Mata is the wife of every Kumbo; every Buta is the wife
of every Murri; and every Ippata of every Kubbi. Upon this material point
the information is specific. Mr. Fison, before mentioned, after observing
that Mr. Lance had “had much intercourse with the natives, having lived
among them many years on frontier cattle-stations on the Darling River, and
in the trans-Darling country,” quotes from his letter as follows: “If a Kubbi
meets a stranger Ippata, they address each other as Goleer = Spouse.... A
Kubbi thus meeting an Ippata, even though she were of another tribe, would
treat her as his wife, and his right to do so would be recognized by her
tribe.” Every Ippata within the immediate circle of his acquaintance would
consequently be his wife as well.
Here we find, in a direct and definite form, punaluan marriage in a group of
unusual extent; but broken up into lesser groups, each a miniature
representation of the whole, united for habitation and subsistence. Under
the conjugal system thus brought to light, one-quarter of all the males are
united in marriage with one-quarter of all the females of the Kamilaroi
tribes. This picture of savage life need not revolt the mind, because to them
it was a form of the marriage relation, and therefore devoid of impropriety.
It is but an extended form of polygyny and polyandry, which, within
narrower limits, have prevailed universally among savage tribes. The
evidence of the fact still exists, in unmistakable form, in their systems of
consanguinity and affinity, which have outlived the customs and usages in
which they originated. It will be noticed that this scheme of intermarriage is
but a step from promiscuity, because it is tantamount to that with the
addition of a method. Still, as it is made a subject of organic regulation, it is
far removed from general promiscuity. Moreover, it reveals an existing state
of marriage and of the family of which no adequate conception could have
been formed apart from the facts. It affords the first direct evidence of a
state of society which had previously been deduced, as extremely probable,
from systems of consanguinity and affinity.47
Whilst the children remained in the gens of their mother, they passed into
another class, in the same gens, different from that of either parent. This
will be made apparent by the following table:

Male. Female. Male. Female.

Ippai marries Kapota. Their children are Murri and Mata.
Kumbo ” Mata. ” ” ” Kubbi ” Kapota.
Murri ” Buta. ” ” ” Ippai ” Ippata.
Kubbi ” Ippata. ” ” ” Kumbo ” Buta.

If these descents are followed out it will be found that, in the female line,
Kapota is the mother of Mata, and Mata in turn is the mother of Kapota; so
Ippata is the mother of Buta, and the latter in turn is the mother of Ippata. It
is the same with the male classes; but since descent is in the female line, the
Kamilaroi tribes derive themselves from two supposed female ancestors,
which laid the foundation for two original gentes. By tracing these descents
still further it will be found that the blood of each class passes through all
the classes.
Although each individual bears one of the class names above given, it will
be understood that each has in addition the single personal name, which is
common among savage as well as barbarous tribes. The more closely this
organization upon sex is scrutinized, the more remarkable it seems as the
work of savages. When once established, and after that transmitted through
a few generations, it would hold society with such power as to become
difficult of displacement. It would require a similar and higher system, and
centuries of time, to accomplish this result; particularly if the range of the
conjugal system would thereby be abridged.
The gentile organization supervened naturally upon the classes as a higher
organization, by simply enfolding them unchanged. That it was subsequent
in point of time, is shown by the relations of the two systems, by the
inchoate condition of the gentes, by the impaired condition of the classes
through encroachments by the gens, and by the fact that the class is still the
unit of organization. These conclusions will be made apparent in the sequel.
From the preceding statements the composition of the gentes will be
understood when placed in their relations to the classes. The latter are in
pairs of brothers and sisters derived from each other; and the gentes
themselves, through the classes, are in pairs, as follows:

Gentes. Male. Female. Male. Female.

1. Iguana. All are Murri and Mata, or Kubbi and Kapota.
2. Emu. ” ” Kumbo ” Buta, ” Ippai ” Ippata.

3. Kangaroo. ” ” Murri ” Mata, ” Kubbi ” Kapota.

4. Bandicoot. ” ” Kumbo ” Buta, ” Ippai ” Ippata.

5. Opossum. ” ” Murri ” Mata, ” Kubbi ” Kapota.

6. Blacksnake. ” ” Kumbo ” Buta, ” Ippai ” Ippata.

The connection of children with a particular gens is proven by the law of

marriage. Thus, Iguana-Mata must marry Kumbo; her children are Kubbi
and Kapota, and necessarily Iguana in gens, because descent is in the
female line. Iguana-Kapota must marry Ippai; her children are Murri and
Mata, and also Iguana in gens, for the same reason. In like manner Emu-
Buta must marry Murri; her children are Ippai and Ippata, and of the Emu
gens. So Emu-Ippata must marry Kubbi; her children are Kumbo and Buta,
and also of the Emu gens. In this manner the gens is maintained by keeping
in its membership the children of all its female members. The same is true
in all respects of each of the remaining gentes. It will be noticed that each
gens is made up, theoretically, of the descendants of two supposed female
ancestors, and contains four of the eight classes. It seems probable that
originally there were but two male, and two female classes, which were set
opposite to each other in respect to the right of marriage; and that the four
afterward subdivided into eight. The classes as an anterior organization
were evidently arranged within the gentes, and not formed by the
subdivision of the latter.
Moreover, since the Iguana, Kangaroo and Opossum gentes are found to be
counterparts of each other, in the classes they contain, it follows that they
are subdivisions of an original gens. Precisely the same is true of Emu,
Bandicoot and Blacksnake, in both particulars; thus reducing the six to two
original gentes, with the right in each to marry into the other, but not into
itself. It is confirmed by the fact that the members of the first three gentes
could not originally intermarry; neither could the members of the last three.
The reason which prevented intermarriage in the gens, when the three were
one, would follow the subdivisions because they were of the same descent
although under different gentile names. Exactly the same thing is found
among the Seneca-Iroquois, as will hereafter be shown.
Since marriage is restricted to particular classes, when there were but two
gentes, one-half of all the females of one were, theoretically, the wives of
one-half of all the males of the other. After their subdivision into six the
benefit of marrying out of the gens, which was the chief advantage of the
institution, was arrested, if not neutralized, by the presence of the classes
together with the restrictions mentioned. It resulted in continuous in-and-in
marriages beyond the immediate degree of brother and sister. If the gens
could have eradicated the classes this evil would, in a great measure, have
been removed.48
The organization into classes seems to have been directed to the single
object of breaking up the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, which
affords a probable explanation of the origin of the system. But since it did
not look beyond this special abomination it retained a conjugal system
nearly as objectionable, as well as cast it in a permanent form.
It remains to notice an innovation upon the original constitution of the
classes, and in favor of the gens, which reveals a movement, still pending,
in the direction of the true ideal of the gens. It is shown in two particulars:
firstly, in allowing each triad of gentes to intermarry with each other, to a
limited extent; and secondly, to marry into classes not before permitted.
Thus, Iguana-Murri can now marry Mata in the Kangaroo gens, his
collateral sister, whereas originally he was restricted to Buta in the opposite
three. So Iguana-Kubbi can now marry Kapota, his collateral sister. Emu-
Kumbo can now marry Buta, and Emu-Ippai can marry Ippata in the
Blacksnake gens, contrary to original limitations. Each class of males in
each triad of gentes seems now to be allowed one additional class of
females in the two remaining gentes of the same triad, from which they
were before excluded. The memoranda sent by Mr. Fison, however, do not
show a change to the full extent here indicated.49
This innovation would plainly have been a retrograde movement but that it
tended to break down the classes. The line of progress among the
Kamilaroi, so far as any is observable, was from classes into gentes,
followed by a tendency to make the gens instead of the class the unit of the
social organism. In this movement the overshadowing system of
cohabitation was the resisting element. Social advancement was impossible
without diminishing its extent, which was equally impossible so long as the
classes, with the privileges they conferred, remained in full vitality. The
jura conjugialia, which appertained to these classes, were the dead weight
upon the Kamilaroi, without emancipation from which they would have
remained for additional thousands of years in the same condition,
substantially, in which they were found.
An organization somewhat similar is indicated by the punalua of the
Hawaiians which will be hereafter explained. Wherever the middle or lower
stratum of savagery is uncovered, marriages of entire groups under usages
defining the groups, have been discovered either in absolute form, or such
traces as to leave little doubt that such marriages were normal throughout
this period of man’s history. It is immaterial whether the group,
theoretically, was large or small, the necessities of their condition would set
a practical limit to the size of the group living together under this custom. If
then community of husbands and wives is found to have been a law of the
savage state, and, therefore, the essential condition of society in savagery,
the inference would be conclusive that our own savage ancestors shared in
this common experience of the human race.
In such usages and customs an explanation of the low condition of savages
is found. If men in savagery had not been left behind, in isolated portions of
the earth, to testify concerning the early condition of mankind in general, it
would have been impossible to form any definite conception of what it must
have been. An important inference at once arises, namely, that the
institutions of mankind have sprung up in a progressive connected series,
each of which represents the result of unconscious reformatory movements
to extricate society from existing evils. The wear of ages is upon these
institutions, for the proper understanding of which they must be studied in
this light. It cannot be assumed that the Australian savages are now at the
bottom of the scale, for their arts and institutions, humble as they are, show
the contrary; neither is there any ground for assuming their degradation
from a higher condition, because the facts of human experience afford no
sound basis for such an hypothesis. Cases of physical and mental
deterioration in tribes and nations may be admitted, for reasons which are
known, but they never interrupted the general progress of mankind. All the
facts of human knowledge and experience tend to show that the human
race, as a whole, have steadily progressed from a lower to a higher
condition. The arts by which savages maintain their lives are remarkably
persistent. They are never lost until superseded by others higher in degree.
By the practice of these arts, and by the experience gained through social
organizations, mankind have advanced under a necessary law of
development, although their progress may have been substantially
imperceptible for centuries. It was the same with races as with individuals,
although tribes and nations have perished through the disruption of their
ethnic life.
The Australian classes afford the first, and, so far as the writer is aware, the
only case in which we are able to look down into the incipient stages of the
organization into gentes, and even through it upon an anterior organization
so archaic as that upon sex. It seems to afford a glimpse at society when it
verged upon the primitive. Among other tribes the gens seems to have
advanced in proportion to the curtailment of the conjugal system. Mankind
rise in the scale and the family advances through its successive forms, as
these rights sink down before the efforts of society to improve its internal
organization.
The Australians might not have effected the overthrow of the classes in
thousands of years if they had remained undiscovered; while more favored
continental tribes had long before perfected the gens, then advanced it
through its successive phases, and at last laid it aside after entering upon
civilization. Facts illustrating the rise of successive social organizations,
such as that upon sex, and that upon kin are of the highest ethnological
value. A knowledge of what they indicate is eminently desirable, if the
early history of mankind is to be measurably recovered.
Among the Polynesian tribes the gens was unknown; but traces of a system
analogous to the Australian classes appear in the Hawaiian custom of
punalua. Original ideas, absolutely independent of previous knowledge and
experience, are necessarily few in number. Were it possible to reduce the
sum of human ideas to underived originals, the small numerical result
would be startling. Development is the method of human progress.
In the light of these facts some of the excrescences of modern civilization,
such as Mormonism, are seen to be relics of the old savagism not yet
eradicated from the human brain. We have the same brain, perpetuated by
reproduction, which worked in the skulls of barbarians and savages in by-
gone ages; and it has come down to us ladened and saturated with the
thoughts, aspirations and passions, with which it was busied through the
intermediate periods. It is the same brain grown older and larger with the
experience of the ages. These outcrops of barbarism are so many
revelations of its ancient proclivities. They are explainable as a species of
mental atavism.
Out of a few germs of thought, conceived in the early ages, have been
evolved all the principal institutions of mankind. Beginning their growth in
the period of savagery, fermenting through the period of barbarism, they
have continued their advancement through the period of civilization. The
evolution of these germs of thought has been guided by a natural logic
which formed an essential attribute of the brain itself. So unerringly has this
principle performed its functions in all conditions of experience, and in all
periods of time, that its results are uniform, coherent and traceable in their
courses. These results alone will in time yield convincing proofs of the
unity of origin of mankind. The mental history of the human race, which is
revealed in institutions, inventions and discoveries, is presumptively the
history of a single species, perpetuated through individuals, and developed
through experience. Among the original germs of thought, which have
exercised the most powerful influence upon the human mind, and upon
human destiny, are these which relate to government, to the family, to
language, to religion, and to property. They had a definite beginning far
back in savagery, and a logical progress, but can have no final
consummation, because they are still progressing, and must ever continue to
progress.

CHAPTER II. - THE IROQUOIS GENS.

T G O .—I W P .—D G .—D
F L A R .—R ,P O M G .—
R E D S C .—O
G .—M R I P M .—R
O H , D R I .—R N M .—
R A S G .—C R R ,Q .—A C
B P .—C G .—G A .—N P
G .

The experience of mankind, as elsewhere remarked, has developed but two

plans of government, using the word plan in its scientific sense. Both were
definite and systematic organizations of society. The first and most ancient
was a social organization, founded upon gentes, phratries and tribes. The
second and latest in time was a political organization, founded upon
territory and upon property. Under the first a gentile society was created, in
which the government dealt with persons through their relations to a gens
and tribe. These relations were purely personal. Under the second a political
society was instituted, in which the government dealt with persons through
their relations to territory, e. g.—the township, the county, and the state.
These relations were purely territorial. The two plans were fundamentally
different. One belongs to ancient society, and the other to modern.
The gentile organization opens to us one of the oldest and most widely
prevalent institutions of mankind. It furnished the nearly universal plan of
government of ancient society, Asiatic, European, African, American and
Australian. It was the instrumentality by means of which society was
organized and held together. Commencing in savagery, and continuing
through the three sub-periods of barbarism, it remained until the
establishment of political society, which did not occur until after civilization
had commenced. The Grecian gens, phratry and tribe, the Roman gens,
curia and tribe find their analogues in the gens, phratry and tribe of the
American aborigines. In like manner, the Irish sept, the Scottish clan, the
phrara of the Albanians, and the Sanskrit ganas, without extending the
comparison further, are the same as the American Indian gens, which has
usually been called a clan. As far as our knowledge extends, this
organization runs through the entire ancient world upon all the continents,
and it was brought down to the historical period by such tribes as attained to
civilization. Nor is this all. Gentile society wherever found is the same in
structural organization and in principles of action; but changing from lower
to higher forms with the progressive advancement of the people. These
changes give the history of development of the same original conceptions.
Gens, γένος, and ganas in Latin, Greek and Sanskrit have alike the primary
signification of kin. They contain the same element as gigno, γίγνομαι, and
ganamai, in the same languages, signifying to beget; thus implying in each
an immediate common descent of the members of a gens. A gens, therefore,
is a body of consanguinei descended from the same common ancestor,
distinguished by a gentile name, and bound together by affinities of blood.
It includes a moiety only of such descendants. Where descent is in the
female line, as it was universally in the archaic period, the gens is
composed of a supposed female ancestor and her children, together with the
children of her female descendants, through females, in perpetuity; and
where descent is in the male line—into which it was changed after the
appearance of property in masses—of a supposed male ancestor and his
children, together with the children of his male descendants, through males,
in perpetuity. The family name among ourselves is a survival of the gentile
name, with descent in the male line, and passing in the same manner. The
modern family, as expressed by its name, is an unorganized gens; with the
bond of kin broken, and its members as widely dispersed as the family
name is found.
Among the nations named, the gens indicated a social organization of a
remarkable character, which had prevailed from an antiquity so remote that
its origin was lost in the obscurity of far distant ages. It was also the unit of
organization of a social and governmental system, the fundamental basis of
ancient society. This organization was not confined to the Latin, Grecian
and Sanskrit speaking tribes, with whom it became such a conspicuous
institution. It has been found in other branches of the Aryan family of
nations, in the Semitic, Uralian and Turanian families, among the tribes of
Africa and Australia, and of the American aborigines.
An exposition of the elementary constitution of the gens, with its functions,
rights, and privileges, requires our first attention; after which it will be
traced, as widely as possible, among the tribes and nations of mankind in
order to prove, by comparisons, its fundamental unity. It will then be seen
that it must be regarded as one of the primary institutions of mankind.
The gens has passed through successive stages of development in its
transition from its archaic to its final form with the progress of mankind.
These changes were limited, in the main, to two: firstly, changing descent
from the female line, which was the archaic rule, as among the Iroquois, to
the male line, which was the final rule, as among the Grecian and Roman
gentes; and, secondly, changing the inheritance of the property of a
deceased member of the gens from his gentiles, who took it in the archaic
period, first to his agnatic kindred, and finally to his children. These
changes, slight as they may seem, indicate very great changes of condition
as well as a large degree of progressive development.
The gentile organization, originating in the period of savagery, enduring
through the three sub-periods of barbarism, finally gave way, among the
more advanced tribes, when they attained civilization, the requirements of
which it was unable to meet. Among the Greeks and Romans, political
society supervened upon gentile society, but not until civilization had
commenced. The township (and its equivalent, the city ward), with its fixed
property, and the inhabitants it contained, organized as a body politic,
became the unit and the basis of a new and radically different system of
government. After political society was instituted, this ancient and time-
honored organization, with the phratry and tribe developed from it,
gradually yielded up their existence. It will be my object, in the course of
this volume, to trace the progress of this organization from its rise in
savagery to its final overthrow in civilization; for it was under gentile
institutions that barbarism was won by some of the tribes of mankind while
in savagery, and that civilization was won by the descendants of some of
the same tribes while in barbarism. Gentile institutions carried a portion of
mankind from savagery to civilization.
This organization may be successfully studied both in its living and in its
historical forms in a large number of tribes and races. In such an
investigation it is preferable to commence with the gens in its archaic form,
and then to follow it through its successive modifications among advanced
nations, in order to discover both the changes and the causes which
produced them. I shall commence, therefore, with the gens as it now exists
among the American aborigines, where it is found in its archaic form, and
among whom its theoretical constitution and practical workings can be
investigated more successfully than in the historical gentes of the Greeks
and Romans. In fact to understand fully the gentes of the latter nations a
knowledge of the functions, and of the rights, privileges and obligations of
the members of the American Indian gens is imperatively necessary.
In American Ethnography tribe and clan have been used in the place of
gens as an equivalent term, from not perceiving its universality. In previous
works, and following my predecessors, I have so used them.50 A
comparison of the Indian clan with the gens of the Greeks and Romans
reveals at once their identity in structure and functions. It also extends to
the phratry and tribe. If the identity of these several organizations can be
shown, of which there can be no doubt, there is a manifest propriety in
returning to the Latin and Grecian terminologies which are full and precise
as well as historical. I have made herein the substitutions required, and
propose to show the parallelism of these several organizations.
The plan of government of the American aborigines commenced with the
gens and ended with the confederacy, the latter being the highest point to
which their governmental institutions attained. It gave for the organic
series: first, the gens, a body of consanguinei having a common gentile
name; second, the phratry, an assemblage of related gentes united in a
higher association for certain common objects; third, the tribe, an
assemblage of gentes, usually organized in phratries, all the members of
which spoke the same dialect; and fourth, a confederacy of tribes, the
members of which respectively spoke dialects of the same stock language.
It resulted in a gentile society (societas), as distinguished from a political
society or state (civitas). The difference between the two is wide and
fundamental. There was neither a political society, nor a citizen, nor a state,
nor any civilization in America when it was discovered. One entire ethnical
period intervened between the highest American Indian tribes and the
beginning of civilization, as that term is properly understood.
In like manner the plan of government of the Grecian tribes, anterior to
civilization, involved the same organic series, with the exception of the last
member: first, the gens, a body of consanguinei bearing a common gentile
name; second, the phratry, an assemblage of gentes, united for social and
religious objects; third, the tribe, an assemblage of gentes of the same
lineage organized in phratries; and fourth, a nation, an assemblage of tribes
who had coalesced in a gentile society upon one common territory, as the
four tribes of the Athenians in Attica, and the three Dorian tribes at Sparta.
Coalescence was a higher process than confederating. In the latter case the
tribes occupied independent territories.
The Roman plan and series were the same: First, the gens, a body of
consanguinei bearing a common gentile name; second, the curia, an
assemblage of gentes united in a higher association for the performance of
religious and governmental functions; third, the tribe, an assemblage of
gentes organized in curiae; and fourth, a nation, an assemblage of tribes
who had coalesced in a gentile society. The early Romans styled
themselves, with entire propriety, the Populus Romanus.
Wherever gentile institutions prevailed, and prior to the establishment of
political society, we find peoples or nations in gentile societies, and nothing
beyond. The state did not exist. Their governments were essentially
democratical, because the principles on which the gens, phratry and tribe
were organized were democratical. This last proposition, though contrary to
received opinions, is historically important. The truth of it can be tested as
the gens, phratry and tribe of the American aborigines, and the same
organizations among the Greeks and Romans are successively considered.
As the gens, the unit of organization, was essentially democratical, so
necessarily was the phratry composed of gentes, the tribe composed of
phratries, and the gentile society formed by the confederating, or coalescing
of tribes.
The gens, though a very ancient social organization founded upon kin, does
not include all the descendants of a common ancestor. It was for the reason
that when the gens came in, marriage between single pairs was unknown,
and descent through males could not be traced with certainty. Kindred were
linked together chiefly through the bond of their maternity. In the ancient
gens descent was limited to the female line. It embraced all such persons as
traced their descent from a supposed common female ancestor, through
females, the evidence of the fact being the possession of a common gentile
name. It would include this ancestor and her children, the children of her
daughters, and the children of her female descendants, through females, in
perpetuity; whilst the children of her sons, and the children of her male
descendants, through males, would belong to other gentes; namely, those of
their respective mothers. Such was the gens in its archaic form, when the
paternity of children was not certainly ascertainable, and when their
maternity afforded the only certain criterion of descents.
This state of descents, which can be traced back to the Middle Status of
savagery, as among the Australians, remained among the American
aborigines through the Upper Status of savagery, and into and through the
Lower Status of barbarism, with occasional exceptions. In the Middle
Status of barbarism, the Indian tribes began to change descent from the
female line to the male, as the syndyasmian family of the period began to
assume monogamian characteristics. In the Upper Status of barbarism,
descent had become changed to the male line among the Grecian tribes,
with the exception of the Lycians, and among the Italian tribes, with the
exception of the Etruscans. The influence of property and its inheritance in
producing the monogamian family which assured the paternity of children,
and in causing a change of descent from the female line to the male, will be
considered elsewhere. Between the two extremes, represented by the two
rules of descent, three entire ethnical periods intervene, covering many
thousands of years.
With descent in the male line, the gens embraced all persons who traced
their descent from a supposed common male ancestor, through males only,
the evidence of the fact being, as in the other case, the possession of a
common gentile name. It would include this ancestor and his children, the
children of his sons, and the children of his male descendants, through
males, in perpetuity; whilst the children of his daughters, and the children
of his female descendants, through females, would belong to other gentes;
namely, those of their respective fathers. Those retained in the gens in one
case were those excluded in the other, and vice versâ. Such was the gens in
its final form, after the paternity of children became ascertainable through
the rise of monogamy. The transition of a gens from one form into the other
was perfectly simple, without involving its overthrow. All that was needed
was an adequate motive, as will elsewhere be shown. The same gens, with
descent changed to the male line, remained the unit of the social system. It
could not have reached the second form without previously existing in the
first.
As intermarriage in the gens was prohibited, it withdrew its members from
the evils of consanguine marriages, and thus tended to increase the vigor of
the stock. The gens came into being upon three principal conceptions,
namely the bond of kin, a pure lineage through descent in the female line,
and non-intermarriage in the gens. When the idea of a gens was developed,
it would naturally have taken the form of gentes in pairs, because the
children of the males were excluded, and because it was equally necessary
to organize both classes of descendants. With two gentes started into being
simultaneously the whole result would have been attained, since the males
and females of one gens would marry the females and males of the other,
and the children, following the gentes of their respective mothers, would be
divided between them. Resting on the bond of kin as its cohesive principle
the gens afforded to each individual member that personal protection which
no other existing power could give.
After considering the rights, privileges and obligations of its members it
will be necessary to follow the gens in its organic relations to a phratry,
tribe and confederacy, in order to find the uses to which it was applied, the
privileges which it conferred, and the principles which it fostered. The
gentes of the Iroquois will be taken as the standard exemplification of this
institution in the Ganowánian family. They had carried their scheme of
government from the gens to the confederacy, making it complete in each of
its parts, and an excellent illustration of the capabilities of the gentile
organization in its archaic form. When discovered the Iroquois were in the
Lower Status of barbarism, and well advanced in the arts of life pertaining
to this condition. They manufactured nets twine and rope from filaments of
bark; wove belts and burden straps, with warp and woof, from the same
materials; they manufactured earthen vessels and pipes from clay mixed
with siliceous materials and hardened by fire, some of which were
ornamented with rude medallions; they cultivated maize, beans, squashes,
and tobacco, in garden beds, and made unleavened bread from pounded
maize which they boiled in earthern vessels;51 they tanned skins into leather
with which they manufactured kilts leggings and moccasins; they used the
bow and arrow and war-club as their principal weapons; used flint stone and
bone implements, wore skin garments, and were expert hunters and
fishermen. They constructed long joint-tenement houses large enough to
accommodate five, ten, and twenty families, and each household practiced
communism in living; but they were unacquainted with the use of stone or
adobe-brick in house architecture, and with the use of the native metals. In
mental capacity and in general advancement they were the representative
branch of the Indian family north of New Mexico. General F. A. Walker has
sketched their military career in two paragraphs: “The career of the Iroquois
was simply terrific. They were the scourge of God upon the aborigines of
the continent.”52
From lapse of time the Iroquois tribes have come to differ slightly in the
number, and in the names of their respective gentes. The largest number
being eight, as follows:
Senecas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7.
Heron. 8. Hawk.
Cayugas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7.
Eel. 8. Hawk.
Onondagas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7.
Eel. 8. Ball.
Oneidas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle.
Mohawks.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle.
Tuscaroras.—1. Gray Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Great Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Yellow
Wolf. 6. Snipe. 7. Eel. 8. Little Turtle.
These changes show that certain gentes in some of the tribes have become
extinct through the vicissitudes of time; and that others have been formed
by the segmentation of over-full gentes.
With a knowledge of the rights, privileges and obligations of the members
of a gens, its capabilities as the unit of a social and governmental system
will be more fully understood, as well as the manner in which it entered into
the higher organizations of the phratry, tribe, and confederacy.
The gens is individualized by the following rights, privileges, and
obligations conferred and imposed upon its members, and which made up
the jus gentilicium.

I. The right of electing its sachem and chiefs.

II. The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs.
III. The obligation not to marry in the gens.
IV. Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased members.
V. Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of injuries.
VI. The right of bestowing names upon its members.
VII. The right of adopting strangers into the gens.
VIII. Common religious rites, query.
IX. A common burial place.
X. A council of the gens.

These functions and attributes gave vitality as well as individuality to the

organization, and protected the personal rights of its members.
I. The right of electing its sachem and chiefs.
Nearly all the American Indian tribes had two grades of chiefs, who may be
distinguished as sachems and common chiefs. Of these two primary grades
all other grades were varieties. They were elected in each gens from among
its members. A son could not be chosen to succeed his father, where descent
was in the female line, because he belonged to a different gens, and no gens
would have a chief or sachem from any gens but its own. The office of
sachem was hereditary in the gens, in the sense that it was filled as often as
a vacancy occurred; while the office of chief was non-hereditary, because it
was bestowed in reward of personal merit, and died with the individual.
Moreover, the duties of a sachem were confined to the affairs of peace. He
could not go out to war as a sachem. On the other hand, the chiefs who
were raised to office for personal bravery, for wisdom in affairs, or for
eloquence in council, were usually the superior class in ability, though not
in authority over the gens. The relation of the sachem was primarily to the
gens, of which he was the official head; while that of the chief was
primarily to the tribe, of the council of which he, as well as the sachem,
were members.
The office of sachem had a natural foundation in the gens, as an organized
body of consanguinei which, as such, needed a representative head. As an
office, however, it is older than the gentile organization, since it is found
among tribes not thus organized, but among whom it had a similar basis in
the punaluan group, and even in the anterior horde. In the gens the
constituency of the sachem was clearly defined, the basis of the relation was
permanent, and its duties paternal. While the office was hereditary in the
gens it was elective among its male members. When the Indian system of
consanguinity is considered, it will be found that all the male members of a
gens were either brothers to each other, own or collateral, uncles or
nephews, own or collateral, or collateral grandfathers and grandsons.53 This
will explain the succession of the office of sachem which passed from
brother to brother, or from uncle to nephew, and very rarely from
grandfather to grandson. The choice, which was by free suffrage of both
males and females of adult age, usually fell upon a brother of the deceased
sachem, or upon one of the sons of a sister; an own brother, or the son of an
own sister being most likely to be preferred. As between several brothers,
own and collateral, on the one hand, and the sons of several sisters, own and
collateral, on the other, there was no priority of right, for the reason that all
the male members of the gens were equally eligible. To make a choice
between them was the function of the elective principle.
Upon the death of a sachem, for example among the Seneca-Iroquois, a
council of his gentiles54 was convened to name his successor. Two
candidates, according to their usages, must be voted upon, both of them
members of the gens. Each person of adult age was called upon to express
his or her preference, and the one who received the largest number of
affirmative declarations was nominated. It still required the assent of the
seven remaining gentes before the nomination was complete. If these
gentes, who met for the purpose by phratries, refused to confirm the
nomination it was thereby set aside, and the gens proceeded to make
another choice. When the person nominated by his gens was accepted by
the remaining gentes the election was complete; but it was still necessary
that the new sachem should be raised up, to use their expression, or
invested with his office by a council of the confederacy, before he could
enter upon its duties. It was their method of conferring the imperium. In this
manner the rights and interests of the several gentes were consulted and
preserved; for the sachem of a gens was ex officio a member of the council
of the tribe, and of the higher council of the confederacy. The same method
of election and of confirmation existed with respect to the office of chief,
and for the same reasons. But a general council was never convened to raise
up chiefs below the grade of a sachem. They awaited the time when
sachems were invested.
The principle of democracy, which was born of the gentes, manifested itself
in the retention by the gentiles of the right to elect their sachem and chiefs,
in the safeguards thrown around the office to prevent usurpation, and in the
check upon the election held by the remaining gentes.
The chiefs in each gens were usually proportioned to the number of its
members. Among the Seneca-Iroquois there is one chief for about every
fifty persons. They now number in New York some three thousand, and
have eight sachems and about sixty chiefs. There are reasons for supposing
that the proportionate number is now greater than in former times. With
respect to the number of gentes in a tribe, the more numerous the people the
greater, usually, the number of gentes. The number varied in the different
tribes, from three among the Delawares and Munsees to upwards of twenty
among the Ojibwas and Creeks; six, eight, and ten being common numbers.
II. The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs.
This right, which was not less important than that to elect, was reserved by
the members of the gens. Although the office was nominally for life, the
tenure was practically during good behavior, in consequence of the power
to depose. The installation of a sachem was symbolized as “putting on the
horns,” and his deposition as “taking off the horns.” Among widely
separated tribes of mankind horns have been made the emblem of office and
of authority, suggested probably, as Tylor intimates, by the commanding
appearance of the males among ruminant animals bearing horns. Unworthy
behavior, followed by a loss of confidence, furnished a sufficient ground for
deposition. When a sachem or chief had been deposed in due form by a
council of his gens, he ceased thereafter to be recognized as such, and
became thenceforth a private person. The council of the tribe also had
power to depose both sachems and chiefs, without waiting for the action of
the gens, and even against its wishes. Through the existence and occasional
exercise of this power the supremacy of the gentiles over their sachem and
chiefs was asserted and preserved. It also reveals the democratic
constitution of the gens.
III. The obligation not to marry in the gens.
Although a negative proposition it was fundamental. It was evidently a
primary object of the organization to isolate a moiety of the descendants of
a supposed founder, and prevent their intermarriage for reasons of kin.
When the gens came into existence brothers were intermarried to each
other’s wives in a group, and sisters to each other’s husbands in a group, to
which the gens interposed no obstacle. But it sought to exclude brothers and
sisters from the marriage relation which was effected, as there are good
reasons for stating, by the prohibition in question. Had the gens attempted
to uproot the entire conjugal system of the period by its direct action, there
is not the slightest probability that it would have worked its way into
general establishment. The gens, originating probably in the ingenuity of a
small band of savages, must soon have proved its utility in the production
of superior men. Its nearly universal prevalence in the ancient world is the
highest evidence of the advantages it conferred, and of its adaptability to
human wants in savagery and in barbarism. The Iroquois still adhere
inflexibly to the rule which forbids persons to marry in their own gens.
IV. Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased members.
In the Status of savagery, and in the Lower Status of barbarism, the amount
of property was small. It consisted in the former condition of personal
effects, to which, in the latter, were added possessory rights in joint-
tenement houses and in gardens. The most valuable personal articles were
buried with the body of the deceased owner. Nevertheless, the question of
inheritance was certain to arise, to increase in importance with the increase
of property in variety and amount, and to result in some settled rule of
inheritance. Accordingly we find the principle established low down in
barbarism, and even back of that in savagery, that the property should
remain in the gens, and be distributed among the gentiles of the deceased
owner. It was customary law in the Grecian and Latin gentes in the Upper
Status of barbarism, and remained as written law far into civilization, that
the property of a deceased person should remain in the gens. But after the
time of Solon among the Athenians it was limited to cases of intestacy.
The question, who should take the property, has given rise to three great and
successive rules of inheritance. First, that it should be distributed among the
gentiles of the deceased owner. This was the rule in the Lower Status of
barbarism, and so far as is known in the Status of savagery. Second, that the
property should be distributed among the agnatic kindred of the deceased
owner, to the exclusion of the remaining gentiles. The germ of this rule
makes its appearance in the Lower Status of barbarism, and it probably
became completely established in the Middle Status. Third, that the
property should be inherited by the children of the deceased owner, to the
exclusion of the remaining agnates. This became the rule in the Upper
Status of barbarism.
Theoretically, the Iroquois were under the first rule; but, practically, the
effects of a deceased person were appropriated by his nearest relations
within the gens. In the case of a male his own brothers and sisters and
maternal uncles divided his effects among themselves. This practical
limitation of the inheritance to the nearest gentile kin discloses the germ of
agnatic inheritance. In the case of a female her property was inherited by
her children and her sisters, to the exclusion of her brothers. In every case
the property remained in the gens. The children of the deceased males took
nothing from their father because they belonged to a different gens. It was
for the same reason that the husband took nothing from the wife, or the wife
from her husband. These mutual rights of inheritance strengthened the
autonomy of the gens.
V. Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of injuries.
In civilized society the state assumes the protection of persons and of
property. Accustomed to look to this source for the maintenance of personal
rights, there has been a corresponding abatement of the strength of the bond
of kin. But under gentile society the individual depended for security upon
his gens. It took the place afterwards held by the state, and possessed the
requisite numbers to render its guardianship effective. Within its
membership the bond of kin was a powerful element for mutual support. To
wrong a person was to wrong his gens; and to support a person was to stand
behind him with the entire array of his gentile kindred.
In their trials and difficulties the members of the gens assisted each other.
Two or three illustrations may be given from the Indian tribes at large.
Speaking of the Mayas of Yucatan, Herrera remarks, that “when any
satisfaction was to be made for damages, if he who was adjudged to pay
was like to be reduced to poverty, the kindred contributed.”55 By the term
kindred, as here used, we are justified in understanding the gens. And of the
Florida Indians: “When a brother or son dies the people of the house will
rather starve than seek anything to eat during three months, but the kindred
and relations send it all in.”56 Persons who removed from one village to
another could not transfer their possessory right to cultivated lands or to a
section of a joint-tenement house to a stranger; but must leave them to his
gentile kindred. Herrera refers to this usage among the Indian tribes of
Nicaragua; “He that removed from one town to another could not sell what
he had, but must leave it to his nearest relation.”57 So much of their
property was held in joint ownership that their plan of life would not admit
of its alienation to a person of another gens. Practically, the right to such
property was possessory, and when abandoned it reverted to the gens.
Garcilasso de la Vega remarks of the tribes of the Peruvian Andes, that
“when the commonalty, or ordinary sort, married, the communities of the
people were obliged to build and provide them houses.”58 For communities,
as here used, we are justified in understanding the gens. Herrera speaking of
the same tribes observes that “this variety of tongues proceed from the
nations being divided into races, tribes, or clans.”59 Here the gentiles were
required to assist newly married pairs in the construction of their houses.
The ancient practice of blood revenge, which has prevailed so widely in the
tribes of mankind, had its birthplace in the gens. It rested with this body to
avenge the murder of one of its members. Tribunals for the trial of criminals
and laws prescribing their punishment, came late into existence in gentile
society; but they made their appearance before the institution of political
society. On the other hand, the crime of murder is as old as human society,
and its punishment by the revenge of kinsmen is as old as the crime itself.
Among the Iroquois and other Indian tribes generally, the obligation to
avenge the murder of a kinsman was universally recognized.60
It was, however, the duty of the gens of the slayer, and of the slain, to
attempt an adjustment of the crime before proceeding to extremities. A
council of the members of each gens was held separately, and propositions
were made in behalf of the murderer for a condonation of the act, usually in
the nature of expressions of regret and of presents of considerable value. If
there were justifying or extenuating circumstances it generally resulted in a
composition; but if the gentile kindred of the slain person were implacable,
one or more avengers were appointed by his gens from among its members,
whose duty it was to pursue the criminal until discovered, and then to slay
him wherever he might be found. If they accomplished the deed it was no
ground of complaint by any member of the gens of the victim. Life having
answered for life the demands of justice were appeased.
The same sentiment of fraternity manifested itself in other ways in relieving
a fellow gentilis in distress, and in protecting him from injuries.
VI. The right of bestowing names upon its members.
Among savage and barbarous tribes there is no name for the family. The
personal names of individuals of the same family do not indicate any family
connection between them. The family name is no older than civilization.61
Indian personal names, however, usually indicate the gens of the individual
to persons of other gentes in the same tribe. As a rule each gens had names
for persons that were its special property, and, as such, could not be used by
other gentes of the same tribe. A gentile name conferred of itself gentile
rights. These names either proclaimed by their signification the gens to
which they belonged, or were known as such by common reputation.62
After the birth of a child a name was selected by its mother from those not
in use belonging to the gens, with the concurrence of her nearest relatives,
which was then bestowed upon the infant. But the child was not fully
christened until its birth and name, together with the name and gens of its
mother and the name of its father, had been announced at the next ensuing
council of the tribe. Upon the death of a person his name could not be used
again in the life-time of his oldest surviving son without the consent of the
latter.63
Two classes of names were in use, one adapted to childhood, and the other
to adult life, which were exchanged at the proper period in the same formal
manner; one being taken away, to use their expression, and the other
bestowed in its place. O-wi′-go, a canoe floating down the stream, and Ah-
wou′-ne-ont, hanging flower, are names for girls among the Seneca-
Iroquois; and Gä-ne-o-di′-yo, handsome lake, and Do-ne-ho-gä′-weh, door-
keeper, are names of adult males. At the age of sixteen or eighteen, the first
name was taken away, usually by a chief of the gens, and one of the second
class bestowed in its place. At the next council of the tribe the change of
names was publicly announced, after which the person, if a male, assumed
the duties of manhood. In some Indian tribes the youth was required to go
out upon the war-path and earn his second name by some act of personal
bravery. After a severe illness it was not uncommon for the person, from
superstitious considerations, to solicit and obtain a second change of name.
It was sometimes done again in extreme old age. When a person was
elected a sachem or a chief his name was taken away, and a new one
conferred at the time of his installation. The individual had no control over
the question of a change. It is the prerogative of the female relatives and of
the chiefs; but an adult person might change his name provided he could
induce a chief to announce it in council. A person having the control of a
particular name, as the eldest son of that of his deceased father, might lend
it to a friend in another gens; but after the death of the person thus bearing it
the name reverted to the gens to which it belonged.
Among the Shawnees and Delawares the mother has now the right to name
her child into any gens she pleases; and the name given transfers the child
to the gens to which the name belongs. But this is a wide departure from
archaic usages, and exceptional in practice. It tends to corrupt and confound
the gentile lineage. The names now in use among the Iroquois and among
other Indian tribes are, in the main, ancient names handed down in the
gentes from time immemorial.
The precautions taken with respect to the use of names belonging to the
gens sufficiently prove the importance attached to them, and the gentile
rights they confer.
Although this question of personal names branches out in many directions it
is foreign to my purpose to do more than illustrate such general usages as
reveal the relations of the members of a gens. In familiar intercourse and in
formal salutation the American Indians address each other by the term of
relationship the person spoken to sustains to the speaker. When related they
salute by kin; when not related “my friend” is substituted. It would be
esteemed an act of rudeness to address an Indian by his personal name, or to
inquire his name directly from himself.
Our Saxon ancestors had single personal names down to the Norman
conquest, with none to designate the family. This indicates the late
appearance of the monogamian family among them; and it raises a
presumption of the existence in an earlier period of a Saxon gens.
VII. The right of adopting strangers into the gens.
Another distinctive right of the gens was that of admitting new members by
adoption. Captives taken in war were either put to death, or adopted into
some gens. Women and children taken prisoners usually experienced
clemency in this form. Adoption not only conferred gentile rights, but also
the nationality of the tribe. The person adopting a captive placed him or her
in the relation of a brother or sister; if a mother adopted, in that of a son or
daughter; and ever afterwards treated the person in all respects as though
born in that relation. Slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism
became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower
Status in the aboriginal period. The gauntlet also had some connection with
adoption, since the person who succeeded, through hardihood or favoritism,
in running through the lines in safety was entitled to this reward. Captives
when adopted were often assigned in the family the places of deceased
persons slain in battle, in order to fill up the broken ranks of relatives. A
declining gens might replenish its numbers, through adoption, although
such instances are rare. At one time the Hawk gens of the Senecas were
reduced to a small number of persons, and its extinction became imminent.
To save the gens a number of persons from the Wolf gens by mutual
consent were transferred in a body by adoption to that of the Hawk. The
right to adopt seems to be left to the discretion of each gens.
Among the Iroquois the ceremony of adoption was performed at a public
council of the tribe, which turned it practically into a religious rite.64
VIII. Religious rites in the gens. Query.
Among the Grecian and Latin tribes these rites held a conspicuous position.
The highest polytheistic form of religion which had then appeared seems to
have sprung from the gentes in which religious rites were constantly
maintained. Some of them, from the sanctity they were supposed to possess,
were nationalized. In some cities the office of high priest of certain
divinities was hereditary in a particular gens.65 The gens became the natural
centre of religious growth and the birthplace of religious ceremonies.
But the Indian tribes, although they had a polytheistic system, not much
unlike that from which the Grecian and Roman must have sprung, had not
attained that religious development which was so strongly impressed upon
the gentes of the latter tribes. It can scarcely be said any Indian gens had
special religious rites; and yet their religious worship had a more or less
direct connection with the gentes. It was here that religious ideas would
naturally germinate and that forms of worship would be instituted. But they
would expand from the gens over the tribe, rather than remain special to the
gens. Accordingly we find among the Iroquois six annual religious
festivals, (Maple, Planting, Berry, Green-Corn, Harvest, and New Years
Festivals)66 which were common to all the gentes united in a tribe, and
which were observed at stated seasons of the year.
Each gens furnished a number of “Keepers of the Faith,” both male and
female, who together were charged with the celebration of these festivals.67
The number advanced to this office by each was regarded as evidence of the
fidelity of the gens to religion. They designated the days for holding the
festivals, made the necessary arrangements for their celebration, and
conducted the ceremonies in conjunction with the sachems and chiefs of the
tribe, who were, ex officio, “Keepers of the Faith.” With no official head,
and none of the marks of a priesthood, their functions were equal. The
female “Keepers of the Faith” were more especially charged with the
preparation of the feast, which was provided at all councils at the close of
each day for all persons in attendance. It was a dinner in common. The
religious rites appertaining to these festivals, which have been described in
a previous work,68 need not be considered further than to remark, that their
worship was one of thanksgiving, with invocations to the Great Spirit, and
to the Lesser Spirits to continue to them the blessings of life.
With the progress of mankind out of the Lower into the Middle, and more
especially out of the latter into the Upper Status of barbarism, the gens
became more the centre of religious influence and the source of religious
development. We have only the grosser part of the Aztec religious system;
but in addition to national gods, there seem to have been other gods,
belonging to smaller divisions of the people than the phratries. The
existence of an Aztec ritual and priesthood would lead us to expect among
them a closer connection of religious rites with the gentes than is found
among the Iroquois; but their religious beliefs and observances are under
the same cloud of obscurity as their social organization.
IX. A common burial place.
An ancient but not exclusive mode of burial was by scaffolding the body
until the flesh had wasted, after which the bones were collected and
preserved in bark barrels in a house constructed for their reception. Those
belonging to the same gens were usually placed in the same house. The
Rev. Dr. Cyrus Byington found these practices among the Choctas in 1827;
and Adair mentions usages among the Cherokees substantially the same. “I
saw three of them,” he remarks, “in one of their towns pretty near each
other; * * * Each house contained the bones of one tribe separately, with the
hieroglyphical figures of each family [gens] on each of the odd-shaped arks.
They reckoned it irreligious to mix the bones of a relative with those of a
stranger, as bone of bone and flesh of flesh should always be joined
together.”69 The Iroquois in ancient times used scaffolds and preserved the
bones of deceased relatives in bark barrels, often keeping them in the house
they occupied. They also buried in the ground. In the latter case those of the
same gens were not always buried locally together unless they had a
common cemetery for the village. The late Rev. Ashur Wright, so long a
missionary among the Senecas, and a noble specimen of the American
missionary, wrote to the author as follows; “I find no trace of the influence
of clanship in the burial places of the dead. I believe that they buried
promiscuously. However, they say that formerly the members of the
different clans more frequently resided together than they do at the present
time. As one family they were more under the influence of family feeling,
and had less of individual interest. Hence, it might occasionally happen that
a large proportion of the dead in some particular burying place might be of
the same clan.” Mr. Wright is undoubtedly correct that in a particular
cemetery members of all the gentes established in a village would be
buried; but they might keep those of the same gens locally together. An
illustration in point is now found at the Tuscarora reservation near
Lewiston, where the tribe has one common cemetery, and where individuals
of the same gens are buried in a row by themselves. One row is composed
of the graves of the deceased members of the Beaver gens, two rows of the
members of the Bear gens, one row of the Gray Wolf, one of the Great
Turtle, and so on to the number of eight rows. Husband and wife are
separated from each other and buried in different rows; fathers and their
children the same; but mothers and their children and brothers and sisters
are found in the same row. It shows the power of gentile feeling, and the
quickness with which ancient usages are reverted to under favorable
conditions; for the Tuscaroras are now christianized without surrendering
the practice. An Onondaga Indian informed the writer that the same mode
of burial by gentes now prevailed at the Onondaga and Oneida cemeteries.
While this usage, perhaps, cannot be declared general among the Indian
tribes, there was undoubtedly in ancient times a tendency to, and preference
for this mode of burial.
Among the Iroquois, and what is true of them is generally true of other
Indian tribes in the same status of advancement, all the members of the gens
are mourners at the funeral of a deceased gentilis. The addresses at the
funeral, the preparation of the grave, and the burial of the body were
performed by members of other gentes.
The Village Indians of Mexico and Central America practiced a slovenly
cremation, as well as scaffolding, and burying in the ground. The former
was confined to chiefs and prominent men.
X. A council of the gens.
The council was the great feature of ancient society, Asiatic, European and
American, from the institution of the gens in savagery to civilization. It was
the instrument of government as well as the supreme authority over the
gens, the tribe, and the confederacy. Ordinary affairs were adjusted by the
chiefs; but those of general interest were submitted to the determination of a
council. As the council sprang from the gentile organization the two
institutions have come down together through the ages. The Council of
Chiefs represents the ancient method of evolving the wisdom of mankind
and applying it to human affairs. Its history, gentile, tribal, and confederate,
would express the growth of the idea of government in its whole
development, until political society supervened into which the council,
changed into a senate, was transmitted.
The simplest and lowest form of the council was that of the gens. It was a
democratic assembly because every adult male and female member had a
voice upon all questions brought before it. It elected and deposed its sachem
and chiefs, it elected Keepers of the Faith, it condoned or avenged the
murder of a gentilis, and it adopted persons into the gens. It was the germ of
the higher council of the tribe, and of that still higher of the confederacy,
each of which was composed exclusively of chiefs as representatives of the
gentes.
Such were the rights, privileges and obligations of the members of an
Iroquois gens; and such were those of the members of the gentes of the
Indian tribes generally, as far as the investigation has been carried. When
the gentes of the Grecian and Latin tribes are considered, the same rights
privileges and obligations will be found to exist, with the exception of the I,
II, and VI; and with respect to these their ancient existence is probable
though the proof is not perhaps attainable.
All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were
bound to defend each other’s freedom; they were equal in privileges and in
personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they
were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and
fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens.
These facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a social and
governmental system, the foundation upon which Indian society was
organized. A structure composed of such units would of necessity bear the
impress of their character, for as the unit so the compound. It serves to
explain that sense of independence and personal dignity universally an
attribute of Indian character.
Thus substantial and important in the social system was the gens as it
anciently existed among the American aborigines, and as it still exists in
full vitality in many Indian tribes. It was the basis of the phratry, of the
tribe, and of the confederacy of tribes. Its functions might have been
presented more elaborately in several particulars; but sufficient has been
given to show its permanent and durable character.
At the epoch of European discovery the American Indian tribes generally
were organized in gentes, with descent in the female line. In some tribes, as
among the Dakotas, the gentes had fallen out; in others, as among the
Ojibwas, the Omahas, and the Mayas of Yucatan, descent had been changed
from the female to the male line. Throughout aboriginal America the gens
took its name from some animal, or inanimate object, and never from a
person. In this early condition of society, the individuality of persons was
lost in the gens. It is at least presumable that the gentes of the Grecian and
Latin tribes were so named at some anterior period; but when they first
came under historical notice, they were named after persons. In some of the
tribes, as the Moqui Village Indians of New Mexico, the members of the
gens claimed their descent from the animal whose name they bore—their
remote ancestors having been transformed by the Great Spirit from the
animal into the human form. The Crane gens of the Ojibwas have a similar
legend. In some tribes the members of a gens will not eat the animal whose
name they bear, in which they are doubtless influenced by this
consideration.
With respect to the number of persons in a gens it varied with the number of
the gentes, and with the prosperity or decadence of the tribe. Three
thousand Senecas divided equally among eight gentes would give an
average of three hundred and seventy-five persons to a gens. Fifteen
thousand Ojibwas divided equally among twenty-three gentes would give
six hundred and fifty persons to a gens. The Cherokees would average more
than a thousand to a gens. In the present condition of the principal Indian
tribes the number of persons in each gens would range from one hundred to
a thousand.
One of the oldest and most widely prevalent institutions of mankind, the
gentes have been closely identified with human progress upon which they
have exercised a powerful influence. They have been found in tribes in the
Status of savagery, in the Lower, in the Middle, and in the Upper Status of
barbarism on different continents, and in full vitality in the Grecian and
Latin tribes after civilization had commenced. Every family of mankind,
except the Polynesian, seems to have come under the gentile organization,
and to have been indebted to it for preservation, and for the means of
progress. It finds its only parallel in length of duration in systems of
consanguinity, which, springing up at a still earlier period, have remained to
the present time, although the marriage usages in which they originated
have long since disappeared.
From its early institution, and from its maintenance through such immense
stretches of time, the peculiar adaptation of the gentile organization to
mankind, while in a savage and in a barbarous state, must be regarded as
abundantly demonstrated.

CHAPTER III. - THE IROQUOIS PHRATRY.

D P .—K G R H O .—P
I T .—I C .—I U F .—S R .—
I .—T A G P ; A F .—P
C .—O C .—O M .—O T - .—T
P U T A A .

The phratry (φρατρία) is a brotherhood, as the term imports, and a natural

growth from the organization into gentes. It is an organic union or
association of two or more gentes of the same tribe for certain common
objects. These gentes were usually such as had been formed by the
segmentation of an original gens.
Among the Grecian tribes, where the phratric organization was nearly as
constant as the gens, it became a very conspicuous institution. Each of the
four tribes of the Athenians was organized in three phratries, each
composed of thirty gentes, making a total of twelve phratries and three
hundred and sixty gentes. Such precise numerical uniformity in the
composition of each phratry and tribe could not have resulted from the
subdivision of gentes through natural processes. It must have been
produced, as Mr. Grote suggests, by legislative procurement in the interests
of a symmetrical organization. All the gentes of a tribe, as a rule, were of
common descent and bore a common tribal name, consequently it would
not require severe constraint to unite the specified number in each phratry,
and to form the specified number of phratries in each tribe. But the phratric
organization had a natural foundation in the immediate kinship of certain
gentes as subdivisions of an original gens, which undoubtedly was the basis
on which the Grecian phratry was originally formed. The incorporation of
alien gentes, and transfers by consent or constraint, would explain the
numerical adjustment of the gentes and phratries in the Athenian tribes.
The Roman curia was the analogue of the Grecian phratry. It is constantly
mentioned by Dionysius as a phratry.70 There were ten gentes in each curia,
and ten curiae in each of the three Roman tribes, making thirty curiae and
three hundred gentes of the Romans. The functions of the Roman curia are
much better known than those of the Grecian phratry, and were higher in
degree because the curia entered directly into the functions of government.
The assembly of the gentes (comitia curiata) voted by curiae, each having
one collective vote. This assembly was the sovereign power of the Roman
People down to the time of Servius Tullius.
Among the functions of the Grecian phratry was the observance of special
religious rites, the condonation or revenge of the murder of a phrator, and
the purification of a murderer after he had escaped the penalty of his crime
preparatory to his restoration to society.71 At a later period among the
Athenians—for the phratry at Athens survived the institution of political
society under Cleisthenes—it looked after the registration of citizens, thus
becoming the guardian of descents and of the evidence of citizenship. The
wife upon her marriage was enrolled in the phratry of her husband, and the
children of the marriage were enrolled in the gens and phratry of their
father. It was also the duty of this organization to prosecute the murderer of
a phrator in the courts of justice. These are among its known objects and
functions in the earlier and later periods. Were all the particulars fully
ascertained, the phratry would probably manifest itself in connection with
the common tables, the public games, the funerals of distinguished men, the
earliest army organization, and the proceedings of councils, as well as in the
observance of religious rites and in the guardianship of social privileges.
The phratry existed in a large number of the tribes of the American
aborigines, where it is seen to arise by natural growth, and to stand as the
second member of the organic series, as among the Grecian and Latin
tribes. It did not possess original governmental functions, as the gens, tribe
and confederacy possessed them; but it was endowed with certain useful
powers in the social system, from the necessity for some organization larger
than a gens and smaller than a tribe, and especially when the tribe was
large. The same institution in essential features and in character, it presents
the organization in its archaic form and with its archaic functions. A
knowledge of the Indian phratry is necessary to an intelligent understanding
of the Grecian and the Roman.
The eight gentes of the Seneca-Iroquois tribe were reintegrated in two
phratries as follows:
First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Wolf. 3. Beaver. 4. Turtle.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Heron. 8. Hawk.
Each phratry (De-ă-non-dă′-a-yoh) is a brotherhood as this term also
imports. The gentes in the same phratry are brother gentes to each other,
and cousin gentes to those of the other phratry. They are equal in grade,
character and privileges. It is a common practice of the Senecas to call the
gentes of their own phratry brother gentes, and those of the other phratry
their cousin gentes, when they mention them in their relation to the
phratries. Originally marriage was not allowed between the members of the
same phratry; but the members of either could marry into any gens of the
other. This prohibition tends to show that the gentes of each phratry were
subdivisions of an original gens, and therefore the prohibition against
marrying into a person’s own gens had followed to its subdivisions. This
restriction, however, was long since removed, except with respect to the
gens of the individual. A tradition of the Senecas affirms that the Bear and
the Deer were the original gentes, of which the others were subdivisions. It
is thus seen that the phratry had a natural foundation in the kinship of the
gentes of which it was composed. After their subdivision from increase of
numbers there was a natural tendency to their reunion in a higher
organization for objects common to them all. The same gentes are not
constant in a phratry indefinitely, as will appear when the composition of
the phratries in the remaining Iroquois tribes is considered. Transfers of
particular gentes from one phratry to the other must have occurred when the
equilibrium in their respective numbers was disturbed. It is important to
know the simple manner in which this organization springs up, and the
facility with which it is managed, as a part of the social system of ancient
society. With the increase of numbers in a gens, followed by local
separation of its members, segmentation occurred, and the seceding portion
adopted a new gentile name. But a tradition of their former unity would
remain, and become the basis of their reorganization in a phratry.
In like manner the Cayuga-Iroquois have eight gentes in two phratries; but
these gentes are not divided equally between them. They are the following:
First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Wolf. 3. Turtle. 4. Snipe. 5. Eel.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—6. Deer. 7. Beaver. 8. Hawk.
Seven of these gentes are the same as those of the Senecas; but the Heron
gens has disappeared, and the Eel takes its place, but transferred to the
opposite phratry. The Beaver and the Turtle gentes also have exchanged
phratries. The Cayugas style the gentes of the same phratry brother gentes
to each other, and those of the opposite phratry their cousin gentes.
The Onondaga-Iroquois have the same number of gentes, but two of them
differ in name from those of the Senecas. They are organized in two
phratries as follows:
First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Wolf. 2. Turtle. 3. Snipe. 4. Beaver. 5. Ball.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—6. Deer. 7. Eel. 8. Bear.
Here again the composition of the phratries is different from that of the
Senecas. Three of the gentes in the first phratry are the same in each; but
the Bear gens has been transferred to the opposite phratry and is now found
with the Deer. The division of gentes is also unequal, as among the
Cayugas. The gentes in the same phratry are called brother gentes to each
other, and those in the other their cousin gentes. While the Onondagas have
no Hawk, the Senecas have no Eel gens; but the members of the two
fraternize when they meet, claiming that there is a connection between
them.
The Mohawks and Oneidas have but three gentes, the Bear, the Wolf, and
the Turtle, and no phratries. When the confederacy was formed, seven of
the eight Seneca gentes existed in the several tribes as is shown by the
establishment of sachemships in them; but the Mohawks and Oneidas then
had only the three named. It shows that they had then lost an entire phratry,
and one gens of that remaining, if it is assumed that the original tribes were
once composed of the same gentes. When a tribe organized in gentes and
phratries subdivides, it might occur on the line of the phratric organization.
Although the members of a tribe are intermingled throughout by marriage,
each gens in a phratry is composed of females with their children and
descendants, through females, who formed the body of the phratry. They
would incline at least to remain locally together, and thus might become
detached in a body. The male members of the gens married to women of
other gentes and remaining with their wives would not affect the gens since
the children of the males do not belong to its connection. If the minute
history of the Indian tribes is ever recovered it must be sought through the
gentes and phratries, which can be followed from tribe to tribe. In such an
investigation it will deserve attention whether tribes ever disintegrated by
phratries. It is at least improbable.
The Tuscarora-Iroquois became detached from the main stock at some
unknown period in the past, and inhabited the Neuse river region in North
Carolina at the time of their discovery. About A. D. 1712 they were forced
out of this area, whereupon they removed to the country of the Iroquois and
were admitted into the confederacy as a sixth member. They have eight
gentes organized in two phratries, as follows:
 First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Beaver. 3. Great Turtle. 4. Eel.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—5. Gray Wolf. 6. Yellow Wolf. 7. Little Turtle. 8. Snipe.
They have six gentes in common with the Cayugas and Onondagas, five in
common with the Senecas, and three in common with the Mohawks and
Oneidas. The Deer gens, which they once possessed, became extinct in
modern times. It will be noticed, also, that the Wolf gens is now divided
into two, the Gray and the Yellow, and the Turtle into two, the Great and
Little. Three of the gentes in the first phratry are the same with three in the
first phratry of the Senecas and Cayugas, with the exception that the Wolf
gens is double. As several hundred years elapsed between the separation of
the Tuscaroras from their congeners and their return, it affords some
evidence of permanence in the existence of a gens. The gentes in the same
phratry are called brother gentes to each other, and those in the other
phratry their cousin gentes, as among the other tribes.
From the differences in the composition of the phratries in the several tribes
it seems probable that the phratries are modified in their gentes at intervals
of time to meet changes of condition. Some gentes prosper and increase in
numbers, while others through calamities decline, and others become
extinct; so that transfers of gentes from one phratry to another were found
necessary to preserve some degree of equality in the number of phrators in
each. The phratric organization has existed among the Iroquois from time
immemorial. It is probably older than the confederacy which was
established more than four centuries ago. The amount of difference in their
composition, as to the gentes they contain, represents the vicissitudes
through which each tribe has passed in the interval. In any view of the
matter it is small, tending to illustrate the permanence of the phratry as well
as the gens.
The Iroquois tribes had a total of thirty-eight gentes, and in four of the
tribes a total of eight phratries.
In its objects and uses the Iroquois phratry falls below the Grecian, as
would be supposed, although our knowledge of the functions of the latter is
limited; and below what is known of the uses of the phratry among the
Roman tribes. In comparing the latter with the former we pass backward
through two ethnical periods, and into a very different condition of society.
The difference is in the degree of progress, and not in kind; for we have the
same institution in each race, derived from the same or a similar germ, and
preserved by each through immense periods of time as a part of a social
system. Gentile society remained of necessity among the Grecian and
Roman tribes until political society supervened; and it remained among the
Iroquois tribes because they were still two ethnical periods below
civilization. Every fact, therefore, in relation to the functions and uses of the
Indian phratry is important, because it tends to illustrate the archaic
character of an institution which became so influential in a more developed
condition of society.
The phratry, among the Iroquois, was partly for social and partly for
religious objects. Its functions and uses can be best shown by practical
illustrations. We begin with the lowest, with games, which were of common
occurrence at tribal and confederate councils. In the ball game, for example,
among the Senecas, they play by phratries, one against the other; and they
bet against each other upon the result of the game. Each phratry puts
forward its best players, usually from six to ten on a side, and the members
of each phratry assemble together but upon opposite sides of the field in
which the game is played. Before it commences, articles of personal
property are hazarded upon the result by members of the opposite phratries.
These are deposited with keepers to abide the event. The game is played
with spirit and enthusiasm, and is an exciting spectacle. The members of
each phratry, from their opposite stations, watch the game with eagerness,
and cheer their respective players at every successful turn of the game.72
In many ways the phratric organization manifested itself. At a council of the
tribe the sachems and chiefs in each phratry usually seated themselves on
opposite sides of an imaginary council-fire, and the speakers addressed the
two opposite bodies as the representatives of the phratries. Formalities, such
as these, have a a peculiar charm for the Red Man in the transaction of
business.
Again; when a murder had been committed it was usual for the gens of the
murdered person to meet in council; and, after ascertaining the facts, to take
measures for avenging the deed. The gens of the criminal also held a
council, and endeavored to effect an adjustment or condonation of the crime
with the gens of the murdered person. But it often happened that the gens of
the criminal called upon the other gentes of their phratry, when the slayer
and the slain belonged to opposite phratries, to unite with them to obtain a
condonation of the crime. In such a case the phratry held a council, and then
addressed itself to the other phratry to which it sent a delegation with a belt
of white wampum asking for a council of the phratry, and for an adjustment
of the crime. They offered reparation to the family and gens of the
murdered person in expressions of regret and in presents of value.
Negotiations were continued between the two councils until an affirmative
or a negative conclusion was reached. The influence of a phratry composed
of several gentes would be greater than that of a single gens; and by calling
into action the opposite phratry the probability of a condonation would be
increased, especially if there were extenuating circumstances. We may thus
see how naturally the Grecian phratry, prior to civilization, assumed the
principal though not exclusive management of cases of murder, and also of
the purification of the murderer if he escaped punishment; and, after the
institution of political society, with what propriety the phratry assumed the
duty of prosecuting the murderer in the courts of justice.
At the funerals of persons of recognized importance in the tribe, the phratric
organization manifested itself in a conspicuous manner. The phrators of the
decedent in a body were the mourners, and the members of the opposite
phratry conducted the ceremonies. In the case of a sachem it was usual for
the opposite phratry to send, immediately after the funeral, the official
wampum belt of the deceased ruler to the central council fire at Onondaga,
as a notification of his demise. This was retained until the installation of his
successor, when it was bestowed upon him as the insignia of his office. At
the funeral of Handsome Lake (Gä-ne-o-di′-yo), one of the eight Seneca
sachems (which occurred some years ago), there was an assemblage of
sachems and chiefs to the number of twenty-seven, and a large concourse of
members of both phratries. The customary address to the dead body, and the
other addresses before the removal of the body, were made by members of
the opposite phratry. After the addresses were concluded, the body was
borne to the grave by persons selected from the last named phratry,
followed, first, by the sachems and chiefs, then by the family and gens of
the decedent, next by his remaining phrators, and last by the members of the
opposite phratry. After the body had been deposited in the grave the
sachems and chiefs formed in a circle around it for the purpose of filling it
with earth. Each in turn, commencing with the senior in years, cast in three
shovelfuls, a typical number in their religious system; of which the first had
relation to the Great Spirit, the second to the Sun, and the third to Mother
Earth. When the grave was filled the senior sachem, by a figure of speech,
deposited “the horns” of the departed sachem, emblematical of his office,
upon the top of the grave over his head, there to remain until his successor
was installed. In that subsequent ceremony, “the horns” were said to be
taken from the grave of the deceased ruler, and placed upon the head of his
successor.73 The social and religious functions of the phratry, and its
naturalness in the organic system of ancient society, are rendered apparent
by this single usage.
The phratry was also directly concerned in the election of sachems and
chiefs of the several gentes, upon which they had a negative as well as a
confirmative vote. After the gens of a deceased sachem had elected his
successor, or had elected a chief of the second grade, it was necessary, as
elsewhere stated, that their choice should be accepted and confirmed by
each phratry. It was expected that the gentes of the same phratry would
confirm the choice almost as a matter of course; but the opposite phratry
also must acquiesce, and from this source opposition sometimes appeared.
A council of each phratry was held and pronounced upon the question of
acceptance or rejection. If the nomination made was accepted by both it
became complete; but if either refused it was thereby set aside, and a new
election was made by the gens. When the choice made by the gens had been
accepted by the phratries, it was still necessary, as before stated, that the
new sachem, or the new chief, should be invested by the council of the
confederacy, which alone had power to invest, with office.
The Senecas have now lost their Medicine Lodges which fell out in modern
times; but they formerly existed and formed a prominent part of their
religious system. To hold a Medicine Lodge was to observe their highest
religious rites, and to practice their highest religious mysteries. They had
two such organizations, one in each phratry, which shows still further the
natural connection of the phratry with religious observances. Very little is
now known concerning these lodges or their ceremonies. Each was a
brotherhood, into which new members were admitted by a formal initiation.
The phratry was without governmental functions in the strict sense of the
phrase, these being confined to the gens, tribe and confederacy; but it
entered into their social affairs with large administrative powers, and would
have concerned itself more and more with their religious affairs as the
condition of the people advanced. Unlike the Grecian phratry and the
Roman curia it had no official head. There was no chief of the phratry as
such, and no religious functionaries belonging to it as distinguished from
the gens and tribe. The phratric institution among the Iroquois was in its
rudimentary archaic form; but it grew into life by natural and inevitable
development, and remained permanent because it met necessary wants.
Every institution of mankind which attained permanence will be found
linked with a perpetual want. With the gens, tribe and confederacy in
existence the presence of the phratry was substantially assured. It required
time, however, and further experience to manifest all the uses to which it
might be made subservient.
Among the Village Indians of Mexico and Central America the phratry
must have existed, reasoning upon general principles; and have been a more
fully developed and influential organization than among the Iroquois.
Unfortunately, mere glimpses at such an institution are all that can be found
in the teeming narratives of the Spanish writers within the first century after
the Spanish conquest. The four “lineages” of the Tlascalans who occupied
the four quarters of the pueblo of Tlascala, were, in all probability, so many
phratries. They were sufficiently numerous for four tribes; but as they
occupied the same pueblo and spoke the same dialect the phratric
organization was apparently a necessity. Each lineage, or phratry so to call
it, had a distinct military organization, a peculiar costume and banner, and
its head war-chief (Teuctli), who was its general military commander. They
went forth to battle by phratries. The organization of a military force by
phratries and by tribes was not unknown to the Homeric Greeks. Thus;
Nestor advises Agamemnon to “separate the troops by phratries and by
tribes, so that phratry may support phratry and tribe tribe.”74 Under gentile
institutions of the most advanced type the principle of kin became, to a
considerable extent, the basis of the army organization. The Aztecs, in like
manner, occupied the pueblo of Mexico in four distinct divisions, the
people of each of which were more nearly related to each other than to the
people of the other divisions. They were separate lineages, like the
Tlascalan, and it seems highly probable were four phratries, separately
organized as such. They were distinguished from each other by costumes
and standards, and went out to war as separate divisions. Their geographical
areas were called the four quarters of Mexico. This subject will be referred
to again.
With respect to the prevalence of this organization, among the Indian tribes
in the Lower Status of barbarism, the subject has been but slightly
investigated. It is probable that it was general in the principal tribes, from
the natural manner in which it springs up as a necessary member of the
organic series, and from the uses, other than governmental, to which it was
adapted.
In some of the tribes the phratries stand out prominently upon the face of
their organization. Thus, the Chocta gentes are united in two phratries
which must be mentioned first in order to show the relation of the gentes to
each other. The first phratry is called “Divided People,” and contains four
gentes. The second is called “Beloved People,” and also contains four
gentes. This separation of the people into two divisions by gentes created
two phratries. Some knowledge of the functions of these phratries is of
course desirable; but without it, the fact of their existence is established by
the divisions themselves. The evolution of a confederacy from a pair of
gentes, for less than two are never found in any tribe, may be deduced,
theoretically, from the known facts of Indian experience. Thus, the gens
increases in the number of its members and divides into two; these again
subdivide, and in time reunite in two or more phratries. These phratries
form a tribe, and its members speak the same dialect. In course of time this
tribe falls into several by the process of segmentation, which in turn reunite
in a confederacy. Such a confederacy is a growth, through the tribe and
phratry, from a pair of gentes.
The Chickasas are organized in two phratries, of which one contains four,
and the other eight gentes, as follows:
I. Panther Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Wild Cat. 2. Bird. 3. Fish. 4. Deer.
II. Spanish Phratry.
 Gentes.—5. Raccoon. 6. Spanish. 7. Royal. 8. Hush-ko′-ni. 9.
Squirrel. 10. Alligator, 11. Wolf. 12. Blackbird.
The particulars with respect to the Chocta and Chickasa phratries I am
unable to present. Some fourteen years ago these organizations were given
to me by Rev. Doctor Cyrus Byington and Rev. Charles C. Copeland, but
without discussing their uses and functions.
A very complete illustration of the manner in which phratries are formed by
natural growth, through the subdivision of gentes, is presented by the
organization of the Mohegan tribe. It had three original gentes, the Wolf, the
Turtle, and the Turkey.
Each of these subdivided, and the subdivisions became independent gentes;
but they retained the names of the original gentes as their respective
phratric names. In other words the subdivisions of each gens reorganized in
a phratry. It proves conclusively the natural process by which, in course of
time, a gens breaks up into several, and these remain united in a phratric
organization, which is expressed by assuming a phratric name. They are as
follows:
I. Wolf Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Dog. 4. Opossum.
II. Turtle Phratry.
Gentes.—5. Little Turtle. 6. Mud Turtle. 7. Great Turtle. 8. Yellow Eel.
III. Turkey Phratry.
Gentes.—9. Turkey. 10. Crane. 11. Chicken.
It is thus seen that the original Wolf gens divided into four gentes, the Turtle
into four, and the Turkey into three. Each new gens took a new name, the
original retaining its own, which became, by seniority, that of the phratry. It
is rare among the American Indian tribes to find such plain evidence of the
segmentation of gentes in their external organization, followed by the
formation into phratries of their respective subdivisions. It shows also that
the phratry is founded upon the kinship of the gentes. As a rule the name of
the original gens out of which others had formed is not known; but in each
of these cases it remains as the name of the phratry. Since the latter, like the
Grecian, was a social and religious rather than a governmental organization,
it is externally less conspicuous than a gens or tribe which were essential to
the government of society. The name of but one of the twelve Athenian
phratries has come down to us in history. Those of the Iroquois had no
name but that of a brotherhood.
The Delawares and Munsees have the same three gentes, the Wolf, the
Turtle, and the Turkey. Among the Delawares there are twelve embryo
gentes in each tribe, but they seem to be lineages within the gentes and had
not taken gentile names. It was a movement, however, in that direction.
The phratry also appears among the Thlinkeets of the Northwest coast,
upon the surface of their organization into gentes. They have two phratries,
as follows:
I. Wolf Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Eagle. 3. Dolphin. 4. Shark. 5. Alca.
II. Raven Phratry.
Gentes.—6. Frog. 7. Goose. 8. Sea-lion. 9. Owl. 10. Salmon.
Intermarriage in the phratry is prohibited, which shows, of itself, that the
gentes of each phratry were derived from an original gens.75 The members
of any gens in the Wolf phratry could marry into any gens of the opposite
phratry, and vice versâ.
From the foregoing facts the existence of the phratry is established in
several linguistic stocks of the American aborigines. Its presence in the
tribes named raises a presumption of its general prevalence in the
Ganowánian family. Among the Village Indians, where the numbers in a
gens and tribe were greater, it would necessarily have been more important
and consequently more fully developed. As an institution it was still in its
archaic form, but it possessed the essential elements of the Grecian and the
Roman. It can now be asserted that the full organic series of ancient society
exists in full vitality upon the American continent; namely, the gens, the
phratry, the tribe, and the confederacy of tribes. With further proofs yet to
be adduced, the universality of the gentile organization upon all the
continents will be established.
If future investigation is directed specially to the functions of the phratric
organization among the tribes of the American aborigines, the knowledge
gained will explain many peculiarities of Indian life and manners not well
understood, and throw additional light upon their usages and customs, and
upon their plan of life and government.

CHAPTER IV. - THE IROQUOIS TRIBE.

T T O .—C G S D .—
S D S , S .—T T N
G .—I .—A T .—A T N .—A E
D .—T R I D S C .—A R F
W .—A C C .—A H -C T I .—T
S F G G :F , G O P ;S ,
T P ;T , T P .

It is difficult to describe an Indian tribe by the affirmative elements of its

composition. Nevertheless it is clearly marked, and the ultimate
organization of the great body of the American aborigines. The large
number of independent tribes into which they had fallen by the natural
process of segmentation, is the striking characteristic of their condition.
Each tribe was individualized by a name, by a separate dialect, by a
supreme government, and by the possession of a territory which it occupied
and defended as its own. The tribes were as numerous as the dialects, for
separation did not become complete until dialectical variation had
commenced. Indian tribes, therefore, are natural growths through the
separation of the same people in the area of their occupation, followed by
divergence of speech, segmentation, and independence.
We have seen that the phratry was not so much a governmental as a social
organization, while the gens, tribe, and confederacy, were necessary and
logical stages of progress in the growth of the idea of government. A
confederacy could not exist, under gentile society, without tribes as a basis;
nor could tribes exist without gentes, though they might without phratries.
In this chapter I will endeavor to point out the manner in which these
numerous tribes were formed, and, presumptively out of one original
people; the causes which produced their perpetual segmentation; and the
principal attributes which distinguished an Indian tribe as an organization.
The exclusive possession of a dialect and of a territory has led to the
application of the term nation to many Indian tribes, notwithstanding the
fewness of the people in each. Tribe and nation, however, are not strict
equivalents. A nation does not arise, under gentile institutions, until the
tribes united under the same government have coalesced into one people, as
the four Athenian tribes coalesced in Attica, three Dorian tribes at Sparta,
and three Latin and Sabine tribes at Rome. Federation requires independent
tribes in separate territorial areas; but coalescence unites them by a higher
process in the same area, although the tendency to local separation by
gentes and by tribes would continue. The confederacy is the nearest
analogue of the nation, but not strictly equivalent. Where the gentile
organization exists, the organic series gives all the terms which are needed
for a correct description.
An Indian tribe is composed of several gentes, developed from two or more,
all the members of which are intermingled by marriage, and all of whom
speak the same dialect. To a stranger the tribe is visible, and not the gens.
The instances are extremely rare, among the American aborigines, in which
the tribe embraced peoples speaking different dialects. When such cases are
found, it resulted from the union of a weaker with a stronger tribe speaking
a closely related dialect, as the union of the Missouris with the Otoes after
the overthrow of the former. The fact that the great body of the aborigines
were found in independent tribes illustrates the slow and difficult growth of
the idea of government under gentile institutions. A small portion only had
attained to the ultimate stage known among them, that of a confederacy of
tribes speaking dialects of the same stock language. A coalescence of tribes
into a nation had not occurred in any case in any part of America.
A constant tendency to disintegration, which has proved such a hinderance
to progress among savage and barbarous tribes, existed in the elements of
the gentile organization. It was aggravated by a further tendency to
divergence of speech, which was inseparable from their social state and the
large areas of their occupation. A verbal language, although remarkably
persistent in its vocables, and still more persistent in its grammatical forms,
is incapable of permanence. Separation of the people in area was followed
in time by variation in speech; and this, in turn, led to separation in interests
and ultimate independence. It was not the work of a brief period, but of
centuries of time, aggregating finally into thousands of years. The great
number of dialects and stock languages in North and South America, which
presumptively were derived, the Eskimo excepted, from one original
language, require for their formation the time measured by three ethnical
periods.
New tribes as well as new gentes were constantly forming by natural
growth; and the process was sensibly accelerated by the great expanse of
the American continent. The method was simple. In the first place there
would occur a gradual outflow of people from some overstocked
geographical centre, which possessed superior advantages in the means of
subsistence. Continued from year to year, a considerable population would
thus be developed at a distance from the original seat of the tribe. In course
of time the emigrants would become distinct in interests, strangers in
feeling, and last of all, divergent in speech. Separation and independence
would follow, although their territories were contiguous. A new tribe was
thus created. This is a concise statement of the manner in which the tribes
of the American aborigines were formed, but the statement must be taken as
general. Repeating itself from age to age in newly acquired as well as in old
areas, it must be regarded as a natural as well as inevitable result of the
gentile organization, united with the necessities of their condition. When
increased numbers pressed upon the means of subsistence, the surplus
removed to a new seat where they established themselves with facility,
because the government was perfect in every gens, and in any number of
gentes united in a band. Among the Village Indians the same thing repeated
itself in a slightly different manner. When a village became overcrowded
with numbers, a colony went up or down on the same stream and
commenced a new village. Repeated at intervals of time several such
villages would appear, each independent of the other and a self-governing
body; but united in a league or confederacy for mutual protection.
Dialectical variation would finally spring up, and thus complete their
growth into tribes.
The manner in which tribes are evolved from each other can be shown
directly by examples. The fact of separation is derived in part from
tradition, in part from the possession by each of a number of the same
gentes, and deduced in part from the relations of their dialects. Tribes
formed by the subdivisions of an original tribe would possess a number of
gentes in common, and speak dialects of the same language. After several
centuries of separation they would still have a number of the same gentes.
Thus, the Hurons, now Wyandotes, have six gentes of the same name with
six of the gentes of the Seneca-Iroquois, after at least four hundred years of
separation. The Potawattamies have eight gentes of the same name with
eight among the Ojibwas, while the former have six, and the latter fourteen,
which are different; showing that new gentes have been formed in each
tribe by segmentation since their separation. A still older offshoot from the
Ojibwas, or from the common parent tribe of both, the Miamis, have but
three gentes in common with the former, namely, the Wolf, the Loon, and
the Eagle. The minute social history of the tribes of the Ganowánian family
is locked up in the life and growth of the gentes. If investigation is ever
turned strongly in this direction, the gentes themselves would become
reliable guides, both in respect to the order of separation from each other of
the tribes of the same stock, and possibly of the great stocks of the
aborigines.
The following illustrations are drawn from tribes in the Lower Status of
barbarism. When discovered, the eight Missouri tribes occupied the banks
of the Missouri river for more than a thousand miles; together with the
banks of its tributaries, the Kansas and the Platte; and also the smaller rivers
of Iowa. They also occupied the west bank of the Mississippi down to the
Arkansas. Their dialects show that the people were in three tribes before the
last subdivisions; namely, first, the Punkas and Omahas, second, the Iowas,
Otoes and Missouris, and third, the Kaws, Osages and Quappas. These three
were undoubtedly subdivisions of a single original tribe, because their
several dialects are still much nearer to each other than to any other dialect
of the Dakotian stock language to which they belong. There is, therefore, a
linguistic necessity for their derivation from an original tribe. A gradual
spread from a central point on this river along its banks, both above and
below, would lead to a separation in interests with the increase of distance
between their settlements, followed by divergence of speech, and finally by
independence. A people thus extending themselves along a river in a prairie
country might separate, first into three tribes, and afterwards into eight, and
the organization of each subdivision remain complete. Division was neither
a shock, nor an appreciated calamity; but a separation into parts by natural
expansion over a larger area, followed by a complete segmentation. The
uppermost tribe on the Missouri were the Punkas at the mouth of the
Niobrara river, and the lowermost the Quappas at the mouth of the Arkansas
on the Mississippi, with an interval of near fifteen hundred miles between
them. The intermediate region, confined to the narrow belt of forest upon
the Missouri, was held by the remaining six tribes. They were strictly River
Tribes.
Another illustration may be found in the tribes of Lake Superior. The
Ojibwas, Otawas76 and Potawattamies are subdivisions of an original tribe;
the Ojibwas representing the stem, because they remained at the original
seat at the great fisheries upon the outlet of the lake. Moreover, they are
styled “Elder Brother” by the remaining two; while the Otawas were styled
“Next Older Brother,” and the Potawattamies “Younger Brother.” The last
tribe separated first, and the Otawas last, as is shown by the relative amount
of dialectical variation, that of the former being greatest. At the time of their
discovery, A. D. 1641, the Ojibwas were seated at the Rapids on the outlet
of Lake Superior, from which point they had spread along the southern
shore of the lake to the site of Ontonagon, along its northeastern shore, and
down the St. Mary River well toward Lake Huron. Their position possessed
remarkable advantages for a fish and game subsistence, which, as they did
not cultivate maize and plants, was their main reliance.77 It was second to
none in North America, with the single exception of the Valley of the
Columbia. With such advantages they were certain to develop a large Indian
population, and to send out successive bands of emigrants to become
independent tribes. The Potawattamies occupied a region on the confines of
Upper Michigan and Wisconsin, from which the Dakotas in 1641, were in
the act of expelling them. At the same time the Otawas, whose earlier
residence is supposed to have been on the Otawa river of Canada, had
drawn westward and were then seated upon the Georgian Bay, the
Manitouline Islands and at Mackinaw, from which points they were
spreading southward over Lower Michigan. Originally one people, and
possessing the same gentes, they had succeeded in appropriating a large
area. Separation in place, and distance between their settlements, had long
before their discovery resulted in the formation of dialects, and in tribal
independence. The three tribes, whose territories were contiguous, had
formed an alliance for mutual protection, known among Americans as “the
Otawa Confederacy.” It was a league, offensive and defensive, and not,
probably, a close confederacy like that of the Iroquois.
Prior to these secessions another affiliated tribe, the Miamis, had broken off
from the Ojibwa stock, or the common parent tribe, and migrated to central
Illinois and western Indiana. Following in the track of this migration were
the Illinois, another and later offshoot from the same stem, who afterwards
subdivided into the Peorias, Kaskaskias, Weaws, and Piankeshaws. Their
dialects, with that of the Miamis, find their nearest affinity with the Ojibwa,
and next with the Cree.78 The outflow of all these tribes from the central
seat at the great fisheries of Lake Superior is a significant fact, because it
illustrates the manner in which tribes are formed in connection with natural
centres of subsistence. The New England, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia
and Carolina Algonkins were, in all probability, derived from the same
source. Several centuries would be required for the formation of the dialects
first named, and for the production of the amount of variation they now
exhibit.
The foregoing examples represent the natural process by which tribes are
evolved from each other, or from a parent tribe established in an
advantageous position. Each emigrating band was in the nature of a military
colony, if it may be so strongly characterized, seeking to acquire and hold a
new area; preserving at first, and as long as possible, a connection with the
mother tribe. By these successive movements they sought to expand their
joint possessions, and afterward to resist the intrusion of alien people within
their limits. It is a noticeable fact that Indian tribes speaking dialects of the
same stock language have usually been found in territorial continuity,
however extended their common area. The same has, in the main, been true
of all the tribes of mankind linguistically united. It is because the people,
spreading from some geographical centre, and maintaining an arduous
struggle for subsistence, and for the possession of their new territories, have
preserved their connection with the mother land as a means of succor in
times of danger, and as a place of refuge in calamity.
It required special advantages in the means of subsistence to render any
area an initial point of migration through the gradual development of a
surplus population. These natural centres were few in number in North
America. There are but three. First among them is the Valley of the
Columbia, the most extraordinary region on the face of the earth in the
variety and amount of subsistence it afforded, prior to the cultivation of
maize and plants;79 second, the peninsula between Lakes Superior, Huron
and Michigan, the seat of the Ojibwas, and the nursery land of many Indian
tribes; and third, the lake region in Minnesota, the nursery ground of the
present Dakota tribes. These are the only regions in North America that can
be called natural centres of subsistence, and natural sources of surplus
numbers. There are reasons for believing that Minnesota was a part of the
Algonkin area before it was occupied by the Dakotas. When the cultivation
of maize and plants came in, it tended to localize the people and support
them in smaller areas, as well as to increase their numbers; but it failed to
transfer the control of the continent to the most advanced tribes of Village
Indians, who subsisted almost entirely by cultivation. Horticulture spread
among the principal tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism and greatly
improved their condition. They held, with the non-horticultural tribes, the
great areas of North America when it was discovered, and from their ranks
the continent was being replenished with inhabitants.80
The multiplication of tribes and dialects has been the fruitful source of the
incessant warfare of the aborigines upon each other. As a rule the most
persistent warfare has been waged between tribes speaking different stock
languages; as, for example, between the Iroquois and Algonkin tribes, and
between the Dakota tribes and the same. On the contrary the Algonkin and
Dakota tribes severally have, in general, lived at peace among themselves.
Had it been otherwise they would not have been found in the occupation of
continuous areas. The worst exception were the Iroquois, who pursued a
war of extermination against their kindred tribes, the Eries, the Neutral
Nation, the Hurons and the Susquehannocks. Tribes speaking dialects of the
same stock language are able to communicate orally and thus compose their
differences. They also learned, in virtue of their common descent, to depend
upon each other as natural allies.
Numbers within a given area were limited by the amount of subsistence it
afforded. When fish and game were the main reliance for food, it required
an immense area to maintain a small tribe. After farinaceous food was
superadded to fish and game, the area occupied by a tribe was still a large
one in proportion to the number of the people. New York, with its forty-
seven thousand square miles, never contained at any time more than
twenty-five thousand Indians, including with the Iroquois the Algonkins on
the east side of the Hudson and upon Long Island, and the Eries and Neutral
Nation in the western section of the state. A personal government founded
upon gentes was incapable of developing sufficient central power to follow
and control the increasing numbers of the people, unless they remained
within a reasonable distance from each other.
Among the Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico, and Central America
an increase of numbers in a small area did not arrest the process of
disintegration. Each pueblo was usually an independent self-governing
community. Where several pueblos were seated near each other on the same
stream, the people were usually of common descent, and either under a
tribal or confederate government. There are some seven stock languages in
New Mexico alone, each spoken in several dialects. At the time of
Coronado’s expedition, 1540-1542, the villages found were numerous but
small. There were seven each of Cibola, Tucayan, Quivira, and Hemez, and
twelve of Tiguex;81 and other groups indicating a linguistic connection of
their members. Whether or not each group was confederated we are not
informed. The seven Moqui Pueblos (the Tucayan Villages of Coronado’s
expedition), are said to be confederated at the present time, and probably
were at the time of their discovery.
The process of subdivision, illustrated by the foregoing examples, has been
operating among the American aborigines for thousands of years, until
upwards of forty stock languages, as near as is known, have been developed
in North America alone; each spoken in a number of dialects, by an equal
number of independent tribes. Their experience, probably, was but a
repetition of that of the tribes of Asia, Europe and Africa, when they were
in corresponding conditions.
From the preceding observations, it is apparent that an American Indian
tribe is a very simple as well as humble organization. It required but a few
hundreds, and, at most, a few thousand people to form a tribe, and place it
in a respectable position in the Ganowánian family.
It remains to present the functions and attributes of an Indian tribe, which
may be discussed under the following propositions:

I. The possession of a territory and a name.

II. The exclusive possession of a dialect.
III. The right to invest sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes.
IV. The right to depose these sachems and chiefs.
 V. The possession of a religious faith and worship.
VI. A supreme government consisting of a council of chiefs.
VII. A head-chief of the tribe in some instances.

It will be sufficient to make a brief reference to each of these several

attributes of a tribe.
I. The possession of a territory and a name.
Their territory consisted of the area of their actual settlements, and so much
of the surrounding region as the tribe ranged over in hunting and fishing,
and were able to defend against the encroachments of other tribes. Without
this area was a wide margin of neutral grounds, separating them from their
nearest frontegers if they spoke a different language, and claimed by
neither; but less wide, and less clearly marked, when they spoke dialects of
the same language. The country thus imperfectly defined, whether large or
small, was the domain of the tribe, recognized as such by other tribes, and
defended as such by themselves.
In due time the tribe became individualized by a name, which, from their
usual character, must have been in many cases accidental rather than
deliberate. Thus, the Senecas styled themselves the “Great Hill People”
(Nun-da′-wä-o-no), the Tuscaroras, “Shirt-wearing People” (Dus-ga′-o-
weh-o-no′), the Sissetons, “Village of the Marsh” (Sis-se′-to-wän), the
Ogalallas, “Camp Movers” (O-ga-lal′-lä), the Omahas, “Upstream People”
(O-mä′-hä), the Iowas, “Dusty Noses” (Pa-ho′-cha), the Minnitarees,
“People from Afar” (E-năt′-zä), the Cherokees, “Great People” (Tsä-lo′-
kee), the Shawnees, “Southerners” (Sä-wan-wä-kee′), the Mohegans, “Sea-
side People” (Mo-he-kun-e-uk), the Slave Lake Indians, “People of the
Lowlands” (A-cha′-o-tin-ne). Among the Village Indians of Mexico, the
Sochimilcos styled themselves “Nation of the Seeds of Flowers,” the
Chalcans, “People of Mouths,” the Tepanecans, “People of the Bridge,” the
Tezcucans or Culhuas, “A Crooked People,” and the Tlascalans, “Men of
Bread.”82 When European colonization began in the northern part of
America, the names of Indian tribes were obtained, not usually from the
tribe direct, but from other tribes who had bestowed names upon them
different from their own. As a consequence, a number of tribes are now
known in history under names not recognized by themselves.
II. The exclusive possession of a dialect.
Tribe and dialect are substantially co-extensive, but there are exceptions
growing out of special circumstances. Thus, the twelve Dakota bands are
now properly tribes, because they are distinct in interests and in
organization; but they were forced into premature separation by the advance
of Americans upon their original area which forced them upon the plains.
They had remained in such intimate connection previously that but one new
dialect had commenced forming, the Tecton, on the Missouri; the Isauntie
on the Mississippi being the original speech. A few years ago the Cherokees
numbered twenty-six thousand, the largest number of Indians ever found
within the limits of the United States speaking the same dialect. But in the
mountain districts of Georgia a slight divergence of speech had occurred,
though not sufficient to be distinguished as a dialect. There are a few other
similar cases, but they do not break the general rule during the aboriginal
period which made tribe and dialect co-extensive. The Ojibwas, who are
still in the main non-horticultural, now number about fifteen thousand, and
speak the same dialect; and the Dakota tribes collectively about twenty-five
thousand who speak two very closely related dialects, as stated. These
several tribes are exceptionally large. The tribes within the United States
and British America would yield, on an average, less than two thousand
persons to a tribe.
III. The right of investing sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes.
Among the Iroquois the person elected could not become a chief until his
investiture by a council of chiefs. As the chiefs of the gentes composed the
council of the tribe, with power over common interests, there was a
manifest propriety in reserving to the tribal council the function of investing
persons with office. But after the confederacy was formed, the power of
“raising up” sachems and chiefs was transferred from the council of the
tribe to the council of the confederacy. With respect to the tribes generally,
the accessible information is insufficient to explain their usages in relation
to the mode of investiture. It is one of the numerous subjects requiring
further investigation before the social system of the Indian tribes can be
fully explained. The office of sachem and chief was universally elective
among the tribes north of Mexico; with sufficient evidence, as to other parts
of the continent, to leave no doubt of the universality of the rule.
Among the Delawares each gens had one sachem, (Sä-ke′-mä), whose
office was hereditary in the gens, besides two common chiefs, and two war-
chiefs—making fifteen in three gentes—who composed the council of the
tribe. Among the Ojibwas, the members of some one gens usually
predominated at each settlement. Each gens had a sachem, whose office
was hereditary in the gens, and several common chiefs. Where a large
number of persons of the same gens lived in one locality they would be
found similarly organized. There was no prescribed limit to the number of
chiefs. A body of usages, which have never been collected, undoubtedly
existed in the several Indian tribes respecting the election and investiture of
sachems and chiefs. A knowledge of them would be valuable. An
explanation of the Iroquois method of “raising up” sachems and chiefs will
be given in the next chapter.
IV. The right to depose these sachems and chiefs.
This right rested primarily with the gens to which the sachem and chief
belonged. But the council of the tribe possessed the same power, and could
proceed independently of the gens, and even in opposition to its wishes. In
the Status of savagery, and in the Lower and also in the Middle Status of
barbarism, office was bestowed for life, or during good behavior. Mankind
had not learned to limit an elective office for a term of years. The right to
depose, therefore, became the more essential for the maintenance of the
principle of self-government. This right was a perpetual assertion of the
sovereignty of the gens and also of the tribe; a sovereignty feebly
understood, but nevertheless a reality.
V. The possession of a religious faith and worship.
After the fashion of barbarians the American Indians were a religious
people. The tribes generally held religious festivals at particular seasons of
the year, which were observed with forms of worship, dances and games.
The Medicine Lodge, in many tribes, was the centre of these observances. It
was customary to announce the holding of a Medicine Lodge weeks and
months in advance to awaken a general interest in its ceremonies. The
religious system of the aborigines is another of the subjects which has been
but partially investigated. It is rich in materials for the future student. The
experience of these tribes in developing their religious beliefs and mode of
worship is a part of the experience of mankind; and the facts will hold an
important place in the science of comparative religion.
Their system was more or less vague and indefinite, and loaded with crude
superstitions. Element worship can be traced among the principal tribes,
with a tendency to polytheism in the advanced tribes. The Iroquois, for
example, recognized a Great, and an Evil Spirit, and a multitude of inferior
spiritual beings, the immortality of the soul, and a future state. Their
conception of the Great Spirit assigned to him a human form; which was
equally true of the Evil Spirit, of He′-no, the Spirit of Thunder, of Gă′-oh,
the Spirit of the Winds, and of the Three Sisters, the Spirit of Maize, the
Spirit of the Bean, and the Spirit of the Squash. The latter were styled,
collectively, “Our Life,” and also “Our Supporters.” Beside these were the
spirits of the several kinds of trees and plants, and of the running streams.
The existence and attributes of these numerous spiritual beings were but
feebly imagined. Among the tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism
idolatry was unknown.83 The Aztecs had personal gods, with idols to
represent them, and a temple worship. If the particulars of their religious
system were accurately known, its growth out of the common beliefs of the
Indian tribes would probably be made apparent.
Dancing was a form of worship among the American aborigines, and
formed a part of the ceremonies at all religious festivals. In no part of the
earth, among barbarians, has the dance received a more studied
development. Every tribe has from ten to thirty set dances; each of which
has its own name, songs, musical instruments, steps, plan and costume for
persons. Some of them, as the war-dance, were common to all the tribes.
Particular dances are special property, belonging either to a gens, or to a
society organized for its maintenance, into which new members were from
time to time initiated. The dances of the Dakotas, the Crees, the Ojibwas,
the Iroquois, and of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, are the same in
general character, in step, plan, and music; and the same is true of the
dances of the Aztecs so far as they are accurately known. It is one system
throughout the Indian tribes, and bears a direct relation to their system of
faith and worship.
VI. A supreme government through a council of chiefs.
The council had a natural foundation in the gentes of whose chiefs it was
composed. It met a necessary want, and was certain to remain as long as
gentile society endured. As the gens was represented by its chiefs, so the
tribe was represented by a council composed of the chiefs of the gentes. It
was a permanent feature of the social system, holding the ultimate authority
over the tribe. Called together under circumstances known to all, held in the
midst of the people, and open to their orators, it was certain to act under
popular influence. Although oligarchical in form, the government was a
representative democracy; the representative being elected for life, but
subject to deposition. The brotherhood of the members of each gens, and
the elective principle with respect to office, were the germ and the basis of
the democratic principle. Imperfectly developed, as other great principles
were in this early stage of advancement, democracy can boast a very
ancient pedigree in the tribes of mankind.
It devolved upon the council to guard and protect the common interests of
the tribe. Upon the intelligence and courage of the people, and upon the
wisdom and foresight of the council, the prosperity and the existence of the
tribe depended. Questions and exigencies were arising, through their
incessant warfare with other tribes, which required the exercise of all these
qualities to meet and manage. It was unavoidable, therefore, that the
popular element should be commanding in its influence. As a general rule
the council was open to any private individual who desired to address it on
a public question. Even the women were allowed to express their wishes
and opinions through an orator of their own selection. But the decision was
made by the council. Unanimity was a fundamental law of its action among
the Iroquois; but whether this usage was general I am unable to state.
Military operations were usually left to the action of the voluntary principle.
Theoretically, each tribe was at war with every other tribe with which it had
not formed a treaty of peace. Any person was at liberty to organize a war-
party and conduct an expedition wherever he pleased. He announced his
project by giving a war-dance and inviting volunteers. This method
furnished a practical test of the popularity of the undertaking. If he
succeeded in forming a company, which would consist of such persons as
joined him in the dance, they departed immediately, while enthusiasm was
at its height. When a tribe was menaced with an attack, war-parties were
formed to meet it in much the same manner. Where forces thus raised were
united in one body, each was under its own war-captain, and their joint
movements were determined by a council of these captains. If there was
among them a war-chief of established reputation he would naturally
become their leader. These statements relate to tribes in the Lower Status of
barbarism. The Aztecs and Tlascalans went out by phratries, each
subdivision under its own captain, and distinguished by costumes and
banners.
Indian tribes, and even confederacies, were weak organizations for military
operations. That of the Iroquois, and that of the Aztecs, were the most
remarkable for aggressive purposes. Among the tribes in the Lower Status
of barbarism, including the Iroquois, the most destructive work was
performed by inconsiderable war-parties, which were constantly forming
and making expeditions into distant regions. Their supply of food consisted
of parched corn reduced to flour, carried in a pouch attached to the belt of
each warrior, with such fish and game as the route supplied. The going out
of these war-parties, and their public reception on their return, were among
the prominent events in Indian life. The sanction of the council for these
expeditions was not sought, neither was it necessary.
The council of the tribe had power to declare war and make peace, to send
and receive embassies, and to make alliances. It exercised all the powers
needful in a government so simple and limited in its affairs. Intercourse
between independent tribes was conducted by delegations of wise-men and
chiefs. When such a delegation was expected by any tribe, a council was
convened for its reception, and for the transaction of its business.
VII. A head-chief of the tribe in some instances.
In some Indian tribes one of the sachems was recognized as its head-chief;
and as superior in rank to his associates. A need existed, to some extent, for
an official head of the tribe to represent it when the council was not in
session; but the duties and powers of the office were slight. Although the
council was supreme in authority it was rarely in session, and questions
might arise demanding the provisional action of some one authorized to
represent the tribe, subject to the ratification of his acts by the council. This
was the only basis, so far as the writer is aware, for the office of head-chief.
It existed in a number of tribes, but in a form of authority so feeble as to fall
below the conception of an executive magistrate. In the language of some of
the early writers they have been designated as kings, which is simply a
caricature. The Indian tribes had not advanced far enough in a knowledge of
government to develop the idea of a chief executive magistrate. The
Iroquois tribe recognized no head-chief, and the confederacy no executive
officer. The elective tenure of the office of chief, and the liability of the
person to deposition, settle the character of the office.
A council of Indian chiefs is of little importance by itself; but as the germ of
the modern parliament, congress, and legislature, it has an important
bearing in the history of mankind.
The growth of the idea of government commenced with the organization
into gentes in savagery. It reveals three great stages of progressive
development between its commencement and the institution of political
society after civilization had been attained. The first stage was the
government of a tribe by a council of chiefs elected by the gentes. It may be
called a government of one power; namely, the council. It prevailed
generally among tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism. The second stage
was a government co-ordinated between a council of chiefs, and a general
military commander; one representing the civil, and the other the military
functions. This second form began to manifest itself in the Lower Status of
barbarism, after confederacies were formed, and it became definite in the
Middle Status. The office of general, or principal military commander, was
the germ of that of a chief executive magistrate, the king, the emperor, and
the president. It may be called a government of two powers, namely, the
council of chiefs, and the general. The third stage was the government of a
people or nation by a council of chiefs, an assembly of the people, and a
general military commander. It appeared among the tribes who had attained
to the Upper Status of barbarism; such, for example, as the Homeric
Greeks, and the Italian tribes of the period of Romulus. A large increase in
the number of people united in a nation, their establishment in walled cities,
and the creation of wealth in lands and in flocks and herds, brought in the
assembly of the people as an instrument of government. The council of
chiefs, which still remained, found it necessary, no doubt through popular
constraint, to submit the most important public measures to an assembly of
the people for acceptance or rejection; whence the popular assembly. This
assembly did not originate measures. It was its function to adopt or reject,
and its action was final. From its first appearance it became a permanent
power in the government. The council no longer passed important public
measures, but became a pre-considering council, with power to originate
and mature public acts, to which the assembly alone could give validity. It
may be called a government of three powers; namely, the pre-considering
council, the assembly of the people, and the general. This remained until the
institution of political society, when, for example, among the Athenians, the
council of chiefs became the senate, and the assembly of the people the
ecclesia or popular assembly. The same organizations have come down to
modern times in the two houses of parliament, of congress, and of
legislatures. In like manner the office of general military commander, as
before stated, was the germ of the office of the modern chief executive
magistrate.
Recurring to the tribe, it was limited in the numbers of the people, feeble in
strength, and poor in resources; but yet a completely organized society. It
illustrates the condition of mankind in the Lower Status of barbarism. In the
Middle Status there was a sensible increase of numbers in a tribe, and an
improved condition; but with a continuance of gentile society without
essential change. Political society was still impossible from want of
advancement. The gentes organized into tribes remained as before; but
confederacies must have been more frequent. In some areas, as in the Valley
of Mexico, larger numbers were developed under a common government,
with improvements in the arts of life; but no evidence exists of the
overthrow among them of gentile society and the substitution of political. It
is impossible to found a political society or a state upon gentes. A state
must rest upon territory and not upon persons, upon the township as the unit
of a political system, and not upon the gens which is the unit of a social
system. It required time and a vast experience, beyond that of the American
Indian tribes, as a preparation for such a fundamental change of systems. It
also required men of the mental stature of the Greeks and Romans, and with
the experience derived from a long chain of ancestors to devise and
gradually introduce that new plan of government under which civilized
nations are living at the present time.
Following the ascending organic series, we are next to consider the
confederacy of tribes, in which the gentes, phratries and tribes will be seen
in new relations. The remarkable adaptation of the gentile organization to
the condition and wants of mankind, while in a barbarous state, will thereby
be further illustrated.

CHAPTER V. - THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

C N G .—F C G , C
L .—T I T .—T S N Y .—F
C .—I S P .—F S C .—M
H G .—N T .—T S
C C .—T C C .—I M T B .—
U N A .—T M C .—M R S .
—G M C .—T O G C E
M .—I C I .

A tendency to confederate for mutual defense would very naturally exist

among kindred and contiguous tribes. When the advantages of a union had
been appreciated by actual experience the organization, at first a league,
would gradually cement into a federal unity. The state of perpetual warfare
in which they lived would quicken this natural tendency into action among
such tribes as were sufficiently advanced in intelligence and in the arts of
life to perceive its benefits. It would be simply a growth from a lower into a
higher organization by an extension of the principle which united the gentes
in a tribe.
As might have been expected, several confederacies existed in different
parts of North America when discovered, some of which were quite
remarkable in plan and structure. Among the number may be mentioned the
Iroquois Confederacy of five independent tribes, the Creek Confederacy of
six, the Otawa Confederacy of three, the Dakota League of the “Seven
Council-Fires,” the Moqui Confederacy in New Mexico of Seven Pueblos,
and the Aztec Confederacy of three tribes in the Valley of Mexico. It is
probable that the Village Indians in other parts of Mexico, in Central and in
South America, were quite generally organized in confederacies consisting
of two or more kindred tribes. Progress necessarily took this direction from
the nature of their institutions, and from the law governing their
development. Nevertheless, the formation of a confederacy out of such
materials, and with such unstable geographical relations, was a difficult
undertaking. It was easiest of achievement by the Village Indians from the
nearness to each other of their pueblos, and from the smallness of their
areas; but it was accomplished in occasional instances by tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism, and notably by the Iroquois. Wherever a
confederacy was formed it would of itself evince the superior intelligence
of the people.
The two highest examples of Indian confederacies in North America were
those of the Iroquois and of the Aztecs. From their acknowledged
superiority as military powers, and from their geographical positions, these
confederacies, in both cases, produced remarkable results. Our knowledge
of the structure and principles of the former is definite and complete, while
of the latter it is far from satisfactory. The Aztec confederacy has been
handled in such a manner historically as to leave it doubtful whether it was
simply a league of three kindred tribes, offensive and defensive, or a
systematic confederacy like that of the Iroquois. That which is true of the
latter was probably in a general sense true of the former, so that a
knowledge of one will tend to elucidate the other.
The conditions under which confederacies spring into being and the
principles on which they are formed are remarkably simple. They grow
naturally, with time, out of pre-existing elements. Where one tribe had
divided into several and these subdivisions occupied independent but
contiguous territories, the confederacy re-integrated them in a higher
organization, on the basis of the common gentes they possessed, and of the
affiliated dialects they spoke. The sentiment of kin embodied in the gens,
the common lineage of the gentes, and their dialects still mutually
intelligible, yielded the material elements for a confederation. The
confederacy, therefore, had the gentes for its basis and centre, and stock
language for its circumference. No one has been found that reached beyond
the bounds of the dialects of a common language. If this natural barrier had
been crossed it would have forced heterogeneous elements into the
organization. Cases have occurred where the remains of a tribe, not cognate
in speech, as the Natchez,84 have been admitted into an existing
confederacy; but this exception would not invalidate the general
proposition. It was impossible for an Indian power to arise upon the
American continent through a confederacy of tribes organized in gentes,
and advance to a general supremacy unless their numbers were developed
from their own stock. The multitude of stock languages is a standing
explanation of the failure. There was no possible way of becoming
connected on equal terms with a confederacy excepting through
membership in a gens and tribe, and a common speech.
It may here be remarked, parenthetically, that it was impossible in the
Lower, in the Middle, or in the Upper Status of barbarism for a kingdom to
arise by natural growth in any part of the earth under gentile institutions. I
venture to make this suggestion at this early stage of the discussion in order
to call attention more closely to the structure and principles of ancient
society, as organized in gentes, phratries and tribes. Monarchy is
incompatible with gentilism. It belongs to the later period of civilization.
Despotisms appeared in some instances among the Grecian tribes in the
Upper Status of barbarism; but they were founded upon usurpation, were
considered illegitimate by the people, and were, in fact, alien to the ideas of
gentile society. The Grecian tyrannies were despotisms founded upon
usurpation, and were the germ out of which the later kingdoms arose; while
the so-called kingdoms of the heroic age were military democracies, and
nothing more.
The Iroquois have furnished an excellent illustration of the manner in which
a confederacy is formed by natural growth assisted by skillful legislation.
Originally emigrants from beyond the Mississippi, and probably a branch of
the Dakota stock, they first made their way to the valley of the St. Lawrence
and settled themselves near Montreal. Forced to leave this region by the
hostility of surrounding tribes, they sought the central region of New York.
Coasting the eastern shore of Lake Ontario in canoes, for their numbers
were small, they made their first settlement at the mouth of the Oswego
river, where, according to their traditions, they remained for a long period
of time. They were then in at least three distinct tribes, the Mohawks, the
Onondagas, and the Senecas. One tribe subsequently established themselves
at the head of the Canandaigua lake and became the Senecas. Another tribe
occupied the Onondaga Valley and became the Onondagas. The third
passed eastward and settled first at Oneida near the site of Utica, from
which place the main portion removed to the Mohawk Valley and became
the Mohawks. Those who remained became the Oneidas. A portion of the
Onondagas or Senecas settled along the eastern shore of the Cayuga lake
and became the Cayugas. New York, before its occupation by the Iroquois,
seems to have been a part of the area of the Algonkin tribes. According to
Iroquois traditions they displaced its anterior inhabitants as they gradually
extended their settlements eastward to the Hudson, and westward to the
Genesee. Their traditions further declare that a long period of time elapsed
after their settlement in New York before the confederacy was formed,
during which they made common cause against their enemies and thus
experienced the advantages of the federal principle both for aggression and
defense. They resided in villages, which were usually surrounded with
stockades, and subsisted upon fish and game, and the products of a limited
horticulture. In numbers they did not at any time exceed 20,000 souls, if
they ever reached that number. Precarious subsistence and incessant warfare
repressed numbers in all the aboriginal tribes, including the Village Indians
as well. The Iroquois were enshrouded in the great forests, which then
overspread New York, against which they had no power to contend. They
were first discovered A. D. 1608. About 1675, they attained their
culminating point when their dominion reached over an area remarkably
large, covering the greater parts of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio,85
and portions of Canada north of Lake Ontario. At the time of their
discovery they were the highest representatives of the Red Race north of
New Mexico in intelligence and advancement, though perhaps inferior to
some of the Gulf tribes in the arts of life. In the extent and quality of their
mental endowments they must be ranked among the highest Indians in
America. Although they have declined in numbers there are still four
thousand Iroquois in New York, about a thousand in Canada, and near that
number in the West; thus illustrating the efficiency as well as persistency of
the arts of barbarous life in sustaining existence. It is now said that they are
slowly increasing.
When the confederacy was formed, about A. D. 1400-1450,86 the
conditions previously named were present. The Iroquois was in five
independent tribes, occupied territories contiguous to each other, and spoke
dialects of the same language which were mutually intelligible. Beside
these facts certain gentes were common in the several tribes as has been
shown. In their relations to each other, as separated parts of the same gens,
these common gentes afforded a natural and enduring basis for a
confederacy. With these elements existing, the formation of a confederacy
became a question of intelligence and skill. Other tribes in large numbers
were standing in precisely the same relations in different parts of the
continent without confederating. The fact that the Iroquois tribes
accomplished the work affords evidence of their superior capacity.
Moreover, as the confederacy was the ultimate stage of organization among
the American aborigines its existence would be expected in the most
intelligent tribes only.
It is affirmed by the Iroquois that the confederacy was formed by a council
of wise-men and chiefs of the five tribes which met for that purpose on the
north shore of Onondaga lake, near the site of Syracuse; and that before its
session was concluded the organization was perfected, and set in immediate
operation. At their periodical councils for raising up sachems they still
explain its origin as the result of one protracted effort of legislation. It was
probably a consequence of a previous alliance for mutual defense, the
advantages of which they had perceived and which they sought to render
permanent.
The origin of the plan is ascribed to a mythical, or, at least, traditionary
person, Hä-yo-went′-hä, the Hiawatha of Longfellow’s celebrated poem,
who was present at this council and the central person in its management. In
his communications with the council he used a wise-man of the Onondagas,
Da-gä-no-we′-dä, as an interpreter and speaker to expound the structure and
principles of the proposed confederacy. The same tradition further declares
that when the work was accomplished Hä-yo-went′-hä miraculously
disappeared in a white canoe, which arose with him in the air and bore him
out of their sight. Other prodigies, according to this tradition, attended and
signalized the formation of the confederacy, which is still celebrated among
them as a masterpiece of Indian wisdom. Such in truth it was; and it will
remain in history as a monument of their genius in developing gentile
institutions. It will also be remembered as an illustration of what tribes of
mankind have been able to accomplish in the art of government while in the
Lower Status of barbarism, and under the disadvantages this condition
implies.
Which of the two persons was the founder of the confederacy it is difficult
to determine. The silent Hä-yo-went′-hä was, not unlikely, a real person of
Iroquois lineage;87 but tradition has enveloped his character so completely
in the supernatural that he loses his place among them as one of their
number. If Hiawatha were a real person, Da-gä-no-we′-dä must hold a
subordinate place; but, if a mythical person invoked for the occasion, then to
the latter belongs the credit of planning the confederacy.
The Iroquois affirm that the confederacy as formed by this council, with its
powers, functions and mode of administration, has come down to them
through many generations to the present time with scarcely a change in its
internal organization. When the Tuscaroras were subsequently admitted,
their sachems were allowed by courtesy to sit as equals in the general
council, but the original number of sachems was not increased, and in
strictness those of the Tuscaroras formed no part of the ruling body.
The general features of the Iroquois Confederacy may be summarized in the
following propositions:
I. The confederacy was a union of Five Tribes, composed of common
gentes, under one government on the basis of equality; each Tribe remaining
independent in all matters pertaining to local self-government.
II. It created a General Council of Sachems, who were limited in number,
equal in rank and authority, and invested with supreme powers over all
matters pertaining to the Confederacy.
III. Fifty Sachemships were created and named in perpetuity in certain
gentes of the several Tribes; with power in these gentes to fill vacancies, as
often as they occurred, by election from among their respective members,
and with the further power to depose from office for cause; but the right to
invest these Sachems with office was reserved to the General Council.
IV. The Sachems of the Confederacy were also Sachems in their respective
Tribes, and with the Chiefs of these Tribes formed the Council of each,
which was supreme over all matters pertaining to the Tribe exclusively.
V. Unanimity in the Council of the Confederacy was made essential to every
public act.
VI. In the General Council the Sachems voted by Tribes, which gave to each
Tribe a negative upon the others.
VII. The Council of each Tribe had power to convene the General Council;
but the latter had no power to convene itself.
VIII. The General Council was open to the orators of the people for the
discussion of public questions; but the Council alone decided.
IX. The Confederacy had no chief Executive Magistrate, or official head.
X. Experiencing the necessity for a General Military Commander they
created the office in a dual form, that one might neutralize the other. The
two principal War-chiefs created were made equal in powers.
These several propositions will be considered and illustrated, but without
following the precise form or order in which they are stated.
At the institution of the confederacy fifty permanent sachemships were
created and named, and made perpetual in the gentes to which they were
assigned. With the exception of two, which were filled but once, they have
been held by as many different persons in succession as generations have
passed away between that time and the present. The name of each
sachemship is also the personal name of each sachem while he holds the
office, each one in succession taking the name of his predecessor. These
sachems, when in session, formed the council of the confederacy in which
the legislative, executive, and judicial powers were vested, although such a
discrimination of functions had not come to be made. To secure order in the
succession, the several gentes in which these offices were made hereditary
were empowered to elect successors from among their respective members
when vacancies occurred, as elsewhere explained. As a further measure of
protection to their own body each sachem, after his election and its
confirmation, was invested with his office by a council of the confederacy.
When thus installed his name was “taken away” and that of the sachemship
was bestowed upon him. By this name he was afterwards known among
them. They were all upon equality in rank, authority, and privileges.
These sachemships were distributed unequally among the five tribes; but
without giving to either a preponderance of power; and unequally among the
gentes of the last three tribes. The Mohawks had nine sachems, the Oneidas
nine, the Onondagas fourteen, the Cayugas ten, and the Senecas eight. This
was the number at first, and it has remained the number to the present time.
A table of these sachemships is subjoined, with their names in the Seneca
dialect, and their arrangement in classes to facilitate the attainment of
unanimity in council. In foot-notes will be found the signification of these
names, and the gentes to which they belonged.
Table of sachemships of the Iroquois, founded at the institution of the
Confederacy; with the names which have been borne by their sachems in
succession, from its formation to the present time:

Mohawks.
I. 1. Da-gä-e′-o-gă.88 2. Hä-yo-went′-hä.89 3. Da-gä-no-we′-dä.90
II. 4. So-ä-e-wä′-ah.91 5. Da-yo′-ho-go.92 6. O-ä-ä′-go-wä.93
III. 7. Da-an-no-gä′-e-neh.94 8. Sä-da′-gä-e-wä-deh.95 9. Häs-dä-weh′-se-
ont-hä.96
Oneidas.
I. 1. Ho-däs′-hä-teh.97 2. Ga-no-gweh′-yo-do.98 3. Da-yo-hä′-gwen-da.99
II. 4. So-no-sase′.100 5. To-no-ä-gă′-o.101 6. Hä-de-ä-dun-nent′-hä.102
III. 7. Da-wä-dä′-o-dä-yo.103 8. Gä-ne-ä-dus′-ha-yeh.104 9. Ho-wus′-hä-da-
o.105
Onondagas.
I. 1. To-do-dä′-ho.106 2. To-nes′-sa-ah. 3. Da-ät′-ga-dose.107
II. 4. Gä-neä-dä′-je-wake.108 5. Ah-wä′-ga-yat.109 6. Da-ä-yat′-gwä-e.
III. 7. Ho-no-we-nă′-to.110
IV. 8. Gä-wă-nă′-san-do.111 9. Hä-e′-ho.112 10. Ho-yo-ne-ä′-ne.113 11. Sa-
dä′-kwä-seh.114
V. 12. Sä-go-ga-hä′.115 13. Ho-sa-hä′-ho.116 14. Skä-no′-wun-de.117
Cayugas.
I. 1. Da-gä′-ă-yo.118 2. Da-je-no′-dä-weh-o.119 3. Gä-dä′-gwä-sa.120 4. So-
yo-wasé.121 5. Hä-de-äs′-yo-no.122
II. 6. Da-yo-o-yo′-go.123 7. Jote-ho-weh′-ko.124 8. De-ä-wate′-ho.125
III. 9. To-dä-e-ho′.126 10. Des-gä′-heh.127
 Senecas.
I. 1. Ga-ne-o-di′-yo.128 2. Sä-dä-gä′-o-yase.129
II. 3. Gä-no-gi′-e.130 4. Sä-geh′-jo-wä.131
III. 5. Sä-de-a-no′-wus.132 6. Nis-hä-ne-a′-nent.133
IV. 7. Gä-no-go-e-dä′-we.134 8. Do-ne-ho-gä′-weh.135

Two of these sachemships have been filled but once since their creation. Hä-
yo-went′-hä and Da-gä-no-we′-da consented to take the office among the
Mohawk sachems, and to leave their names in the list upon condition that
after their demise the two should remain thereafter vacant. They were
installed upon these terms, and the stipulation has been observed to the
present day. At all councils for the investiture of sachems their names are
still called with the others as a tribute of respect to their memory. The
general council, therefore, consisted of but forty-eight members.
Each sachem had an assistant sachem, who was elected by the gens of his
principal from among its members, and who was installed with the same
forms and ceremonies. He was styled an “aid.” It was his duty to stand
behind his superior on all occasions of ceremony, to act as his messenger,
and in general to be subject to his directions. It gave to the aid the office of
chief, and rendered probable his election as the successor of his principal
after the decease of the latter. In their figurative language these aids of the
sachems were styled “Braces in the Long House,” which symbolized the
confederacy.
The names bestowed upon the original sachems became the names of their
respective successors in perpetuity. For example, upon the demise of Gä-ne-
o-di′-yo, one of the eight Seneca sachems, his successor would be elected by
the Turtle gens in which this sachemship was hereditary, and when raised up
by the general council he would receive this name, in place of his own, as a
part of the ceremony. On several different occasions I have attended their
councils for raising up sachems both at the Onondaga and Seneca
reservations, and witnessed the ceremonies herein referred to. Although but
a shadow of the old confederacy now remains, it is fully organized with its
complement of sachems and aids, with the exception of the Mohawk tribe
which removed to Canada about 1775. Whenever vacancies occur their
places are filled, and a general council is convened to install the new
sachems and their aids. The present Iroquois are also perfectly familiar with
the structure and principles of the ancient confederacy.
For all purposes of tribal government the five tribes were independent of
each other. Their territories were separated by fixed boundary lines, and
their tribal interests were distinct. The eight Seneca sachems, in conjunction
with the other Seneca chiefs, formed the council of the tribe by which its
affairs were administered, leaving to each of the other tribes the same
control over their separate interests. As an organization the tribe was neither
weakened nor impaired by the confederate compact. Each was in vigorous
life within its appropriate sphere, presenting some analogy to our own states
within an embracing republic. It is worthy of remembrance that the Iroquois
commended to our forefathers a union of the colonies similar to their own as
early as 1755. They saw in the common interests and common speech of the
several colonies the elements for a confederation, which was as far as their
vision was able to penetrate.
The tribes occupied positions of entire equality in the confederacy, in rights,
privileges and obligations. Such special immunities as were granted to one
or another indicate no intention to establish an unequal compact, or to
concede unequal privileges. There were organic provisions apparently
investing particular tribes with superior power; as, for example, the
Onondagas were allowed fourteen sachems and the Senecas but eight; and a
larger body of sachems would naturally exercise a stronger influence in
council than a smaller. But in this case it gave no additional power, because
the sachems of each tribe had an equal voice in forming a decision, and a
negative upon the others. When in council they agreed by tribes, and
unanimity in opinion was essential to every public act. The Onondagas were
made “Keepers of the Wampum,” and “Keepers of the Council Brand,” the
Mohawks, “Receivers of Tribute” from subjugated tribes, and the Senecas
“Keepers of the Door” of the Long House. These and some other similar
provisions were made for the common advantage.
The cohesive principle of the confederacy did not spring exclusively from
the benefits of an alliance for mutual protection, but had a deeper foundation
in the bond of kin. The confederacy rested upon the tribes ostensibly, but
primarily upon common gentes. All the members of the same gens, whether
Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, or Senecas, were brothers and
sisters to each other in virtue of their descent from the same common
ancestor; and they recognized each other as such with the fullest cordiality.
When they met the first inquiry was the name of each other’s gens, and next
the immediate pedigree of their respective sachems; after which they were
usually able to find, under their peculiar system of consanguinity,136 the
relationship in which they stood to each other. Three of the gentes, namely,
the Wolf, Bear and Turtle, were common to the five tribes; these and three
others were common to three tribes. In effect the Wolf gens, through the
division of an original tribe into five, was now in five divisions, one of
which was in each tribe. It was the same with the Bear and the Turtle gentes.
The Deer, Snipe and Hawk gentes were common to the Senecas, Cayugas
and Onondagas. Between the separated parts of each gens, although its
members spoke different dialects of the same language, there existed a
fraternal connection which linked the nations together with indissoluble
bonds. When the Mohawk of the Wolf gens recognized an Oneida,
Onondaga, Cayuga or Seneca of the same gens as a brother, and when the
members of the other divided gentes did the same, the relationship was not
ideal, but a fact founded upon consanguinity, and upon faith in an assured
lineage older than their dialects and coeval with their unity as one people. In
the estimation of an Iroquois every member of his gens in whatever tribe
was as certainly a kinsman as an own brother. This cross-relationship
between persons of the same gens in the different tribes is still preserved
and recognized among them in all its original force. It explains the tenacity
with which the fragments of the old confederacy still cling together. If either
of the five tribes had seceded from the confederacy it would have severed
the bond of kin, although this would have been felt but slightly. But had
they fallen into collision it would have turned the gens of the Wolf against
their gentile kindred, Bear against Bear, in a word brother against brother.
The history of the Iroquois demonstrates the reality as well as persistency of
the bond of kin, and the fidelity with which it was respected. During the
long period through which the confederacy endured, they never fell into
anarchy, nor ruptured the organization.
The “Long House” (Ho-de′-no-sote) was made the symbol of the
confederacy; and they styled themselves the “People of the Long House”
(Ho-de′-no-sau-nee). This was the name, and the only name, with which
they distinguished themselves. The confederacy produced a gentile society
more complex than that of a single tribe, but it was still distinctively a
gentile society. It was, however, a stage of progress in the direction of a
nation, for nationality is reached under gentile institutions. Coalescence is
the last stage in this process. The four Athenian tribes coalesced in Attica
into a nation by the intermingling of the tribes in the same area, and by the
gradual disappearance of geographical lines between them. The tribal names
and organizations remained in full vitality as before, but without the basis of
an independent territory. When political society was instituted on the basis
of the deme or township, and all the residents of the deme became a body
politic, irrespective of their gens or tribe, the coalescence became complete.
The coalescence of the Latin and Sabine gentes into the Roman people and
nation was a result of the same processes. In all alike the gens, phratry and
tribe were the first three stages of organization. The confederacy followed
as the fourth. But it does not appear, either among the Grecian or Latin
tribes in the Later Period of barbarism, that it became more than a loose
league for offensive and defensive purposes. Of the nature and details of
organization of the Grecian and Latin confederacies our knowledge is
limited and imperfect, because the facts are buried in the obscurity of the
traditionary period. The process of coalescence arises later than the
confederacy in gentile society; but it was a necessary as well as vital stage
of progress by means of which the nation, the state, and political society
were at last attained. Among the Iroquois tribes it had not manifested itself.
The valley of Onondaga, as the seat of the central tribe, and the place where
the Council Brand was supposed to be perpetually burning, was the usual
though not the exclusive place for holding the councils of the confederacy.
In ancient times it was summoned to convene in the autumn of each year;
but public exigencies often rendered its meetings more frequent. Each tribe
had power to summon the council, and to appoint the time and place of
meeting at the council-house of either tribe, when circumstances rendered a
change from the usual place at Onondaga desirable. But the council had no
power to convene itself.
Originally the principal object of the council was to raise up sachems to fill
vacancies in the ranks of the ruling body occasioned by death or deposition;
but it transacted all other business which concerned the common welfare. In
course of time, as they multiplied in numbers and their intercourse with
foreign tribes became more extended, the council fell into three distinct
kinds, which may be distinguished as Civil, Mourning and Religious. The
first declared war and made peace, sent and received embassies, entered into
treaties with foreign tribes, regulated the affairs of subjugated tribes, and
took all needful measures to promote the general welfare. The second raised
up sachems and invested them with office. It received the name of
Mourning Council because the first of its ceremonies was the lament for the
deceased ruler whose vacant place was to be filled. The third was held for
the observance of a general religious festival. It was made an occasion for
the confederated tribes to unite under the auspices of a general council in the
observance of common religious rites. But as the Mourning Council was
attended with many of the same ceremonies it came, in time, to answer for
both. It is now the only council they hold, as the civil powers of the
confederacy terminated with the supremacy over them of the state.
Invoking the patience of the reader, it is necessary to enter into some details
with respect to the mode of transacting business at the Civil and Mourning
Councils. In no other way can the archaic condition of society under gentile
institutions be so readily illustrated.
If an overture was made to the confederacy by a foreign tribe, it might be
done through either of the five tribes. It was the prerogative of the council of
the tribe addressed to determine whether the affair was of sufficient
importance to require a council of the confederacy. After reaching an
affirmative conclusion, a herald was sent to the nearest tribes in position, on
the east and on the west, with a belt of wampum, which contained a
message to the effect that a civil council (Ho-de-os′-seh) would meet at such
a place and time, and for such an object, each of which was specified. It was
the duty of the tribe receiving the message to forward it to the tribe next in
position, until the notification was made complete.137 No council ever
assembled unless it was summoned under the prescribed forms.
When the sachems met in council, at the time and place appointed, and the
usual reception ceremony had been performed, they arranged themselves in
two divisions and seated themselves upon opposite sides of the council-fire.
Upon one side were the Mohawk, Onondaga and Seneca sachems. The
tribes they represented were, when in council, brother tribes to each other
and father tribes to the other two. In like manner their sachems were
brothers to each other and fathers to those opposite. They constituted a
phratry of tribes and of sachems, by an extension of the principle which
united gentes in a phratry. On the opposite side of the fire were the Oneida
and Cayuga, and, at a later day, the Tuscarora sachems. The tribes they
represented were brother tribes to each other, and son tribes to the opposite
three. Their sachems also were brothers to each other, and sons of those in
the opposite division. They formed a second tribal phratry. As the Oneidas
were a subdivision of the Mohawks, and the Cayugas a subdivision of the
Onondagas or Senecas, they were in reality junior tribes; whence their
relation of seniors and juniors, and the application of the phratric principle.
When the tribes are named in council the Mohawks by precedence are
mentioned first. Their tribal epithet was “The Shield” (Da-gä-e-o′-dä). The
Onondagas came next under the epithet of “Name-Bearer” (Ho-de-san-no′-
ge-tä), because they had been appointed to select and name the fifty original
sachems.138 Next in the order of precedence were the Senecas, under the
epithet of “Door-Keeper” (Ho-nan-ne-ho′-ont). They were made perpetual
keepers of the western door of the Long House. The Oneidas, under the
epithet of “Great Tree” (Ne-ar′-de-on-dar′-go-war), and the Cayugas, under
that of “Great Pipe” (So-nus′-ho-gwar-to-war), were named fourth and fifth.
The Tuscaroras, who came late into the confederacy, were named last, and
had no distinguishing epithet. Forms, such as these, were more important in
ancient society than we would be apt to suppose.
It was customary for the foreign tribe to be represented at the council by a
delegation of wise-men and chiefs, who bore their proposition and presented
it in person. After the council was formally opened and the delegation
introduced, one of the sachems made a short address, in the course of which
he thanked the Great Spirit for sparing their lives and permitting them to
meet together; after which he informed the delegation that the council was
prepared to hear them upon the affair for which it had convened. One of the
delegates then submitted their proposition in form, and sustained it by such
arguments as he was able to make. Careful attention was given by the
members of the council that they might clearly comprehend the matter in
hand. After the address was concluded, the delegation withdrew from the
council to await at a distance the result of its deliberations. It then became
the duty of the sachems to agree upon an answer, which was reached
through the ordinary routine of debate and consultation. When a decision
had been made, a speaker was appointed to communicate the answer of the
council, to receive which the delegation were recalled. The speaker was
usually chosen from the tribe at whose instance the council had been
convened. It was customary for him to review the whole subject in a formal
speech, in the course of which the acceptance, in whole or in part, or the
rejection of the proposition were announced with the reasons therefor.
Where an agreement was entered upon, belts of wampum were exchanged
as evidence of its terms. With these proceedings the council terminated.
“This belt preserves my words” was a common remark of an Iroquois chief
in council. He then delivered the belt as the evidence of what he had said.
Several such belts would be given in the course of a negotiation to the
opposite party. In the reply of the latter a belt would be returned for each
proposition accepted. The Iroquois experienced the necessity for an exact
record of some kind of a proposition involving their faith and honor in its
execution, and they devised this method to place it beyond dispute.
Unanimity among the sachems was required upon all public questions, and
essential to the validity of every public act. It was a fundamental law of the
confederacy.139 They adopted a method for ascertaining the opinions of the
members of the council which dispensed with the necessity of casting votes.
Moreover, they were entirely unacquainted with the principle of majorities
and minorities in the action of councils. They voted in council by tribes, and
the sachems of each tribe were required to be of one mind to form a
decision. Recognizing unanimity as a necessary principle, the founders of
the confederacy divided the sachems of each tribe into classes as a means
for its attainment. This will be seen by consulting the table, (supra p. 130).
No sachem was allowed to express an opinion in council in the nature of a
vote until he had first agreed with the sachem or sachems of his class upon
the opinion to be expressed, and had been appointed to act as speaker for the
class. Thus the eight Seneca sachems being in four classes could have but
four opinions, and the ten Cayuga sachems, being in the same number of
classes, could have but four. In this manner the sachems in each class were
first brought to unanimity among themselves. A cross-consultation was then
held between the four sachems appointed to speak for the four classes; and
when they had agreed, they designated one of their number to express their
resulting opinion, which was the answer of their tribe. When the sachems of
the several tribes had, by this ingenious method, become of one mind
separately, it remained to compare their several opinions, and if they agreed
the decision of the council was made. If they failed of agreement the
measure was defeated, and the council was at an end. The five persons
appointed to express the decision of the five tribes may possibly explain the
appointment and the functions of the six electors, so called, in the Aztec
confederacy, which will be noticed elsewhere.
By this method of gaining assent the equality and independence of the
several tribes were recognized and preserved. If any sachem was obdurate
or unreasonable, influences were brought to bear upon him, through the
preponderating sentiment, which he could not well resist; so that it seldom
happened that inconvenience or detriment resulted from their adherence to
the rule. Whenever all efforts to procure unanimity had failed, the whole
matter was laid aside because further action had become impossible.
The induction of new sachems into office was an event of great interest to
the people, and not less to the sachems who retained thereby some control
over the introduction of new members into their body. To perform the
ceremony of raising up sachems the general council was primarily
instituted. It was named at the time, or came afterwards to be called, the
Mourning Council (Hen-nun-do-nuh′-seh), because it embraced the twofold
object of lamenting the death of the departed sachems and of installing his
successor. Upon the death of a sachem, the tribe in which the loss had
occurred had power to summon a general council, and to name the time and
place of its meeting. A herald was sent out with a belt of wampum, usually
the official belt of the deceased sachem given to him at his installation,
which conveyed this laconic message;—“the name” (mentioning that of the
late ruler) “calls for a council.” It also announced the day and place of
convocation. In some cases the official belt of the sachem was sent to the
central council-fire at Onondaga immediately after his burial, as a
notification of his demise, and the time for holding the council was
determined afterwards.
The Mourning Council, with the festivities which followed the investiture of
sachems, possessed remarkable attractions for the Iroquois. They flocked to
its attendance from the most distant localities with zeal and enthusiasm. It
was opened and conducted with many forms and ceremonies, and usually
lasted five days. The first was devoted to the prescribed ceremony of
lamentations for the deceased sachem, which, as a religious act, commenced
at the rising of the sun. At this time the sachems of the tribe, with whom the
council was held, marched out followed by their tribesmen, to receive
formally the sachems and people of the other tribes, who had arrived before
and remained encamped at some distance waiting for the appointed day.
After exchanging greetings, a procession was formed and the lament was
chanted in verse, with responses, by the united tribes, as they marched from
the place of reception to the place of council. The lament, with the responses
in chorus, was a tribute of respect to the memory of the departed sachem, in
which not only his gens, but his tribe, and the confederacy itself
participated. It was certainly a more delicate testimonial of respect and
affection than would have been expected from a barbarous people. This
ceremonial, with the opening of the council, concluded the first day’s
proceedings. On the second day, the installation ceremony commenced, and
it usually lasted into the fourth. The sachems of the several tribes seated
themselves in two divisions, as at the civil council. When the sachem to be
raised up belonged to either of the three senior tribes the ceremony was
performed by the sachems of the junior tribes, and the new sachem was
installed as a father. In like manner, if he belonged to either of the three
junior tribes the ceremony was performed by the sachems of the senior
tribes, and the new sachem was installed as a son. These special
circumstances are mentioned to show the peculiar character of their social
and governmental life. To the Iroquois these forms and figures of speech
were full of significance.
Among other things, the ancient wampum belts, into which the structure and
principles of the confederacy “had been talked,” to use their expression,
were produced and read or interpreted for the instruction of the newly
inducted sachem. A wise-man, not necessarily one of the sachems, took
these belts one after the other and walking to and fro between the two
divisions of sachems, read from them the facts which they recorded.
According to the Indian conception, these belts can tell, by means of an
interpreter, the exact rule, provision or transaction talked into them at the
time, and of which they were the exclusive record. A strand of wampum
consisting of strings of purple and white shell beads, or a belt woven with
figures formed by beads of different colors, operated on the principle of
associating a particular fact with a particular string or figure; thus giving a
serial arrangement to the facts as well as fidelity to the memory. These
strands and belts of wampum were the only visible records of the Iroquois;
but they required those trained interpreters who could draw from their
strings and figures the records locked up in their remembrance. One of the
Onondaga sachems (Ho-no-we-nă′-to) was made “Keeper of the Wampum,”
and two aids were raised up with him who were required to be versed in its
interpretation as well as the sachem. The interpretation of these several belts
and strings brought out, in the address of the wise-man, a connected account
of the occurrences at the formation of the confederacy. The tradition was
repeated in full, and fortified in its essential parts by reference to the record
contained in these belts. Thus the council to raise up sachems became a
teaching council, which maintained in perpetual freshness in the minds of
the Iroquois the structure and principles of the confederacy, as well as the
history of its formation. These proceedings occupied the council until noon
each day; the afternoon being devoted to games and amusements. At
twilight each day a dinner in common was served to the entire body in
attendance. It consisted of soup and boiled meat cooked near the council-
house, and served directly from the kettle in wooden bowls, trays and ladles.
Grace was said before the feast commenced. It was a prolonged exclamation
by a single person on a high shrill note, falling down in cadences into
stillness, followed by a response in chorus by the people. The evenings were
devoted to the dance. With these ceremonies, continued for several days,
and with the festivities that followed, their sachems were inducted into
office.
By investing their sachems with office through a general council, the
framers of the confederacy had in view the threefold object of a perpetual
succession in the gens, the benefits of a free election among its members,
and a final supervision of the choice through the ceremony of investiture. To
render the latter effective it should carry with it the power to reject the
nominee. Whether the right to invest was purely functional, or carried with
it the right to exclude, I am unable to state. No case of rejection is
mentioned. The scheme adopted by the Iroquois to maintain a ruling body
of sachems may claim, in several respects, the merit of originality, as well as
of adaptation to their condition. In form an oligarchy, taking this term in its
best sense, it was yet a representative democracy of the archaic type. A
powerful popular element pervaded the whole organism and influenced its
action. It is seen in the right of the gentes to elect and depose their sachems
and chiefs, in the right of the people to be heard in council through orators
of their own selection, and in the voluntary system in the military service. In
this and the next succeeding ethnical period democratic principles were the
vital element of gentile society.
The Iroquois name for a sachem (Ho-yar-na-go′-war), which signifies “a
counselor of the people,” was singularly appropriate to a ruler in a species
of free democracy. It not only defines the office well, but it also suggests the
analogous designation of the members of the Grecian council of chiefs. The
Grecian chiefs were styled “councilors of the people.”140 From the nature
and tenure of the office among the Iroquois the sachems were not masters
ruling by independent right, but representatives holding from the gentes by
free election. It is worthy of notice that an office which originated in
savagery, and continued through the three sub-periods of barbarism, should
reveal so much of its archaic character among the Greeks after the gentile
organization had carried this portion of the human family to the confines of
civilization. It shows further how deeply inwrought in the human mind the
principle of democracy had become under gentilism.
The designation for a chief of the second grade, Ha-sa-no-wä′-na, “an
elevated name,” indicates an appreciation by barbarians of the ordinary
motives for personal ambition. It also reveals the sameness of the nature of
man, whether high up or low down upon the rounds of the ladder of
progress. The celebrated orators, wise-men, and war-chiefs of the Iroquois
were chiefs of the second grade almost without exception. One reason for
this may be found in the organic provision which confined the duties of the
sachem to the affairs of peace. Another may have been to exclude from the
ruling body their ablest men, lest their ambitious aims should disturb its
action. As the office of chief was bestowed in reward of merit, it fell
necessarily upon their ablest men. Red-Jacket, Brandt, Garangula,
Cornplanter, Farmer’s Brother, Frost, Johnson, and other well known
Iroquois, were chiefs as distinguished from sachems. None of the long lines
of sachems have become distinguished in American annals, with the
exception of Logan,141 Handsome Lake,142 and at a recent day, Ely S.
Parker.143 The remainder have left no remembrance behind them extending
beyond the Iroquois.
At the time the confederacy was formed To-do-dä′-ho was the most
prominent and influential of the Onondaga chiefs. His accession to the plan
of a confederacy, in which he would experience a diminution of power, was
regarded as highly meritorious. He was raised up as one of the Onondaga
sachems and his name placed first in the list. Two assistant sachems were
raised up with him to act as his aids and to stand behind him on public
occasions. Thus dignified, this sachemship has since been regarded by the
Iroquois as the most illustrious of the forty-eight, from the services rendered
by the first To-do-dä′-ho. The circumstance was early seized upon by the
inquisitive colonists to advance the person who held this office to the
position of king of the Iroquois; but the misconception was refuted, and the
institutions of the Iroquois were relieved of the burden of an impossible
feature. In the general council he sat among his equals. The confederacy had
no chief executive magistrate.
Under a confederacy of tribes the office of general, (Hos-gä-ä-geh′-da-go-
wä) “Great War Soldier,” makes its first appearance. Cases would now arise
when the several tribes in their confederate capacity would be engaged in
war; and the necessity for a general commander to direct the movements of
the united bands would be felt. The introduction of this office as a
permanent feature in the government was a great event in the history of
human progress. It was the beginning of a differentiation of the military
from the civil power, which, when completed, changed essentially the
external manifestation of the government. But even in later stages of
progress, when the military spirit predominated, the essential character of
the government was not changed. Gentilism arrested usurpation. With the
rise of the office of general, the government was gradually changed from a
government of one power, into a government of two powers. The functions
of government became, in course of time, co-ordinated between the two.
This new office was the germ of that of a chief executive magistrate; for out
of the general came the king, the emperor, and the president, as elsewhere
suggested. The office sprang from the military necessities of society, and
had a logical development. For this reason its first appearance and
subsequent growth have an important place in this discussion. In the course
of this volume I shall attempt to trace the progressive development of this
office, from the Great War Soldier of the Iroquois through the Teuctli of the
Aztecs, to the Basileus of the Grecian, and the Rex of the Roman tribes;
among all of whom, through three successive ethnical periods, the office
was the same, namely, that of a general in a military democracy. Among the
Iroquois, the Aztecs, and the Romans the office was elective, or
confirmative, by a constituency. Presumptively, it was the same among the
Greeks of the traditionary period. It is claimed that the office of basileus
among the Grecian tribes in the Homeric period was hereditary from father
to son. This is at least doubtful. It is such a wide and total departure from
the original tenure of the office as to require positive evidence to establish
the fact. An election, or confirmation by a constituency, would still be
necessary under gentile institutions. If in numerous instances it were known
that the office had passed from father to son this might have suggested the
inference of hereditary succession, now adopted as historically true, while
succession in this form did not exist. Unfortunately, an intimate knowledge
of the organization and usages of society in the traditionary period is
altogether wanting. Great principles of human action furnish the safest guide
when their operation must have been necessary. It is far more probable that
hereditary succession, when it first came in, was established by force, than
by the free consent of the people; and that it did not exist among the Grecian
tribes in the Homeric period.
When the Iroquois confederacy was formed, or soon after that event, two
permanent war-chiefships were created and named, and both were assigned
to the Seneca tribe. One of them (Ta-wan′-ne-ars, signifying needle-breaker)
was made hereditary in the Wolf, and the other (So-no′-so-wä, signifying
great oyster shell) in the Turtle gens. The reason assigned for giving them
both to the Senecas was the greater danger of attack at the west end of their
territories. They were elected in the same manner as the sachems, were
raised up by a general council, and were equal in rank and power. Another
account states that they were created later. They discovered immediately
after the confederacy was formed that the structure of the Long House was
incomplete because there were no officers to execute the military commands
of the confederacy. A council was convened to remedy the omission, which
established the two perpetual war-chiefs named. As general commanders
they had charge of the military affairs of the confederacy, and the command
of its joint forces when united in a general expedition. Governor
Blacksnake, recently deceased, held the office first named, thus showing
that the succession has been regularly maintained. The creation of two
principal war-chiefs instead of one, and with equal powers, argues a subtle
and calculating policy to prevent the domination of a single man even in
their military affairs. They did without experience precisely as the Romans
did in creating two consuls instead of one, after they had abolished the
office of rex. Two consuls would balance the military power between them,
and prevent either from becoming supreme. Among the Iroquois this office
never became influential.
In Indian Ethnography the subjects of primary importance are the gens,
phratry, tribe and confederacy. They exhibit the organization of society.
Next to these are the tenure and functions of the office of sachem and chief,
the functions of the council of chiefs, and the tenure and functions of the
office of principal war-chief. When these are ascertained, the structure and
principles of their governmental system will be known. A knowledge of
their usages and customs, of their arts and inventions, and of their plan of
life will then fill out the picture. In the work of American investigators too
little attention has been given to the former. They still afford a rich field in
which much information may be gathered. Our knowledge, which is now
general, should be made minute and comparative. The Indian tribes in the
Lower, and in the Middle Status of barbarism, represent two of the great
stages of progress from savagery to civilization. Our own remote forefathers
passed through the same conditions, one after the other, and possessed, there
can scarcely be a doubt, the same, or very similar institutions, with many of
the same usages and customs. However little we may be interested in the
American Indians personally, their experience touches us more nearly, as an
exemplification of the experience of our own ancestors. Our primary
institutions root themselves in a prior gentile society in which the gens,
phratry and tribe were the organic series, and in which the council of chiefs
was the instrument of government. The phenomena of their ancient society
must have presented many points in common with that of the Iroquois and
other Indian tribes. This view of the matter lends an additional interest to the
comparative institutions of mankind.
The Iroquois confederacy is an excellent exemplification of a gentile society
under this form of organization. It seems to realize all the capabilities of
gentile institutions in the Lower Status of barbarism; leaving an opportunity
for further development, but no subsequent plan of government until the
institutions of political society, founded upon territory and upon property,
with the establishment of which the gentile organization would be
overthrown. The intermediate stages were transitional, remaining military
democracies to the end, except where tyrannies founded upon usurpation
were temporarily established in their places. The confederacy of the
Iroquois was essentially democratical; because it was composed of gentes
each of which was organized upon the common principles of democracy, not
of the highest but of the primitive type, and because the tribes reserved the
right of local self-government. They conquered other tribes and held them in
subjection, as for example the Delawares; but the latter remained under the
government of their own chiefs, and added nothing to the strength of the
confederacy. It was impossible in this state of society to unite tribes under
one government who spoke different languages, or to hold conquered tribes
under tribute with any benefit but the tribute.
This exposition of the Iroquois confederacy is far from exhaustive of the
facts, but it has been carried far enough to answer my present object. The
Iroquois were a vigorous and intelligent people, with a brain approaching in
volume the Aryan average. Eloquent in oratory, vindictive in war, and
indomitable in perseverance, they have gained a place in history. If their
military achievements are dreary with the atrocities of savage warfare, they
have illustrated some of the highest virtues of mankind in their relations
with each other. The confederacy which they organized must be regarded as
a remarkable production of wisdom and sagacity. One of its avowed objects
was peace; to remove the cause of strife by uniting their tribes under one
government, and then extending it by incorporating other tribes of the same
name and lineage. They urged the Eries and the Neutral Nation to become
members of the confederacy, and for their refusal expelled them from their
borders. Such an insight into the highest objects of government is creditable
to their intelligence. Their numbers were small, but they counted in their
ranks a large number of able men. This proves the high grade of the stock.
From their position and military strength they exercised a marked influence
upon the course of events between the English and the French in their
competition for supremacy in North America. As the two were nearly equal
in power and resources during the first century of colonization, the French
may ascribe to the Iroquois, in no small degree, the overthrow of their plans
of empire in the New World.
With a knowledge of the gens in its archaic form and of its capabilities as
the unit of a social system, we shall be better able to understand the gentes
of the Greeks and Romans yet to be considered. The same scheme of
government composed of gentes, phratries and tribes in a gentile society
will be found among them as they stood at the threshold of civilization, with
the superadded experience of two entire ethnical periods. Descent among
them was in the male line, property was inherited by the children of the
owner instead of the agnatic kindred, and the family was now assuming the
monogamian form. The growth of property, now becoming a commanding
element, and the increase of numbers gathered in walled cities were slowly
demonstrating the necessity for the second great plan of government—the
political. The old gentile system was becoming incapable of meeting the
requirements of society as it approached civilization. Glimpses of a state,
founded upon territory and property, were breaking upon the Grecian and
Roman minds before which gentes and tribes were to disappear. To enter
upon the second plan of government, it was necessary to supersede the
gentes by townships and city wards—the gentile by a territorial system. The
going down of the gentes and the uprising of organized townships mark the
dividing line, pretty nearly, between the barbarian and the civilized worlds
—between ancient and modern society.

CHAPTER VI. - GENTES IN OTHER TRIBES OF THE

GANOWÁNIAN FAMILY.
D A A .—G I T ; R D
I .—I. H T .—II. D .—III. G .—IV. P .—V.
A .—VI. A -A .—VII. T N C .—E , D
F .—VIII. S ,S , K T .—IX. S .—X. V I
N M , M C A .—XI. S A I T .—
P U O G G F .

When America was first discovered in its several regions, the Aborigines
were found in two dissimilar conditions. First were the Village Indians, who
depended almost exclusively upon horticulture for subsistence; such were
the tribes in this status in New Mexico, Mexico and Central America, and
upon the plateau of the Andes. Second, were the Non-horticultural Indians,
who depended upon fish, bread-roots and game; such were the Indians of
the Valley of the Columbia, of the Hudson’s Bay Territory, of parts of
Canada, and of some other sections of America. Between these tribes, and
connecting the extremes by insensible gradations, were the partially Village,
and partially Horticultural Indians; such were the Iroquois, the New England
and Virginia Indians, the Creeks, Choctas, Cherokees, Minnitarees, Dakotas
and Shawnees. The weapons, arts, usages, inventions, dances, house
architecture, form of government, and plan of life of all alike bear the
impress of a common mind, and reveal, through their wide range, the
successive stages of development of the same original conceptions. Our first
mistake consisted in overrating the comparative advancement of the Village
Indians; and our second in underrating that of the Non-horticultural, and of
the partially Village Indians: whence resulted a third, that of separating one
from the other and regarding them as different races. There was a marked
difference in the conditions in which they were severally found; for a
number of the Non-horticultural tribes were in the Upper Status of savagery;
the intermediate tribes were in the Lower Status of barbarism, and the
Village Indians were in the Middle Status. The evidence of their unity of
origin has now accumulated to such a degree as to leave no reasonable
doubt upon the question, although this conclusion is not universally
accepted. The Eskimos belong to a different family.
In a previous work I presented the system of consanguinity and affinity of
some seventy American Indian tribes; and upon the fact of their joint
possession of the same system, with evidence of its derivation from a
common source, ventured to claim for them the distinctive rank of a family
of mankind, under the name of the Ganowánian, the “Family of the Bow
and Arrow.”144
Having considered the attributes of the gens in its archaic form, it remains to
indicate the extent of its prevalence in the tribes of the Ganowánian family.
In this chapter the organization will be traced among them, confining the
statements to the names of the gentes in each tribe, with their rules of
descent and inheritance as to property and office. Further explanations will
be added when necessary. The main point to be established is the existence
or non-existence of the gentile organization among them. Wherever the
institution has been found in these several tribes it is the same in all
essential respects as the gens of the Iroquois, and therefore needs no further
exposition in this connection. Unless the contrary is stated, it may be
understood that the existence of the organization was ascertained by the
author from the Indian tribe or some of its members. The classification of
tribes follows that adopted in “Systems of Consanguinity.”
I. Hodenosaunian Tribes.
1. Iroquois. The gentes of the Iroquois have been considered.145
2. Wyandotes. This tribe, the remains of the ancient Hurons, is composed of
eight gentes, as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Beaver. 4. Turtle.

5. Deer. 6. Snake. 7. Porcupine. 8. Hawk.146

Descent is in the female line, with marriage in the gens prohibited. The
office of sachem, or civil chief, is hereditary in the gens, but elective among
its members. They have seven sachems and seven war-chiefs, the Hawk
gens being now extinct. The office of sachem passes from brother to
brother, or from uncle to nephew; but that of war-chief was bestowed in
reward of merit, and was not hereditary. Property was hereditary in the gens,
consequently children took nothing from their father; but they inherited their
mother’s effects. Where the rule is stated hereafter it will be understood that
unmarried as well as married persons are included. Each gens had power to
depose as well as elect its chiefs. The Wyandotes have been separated from
the Iroquois at least four hundred years; but they still have five gentes in
common, although their names have either changed beyond identification,
or new names have been substituted by one or the other.
The Eries, Neutral Nation, Nottoways, Tutelos,147 and Susquehannocks148
now extinct or absorbed in other tribes, belong to the same lineage.
Presumptively they were organized in gentes, but the evidence of the fact is
lost.
II. Dakotian Tribes.
A large number of tribes are included in this great stock of the American
aborigines. At the time of their discovery they had fallen into a number of
groups, and their language into a number of dialects; but they inhabited, in
the main, continuous areas. They occupied the head waters of the
Mississippi, and both banks of the Missouri for more than a thousand miles
in extent. In all probability the Iroquois, and their cognate tribes, were an
offshoot from this stem.
1. Dakotas or Sioux. The Dakotas, consisting at the present time of some
twelve independent tribes, have allowed the gentile organization to fall into
decadence. It seems substantially certain that they once possessed it because
their nearest congeners, the Missouri tribes, are now thus organized. They
have societies named after animals analogous to gentes, but the latter are
now wanting. Carver, who was among them in 1767, remarks that “every
separate body of Indians is divided into bands or tribes; which band or tribe
forms a little community with the nation to which it belongs. As the nation
has some particular symbol by which it is distinguished from others, so each
tribe has a badge from which it is denominated; as that of the eagle, the
panther, the tiger, the buffalo, etc. One band of the Naudowissies [Sioux] is
represented by a Snake, another a Tortoise, a third a Squirrel, a fourth a
Wolf, and a fifth a Buffalo. Throughout every nation they particularize
themselves in the same manner, and the meanest person among them will
remember his lineal descent, and distinguish himself by his respective
family.”149 He visited the eastern Dakotas on the Mississippi. From this
specific statement I see no reason to doubt that the gentile organization was
then in full vitality among them. When I visited the eastern Dakotas in
1861, and the western in 1862, I could find no satisfactory traces of gentes
among them. A change in the mode of life among the Dakotas occurred
between these dates when they were forced upon the plains, and fell into
nomadic bands, which may, perhaps, explain the decadence of gentilism
among them.
Carver also noticed the two grades of chiefs among the western Indians,
which have been explained as they exist among the Iroquois. “Every band,”
he observes, “has a chief who is termed the Great Chief, or the Chief
Warrior, and who is chosen in consideration of his experience in war, and of
his approved valor, to direct their military operations, and to regulate all
concerns belonging to that department. But this chief is not considered the
head of the state; besides the great warrior who is elected for his warlike
qualifications, there is another who enjoys a pre-eminence as his hereditary
right, and has the more immediate management of their civil affairs. This
chief might with greater propriety be denominated the sachem; whose assent
is necessary to all conveyances and treaties, to which he affixes the mark of
the tribe or nation.”150
2. Missouri tribes. 1. Punkas. This tribe is composed of eight gentes, as
follows:
 1. Grizzly Bear. 2. Many People. 3. Elk. 4. Skunk.
5. Buffalo. 6. Snake. 7. Medicine. 8. Ice.151

In this tribe, contrary to the general rule, descent is in the male line, the
children belonging to the gens of their father. Intermarriage in the gens is
prohibited. The office of sachem is hereditary in the gens, the choice being
determined by election; but the sons of a deceased sachem are eligible. It is
probable that the change from the archaic form was recent, from the fact
that among the Otoes and Missouris, two of the eight Missouri tribes, and
also among the Mandans, descent is still in the female line. Property is
hereditary in the gens.
2. Omahas. This tribe is composed of the following twelve gentes:

1. Deer. 2. Black. 3. Bird. 4. Turtle.

5. Buffalo. 6. Bear. 7. Medicine. 8. Kaw.
9. Head. 10. Red. 11. Thunder. 12. Many Seasons.152

Descent, inheritance, and the law of marriage are the same as among the
Punkas.
3. Iowas. In like manner the Iowas have eight gentes, as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Cow Buffalo. 4. Elk.

5. Eagle. 6. Pigeon. 7. Snake. 8. Owl.153

A gens of the Beaver Pä-kuh′-thä once existed among the Iowas and Otoes,
but it is now extinct. Descent, inheritance, and the prohibition of
intermarriage in the gens are the same as among the Punkas.
4. Otoes and Missouris. These tribes have coalesced into one, and have the
eight following gentes:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Cow Buffalo. 4.Elk.

5. Eagle. 6. Pigeon. 7. Snake. 8. Owl.154

Descent among the Otoes and Missouris is in the female line, the children
belonging to the gens of their mother. The office of sachem, and property
are hereditary in the gens, in which intermarriage is prohibited.
5. Kaws. The Kaws (Kaw′-ză) have the following fourteen gentes:

1. Deer. 2. Bear. 3. Buffalo. 4. Eagle (white).

5. Eagle (black). 6. Duck. 7. Elk. 8. Raccoon.
9. Prairie Wolf. 10. Turtle. 11. Earth. 12. Deer Tail.
13. Tent. 14. Thunder.155

The Kaws are among the wildest of the American aborigines, but are an
intelligent and interesting people. Descent, inheritance and marriage
regulations among them are the same as among the Punkas. It will be
observed that there are two Eagle gentes, and two of the Deer, which afford
a good illustration of the segmentation of a gens; the Eagle gens having
probably divided into two and distinguished themselves by the names of
white and black. The Turtle will be found hereafter as a further illustration
of the same fact. When I visited the Missouri tribes in 1859 and 1860, I was
unable to reach the Osages and Quappas. The eight tribes thus named speak
closely affiliated dialects of the Dakotian stock language, and the
presumption that the Osages and Quappas are organized in gentes is
substantially conclusive. In 1869, the Kaws, then much reduced, numbered
seven hundred, which would give an average of but fifty persons to a gens.
The home country of these several tribes was along the Missouri and its
tributaries from the mouth of the Big Sioux river to the Mississippi, and
down the west bank of the latter river to the Arkansas.
3. Winnebagoes. When discovered this tribe resided near the lake of their
name in Wisconsin. An offshoot from the Dakotian stem, they were
apparently following the track of the Iroquois eastward to the valley of the
St. Lawrence, when their further progress in that direction was arrested by
the Algonkin tribes between Lakes Huron and Superior. Their nearest
affiliation is with the Missouri tribes. They have eight gentes as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Buffalo. 4. Eagle.

5. Elk. 6. Deer. 7. Snake. 8. Thunder.156

Descent, inheritance, and the law of marriage are the same among them as
among the Punkas. It is surprising that so many tribes of this stock should
have changed descent from the female line to the male, because when first
known the idea of property was substantially undeveloped, or but slightly
beyond the germinating stage, and could hardly, as among the Greeks and
Romans, have been the operative cause. It is probable that it occurred at a
recent period under American and missionary influences. Carver found
traces of descent in the female line in 1787 among the Winnebagoes. “Some
nations,” he remarks, “when the dignity is hereditary, limit the succession to
the female line. On the death of a chief his sisters’ son succeeds him in
preference to his own son; and if he happens to have no sister the nearest
female relation assumes the dignity. This accounts for a woman being at the
head of the Winnebago nation, which, before I was acquainted with their
laws, appeared strange to me.”157 In 1869, the Winnebagoes numbered
fourteen hundred, which would give an average of one hundred and fifty
persons to the gens.
4. Upper Missouri Tribes.
1. Mandans. In intelligence and in the arts of life the Mandans were in
advance of all their kindred tribes, for which they were probably indebted to
the Minnitarees. They are divided into seven gentes as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Prairie Chicken. 4. Good Knife.

5. Eagle. 6. Flathead. 7. High Village.158
Descent is in the female line, with office and property hereditary in the
gens. Intermarriage in the gens is not permitted. Descent in the female line
among the Mandans would be singular where so many tribes of the same
stock have it in the male, were it not in the archaic form from which the
other tribes had but recently departed. It affords a strong presumption that it
was originally in the female line in all the Dakotian tribes. This information
with respect to the Mandans was obtained at the old Mandan Village in the
Upper Missouri, in 1862, from Joseph Kip, whose mother was a Mandan
woman. He confirmed the fact of descent by naming his mother’s gens,
which was also his own.
2. Minnitarees. This tribe and the Upsarokas (Up-sar′-o-kas) or Crows, are
subdivisions of an original people. They are doubtful members of this
branch of the Ganowánian family: although from the number of words in
their dialects and in those of the Missouri and Dakota tribes which are
common, they have been placed with them linguistically. They have had an
antecedent experience of which but little is known. Minnitarees carried
horticulture, the timber-framed house, and a peculiar religious system into
this area which they taught to the Mandans. There is a possibility that they
are descendants of the Mound-Builders. They have the seven following
gentes:

1. Knife. 2. Water. 3. Lodge.

4. Prairie Chicken. 5. Hill People. 6. Unknown Animal.
7. Bonnet.159

Descent is in the female line, intermarriage in the gens is forbidden, and the
office of sachem as well as property is hereditary in the gens. The
Minnitarees and Mandans now live together in the same village. In personal
appearance they are among the finest specimens of the Red Man now living
in any part of North America.
3. Upsarokas or Crows. This tribe has the following gentes:

1. Prairie Dog. 2. Bad Leggins.

3. Skunk. 4. Treacherous Lodges.
5. Lost Lodges. 6. Bad Honors.
 7. Butchers. 8. Moving Lodges.
9. Bear’s Paw Mountain. 10. Blackfoot Lodges.
11. Fish Catchers. 12. Antelope.
13. Raven.160

Descent, inheritance and the prohibition of intermarriage in the gens, are the
same as among the Minnitarees. Several of the names of the Crow gentes
are unusual, and more suggestive of bands than of gentes. For a time I was
inclined to discredit them. But the existence of the organization into gentes
was clearly established by their rules of descent, and marital usages, and by
their laws of inheritance with respect to property. My interpreter when
among the Crows was Robert Meldrum, then one of the factors of the
American Fur Company, who had lived with the Crows forty years, and was
one of their chiefs. He had mastered the language so completely that he
thought in it. The following special usages with respect to inheritance were
mentioned by him. If a person to whom any article of property had been
presented died with it in his possession, and the donor was dead, it reverted
to the gens of the latter. Property made or acquired by a wife descended
after her death to her children; while that of her husband after his decease
belonged to his gentile kindred. If a person made a present to a friend and
died, the latter must perform some recognized act of mourning, such as
cutting off the joint of a finger at the funeral, or surrender the property to
the gens of his deceased friend.161
The Crows have a custom with respect to marriage, which I have found in
at least forty other Indian tribes, which may be mentioned here, because
some use will be made of it in a subsequent chapter. If a man marries the
eldest daughter in a family he is entitled to all her sisters as additional wives
when they attain maturity. He may waive the right, but if he insists, his
superior claim would be recognized by her gens. Polygamy is allowed by
usage among the American aborigines generally; but it was never prevalent
to any considerable extent from the inability of persons to support more
than one family. Direct proof of the existence of the custom first mentioned
was afforded by Meldrum’s wife, then at the age of twenty-five. She was
captured when a child in a foray upon the Blackfeet, and became
Meldrum’s captive. He induced his mother-in-law to adopt the child into her
gens and family, which made the captive the younger sister of his then wife,
and gave him the right to take her as another wife when she reached
maturity. He availed himself of this usage of the tribe to make his claim
paramount. This usage has a great antiquity in the human family. It is a
survival of the old custom of punalua.
III. Gulf Tribes.
1. Muscokees or Creeks. The Creek Confederacy consisted of six Tribes;
namely, the Creeks, Hitchetes, Yoochees, Alabamas, Coosatees, and
Natches, all of whom spoke dialects of the same language, with the
exception of the Natches, who were admitted into the confederacy after
their overthrow by the French.
The Creeks are composed of twenty-two gentes as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Skunk.

4. Alligator. 5. Deer. 6. Bird.
7. Tiger. 8. Wind. 9. Toad.
10. Mole. 11. Fox. 12. Raccoon.
13. Fish. 14. Corn. 15. Potatoe.
16. Hickory Nut. 17. Salt. 18. Wild Cat.
19. (Sig’n Lost). 20. (Sig’n Lost).162 21. (Sig’n Lost).
22. (Sig’n Lost).163

The remaining tribes of this confederacy are said to have had the
organization into gentes, as the author was informed by the Rev. S. M.
Loughridge, who was for many years a missionary among the Creeks, and
who furnished the names of the gentes above given. He further stated that
descent among the Creeks was in the female line; that the office of sachem
and the property of deceased persons were hereditary in the gens, and that
intermarriage in the gens was prohibited. At the present time the Creeks are
partially civilized with a changed plan of life. They have substituted a
political in place of the old social system, so that in a few years all traces of
their old gentile institutions will have disappeared. In 1869 they numbered
about fifteen thousand, which would give an average of five hundred and
fifty persons to the gens.
2. Choctas. Among the Choctas the phratric organization appears in a
conspicuous manner, because each phratry is named, and stands out plainly
as a phratry. It doubtless existed in a majority of the tribes previously
named, but the subject has not been specially investigated. The tribe of the
Creeks consists of eight gentes arranged in two phratries, composed of four
gentes each, as among the Iroquois.

I. Divided People. (First Phratry).

1. Reed. 2. Law Okla. 3. Lulak. 4. Linoklusha.
II. Beloved People. (Second Phratry).
1. Beloved People. 2. Small People.
3. Large People. 4. Cray Fish.164

The gentes of the same phratry could not intermarry; but the members of
either of the first gentes could marry into either gens of the second, and vice
versâ. It shows that the Choctas, like the Iroquois, commenced with two
gentes, each of which afterwards subdivided into four, and that the original
prohibition of intermarriage in the gens had followed the subdivisions.
Descent among the Choctas was in the female line. Property and the office
of sachem were hereditary in the gens. In 1869 they numbered some twelve
thousand, which would give an average of fifteen hundred persons to a
gens. The foregoing information was communicated to the author by the
late Dr. Cyrus Byington, who entered the missionary service in this tribe in
1820 while they still resided in their ancient territory east of the Mississippi,
who removed with them to the Indian Territory, and died in the missionary
service about the year 1868, after forty-five years of missionary labors. A
man of singular excellence and purity of character, he has left behind him a
name and a memory of which humanity may be proud.
A Chocta once expressed to Dr. Byington a wish that he might be made a
citizen of the United States, for the reason that his children would then
inherit his property instead of his gentile kindred under the old law of the
gens. Chocta usages would distribute his property after his death among his
brothers and sisters and the children of his sisters. He could, however, give
his property to his children in his life-time, in which case they could hold it
against the members of his gens. Many
Indian tribes now have considerable property in domestic animals and in
houses and lands owned by individuals, among whom the practice of giving
it to their children in their life-time has become common to avoid gentile
inheritance. As property increased in quantity the disinheritance of children
began to arouse opposition to gentile inheritance; and in some of the tribes,
that of the Choctas among the number, the old usage was abolished a few
years since, and the right to inherit was vested exclusively in the children of
the deceased owner. It came, however, through the substitution of a political
system in the place of the gentile system, an elective council and magistracy
being substituted in place of the old government of chiefs. Under the
previous usages the wife inherited nothing from her husband, nor he from
her; but the wife’s effects were divided among her children, and in default
of them, among her sisters.
3. Chickasas. In like manner the Chickasas were organized in two phratries,
of which the first contains four, and the second eight gentes, as follows:

I. Panther Phratry.
1. Wild Cat. 2. Bird. 3. Fish. 4. Deer.
II. Spanish Phratry.
1. Raccoon. 2. Spanish. 3. Royal. 4. Hush-ko-ni.
5. Squirrel. 6. Alligator. 7. Wolf. 8. Blackbird.165

Descent was in the female line, intermarriage in the gens was prohibited,
and property as well as the office of sachem were hereditary in the gens.
The above particulars were obtained from the Rev. Charles C. Copeland, an
American missionary residing with this tribe. In 1869 they numbered some
five thousand, which would give an average of about four hundred persons
to the gens. A new gens seems to have been formed after their intercourse
with the Spaniards commenced, or this name, for reasons, may have been
substituted in the place of an original name. One of the phratries is also
called the Spanish.
4. Cherokees. This tribe was anciently composed of ten gentes, of which
two, the Acorn, Ah-ne-dsŭ′-la, and the Bird, Ah-ne-dse′-skwä, are now
extinct. They are the following:

1. Wolf. 2. Red Paint 3. Long Prairie. 4. Deaf. (A bird.)

 5. Holly. 6. Deer. 7. Blue. 8. Long Hair.166

Descent is in the female line, and intermarriage in the gens prohibited. In

1869 the Cherokees numbered fourteen thousand, which would give an
average of seventeen hundred and fifty persons to each gens. This is the
largest number, so far as the fact is known, ever found in a single gens
among the American aborigines. The Cherokees and Ojibwas at the present
time exceed all the remaining Indian tribes within the United States in the
number of persons speaking the same dialect. It may be remarked further,
that it is not probable that there ever was at any time in any part of North
America a hundred thousand Indians who spoke the same dialect. The
Aztecs, Tezcucans and Tlascalans were the only tribes of whom so large a
number could, with any propriety, be claimed; and with respect to them it is
difficult to perceive how the existence of so large a number in either tribe
could be established, at the epoch of the Spanish Conquest, upon
trustworthy evidence. The unusual numbers of the Creeks and Cherokees is
due to the possession of domestic animals and a well-developed field
agriculture. They are now partially civilized, having substituted an elective
constitutional government in the place of the ancient gentes, under the
influence of which the latter are rapidly falling into decadence.
5. Seminoles. This tribe is of Creek descent. They are said to be organized
into gentes, but the particulars have not been obtained.
IV. Pawnee Tribes.
Whether or not the Pawnees are organized in gentes has not been
ascertained. Rev. Samuel Allis, who had formerly been a missionary among
them, expressed to the author his belief that they were, although he had not
investigated the matter specially. He named the following gentes of which
he believed they were composed:

1. Bear. 2. Beaver. 3. Eagle.

4. Buffalo. 5. Deer. 6. Owl.

I once met a band of Pawnees on the Missouri, but was unable to obtain an
interpreter.
The Arickarees, whose village is near that of the Minnitarees, are the
nearest congeners of the Pawnees, and the same difficulty occurred with
them. These tribes, with the Huecos and some two or three other small
tribes residing on the Canadian river, have always lived west of the
Missouri, and speak an independent stock language. If the Pawnees are
organized in gentes, presumptively the other tribes are the same.
V. Algonkin Tribes.
At the epoch of their discovery this great stock of the American aborigines
occupied the area from the Rocky Mountains to Hudson’s Bay, south of the
Siskatchewun, and thence eastward to the Atlantic, including both shores of
Lake Superior, except at its head, and both banks of the St. Lawrence below
Lake Champlain. Their area extended southward along the Atlantic coast to
North Carolina, and down the east bank of the Mississippi in Wisconsin and
Illinois to Kentucky. Within the eastern section of this immense region the
Iroquois and their affiliated tribes were an intrusive people, their only
competitor for supremacy within its boundaries.
Gitchigamian167 Tribes. 1. Ojibwas. The Ojibwas speak the same dialect,
and are organized in gentes, of which the names of twenty-three have been
obtained without being certain that they include the whole number. In the
Ojibwa dialect the word totem, quite as often pronounced dodaim, signifies
the symbol or device of a gens; thus the figure of a wolf was the totem of
the Wolf gens. From this Mr. Schoolcraft used the words “totemic system,”
to express the gentile organization, which would be perfectly acceptable
were it not that we have both in the Latin and the Greek a terminology for
every quality and character of the system which is already historical. It may
be used, however, with advantage. The Ojibwas have the following gentes:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Beaver.

4. Turtle (Mud). 5. Turtle (Snapping). 6. Turtle (Little).
7. Reindeer. 8. Snipe. 9. Crane.
10. Pigeon Hawk. 11. Bald Eagle. 12. Loon.
13. Duck. 14. Duck. 15. Snake.
16. Muskrat. 17. Marten. 18. Heron.
19. Bull-head. 20. Carp. 21. Cat Fish
 22. Sturgeon. 23. Pike.168

Descent is in the male line, the children belonging to their father’s gens.
There are several reasons for the inference that it was originally in the
female line, and that the change was comparatively recent. In the first place,
the Delawares, who are recognized by all Algonkin tribes as one of the
oldest of their lineage, and who are styled “Grandfathers” by all alike, still
have descent in the female line. Several other Algonkin tribes have the
same. Secondly, evidence still remains that within two or three generations
back of the present, descent was in the female line, with respect to the office
of chief.169 Thirdly, American and missionary influences have generally
opposed it. A scheme of descent which disinherited the sons seemed to the
early missionaries, trained under very different conceptions, without justice
or reason; and it is not improbable that in a number of tribes, the Ojibwas
included, the change was made under their teachings. And lastly, since
several Algonkin tribes now have descent in the female line, it leads to the
conclusion that it was anciently universal in the Ganowánian family, it
being also the archaic form of the institution.
Intermarriage in the gens is prohibited, and both property and office are
hereditary in the gens. The children, however, at the present time, take the
most of it to the exclusion of their gentile kindred. The property and effects
of the mother pass to her children, and in default of them, to her sisters,
own and collateral. In like manner the son may succeed his father in the
office of sachem; but where there are several sons the choice is determined
by the elective principle. The gentiles not only elect, but they also retain the
power to depose. At the present time the Ojibwas number some sixteen
thousand, which would give an average of about seven hundred to each
gens.
2. Potawattamies. This tribe has fifteen gentes, as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Beaver.

4. Elk. 5. Loon. 6. Eagle.
7. Sturgeon. 8. Carp. 9. Bald Eagle.
10. Thunder. 11. Rabbit. 12. Crow.
13. Fox. 14. Turkey. 15. Black Hawk.170
Descent, inheritance, and the law of marriage are the same as among the
Ojibwas.

3. Otawas.171 The Ojibwas, Otawas and Potawattamies were subdivisions

of an original tribe. When first known they were confederated. The Otawas
were undoubtedly organized in gentes, but their names have not been
obtained.
4. Crees. This tribe, when discovered, held the northwest shore of Lake
Superior, and spread from thence to Hudson’s Bay, and westward to the Red
River of the North. At a later day they occupied the region of the
Siskatchewun, and south of it. Like the Dakotas they have lost the gentile
organization which presumptively once existed among them. Linguistically
their nearest affiliation is with the Ojibwas, whom they closely resemble in
manners and customs, and in personal appearance.
Mississippi Tribes. The western Algonkins, grouped under this name,
occupied the eastern banks of the Mississippi in Wisconsin and Illinois, and
extended southward into Kentucky, and eastward into Indiana.
1. Miamis. The immediate congeners of the Miamis, namely, the Weas,
Piankeshaws, Peorias, and Kaskaskias, known at an early day, collectively,
as the Illinois, are now few in numbers, and have abandoned their ancient
usages for a settled agricultural life. Whether or not they were formerly
organized in gentes has not been ascertained, but it is probable that they
were. The Miamis have the following ten gentes:

1. Wolf. 2. Loon. 3. Eagle. 4. Buzzard.

5. Panther. 6. Turkey. 7. Raccoon. 8. Snow.
9. Sun. 10. Water.172

Under their changed condition and declining numbers the gentile

organization is rapidly disappearing. When its decline commenced descent
was in the male line, intermarriage in the gens was forbidden, and the office
of sachem together with property were hereditary in the gens.
2. Shawnees. This remarkable and highly advanced tribe, one of the highest
representatives of the Algonkin stock, still retain their gentes, although they
have substituted in place of the old gentile system a civil organization with
a first and second head-chief and a council, each elected annually by
popular suffrage. They have thirteen gentes, which they still maintain for
social and genealogical purposes, as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Loon. 3. Bear. 4. Buzzard.

5. Panther. 6. Owl. 7. Turkey. 8. Deer.
9. Raccoon. 10. Turtle. 11. Snake. 12. Horse.
13. Rabbit.173

Descent, inheritance, and the rule with respect to marrying out of the gens
are the same as among the Miamis. In 1869 the Shawnees numbered but
seven hundred, which would give an average of about fifty persons to the
gens. They once numbered three or four thousand persons, which was
above the average among the American Indian tribes.
The Shawnees had a practice, common also to the Miamis and Sauks and
Foxes, of naming children into the gens of the father or of the mother or any
other gens, under certain restrictions, which deserves a moment’s notice. It
has been shown that among the Iroquois each gens had its own special
names for persons which no other gens had a right to use.174 This usage was
probably general. Among the Shawnees these names carried with them the
rights of the gens to which they belonged, so that the name determined the
gens of the person. As the sachem must, in all cases, belong to the gens
over which he is invested with authority, it is not unlikely that the change of
descent from the female line to the male commenced in this practice; in the
first place to enable a son to succeed his father, and in the second to enable
children to inherit property from their father. If a son when christened
received a name belonging to the gens of his father it would place him in
his father’s gens and in the line of succession, but subject to the elective
principle. The father, however, had no control over the question. It was left
by the gens to certain persons, most of them matrons, who were to be
consulted when children were to be named, with power to determine the
name to be given. By some arrangement between the Shawnee gentes these
persons had this power, and the name when conferred in the prescribed
manner, carried the person into the gens to which the name belonged.
There are traces of the archaic rule of descent among the Shawnees, of
which the following illustration may be given as it was mentioned to the
author. Lä-ho′-weh, a sachem of the
Wolf gens, when about to die, expressed a desire that a son of one of his
sisters might succeed him in the place of his own son. But his nephew (Kos-
kwa′-the) was of the Fish and his son of the Rabbit gens, so that neither
could succeed him without first being transferred, by a change of name, to
the Wolf gens, in which the office was hereditary. His wish was respected.
After his death the name of his nephew was changed to Tep-a-tä-go-the′,
one of the Wolf names, and he was elected to the office. Such laxity
indicates a decadence of the gentile organization; but it tends to show that at
no remote period descent among the Shawnees was in the female line.
3. Sauks and Foxes. These tribes are consolidated into one, and have the
following gentes:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Deer. 4. Elk.

5. Hawk. 6. Eagle. 7. Fish. 8. Buffalo.
9. Thunder. 10. Bone. 11. Fox. 12. Sea.
13. Sturgeon. 14. Big Tree.175

Descent, inheritance, and the rule requiring marriage out of the gens, are the
same as among the Miamis. In 1869 they numbered but seven hundred,
which would give an average of fifty persons to the gens. The number of
gentes still preserved affords some evidence that they were several times
more numerous within the previous two centuries.
4. Menominees and Kikapoos. These tribes, which are independent of each
other, are organized in gentes, but their names have not been procured. With
respect to the Menominees it may be inferred that, until a recent period,
descent was in the female line, from the following statement made to the
author, in 1859, by Antoine Gookie, a member of this tribe. In answer to a
question concerning the rule of inheritance, he replied: “If I should die, my
brothers and maternal uncles would rob my wife and children of my
property. We now expect that our children will inherit our effects, but there
is no certainty of it. The old law gives my property to my nearest kindred
who are not my children, but my brothers and sisters, and maternal uncles.”
It shows that property was hereditary in the gens, but restricted to the
agnatic kindred in the female line.
Rocky Mountain Tribes. 1. Blood Blackfeet. This tribe is composed of the
five following gentes:

1. Blood. 2. Fish Eaters. 3. Skunk.

4. Extinct Animal. 5. Elk.176

Descent is in the male line, but intermarriage in the gens is not allowed.
2. Piegan Blackfeet. This tribe has the eight following gentes:

1. Blood. 2. Skunk. 3. Web Fat.

4. Inside Fat. 5. Conjurers. 6. Never Laugh.
7. Starving. 8. Half Dead Meat.177

Descent is in the male line, and intermarriage in the gens is prohibited.

Several of the names above given are more appropriate to bands than to
gentes; but as the information was obtained from the Blackfeet direct,
through competent interpreters, (Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Culbertson, the
latter a Blackfeet woman) I believe it reliable. It is possible that nicknames
for gentes in some cases may have superseded the original names.
Atlantic Tribes.
1. Delawares. As elsewhere stated the Delawares are, in the duration of
their separate existence, one of the oldest of the Algonkin tribes. Their
home country, when discovered, was the region around and north of
Delaware Bay. They are comprised in three gentes, as follows:

I. Wolf. Took′-seat. Round Paw.

II. Turtle. Poke-koo-un′-go. Crawling.
III. Turkey. Pul-la′-ook. Non-chewing.

These subdivisions are in the nature of phratries, because each is composed

of twelve sub-gentes, each having some of the attributes of a gens.178 The
names are personal, and mostly, if not in every case, those of females. As
this feature was unusual I worked it out as minutely as possible at the
Delaware reservation in Kansas, in 1860, with the aid of William Adams, an
educated Delaware. It proved impossible to find the origin of these
subdivisions, but they seemed to be the several eponymous ancestors from
whom the members of the gentes respectively derived their descent. It
shows also the natural growth of the phratries from the gentes.
Descent among the Delawares is in the female line, which renders probable
its ancient universality in this form in the Algonkin tribes. The office of
sachem was hereditary in the gens, but elective among its members, who
had the power both to elect and depose. Property also was hereditary in the
gens. Originally the members of the three original gentes could not
intermarry in their own gens; but in recent years the prohibition has been
confined to the sub-gentes. Those of the same name in the Wolf gens, now
partially become a phratry, for example, cannot intermarry, but those of
different names marry. The practice of naming children into the gens of
their father also prevails among the Delawares, and has introduced the same
confusion of descents found among the Shawnees and Miamis. American
civilization and intercourse necessarily administered a shock to Indian
institutions under which the ethnic life of the people is gradually breaking
down.
Examples of succession in office afford the most satisfactory illustrations of
the aboriginal law of descent. A Delaware woman, after stating to the
author that she, with her children, belonged to the Wolf gens, and her
husband to the Turtle, remarked that when Captain Ketchum (Tä-whe′-lä-
na), late head chief or sachem of the Turtle gens, died, he was succeeded by
his nephew, John Conner (Tä-tä-ne′-shă), a son of one of the sisters of the
deceased sachem, who was also of the Turtle gens. The decedent left a son,
but he was of another gens and consequently incapable of succeeding. With
the Delawares, as with the Iroquois, the office passed from brother to
brother, or from uncle to nephew, because descent was in the female line.
2. Munsees. The Munsees are an offshoot from the Delawares, and have the
same gentes, the Wolf, the Turtle and the Turkey. Descent is in the female
line, intermarriage in the gens is not permitted, and the office of sachem, as
well as property, are hereditary in the gens.
3. Mohegans. All of the New England Indians, south of the river
Kennebeck, of whom the Mohegans formed a part, were closely affiliated in
language, and could understand each other’s dialects. Since the Mohegans
are organized in gentes, there is a presumption that the Pequots,
Narragansetts, and other minor bands were not only similarly organized, but
had the same gentes. The Mohegans have the same three with the
Delawares, the Wolf, the Turtle and the Turkey, each of which is composed
of a number of gentes. It proves their immediate connection with the
Delawares and Munsees by descent, and also reveals, as elsewhere stated,
the process of subdivision by which an original gens breaks up into several,
which remain united in a phratry. In this case also it may be seen how the
phratry arises naturally under gentile institutions. It is rare among the
American aborigines to find preserved the evidence of the segmentation of
original gentes as clearly as in the present case.
The Mohegan phratries stand out more conspicuously than those of any
other tribe of the American aborigines, because they cover the gentes of
each, and the phratries must be stated to explain the classification of the
gentes; but we know less about them than of those of the Iroquois. They are
the following:

I. Wolf Phratry. Took-se-tuk′.

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Dog. 4. Opossum.
II. Turtle Phratry. Tone-bä′-o.
1. Little Turtle. 2. Mud Turtle. 3. Great Turtle. 4. Yellow Eel.
III. Turkey Phratry.
1. Turkey 2. Crane. 3. Chicken.179

Descent is in the female line, intermarriage in the gens is forbidden, and the
office of sachem is hereditary in the gens, the office passing either from
brother to brother, or from uncle to nephew. Among the Pequots and
Narragansetts descent was in the female line, as I learned from a
Narragansett woman whom I met in Kansas.
4. Abenakis. The name of this tribe, Wä-be-nă′-kee, signifies “Rising Sun
People.”180 They affiliate more closely with the Micmacs than with the
New England Indians south of the Kennebeck. They have fourteen gentes,
as follows:

1. Wolf. 2. Wild Cat. (Black.) 3. Bear.

 4. Snake. 5. Spotted Animal. 6. Beaver.
7. Cariboo. 8. Sturgeon. 9. Muskrat
10. Pigeon Hawk. 11. Squirrel. 12. Spotted Frog.
13. Crane. 14. Porcupine.181

Descent is now in the male line, intermarriage in the gens was anciently
prohibited, but the prohibition has now lost most of its force. The office of
sachem was hereditary in the gens. It will be noticed that several of the
above gentes are the same as among the Ojibwas.
VI. Athapasco-Apache Tribes.
Whether or not the Athapascans of Hudson’s Bay Territory, and the
Apaches of New Mexico, who are subdivisions of an original stock, are
organized in gentes has not been definitely ascertained. When in the former
territory, in 1861, I made an effort to determine the question among the
Hare and Red Knife Athapascans, but was unsuccessful for want of
competent interpreters; and yet it seems probable that if the system existed,
traces of it would have been discovered even with imperfect means of
inquiry. The late Robert Kennicott made a similar attempt for the author
among the A-chä′-o-ten-ne, or Slave Lake Athapascans, with no better
success. He found special regulations with respect to marriage and the
descent of the office of sachem, which seemed to indicate the presence of
gentes, but he could not obtain satisfactory information. The Kutchin
(Louchoux) of the Yukon river region are Athapascans. In a letter to the
author by the late George Gibbs, he remarks: “In a letter which I have from
a gentleman at Fort Simpson, Makenzie river, it is mentioned that among
the Louchoux or Kutchin there are three grades or classes of society—
undoubtedly a mistake for totem, though the totems probably differ in rank,
as he goes on to say—that a man does not marry into his own class, but
takes a wife from some other; and that a chief from the highest may marry
with a woman of the lowest without loss of caste. The children belong to
the grade of the mother; and the members of the same grade in the different
tribes do not war with each other.”
Among the Kolushes of the Northwest Coast, who affiliate linguistically
though not closely with the Athapascans, the organization into gentes exists.
Mr. Gallatin remarks that they are “like our own Indians, divided into tribes
or clans; a distinction of which, according to Mr. Hale, there is no trace
among the Indians of Oregon. The names of the tribes [gentes] are those of
animals, namely: Bear, Eagle, Crow, Porpoise and Wolf.... The right of
succession is in the female line, from uncle to nephew, the principal chief
excepted, who is generally the most powerful of the family.”182
VII. Indian Tribes of the Northwest Coast.
In some of these tribes, beside the Kolushes, the gentile organization
prevails. “Before leaving Puget’s Sound,” observes Mr. Gibbs, in a letter to
the author, “I was fortunate enough to meet representatives of three
principal families of what we call the Northern Indians, the inhabitants of
the Northwest Coast, extending from the Upper end of Vancouver’s Island
into the Russian Possessions, and the confines of the Esquimaux. From
them I ascertained positively that the totemic system exists at least among
these three. The families I speak of are, beginning at the northwest, Tlinkitt,
commonly called the Stikeens, after one of their bands; the Tlaidas; and
Chimsyans, called by Gallatin, Weas. There are four totems common to
these, the Whale, the Wolf, the Eagle, and the Crow. Neither of these can
marry into the same totem, although in a different nation or family. What is
remarkable is that these nations constitute entirely different families. I mean
by this that their languages are essentially different, having no perceptible
analogy.” Mr. Dall, in his work on Alaska, written still later, remarks that
“the Tlinkets are divided into four totems: the Raven (Yehl), the Wolf
(Kanu′kh), the Whale, and the Eagle (Chethl).... Opposite totems only can
marry, and the child usually takes the mother’s totem.”183
Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft presents their organization still more fully, showing
two phratries, and the gentes belonging to each. He remarks of the
Thlinkeets that the “nation is separated into two great divisions or clans,
one of which is called the Wolf and the other the Raven.... The Raven trunk
is again divided into sub-clans, called the Frog, the Goose, the Sea-Lion,
the Owl, and the Salmon. The Wolf family comprises the Bear, Eagle,
Dolphin, Shark, and Alca.... Tribes of the same clan may not war on each
other, but at the same time members of the same clan may not marry with
each other. Thus, the young Wolf warrior must seek his mate among the
Ravens.”184
The Eskimos do not belong to the Ganowánian family. Their occupation of
the American continent in comparison with that of the latter family was
recent or modern. They are also without gentes.
VIII. Salish, Sahaptin and Kootenay Tribes.
The tribes of the Valley of the Columbia, of whom those above named
represent the principal stocks, are without the gentile organization. Our
distinguished philologists, Horatio Hale and the late George Gibbs, both of
whom devoted special attention to the subject, failed to discover any traces
of the system among them. There are strong reasons for believing that this
remarkable area was the nursery land of the Ganowánian family, from
which, as the initial point of their migrations, they spread abroad over both
divisions of the continent. It seems probable, therefore, that their ancestors
possessed the organization into gentes, and that it fell into decay and finally
disappeared.
IX. Shoshonee Tribes.
The Comanches of Texas, together with the Ute tribes, the Bonnaks, the
Shoshonees, and some other tribes, belong to this stock. Mathew Walker, a
Wyandote half-blood, informed the author, in 1859, that he had lived among
the Comanches, and that they had the following gentes:

1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Elk.

4. Deer. 5. Gopher. 6. Antelope.

If the Comanches are organized in gentes, there is a presumption that the

other tribes of this stock are the same.
This completes our review of the social system of the Indian tribes of North
America, north of New Mexico. The greater portion of the tribes named
were in the Lower Status of barbarism at the epoch of European discovery,
and the remainder in the Upper Status of savagery. From the wide and
nearly universal prevalence of the organization into gentes, its ancient
universality among them with descent in the female line may with reason be
assumed. Their system was purely social, having the gens as its unit, and
the phratry, tribe and confederacy as the remaining members of the organic
series. These four successive stages of integration and re-integration
express the whole of their experience in the growth of the idea of
government. Since the principal Aryan and Semitic tribes had the same
organic series when they emerged from barbarism, the system was
substantially universal in ancient society, and inferentially had a common
origin. The punaluan group, hereafter to be described more fully in
connection with the growth of the idea of the family, evidently gave birth to
the gentes, so that the Aryan, Semitic, Uralian, Turanian and Ganowánian
families of mankind point with a distinctiveness seemingly unmistakable to
a common punaluan stock, with the organization into gentes engrafted upon
it, from which each and all were derived, and finally differentiated into
families. This conclusion, I believe, will ultimately enforce its own
acceptance, when future investigation has developed and verified the facts
on a minuter scale. Such a great organic series, able to hold mankind in
society through the latter part of the period of savagery, through the entire
period of barbarism, and into the early part of the period of civilization,
does not arise by accident, but had a natural development from pre-existing
elements. Rationally and rigorously interpreted, it seems probable that it
can be made demonstrative of the unity of origin of all the families of
mankind who possessed the organization into gentes.
X. Village Indians.
1. Moqui Pueblo Indians. The Moqui tribes are still in undisturbed
possession of their ancient communal houses, seven in number, near the
Little Colorado in Arizona, once a part of New Mexico. They are living
under their ancient institutions, and undoubtedly at the present moment
fairly represent the type of Village Indian life which prevailed from Zuñi to
Cuzco at the epoch of Discovery. Zuñi, Acoma, Taos, and several other
New Mexican pueblos are the same structures which were found there by
Coronado in 1540-1542. Notwithstanding their apparent accessibility we
know in reality but little concerning their mode of life or their domestic
institutions. No systematic investigation has ever been made. What little
information has found its way into print is general and accidental.
The Moquis are organized in gentes, of which they have nine, as follows:

1. Deer. 2. Sand. 3. Rain.

4. Bear. 5. Hare. 6. Prairie Wolf.
 7. Rattlesnake. 8. Tobacco Plant. 9. Reed Grass.

Dr. Ten Broeck, Assistant Surgeon, U. S. A., furnished to Mr. Schoolcraft

the Moqui legend of their origin which he obtained at one of their villages.
They said that “many years ago their Great Mother185 brought from her
home in the West nine races of men in the following form. First, the Deer
race; second, the Sand race; third, the Water [Rain] race; fourth, the Bear
race; fifth, the Hare race; sixth, the Prairie Wolf race; seventh, the
Rattlesnake race; eighth, the Tobacco Plant race; and ninth, the Reed Grass
race. Having planted them on the spot where their villages now stand, she
transformed them into men who built up the present pueblos; and the
distinction of race is still kept up. One told me that he was of the Sand race,
another, the Deer, etc. They are firm believers in metempsychosis, and say
that when they die they will resolve into their original forms, and become
bears, deers, etc., again.... The government is hereditary, but does not
necessarily descend to the son of the incumbent; for if they prefer any other
blood relative, he is chosen.”186 Having passed, in this case, from the
Lower into the Middle Status of barbarism, and found the organization into
gentes in full development, its adaptation to their changed condition is
demonstrated. Its existence among the Village Indians in general is rendered
probable; but from this point forward in the remainder of North, and in the
whole of South America, we are left without definite information except
with respect to the Lagunas. It shows how incompletely the work has been
done in American Ethnology, that the unit of their social system has been
but partially discovered, and its significance not understood. Still, there are
traces of it in the early Spanish authors, and direct knowledge of it in a few
later writers, which when brought together will leave but little doubt of the
ancient universal prevalence of the gentile organizations throughout the
Indian family.
There are current traditions in many gentes, like that of the Moquis, of the
transformation of their first progenitors from the animal, or inanimate
object, which became the symbol of the gens, into men and women. Thus,
the Crane gens of the Ojibwas have a legend that a pair of cranes flew over
the wide area from the Gulf to the Great Lakes and from the prairies of the
Mississippi to the Atlantic in quest of a place where subsistence was most
abundant, and finally selected the Rapids on the outlet of Lake Superior,
since celebrated for its fisheries. Having alighted on the bank of the river
and folded their wings the Great Spirit immediately changed them into a
man and woman, who became the progenitors of the Crane gens of the
Ojibwas. There are a number of gentes in the different tribes who abstain
from eating the animal whose name they bear; but this is far from universal.
2. Lagunas. The Laguna Pueblo Indians are organized in gentes, with
descent in the female line, as appears from an address of Rev. Samuel
Gorman before the Historical Society of New Mexico in 1860. “Each town
is classed into tribes or families, and each of these groups is named after
some animal, bird, herb, timber, planet, or one of the four elements. In the
pueblo of Laguna, which is one of above one thousand inhabitants, there are
seventeen of these tribes; some are called bear, some deer, some rattlesnake,
some corn, some wolf, some water, etc., etc. The children are of the same
tribe as their mother. And, according to ancient custom, two persons of the
same tribe are forbidden to marry; but, recently, this custom begins to be
less rigorously observed than anciently.”
“Their land is held in common, as the property of the community, but after
a person cultivates a lot he has a personal claim to it, which he can sell to
any one of the same community; or else when he dies it belongs to his
widow or daughters; or, if he were a single man, it remains in his father’s
family.”187 That wife or daughter inherit from the father is doubtful.
3. Aztecs, Tezcucans and Tlacopans. The question of the organization of
these, and the remaining Nahuatlac tribes of Mexico, in gentes will be
considered in the next ensuing chapter.
4. Mayas of Yucatan. Herrera makes frequent reference to the “kindred,”
and in such a manner with regard to the tribes in Mexico, Central and South
America as to imply the existence of a body of persons organized on the
basis of consanguinity much more numerous than would be found apart
from gentes. Thus: “He that killed a free man was to make satisfaction to
the children and kindred.”188 It was spoken of the aborigines of Nicaragua,
and had it been of the Iroquois, among whom the usage was the same, the
term kindred would have been equivalent to gens. And again, speaking
generally of the Maya Indians of Yucatan, he remarks that “when any
satisfaction was to be made for damages, if he who was adjudged to pay
was like to be reduced to poverty, the kindred contributed.”189 In this
another gentile usage may be recognized. Again, speaking of the Aztecs; “if
they were guilty, no favor or kindred could save them from death.”190 One
more citation to the same effect may be made, applied to the Florida Indians
who were organized in gentes. He observes “that they were extravagantly
fond of their children, and cherished them, the parents and kindred
lamenting such as died a whole year.”191 The early observers noticed, as a
peculiarity of Indian society, that large numbers of persons were bound
together by the bond of kin, and therefore the group came to be mentioned
as “the kindred.” But they did not carry the scrutiny far enough to discover,
what was probably the truth, that the kindred formed a gens, and, as such,
the unit of their social system.
Herrera remarks further of the Mayas, that “they were wont to observe their
pedigrees very much, and therefore thought themselves all related, and were
helpful to one another.... They did not marry mothers, or sisters-in-law, nor
any that bore the same name as their father, which was looked upon as
unlawful.”192 The pedigree of an Indian under their system of consanguinity
could have no significance apart from a gens; but leaving this out of view,
there was no possible way, under Indian institutions, by which a father and
his children could bear the same name except through a gens, which
conferred a common gentile name upon all its members. It would also
require descent in the male line to bring father and children into the same
gens. The statement shows, moreover, that intermarriage in the gens among
the Mayas was prohibited. Assuming the correctness of Herrera’s words, it
is proof conclusive of the existence of gentes among the Mayas, with
descent in the male line. Tylor, in his valuable work on the Early History of
Mankind, which is a repository of widely-drawn and well-digested
ethnological information, cites the same fact from another source, with the
following remarks: “The analogy of the North American Indian custom is
therefore with that of the Australian in making clanship on the female side a
bar to marriage, but if we go down further south into Central America, the
reverse custom, as in China, makes its appearance. Diego de Landa says of
the people of Yucatan, that no one took a wife of his name, on the father’s
side, for this was a very vile thing among them; but they might marry
cousins german on the mother’s side.”193
 XI. South American Indian Tribes.
Traces of the gens have been found in all parts of South America, as well as
the actual presence of the Ganowánian system of consanguinity, but the
subject has not been fully investigated. Speaking of the numerous tribes of
the Andes brought by the Incas under a species of confederation, Herrera
observes that “this variety of tongues proceeded from the nations being
divided into races, tribes, or clans.”194 Here in the clans the existence of
gentes is recognized. Mr. Tylor, discussing the rules with respect to
marriage and descent, remarks that “further south, below the Isthmus, both
the clanship and the prohibition re-appear on the female side. Bernau says
that among the Arrawaks of British Guiana, ‘Caste is derived from the
mother, and children are allowed to marry into their father’s family, but not
into that of their mother.’ Lastly, Father Martin Dobrizhoffer says that the
Guaranis avoid, as highly criminal, marriage with the most distant relations;
and speaking of the Abipones, he makes the following statement: ... ‘The
Abipones, instructed by nature and the example of their ancestors, abhor the
very thought of marrying any one related to them by the most distant tie of
relationship.’”195 These references to the social system of the aborigines are
vague; but in the light of the facts already presented the existence of gentes
with descent in the female line, and with intermarriage in the gens
prohibited, renders them intelligible. Brett remarks of the Indian tribes in
Guiana that they “are divided into families, each of which has a distinct
name, as the Siwidi, Karuafudi, Onisidi, etc. Unlike our families, these all
descend in the female line, and no individual of either sex is allowed to
marry another of the same family name. Thus a woman of the Siwidi family
bears the same name as her mother, but neither her father nor her husband
can be of that family. Her children and the children of her daughters will
also be called Siwidi, but both her sons and daughters are prohibited from
an alliance with any individual bearing the same name; though they may
marry into the family of their father, if they choose. These customs are
strictly observed, and any breach of them would be considered as
wicked.”196 In the family of this writer may at once be recognized the gens
in its archaic form. All the South American tribes above named, with the
exception of the Andean, were when discovered either in the Lower Status
of barbarism, or in the Status of savagery. Many of the Peruvian tribes
concentrated under the government established by the Inca Village Indians
were in the Lower Status of barbarism, if an opinion may be formed from
the imperfect description of their domestic institutions found in Garcillasso
de la Vega.
To the Village Indians of North and South America, whose indigenous
culture had advanced them far into, and near the end of, the Middle Period
of barbarism, our attention naturally turns for the transitional history of the
gentes. The archaic constitution of the gens has been shown; its latest
phases remain to be presented in the gentes of the Greeks and Romans; but
the intermediate changes, both of descent and inheritance, which occurred
in the Middle Period, are essential to a complete history of the gentile
organization. Our information is quite ample with respect to the earlier and
later condition of this great institution, but defective with respect to the
transitional stage. Where the gentes are found in any tribe of mankind in
their latest form, their remote ancestors must have possessed them in the
archaic form; but historical criticism demands affirmative proofs rather than
deductions. These proofs once existed among the Village Indians. We are
now well assured that their system of government was social and not
political. The upper members of the series, namely, the tribe and the
confederacy, meet us at many points; with positive evidence of the gens, the
unit of the system, in a number of the tribes of Village Indians. But we are
not able to place our hands upon the gentes among the Village Indians in
general with the same precise information afforded by the tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism. The golden opportunity was presented to the
Spanish conquerers and colonists, and lost, from apparent inability to
understand a condition of society from which civilized man had so far
departed in his onward progress. Without a knowledge of the unit of their
social system, which impressed its character upon the whole organism of
society, the Spanish histories fail entirely in the portrayal of their
governmental institutions.
A glance at the remains of ancient architecture in Central America and Peru
sufficiently proves that the Middle Period of barbarism was one of great
progress in human development, of growing knowledge, and of expanding
intelligence. It was followed by a still more remarkable period in the
Eastern hemisphere after the invention of the process of making iron had
given that final great impulse to human progress which was to bear a
portion of mankind into civilization. Our appreciation of the grandeur of
man’s career in the Later Period of barbarism, when inventions and
discoveries multiplied with such rapidity, would be intensified by an
accurate knowledge of the condition of society in the Middle Period, so
remarkably exemplified by the Village Indians. By a great effort, attended
with patient labor, it may yet be possible to recover a large portion at least
of the treasures of knowledge which have been allowed to disappear. Upon
our present information the conclusion is warrantable that the American
Indian tribes were universally organized in gentes at the epoch of European
discovery, the few exceptions found not being sufficient to disturb the
general rule.

CHAPTER VII. - THE AZTEC CONFEDERACY.

M A S .—C A .—N T .—T
S M .—P M , A. D., 1325.—A C
E , A. D., 1426.—E T D .—P N
P .—W A G P .—T
C C .—I F .—O M .—E
T .—D M .—P F O .—A
I D —T G M D .

The Spanish adventurers, who captured the Pueblo of Mexico, adopted the
erroneous theory that the Aztec government was a monarchy, analogous in
essential respects to existing monarchies in Europe. This opinion was
adopted generally by the early Spanish writers, without investigating
minutely the structure and principles of the Aztec social system. A
terminology not in agreement with their institutions came in with this
misconception which has vitiated the historical narrative nearly as
completely as though it were, in the main, a studied fabrication. With the
capture of the only stronghold the Aztecs possessed, their governmental
fabric was destroyed, Spanish rule was substituted in its place, and the
subject of their internal organization and polity was allowed substantially to
pass into oblivion.197
The Aztecs and their confederate tribes were ignorant of iron and
consequently without iron tools; they had no money, and traded by barter of
commodities; but they worked the native metals, cultivated by irrigation,
manufactured coarse fabrics of cotton, constructed joint-tenement houses of
adobe-bricks and of stone, and made earthenware of excellent quality. They
had, therefore, attained to the Middle Status of barbarism. They still held
their lands in common, lived in large households composed of a number of
related families; and, as there are strong reasons for believing, practiced
communism in living in the household. It is rendered reasonably certain that
they had but one prepared meal each day, a dinner; at which they separated,
the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children
afterwards. Having neither tables nor chairs for dinner service they had not
learned to eat their single daily meal in the manner of civilized nations.
These features of their social condition show sufficiently their relative
status of advancement.
In connection with the Village Indians of other parts of Mexico and Central
America, and of Peru, they afforded the best exemplification of this
condition of ancient society then existing on the earth. They represented
one of the great stages of progress toward civilization in which the
institutions derived from a previous ethnical period are seen in higher
advancement, and which were to be transmitted, in the course of human
experience, to an ethnical condition still higher, and undergo still further
development before civilization was possible. But the Village Indians were
not destined to attain the Upper Status of barbarism so well represented by
the Homeric Greeks.
The Indian pueblos in the valley of Mexico revealed to Europeans a lost
condition of ancient society, which was so remarkable and peculiar that it
aroused at the time an insatiable curiosity. More volumes have been written,
in the proportion of ten to one, upon the Mexican aborigines and the
Spanish Conquest, than upon any other people of the same advancement, or
upon any event of the same importance. And yet, there is no people
concerning whose institutions and plan of life so little is accurately known.
The remarkable spectacle presented so inflamed the imagination that
romance swept the field, and has held it to the present hour. The failure to
ascertain the structure of Aztec society which resulted was a serious loss to
the history of mankind. It should not be made a cause of reproach to any
one, but rather for deep regret. Even that which has been written, with such
painstaking industry, may prove useful in some future attempt to reconstruct
the history of the Aztec confederacy. Certain facts remain of a positive kind
from which other facts may be deduced; so that it is not improbable that a
well-directed original investigation may yet recover, measurably at least,
the essential features of the Aztec social system.
The “kingdom of Mexico” as it stands in the early histories, and the
“empire of Mexico” as it appears in the later, is a fiction of the imagination.
At the time there was a seeming foundation for describing the government
as a monarchy, in the absence of a correct knowledge of their institutions;
but the misconception can no longer be defended. That which the Spaniards
found was simply a confederacy of three Indian tribes, of which the
counterpart existed in all parts of the continent, and they had no occasion in
their descriptions to advance a step beyond this single fact. The government
was administered by a council of chiefs, with the co-operation of a general
commander of the military bands. It was a government of two powers; the
civil being represented by the council, and the military by a principal war-
chief. Since the institutions of the confederate tribes were essentially
democratical, the government may be called a military democracy, if a
designation more special than confederacy is required.
Three tribes, the Aztecs or Mexicans, the Tezcucans and the Tlacopans,
were united in the Aztec confederacy, which gives the two upper members
of the organic social series. Whether or not they possessed the first and the
second, namely, the gens and the phratry, does not appear in a definite form
in any of the Spanish writers; but they have vaguely described certain
institutions which can only be understood by supplying the lost members of
the series. Whilst the phratry is not essential, it is otherwise with the gens,
because it is the unit upon which the social system rests. Without entering
the vast and unthreadable labyrinth of Aztec affairs as they now stand
historically, I shall venture to invite attention to a few particulars only of the
Aztec social system, which may tend to illustrate its real character. Before
doing this, the relations of the confederated to surrounding tribes should be
noticed.
The Aztecs were one of seven kindred tribes who had migrated from the
north and settled in and near the valley of Mexico; and who were among the
historical tribes of that country at the epoch of the Spanish Conquest. They
called themselves collectively the Nahuatlacs in their traditions. Acosta,
who visited Mexico in 1585, and whose work was published at Seville in
1589, has given the current native tradition of their migrations, one after the
other, from Aztlan, with their names and places of settlement. He states the
order of their arrival as follows: 1. Sochimilcas, “Nation of the Seeds of
Flowers,” who settled upon Lake Xochimilco, on the south slope of the
valley of Mexico; 2. Chalcas, “People of Mouths,” who came long after the
former and settled near them, on Lake Chalco; 3. Tepanecans, “People of
the Bridge,” who settled at Azcopozalco, west of Lake Tezcuco, on the
western slope of the valley; 4. Culhuas, “A Crooked People,” who settled
on the east side of Lake Tezcuco, and were afterwards known as Tezcucans;
5. Tlatluicans, “Men of the Sierra,” who, finding the valley appropriated
around the lake, passed over the Sierra southward and settled upon the other
side; 6. Tlascalans, “Men of Bread,” who, after living for a time with the
Tepanecans, finally settled beyond the valley eastward, at Tlascala; 7. The
Aztecs, who came last and occupied the site of the present city of
Mexico.198 Acosta further observes that they came “from far countries
which lie toward the north, where now they have found a kingdom which
they call New Mexico.”199 The same tradition is given by Herrera,200 and
also by Clavigero.201 It will be noticed that the Tlacopans are not
mentioned. They were, in all probability, a subdivision of the Tepanecans
who remained in the original area of that tribe, while the remainder seem to
have removed to a territory immediately south of the Tlascalans, where they
were found under the name of the Tepeacas. The latter had the same legend
of the seven caves, and spoke a dialect of the Nahuatlac language.202
This tradition embodies one significant fact of a kind that could not have
been invented; namely, that the seven tribes were of immediate common
origin, the fact being confirmed by their dialects; and a second fact of
importance, that they came from the north. It shows that they were
originally one people, who had fallen into seven and more tribes by the
natural process of segmentation. Moreover, it was this same fact which
rendered the Aztec confederacy possible as well as probable, a common
language being the essential basis of such organizations.
The Aztecs found the best situations in the valley occupied, and after
several changes of position they finally settled upon a small expanse of dry
land in the midst of a marsh bordered with fields of pedregal and with
natural ponds. Here they founded the celebrated pueblo of Mexico
(Tenochtitlan), A. D. 1325, according to Clavigero, one hundred and ninety-
six years prior to the Spanish Conquest.203 They were few in number and
poor in condition. But fortunately for them, the outlet of Lakes Xochimilco
and Chalco and rivulets from the western hills flowed past their site into
Lake Tezcuco. Having the sagacity to perceive the advantages of the
location they succeeded, by means of causeways and dikes, in surrounding
their pueblo with an artificial pond of large extent, the waters being
furnished from the sources named; and the level of Lake Tezcuco being
higher then than at present, it gave them, when the whole work was
completed, the most secure position of any tribe in the valley. The
mechanical engineering by which they accomplished this result was one of
the greatest achievements of the Aztecs, and one without which they would
not probably have risen above the level of the surrounding tribes.
Independence and prosperity followed, and in time a controlling influence
over the valley tribes. Such was the manner, and so recent the time of
founding the pueblo according to Aztec traditions which may be accepted
as substantially trustworthy.
At the epoch of the Spanish Conquest five of the seven tribes, namely, the
Aztecs, Tezcucans, Tlacopans, Sochimilcas, and Chalcans resided in the
valley, which was an area of quite limited dimensions, about equal to the
state of Rhode Island. It was a mountain or upland basin having no outlet,
oval in form, being longest from north to south, one hundred and twenty
miles in circuit, and embracing about sixteen hundred square miles
excluding the surface covered by water. The valley, as described, is
surrounded by a series of hills, one range rising above another with
depressions between, encompassing the valley with a mountain barrier. The
tribes named resided in some thirty pueblos, more or less, of which that of
Mexico was the largest. There is no evidence that any considerable portion
of these tribes had colonized outside of the valley and the adjacent hill-
slopes; but, on the contrary, there is abundant evidence that the remainder of
modern Mexico was then occupied by numerous tribes who spoke
languages different from the Nahuatlac, and the majority of whom were
independent. The Tlascalans, the Cholulans, a supposed subdivision of the
former, the Tepeacas, the Huexotzincos, the Meztitlans, a supposed
subdivision of the Tezcucans, and the Tlatluicans were the remaining
Nahuatlac tribes living without the valley of Mexico, all of whom were
independent excepting the last, and the Tepeacas. A large number of other
tribes, forming some seventeen territorial groups, more or less, and
speaking as many stock languages, held the remainder of Mexico. They
present, in their state of disintegration and independence, a nearly exact
repetition of the tribes of the United States and British America, at the time
of their discovery, a century or more later.
Prior to A. D. 1426, when the Aztec confederacy was formed, very little
had occurred in the affairs of the valley tribes of historical importance.
They were disunited and belligerent, and without influence beyond their
immediate localities. About this time the superior position of the Aztecs
began to manifest its results in a preponderance of numbers and of strength.
Under their war-chief, Itzcoatl, the previous supremacy of the Tezcucans
and Tlacopans was overthrown, and a league or confederacy was
established as a consequence of their previous wars against each other. It
was an alliance between the three tribes, offensive and defensive, with
stipulations for the division among them, in certain proportions, of the
spoils, and the after tributes of subjugated tribes.204 These tributes, which
consisted of the manufactured fabrics and horticultural products of the
villages subdued, seem to have been enforced with system, and with rigor
of exaction.
The plan of organization of this confederacy has been lost. From the
absence of particulars it is now difficult to determine whether it was simply
a league to be continued or dissolved at pleasure; or a consolidated
organization, like that of the Iroquois, in which the parts were adjusted to
each other in permanent and definite relations. Each tribe was independent
in whatever related to local self-government; but the three were externally
one people in whatever related to aggression or defense. While each tribe
had its own council of chiefs, and its own head war-chief, the war-chief of
the Aztecs was the commander-in-chief of the confederate bands. This may
be inferred from the fact that the Tezcucans and Tlacopans had a voice
either in the election or in the confirmation of the Aztec war-chief. The
acquisition of the chief command by the Aztecs tends to show that their
influence predominated in establishing the terms upon which the tribes
confederated.
Nezahualcojotl had been deposed, or at least dispossessed of his office, as
principal war-chief of the Tezcucans, to which he was at this time (1426)
restored by Aztec procurement. The event may be taken as the elate of the
formation of the confederacy or league whichever it was.
Before discussing the limited number of facts which tend to illustrate the
character of this organization, a brief reference should be made to what the
confederacy accomplished in acquiring territorial domination during the
short period of its existence.
From A. D. 1426 to 1520, a period of ninety-four years, the confederacy
was engaged in frequent wars with adjacent tribes, and particularly with the
feeble Village Indians southward from the valley of Mexico to the Pacific,
and thence eastward well toward Guatemala. They began with those nearest
in position whom they overcame, through superior numbers and
concentrated action, and subjected to tribute. The villages in this area were
numerous but small, consisting in many cases of a single large structure of
adobe-brick or of stone, and in some cases of several such structures
grouped together. These joint-tenement houses interposed serious
hinderances to Aztec conquest, but they did not prove insuperable. These
forays were continued from time to time for the avowed object of gathering
spoil, imposing tribute, and capturing prisoners for sacrifice;205 until the
principal tribes within the area named, with some exceptions, were subdued
and made tributary, including the scattered villages of the Totonacs near the
present Vera Cruz.
No attempt was made to incorporate these tribes in the Aztec confederacy,
which the barrier of language rendered impossible under their institutions.
They were left under the government of their own chiefs, and to the practice
of their own usages and customs. In some cases a collector of tribute
resided among them. The barren results of these conquests reveal the actual
character of their institutions. A domination of the strong over the weak for
no other object than to enforce an unwilling tribute, did not even tend to the
formation of a nation. If organized in gentes, there was no way for an
individual to become a member of the government except through a gens,
and no way for the admission of a gens except by its incorporation among
the Aztec, Tezcucan, or Tlacopan gentes. The plan ascribed to Romulus of
removing the gentes of conquered Latin tribes to Rome might have been
resorted to by the Aztec confederacy with respect to the tribes overrun; but
they were not sufficiently advanced to form such a conception, even though
the barrier of language could have been obviated. Neither could colonists
for the same reason, if sent among them, have so far assimilated the
conquered tribes as to prepare them for incorporation in the Aztec social
system. As it was, the confederacy gained no strength by the terrorism it
created; or by holding these tribes under burdens, inspired with enmity and
ever ready to revolt. It seems, however, that they used the military bands of
subjugated tribes in some cases, and shared with them the spoils. All the
Aztecs could do, after forming the confederacy, was to expand it over the
remaining Nahuatlac tribes. This they were unable to accomplish. The
Xochimilcas and Chalcans were not constituent members of the
confederacy, but they enjoyed a nominal independence, though tributary.
This is about all that can now be discovered of the material basis of the so-
called kingdom or empire of the Aztecs. The confederacy was confronted
by hostile and independent tribes on the west, northwest, northeast, east,
and southeast sides: as witness, the Mechoacans on the west, the Otomies
on the northwest, (scattered bands of the Otomies near the valley had been
placed under tribute), the Chichimecs or wild tribes north of the Otomies,
the Meztitlans on the northeast, the Tlascalans on the east, the Cholulans
and Huexotzincos on the southeast, and beyond them the tribes of the
Tabasco, the tribes of Chiapas, and the Zapotecs. In these several directions
the dominion of the Aztec confederacy did not extend a hundred miles
beyond the valley of Mexico, a portion of which surrounding area was
undoubtedly neutral ground separating the confederacy from perpetual
enemies. Out of such limited materials the kingdom of Mexico of the
Spanish chronicles was fabricated, and afterwards magnified into the Aztec
empire of current history.
A few words seem to be necessary concerning the population of the valley
and of the pueblo of Mexico. No means exist for ascertaining the number of
the people in the five Nahuatlac tribes who inhabited the valley. Any
estimate must be conjectural. As a conjecture then, based upon what is
known of their horticulture, their means of subsistence, their institutions,
their limited area, and not forgetting the tribute they received, two hundred
and fifty thousand persons in the aggregate would probably be an excessive
estimate. It would give about a hundred and sixty persons to the square
mile, equal to nearly twice the present average population of the state of
New York, and about equal to the average population of Rhode Island. It is
difficult to perceive what sufficient reason can be assigned for so large a
number of inhabitants in all the villages within the valley, said to have been
from thirty to forty. Those who claim a higher number will be bound to
show how a barbarous people, without flocks and herds, and without field
agriculture, could have sustained in equal areas a larger number of
inhabitants than a civilized people can now maintain armed with these
advantages. It cannot be shown for the simple reason that it could not have
been true. Out of this population thirty thousand may, perhaps, be assigned
to the pueblo of Mexico.206
It will be unnecessary to discuss the position and relations of the valley
tribes beyond the suggestions made. The Aztec monarchy should be
dismissed from American aboriginal history, not only as delusive, but as a
misrepresentation of the Indians, who had neither developed nor invented
monarchical institutions. The government they formed was a confederacy
of tribes, and nothing more; and probably not equal in plan and symmetry
with that of the Iroquois. In dealing with this organization, War-chief,
Sachem, and Chief will be sufficient to distinguish their official persons.
The pueblo of Mexico was the largest in America. Romantically situated in
the midst of an artificial lake, its large joint-tenement houses plastered over
with gypsum, which made them a brilliant white, and approached by
causeways, it presented to the Spaniards, in the distance, a striking and
enchanting spectacle. It was a revelation of an ancient society lying two
ethnical periods back of European society, and eminently calculated, from
its orderly plan of life, to awaken curiosity and inspire enthusiasm. A
certain amount of extravagance of opinion was unavoidable.
A few particulars have been named tending to show the extent of Aztec
advancement to which some others may now be added. Ornamental gardens
were found, magazines of weapons and of military costumes, improved
apparel, manufactured fabrics of cotton of superior workmanship, improved
implements and utensils, and an increased variety of food; picture-writing,
used chiefly to indicate the tribute in kind each subjugated village was to
pay; a calendar for measuring time, and open markets for the barter of
commodities.
Administrative offices had been created to meet the demands of a growing
municipal life; a priesthood, with a temple worship and a ritual including
human sacrifices, had been established. The office of head war-chief had
also risen into increased importance. These, and other circumstances of
their condition, not necessary to be detailed, imply a corresponding
development of their institutions. Such are some of the differences between
the Lower and the Middle Status of barbarism, as illustrated by the relative
conditions of the Iroquois and the Aztecs, both having doubtless the same
original institutions.
With these preliminary suggestions made, the three most important and
most difficult questions with respect to the Aztec social system, remain to
be considered. They relate first, to the existence of Gentes and Phratries;
second, the existence and functions of the Council of Chiefs; and, third, the
existence and functions of the office of General Military Commander, held
by Montezuma.
I. The Existence of Gentes and Phratries.
It may seem singular that the early Spanish writers did not discover the
Aztec gentes, if in fact they existed; but the case was nearly the same with
the Iroquois under the observation of our own people more than two
hundred years. The existence among them of clans, named after animals,
was pointed out at an early day, but without suspecting that it was the unit
of a social system upon which both the tribe and the confederacy rested.207
The failure of the Spanish investigators to notice the existence of the gentile
organization among the tribes of Spanish America would afford no proof of
its non-existence; but if it did exist, it would simply prove that their work
was superficial in this respect.
There is a large amount of indirect and fragmentary evidence in the Spanish
writers pointing both to the gens and the phratry, some of which will now
be considered. Reference has been made to the frequent use of the term
“kindred” by Herrera, showing that groups of persons were noticed who
were bound together by affinities of blood. This, from the size of the group,
seems to require a gens. The term “lineage” is sometimes used to indicate a
still larger group, and implying a phratry.
The pueblo of Mexico was divided geographically into four quarters, each
of which was occupied by a lineage, a body of people more nearly related
by consanguinity among themselves than they were to the inhabitants of the
other quarters. Presumptively, each lineage was a phratry. Each quarter was
again subdivided, and each local subdivision was occupied by a community
of persons bound together by some common tie.208 Presumptively, this
community of persons was a gens. Turning to the kindred tribe of
Tlascalans, the same facts nearly re-appear. Their pueblo was divided into
four quarters, each occupied by a lineage. Each had its own Teuctli or head
war-chief, its distinctive military costume, and its own standard and
blazon.209 As one people they were under the government of a council of
chiefs, which the Spaniards honored with the name of the Tlascalan
senate.210 Cholula, in like manner, was divided into six quarters, called
wards by Herrera, which leads to the same inference.211 The Aztecs in their
social subdivisions having arranged among themselves the parts of the
pueblo they were severally to occupy, these geographical districts would
result from their mode of settlement. If the brief account of these quarters
at the foundation of Mexico, given by Herrera, who follows Acosta, is read
in the light of this explanation, the truth of the matter will be brought quite
near. After mentioning the building of a “chapel of lime and stone for the
idol,” Herrera proceeds as follows: “When this was done, the idol ordered a
priest to bid the chief men divide themselves, with their kindred and
followers, into four wards or quarters, leaving the house that had been built
for him to rest in the middle, and each party to build as they liked best.
These are the four quarters of Mexico now called St. John, St. Mary the
Round, St. Paul and St. Sebastian. That division being accordingly made,
their idol again directed them to distribute among themselves the gods he
should name, and each ward to appoint peculiar places where the gods
should be worshiped; and thus every quarter has several smaller wards in it
according to the number of their gods this idol called them to adore.... Thus
Mexico, Tenochtitlan, was founded.... When the aforesaid partition was
made, those who thought themselves injured, with their kindred and
followers, went away to seek some other place,”212 namely, Tlatelulco,
which was adjacent. It is a reasonable interpretation of this language that
they divided by kin, first into four general divisions, and these into smaller
subdivisions, which is the usual formula for stating results. But the actual
process was the exact reverse; namely, each body of kindred located in an
area by themselves, and the several bodies in such a way as to bring those
most nearly related in geographical connection with each other. Assuming
that the lowest subdivision was a gens, and that each quarter was occupied
by a phratry, composed of related gentes, the primary distribution of the
Aztecs in their pueblo is perfectly intelligible. Without this assumption it is
incapable of a satisfactory explanation. When a people, organized in gentes,
phratries and tribes, settled in a town or city, they located by gentes and by
tribes, as a necessary consequence of their social organization. The Grecian
and Roman tribes settled in their cities in this manner. For example, the
three Roman tribes were organized in gentes and curiæ, the curia being the
analogue of the phratry; and they settled at Rome by gentes, by curias and
by tribes. The Ramnes occupied the Palatine Hill. The Tities were mostly
on the Quirinal, and the Luceres mostly on the Esquiline. If the Aztecs were
in gentes and phratries, having but one tribe, they would of necessity be
found in as many quarters as they had phratries, with each gens of the same
phratry in the main locally by itself. As husband and wife were of different
gentes, and the children were of the gens of the father or mother as descent
was in the male or the female line, the preponderating number in each
locality would be of the same gens.
Their military organization was based upon these social divisions. As
Nestor advised Agamemnon to arrange the troops by phratries and by
tribes, the Aztecs seem to have arranged themselves by gentes and by
phratries. In the Mexican Chronicles, by the native author Tezozomoc (for a
reference to the following passage, in which I am indebted to my friend Mr.
Ad. F. Bandelier, of Highland, Illinois, who is now engaged upon its
translation), a proposed invasion of Michoacan is referred to. Axaycatl
“spoke to the Mexican captains Tlacatecatl and Tlacochcalcatl, and to all
the others, and inquired whether all the Mexicans were prepared, after the
usages and customs of each ward, each one with its captains; and if so that
they should begin to march, and that all were to reunite at Matlatzinco
Toluca.”213 It indicates that the military organization was by gentes and by
phratries.
An inference of the existence of Aztec gentes arises also from their land
tenure. Clavigero remarks that “the lands which were called Altepetlalli
[altepetl = pueblo] that is, those of the communities of cities and villages,
were divided into as many parts as there were districts in a city, and every
district possessed its own part entirely distinct from, and independent of
every other. These lands could not be alienated by any means whatever.”214
In each of these communities we are led to recognize a gens, whose
localization was a necessary consequence of their social system. Clavigero
puts the districts for the community, whereas it was the latter which made
the district, and which owned the lands in common. The element of kin
which united each community, omitted by Clavigero, is supplied by
Herrera. “There were other lords, called major parents [sachems], whose
landed property all belonged to one lineage [gens], which lived in one
district, and there were many of them when the lands were distributed at the
time New Spain was peopled; and each lineage received its own, and have
possessed them until now; and these lands did not belong to any one in
particular, but to all in common, and he who possessed them could not sell
them, although he enjoyed them for life and left them to his sons and heirs;
and if a house died out they were left to the nearest parent to whom they
were given and to no other, who administered the same district or
lineage.”215 In this remarkable statement our author was puzzled to
harmonize the facts with the prevailing theory of Aztec institutions. He
presents to us an Aztec lord who held the fee of the land as a feudal
proprietor, and a title of rank pertaining to it, both of which he transmitted
to his son and heir. But in obedience to truth he states the essential fact that
the lands belonged to a body of consanguinei of whom he is styled the
major parent, i. e., he was the sachem, it may be supposed, of the gens, the
latter owning these lands in common. The suggestion that he held the lands
in trust means nothing. They found Indian chiefs connected with gentes,
each gens owning a body of lands in common, and when the chief died, his
place was filled by his son, according to Herrera. In so far it may have been
analogous to a Spanish estate and title; and the misconception resulted from
a want of knowledge of the nature and tenure of the office of chief. In some
cases they found the son did not succeed his father, but the office went to
some other person; hence the further statement, “if a house (alguna casa,
another feudal feature) died out, they [the lands] were left to the nearest
major parent;” i. e., another person was elected sachem, as near as any
conclusion can be drawn from the language. What little has been given to
us by the Spanish writers concerning Indian chiefs, and the land tenure of
the tribes is corrupted by the use of language adapted to feudal institutions
that had no existence among them. In this lineage we are warranted in
recognizing an Aztec gens; and in this lord an Aztec sachem, whose office
was hereditary in the gens, in the sense elsewhere stated, and elective
among its members. If descent was in the male line, the choice would fall
upon one of the sons of the deceased sachem, own or collateral, upon a
grandson, through one of his sons, or upon a brother, own or collateral. But
if in the female line it would fall upon a brother or nephew, own or
collateral, as elsewhere explained.
The sachem had no title whatever to the lands, and therefore none to
transmit to any one. He was thought to be the proprietor because he held an
office which was perpetually maintained, and because there was a body of
lands perpetually belonging to a gens over which he was a sachem. The
misconception of this office and of its tenure has been the fruitful source of
unnumbered errors in our aboriginal histories. The lineage of Herrera, and
the communities of Clavigero were evidently organizations, and the same
organization. They found in this body of kindred, without knowing the fact,
the unit of their social system—a gens, as we must suppose.
Indian chiefs are described as lords by Spanish writers, and invested with
rights over lands and over persons they never possessed. It is a
misconception to style an Indian chief a lord in the European sense, because
it implies a condition of society that did not exist. A lord holds a rank and a
title by hereditary right, secured to him by special legislation in derogation
of the rights of the people as a whole. To this rank and title, since the
overthrow of feudalism, no duties are attached which may be claimed by
the king or the kingdom as a matter of right. On the contrary, an Indian
chief holds an office, not by hereditary right, but by election from a
constituency, which retained the right to depose him for cause. The office
carried with it the obligation to perform certain duties for the benefit of the
constituency. He had no authority over the persons or property or lands of
the members of the gens. It is thus seen that no analogy exists between a
lord and his title, and an Indian chief and his office. One belongs to political
society, and represents an aggression of the few upon the many; while the
other belongs to gentile society and is founded upon the common interests
of the members of the gens. Unequal privileges find no place in the gens,
phratry or tribe.
Further traces of the existence of Aztec gentes will appear. A prima facie
case of the existence of gentes among them is at least made out. There was
also an antecedent probability to this effect, from the presence of the two
upper members of the organic series, the tribe, and the confederacy, and
from the general prevalence of the organization among other tribes. A very
little close investigation by the early Spanish writers would have placed the
question beyond a doubt, and, as a consequence, have given a very different
complexion to Aztec history.
The usages regulating the inheritance of property among the Aztecs have
come down to us in a confused and contradictory condition. They are not
material in this discussion, except as they reveal the existence of bodies of
consanguinei, and the inheritance by children from their fathers. If the latter
were the fact it would show that descent was in the male line, and also an
extraordinary advance in a knowledge of property. It is not probable that
children enjoyed an exclusive inheritance, or that any Aztec owned a foot of
land which he could call his own, with power to sell and convey to
whomsoever he pleased.
II. The Existence and Functions of the Council of Chiefs.
The existence of such a council among the Aztecs might have been
predicted from the necessary constitution of Indian society. Theoretically, it
would have been composed of that class of chiefs, distinguished as
sachems, who represented bodies of kindred through an office perpetually
maintained. Here again, as elsewhere, a necessity is seen for gentes, whose
principal chiefs would represent the people in their ultimate social
subdivisions as among the Northern tribes. Aztec gentes are fairly necessary
to explain the existence of Aztec chiefs. Of the presence of an Aztec
council there is no doubt whatever; but of the number of its members and of
its functions we are left in almost total ignorance. Brasseur de Bourbourg
remarks generally that “nearly all the towns or tribes are divided into four
clans or quarters whose chiefs constitute the great council.”216 Whether he
intended to limit the number to one chief from each quarter is not clear; but
elsewhere he limits the Aztec council to four chiefs. Diego Duran, who
wrote his work in 1579-1581, and thus preceded both Acosta and
Tezozomoc, remarks as follows: “First we must know, that in Mexico after
having elected a king they elected four lords of the brothers or near
relations of this king to whom they gave the titles of princes, and from
whom they had to choose the king. [To the offices he gives the names of
Tlacachcalcatl, Tlacatecal, Ezuauacatl, and Fillancalque].... These four
lords and titles after being elected princes, they made them the royal
council, like the presidents and judges of the supreme council, without
whose opinion nothing could be done.”217 Acosta, after naming the same
offices, and calling the persons who held them “electors,” remarks that “all
these four dignities were of the great council, without whose advice the
king might not do anything of importance.”218 And Herrera, after placing
these offices in four grades, proceeds: “These four sorts of noblemen were
of the supreme council, without whose advice the king was to do nothing of
moment, and no king could be chosen but what was of one of these four
orders.”219 The use of the term king to describe a principal war-chief and of
princes to describe Indian chiefs cannot create a state or a political society
where none existed; but as misnomers they stilt up and disfigure our
aboriginal history and for that reason ought to be discarded. When the
Huexotzincos sent delegates to Mexico proposing an alliance against the
Tlascalans, Montezuma addressed them, according to Tezozomoc, as
follows: “Brothers and sons, you are welcome, rest yourselves awhile, for
although I am king indeed I alone cannot satisfy you, but only together with
all the chiefs of the sacred Mexican senate.”220 The above accounts
recognize the existence of a supreme council, with authority over the action
of the principal war-chief, which is the material point. It tends to show that
the Aztecs guarded themselves against an irresponsible despot, by
subjecting his action to a council of chiefs, and by making him elective and
deposable. If the limited and incomplete statements of these authors
intended to restrict this council to four members, which Duran seems to
imply, the limitation is improbable. As such the council would represent,
not the Aztec tribe, but the small body of kinsmen from whom the military
commander was to be chosen. This is not the theory of a council of chiefs.
Each chief represents a constituency, and the chiefs together represent the
tribe. A selection from their number is sometimes made to form a general
council; but it is through an organic provision which fixes the number, and
provides for their perpetual maintenance. The Tezcucan council is said to
have consisted of fourteen members,221 while the council at Tlascala was a
numerous body. Such a council among the Aztecs is required by the
structure and principles of Indian society, and therefore would be expected
to exist. In this council may be recognized the lost element in Aztec history.
A knowledge of its functions is essential to a comprehension of Aztec
society.
In the current histories this council is treated as an advisory board of
Montezuma’s, as a council of ministers of his own creation; thus Clavigero:
“In the history of the conquest we shall find Montezuma in frequent
deliberation with his council on the pretensions of the Spaniards. We do not
know the number of each council, nor do historians furnish us with the
lights necessary to illustrate such a subject.”222 It was one of the first
questions requiring investigation, and the fact that the early writers failed to
ascertain its composition and functions is proof conclusive of the superficial
character of their work. We know, however, that the council of chiefs is an
institution which came in with the gentes, which represents electing
constituencies, and which from time immemorial had a vocation as well as
original governing powers. We find a Tezcucan and Tlacopan council, a
Tlascalan, a Cholulan and a Michoacan council, each composed of chiefs.
The evidence establishes the existence of an Aztec council of chiefs; but so
far as it is limited to four members, all of the same lineage, it is presented in
an improbable form. Every tribe in Mexico and Central America, beyond a
reasonable doubt, had its council of chiefs. It was the governing body of the
tribe, and a constant phenomenon in all parts of aboriginal America. The
council of chiefs is the oldest institution of government of mankind. It can
show an unbroken succession on the several continents from the
Upper Status of savagery through the three sub-periods of barbarism to the
commencement of civilization, when, having been changed into a
preconsidering council with the rise of the assembly of the people, it gave
birth to the modern legislature in two bodies.
It does not appear that there was a general council of the Aztec confederacy,
composed of the principal chiefs of the three tribes, as distinguished from
the separate councils of each. A complete elucidation of this subject is
required before it can be known whether the Aztec organization was simply
a league, offensive and defensive, and as such under the primary control of
the Aztec tribe, or a confederacy in which the parts were integrated in a
symmetrical whole. This problem must await future solution.
III. The Tenure and Functions of the Office of Principal War-chief.
The name of the office held by Montezuma, according to the best accessible
information, was simply Teuctli, which signifies a war-chief. As a member
of the council of chiefs he was sometimes called Tlatoani, which signifies
speaker. This office of a general military commander was the highest
known to the Aztecs. It was the same office and held by the same tenure as
that of principal war-chief in the Iroquois confederacy. It made the person,
ex officio, a member of the council of chiefs, as may be inferred from the
fact that in some of the tribes the principal war-chief had precedence in the
council both in debate and in pronouncing his opinion.223 None of the
Spanish writers apply this title to Montezuma or his successors. It was
superseded by the inappropriate title of king. Ixtlilxochitl, who was of
mixed Tezcucan and Spanish descent, describes the head war-chiefs of
Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan, by the simple title of war-chief, with
another to indicate the tribe. After speaking of the division of powers
between the three chiefs when the confederacy was formed, and of the
assembling of the chiefs of the three tribes on that occasion, he proceeds:
“The king of Tezcuco was saluted by the title of Aculhua Teuctli, also by
that of Chichimecatl Teuctli which his ancestors had worn, and which was
the mark of the empire; Itzcoatzin, his uncle, received the title of Culhua
Teuctli, because he reigned over the Toltecs-Culhuas; and Totoquihuatzin
that of Tecpanuatl Teuctli, which had been the title of Azcaputzalco. Since
that time their successors have received the same title.”224 Izcoatzin
(Itzcoatl), here mentioned, was war-chief of the Aztecs when the
confederacy was formed. As the title was that of war-chief, then held by
many other persons, the compliment consisted in connecting with it a tribal
designation. In Indian speech the office held by Montezuma was equivalent
to head war-chief, and in English to general.
Clavigero recognizes this office in several Nahuatlac tribes, but never
applies it to the Aztec war-chief. “The highest rank of nobility in Tlascala,
in Huexotzinco and in Cholula was that of Teuctli. To obtain this rank it was
necessary to be of noble birth, to have given proofs in several battles of the
utmost courage, to have arrived at a certain age, and to command great
riches for the enormous expenses which were necessary to be supported by
the possessor of such a dignity.”225 After Montezuma had been magnified
into an absolute potentate, with civil as well as military functions, the
nature and powers of the office he held were left in the background—in fact
uninvestigated. As their general military commander he possessed the
means of winning the popular favor, and of commanding the popular
respect. It was a dangerous but necessary office to the tribe and to the
confederacy. Throughout human experience, from the Lower Status of
barbarism to the present time, it has ever been a dangerous office.
Constitutions and laws furnish the present security of civilized nations, so
far as they have any. A body of usages and customs grew up, in all
probability, among the advanced Indian tribes and among the tribes of the
valley of Mexico, regulating the powers and prescribing the duties of this
office. There are general reasons warranting the supposition that the Aztec
council of chiefs was supreme, not only in civil affairs, but over military
affairs, the person and direction of the war-chief included. The Aztec polity
under increased numbers and material advancement, had undoubtedly
grown complex, and for that reason a knowledge of it would have been the
more instructive. Could the exact particulars of their governmental
organization be ascertained they would be sufficiently remarkable without
embellishment.
The Spanish writers concur generally in the statement that the office held by
Montezuma was elective, with the choice confined to a particular family.
The office was found to pass from brother to brother, or from uncle to
nephew. They were unable, however, to explain why it did not in some
cases pass from father to son. Since the mode of succession was unusual to
the Spaniards there was less possibility of a mistake with regard to the
principal fact. Moreover, two successions occurred under the immediate
notice of the conquerors. Montezuma was succeeded by Cuitlahua. In this
case the office passed from brother to brother, although we cannot know
whether they were own or collateral brothers without a knowledge of their
system of consanguinity. Upon the death of the latter Guatemozin was
elected to succeed him. Here the office passed from uncle to nephew, but
we do not know whether he was an own or a collateral nephew. (See Part
Third, ch. iii.) In previous cases the office had passed from brother to
brother and also from uncle to nephew.226 An elective office implies a
constituency; but who were the constituents in this case? To meet this
question the four chiefs mentioned by Duran (supra] are introduced as
electors, to whom one elector from Tezcuco and one from Tlacopan are
added, making six, who are then invested with power to choose from a
particular family the principal war-chief. This is not the theory of an
elective Indian office, and it may be dismissed as improbable. Sahagun
indicates a much larger constituency. “When the king or lord died,” he
remarks, “all the senators called Tecutlatoques, and the old men of the tribe
called Achcacauhiti, and also the captains and old warriors called
Yautequioaques, and other prominent captains in warlike matters, and also
the priests called Tlenamacaques, or Papasaques—all these assembled in
the royal houses. Then they deliberated upon and determined who had to be
lord, and chose one of the most noble of the lineage of the past lords, who
should be a valiant man, experienced in warlike matters, daring and brave....
When they agreed upon one they at once named him as lord, but this
election was not made by ballot or votes, but all together conferring at last
agreed upon the man. The lord once elected they also elected four others
which were like senators, and had to be always with the lord, and be
informed of all the business of the kingdom.”227 This scheme of election by
a large assembly, while it shows the popular element in the government
which undoubtedly existed, is without the method of Indian institutions.
Before the tenure of this office and the mode of election can be made
intelligible, it is necessary to find whether or not they were organized in
gentes, whether descent was in the female line or the male, and to know
something of their system of consanguinity. If they had the system found in
many other tribes of the Ganowánian family, which is probable, a man
would call his brother’s son his son, and his sister’s son his nephew; he
would call his father’s brother his father, and his mother’s brother his uncle;
the children of his father’s brother his brothers and sisters, and the children
of his mother’s brother his cousins, and so on. If organized into gentes with
descent in the female line, a man would have brothers, uncles and nephews,
collateral grandfathers and grandsons within his own gens; but neither own
father, own son, or lineal grandson. His own sons and his brother’s sons
would belong to other gentes. It cannot as yet be affirmed that the Aztecs
were organized in gentes; but the succession to the office of principal war-
chief is of itself strong proof of the fact, because it would explain this
succession completely. Then with descent in the female line the office
would be hereditary in a particular gens, but elective among its members. In
that case the office would pass, by election within the gens, from brother to
brother, or from uncle to nephew, precisely as it did among the Aztecs, and
never from father to son. Among the Iroquois at that same time the offices
of sachem and of principal war-chief were passing from brother to brother
or from uncle to nephew, as the choice might happen to fall, and never to
the son. It was the gens, with descent in the female line, which gave this
mode of succession, and which could have been secured in no other
conceivable way. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, from these facts
alone, that the Aztecs were organized in gentes, and that in respect to this
office at least descent was still in the female line.
It may therefore be suggested, as a probable explanation, that the office held
by Montezuma was hereditary in a gens (the eagle was the blazon or totem
on the house occupied by Montezuma), by the members of which the choice
was made from among their number; that their nomination was then
submitted separately to the four lineages or divisions of the Aztecs
(conjectured to be phratries), for acceptance or rejection; and also to the
Tezcucans and Tlacopans, who were directly interested in the selection of
the general commander. When they had severally considered and confirmed
the nomination each division appointed a person to signify their
concurrence; whence the six miscalled electors. It is not unlikely that the
four high chiefs of the Aztecs, mentioned as electors by a number of
authors, were in fact the war-chiefs of the four divisions of the Aztecs, like
the four war-chiefs of the four lineages of the Tlascalans. The function of
these persons was not to elect, but to ascertain by a conference with each
other whether the choice made by the gens had been concurred in, and if so
to announce the result. The foregoing is submitted as a conjectural
explanation, upon the fragments of evidence remaining, of the mode of
succession to the Aztec office of principal war-chief. It is seen to harmonize
with Indian usages, and with the theory of the office of an elective Indian
chief.
The right to depose from office follows as a necessary consequence of the
right to elect, where the term was for life. It is thus turned into an office
during good behavior. In these two principles of electing and deposing,
universally established in the social system of the American aborigines,
sufficient evidence is furnished that the sovereign power remained
practically in the hands of the people. This power to depose, though seldom
exercised, was vital in the gentile organization. Montezuma was no
exception to the rule. It required time to reach this result from the peculiar
circumstances of the case, for a good reason was necessary. When
Montezuma allowed himself, through intimidation, to be conducted from
his place of residence to the quarters of Cortes where he was placed under
confinement, the Aztecs were paralyzed for a time for the want of a military
commander. The Spaniards had possession both of the man and of his
office.228 They waited some weeks, hoping the Spaniards would retire; but
when they found the latter intended to remain they met the necessity, as
there are sufficient reasons for believing, by deposing Montezuma for want
of resolution, and elected his brother to fill his place. Immediately thereafter
they assaulted the Spanish quarters with great fury, and finally succeeded in
driving them from their pueblo. This conclusion respecting the deposition
of Montezuma is fully warranted by Herrera’s statement of the facts. After
the assault commenced, Cortes, observing the Aztecs obeying a new
commander, at once suspected the truth of the matter, and “sent Marina to
ask Montezuma whether he thought they had put the government into his
hands,”229 i. e., the hands of the new commander. Montezuma is said to
have replied “that they would not presume to choose a king in Mexico
whilst he was living.”230 He then went upon the roof of the house and
addressed his countrymen, saying among other things, “that he had been
informed they had chosen another king because he was confined and loved
the Spaniards;” to which he received the following ungracious reply from
an Aztec warrior: “Hold your peace, you effeminate scoundrel, born to
weave and spin; these dogs keep you a prisoner, you are a coward.”231 Then
they discharged arrows upon him and stoned him, from the effects of which
and from deep humiliation he shortly afterwards died. The war-chief in the
command of the Aztecs in this assault was Cuitlahua, the brother of
Montezuma and his successor.232
Respecting the functions of this office very little satisfactory information
can be derived from the Spanish writers. There is no reason for supposing
that Montezuma possessed any power over the civil affairs of the Aztecs.
Moreover, every presumption is against it. In military affairs when in the
field he had the powers of a general; but military movements were probably
decided upon by the council. It is an interesting fact to be noticed that the
functions of a priest were attached to the office of principal war-chief, and,
as it is claimed, those of a judge.233 The early appearance of these functions
in the natural growth of the military office will be referred to again in
connection with that of basileus. Although the government was of two
powers it is probable that the council was supreme, in case of a conflict of
authority, over civil and military affairs. It should be remembered that the
council of chiefs was the oldest in time, and possessed a solid basis of
power in the needs of society and in the representative character of the
office of chief.
The tenure of the office of principal war-chief and the presence of a council
with power to depose from office, tend to show that the institutions of the
Aztecs were essentially democratical. The elective principle with respect to
war-chief, and which we must suppose existed with respect to sachem and
chief, and the presence of a council of chiefs, determine the material fact. A
pure democracy of the Athenian type was unknown in the Lower, in the
Middle, or even in the Upper Status of barbarism; but it is very important to
know whether the institutions of a people are essentially democratical, or
essentially monarchical, when we seek to understand them. Institutions of
the former kind are separated nearly as widely from those of the latter, as
democracy is from monarchy. Without ascertaining the unit of their social
system, if organized in gentes as they probably were, and without gaining a
knowledge of the system that did exist, the Spanish writers boldly invented
for the Aztecs an absolute monarchy with high feudal characteristics, and
have succeeded in placing it in history. This misconception has stood,
through American indolence, quite as long as it deserves to stand. The
Aztec organization presented itself plainly to the Spaniards as a league or
confederacy of tribes. Nothing but the grossest perversion of obvious facts
could have enabled the Spanish writers to fabricate the Aztec monarchy out
of a democratic organization.
Theoretically, the Aztecs, Tezcucans and Tlacopans should severally have
had a head-sachem to represent the tribe in civil affairs when the council of
chiefs was not in session, and to take the initiative in preparing its work.
There are traces of such an officer among the Aztecs in the Ziahuacatl, who
is sometimes called the second chief, as the war-chief is called the first. But
the accessible information respecting this office is too limited to warrant a
discussion of the subject.
It has been shown among the Iroquois that the warriors could appear before
the council of chiefs and express their views upon public questions; and that
the women could do the same through orators of their own selection. This
popular participation in the government led in time to the popular assembly,
with power to adopt or reject public measures submitted to them by the
council. Among the Village Indians there is no evidence, so far as the
author is aware, that there was an assembly of the people to consider public
questions with power to act upon them. The four lineages probably met for
special objects, but this was very different from a general assembly for
public objects. From the democratic character of their institutions and their
advanced condition the Aztecs were drawing near the time when the
assembly of the people might be expected to appear.
The growth of the idea of government among the American aborigines, as
elsewhere remarked, commenced with the gens and ended with the
confederacy. Their organizations were social and not political. Until the
idea of property had advanced very far beyond the point they had attained,
the substitution of political for gentile society was impossible. There is not
a fact to show that any portion of the aborigines, at least in North America,
had reached any conception of the second great plan of government
founded upon territory and upon property. The spirit of the government and
the condition of the people harmonize with the institutions under which
they live. When the military spirit predominates, as it did among the Aztecs,
a military democracy rises naturally under gentile institutions. Such a
government neither supplants the free spirit of the gentes, nor weakens the
principles of democracy, but accords with them harmoniously.
 CHAPTER VIII. - THE GRECIAN GENS.
E G T .—O G .—C C
G .—N P S .—P S .—T F
S .—G ’ D G G .—O T P T .—
A G .—S I G .—T O C
G .—W E H .—T G B S S .—
A G L .—I P .—A F R .—
R M G .—T G C S
R I .

Civilization may be said to have commenced among the Asiatic Greeks

with the composition of the Homeric poems about 850 B. C.; and among
the European Greeks about a century later with the composition of the
Hesiodic poems. Anterior to these epochs, there was a period of several
thousand years during which the Hellenic tribes were advancing through the
Later Period of barbarism, and preparing for their entrance upon a civilized
career. Their most ancient traditions find them already established in the
Grecian peninsula, upon the eastern border of the Mediterranean, and upon
the intermediate and adjacent islands. An older branch of the same stock, of
which the Pelasgians were the chief representatives, had preceded them in
the occupation of the greater part of these areas, and were in time either
Hellenized by them, or forced into emigration. The anterior condition of the
Hellenic tribes and of their predecessors, must be deduced from the arts and
inventions which they brought down from the previous period, from the
state of development of their language, from their traditions and from their
social institutions, which severally survived into the period of civilization.
Our discussion will be restricted, in the main, to the last class of facts.

Pelasgians and Hellenes alike were organized in gentes, phratries234 and

tribes; and the latter united by coalescence into nations. In some cases the
organic series was not complete. Whether in tribes or nations their
government rested upon the gens as the unit of organization, and resulted in
a gentile society or a people, as distinguished from a political society or a
state. The instrument of government was a council of chiefs, with the co-
operation of an agora or assembly of the people, and of a basileus or
military commander. The people were free, and their institutions
democratical. Under the influence of advancing ideas and wants the gens
had passed out of its archaic into its ultimate form. Modifications had been
forced upon it by the irresistible demands of an improving society; but,
notwithstanding the concessions made, the failure of the gentes to meet
these wants was constantly becoming more apparent. The changes were
limited, in the main, to three particulars: firstly, descent was changed to the
male line; secondly, intermarriage in the gens was permitted in the case of
female orphans and heiresses; and thirdly, children had gained an exclusive
inheritance of their father’s property. An attempt will elsewhere be made to
trace these changes, briefly, and the causes by which they were produced.
The Hellenes in general were in fragmentary tribes, presenting the same
characteristics in their form of government as the barbarous tribes in
general, when organized in gentes and in the same stage of advancement.
Their condition was precisely such as might have been predicted would
exist under gentile institutions, and therefore presents nothing remarkable.
When Grecian society came for the first time under historical observation,
about the first Olympiad (776 B. C.) and down to the legislation of
Cleisthenes (509 B. C.), it was engaged upon the solution of a great
problem. It was no less than a fundamental change in the plan of
government, involving a great modification of institutions. The people were
seeking to transfer themselves out of gentile society, in which they had
lived from time immemorial, into political society based upon territory and
upon property, which had become essential to a career of civilization. In
fine, they were striving to establish a state, the first in the experience of the
Aryan family, and to place it upon a territorial foundation, such as the state
has occupied from that time to the present. Ancient society rested upon an
organization of persons, and was governed through the relations of persons
to a gens and tribe; but the Grecian tribes were outgrowing this old plan of
government, and began to feel the necessity of a political system. To
accomplish this result it was only necessary to invent a deme or township,
circumscribed with boundaries, to christen it with a name, and organize the
people therein as a body politic. The township, with the fixed property it
contained, and with the people who inhabited it for the time being, was to
become the unit of organization in the new plan of government. Thereafter
the gentilis, changed into a citizen, would be dealt with by the state through
his territorial relations, and not through his personal relations to a gens. He
would be enrolled in the deme of his residence, which enrollment was the
evidence of his citizenship; would vote and be taxed in his deme; and from
it be called into the military service. Although apparently a simple idea, it
required centuries of time and a complete revolution of pre-existing
conceptions of government to accomplish the result. The gens, which had
so long been the unit of a social system, had proved inadequate, as before
suggested, to meet the requirements of an advancing society. But to set this
organization aside, together with the phratry and tribe, and substitute a
number of fixed areas, each with its community of citizens, was, in the
nature of the case, a measure of extreme difficulty. The relations of the
individual to his gens, which were personal, had to be transferred to the
township and become territorial; the demarch of the township taking, in
some sense, the place of the chief of the gens. A township with its fixed
property would be permanent, and the people therein sufficiently so; while
the gens was a fluctuating aggregate of persons, more or less scattered, and
now growing incapable of permanent establishment in a local
circumscription. Anterior to experience, a township, as the unit of a
political system, was abstruse enough to tax the Greeks and Romans to the
depths of their capacities before the conception was formed and set in
practical operation. Property was the new element that had been gradually
remoulding Grecian institutions to prepare the way for political society, of
which it was to be the mainspring as well as the foundation. It was no easy
task to accomplish such a fundamental change, however simple and obvious
it may now seem; because all the previous experience of the Grecian tribes
had been identified with the gentes whose powers were to be surrendered to
the new political bodies.
Several centuries elapsed, after the first attempts were made to found the
new political system, before the problem was solved. After experience had
demonstrated that the gentes were incapable of forming the basis of a state,
several distinct schemes of legislation were tried in the various Grecian
communities, who copied more or less each other’s experiments, all tending
to the same result. Among the Athenians, from whose experience the chief
illustrations will be drawn, may be mentioned the legislation of Theseus, on
the authority of tradition; that of Draco (624 B. C.); that of Solon (594 B.
C.); and that of Cleisthenes (509 B. C.), the last three of which were within
the historical period. The development of municipal life and institutions, the
aggregation of wealth in walled cities, and the great changes in the mode of
life thereby produced, prepared the way for the overthrow of gentile society,
and for the establishment of political society in its place.
Before attempting to trace the transition from gentile into political society,
with which the closing history of the gentes is identified, the Grecian gens
and its attributes will be first considered.
Athenian institutions are typical of Grecian institutions in general, in
whatever relates to the constitution of the gens and tribe, down to the end of
ancient society among them. At the commencement of the historical period,
the Ionians of Attica were subdivided, as is well known, into four tribes
(Geleontes, Hopletes, Aegicores, and Argades), speaking the same dialect,
and occupying a common territory. They had coalesced into a nation as
distinguished from a confederacy of tribes; but such a confederacy had
probably existed in anterior times.235 Each Attic tribe was composed of
three phratries, and each phratry of thirty gentes, making an aggregate of
twelve phratries, and of three hundred and sixty gentes in the four tribes.
Such is the general form of the statement, the fact being constant with
respect to the number of tribes, and the number of phratries in each, but
liable to variation in the number of gentes in each phratry. In like manner
the Dorians were generally found in three tribes (Hylleis, Pamphyli, and
Dymanes), although forming a number of nationalities; as at Sparta, Argos,
Sicyon, Corinth, Epidaurus and Troezen; and beyond the Peloponnesus at
Megara, and elsewhere. One or more non-Dorian tribes were found in some
cases united with them, as at Corinth, Sicyon and Argos.
In all cases the Grecian tribe presupposes the gentes, the bond of kin and of
dialect forming the basis upon which they united in a tribe; but the tribe did
not presuppose the phratry, which, as an intermediate organization, although
very common among all these tribes, was liable to be intermitted. At Sparta,
there were subdivisions of the tribes called obês (ὠβαί), each tribe
containing ten, which were analogous to phratries; but concerning the
functions of these organizations some uncertainty prevails.236
The Athenian gentes will now be considered as they appeared in their
ultimate form and in full vitality; but with the elements of an incipient
civilization arrayed against them, before which they were yielding step by
step, and by which they were to be overthrown with the social system they
created. In some respects it is the most interesting portion of the history of
this remarkable organization, which had brought human society out of
savagery, and carried it through barbarism into the early stages of
civilization.
The social system of the Athenians exhibits the following series: first, the
gens (γένος) founded upon kin; second, the phratry (φράτρα and φρατρία),
a brotherhood of gentes derived by segmentation, probably, from an
original gens; third, the tribe (φῦλον, later φυλὴ), composed of several
phratries, the members of which spoke the same dialect; and fourth, a
people or nation, composed of several tribes united by coalescence into one
gentile society, and occupying the same territory. These integral and
ascending organizations exhausted their social system under the gentes,
excepting the confederacy of tribes occupying independent territories,
which, although it occurred in some instances in the early period and sprang
naturally out of gentile institutions, led to no important results. It is likely
that the four Athenian tribes confederated before they coalesced, the last
occurring after they had collected in one territory under pressure from other
tribes. If true of them, it would be equally true of the Dorian and other
tribes. When such tribes coalesced into a nation, there was no term in the
language to express the result, beyond a national name. The Romans, under
very similar institutions, styled themselves the Populus Romanus, which
expressed the fact exactly. They were then simply a people, and nothing
more; which was all that could result from an aggregation of gentes, curiæ
and tribes. The four Athenian tribes formed a society or people, which
became completely autonomous in the legendary period under the name of
the Athenians. Throughout the early Grecian communities, the gens phratry
and tribe were constant phenomena of their social systems, with the
occasional absence of the phratry.
Mr. Grote has collected the principal facts with respect to the Grecian
gentes with such critical ability that they cannot be presented in a more
authoritative manner than in his own language, which will be quoted where
he treats the subject generally. After commenting upon the tribal divisions
of the Greeks, he proceeds as follows: “But the Phratries and Gentes are a
distribution completely different from this. They seem aggregations of
small primitive unities into larger; they are independent of, and do not
presuppose, the tribe; they arise separately and spontaneously, without
preconcerted uniformity, and without reference to a common political
purpose; the legislator finds them pre-existing, and adapts or modifies them
to answer some national scheme. We must distinguish the general fact of
the classification, and the successive subordination in the scale, of the
families to the gens, of the gentes to the phratry, and of the phratries to the
tribe—from the precise numerical symmetry with which this subordination
is invested, as we read it,—thirty families to a gens, thirty gentes to a
phratry, three phratries to each tribe. If such nice equality of numbers could
ever have been procured, by legislative constraint, operating upon pre-
existent natural elements, the proportions could not have been permanently
maintained. But we may reasonably doubt whether it did ever so exist....
That every phratry contained an equal number of gentes, and every gens an
equal number of families, is a supposition hardly admissible without better
evidence than we possess. But apart from this questionable precision of
numerical scale, the Phratries and Gentes themselves were real, ancient, and
durable associations among the Athenian people, highly important to be
understood. The basis of the whole was the house, hearth, or family,—a
number of which, greater or less, composed the Gens or Genos. This gens
was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly factitious, brotherhood,
bound together by,—1. Common religious ceremonies, and exclusive
privilege of priesthood, in honor of the same god, supposed to be the
primitive ancestor, and characterized by a special surname. 2. By a common
burial place.237 3. By mutual rights of succession to property. 4. By
reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of injuries. 5. By mutual
right and obligation to intermarry in certain determinate cases, especially
where there was an orphan daughter or heiress. 6. By possession, in some
cases, at least, of common property, an archon and treasurer of their own.
Such were the rights and obligations characterizing the gentile union. The
phratric union, binding together several gentes, was less intimate, but still
included some mutual rights and obligations of an analogous character;
especially a communion of particular sacred rites, and mutual privileges of
prosecution in the event of a phrator being slain. Each phratry was
considered as belonging to one of the four tribes, and all the phratries of the
same tribe enjoyed a certain periodical communion of sacred rites under the
presidency of a magistrate called the Phylo-Basileus or tribe-king selected
from the Eupatrids.”238
The similarities between the Grecian and the Iroquois gens will at once be
recognized. Differences in characteristics will also be perceived, growing
out of the more advanced condition of Grecian society, and a fuller
development of their religious system. It will not be necessary to verify the
existence of the several attributes of the gens named by Mr. Grote, as the
proof is plain in the classical authorities. There were other characteristics
which doubtless pertained to the Grecian gens, although it may be difficult
to establish the existence of all of them; such as: 7. The limitation of
descent to the male line; 8. The prohibition of intermarriage in the gens
excepting in the case of heiresses; 9. The right of adopting strangers into the
gens; and 10. The right of electing and deposing its chiefs.
The rights, privileges and obligations of the members of the Grecian gens
may be recapitulated, with the additions named, as follows:

I. Common religious rites.

II. A common burial place.
III. Mutual rights of succession to property of deceased members.
IV. Reciprocal obligations of help, defense and redress of injuries.
V. The right to intermarry in the gens in the cases of orphan daughters
and heiresses.
VI. The possession of common property, an archon, and a treasurer.
VII. The limitation of descent to the male line.
VIII. The obligation not to marry in the gens except in specified cases.
IX. The right to adopt strangers into the gens.
X. The right to elect and depose its chiefs.

A brief reference to the added characteristics should be made.

7. The limitation of descent to the male line. There is no doubt that such was
the rule, because it is proved by their genealogies. I have not been able to
find in any Greek author a definition of a gens or of a gentilis that would
furnish a sufficient test of the right of a given person to the gentile
connection. Cicero, Varro and Festus have defined the Roman gens and
gentilis, which were strictly analogous to the Grecian, with sufficient
fullness to show that descent was in the male line. From the nature of the
gens, descent was either in the female line or the male, and included but a
moiety of the descendants of the founder. It is precisely like the family
among ourselves. Those who are descended from the males bear the family
name, and they constitute a gens in the full sense of the term, but in a state
of dispersion, and without any bond of union excepting those nearest in
degree. The females lose, with their marriage, the family name, and with
their children are transferred to another family. Grote remarks that Aristotle
was the “son of the physician Nikomachus who belonged to the gens of the
Asklepiads.”239 Whether Aristotle was of the gens of his father depends
upon the further question whether they both derived their descent from
Aesculapius, through males exclusively. This is shown by Laertius, who
states that “Aristotle was the son of Nikomachus ... and Nikomachus was
descended from Nikomachus the son of Machaon, the son of
Aesculapius.”240 Although the higher members of the series may be
fabulous, the manner of tracing the descent would show the gens of the
person. The statement of Hermann, on the authority of Isaeus, is also to the
point. “Every infant was registered in the phratria and clan (γένος) of its
father.”241 Registration in the gens of the father implies that his children
were of his gens.
8. The obligation not to marry in the gens excepting in specified cases. This
obligation may be deduced from the consequences of marriage. The wife by
her marriage lost the religious rites of her gens, and acquired those of her
husband’s gens. The rule is stated as so general as to imply that marriage
was usually out of the gens. “The virgin who quits her father’s house,”
Wachsmuth remarks, “is no longer a sharer of the paternal sacrificial hearth,
but enters the religious communion of her husband, and this gave sanctity to
the marriage tie.”242 The fact of her registration is stated by Hermann as
follows: “Every newly married woman, herself a citizen, was on this
account enrolled in the phratry of her husband.”243 Special religious rites
(sacra gentilicia) were common in the Grecian and Latin gens. Whether the
wife forfeited her agnatic rights by her marriage, as among the Romans, I
am unable to state. It is not probable that marriage severed all connection
with her gens, and the wife doubtless still counted herself of the gens of her
father.
The prohibition of intermarriage in the gens was fundamental in the archaic
period; and it undoubtedly remained after descent was changed to the male
line, with the exception of heiresses and female orphans for whose case
special provision was made. Although a tendency to free marriage, beyond
certain degrees of consanguinity, would follow the complete establishment
of the monogamian family, the rule requiring persons to marry out of their
own gens would be apt to remain so long as the gens was the basis of the
social system. The special provision in respect to heiresses tends to confirm
this supposition. Becker remarks upon this question, that “relationship was,
with trifling limitations, no hinderance to marriage, which could take place
within all degrees of [ἀγχιστεία Greek: agchisteia], or συγγένεια, though
naturally not in the [γένος Greek: genos] itself.”244
9. The right to adopt strangers into the gens. This right was practiced at a
later day, at least in families; but it was done with public formalities, and
was doubtless limited to special cases.245 Purity of lineage became a matter
of high concern in the Attic gentes, interposing no doubt serious obstacles
to the use of the right except for weighty reasons.
10. The right to elect and depose its chiefs. This right undoubtedly existed
in the Grecian gentes in the early period. Presumptively it was possessed by
them while in the Upper Status of barbarism. Each gens had its archon
(ἀρχὸς), which was the common name for a chief. Whether the office was
elective, for example, in the Homeric period, or was transmitted by
hereditary right to the eldest son, is a question. The latter was not the
ancient theory of the office; and a change so great and radical, affecting the
independence and personal rights of all the members of the gens, requires
positive proof to override the presumption against it. Hereditary right to an
office, carrying with it authority over, and obligations from, the members of
a gens is a very different thing from an office bestowed by a free election,
with the reserved power to depose for unworthy behavior. The free spirit of
the Athenian gentes down to the time of Solon and Cleisthenes forbids the
supposition, as to them, that they had parted with a right so vital to the
independence of the members of the gens. I have not been able to find any
satisfactory explanation of the tenure of this office. Hereditary succession,
if it existed, would indicate a remarkable development of the aristocratical
element in ancient society, in derogation of the democratical constitution of
the gentes. Moreover, it would be a sign of the commencement, at least, of
their decadence. All the members of a gens were free and equal, the rich
and the poor enjoying equal rights and privileges, and acknowledging the
same in each other. We find liberty, equality and fraternity, written as
plainly in the constitution of the Athenian gentes as in those of the Iroquois.
Hereditary right to the principal office of the gens is totally inconsistent
with the older doctrine of equal rights and privileges.
Whether the higher offices of anax, koiranos, and basileus were transmitted
by hereditary right from father to son, or were elective or confirmative by a
larger constituency, is also a question. It will be considered elsewhere. The
former would indicate the subversion, as the latter the conservation, of
gentile institutions. Without decisive evidence to the contrary every
presumption is adverse to hereditary right. Some additional light will be
gained on this subject when the Roman gentes are considered. A careful re-
investigation of the tenure of this office would, not unlikely, modify
essentially the received accounts.
It may be considered substantially assured that the Grecian gentes
possessed the ten principal attributes named. All save three, namely, descent
in the male line, marrying into the gens in the case of heiresses, and the
possible transmission of the highest military office by hereditary right, are
found with slight variations in the gentes of the Iroquois. It is thus rendered
apparent that in the gentes, both the Grecian and the Iroquois tribes
possessed the same original institution, the one having the gens in its later,
and the other in its archaic form.
Recurring now to the quotation from Mr. Grote, it may be remarked that
had he been familiar with the archaic form of the gens, and with the several
forms of the family anterior to the monogamian, he would probably have
modified essentially some portion of his statement. An exception must be
taken to his position that the basis of the social system of the Greeks “was
the house, hearth, or family.” The form of the family in the mind of the
distinguished historian was evidently the Roman, under the iron-clad rule of
a pater familias, to which the Grecian family of the Homeric period
approximated in the complete domination of the father over the household.
It would have been equally untenable had other and anterior forms of the
family been intended. The gens, in its origin, is older than the monogamian
family, older than the syndyasmian, and substantially contemporaneous
with the punaluan. In no sense was it founded upon either. It does not
recognize the existence of the family of any form as a constituent of itself.
On the contrary, every family in the archaic as well as in the later period,
was partly within and partly without the gens, because husband and wife
must belong to different gentes. The explanation is both simple and
complete; namely, that the family springs up independently of the gens with
entire freedom to advance from a lower into a higher form, while the gens is
constant, as well as the unit of the social system. The gens entered entire
into the phratry, the phratry entered entire into the tribe, and the tribe
entered entire into the nation; but the family could not enter entire into the
gens because husband and wife must belong to different gentes.
The question here raised is important, since not only Mr. Grote, but also
Niebuhr, Thirlwall, Maine, Mommsen, and many other able and acute
investigators have taken the same position with respect to the monogamian
family of the patriarchal type as the integer around which society integrated
in the Grecian and Roman systems. Nothing whatever was based upon the
family in any of its forms, because it was incapable of entering a gens as a
whole. The gens was homogeneous and to a great extent permanent in
duration, and as such, the natural basis of a social system. A family of the
monogamian type might have become individualized and powerful in a
gens, and in society at large; but the gens nevertheless did not and could not
recognize or depend upon the family as an integer of itself. The same
remarks are equally true with respect to the modern family and political
society. Although individualized by property rights and privileges, and
recognized as a legal entity by statutory enactment, the family is not the
unit of the political system. The state recognizes the counties of which it is
composed, the county its townships, but the township takes no note of the
family; so the nation recognized its tribes, the tribes its phratries, and the
phratries its gentes; but the gens took no note of the family. In dealing with
the structure of society, organic relations alone are to be considered. The
township stands in the same relation to political society that the gens did to
gentile society. Each is the unit of a system.
There are a number of valuable observations by Mr. Grote, upon the
Grecian gentes, which I desire to incorporate as an exposition of them;
although these observations seem to imply that they are no older than the
then existing mythology, or hierarchy of the gods from the members of
which some of the gentes claimed to have derived their eponymous
ancestor. In the light of the facts presented, the gentes are seen to have
existed long before this mythology was developed—before Jupiter or
Neptune, Mars or Venus were conceived in the human mind.
Mr. Grote proceeds: “Thus stood the primitive religious and social union of
the population of Attica in its gradually ascending scale—as distinguished
from the political union, probably of later introduction, represented at first
by the trittyes and naukraries, and in after times by the ten Kleisthenean
tribes, subdivided into trittyes and demes. The religious and family bond of
aggregation is the earlier of the two; but the political bond, though
beginning later, will be found to acquire constantly increasing influence
throughout the greater part of this history. In the former, personal relation is
the essential and predominant characteristic—local relation being
subordinate: in the latter, property and residence become the chief
considerations, and the personal element counts only as measured along
with these accompaniments. All these phratric and gentile associations, the
larger as well as the smaller, were founded upon the same principles and
tendencies of the Grecian mind—a coalescence of the idea of worship with
that of ancestry, or of communion in certain special religious rites with
communion of blood, real or supposed. The god or hero, to whom the
assembled members offered their sacrifices, was conceived as the primitive
ancestor to whom they owed their origin; often through a long list of
intermediate names, as in the case of the Milesian Hekatæus, so often
before referred to. Each family had its own sacred rites and funeral
commemorations of ancestors, celebrated by the master of the house, to
which none but members of the family were admissible.... The larger
associations, called gens, phratry, tribe, were formed by an extension of the
same principle—of the family considered as a religious brotherhood,
worshiping some common god or hero with an appropriate surname, and
recognizing him as their joint ancestor; and the festival of Theoenia, and
Apaturia (the first Attic, the second common to all the Ionian race) annually
brought together the members of these phratries and gentes for worship,
festivity, and maintenance of special sympathies; thus strengthening the
larger ties without effacing the smaller.... But the historian must accept as
an ultimate fact the earliest state of things which his witnesses make known
to him, and in the case now before us, the gentile and phratric unions are
matters into the beginning of which we cannot pretend to penetrate.”246
“The gentes both at Athens, and in other parts of Greece, bore a patronymic
name, the stamp of their believed common paternity.247 ... But at Athens, at
least after the revolution of Kleisthenês, the gentile name was not
employed: a man was described by his own single name, followed first by
the name of his father, and next by that of the deme to which he belonged,
—as Aeschinês son of Atromêtus, a Kothôkid.... The gens constituted a close
incorporation, both as to property and as to persons. Until the time of Solon,
no man had any power of testamentary disposition. If he died without
children, his gennêtes succeeded to his property, and so they continued to
do even after Solon, if he died intestate. An orphan girl might be claimed in
marriage of right by any member of the gens, the nearest agnates being
preferred; if she was poor, and he did not choose to marry her himself, the
law of Solon compelled him to provide her with a dowry proportional to his
enrolled scale of property, and to give her out in marriage to another.... If a
man was murdered, first his near relations, next his gennêtes and phrators,
were both allowed and required to prosecute the crime at law; while his
fellow demots, or inhabitants of the same deme, did not possess the like
right of prosecuting. All that we hear of the most ancient Athenian laws is
based upon the gentile and phratric divisions, which are treated throughout
as extensions of the family. It is to be observed that this division is
completely independent of any property qualification—rich men as well as
poor being comprehended in the same gens. Moreover, the different gentes
were very unequal in dignity, arising chiefly from the religious ceremonies
of which each possessed the hereditary and exclusive administration, and
which, being in some cases considered of pre-eminent sanctity in reference
to the whole city, were therefore nationalized. Thus the Eumolpidæ and
Kêrykes, who supplied the hierophant and superintendent of the mysteries
of the Eleusinian Dêmêtêr—and the Butadæ, who furnished the priestess of
Athênê Polias, as well as the priest of Poseidôn Erechtheus in the Acropolis
—seem to have been reverenced above all the other gentes.”248
Mr. Grote speaks of the gens as an extension of the family, and as
presupposing its existence; treating the family as primary and the gens as
secondary. This view, for the reasons stated, is untenable. The two
organizations proceed upon different principles and are independent of each
other. The gens embraces a part only of the descendants of a supposed
common ancestor, and excludes the remainder; it also embraces a part only
of a family, and excludes the remainder. In order to be a constituent of the
gens, the family should enter entire within its folds, which was impossible
in the archaic period, and constructive only in the later. In the organization
of gentile society the gens is primary, forming both the basis and the unit of
the system. The family also is primary, and older than the gens; the
punaluan and the consanguine families having preceded it in the order of
time; but it was not a member of the organic series in ancient society any
more than it is in modern.
The gens existed in the Aryan family when the Latin, Grecian and Sanskrit
speaking tribes were one people, as is shown by the presence in their
dialects of the same term (gens, [γένος Greek: genos], and ganas) to express
the organization. They derived it from their barbarous ancestors, and more
remotely from their savage progenitors. If the Aryan family became
differentiated as early as the Middle Period of barbarism, which seems
probable, the gens must have been transmitted to them in its archaic form.
After that event, and during the long periods of time which elapsed between
the separation of these tribes from each other and the commencement of
civilization, those changes in the constitution of the gens, which have been
noticed hypothetically, must have occurred. It is impossible to conceive of
the gens as appearing, for the first time, in any other than its archaic form;
consequently the Grecian gens must have been originally in this form. If,
then, causes can be found adequate to account for so great a change of
descent as that from the female line to the male, the argument will be
complete, although in the end it substituted a new body of kindred in the
gens in place of the old. The growth of the idea of property, and the rise of
monogamy, furnished motives sufficiently powerful to demand and obtain
this change in order to bring children into the gens of their father, and into a
participation in the inheritance of his estate. Monogamy assured the
paternity of children, which was unknown when the gens was instituted,
and the exclusion of children from the inheritance was no longer possible.
In the face of the new circumstances, the gens would be forced into
reconstruction or dissolution. When the gens of the Iroquois, as it appeared
in the Lower Status of barbarism, is placed beside the gens of the Grecian
tribes as it appeared in the Upper Status, it is impossible not to perceive that
they are the same organization, the one in its archaic and the other in its
ultimate form. The differences between them are precisely those which
would have been forced upon the gens by the exigencies of human progress.
Along with these mutations in the constitution of the gens are found the
parallel mutations in the rule of inheritance. Property, always hereditary in
the gens, was first hereditary among the gentiles; secondly, hereditary
among the agnates, to the exclusion of the remaining gentiles; and now,
thirdly, hereditary among the agnates in succession, in the order of their
nearness to the decedent, which gave an exclusive inheritance to the
children as the nearest agnates. The pertinacity with which the principle
was maintained down to the time of Solon, that the property should remain
in the gens of the deceased owner, illustrates the vitality of the organization
through all these periods. It was this rule which compelled the heiress to
marry in her own gens to prevent a transfer of the property by her marriage
to another gens. When Solon allowed the owner of property to dispose of it
by will, in case he had no children, he made the first inroad upon the
property rights of the gens.
How nearly the members of a gens were related, or whether they were
related at all, has been made a question. Mr. Grote remarked that “Pollux
informs us distinctly that the members of the same gens at Athens were not
commonly related by blood,—and even without any express testimony we
might have concluded such to be the fact. To what extent the gens, at the
unknown epoch of its formation was based upon actual relationship, we
have no means of determining, either with regard to the Athenian or the
Roman gentes, which were in the main points analogous. Gentilism is a tie
by itself; distinct from the family ties, but presupposing their existence and
extending them by an artificial analogy, partly founded in religious belief,
and partly on positive compact, so as to comprehend strangers in blood. All
the members of one gens, or even of one phratry, believed themselves to be
sprung, not indeed from the same grandfather or great-grandfather, but from
the same divine or heroic ancestor.... And this fundamental belief, into
which the Greek mind passed with so much facility, was adopted and
converted by positive compact into the gentile and phratric principle of
union.... Doubtless Niebuhr, in his valuable discussion of the ancient
Roman gentes, is right in supposing that they were not real families,
procreated from any common historical ancestor. Still it is not the less true
(although he seems to suppose otherwise) that the idea of the gens involved
the belief in a common first father, divine or heroic—a genealogy which we
may properly call fabulous, but which was consecrated and accredited
among the members of the gens itself; and served as one important bond of
union between them.... The natural families of course changed from
generation to generation, some extending themselves, while others
diminished or died out; but the gens received no alterations, except through
the procreation, extinction, or subdivision of these component families.
Accordingly the relations of the families with the gens were in perpetual
course of fluctuation, and the gentile ancestorial genealogy, adapted as it
doubtless was to the early condition of the gens, became in process of time
partially obsolete and unsuitable. We hear of this genealogy but rarely,
because it is only brought before the public in certain cases pre-eminent and
venerable. But the humbler gentes had their common rites, and common
superhuman ancestor and genealogy, as well as the more celebrated: the
scheme and ideal basis was the same in all.”249
The several statements of Pollux, Niebuhr and Grote are true in a certain
sense, but not absolutely so. The lineage of a gens ran back of the
acknowledged ancestor, and therefore the gens of ancient date could not
have had a known progenitor; neither could the fact of a blood connection
be proved by their system of consanguinity; nevertheless the gentiles not
only believed in their common descent, but were justified in so believing.
The system of consanguinity which pertained to the gens in its archaic
form, and which the Greeks probably once possessed, preserved a
knowledge of the relationships of all the members of a gens to each other.
This fell into desuetude with the rise of the monogamian family, as I shall
endeavor elsewhere to show. The gentile name created a pedigree beside
which that of a family was insignificant. It was the function of this name to
preserve the fact of the common descent of those who bore it; but the
lineage of the gens was so ancient that its members could not prove the
actual relationship existing between them, except in a limited number of
cases through recent common ancestors. The name itself was the evidence
of a common descent, and conclusive, except as it was liable to interruption
through the adoption of strangers in blood in the previous history of the
gens. The practical denial of all relationship between its members made by
Pollux and Niebuhr, which would change the gens into a purely fictitious
association, has no ground to rest upon. A large proportion of the number
could prove their relationship through descent from common ancestors
within the gens, and as to the remainder the gentile name they bore was
sufficient evidence of common descent for practical purposes. The Grecian
gens was not usually a large body of persons. Thirty families to a gens, not
counting the wives of the heads of families, would give, by the common
rule of computation, an average of one hundred and twenty persons to the
gens.
As the unit of the organic social system, the gens would naturally become
the centre of social life and activity. It was organized as a social body, with
its archon or chief, and treasurer; having common lands to some extent, a
common burial place, and common religious rites. Beside these were the
rights, privileges and obligations which the gens conferred and imposed
upon all its members. It was in the gens that the religious activity of the
Greeks originated, which expanded over the phratries, and culminated in
periodical festivals common to all the tribes. This subject has been
admirably treated by M. De Coulanges in his recent work on “The Ancient
City.”
In order to understand the condition of Grecian society, anterior to the
formation of the state, it is necessary to know the constitution and principles
of the Grecian gens; for the character of the unit determines the character of
its compounds in the ascending series, and can alone furnish the means for
their explanation.

CHAPTER IX. - THE GRECIAN PHRATRY, TRIBE AND

NATION.
T A P .—H F .—D D .—O
R .—T P .—T T .—C T P .—T P -
.—T N .—C F T .—B , C C .—A ,
A P .—T B .—T O .—M P
F .—C F .—G H A , M
D .—A ’ D B .—L A D .—
I F G .—I I A D .

The phratry, as we have seen, was the second stage of organization in the
Grecian social system. It consisted of several gentes united for objects,
especially religious, which were common to them all. It had a natural
foundation in the bond of kin, as the gentes in a phratry were probably
subdivisions of an original gens, a knowledge of the fact having been
preserved by tradition. “All the contemporary members of the phratry of
Hekatæus,” Mr. Grote remarks, “had a common god for their ancestor at the
sixteenth degree,”250 which could not have been asserted unless the several
gentes comprised in the phratry of Hekatæus, were supposed to be derived
by segmentation from an original gens. This genealogy, although in part
fabulous, would be traced according to gentile usages. Dikæarchus
supposed that the practice of certain gentes in supplying each other with
wives, led to the phratric organization for the performance of common
religious rites.
This is a plausible explanation, because such marriages would intermingle
the blood of the gentes. On the contrary, gentes formed, in the course of
time, by the division of a gens and by subsequent subdivisions, would give
to all a common lineage, and form a natural basis for their re-integration in
a phratry. As such the phratry would be a natural growth, and as such only
can it be explained as a gentile institution. The gentes thus united were
brother gentes, and the association itself was a brotherhood as the term
imports.
Stephanus of Byzantium has preserved a fragment of Dikæarchus, in which
an explanation of the origin of the gens, phratry and tribe is suggested. It is
not full enough, with respect to either, to amount to a definition; but it is
valuable as a recognition of the three stages of organization in ancient
Grecian society. He uses patry (πάτρᾶ) in the place of gens (γένος), as
Pindar did in a number of instances, and Homer occasionally. The passage
may be rendered: “Patry is one of three forms of social union among the
Greeks, according to Dikæarchus, which we call respectively, patry, phratry,
and tribe. The patry comes into being when relationship, originally solitary,
passes over into the second stage [the relationship of parents with children
and children with parents], and derives its eponym from the oldest and chief
member of the patry, as Aicidas, Pelopidas.”
“But it came to be called phatria and phratria when certain ones gave their
daughters to be married into another patry. For the woman who was given
in marriage participated no longer in her paternal sacred rites, but was
enrolled in the patry of her husband; so that for the union, formerly
subsisting by affection between sisters and brothers, there was established
another union based on community of religious rites, which they
denominated a phratry; and so that again, while the patry took its rise in the
way we have previously mentioned, from the blood relation between
parents and children and children and parents, the phratry took its rise from
the relationship between brothers.”
“But tribe and tribesmen were so called from the coalescence into
communities and nations so called, for each of the coalescing bodies was
called a tribe.”251
It will be noticed that marriage out of the gens is here recognized as a
custom, and that the wife was enrolled in the gens, rather than the phratry,
of her husband. Dikæarchus, who was a pupil of Aristotle, lived at a time
when the gens existed chiefly as a pedigree of individuals, its powers
having been transferred to new political bodies. He derived the origin of the
gens from primitive times; but his statement that the phratry originated in
the matrimonial practices of the gentes, while true doubtless as to the
practice, is but an opinion as to the origin of the organization.
Intermarriages, with common religious rites, would cement the phratric
union; but a more satisfactory foundation of the phratry may be found in the
common lineage of the gentes of which it was composed. It must be
remembered that the gentes have a history running back through the three
sub-periods of barbarism into the previous period of savagery, antedating
the existence even of the Aryan and Semitic families. The phratry has been
shown to have appeared among the American aborigines in the Lower
Status of barbarism; while the Greeks were familiar with so much only of
their former history as pertained to the Upper Status of barbarism.
Mr. Grote does not attempt to define the functions of the phratry, except
generally. They were doubtless of a religious character chiefly; but they
probably manifested themselves, as among the Iroquois, at the burial of the
dead, at public games, at religious festivals, at councils, and at the agoras of
the people, where the grouping of chiefs and people would be by phratries
rather than by gentes. It would also naturally show itself in the array of the
military forces, of which a memorable example is given by Homer in the
address of Nestor to Agamemnon.252 “Separate the troops by tribes and by
phratries, Agamemnon, so that phratry may support phratry, and tribes,
tribes (κρῖν' ἄνδρας κατὰ φῦλα, κατὰ φρήτρας, Ἀγάμεμνον, ὡς φρήτρη
φρήτρηφιν ἀρήγῃ, φῦλα δὲ φύλοις). If thou wilt thus act, and the Greeks
obey, thou wilt then ascertain which of the commanders and which of the
soldiers is a coward, and which of them may be brave, for they will fight
their best.” The number from the same gens in a military force would be too
small to be made a basis in the organization of an army; but the larger
aggregations of the phratries and tribes would be sufficient. Two things may
be inferred from the advice of Nestor: first, that the organization of armies
by phratries and tribes had then ceased to be common; and secondly, that in
ancient times it had been the usual plan of army organization, a knowledge
of which had not then disappeared. We have seen that the Tlascalans and
Aztecs, who were in the Middle Status of barbarism, organized and sent out
their military bands by phratries which, in their condition, was probably the
only method in which a military force could be organized. The ancient
German tribes organized their armies for battle on a similar principle.253 It
is interesting to notice how closely shut in the tribes of mankind have been
to the theory of their social system.
The obligation of blood revenge, which was turned at a later day into a duty
of prosecuting the murderer before the legal tribunals, rested primarily upon
the gens of the slain person; but it was also shared in by the phratry, and
became a phratric obligation.254 In the Eumenides of Aeschylus, the
Erinnys, after speaking of the slaying of his mother by Orestes, put the
question: “What lustral water of his phrators shall await him?”255 which
seems to imply that if the criminal escaped punishment final purification
was performed by his phratry instead of his gens. Moreover, the extension
of the obligation from the gens to the phratry implies a common lineage of
all the gentes in a phratry.
Since the phratry was intermediate between the gens and the tribe, and not
invested with governmental functions, it was less fundamental and less
important than either of the others; but it was a common, natural and
perhaps necessary stage of re-integration between the two. Could an
intimate knowledge of the social life of the Greeks in that early period be
recovered, the phenomena would centre probably in the phratric
organization far more conspicuously than our scanty records lead us to
infer. It probably possessed more power and influence than is usually
ascribed to it as an organization. Among the Athenians it survived the
overthrow of the gentes as the basis of a system, and retained, under the
new political system, some control over the registration of citizens, the
enrollment of marriages and the prosecution of the murderer of a phrator
before the courts.
It is customary to speak of the four Athenian tribes as divided each into
three phratries, and of each phratry as divided into thirty gentes; but this is
merely for convenience in description. A people under gentile institutions
do not divide themselves into symmetrical divisions and subdivisions. The
natural process of their formation was the exact reverse of this method; the
gentes fell into phratries, and ultimately into tribes, which reunited in a
society or a people. Each was a natural growth. That the number of gentes
in each Athenian phratry was thirty is a remarkable fact incapable of
explanation by natural causes. A motive sufficiently powerful, such as a
desire for a symmetrical organization of the phratries and tribes, might lead
to a subdivision of gentes by consent until the number was raised to thirty
in each of these phratries; and when the number in a tribe was in excess, by
the consolidation of kindred gentes until the number was reduced to thirty.
A more probable way would be by the admission of alien gentes into
phratries needing an increase of number. Having a certain number of tribes,
phratries and gentes by natural growth, the reduction of the last two to
uniformity in the four tribes could thus have been secured. Once cast in this
numerical scale of thirty gentes to a phratry and three phratries to a tribe,
the proportion might easily have been maintained for centuries, except
perhaps as to the number of gentes in each phratry.
The religious life of the Grecian tribes had its centre and source in the
gentes and phratries. It must be supposed that in and through these
organizations, was perfected that marvelous polytheistic system, with its
hierarchy of gods, its symbols and forms of worship, which impressed so
powerfully the mind of the classical world. In no small degree this
mythology inspired the great achievements of the legendary and historical
periods, and created that enthusiasm which produced the temple and
ornamental architecture in which the modern world has taken so much
delight. Some of the religious rites, which originated in these social
aggregates, were nationalized from the superior sanctity they were
supposed to possess; thus showing to what extent the gentes and phratries
were nurseries of religion. The events of this extraordinary period, the most
eventful in many respects in the history of the Aryan family, are lost, in the
main, to history. Legendary genealogies and narratives, myths and
fragments of poetry, concluding with the Homeric and Hesiodic poems,
make up its literary remains. But their institutions, arts, inventions,
mythological system, in a word the substance of civilization which they
wrought out and brought with them, were the legacy they contributed to the
new society they were destined to found. The history of the period may yet
be reconstructed from these various sources of knowledge, reproducing the
main features of gentile society as they appeared shortly before the
institution of political society.
As the gens had its archon, who officiated as its priest in the religious
observances of the gens, so each phratry had its phratriarch (φρατριάρχος),
who presided at its meetings, and officiated in the solemnization of its
religious rites. “The phratry,” observes M. De Coulanges, “had its
assemblies and its tribunals, and could pass decrees. In it, as well as in the
family, there was a god, a priesthood, a legal tribunal and a government.”256
The religious rites of the phratries were an expansion of those of the gentes
of which it was composed. It is in these directions that attention should be
turned in order to understand the religious life of the Greeks.
Next in the ascending scale of organization was the tribe, consisting of a
number of phratries, each composed of gentes. The persons in each phratry
were of the same common lineage, and spoke the same dialect. Among the
Athenians as before stated each tribe contained three phratries, which gave
to each a similar organization. The tribe corresponds with the Latin tribe,
and also with those of the American aborigines, an independent dialect for
each tribe being necessary to render the analogy with the latter complete.
The concentration of such Grecian tribes as had coalesced into a people, in
a small area, tended to repress dialectical variation, which a subsequent
written language and literature tended still further to arrest each tribe from
antecedent habits, however, was more or less localized in a fixed area,
through the requirements of a social system resting on personal relations. It
seems probable that each tribe had its council of chiefs, supreme in all
matters relating to the tribe exclusively. But since the functions and powers
of the general council of chiefs, who administered the general affairs of the
united tribes, were allowed to fall into obscurity, it would not be expected
that those of an inferior and subordinate council would be preserved. If such
a council existed, which was doubtless the fact from its necessity under
their social system, it would have consisted of the chiefs of the gentes.
When the several phratries of a tribe united in the commemoration of their
religious observances it was in their higher organic constitution as a tribe.
As such, they were under the presidency, as we find it expressed, of a
phylo-basileus, who was the principal chief of the tribe. Whether he acted
as their commander in the military service I am unable to state. He
possessed priestly functions, always inherent in the office of basileus, and
exercised a criminal jurisdiction in cases of murder; whether to try or to
prosecute a murderer, I am unable to state. The priestly and judicial
functions attached to the office of basileus tend to explain the dignity it
acquired in the legendary and heroic periods. But the absence of civil
functions, in the strict sense of the term, of the presence of which we have
no satisfactory evidence, is sufficient to render the term king, so constantly
employed in history as the equivalent of basileus, a misnomer. Among the
Athenians we have the tribe-basileus, where the term is used by the Greeks
themselves as legitimately as when applied to the general military
commander of the four united tribes. When each is described as a king it
makes the solecism of four tribes each under a king separately, and the four
tribes together under another king. There is a larger amount of fictitious
royalty here than the occasion requires. Moreover, when we know that the
institutions of the Athenians at the time were essentially democratical it
becomes a caricature of Grecian society. It shows the propriety of returning
to simple and original language, using the term basileus where the Greeks
used it, and rejecting king as a false equivalent. Monarchy is incompatible
with gentilism, for the reason that gentile institutions are essentially
democratical. Every gens, phratry and tribe was a completely organized
self-governing body; and where several tribes coalesced into a nation the
resulting government would be constituted in harmony with the principles
animating its constituent parts.
The fourth and ultimate stage of organization was the nation united in a
gentile society. Where several tribes, as those of the Athenians and the
Spartans, coalesced into one people, it enlarged the society, but the
aggregate was simply a more complex duplicate of a tribe. The tribes took
the same place in the nation which the phratries held in the tribe, and the
gentes in the phratry. There was no name for the organism257 which was
simply a society (societas), but in its place a name sprang up for the people
or nation. In Homer’s description of the forces gathered against Troy,
specific names are given to these nations, where such existed, as Athenians,
Ætolians, Locrians; but in other cases they are described by the name of the
city or country from which they came. The ultimate fact is thus reached,
that the Greeks, prior to the times of Lycurgus and Solon, had but the four
stages of social organization (gens, phratry, tribe and nation), which was so
nearly universal in ancient society, and which has been shown to exist, in
part, in the Status of savagery, and complete in the Lower, in the Middle
and in the Upper Status of barbarism, and still subsisting after civilization
had commenced. This organic series expresses the extent of the growth of
the idea of government among mankind down to the institution of political
society. Such was the Grecian social system. It gave a society, made up of a
series of aggregates of persons, with whom the government dealt through
their personal relations to a gens, phratry or tribe. It was also a gentile
society as distinguished from a political society, from which it was
fundamentally different and easily distinguishable.
The Athenian nation of the heroic age presents in its government three
distinct, and in some sense co-ordinate, departments or powers, namely:
first, the council of chiefs (βουλή); second, the agora (ἀγορά), or assembly
of the people; and third, the basileus (βασιλεύς), or general military
commander. Although municipal and subordinate military offices in large
numbers had been created, from the increasing necessities of their
condition, the principal powers of the government were held by the three
instrumentalities named. I am unable to discuss in an adequate manner the
functions and powers of the council, the agora or the basileus, but will
content myself with a few suggestions upon subjects grave enough to
deserve reinvestigation at the hands of professed Hellenists.
I. The Council of Chiefs. The office of basileus in the Grecian tribes has
attracted far more attention than either the council or the agora. As a
consequence it has been unduly magnified while the council and the agora
have either been depreciated or ignored. We know, however, that the
council of chiefs was a constant phenomenon in every Grecian nation from
the earliest period to which our knowledge extends down to the institution
of political society. Its permanence as a feature of their social system is
conclusive evidence that its functions were substantial, and that its powers,
at least presumptively, were ultimate and supreme. This presumption arises
from what is known of the archaic character and functions of the council of
chiefs under gentile institutions, and from its vocation. How it was
constituted in the heroic age, and under what tenure the office of chief was
held, we are not clearly informed; but it is a reasonable inference that the
council was composed of the chiefs of the gentes. Since the number who
formed the council was usually less than the number of gentes, a selection
must have been made in some way from the body of chiefs. In what manner
the selection was made we are not informed. The vocation of the council as
a legislative body representing the principal gentes, and its natural growth
under the gentile organization, rendered it supreme in the first instance, and
makes it probable that it remained so to the end of its existence. The
increasing importance of the office of basileus, and the new offices created
in their military and municipal affairs with their increase in numbers and in
wealth, would change somewhat the relations of the council to public
affairs, and perhaps diminish its importance; but it could not be overthrown
without a radical change of institutions. It seems probable, therefore, that
every office of the government, from the highest to the lowest, remained
accountable to the council for their official acts. The council was
fundamental in their social system;258 and the Greeks of the period were
free self-governing peoples, under institutions essentially democratical. A
single illustration of the existence of the council may be given from
Aeschylus, simply to show that in the Greek conception it was always
present and ready to act. In The Seven against Thebes, Eteocles is
represented in command of the city, and his brother Polynices as one of the
seven chiefs who had invested the place. The assault was repelled, but the
brothers fell in a personal combat at one of the gates. After this occurrence
a herald says: “It is necessary for me to announce the decree and good
pleasure of the councilors of the people of this city of Cadmus. It is
resolved,”259 etc. A council which can make and promulgate a decree at any
moment, which the people are expected to obey, possesses the supreme
powers of government. Aeschylus, although dealing in this case with events
in the legendary period, recognizes the council of chiefs as a necessary part
of the system of government of every Grecian people. The boulê of ancient
Grecian society was the prototype and pattern of the senate under the
subsequent political system of the state.
II. The Agora. Although an assembly of the people became established in
the legendary period, with a recognized power to adopt or reject public
measures submitted by the council, it is not as ancient as the council. The
latter came in at the institution of the gentes; but it is doubtful whether the
agora existed, with the functions named, back of the Upper Status of
barbarism. It has been shown that among the Iroquois, in the Lower Status,
the people presented their wishes to the council of chiefs through orators of
their own selection, and that a popular influence was felt in the affairs of the
confederacy; but an assembly of the people, with the right to adopt or reject
public measures, would evince an amount of progress in intelligence and
knowledge beyond the Iroquois. When the agora first appears, as
represented in Homer, and in the Greek Tragedies, it had the same
characteristics which it afterwards maintained in the ecclesia of the
Athenians, and in the comitia curiata of the Romans. It was the prerogative
of the council of chiefs to mature public measures, and then submit them to
the assembly of the people for acceptance or rejection, and their decision
was final. The functions of the agora were limited to this single act. It could
neither originate measures, nor interfere in the administration of affairs; but
nevertheless it was a substantial power, eminently adapted to the protection
of their liberties. In the heroic age certainly, and far back in the legendary
period, the agora is a constant phenomenon among the Grecian tribes, and,
in connection with the council, is conclusive evidence of the democratical
constitution of gentile society throughout these periods. A public sentiment,
as we have reason to suppose, was created among the people on all
important questions, through the exercise of their intelligence, which the
council of chiefs found it desirable as well as necessary to consult, both for
the public good and for the maintenance of their own authority. After
hearing the submitted question discussed, the assembly of the people, which
was free to all who desired to speak,260 made their decision in ancient times
usually by a show of hands.261 Through participation in public affairs,
which affected the interests of all, the people were constantly learning the
art of self-government, and a portion of them, as the Athenians, were
preparing themselves for the full democracy subsequently established by
the constitutions of Cleisthenes. The assembly of the people to deliberate
upon public questions, not unfrequently derided as a mob by writers who
were unable to understand or appreciate the principle of democracy, was the
germ of the ecclesia (ἐκκλησία) of the Athenians, and of the lower house of
modern legislative bodies.
III. The Basileus. This officer became a conspicuous character in the
Grecian society of the heroic age, and was equally prominent in the
legendary period. He has been placed by historians in the centre of the
system. The name of the office (βασιλεύς) was used by the best Grecian
writers to characterize the government, which was styled a basileia
(βᾶσίλειᾶ). Modern writers, almost without exception, translate basileus by
the term king, and basileia by the term kingdom, without qualification, and
as exact equivalents. I wish to call attention to this office of basileus, as it
existed in the Grecian tribes, and to question the correctness of this
interpretation. There is no similarity whatever between the basileia of the
ancient Athenians and the modern kingdom or monarchy; certainly not
enough to justify the use of the same term to describe both. Our idea of a
kingly government is essentially of a type in which a king, surrounded by a
privileged and titled class in the ownership and possession of the lands,
rules according to his own will and pleasure by edicts and decrees; claiming
an hereditary right to rule, because he cannot allege the consent of the
governed. Such governments have been self-imposed through the principle
of hereditary right, to which the priesthood have sought to superadd a
divine right. The Tudor kings of England and the Bourbon kings of France
are illustrations. Constitutional monarchy is a modern development, and
essentially different from the basileia of the Greeks. The basileia was
neither an absolute nor a constitutional monarchy; neither was it a tyranny
or a despotism. The question then is, what was it.
Mr. Grote claims that “the primitive Grecian government is essentially
monarchical, reposing on personal feeling and divine right;”262 and to
confirm this view he remarks further, that “the memorable dictum in the
Iliad is borne out by all that we hear in actual practice: ‘the rule of many is
not a good thing; let us have one ruler only—one king—him to whom Zeus
has given the sceptre, with the tutelary sanctions.’”263 This opinion is not
peculiar to Mr. Grote, whose eminence as a historian all delight to
recognize; but it has been steadily and generally affirmed by historical
writers on Grecian themes, until it has come to be accepted as historical
truth. Our views upon Grecian and Roman questions have been moulded by
writers accustomed to monarchical government and privileged classes, who
were perhaps glad to appeal to the earliest known governments of the
Grecian tribes for a sanction of this form of government, as at once natural,
essential and primitive.
The true statement, as it seems to an American, is precisely the reverse of
Mr. Grote’s; namely, that the primitive Grecian government was essentially
democratical, reposing on gentes, phratries and tribes, organized as self-
governing bodies, and on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
This is borne out by all we know of the gentile organization, which has
been shown to rest on principles essentially democratical. The question then
is, whether the office of basileus passed in reality from father to son by
hereditary right; which, if true, would tend to show a subversion of these
principles. We have seen that in the Lower Status of barbarism the office of
chief was hereditary in a gens, by which is meant that the vacancy was
filled from the members of the gens as often as it occurred. Where descent
was in the female line, as among the Iroquois, an own brother was usually
selected to succeed the deceased chief, and where descent was in the male
line, as among the Ojibwas and Omahas, the oldest son. In the absence of
objections to the person such became the rule; but the elective principle
remained, which was the essence of self-government. It cannot be claimed,
on satisfactory proof, that the oldest son of the basileus took the office,
upon the demise of his father, by absolute hereditary right. This is the
essential fact; and it requires conclusive proof for its establishment. The
fact that the oldest, or one of the sons, usually succeeded, which is
admitted, does not establish the fact in question; because by usage he was in
the probable line of succession by a free election from a constituency. The
presumption, on the face of Grecian institutions, is against succession to the
office of basileus by hereditary right; and in favor either of a free election,
or of a confirmation of the office by the people through their recognized
organizations, as in the case of the Roman rex.264 With the office of
basileus transmitted in the manner last named, the government would
remain in the hands of the people. Because without an election or
confirmation he could not assume the office; and because further, the power
to elect or confirm implies the reserved right to depose.
The illustration of Mr. Grote, drawn from the Iliad, is without significance
on the question made. Ulysses, from whose address the quotation is taken,
was speaking of the command of an army before a besieged city. He might
well say: “All the Greeks cannot by any means rule here. The rule of many
is not a good thing. Let us have one koiranos, one basileus, to whom Zeus
has given the sceptre, and the divine sanctions in order that he may
command us.”265 Koiranos and basileus are used as equivalents, because
both alike signified a general military commander. There was no occasion
for Ulysses to discuss or endorse any plan of government; but he had
sufficient reasons for advocating obedience to a single commander of the
army before a besieged city.
Basileia may be defined as a military democracy, the people being free, and
the spirit of the government, which is the essential thing, being
democratical. The basileus was their general, holding the highest, the most
influential and the most important office known to their social system. For
the want of a better term to describe the government, basileia was adopted
by Grecian writers, because it carried the idea of a generalship which had
then become a conspicuous feature in the government. With the council and
the agora both existing with the basileus, if a more special definition of this
form of government is required, military democracy expresses it with at
least reasonable correctness; while the use of the term kingdom, with the
meaning it necessarily conveys, would be a misnomer.
In the heroic age the Grecian tribes were living in walled cities, and were
becoming numerous and wealthy through field agriculture, manufacturing
industries, and flocks and herds. New offices were required, as well as some
degree of separation of their functions; and a new municipal system was
growing up apace with their increasing intelligence and necessities. It was
also a period of incessant military strife for the possession of the most
desirable areas. Along with the increase of property the aristocratic element
in society undoubtedly increased, and was the chief cause of those
disturbances which prevailed in Athenian society from the time of Theseus
to the times of Solon and Cleisthenes. During this period, and until the final
abolition of the office some time before the first Olympiad, (776 B. C.) the
basileus, from the character of his office and from the state of the times,
became more prominent and more powerful than any single person in their
previous experience. The functions of a priest and of a judge were attached
to or inherent in his office; and he seems to have been ex officio a member
of the council of chiefs. It was a great as well as a necessary office, with the
powers of a general over the army in the field, and over the garrison in the
city, which gave him the means of acquiring influence in civil affairs as
well. But it does not appear that he possessed civil functions. Prof. Mason
remarks, that “our information respecting the Grecian kings in the more
historical age is not ample or minute enough to enable us to draw out a
detailed scheme of their functions.”266 The military and priestly functions
of the basileus are tolerably well understood, the judicial imperfectly, and
the civil functions cannot properly be said to have existed. The powers of
such an office under gentile institutions would gradually become defined by
the usage of experience, but with a constant tendency in the basileus to
assume new ones dangerous to society. Since the council of chiefs remained
as a constituent element of the government, it may be said to have
represented the democratic principles of their social system, as well as the
gentes, while the basileus soon came to represent the aristocratic principle.
It is probable that a perpetual struggle was maintained between the council
and the basileus, to hold the latter within the limits of powers the people
were willing to concede to the office. Moreover, the abolition of the office
by the Athenians makes it probable that they found the office
unmanageable, and incompatible with gentile institutions, from the
tendency to usurp additional powers.
Among the Spartan tribes the ephoralty was instituted at a very early period
to limit the powers of the basileis in consequence of a similar experience.
Although the functions of the council in the Homeric and the legendary
periods are not accurately known, its constant presence is evidence
sufficient that its powers were real, essential and permanent. With the
simultaneous existence of the agora, and in the absence of proof of a change
of institutions, we are led to the conclusion that the council, under
established usages, was supreme over gentes, phratries, tribes and nation,
and that the basileus was amenable to this council for his official acts. The
freedom of the gentes, of whom the members of the council were
representatives, presupposes the independence of the council, as well as its
supremacy.
Thucydides refers incidentally to the governments of the traditionary
period, as follows: “Now when the Greeks were becoming more powerful,
and acquiring possession of property still more than before, many tyrannies
were established in the cities, from their revenues becoming greater;
whereas before there had been hereditary basileia with specified powers.”
(πρότερον δὲ ἦσαν ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς γέρασι πατρικαὶ βασιλεῖαι)267 The office was
hereditary in the sense of perpetual because it was filled as often as a
vacancy occurred, but probably hereditary in a gens, the choice being by a
free election by his gennêtes, or by nomination possibly by the council, and
confirmation of the gentes, as in the case of the rex of the Romans.
Aristotle has given the most satisfactory definition of the basileia and of the
basileus of the heroic period of any of the Grecian writers. These then are
the four kinds of basileia he remarks: the first is that of the heroic times,
which was a government over a free people, with restricted rights in some
particulars; for the basileus was their general, their judge and their chief
priest. The second, that of the barbarians, which is an hereditary despotic
government, regulated by laws; the third is that which they call Aesymnetic,
which is an elective tyranny. The fourth is the Lacedaemonian, which is
nothing more than an hereditary generalship.268 Whatever may be said of
the last three forms, the first does not answer to the idea of a kingdom of the
absolute type, nor to any recognizable form of monarchy. Aristotle
enumerates with striking clearness the principal functions of the basileus,
neither of which imply civil powers, and all of which are consistent with an
office for life, held by an elective tenure. They are also consistent with his
entire subordination to the council of chiefs. The “restricted rights,” and the
“specified powers” in the definitions of these authors, tend to show that the
government had grown into this form in harmony with, as well as under,
gentile institutions. The essential element in the definition of Aristotle is the
freedom of the people, which in ancient society implies that the people held
the powers of the government under their control, that the office of basileus
was voluntarily bestowed, and that it could be recalled for sufficient cause.
Such a government as that described by Aristotle can be understood as a
military democracy, which, as a form of government under free institutions,
grew naturally out of the gentile organization when the military spirit was
dominant, when wealth and numbers appeared, with habitual life in fortified
cities, and before experience had prepared the way for a pure democracy.
Under gentile institutions, with a people composed of gentes, phratries and
tribes, each organized as independent self-governing bodies, the people
would necessarily be free. The rule of a king by hereditary right and
without direct accountability in such a society was simply impossible. The
impossibility arises from the fact that gentile institutions are incompatible
with a king or with a kingly government. It would require, what I think
cannot be furnished, positive proof of absolute hereditary right in the office
of basileus, with the presence of civil functions, to overcome the
presumption which arises from the structure and principles of ancient
Grecian society. An Englishman, under his constitutional monarchy, is as
free as an American under the republic, and his rights and liberties are as
well protected; but he owes that freedom and protection to a body of written
laws, created by legislation and enforced by courts of justice. In ancient
Grecian society, usages and customs supplied the place of written laws, and
the person depended for his freedom and protection upon the institutions of
his social system. His safeguard was pre-eminently in such institutions as
the elective tenure of office implies.
The reges of the Romans were, in like manner, military commanders, with
priestly functions attached to their office; and this so-called kingly
government falls into the same category of a military democracy. The rex,
as before stated, was nominated by the senate, and confirmed by the comitia
curiata; and the last of the number was deposed. With his deposition the
office was abolished, as incompatible with what remained of the democratic
principle, after the institution of Roman political society.
The nearest analogues of kingdoms among the Grecian tribes were the
tyrannies, which sprang up here and there, in the early period, in different
parts of Greece. They were governments imposed by force, and the power
claimed was no greater than that of the feudal kings of mediæval times. A
transmission of the office from father to son through a few generations in
order to superadd hereditary right was needed to complete the analogy. But
such governments were so inconsistent with Grecian ideas, and so alien to
their democratic institutions, that none of them obtained a permanent
footing in Greece. Mr. Grote remarks that “if any energetic man could by
audacity or craft break down the constitution and render himself permanent
ruler according to his own will and pleasure—even though he might rule
well—he could never inspire the people with any sentiment of duty towards
him. His sceptre was illegitimate from the beginning, and even the taking of
his life, far from being interdicted by that moral feeling which condemned
the shedder of blood in other cases, was considered meritorious.”269 It was
not so much the illegitimate sceptre which aroused the hostility of the
Greeks, as the antagonism of democratical with monarchical ideas, the
former of which were inherited from the gentes.
When the Athenians established the new political system, founded upon
territory and upon property, the government was a pure democracy. It was
no new theory, or special invention of the Athenian mind, but an old and
familiar system, with an antiquity as great as that of the gentes themselves.
Democratic ideas had existed in the knowledge and practice of their
forefathers from time immemorial, and now found expression in a more
elaborate, and, in many respects, in an improved government. The false
element, that of aristocracy, which had penetrated the system and created
much of the strife in the transitional period connected itself with the office
of basileus, and remained after this office was abolished; but the new
system accomplished its overthrow. More successfully than the remaining
Grecian tribes, the Athenians were able to carry forward their ideas of
government to their logical results. It is one reason why they became, for
their numbers, the most distinguished, the most intellectual and the most
accomplished race of men the entire human family has yet produced. In
purely intellectual achievements they are still the astonishment of mankind.
It was because the ideas which had been germinating through the previous
ethnical period, and which had become interwoven with every fibre of their
brains, had found a happy fruition in a democratically constituted state.
Under its life-giving impulses their highest mental development occurred.
The plan of government instituted by Cleisthenes rejected the office of a
chief executive magistrate, while it retained the council of chiefs in an
elective senate, and the agora in the popular assembly. It is evident that the
council, the agora and the basileus of the gentes were the germs of the
senate, the popular assembly, and the chief executive magistrate (king,
emperor and president) of modern political society. The latter office sprang
from the military necessities of organized society, and its development with
the upward progress of mankind is instructive. It can be traced from the
common war-chief, first to the Great War Soldier, as in the Iroquois
Confederacy; secondly, to the same military commander in a confederacy of
tribes more advanced, with the functions of a priest attached to the office, as
the Teuctli of the Aztec Confederacy; thirdly, to the same military
commander in a nation formed by a coalescence of tribes, with the
functions of a priest and of a judge attached to the office, as in the basileus
of the Greeks; and finally, to the chief magistrate in modern political
society. The elective archon of the Athenians, who succeeded the basileus,
and the president of modern republics, from the elective tenure of the office,
were the natural outcome of gentilism. We are indebted to the experience of
barbarians for instituting and developing the three principal
instrumentalities of government now so generally incorporated in the plan
of government in civilized states. The human mind, specifically the same in
all individuals in all the tribes and nations of mankind, and limited in the
range of its powers, works and must work, in the same uniform channels,
and within narrow limits of variation. Its results in disconnected regions of
space, and in widely separated ages of time, articulate in a logically
connected chain of common experiences. In the grand aggregate may still
be recognized the few primary germs of thought, working upon primary
human necessities, which, through the natural process of development, have
produced such vast results.
CHAPTER X. - THE INSTITUTION OF GRECIAN POLITICAL
SOCIETY.
F G B G .—L T .—A
S C .—I F .—A O B .—T
A .—N T .—L S .—T P C .—
P T C P G C .—P U
G .—M C .—T S .—T E .—P S P
A .—L C .—I O P S .—T A D
T .—I O P .—I L S - .—T L
T D .—T A C .—A D .

The several Grecian communities passed through a substantially similar

experience in transferring themselves from gentile into political society; but
the mode of transition can be best illustrated from Athenian history, because
the facts with respect to the Athenians are more fully preserved. A bare
outline of the material events will answer the object in view, as it is not
proposed to follow the growth of the idea of government beyond the
inauguration of the new political system.
It is evident that the failure of gentile institutions to meet the now
complicated wants of society originated the movement to withdraw all civil
powers from the gentes, phratries and tribes, and re-invest them in new
constituencies. This movement was gradual, extending through a long
period of time, and was embodied in a series of successive experiments by
means of which a remedy was sought for existing evils. The coming in of
the new system was as gradual as the going out of the old, the two for a part
of the time existing side by side. In the character and objects of the
experiments tried we may discover wherein the gentile organization had
failed to meet the requirements of society, the necessity for the subversion
of the gentes, phratries and tribes as sources of power, and the means by
which it was accomplished.
Looking backward upon the line of human progress, it may be remarked
that the stockaded village was the usual home of the tribe in the Lower
Status of barbarism. In the Middle Status joint-tenement houses of adobe-
bricks and of stone, in the nature of fortresses, make their appearance. But
in the Upper Status, cities surrounded with ring embankments, and finally
with walls of dressed stone, appear for the first time in human experience. It
was a great step forward when the thought found expression in action of
surrounding an area ample for a considerable population with a defensive
wall of dressed stone, with towers, parapets and gates, designed to protect
all alike and to be defended by the common strength. Cities of this grade
imply the existence of a stable and developed field agriculture, the
possession of domestic animals in flocks and herds, of merchandise in
masses and of property in houses and lands. The city brought with it new
demands in the art of government by creating a changed condition of
society. A necessity gradually arose for magistrates and judges, military and
municipal officers of different grades, with a mode of raising and
supporting military levies which would require public revenues. Municipal
life and wants must have greatly augmented the duties and responsibilities
of the council of chiefs, and perhaps have overtaxed its capacity to govern.
It has been shown that in the Lower Status of barbarism the government
was of one power, the council of chiefs; that in the Middle Status it was of
two powers, the council of chiefs and the military commander; and that in
the Upper Status it was of three powers, the council of chiefs, the assembly
of the people and the military commander. But after the commencement of
civilization, the differentiation of the powers of the government had
proceeded still further. The military power, first devolved upon the basileus,
was now exercised by generals and captains under greater restrictions. By a
further differentiation the judicial power had now appeared among the
Athenians. It was exercised by the archons and dicasts. Magisterial powers
were now being devolved upon municipal magistrates. Step by step, and
with the progress of experience and advancement, these several powers had
been taken by differentiation from the sum of the powers of the original
council of chiefs, so far as they could be said to have passed from the
people into this council as a representative body.
The creation of these municipal offices was a necessary consequence of the
increasing magnitude and complexity of their affairs. Under the increased
burden gentile institutions were breaking down. Unnumbered disorders
existed, both from the conflict of authority, and from the abuse of powers
not as yet well defined. The brief and masterly sketch by Thucydides of the
condition of the Grecian tribes in the transitional period,270 and the
concurrent testimony of other writers to the same effect, leave no doubt that
the old system of government was failing, and that a new one had become
essential to further progress. A wider distribution of the powers of the
government, a clearer definition of them, and a stricter accountability of
official persons were needed for the welfare as well as safety of society; and
more especially the substitution of written laws, enacted by competent
authority, in the place of usages and customs. It was through the
experimental knowledge gained in this and the previous ethnical period that
the idea of political society or a state was gradually forming in the Grecian
mind. It was a growth running through centuries of time, from the first
appearance of a necessity for a change in the plan of government, before the
entire result was realized.
The first attempt among the Athenians to subvert the gentile organization
and establish a new system is ascribed to Theseus, and therefore rests upon
tradition; but certain facts remained to the historical period which confirm
some part at least of his supposed legislation. It will be sufficient to regard
Theseus as representing a period, or a series of events. From the time of
Cecrops to Theseus, according to Thucydides, the
Attic people had always lived in cities, having their own prytaneums and
archons, and when not in fear of danger did not consult their basileus, but
governed their own affairs separately according to their own councils. But
when Theseus was made basileus, he persuaded them to break up the
council-houses and magistracies of their several cities and come into
relation with Athens, with one council-house (βουλευτήριος), and one
prytaneum (πρυτανεῖον), to which all were considered as belonging.271 This
statement embodies or implies a number of important facts, namely; that the
Attic population were organized in independent tribes, each having its own
territory in which the people were localized, with its own council-house and
prytaneum; and that while they were self-governing societies they were
probably confederated for mutual protection, and elected their basileus or
general to command their common forces. It is a picture of communities
democratically organized, needing a military commander as a necessity of
their condition, but not invested with civil functions which their gentile
system excluded. Under Theseus they were brought to coalesce into one
people, with Athens as their seat of government, which gave them a higher
organization than before they had been able to form. The coalescence of
tribes into a nation in one territory is later in time than confederations,
where the tribes occupy independent territories. It is a higher organic
process. While the gentes had always been intermingled by marriage, the
tribes were now intermingled by obliterating territorial lines, and by the use
of a common council-hall and prytaneum. The act ascribed to Theseus
explains the advancement of their gentile society from a lower to a higher
organic form, which must have occurred at some time, and probably was
effected in the manner stated.
But another act is ascribed to Theseus evincing a more radical plan, as well
as an appreciation of the necessity for a fundamental change in the plan of
government. He divided the people into three classes, irrespective of gentes,
called respectively the Eupatridæ or “well-born,” the Geomori or
“husbandmen,” and the Demiurgi or “artisans.” The principal offices were
assigned to the first class both in the civil administration and in the
priesthood. This classification was not only a recognition of property and of
the aristocratic element in the government of society, but it was a direct
movement against the governing power of the gentes. It was the evident
intention to unite the chiefs of the gentes with their families, and the men of
wealth in the several gentes, in a class by themselves, with the right to hold
the principal offices in which the powers of society were vested. The
separation of the remainder into two great classes traversed the gentes
again. Important results might have followed if the voting power had been
taken from the gentes, phratries and tribes, and given to the classes, subject
to the right of the first to hold the principal offices. This does not appear to
have been done, although absolutely necessary to give vitality to the
classes. Moreover, it did not change essentially the previous order of things
with respect to holding office. Those now called Eupatrids were probably
the men of the several gentes who had previously been called into office.
This scheme of Theseus died out, because there was in reality no transfer of
powers from the gentes, phratries and tribes to the classes, and because such
classes were inferior to the gentes as the basis of a system.
The centuries that elapsed from the unknown time of Theseus to the
legislation of Solon (594 B. C.) formed one of the most important periods in
Athenian experience; but the succession of events is imperfectly known.
The office of basileus was abolished prior to the first Olympiad (776 B. C.),
and the archonship established in its place. The latter seems to have been
hereditary in a gens, and it is stated to have been hereditary in a particular
family within the gens, the first twelve archons being called the Medontidæ,
from Medon, the first archon, claimed to have been the son of Codrus, the
last basileus. In the case of these archons, who held for life, the same
question exists which has elsewhere been raised with respect to the
basileus; that an election or confirmation by a constituency was necessary
before the office could be assumed. The presumption is against the
transmission of the office by hereditary right. In 711 B. C. the office of
archon was limited to ten years, and bestowed by free election upon the
person esteemed most worthy of the position. We are now within the
historical period, though near its threshold, where we meet the elective
principle with respect to the highest office in the gift of the people clearly
and completely established. It is precisely what would have been expected
from the constitution and principles of the gentes, although the aristocratical
principle, as we must suppose, had increased in force with the increase of
property, and was the source through which hereditary right was introduced
wherever found. The existence of the elective principle with respect to the
later archons is not without significance in its relation to the question of the
previous practice of the Athenians. In 683 B. C. the office was made
elective annually, the number was increased to nine, and their duties were
made ministerial and judicial.272 We may notice, in these events, evidence
of a gradual progress in knowledge with respect to the tenure of office. The
Athenian tribes had inherited from their remote ancestors the office of
archon (ἀρχός) as chief of the gens. It was hereditary in the gens, as may
fairly be supposed, and elective among its members. After descent was
changed to the male line the sons of the deceased chief were within the line
of succession, and one of their number would be apt to be chosen in the
absence of personal objections. But now they reverted to this original office
for the name of their highest magistrate, made it elective irrespective of any
gens, and limited its duration, first to ten years, and finally to one. Prior to
this, the tenure of office to which they had been accustomed was for life. In
the Lower and also in the Middle Status of barbarism we have found the
office of chief, elective and for life; or during good behavior, for this
limitation follows from the right of the gens to depose from office. It is a
reasonable inference that the office of chief in a Grecian gens was held by a
free election and by the same tenure. It must be regarded as proof of a
remarkable advancement in knowledge at this early period that the
Athenian tribes substituted a term of years for their most important office,
and allowed a competition of candidates. They thus worked out the entire
theory of an elective and representative office, and placed it upon its true
basis.
In the time of Solon, it may be further noticed, the Court of Areopagus,
composed of ex-archons, had come into existence with power to try
criminals and with a censorship over morals, together with a number of new
offices in the military, naval and administrative services. But the most
important event that occurred about this time was the institution of the
naucraries (ναυκραρίαι), twelve in each tribe, and forty-eight in all; each of
which was a local circumscription of householders from which levies were
drawn into the military and naval service, and from which taxes were
probably collected. The naucrary was the incipient deme or township
which, when the idea of a territorial basis was fully developed, was to
become the foundation of the second great plan of government. By whom
the naucraries were instituted is unknown. “They must have existed even
before the time of Solon,” Boeckh remarks, “since the presiding officers of
the naucraries (πρυτάνεις τῶν ναυκράρων) are mentioned before the time of
his legislation; and when Aristotle ascribes their institution to Solon, we
may refer this account only to their confirmation by the political
constitution of Solon.”273 Twelve naucraries formed a trittys (τριττύς) a
larger territorial circumscription, but they were not necessarily contiguous.
It was, in like manner, the germ of the county, the next territorial aggregate
above the township.
Notwithstanding the great changes that had occurred in the instrumentalities
by which the government was administered, the people were still in a
gentile society, and living under gentile institutions. The gens, phratry and
tribe were in full vitality, and the recognized sources of power. Before the
time of Solon no person could become a member of this society except
through connection with a gens and tribe. All other persons were beyond
the pale of the government. The council of chiefs remained, the old and
time-honored instrument of government; but the powers of the government
were now coordinated between itself, the agora or assembly of the people,
the Court of Areopagus, and the nine archons. It was the prerogative of the
council to originate and mature public measures for submission to the
people, which enabled it to shape the policy of the government. It doubtless
had the general administration of the finances, and it remained to the end, as
it had been from the beginning, the central feature of the government. The
assembly of the people had now come into increased prominence. Its
functions were still limited to the adoption or rejection of public measures
submitted to its decision by the council; but it began to exercise a powerful
influence upon public affairs. The rise of this assembly as a power in the
government is the surest evidence of the progress of the Athenian people in
knowledge and intelligence. Unfortunately the functions and powers of the
council of chiefs and of the assembly of the people in this early period have
been imperfectly preserved, and but partially elucidated.
In 624 B. C. Draco had framed a body of laws for the Athenians which
were chiefly remarkable for their unnecessary severity; but this code
demonstrated that the time was drawing near in Grecian experience when
usages and customs were to be superseded by written laws. As yet the
Athenians had not learned the art of enacting laws as the necessity for them
appeared, which required a higher knowledge of the functions of legislative
bodies than they had attained. They were in that stage in which lawgivers
appear, and legislation is in a scheme or in gross, under the sanction of a
personal name. Thus slowly the great sequences of human progress unfold
themselves.
When Solon came into the archonship (594 B. C.) the evils prevalent in
society had reached an unbearable degree. The struggle for the possession
of property, now a commanding interest, had produced singular results. A
portion of the Athenians had fallen into slavery, through debt,—the person
of the debtor being liable to enslavement in default of payment; others had
mortgaged their lands and were unable to remove the encumbrances; and as
a consequence of these and other embarrassments society was devouring
itself. In addition to a body of laws, some of them novel, but corrective of
the principal financial difficulties, Solon renewed the project of Theseus of
organizing society into classes, not according to callings as before, but
according to the amount of their property. It is instructive to follow the
course of these experiments to supersede the gentes and substitute a new
system, because we shall find the Roman tribes, in the time of Servius
Tullius, trying the same experiment for the same purpose. Solon divided the
people into four classes according to the measure of their wealth, and going
beyond Theseus, he invested these classes with certain powers, and
imposed upon them certain obligations. It transferred a portion of the civil
powers of the gentes, phratries and tribes to the property classes. In
proportion as the substance of power was drawn from the former and
invested in the latter, the gentes would be weakened and their decadence
would commence. But so far as classes composed of persons were
substituted for gentes composed of persons, the government was still
founded upon person, and upon relations purely personal. The scheme
failed to reach the substance of the question. Moreover, in changing the
council of chiefs into the senate of four hundred, the members were taken in
equal numbers from the four tribes, and not from the classes. But it will be
noticed that the idea of property, as the basis of a system of government,
was now incorporated by Solon in the new plan of property classes. It
failed, however, to reach the idea of political society, which must rest upon
territory as well as property, and deal with persons through their territorial
relations. The first class alone were eligible to the high offices, the second
performed military service on horseback, the third as infantry, and the
fourth as light-armed soldiers. This last class were the numerical majority.
They were disqualified from holding office, and paid no taxes; but in the
popular assembly of which they were members, they possessed a vote upon
the election of all magistrates and officers, with power to bring them to an
account. They also had power to adopt or reject all public measures
submitted by the senate to their decision. Under the constitution of Solon
their powers were real and durable, and their influence upon public affairs
was permanent and substantial. All freemen, though not connected with a
gens and tribe, were now brought into the government, to a certain extent,
by becoming citizens and members of the assembly of the people with the
powers named. This was one of the most important results of the legislation
of Solon.
It will be further noticed that the people were now organized as an army,
consisting of three divisions; the cavalry, the heavy-armed infantry, and the
light-armed infantry, each with its own officers of different grades. The
form of the statement limits the array to the last three classes, which leaves
the first class in the unpatriotic position of appropriating to themselves the
principal offices of the government, and taking no part in the military
service. This undoubtedly requires modification. The same plan of
organization, but including the five classes, will re-appear among the
Romans under Servius Tullius, by whom the body of the people were
organized as an army (exercitus) fully officered and equipped in each
subdivision. The idea of a military democracy, different in organization but
the same theoretically as that of the previous period, re-appears in a new
dress both in the Solonian and in the Servian constitution.
In addition to the property element, which entered into the basis of the new
system, the territorial element was partially incorporated through the
naucraries before adverted to, in which it is probable there was an
enrollment of citizens and of their property to form a basis for military
levies and for taxation. These provisions, with the senate, the popular
assembly now called the ecclesia, the nine archons, and the Court of
Areopagus, gave to the Athenians a much more elaborate government than
they had before known, and requiring a higher degree of intelligence for its
management. It was also essentially democratical in harmony with their
antecedent ideas and institutions; in fact a logical consequence of them, and
explainable only as such. But it fell short of a pure system in three respects:
firstly, it was not founded upon territory; secondly, all the dignities of the
state were not open to every citizen; and thirdly, the principle of local self-
government in primary organizations was unknown, except as it may have
existed imperfectly in the naucraries. The gentes, phratries and tribes still
remained in full vitality, but with diminished powers. It was a transitional
condition, requiring further experience to develop the theory of a political
system toward which it was a great advance. Thus slowly but steadily
human institutions are evolved from lower into higher forms, through the
logical operations of the human mind working in uniform but
predetermined channels.
There was one weighty reason for the overthrow of the gentes and the
substitution of a new plan of government. It was probably recognized by
Theseus, and undoubtedly by Solon. From the disturbed condition of the
Grecian tribes and the unavoidable movements of the people in the
traditionary period and in the times prior to Solon, many persons transferred
themselves from one nation to another, and thus lost their connection with
their own gens without acquiring a connection with another. This would
repeat itself from time to time, through personal adventure, the spirit of
trade, and the exigencies of warfare, until a considerable number with their
posterity would be developed in every tribe unconnected with any gens. All
such persons, as before remarked, would be without the pale of the
government with which there could be no connection excepting through a
gens and tribe. The fact is noticed by Mr. Grote. “The phratries and gentes,”
he remarks, “probably never at any time included the whole population of
the country—and the population not included in them tended to become
larger and larger in the times anterior to Kleisthenes, as well as
afterwards.”274 As early as the time of Lycurgus there was a considerable
immigration into Greece from the islands of the Mediterranean, and from
the Ionian cities of its eastern coasts, which increased the number of
persons unattached to any gens. When they came in families they would
bring a fragment of a new gens with them; but they would remain aliens
unless the new gens was admitted into a tribe. This probably occurred in a
number of cases, and it may assist in explaining the unusual number of
gentes in Greece. The gentes and phratries were close corporations, both of
which would have been adulterated by the absorption of these aliens
through adoption into a native gens. Persons of distinction might be adopted
into some gens, or secure the admission of their own gens into some tribe;
but the poorer class would be refused either privilege. There can be no
doubt that as far back as the time of Theseus, and more especially in the
time of Solon, the number of the unattached class, exclusive of the slaves,
had become large. Having neither gens nor phratry they were also without
direct religious privileges, which were inherent and exclusive in these
organizations. It is not difficult to see in this class of persons a growing
element of discontent dangerous to the security of society.
The schemes of Theseus and of Solon made imperfect provision for their
admission to citizenship through the classes; but as the gentes and phratries
remained from which they were excluded, the remedy was still incomplete.
Mr. Grote further remarks, that “it is not easy to make out distinctly what
was the political position of the ancient Gentes and Phratries, as Solon left
them. The four tribes consisted altogether of gentes and phratries, insomuch
that no one could be included in any one of the tribes who was not also a
member of some gens and phratry. Now the new probouleutic or pre-
considering senate consisted of 400 members,—100 from each of the tribes:
persons not included in any gens and phratry could therefore have had no
access to it. The conditions of eligibility were similar, according to ancient
custom, for the nine archons—of course, also, for the senate of Areopagus.
So that there remained only the public assembly, in which an Athenian, not
a member of these tribes, could take part: yet he was a citizen, since he
could give his vote for archons and senators, and could take part in the
annual decision of their accountability, besides being entitled to claim
redress for wrong from the archons in his own person—while the alien
could only do so through the intervention of an avouching citizen, or
Prostatês. It seems therefore that all persons not included in the four tribes,
whatever their grade or fortune might be, were on the same level in respect
to political privilege as the fourth and poorest class of the Solonian census.
It has already been remarked, that even before the time of Solon, the
number of Athenians not included in the gentes or phratries was probably
considerable: it tended to become greater and greater, since these bodies
were close and unexpansive, while the policy of the new lawgiver tended to
invite industrious settlers from other parts of Greece to Athens.”275 The
Roman Plebeians originated from causes precisely similar. They were not
members of any gens, and therefore formed no part of the Populus
Romanus. We may find in the facts stated one of the reasons of the failure
of the gentile organization to meet the requirements of society. In the time
of Solon, society had outgrown their ability to govern, its affairs had
advanced so far beyond the condition in which the gentes originated. They
furnished a basis too narrow for a state, up to the measure of which the
people had grown.
There was also an increasing difficulty in keeping the members of a gens,
phratry and tribe locally together. As parts of a governmental organic series,
this fact of localization was highly necessary. In the earlier period, the gens
held its lands in common, the phratries held certain lands in common for
religious uses, and the tribe probably held other lands in common. When
they established themselves in country or city, they settled locally together
by gentes, by phratries and by tribes, as a consequence of their social
organization. Each gens was in the main by itself—not all of its members,
for two gentes were represented in every family, but the body who
propagated the gens. Those gentes belonging to the same phratry naturally
sought contiguous or at least near areas, and the same with the several
phratries of the tribe. But in the time of Solon, lands and houses had come
to be owned by individuals in severalty, with power of alienation as to
lands, but not of houses out of the gens. It doubtless became more and more
impossible to keep the members of a gens locally together, from the shifting
relations of persons to land, and from the creation of new property by its
members in other localities. The unit of their social system was becoming
unstable in place, and also in character. Without stopping to develop this
fact of their condition further, it must have proved one of the reasons of the
failure of the old plan of government. The township, with its fixed property
and its inhabitants for the time being, yielded that element of permanence
now wanting in the gens. Society had made immense progress from its
former condition of extreme simplicity. It was very different from that
which the gentile organization was instituted to govern. Nothing but the
unsettled condition and incessant warfare of the Athenian tribes, from their
settlement in Attica to the time of Solon, could have preserved this
organization from overthrow. After their establishment in walled cities, that
rapid development of wealth and numbers occurred which brought the
gentes to the final test, and demonstrated their inability to govern a people
now rapidly approaching civilization. But their displacement even then
required a long period of time.
The seriousness of the difficulties to be overcome in creating a political
society are strikingly illustrated in the experience of the Athenians. In the
time of Solon, Athens had already produced able men; the useful arts had
attained a very considerable development; commerce on the sea had
become a national interest; agriculture and manufactures were well
advanced; and written composition in verse had commenced. They were in
fact a civilized people, and had been for two centuries; but their institutions
of government were still gentile, and of the type prevalent throughout the
Later Period of barbarism. A great impetus had been given to the Athenian
commonwealth by the new system of Solon; nevertheless, nearly a century
elapsed, accompanied with many disorders, before the idea of a state was
fully developed in the Athenian mind. Out of the naucrary, a conception of
a township as the unit of a political system was finally elaborated; but it
required a man of the highest genius, as well as great personal influence, to
seize the idea in its fullness, and give it an organic embodiment. That man
finally appeared in Cleisthenes (509 B. C.), who must be regarded as the
first of Athenian legislators—the founder of the second great plan of human
government, that under which modern civilized nations are organized.
Cleisthenes went to the bottom of the question, and placed the Athenian
political system upon the foundation on which it remained to the close of
the independent existence of the commonwealth. He divided Attica into a
hundred demes, or townships, each circumscribed by metes and bounds,
and distinguished by a name. Every citizen was required to register himself,
and to cause an enrollment of his property in the deme in which he resided.
This enrollment was the evidence as well as the foundation of his civil
privileges. The deme displaced the naucrary. Its inhabitants were an
organized body politic with powers of local self-government, like the
modern American township. This is the vital and the remarkable feature of
the system. It reveals at once its democratic character. The government was
placed in the hands of the people in the first of the series of territorial
organizations. The demotæ elected a demarch (δήμαρχος), who had the
custody of the public register; he had also power to convene the demotæ for
the purpose of electing magistrates and judges, for revising the registry of
citizens, and for the enrollment of such as became of age during the year.
They elected a treasurer, and provided for the assessment and collection of
taxes, and for furnishing the quota of troops required of the deme for the
service of the state. They also elected thirty dicasts or judges, who tried all
causes arising in the deme where the amount involved fell below a certain
sum. Besides these powers of local self-government, which is the essence of
a democratic system, each deme had its own temple and religious worship,
and its own priest, also elected by the demotæ. Omitting minor particulars,
we find the instructive and remarkable fact that the township, as first
instituted, possessed all the powers of local self-government, and even upon
a fuller and larger scale than an American township. Freedom in religion is
also noticeable, which was placed where it rightfully belongs, under the
control of the people. All registered citizens were free, and equal in their
rights and privileges, with the exception of equal eligibility to the higher
offices. Such was the new unit of organization in Athenian political society,
at once a model for a free state, and a marvel of wisdom and knowledge.
The Athenians commenced with a democratic organization at the point
where every people must commence who desire to create a free state, and
place the control of the government in the hands of its citizens.
The second member of the organic territorial series consisted of ten demes,
united in a larger geographical district. It was called a local tribe (φῦλον
τοπικὸν), to preserve some part of the terminology of the old gentile
system.276 Each district was named after an Attic hero, and it was the
analogue of the modern county. The demes in each district were usually
contiguous, which should have been true in every instance to render the
analogy complete; but in a few cases one or more of the ten were detached,
probably in consequence of the local separation of portions of the original
consanguine tribe who desired to have their deme incorporated in the
district of their immediate kinsmen. The inhabitants of each district or
county were also a body politic, with certain powers of local self-
government. They elected a phylarch (φύλαρχος), who commanded the
cavalry; a taxiarch (ταξίαρχος), who commanded the foot-soldiers, and a
general (στρατηγός), who commanded both; and as each district was
required to furnish five triremes, they probably elected as many trierarchs
(τριήραρχος) to command them. Cleisthenes increased the senate to five
hundred, and assigned fifty to each district. They were elected by its
inhabitants. Other functions of this larger body politic doubtless existed, but
they have been imperfectly explained.
The third and last member of the territorial series was the Athenian
commonwealth or state, consisting of ten local tribes or districts. It was an
organized body politic, embracing the aggregate of Athenian citizens. It was
represented by a senate, an ecclesia, the court of Areopagus, the archons,
and judges, and the body of elected military and naval commanders.
Thus the Athenians founded the second great plan of government upon
territory and upon property. They substituted a series of territorial
aggregates in the place of an ascending series of aggregates of persons. As a
plan of government it rested upon territory which was necessarily
permanent, and upon property which was more or less localized; and it dealt
with its citizens, now localized in demes through their territorial relations.
To be a citizen of the state it was necessary to be a citizen of a deme. The
person voted and was taxed in his deme, and he was called into the military
service from his deme. In like manner he was called by election into the
senate, and to the command of a division of the army or navy from the
larger district of his local tribe. His relations to a gens or phratry ceased to
govern his duties as a citizen. The contrast between the two systems is as
marked as their difference was fundamental. A coalescence of the people
into bodies politic in territorial areas now became complete.
The territorial series enters into the plan of government of modern civilized
nations. Among ourselves, for example, we have the township, the county,
the state, and the United States; the inhabitants of each of which are an
organized body politic with powers of local self-government. Each
organization is in full vitality and performs its functions within a definite
sphere in which it is supreme. France has a similar series in the commune,
the arrondissement, the department, and the empire, now the republic. In
Great Britain the series is the parish, the shire, the kingdom, and the three
kingdoms. In the Saxon period the hundred seems to have been the
analogue of the township;277 but already emasculated of the powers of local
self-government, with the exception of the hundred court. The inhabitants
of these several areas were organized as bodies politic, but those below the
highest with very limited powers. The tendency to centralization under
monarchical institutions has atrophied, practically, all the lower
organizations.
As a consequence of the legislation of Cleisthenes, the gentes, phratries and
tribes were divested of their influence, because their powers were taken
from them and vested in the deme, the local tribe and the state, which
became from thenceforth the sources of all political power. They were not
dissolved, however, even after this overthrow, but remained for centuries as
a pedigree and lineage, and as fountains of religious life. In certain orations
of Demosthenes, where the cases involved personal or property rights,
descents or rights of sepulture, both the gens and phratry appear as living
organizations in his time.278 They were left undisturbed by the new system
so far as their connection with religious rites, with certain criminal
proceedings, and with certain social practices were concerned, which
arrested their total dissolution. The classes, however, both those instituted
by Theseus and those afterwards created by Solon, disappeared after the
time of Cleisthenes.279
Solon is usually regarded as the founder of Athenian democracy, while
some writers attribute a portion of the work to Cleisthenes and Theseus. We
shall draw nearer the truth of the matter by regarding Theseus, Solon and
Cleisthenes as standing connected with three great movements of the
Athenian people, not to found a democracy, for Athenian democracy was
older than either, but to change the plan of government from a gentile into a
political organization. Neither sought to change the existing principles of
democracy which had been inherited from the gentes. They contributed in
their respective times to the great movement for the formation of a state,
which required the substitution of a political in the place of gentile society.
The invention of a township, and the organization of its inhabitants as a
body politic, was the main feature in the problem. It may seem to us a
simple matter; but it taxed the capacities of the Athenians to their lowest
depths before the idea of a township found expression in its actual creation.
It was an inspiration of the genius of Cleisthenes; and it stands as the master
work of a master mind. In the new political society they realized that
complete democracy which already existed in every essential principle, but
which required a change in the plan of government to give it a more ample
field and a fuller expression. It is precisely here, as it seems to the writer,
that we have been misled by the erroneous assumption of the great
historian, Mr. Grote, whose general views of Grecian institutions are so
sound and perspicuous, namely, that the early governments of the Grecian
tribes were essentially monarchical.280 On this assumption it requires a
revolution of institutions to explain the existence of that Athenian
democracy under which the great mental achievements of the Athenians
were made. No such revolution occurred, and no radical change of
institutions was ever effected, for the reason that they were and always had
been essentially democratical. Usurpations not unlikely occurred, followed
by controversies for the restoration of the previous order; but they never
lost their liberties, or those ideas of freedom and of the right of self-
government which had been their inheritance in all ages.
Recurring for a moment to the basileus, the office tended to make the man
more conspicuous than any other in their affairs. He was the first person to
catch the mental eye of the historian by whom he has been metamorphosed
into a king, notwithstanding he was made to reign, and by divine right, over
a rude democracy. As a general in a military democracy, the basileus
becomes intelligible, and without violating the institutions that actually
existed. The introduction of this office did not change the principles of the
gentes, phratries and tribes, which in their organization were essentially
democratical, and which of necessity impressed that character on their
gentile system. Evidence is not wanting that the popular element was
constantly active to resist encroachments on personal rights. The basileus
belongs to the traditionary period, when the powers of government were
more or less undefined; but the council of chiefs existed in the centre of the
system, and also the gentes, phratries and tribes in full vitality. These are
sufficient to determine the character of the government.281
The government as reconstituted by Cleisthenes contrasted strongly with
that previous to the time of Solon. But the transition was not only natural
but inevitable if the people followed their ideas to their logical results. It
was a change of plan, but not of principles nor even of instrumentalities.
The council of chiefs remained in the senate, the agora in the ecclesia; the
three highest archons were respectively ministers of state, of religion, and
of justice as before, while the six inferior archons exercised judicial
functions in connection with the courts, and the large body of dicasts now
elected annually for judicial service. No executive officer existed under the
system, which is one of its striking peculiarities. The nearest approach to it
was the president of the senate, who was elected by lot for a single day,
without the possibility of a re-election during the year. For a single day he
presided over the popular assembly, and held the keys of the citadel and of
the treasury. Under the new government the popular assembly held the
substance of power, and guided the destiny of Athens. The new element
which gave stability and order to the state was the deme or township, with
its complete autonomy, and local self-government. A hundred demes
similarly organized would determine the general movement of the
commonwealth. As the unit, so the compound. It is here that the people, as
before remarked, must begin if they would learn the art of self-government,
and maintain equal laws, and equal rights and privileges. They must retain
in their hands all the powers of society not necessary to the state to insure
an efficient general administration, as well as the control of the
administration itself.
Athens rose rapidly into influence and distinction under the new political
system. That remarkable development of genius and intelligence, which
raised the Athenians to the highest eminence among the historical nations of
mankind, occurred under the inspiration of democratic institutions.
With the institution of political society under Cleisthenes, the gentile
organization was laid aside as a portion of the rags of barbarism. Their
ancestors had lived for untold centuries in gentilism, with which they had
achieved all the elements of civilization, including a written language, as
well as entered upon a civilized career. The history of the gentile
organization will remain as a perpetual monument of the anterior ages,
identified as it has been with the most remarkable and extended experience
of mankind. It must ever be ranked as one of the most remarkable
institutions of the human family.
In this brief and inadequate review the discussion has been confined to the
main course of events in Athenian history. Whatever was true of the
Athenian tribes will be found substantially true of the remaining Grecian
tribes, though not exhibited on so broad or so grand a scale. The discussion
tends to render still more apparent one of the main propositions advanced—
that the idea of government in all the tribes of mankind has been a growth
through successive stages of development.

CHAPTER XI. - THE ROMAN GENS.

I T O G .—F R .—T O M
D .—T R G .—D G C .—B F .—B V .
—D M L .—M G .—R O
M G .—D C A L S .—N
P G .

When the Latins, and their congeners the Sabellians, the Oscans and the
Umbrians, entered the Italian peninsula probably as one people, they were
in possession of domestic animals, and probably cultivated cereals and
plants.282 At the least they were well advanced in the Middle Status of
barbarism; and when they first came under historical notice they were in the
Upper Status, and near the threshold of civilization.
The traditionary history of the Latin tribes, prior to the time of Romulus, is
much more scanty and imperfect than that of the Grecian, whose earlier
relative literary culture and stronger literary proclivities enabled them to
preserve a larger proportion of their traditionary accounts. Concerning their
anterior experience, tradition did not reach beyond their previous life on the
Alban hills, and the ranges of the Appenines eastward from the site of
Rome. For tribes so far advanced in the arts of life it would have required a
long occupation of Italy to efface all knowledge of the country from which
they came. In the time of Romulus283 they had already fallen by
segmentation into thirty independent tribes, still united in a loose
confederacy for mutual protection. They also occupied contiguous
territorial areas. The Sabellians, Oscans, and Umbrians were in the same
general condition; their respective tribes were in the same relations; and
their territorial circumscriptions, as might have been expected, were
founded upon dialect. All alike, including their northern neighbors the
Etruscans, were organized in gentes, with institutions similar to those of the
Grecian tribes. Such was their general condition when they first emerged
from behind the dark curtain of their previous obscurity, and the light of
history fell upon them.
Roman history has touched but slightly the particulars of a vast experience
anterior to the founding of Rome (about 753 B. C.). The Italian tribes had
then become numerous and populous; they had become strictly agricultural
in their habits, possessed flocks and herds of domestic animals, and had
made great progress in the arts of life. They had also attained the
monogamian family. All this is shown by their condition when first made
known to us; but the particulars of their progress from a lower to a higher
state had, in the main, fallen out of knowledge. They were backward in the
growth of the idea of government; since the confederacy of tribes was still
the full extent of their advancement. Although the thirty tribes were
confederated, it was in the nature of a league for mutual defense, and
neither sufficiently close or intimate to tend to a nationality.
The Etruscan tribes were confederated; and the same was probably true of
the Sabellian, Oscan and Umbrian tribes. While the Latin tribes possessed
numerous fortified towns and country strongholds, they were spread over
the surface of the country for agricultural pursuits, and for the maintenance
of their flocks and herds. Concentration and coalescence had not occurred
to any marked extent until the great movement ascribed to Romulus which
resulted in the foundation of Rome. These loosely united Latin tribes
furnished the principal materials from which the new city was to draw its
strength. The accounts of these tribes from the time of the supremacy of the
chiefs of Alba down to the time of Servius Tullius, were made up to a great
extent of fables and traditions; but certain facts remained in the institutions
and social usages transmitted to the historical period which tend, in a
remarkable manner, to illustrate their previous condition. They are even
more important than an outline history of actual events.
Among the institutions of the Latin tribes existing at the commencement of
the historical period were the gentes, curiæ and tribes upon which Romulus
and his successors established the Roman power. The new government was
not in all respects a natural growth; but modified in the upper members of
the organic series by legislative procurement. The gentes, however, which
formed the basis of the organization, were natural growths, and in the main
either of common or cognate lineage. That is, the Latin gentes were of the
same lineage, while the Sabine and other gentes, with the exception of the
Etruscans, were of cognate descent. In the time of Tarquinius Priscus, the
fourth in succession from Romulus, the organization had been brought to a
numerical scale, namely: ten gentes to a curia, ten curiæ to a tribe, and three
tribes of the Romans; giving a total of three hundred gentes integrated in
one gentile society.
Romulus had the sagacity to perceive that a confederacy of tribes,
composed of gentes and occupying separate areas, had neither the unity of
purpose nor sufficient strength to accomplish more than the maintenance of
an independent existence. The tendency to disintegration counteracted the
advantages of the federal principle. Concentration and coalescence were the
remedy proposed by Romulus and the wise men of his time. It was a
remarkable movement for the period, and still more remarkable in its
progress from the epoch of Romulus to the institution of political society
under Servius Tullius. Following the course of the Athenian tribes and
concentrating in one city, they wrought out in five generations a similar and
complete change in the plan of government, from a gentile into a political
organization.
It will be sufficient to remind the reader of the general facts that Romulus
united upon and around the Palatine Hill a hundred Latin gentes, organized
as a tribe, the Ramnes; that by a fortunate concurrence of circumstances a
large body of Sabines were added to the new community whose gentes,
afterwards increased to one hundred, were organized as a second tribe, the
Tities; and that in the time of Tarquinius Priscus a third tribe, the Luceres,
had been formed, composed of a hundred gentes drawn from surrounding
tribes, including the Etruscans. Three hundred gentes, in about the space of
a hundred years, were thus gathered at Rome, and completely organized
under a council of chiefs now called the Roman Senate, an assembly of the
people now called the comitia curiata, and one military commander, the
rex; and with one purpose, that of gaining a military ascendency in Italy.
Under the constitution of Romulus, and the subsequent legislation of
Servius Tullius, the government was essentially a military democracy,
because the military spirit predominated in the government. But it may be
remarked in passing that a new and antagonistic element, the Roman senate,
was now incorporated in the centre of the social system, which conferred
patrician rank upon its members and their posterity. A privileged class was
thus created at a stroke, and intrenched first in the gentile and afterwards in
the political system, which ultimately overthrew the democratic principles
inherited from the gentes. It was the Roman senate, with the patrician class
it created, that changed the institutions and the destiny of the Roman
people, and turned them from a career, analogous to that of the Athenians,
to which their inherited principles naturally and logically tended.
In its main features the new organization was a masterpiece of wisdom for
military purposes. It soon carried them entirely beyond the remaining
Italian tribes, and ultimately into supremacy over the entire peninsula.
The organization of the Latin and other Italian tribes into gentes has been
investigated by Niebuhr, Hermann, Mommsen, Long and others; but their
several accounts fall short of a clear and complete exposition of the
structure and principles of the Italian gens. This is due in part to the
obscurity in which portions of the subject are enveloped, and to the absence
of minute details in the Latin writers. It is also in part due to a
misconception, by some of the first named writers, of the relations of the
family to the gens. They regard the gens as composed of families, whereas
it was composed of parts of families; so that the gens and not the family
was the unit of the social system. It may be difficult to carry the
investigation much beyond the point where they have left it; but
information drawn from the archaic constitution of the gens may serve to
elucidate some of its characteristics which are now obscure.
Concerning the prevalence of the organization into gentes among the Italian
tribes, Niebuhr remarks as follows: “Should any one still contend that no
conclusion is to be drawn from the character of the Athenian gennē**tes to
that of the Roman gentiles, he will be bound to show how an institution
which runs through the whole ancient world came to have a completely
different character in Italy and in Greece.... Every body of citizens was
divided in this manner; the Gephyræans and Salaminians as well as the
Athenians, the Tusculans as well as the Romans.”284
Besides the existence of the Roman gens, it is desirable to know the nature
of the organization; its rights, privileges and obligations, and the relations
of the gentes to each other, as members of a social system. After these have
been considered, their relations to the curiæ, tribes, and resulting people of
which they formed a part, will remain for consideration in the next ensuing
chapter.
After collecting the accessible information from various sources upon these
subjects it will be found incomplete in many respects, leaving some of the
attributes and functions of the gens a matter of inference. The powers of the
gentes were withdrawn, and transferred to new political bodies before
historical composition among the Romans had fairly commenced. There
was, therefore, no practical necessity resting upon the Romans for
preserving the special features of a system substantially set aside. Gaius,
who wrote his Institutes in the early part of the second century of our era,
took occasion to remark that the whole jus gentilicium had fallen into
desuetude, and that it was then superfluous to treat the subject.285 But at the
foundation of Rome, and for several centuries thereafter, the gentile
organization was in vigorous activity.
The Roman definition of a gens and of a gentilis, and the line in which
descent was traced should be presented before the characteristics of the
gens are considered. In the Topics of Cicero a gentilis is defined as follows:
Those are gentiles who are of the same name among themselves. This is
insufficient. Who were born of free parents. Even that is not sufficient. No
one of whose ancestors has been a slave. Something still is wanting. Who
have never suffered capital diminution. This perhaps may do; for I am not
aware that Scaevola, the Pontiff, added anything to this definition.286 There
is one by Festus: “A gentilis is described as one both sprung from the same
stock, and who is called by the same name.”287 Also by Varro: As from an
Aemilius men are born Aemilii, and gentiles; so from the name Aemilius
terms are derived pertaining to gentilism.288
Cicero does not attempt to define a gens, but rather to furnish certain tests
by which the right to the gentile connection might be proved, or the loss of
it be detected. Neither of these definitions show the composition of a gens;
that is, whether all, or a part only, of the descendants of a supposed genarch
were entitled to bear the gentile name; and, if a part only, what part. With
descent in the male line the gens would include those only who could trace
their descent though males exclusively; and if in the female line, then
through females only. If limited to neither, then all the descendants would
be included. These definitions must have assumed that descent in the male
line was a fact known to all. From other sources it appears that those only
belonged to the gens who could trace their descent through its male
members. Roman genealogies supply this proof. Cicero omitted the material
fact that those were gentiles who could trace their descent through males
exclusively from an acknowledged ancestor within the gens. It is in part
supplied by Festus and Varro. From an Aemilius, the latter remarks, men
are born Aemilii, and gentiles; each must be born of a male bearing the
gentile name. But Cicero’s definition also shows that a gentilis must bear
the gentile name.
In the address of the Roman tribune Canuleius (445 B. C.), on his
proposition to repeal an existing law forbidding intermarriage between
patricians and plebeians, there is a statement implying descent in the male
line. For what else is there in the matter, he remarks, if a patrician man shall
wed a plebeian woman, or a plebeian man a patrician woman? What right in
the end is thereby changed? The children surely follow the father, (nempe
patrem sequuntur liberi.)289
A practical illustration, derived from transmitted gentile names, will show
conclusively that descent was in the male line. Julia, the sister of Caius
Julius Caesar, married Marcus Attius Balbus. Her name shows that she
belonged to the Julian gens.290 Her daughter Attia, according to custom,
took the gentile name of her father and belonged to the Attian gens. Attia
married Caius Octavius, and became the mother of Caius Octavius, the first
Roman emperor. The son, as usual, took the gentile name of his father, and
belonged to the Octavian gens.291 After becoming emperor he added the
names Caesar Augustus.
In the Roman gens descent was in the male line from Augustus back to
Romulus, and for an unknown period back of the latter. None were gentiles
except such as could trace their descent through males exclusively from
some acknowledged ancestor within the gens. But it was unnecessary,
because impossible, that all should be able to trace their descent from the
same common ancestor; and much less from the eponymous ancestor.
It will be noticed that in each of the above cases, to which a large number
might be added, the persons married out of the gens. Such was undoubtedly
the general usage by customary law.
The Roman gens was individualized by the following rights, privileges and
obligations:

I. Mutual rights of succession to the property of deceased gentiles.

II. The possession of a common burial place.
III. Common religious rites; sacra gentilicia.
IV. The obligation not to marry in the gens.
V. The possession of lands in common.
VI. Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of injuries.
VII. The right to bear the gentile name.
VIII. The right to adopt strangers into the gens.
IX. The right to elect and depose its chiefs; query.

These several characteristics will be considered in the order named.

I. Mutual rights of succession to the property of deceased gentiles.
When the law of the Twelve Tables was promulgated (451 B. C.), the
ancient rule, which presumptively distributed the inheritance among the
gentiles, had been superseded by more advanced regulations. The estate of
an intestate now passed, first, to his sui heredes, that is, to his children; and,
in default of children, to his lineal descendants through males.292 The living
children took equally, and the children of deceased sons took the share of
their father equally. It will be noticed that the inheritance remained in the
gens; the children of the female descendants of the intestate, who belonged
to other gentes, being excluded. Second, if there were no sui heredes, by the
same law, the inheritance then passed to the agnates.293 The agnatic kindred
comprised all those persons who could trace their descent through males
from the same common ancestor with the intestate. In virtue of such a
descent they all bore the same gentile name, females as well as males, and
were nearer in degree to the decedent than the remaining gentiles. The
agnates nearest in degree had the preference; first, the brothers and
unmarried sisters; second, the paternal uncles and unmarried aunts of the
intestate, and so on until the agnatic relatives were exhausted. Third, if there
were no agnates of the intestate, the same law called the gentiles to the
inheritance.294 This seems at first sight remarkable; because the children of
the intestate’s sisters were excluded from the inheritance, and the preference
given to gentile kinsmen so remote that their relationship to the intestate
could not be traced at all, and only existed in virtue of an ancient lineage
preserved by a common gentile name. The reason, however, is apparent; the
children of the sisters of the intestate belonged to another gens, and the
gentile right predominated over greater nearness of consanguinity, because
the principle which retained the property in the gens was fundamental. It is
a plain inference from the law of the Twelve Tables that inheritance began
in the inverse order, and that the three classes of heirs represent the three
successive rules of inheritance; namely: first, the gentiles; second, the
agnates, among whom were the children of the decedent after descent was
changed to the male line; and third, the children, to the exclusion of the
remaining agnates.
A female, by her marriage, suffered what was technically called a loss of
franchise or capital diminution (deminutio capitis), by which she forfeited
her agnatic rights. Here again the reason is apparent. If after her marriage
she could inherit as an agnate it would transfer the property inherited from
her own gens to that of her husband. An unmarried sister could inherit, but
a married sister could not.
With our knowledge of the archaic principles of the gens, we are enabled to
glance backward to the time when descent in the Latin gens was in the
female line, when property was inconsiderable, and distributed among the
gentiles; not necessarily within the life-time of the Latin gens, for its
existence reached back of the period of their occupation of Italy. That the
Roman gens had passed from the archaic into its historical form is partially
indicated by the reversion of property in certain cases to the gentiles.295
“The right of succeeding to the property of members who died without kin
and intestate,” Niebuhr remarks, “was that which lasted the longest; so long
indeed, as to engage the attention of the jurists, and even—though assuredly
not as anything more than a historical question—that of Gaius, the
manuscript of whom is unfortunately illegible in this part.”296
II. A common burial place.
The sentiment of gentilism seems to have been stronger in the Upper Status
of barbarism than in earlier conditions, through a higher organization of
society, and through mental and moral advancement. Each gens usually had
a burial place for the exclusive use of its members as a place of sepulture. A
few illustrations will exhibit Roman usages with respect to burial.
Appius Claudius, the chief of the Claudian gens, removed from Regili, a
town of the Sabines, to Rome in the time of Romulus, where in due time he
was made a senator, and thus a patrician. He brought with him the Claudian
gens, and such a number of clients that his accession to Rome was regarded
as an important event. Suetonius remarks that the gens received from the
state lands upon the Anio for their clients, and

. a burial place for themselves near the capitol.297 This statement seems to
imply that a common burial place was, at that time, considered
indispensable to a gens. The Claudii, having abandoned their Sabine
connection and identified themselves with the Roman people, received both
a grant of lands and a burial place for the gens, to place them in equality of
condition with the Roman gentes. The transaction reveals a custom of the
times.
The family tomb had not entirely superseded that of the gens in the time of
Julius Caesar, as was illustrated by the case of Quintilius Varus, who,
having lost his army in Germany, destroyed himself, and his body fell into
the hands of the enemy. The half-burned body of Varus, says Paterculus,
was mangled by the savage enemy; his head was cut off, and brought to
Maroboduus, and by him having been sent to Caesar, was at length honored
with burial in the gentile sepulchre.298
In his treatise on the laws, Cicero refers to the usages of his own times in
respect to burial in the following language: now the sacredness of burial
places is so great that it is affirmed to be wrong to perform the burial
independently of the sacred rites of the gens. Thus in the time of our
ancestors A. Torquatus decided respecting the Popilian gens.299 The purport
of the statement is that it was a religious duty to bury the dead with sacred
rites, and when possible in land belonging to the gens. It further appears
that cremation and inhumation were both practiced prior to the
promulgation of the Twelve Tables, which prohibited the burying or
burning of dead bodies within the city.300 The columbarium, which would
usually accommodate several hundred urns, was eminently adapted to the
uses of a gens. In the time of Cicero the gentile organization had fallen into
decadence, but certain usages peculiar to it had remained, and that
respecting a common burial place among the number. The family tomb
began to take the place of that of the gens, as the families in the ancient
gentes rose into complete autonomy; nevertheless, remains of ancient
gentile usages with respect to burial manifested themselves in various ways,
and were still fresh in the history of the past.
III. Common sacred rites; sacra gentilicia.
The Roman sacra embody our idea of divine worship, and were either
public or private. Religious rites performed by a gens were called sacra
privata, or sacra gentilicia. They were performed regularly at stated periods
by the gens.301 Cases are mentioned in which the expenses of maintaining
these rites had become a burden in consequence of the reduced numbers in
the gens. They were gained and lost by circumstances, e. g., adoption or
marriage.302 “That the members of the Roman gens had common sacred
rites,” observes Niebuhr, “is well known; there were sacrifices appointed
for stated days and places.”303 The sacred rites, both public and private,
were under pontifical regulation exclusively, and not subject to civil
cognizance.304
The religious rites of the Romans seem to have had their primary
connection with the gens rather than the family. A college of pontiffs, of
curiones, and of augurs, with an elaborate system of worship under these
priesthoods, in due time grew into form and became established; but the
system was tolerant and free. The priesthood was in the main elective.305
The head of every family also was the priest of the household.306 The
gentes of the Greeks and Romans were the fountains from which flowed the
stupendous mythology of the classical world.
In the early days of Rome many gentes had each their own sacellum for the
performance of their religious rites. Several gentes had each special
sacrifices to perform, which had been transmitted from generation to
generation, and were regarded as obligatory; as those of the Nautii to
Minerva, of the Fabii to Hercules, and of the Horatii in expiation of the
sororicide committed by Horatius.307 It is sufficient for my purpose to have
shown generally that each gens had its own religious rites as one of the
attributes of the organization.
IV. The obligation not to marry in the gens.
Gentile regulations were customs having the force of law. The obligation
not to marry in the gens was one of the number. It does not appear to have
been turned, at a later day, into a legal enactment; but evidence that such
was the rule of the gens appears in a number of ways. The Roman
genealogies show that marriage was out of the gens, of which instances
have been given. This, as we have seen, was the archaic rule for reasons of
consanguinity. A woman by her marriage forfeited her agnatic rights, to
which rule there was no exception. It was to prevent the transfer of property
by marriage from one gens to another, from the gens of her birth to the gens
of her husband. The exclusion of the children of a female from all rights of
inheritance from a maternal uncle or maternal grandfather, which followed,
was for the same reason. As the female was required to marry out of her
gens her children would be of the gens of their father, and there could be no
privity of inheritance between members of different gentes.
V. The possession of lands in common.
The ownership of lands in common was so general among barbarous tribes
that the existence of the same tenure among the Latin tribes is no occasion
for surprise. A portion of their lands seems to have been held in severalty
by individuals from a very early period. No time can be assigned when this
was not the case; but at first it was probably the possessory right to lands in
actual occupation, so often before referred to, which was recognized as far
back as the Lower Status of barbarism.
Among the rustic Latin tribes, lands were held in common by each tribe,
other lands by the gentes, and still other by households.
Allotments of lands to individuals became common at Rome in the time of
Romulus, and afterwards quite general. Varro and Dionysius both state that
Romulus allotted two jugera (about two and a quarter acres) to each man.308
Similar allotments are said to have been afterwards made by Numa and
Servius Tullius. They were the beginnings of absolute ownership in
severalty, and presuppose a settled life as well as a great advancement in
intelligence. It was not only admeasured but granted by the government,
which was very different from a possessory right in lands growing out of an
individual act. The idea of absolute individual ownership of land was a
growth through experience, the complete attainment of which belongs to the
period of civilization. These lands, however, were taken from those held in
common by the Roman people. Gentes, curiæ and tribes held certain lands
in common after civilization had commenced, beyond those held by
individuals in severalty.
Mommsen remarks that “the Roman territory was divided in the earliest
times into a number of clan-districts, which were subsequently employed in
the formation of the earliest rural wards (tribus rusticæ).... These names are
not, like those of the districts added at a later period, derived from the
localities, but are formed without exception from the names of the
clans.”309 Each gens held an independent district, and of necessity was
localized upon it. This was a step in advance, although it was the prevailing
practice not only in the rural districts, but also in Rome, for the gentes to
localize in separate areas. Mommsen further observes: “As each household
had its own portion of land, so the clan-household or village, had clan-lands
belonging to it, which, as will afterwards be shown, were managed up to a
comparatively late period after the analogy of house-lands, that is, on the
system of joint possession.... These clanships, however, were from the
beginning regarded not as independent societies, but as integral parts of a
political community (civitas populi). This first presents itself as an
aggregate of a number of clan-villages of the same stock, language and
manners, bound to mutual observance of law and mutual legal redress and
to united action in aggression and defense.”310 Clan is here used by
Mommsen, or his translator, in the place of gens, and elsewhere canton is
used in the place of tribe, which are the more singular since the Latin
language furnishes specific terms for these organizations which have
become historical. Mommsen represents the Latin tribes anterior to the
founding of Rome as holding lands by households, by gentes and by tribes;
and he further shows the ascending series of social organizations in these
tribes; a comparison of which with those of the Iroquois, discloses their
close parallelism, namely, the gens, tribe and confederacy.311 The phratry is
not mentioned although it probably existed. The household referred to could
scarcely have been a single family. It is not unlikely that it was composed of
related families who occupied a joint-tenement house, and practiced
communism in living in the household.
VI. Reciprocal obligations of help, defense and redress of injuries.
During the period of barbarism the dependence of the gentiles upon each
other for the protection of personal rights would be constant; but after the
establishment of political society, the gentilis, now a citizen, would turn to
the law and to the state for the protection before administered by his gens.
This feature of the ancient system would be one of the first to disappear
under the new. Accordingly but slight references to these mutual obligations
are found in the early authors. It does not follow, however, that the gentiles
did not practice these duties to each other in the previous period; on the
contrary, the inference that they did is a necessary one from the principles
of the gentile organization. Remains of these special usages appear, under
special circumstances, well down in the historical period. When Appius
Claudius was cast into prison (about 432 B. C.), Caius Claudius, then at
enmity with him, put on mourning, as well as the whole Claudian gens.312
A calamity or disgrace falling upon one member of the body was felt and
shared by all. During the second Punic war, Niebuhr remarks, “the gentiles
united to ransom their fellows who were in captivity, and were forbidden to
do it by the senate. This obligation is an essential characteristic of the
gens.”313 In the case of Camillus, against whom a tribune had lodged an
accusation on account of the Veientian spoil, he summoned to his house
before the day appointed for his trial his tribesmen and clients to ask their
advice, and he received for an answer that they would collect whatever sum
he was condemned to pay; but to clear him was impossible.314 The active
principle of gentilism is plainly illustrated in these cases. Niebuhr further
remarks that the obligation to assist their indigent gentiles rested on the
members of Roman gens.315
VII. The right to bear the gentile name.
This followed necessarily from the nature of the gens. All such persons as
were born sons or daughters of a male member of the gens were themselves
members, and of right entitled to bear the gentile name. In the lapse of time
it was found impossible for the members of a gens to trace their descent
back to the founder, and, consequently, for different families within the gens
to find their connection through a later common ancestor. Whilst this
inability proved the antiquity of the lineage, it was no evidence that these
families had not sprung from a remote common ancestor. The fact that
persons were born in the gens, and that each could trace his descent through
a series of acknowledged members of the gens, was sufficient evidence of
gentile descent, and strong evidence of the blood connection of all the
gentiles. But some investigators, Niebuhr among the number,316 have
denied the existence of any blood relationship between the families in a
gens, since they could not show a connection through a common ancestor.
This treats the gens as a purely fictitious organization, and is therefore
untenable. Niebuhr’s inference against a blood connection from Cicero’s
definition is not sustainable. If the right of a person to bear the gentile name
were questioned, proof of the right would consist, not in tracing his descent
from the genarch, but from a number of acknowledged ancestors within the
gens. Without written records the number of generations through which a
pedigree might be traced would be limited. Few families in the same gens
might not be able to find a common ancestor, but it would not follow that
they were not of common descent from some remote ancestor within the
gens.317
After descent was changed to the male line the ancient names of the gentes,
which not unlikely were taken from animals,318 or inanimate objects, gave
place to personal names. Some individual, distinguished in the history of
the gens, became its eponymous ancestor, and this person, as elsewhere
suggested, was not unlikely superseded by another at long intervals of time.
When a gens divided in consequence of separation in area, one division
would be apt to take a new name; but such a change of name would not
disturb the kinship upon which the gens was founded. When it is considered
that the lineage of the Roman gentes, under changes of names, ascended to
the time when the Latins, Greeks and the Sanskrit speaking people of India
were one people, without reaching its source, some conception of its
antiquity may be gained. The loss of the gentile name at any time by any
individual was the most improbable of all occurrences; consequently its
possession was the highest evidence that he shared with his gentiles the
same ancient lineage. There was one way, and but one, of adulterating
gentile descent, namely: by the adoption of strangers in blood into the gens.
This practice prevailed, but the extent of it was small. If Neibuhr had
claimed that the blood relationship of the gentiles had become attenuated by
lapse of time to an inappreciable quantity between some of them, no
objection could be taken to his position; but a denial of all relationship
which turns the gens into a fictitious aggregation of persons, without any
bond of union, controverts the principle upon which the gens came into
existence, and which perpetuated it through three entire ethnical periods.
Elsewhere I have called attention to the fact that the gens came in with a
system of consanguinity which reduced all consanguinei to a small number
of categories, and retained their descendants indefinitely in the same. The
relationships of persons were easily traced, no matter how remote their
actual common ancestor. In an Iroquois gens of five hundred persons, all its
members are related to each other and each person knows or can find his
relationship to every other; so that the fact of kin was perpetually present in
the gens of the archaic period. With the rise of the monogamian family, a
new and totally different system of consanguinity came in, under which the
relationships between collaterals soon disappeared. Such was the system of
the Latin and Grecian tribes at the commencement of the historical period.
That which preceded it was, presumptively at least, Turanian, under which
the relationships of the gentiles to each other would have been known.
After the decadence of the gentile organization commenced, new gentes
ceased to form by the old process of segmentation; and some of those
existing died out. This tended to enhance the value of gentile descent as a
lineage. In the times of the empire, new families were constantly
establishing themselves in Rome from foreign parts, and assuming gentile
names to gain social advantages. This practice being considered an abuse,
the Emperor Claudius (A. D. 40-54), prohibited foreigners from assuming
Roman names, especially those of the ancient gentes.319 Roman families,
belonging to the historical gentes, placed the highest value upon their
lineages both under the republic and the empire.
All the members of a gens were free, and equal in their rights and
privileges, the poorest as well as the richest, the distinguished as well as the
obscure; and they shared equally in whatever dignity the gentile name
conferred which they inherited as a birthright. Liberty, equality and
fraternity were cardinal principles of the Roman gens, not less certainly
than of the Grecian, and of the American Indian.
VIII. The right of adopting strangers in blood into the gens.
In the times of the republic, and also of the empire, adoption into the family,
which carried the person into the gens of the family, was practiced; but it
was attended with formalities which rendered it difficult. A person who had
no children, and who was past the age to expect them, might adopt a son
with the consent of the pontifices, and of the comitia curiata. The college of
pontiffs were entitled to be consulted lest the sacred rites of the family, from
which the adopted person was taken, might thereby be impaired;320 as also
the assembly, because the adopted person would receive the gentile name,
and might inherit the estate of his adoptive father. From the precautions
which remained in the time of Cicero, the inference is reasonable that under
the previous system, which was purely gentile, the restrictions must have
been greater and the instances rare. It is not probable that adoption in the
early period was allowed without the consent of the gens, and of the curia to
which the gens belonged; and if so, the number adopted must have been
limited. Few details remain of the ancient usages with respect to adoption.
IX. The right of electing and deposing its chiefs; query.
The incompleteness of our knowledge of the Roman gentes is shown quite
plainly by the absence of direct information with respect to the tenure of the
office of chief (princeps). Before the institution of political society each
gens had its chief, and probably more than one. When the office became
vacant it was necessarily filled, either by the election of one of the gentiles,
as among the Iroquois, or taken by hereditary right. But the absence of any
proof of hereditary right, and the presence of the elective principle with
respect to nearly all offices under the republic, and before that, under the
reges, leads to the inference that hereditary right was alien to the
institutions of the Latin tribes. The highest office, that of rex, was elective,
the office of senator was elective or by appointment, and that of consuls and
of inferior magistrates. It varied with respect to the college of pontiffs
instituted by Numa. At first the pontiffs themselves filled vacancies by
election. Livy speaks of the election of a pontifex maximus by the comitia
about 212 B. C.321 By the lex Domitia the right to elect the members of the
several colleges of pontiffs and of priests was transferred to the people, but
the law was subsequently modified by Sulla.322
The active presence of the elective principle among the Latin gentes when
they first come under historical notice, and from that time through the
period of the republic, furnishes strong grounds for the inference that the
office of chief was elective in tenure. The democratic features of their social
system, which present themselves at so many points, were inherited from
the gentes. It would require positive evidence that the office of chief passed
by hereditary right to overcome the presumption against it. The right to
elect carries with it the right to depose from office, where the tenure is for
life.
These chiefs, or a selection from them, composed the council of the several
Latin tribes before the founding of Rome, which was the principal
instrument of government. Traces of the three powers co-ordinated in the
government appear among the Latin tribes as they did in the Grecian,
namely: the council of chiefs, the assembly of the people, to which we must
suppose the more important public measures were submitted for adoption or
rejection, and the military commander. Mommsen remarks that “All of
these cantons [tribes] were in primitive times politically sovereign, and each
of them was governed by its prince, and the co-operation of the council of
elders, and the assembly of the warriors.”323 The order of Mommsen’s
statement should be reversed, and the statement qualified. This council,
from its functions and from its central position in their social system, of
which it was a growth, held of necessity the supreme power in civil affairs.
It was the council that governed, and not the military commander. “In all
the cities belonging to civilized nations on the coasts of the Mediterranean,”
Niebuhr observes, “a senate was a no less essential and indispensable part
of the state, than a popular assembly; it was a select body of elder citizens;
such a council, says Aristotle, there always is, whether the council be
aristocratical or democratical; even in oligarchies, be the number of sharers
in the sovereignty ever so small, certain councilors are appointed for
preparing public measures.”324 The senate of political society succeeded the
council of chiefs of gentile society. Romulus formed the first Roman senate
of a hundred elders; and as there were then but a hundred gentes, the
inference is substantially conclusive that they were the chiefs of these
gentes. The office was for life, and non-hereditary; whence the final
inference, that the office of chief was at the time elective. Had it been
otherwise there is every probability that the Roman senate would have been
instituted as an hereditary body. Evidence of the essentially democratic
constitution of ancient society meets us at many points, which fact has
failed to find its way into the modern historical expositions of Grecian and
Roman gentile society.
With respect to the number of persons in a Roman gens, we are fortunately
not without some information. About 474 B. C. the Fabian gens proposed to
the senate to undertake the Veientian war as a gens, which they said
required a constant rather than a large force.325 Their offer was accepted,
and they marched out of Rome three hundred and six soldiers, all patricians,
amid the applause of their countrymen.326 After a series of successes they
were finally cut off to a man through an ambuscade. But they left behind
them at Rome a single male under the age of puberty, who alone remained
to perpetuate the Fabian gens.327 It seems hardly credible that three hundred
should have left in their families but a single male child, below the age of
puberty, but such is the statement. This number of persons would indicate
an equal number of females, who, with the children of the males, would
give an aggregate of at least seven hundred members of the Fabian gens.
Although the rights, obligations and functions of the Roman gens have been
inadequately presented, enough has been adduced to show that this
organization was the source of their social, governmental and religious
activities. As the unit of their social system it projects its character upon the
higher organizations into which it entered as a constituent. A much fuller
knowledge of the Roman gens than we now possess is essential to a full
comprehension of Roman institutions in their origin and development.

CHAPTER XII. - THE ROMAN CURIA, TRIBE AND

POPULUS.
R G S .—F S O —1. T G ; 2. T C ,
T G
; 3. T T , T C ; 4. T P R ,
T T .—N P —H P .—C
G R .—T R S .—I F .—T A P .—I
P .—T P S .—O M C (R ).—I P
F .—R G I D .

Having considered the Roman gens, it remains to take up the curia

composed of several gentes, the tribe composed of several curiæ, and lastly
the Roman people composed of several tribes. In pursuing the subject the
inquiry will be limited to the constitution of society as it appeared from the
time of Romulus to that of Servius Tullius, with some notice of the changes
which occurred in the early period of the republic while the gentile system
was giving way, and the new political system was being established.
It will be found that two governmental organizations were in existence for a
time, side by side, as among the Athenians, one going out and the other
coming in. The first was a society (societas), founded upon the gentes; and
the other a state (civitas), founded upon territory and upon property, which
was gradually supplanting the former. A government in a transitional stage
is necessarily complicated, and therefore difficult to be understood. These
changes were not violent but gradual, commencing with Romulus and
substantially completed, though not perfected, by Servius Tullius; thus
embracing a supposed period of nearly two hundred years, crowded with
events of great moment to the infant commonwealth. In order to follow the
history of the gentes to the overthrow of their influence in the state it will be
necessary, after considering the curia, tribe and nation, to explain briefly the
new political system. The last will form the subject of the ensuing chapter.
Gentile society among the Romans exhibits four stages of organization:
first, the gens, which was a body of consanguinei and the unit of the social
system; second, the curia, analogous to the Grecian phratry, which consisted
of ten gentes united in a higher corporate body; third, the tribe, consisting of
ten curiæ, which possessed some of the attributes of a nation under gentile
institutions; and fourth, the Roman people (Populus Romanus), consisting,
in the time of Tullus Hostilius, of three such tribes united by coalescence in
one gentile society, embracing three hundred gentes. There are facts
warranting the conclusion that all the Italian tribes were similarly organized
at the commencement of the historical period; but with this difference,
perhaps, that the Roman curia was a more advanced organization than the
Grecian phratry, or the corresponding phratry of the remaining Italian
tribes; and that the Roman tribe, by constrained enlargement, became a
more comprehensive organization than in the remaining Italian stocks.
Some evidence in support of these statements will appear in the sequel.
Before the time of Romulus the Italians, in their various branches, had
become a numerous people. The large number of petty tribes, into which
they had become subdivided, reveals that state of unavoidable
disintegration which accompanies gentile institutions. But the federal
principle had asserted itself among the other Italian tribes as well as the
Latin, although it did not result in any confederacy that achieved important
results. Whilst this state of things existed, that great movement ascribed to
Romulus occurred, namely: the concentration of a hundred Latin gentes on
the banks of the Tiber, which was followed by a like gathering of Sabine,
Latin and Etruscan and other gentes, to the additional number of two
hundred, ending in their final coalescence into one people. The foundations
of Rome were thus laid, and Roman power and civilization were to follow.
It was this consolidation of gentes and tribes under one government,
commenced by Romulus and completed by his successors, that prepared the
way for the new political system—for the transition from a government
based upon persons and upon personal relations, into one based upon
territory and upon property.
It is immaterial whether either of the seven so-called kings of Rome were
real or mythical persons, or whether the legislation ascribed to either of
them is fabulous or true, so far as this investigation is concerned: because
the facts with respect to the ancient constitution of Latin society remained
incorporated in Roman institutions, and thus came down to the historical
period. It fortunately so happens that the events of human progress embody
themselves, independently of particular men, in a material record, which is
crystallized in institutions, usages and customs, and preserved in inventions
and discoveries. Historians, from a sort of necessity, give to individuals
great prominence in the production of events; thus placing persons, who are
transient, in the place of principles, which are enduring. The work of
society in its totality, by means of which all progress occurs, is ascribed far
too much to individual men, and far too little to the public intelligence. It
will be recognized generally that the substance of human history is bound
up in the growth of ideas, which are wrought out by the people and
expressed in their institutions, usages, inventions and discoveries.
The numerical adjustment, before adverted to, of ten gentes to a curia, ten
curiæ to a tribe, and three tribes of the Roman people, was a result of
legislative procurement not older, in the first two tribes, than the time of
Romulus. It was made possible by the accessions gained from the
surrounding tribes, by solicitation or conquest; the fruits of which were
chiefly incorporated in the Tities and Luceres, as they were successively
formed. But such a precise numerical adjustment could not be permanently
maintained through centuries, especially with respect to the number of
gentes in each curia.
We have seen that the Grecian phratry was rather a religious and social than
a governmental organization. Holding an intermediate position between the
gens and the tribe, it would be less important than either, until governmental
functions were superadded. It appears among the Iroquois in a rudimentary
form, its social as distinguished from its governmental character being at
that early day equally well marked. But the Roman curia, whatever it may
have been in the previous period, grew into an organization more integral
and governmental than the phratry of the Greeks; more is known, however,
of the former than of the latter. It is probable that the gentes comprised in
each curia were, in the main, related gentes; and that their reunion in a
higher organization was further cemented by intermarriages, the gentes of
the same curia furnishing each other with wives.
The early writers give no account of the institution of the curia; but it does
not follow that it was a new creation by Romulus. It is first mentioned as a
Roman institution in connection with his legislation, the number of curiæ in
two of the tribes having been established in his time. The organization, as a
phratry, had probably existed among the Latin tribes from time
immemorial.
Livy, speaking of the favor with which the Sabine women were regarded
after the establishment of peace between the Sabines and Latins through
their intervention, remarks that Romulus, for this reason, when he had
divided the people into thirty curiæ bestowed upon them their names.328
Dionysius uses the term phratry as the equivalent of curia, but gives the
latter also (κουρία),329 and observes further, that Romulus divided the curiæ
into decades, the ten in each being of course gentes.330 In like manner
Plutarch refers to the fact that each tribe contained ten curiæ, which some
say, he remarks, were called after the Sabine women.331 He is more
accurate in the use of language than Livy or Dionysius in saying that each
tribe contained ten curiæ, rather than that each was divided into ten,
because the curiæ were made of gentes as original unities, and not the
gentes out of a curia by subdivision. The work performed by Romulus was
the adjustment of the number of gentes in each curia, and the number of
curiæ in each tribe, which he was enabled to accomplish through the
accessions gained from the surrounding tribes. Theoretically each curia
should have been composed of gentes derived by segmentation from one or
more gentes, and the tribe by natural growth through the formation of more
than one curia, each composed of gentes united by the bond of a common
dialect. The hundred gentes of the Ramnes were Latin gentes. In their
organization into ten curiæ, each composed of ten gentes, Romulus
undoubtedly respected the bond of kin by placing related gentes in the same
curia, as far as possible, and then reached numerical symmetry by
arbitrarily taking the excess of gentes from one natural curia to supply the
deficiency in another. The hundred gentes of the tribe Tities were, in the
main, Sabine gentes. These were also arranged in ten curiæ, and most likely
on the same principle. The third tribe, the Luceres, was formed later from
gradual accessions and conquests. It was heterogeneous in its elements,
containing, among others, a number of Etruscan gentes. They were brought
into the same numerical scale of ten curiæ each composed of ten gentes.
Under this re-constitution, while the gens, the unit of organization,
remained pure and unchanged, the curia was raised above its logical level,
and made to include, in some cases, a foreign element which did not belong
to a strict natural phratry; and the tribe also was raised above its natural
level, and made to embrace foreign elements that did not belong to a tribe
as the tribe naturally grew. By this legislative constraint the tribes, with
their curiæ and gentes, were made severally equal, while the third tribe was
in good part an artificial creation under the pressure of circumstances. The
linguistic affiliations of the Etruscans are still a matter of discussion. There
is a presumption that their dialect was not wholly unintelligible to the Latin
tribes, otherwise they would not have been admitted into the Roman social
system, which at the time was purely gentile. The numerical proportions
thus secured, facilitated the governmental action of the society as a whole.
Niebuhr, who was the first to gain a true conception of the institutions of
the Romans in this period, who recognized the fact that the people were
sovereign, that the so-called kings exercised a delegated power, and that the
senate was based on the principle of representation, each gens having a
senator, became at variance with the facts before him in stating in
connection with this graduated scale, that “such numerical proportions are
an irrefragible proof that the Roman houses [gentes]332 were not more
ancient than the constitution; but corporations formed by a legislator in
harmony with the rest of his scheme.”333 That a small foreign element was
forced into the curiæ of the second and third tribes, and particularly into the
third, is undeniable; but that a gens was changed in its composition or
reconstructed or made, was simply impossible. A legislator could not make
a gens; neither could he make a curia, except by combining existing gentes
around a nucleus of related gentes; but he might increase or decrease by
constraint the number of gentes in a curia, and increase or decrease the
number of curiæ in a tribe. Niebuhr has also shown that the gens was an
ancient and universal organization among the Greeks and Romans, which
renders his preceding declaration the more incomprehensible. Moreover it
appears that the phratry was universal, at least among the Ionian Greeks,
leaving it probable that the curia, perhaps under another name, was equally
ancient among the Latin tribes. The numerical proportions referred to were
no doubt the result of legislative procurement in the time of Romulus, and
we have abundant evidence of the sources from which the new gentes were
obtained with which these proportions might have been produced.
The members of the ten gentes united in a curia were called curiales among
themselves. They elected a priest, curio, who was the chief officer of the
fraternity. Each curia had its sacred rites, in the observance of which the
brotherhood participated; its sacellum as a place of worship, and its place of
assembly where they met for the transaction of business. Besides the curio,
who had the principal charge of their religious affairs, the curiales also
elected an assistant priest, flamen curialis, who had the immediate charge of
these observances. The curia gave its name to the assembly of the gentes,
the comitia curiata which was the sovereign power in Rome to a greater
degree than the senate under the gentile system. Such, in general terms, was
the organization of the Roman curia or phratry.334
Next in the ascending scale was the Roman tribe, composed of ten curiæ
and a hundred gentes. When a natural growth, uninfluenced externally, a
tribe would be an aggregation of such gentes as were derived by
segmentation from an original gens or pair of gentes; all the members of
which would speak the same dialect. Until the tribe itself divided, by
processes before pointed out, it would include all the descendants of the
members of these gentes. But the Roman tribe, with which alone we are
now concerned, was artificially enlarged for special objects and by special
means, but the basis and body of the tribe was a natural growth.
Prior to the time of Romulus each tribe elected a chief officer whose duties
were magisterial, military and religious.335 He performed in the city
magisterial duties for the tribe, as well as administered its sacra, and he also
commanded its military forces in the field.336 He was probably elected by
the curiæ collected in a general assembly; but here again our information is
defective. It was undoubtedly an ancient office in each Latin tribe, peculiar
in character and held by an elective tenure. It was also the germ of the still
higher office of rex, or general military commander, the functions of the
two offices being similar. The tribal chiefs are styled by Dionysius leaders
of the tribes (τριβῶν ἡγεμονίας).337 When the three Roman tribes had
coalesced into one people, under one senate, one assembly of the people,
and one military commander, the office of tribal chief was overshadowed
and became less important; but the continued maintenance of the office by
an elective tenure confirms the inference of its original popular character.
An assembly of the tribe must also have existed, from a remote antiquity.
Before the founding of Rome each Italian tribe was practically independent,
although the tribes were more or less united in confederate relations. As a
self-governing body each of these ancient tribes had its council of chiefs
(who were doubtless the chiefs of the gentes), its assembly of the people,
and its chiefs who commanded its military bands. These three elements in
the organization of the tribe; namely, the council, the tribal chief, and the
tribal assembly, were the types upon which were afterwards modeled the
Roman senate, the Roman rex, and the comitia curiata. The tribal chief was
in all probability called by the name of rex before the founding of Rome;
and the same remark is applicable to the name of senators (senex), and the
comitia (con-ire). The inference arises, from what is known of the condition
and organization of these tribes, that their institutions were essentially
democratical. After the coalescence of the three Roman tribes, the national
character of the tribe was lost in the higher organization; but it still
remained as a necessary integer in the organic series.
The fourth and last stage of organization was the Roman nation or people,
formed, as stated, by the coalescence of three tribes. Externally the ultimate
organization was manifested by a senate (senatus), a popular assembly
(comitia curiata), and a general military commander (rex). It was further
manifested by a city magistracy, by an army organization, and by a common
national priesthood of different orders.338
A powerful city organization was from the first the central idea of their
governmental and military systems, to which all areas beyond Rome
remained provincial. Under the military democracy of Romulus, under the
mixed democratical and aristocratical organization of the republic, and
under the later imperialism it was a government with a great city in its
centre, a perpetual nucleus, to which all additions by conquest were added
as increments, instead of being made, with the city, common constituents of
the government. Nothing precisely like this Roman organization, this
Roman power, and the career of the Roman race, has appeared in the
experience of mankind. It will ever remain the marvel of the ages.
As organized by Romulus they styled themselves the Roman People
(Populus Romanus), which was perfectly exact. They had formed a gentile
society and nothing more. But the rapid increase of numbers in the time of
Romulus, and the still greater increase between this period and that of
Servius Tullius, demonstrated the necessity for a fundamental change in the
plan of government. Romulus and the wise men of his time had made the
most of gentile institutions. We are indebted to his legislation for a grand
attempt to establish upon the gentes a great national and military power;
and thus for some knowledge of the character and structure of institutions
which might otherwise have faded into obscurity, if they had not perished
from remembrance. The rise of the Roman power upon gentile institutions
was a remarkable event in human experience. It is not singular that the
incidents that accompanied the movement should have come to us tinctured
with romance, not to say enshrouded in fable. Rome came into existence
through a happy conception, ascribed to Romulus, and adopted by his
successors, of concentrating the largest possible number of gentes in a new
city, under one government, and with their united military forces under one
commander. Its objects were essentially military, to gain a supremacy in
Italy, and it is not surprising that the organization took the form of a
military democracy.
Selecting a magnificent situation upon the Tiber, where, after leaving the
mountain range it had entered the campagna, Romulus occupied the
Palatine Hill, the site of an ancient fortress, with a tribe of the Latins of
which he was the chief. Tradition derived his descent from the chiefs of
Alba, which is a matter of secondary importance. The new settlement grew
with marvelous rapidity, if the statement is reliable that at the close of his
life the military forces numbered 46,000 foot and 1,000 horse, which would
indicate some 200,000 people in the city and in the surrounding region
under its protection. Livy remarks that it was an ancient device (vetus
consilium) of the founders of cities to draw to themselves an obscure and
humble multitude, and then set up for their progeny the autocthonic
claim.339 Romulus pursuing this ancient policy is said to have opened an
asylum near the Palatine, and to have invited all persons in the surrounding
tribe, without regard to character or condition, to share with his tribes the
advantages and the destiny of the new city. A great crowd of people, Livy
further remarks, fled to this place from the surrounding territories, slave as
well as free, which was the first accession of foreign strength to the new
undertaking.340 Plutarch,341 and Dionysius342 both refer to the asylum or
grove, the opening of which, for the object and with the success named, was
an event of probable occurrence. It tends to show that the people of Italy
had then become numerous for barbarians, and that discontent prevailed
among them in consequence, doubtless, of the imperfect protection of
personal rights, the existence of domestic slavery, and the apprehension of
violence. Of such a state of things a wise man would naturally avail himself
if he possessed sufficient military genius to handle the class of men thus
brought together. The next important event in this romantic narrative, of
which the reader should be reminded, was the assault of the Sabines to
avenge the entrapment of the Sabine virgins, now the honored wives of
their captors. It resulted in a wise accommodation under which the Latins
and Sabines coalesced into one society, but each division retaining its own
military leader. The Sabines occupied the Quirinal and Capitoline Hills.
Thus was added the principal part of the second tribe, the Tities, under
Titius Tatius their military chief. After the death of the latter they all fell
under the military command of Romulus.
Passing over Numa Pompilius, the successor of Romulus, who established
upon a broader scale the religious institutions of the Romans, his successor,
Tullus Hostilius, captured the Latin city of Alba and removed its entire
population to Rome. They occupied the Cœlian Hill, with all the privileges
of Roman citizens. The number of citizens was now doubled, Livy
remarks;343 but not likely from this source exclusively. Ancus Martius, the
successor of Tullus, captured the Latin city of Politorium, and following the
established policy, transferred the people bodily to Rome.344 To them was
assigned the Aventine Hill, with similar privileges. Not long afterwards the
inhabitants of Tellini and Ficana were subdued and removed to Rome,
where they also occupied the Aventine.345 It will be noticed that in each
case the gentes brought to Rome, as well as the original Latin and Sabine
gentes, remained locally distinct. It was the universal usage in gentile
society, both in the Middle and in the Upper Status of barbarism, when the
tribes began to gather in fortresses and in walled cities, for the gentes to
settle locally together by gentes and by phratries.346 Such was the manner
the gentes settled at Rome. The greater portion of these accessions were
united in the third tribe, the Luceres, which gave it a broad basis of Latin
gentes. It was not entirely filled until the time of Tarquinius Priscus, the
fourth military leader from Romulus, some of the new gentes being
Etruscan.
By these and other means three hundred gentes were gathered at Rome and
there organized in curiæ and tribes, differing somewhat in tribal lineage; for
the Ramnes, as before remarked, were Latins, the Tities were in the main
Sabines and the Luceres were probably in the main Latins with large
accessions from other sources. The Roman people and organization thus
grew into being by a more or less constrained aggregation of gentes into
curiæ, of curiæ into tribes, and of tribes into one gentile society. But a
model for each integral organization, excepting the last, had existed among
them and their ancestors from time immemorial; with a natural basis for
each curia in the kindred gentes actually united in each, and a similar basis
for each tribe in the common lineage of a greater part of the gentes united in
each. All that was new in organization was the numerical proportions of
gentes to a curia, of curiæ to a tribe, and the coalescence of the latter into
one people. It may be called a growth under legislative constraint, because
the tribes thus formed were not entirely free from the admixture of foreign
elements; whence arose the new name tribus=a third part of the people,
which now came in to distinguish this organism. The Latin language must
have had a term equivalent to the Greek phylon (φῦλον) = tribe, because
they had the same organization; but if so it has disappeared. The invention
of this new term is some evidence that the Roman tribes contained
heterogeneous elements, while the Grecian were pure, and kindred in the
lineage of the gentes they contained.
Our knowledge of the previous constitution of Latin society is mainly
derived from the legislation ascribed to Romulus, since it brings into view
the anterior organization of the Latin tribes, with such improvements and
modifications as the wisdom of the age was able to suggest. It is seen in the
senate as a council of chiefs, in the comitia curiata as an assembly of the
the people by curiæ, in the office of a general military commander, and in
the ascending series of organizations. It is seen more especially in the
presence of the gentes, with their recognized rights, privileges and
obligations. Moreover, the government instituted by Romulus and perfected
by his immediate successors presents gentile society in the highest
structural form it ever attained in any portion of the human family. The time
referred to was immediately before the institution of political society by
Servius Tullius.
The first momentous act of Romulus, as a legislator, was the institution of
the Roman senate. It was composed of a hundred members, one from each
gens, or ten from each curia. A council of chiefs as the primary instrument
of government was not a new thing among the Latin tribes. From time
immemorial they had been accustomed to its existence and to its authority.
But it is probable that prior to the time of Romulus it had become changed,
like the Grecian councils, into a pre-considering body, obligated to prepare
and submit to an assembly of the people the most important public
measures for adoption or rejection. This was in effect a resumption by the
people of powers before vested in the council of chiefs. Since no public
measure of essential importance could become operative until it received
the sanction of the popular assembly, this fact alone shows that the people
were sovereign, and not the council, nor the military commander. It reveals
also the extent to which democratic principles had penetrated their social
system. The senate instituted by Romulus, although its functions were
doubtless substantially similar to those of the previous council of chiefs,
was an advance upon it in several respects. It was made up either of the
chiefs or of the wise men of the gentes. Each gens, as Niebuhr remarks,
“sending its decurion who was its alderman,”347 to represent it in the senate.
It was thus a representative and an elective body in its inception, and it
remained elective, or selective, down to the empire. The senators held their
office for life, which was the only term of office then known among them,
and therefore not singular. Livy ascribes the selection of the first senators to
Romulus, which is probably an erroneous statement, for the reason that it
would not have been in accordance with the theory of their institutions.
Romulus chose a hundred senators, he remarks, either because that number
was sufficient, or because there were but a hundred who could be created
Fathers. Fathers certainly they were called on account of their official
dignity, and their descendants were called patricians.348 The character of the
senate as a representative body, the title of Fathers of the People bestowed
upon its members, the life-tenure of the office, but, more than all these
considerations, the distinction of patricians conferred upon their children
and lineal descendants in perpetuity, established at a stroke an aristocracy of
rank in the centre of their social system where it became firmly intrenched.
The Roman senate, from its high vocation, from its composition, and from
the patrician rank received by its members and transmitted to their
descendants, held a powerful position in the subsequent state. It was this
aristocratic element, now for the first time planted in gentilism, which gave
to the republic its mongrel character, and which, as might have been
predicted, culminated in imperialism, and with it in the final dissolution of
the race. It may perhaps have increased the military glory and extended the
conquests of Rome, whose institutions, from the first, aimed at a military
destiny; but it shortened the career of this great and extraordinary people,
and demonstrated the proposition that imperialism of necessity will destroy
any civilized race. Under the republic, half aristocratic, half democratic, the
Romans achieved their fame, which one can but think would have been
higher in degree, and more lasting in its fruits, had liberty and equality been
nationalized, instead of unequal privileges and an atrocious slavery. The
long protracted struggle of the plebeians to eradicate the aristocratic
element represented by the senate, and to recover the ancient principles of
democracy, must be classed among the heroic labors of mankind.
After the union of the Sabines the senate was increased to two hundred by
the addition of a hundred senators349 from the gentes of the tribe Tities; and
when the Luceres had increased to a hundred gentes in the time of
Tarquinius Priscus, a third hundred senators were added from the gentes of
this tribe.350 Cicero has left some doubt upon this statement of Livy, by
saying that Tarquinius Priscus doubled the original number of the
senators.351 But Schmitz well suggests, as an explanation of the
discrepancy, that at the time of the final increase the senate may have
become reduced to a hundred and fifty members, and been filled up to two
hundred from the gentes of the first two tribes, when the hundred were
added from the third. The senators taken from the tribes Ramnes and Tities
were thenceforth called Fathers of the Greater Gentes (patres maiorum
gentium), and those of the Luceres Fathers of the Lesser Gentes (patres
minorum gentium).352 From the form of the statement the inference arises
that the three hundred senators represented the three hundred gentes, each
senator representing a gens. Moreover, as each gens doubtless had its
principal chief (princeps), it becomes extremely probable that this person
was chosen for the position either by his gens, or the ten were chosen
together by the curia, from the ten gentes of which it was composed. Such a
method of representation and of choice is most in accordance with what is
known of Roman and gentile institutions.353 After the establishment of the
republic, the censors filled the vacancies in the senate by their own choice,
until it was devolved upon the consuls. They were generally selected from
the ex-magistrates of the higher grades.
The powers of the senate were real and substantial. All public measures
originated in this body—those upon which they could act independently, as
well as those which must be submitted to the popular assembly and be
adopted before they could become operative. It had the general
guardianship of the public welfare, the management of their foreign
relations, the levying of taxes and of military forces, and the general control
of revenues and expenditures. Although the administration of religious
affairs belonged to the several colleges of priests, the senate had the
ultimate power over religion as well. From its functions and vocation it was
the most influential body which ever existed under gentile institutions.
The assembly of the people, with the recognized right of acting upon
important public measures to be discussed by them and adopted or rejected,
was unknown in the Lower, and probably in the Middle Status of
barbarism; but it existed in the Upper Status, in the agora of the Grecian
tribes, and attained its highest form in the ecclesia of the Athenians; and it
also existed in the assembly of the warriors among the Latin tribes,
attaining its highest form in the comitia curiata of the Romans. The growth
of property tended to the establishment of the popular assembly, as a third
power in gentile society, for the protection of personal rights and as a shield
against the encroachments of the council of chiefs, and of the military
commander. From the period of savagery, after the institution of the gentes,
down to the times of Solon and Romulus, the popular element had always
been active in ancient gentile society. The council of chiefs was usually
open in the early conditions to the orators of the people, and public
sentiment influenced the course of events. But when the Grecian and Latin
tribes first came under historical notice the assembly of the people to
discuss and adopt or reject public measures was a phenomenon quite as
constant as that of a council of chiefs. It was more perfectly systematized
among the Romans under the constitution of Romulus than among the
Athenians in the time of Solon. In the rise and progress of this institution
may be traced the growth and development of the democratic principle.
This assembly among the Romans was called the comitia curiata, because
the members of the gentes of adult age met in one assembly by curiæ, and
voted in the same manner. Each curia had one collective vote, the majority
in each was ascertained separately, and determined what that vote should
be.354 It was the assembly of the gentes, who alone were members of the
government. Plebeians and clients, who already formed a numerous class,
were excluded, because there could be no connection with the Populus
Romanus, except through a gens and tribe. This assembly, as before stated,
could neither originate public measures, nor amend such as were submitted
to them; but none of a certain grade could become operative until adopted
by the comitia. All laws were passed or repealed by this assembly; all
magistrates and high public functionaries, including the rex, were elected by
it on the nomination of the senate.355 The imperium was conferred upon
these persons by a law of the assembly (lex curiata de imperio), which was
the Roman method of investing with office. Until the imperium was thus
conferred, the person, although the election was complete, could not enter
upon his office. The comitia curiata, by appeal, had the ultimate decision in
criminal cases involving the life of a Roman citizen. It was by a popular
movement that the office of rex was abolished. Although the assembly of
the people never acquired the power of originating measures, its powers
were real and influential. At this time the people were sovereign.
The assembly had no power to convene itself; but it is said to have met on
the summons of the rex, or, in his absence, on that of the praefect
(praefectus urbi). In the time of the republic it was convened by the
consuls, or, in their absence, by the praetor; and in all cases the person who
convened the assembly presided over its deliberations.
In another connection the office of rex has been considered. The rex was a
general and also a priest, but without civil functions, as some writers have
endeavored to imply.356 His powers as a general, though not defined, were
necessarily absolute over the military forces in the field and in the city. If he
exercised any civil powers in particular cases, it must be supposed that they
were delegated for the occasion. To pronounce him a king, as that term is
necessarily understood, is to vitiate and mis-describe the popular
government to which he belonged, and the institutions upon which it rested.
The form of government under which the rex and basileus appeared is
identified with gentile institutions and disappeared after gentile society was
overthrown. It was a peculiar organization having no parallel in modern
society, and is unexplainable in terms adapted to monarchical institutions. A
military democracy under a senate, an assembly of the people, and a general
of their nomination and election, is a near, though it may not be a perfect,
characterization of a government so peculiar, which belongs exclusively to
ancient society, and rested on institutions essentially democratical.
Romulus, in all probability, emboldened by his great successes, assumed
powers which were regarded as dangerous to the senate and to the people,
and his assassination by the Roman chiefs is a fair inference from the
statements concerning his mysterious disappearance which have come
down to us. This act, atrocious as it must be pronounced, evinces that spirit
of independence, inherited from the gentes, which would not submit to
arbitrary individual power. When the office was abolished, and the
consulate was established in its place, it is not surprising that two consuls
were created instead of one. While the powers of the office might raise one
man to a dangerous height, it could not be the case with two. The same
subtlety of reasoning led the Iroquois, without original experience, to create
two war-chiefs of the confederacy instead of one, lest the office of
commander-in-chief, bestowed upon a single man, should raise him to a
position too influential.
In his capacity of chief priest the rex took the auspices on important
occasions, which was one of the highest acts of the Roman religious
system, and in their estimation quite as necessary in the field on the eve of a
battle as in the city. He performed other religious rites as well. It is not
surprising that in those times priestly functions are found among the
Romans, as among the Greeks, attached to or inherent in the highest
military office. When the abolition of this office occurred, it was found
necessary to vest in some one the religious functions appertaining to it,
which were evidently special; whence the creation of the new office of rex
sacrificulus, or rex sacrorum, the incumbent of which performed the
religious duties in question. Among the Athenians the same idea reappears
in the second of the nine archons, who was called archon basileus, and had
a general supervision of religious affairs. Why religious functions were
attached to the office of rex and basileus, among the Romans and Greeks,
and to the office of Teuctli among the Aztecs; and why, after the abolition of
the office in the two former cases, the ordinary priesthoods could not
perform them, has not been explained.
Thus stood Roman gentile society from the time of Romulus to the time of
Servius Tullius, through a period of more than two hundred years, during
which the foundations of Roman power were laid. The government, as
before remarked, consisted of three powers, a senate, an assembly of the
people, and a military commander. They had experienced the necessity for
definite written laws to be enacted by themselves, as a substitute for usages
and customs. In the rex they had the germinal idea of a chief executive
magistrate, which necessity pressed upon them, and which was to advance
into a more complete form after the institution of political society. But they
found it a dangerous office in those times of limited experience in the
higher conceptions of government, because the powers of the rex were, in
the main, undefined, as well as difficult of definition. It is not surprising
that when a serious controversy arose between the people and Tarquinius
Superbus, they deposed the man and abolished the office. As soon as
something like the irresponsible power of a king met them face to face it
was found incompatible with liberty and the latter gained the victory. They
were willing, however, to admit into the system of government a limited
executive, and they created the office in a dual form in the two consuls.
This occurred after the institution of political society.
No direct steps were taken, prior to the time of Servius Tullius, to establish
a state founded upon territory and upon property; but the previous measures
were a preparation for that event. In addition to the institutions named, they
had created a city magistracy, and a complete military system, including the
institution of the equestrian order. Under institutions purely gentile Rome
had become, in the time of Servius Tullius, the strongest military power in
Italy.
Among the new magistrates created, that of warden of the city (custos
urbis) was the most important. This officer, who was chief of the senate
(princeps senatus), was, in the first instance, according to Dionysius,
appointed by Romulus.357 The senate, which had no power to convene
itself, was convened by him. It is also claimed that the rex had power to
summon the senate. That it would be apt to convene upon his request,
through the call of its own officer, is probable; but that he could command
its convocation is improbable, from its independence in functions, from its
dignity, and from its representative character. After the time of the
Decemvirs the name of the office was changed to præfect of the city
(præfectus urbi), its powers were enlarged, and it was made elective by the
new comitia centuriata. Under the republic, the consuls, and in their
absence, the praetor, had power to convene the senate, and also to hold the
comitia. At a later day, the office of praetor (praetor urbanus) absorbed the
functions of this ancient office and became its successor. A judicial
magistrate, the Roman praetor was the prototype of the modern judge.
Thus, every essential institution in the government or administration of the
affairs of society may generally be traced to a simple germ, which springs
up in a rude form from human wants, and, when able to endure the test of
time and experience, is developed into a permanent institution.
A knowledge of the tenure of the office of chief, and of the functions of the
council of chiefs, before the time of Romulus, could they be ascertained,
would reflect much light upon the condition of Roman gentile society in the
time of Romulus. Moreover, the several periods should be studied
separately, because the facts of their social condition were changing with
their advancement in intelligence. The Italian period prior to Romulus, the
period of the seven reges, and the subsequent periods of the republic and of
the empire are marked by great differences in the spirit and character of the
government. But the institutions of the first period entered into the second,
and these again were transmitted into the third, and remained with
modifications in the fourth. The growth, development and fall of these
institutions embody the vital history of the Roman people. It is by tracing
these institutions from the germ through their successive stages of growth,
on the wide scale of the tribes and nations of mankind, that we can follow
the great movements of the human mind in its evolution from its infancy in
savagery to its present high development. Out of the necessities of mankind
for the organization of society came the gens; out of the gens came the
chief, and the tribe with its council of chiefs; out of the tribe came by
segmentation the group of tribes, afterwards re-united in a confederacy, and
finally consolidated by coalescence into a nation; out of the experience of
the council came the necessity of an assembly of the people with a division
of the powers of the government between them; and finally, out of the
military necessities of the united tribes came the general military
commander, who became in time a third power in the government, but
subordinate to the two superior powers. It was the germ of the office of the
subsequent chief magistrate, the king and the president. The principal
institutions of civilized nations are simply continuations of those which
germinated in savagery, expanded in barbarism, and which are still
subsisting and advancing in civilization.
As the Roman government existed at the death of Romulus, it was social,
and not political; it was personal, and not territorial. The three tribes were
located, it is true, in separate and distinct areas within the limits of the city;
but this was the prevailing mode of settlement under gentile institutions.
Their relations to each other and to the resulting society, as gentes, curiæ
and tribes, were wholly personal, the government dealing with them as
groups of persons, and with the whole as the Roman people. Localized in
this manner within inclosing ramparts, the idea of a township or city ward
would suggest itself when the necessity for a change in the plan of
government was forced upon them by the growing complexity of affairs. It
was a great change that was soon to be required of them, to be wrought out
through experimental legislation—precisely the same which the Athenians
had entered upon shortly before the time of Servius Tullius. Rome was
founded, and its first victories were won under institutions purely gentile;
but the fruits of these achievements by their very magnitude demonstrated
the inability of the gentes to form the basis of a state. But it required two
centuries of intense activity in the growing commonwealth to prepare the
way for the institution of the second great plan of government based upon
territory and upon property. A withdrawal of governing powers from the
gentes, curiæ and tribes, and their bestowal upon new constituencies was
the sacrifice demanded. Such a change would become possible only through
a conviction that the gentes could not be made to yield such a form of
government as their advanced condition demanded. It was practically a
question of continuance in barbarism, or progress into civilization. The
inauguration of the new system will form the subject of the next chapter.
CHAPTER XIII. - THE INSTITUTION OF ROMAN POLITICAL
SOCIETY.
T P .—T P .—T C .—T P .—L O .—
L S T .—I P C .—O C .—
U S .—C C .—S C C .—C S
G .—T C .—P C .—I C W .—O
C T .—T I T F .—M L C .—
C N P S .—D D G O .
—T W A .

Servius Tullius, the sixth chief of the Roman military democracy, came to
the succession about one hundred and thirty-three years after the death of
Romulus, as near as the date can be ascertained.358 This would place his
accession about 576 B. C. To this remarkable man the Romans were chiefly
indebted for the establishment of their political system. It will be sufficient
to indicate its main features, together with some of the reasons which led to
its adoption.
From the time of Romulus to that of Servius Tullius the Romans consisted
of two distinct classes, the populus and the plebeians. Both were personally
free, and both entered the ranks of the army; but the former alone were
organized in gentes, curiæ and tribes, and held the powers of the
government. The plebeians, on the other hand, did not belong to any gens,
curia or tribe, and consequently were without the government.359 They were
excluded from office, from the comitia curiata, and from the sacred rites of
the gentes. In the time of Servius they had become nearly if not quite as
numerous as the populus. They were in the anomalous position of being
subject to the military service, and of possessing families and property,
which identified them with the interests of Rome, without being in any
sense connected with the government. Under gentile institutions, as we
have seen, there could be no connection with the government except
through a recognized gens, and the plebeians had no gentes. Such a state of
things, affecting so large a portion of the people, was dangerous to the
commonwealth. Admitting of no remedy under gentile institutions, it must
have furnished one of the prominent reasons for attempting the overthrow
of gentile society, and the substitution of political. The Roman fabric
would, in all probability, have fallen in pieces if a remedy had not been
devised. It was commenced in the time of Romulus, renewed by Numa
Pompilius, and completed by Servius Tullius.
The origin both of the plebeians and of the patricians, and their subsequent
relations to each other, have been fruitful themes of discussion and of
disagreement. A few suggestions may be ventured upon each of these
questions.
A person was a plebeian because he was not a member of a gens, organized
with other gentes in a curia and tribe. It is easy to understand how large
numbers of persons would have become detached from the gentes of their
birth in the unsettled times which preceded and followed the founding of
Rome. The adventurers who flocked to the new city from the surrounding
tribes, the captives taken in their wars and afterwards set free, and the
unattached persons mingled with the gentes transplanted to Rome, would
rapidly furnish such a class. It might also well happen that in filling up the
hundred gentes of each tribe, fragments of gentes, and gentes having less
than a prescribed number of persons, were excluded. These unattached
persons, with the fragments of gentes thus excluded from recognition and
organization in a curia, would soon become, with their children and
descendants, a great and increasing class. Such were the Roman plebeians,
who, as such, were not members of the Roman gentile society. It seems to
be a fair inference from the epithet applied to the senators of the Luceres,
the third Roman tribe admitted, who were styled “Fathers of the Lesser
Gentes,” that the old gentes were reluctant to acknowledge their entire
equality. For a stronger reason they debarred the plebeians from all
participation in the government. When the third tribe was filled up with the
prescribed number of gentes, the last avenue of admission was closed, after
which the number in the plebeian class would increase with greater rapidity.
Niebuhr remarks that the existence of the plebeian class may be traced to
the time of Ancus, thus implying that they made their first appearance at
that time.360 He also denies that the clients were a part of the plebeian
body;361 in both of which positions he differs from Dionysius,362 and from
Plutarch.363 The institution of the relation of patron and client is ascribed by
the authors last named to Romulus, and it is recognized by Suetonius as
existing in the time of Romulus.364 A necessity for such an institution
existed in the presence of a class without a gentile status, and without
religious rites, who would avail themselves of this relation for the
protection of their persons and property, and for the access it gave them to
religious privileges. Members of a gens would not be without this
protection or these privileges; neither would it befit the dignity or accord
with the obligations of a gens to allow one of its members to accept a patron
in another gens. The unattached class, or, in other words, the plebeians,
were the only persons who would naturally seek patrons and become their
clients. The clients formed no part of the populus for the reasons stated. It
seems plain, notwithstanding the weight of Niebuhr’s authority on Roman
questions, that the clients were a part of the plebeian body.
The next question is one of extreme difficulty, namely: the origin and extent
of the patrician class—whether it originated with the institution of the
Roman Senate, and was limited to the senators, and to their children and
descendants; or included the entire populus, as distinguished from the
plebeians. It is claimed by the most eminent modern authorities that the
entire populus were patricians. Niebuhr, who is certainly the first on Roman
questions, adopts this view,365 to which Long, Schmitz, and others have
given their concurrence.366 But the reasons assigned are not conclusive. The
existence of the patrician class, and of the plebeian class as well, may be
traced, as stated, to the time of Romulus.367 If the populus, who were the
entire body of the people organized in gentes, were all patricians at this
early day, the distinction would have been nominal, as the plebeian class
was then unimportant. Moreover, the plain statements of Cicero and of Livy
are not reconcilable with this conclusion. Dionysius, it is true, speaks of the
institution of the patrician class as occurring before that of the senate, and
as composed of a limited number of persons distinguished for their birth,
their virtue, and their wealth; thus excluding the poor and obscure in birth,
although they belonged to the historical gentes.368 Admitting a class of
patricians without senatorial connection, there was still a large class
remaining in the several gentes who were not patricians. Cicero has left a
plain statement that the senators and their children were patricians, and
without referring to the existence of any patrician class beyond their
number. When that senate of Romulus, he remarks, which was constituted
of the best men, whom Romulus himself respected so highly that he wished
them to be called fathers, and their children patricians, attempted,369 etc.
The meaning attached to the word fathers (patres) as here used was a
subject of disagreement among the Romans themselves; but the word
patricii, for the class is formed upon patres, thus tending to show the
necessary connection of the patricians with the senatorial office. Since each
senator at the outset represented, in all probability, a gens, and the three
hundred thus represented all the recognized gentes, this fact could not of
itself make all the members of the gentes patricians, because the dignity
was limited to the senators, their children, and their posterity. Livy is
equally explicit. They were certainly called fathers, he remarks, on account
of their official dignity, and their posterity (progenies) patricians.370 Under
the reges and also under the republic, individuals were created patricians by
the government; but apart from the senatorial office, and special creation by
the government, the rank could not be obtained. It is not improbable that a
number of persons, not admitted into the senate when it was instituted, were
placed by public act on the same level with the senators as to the new
patrician rank; but this would include a small number only of the members
of the three hundred gentes, all of whom were embraced in the Populus
Romanus.
It is not improbable that the chiefs of the gentes were called fathers before
the time of Romulus, to indicate the paternal character of the office; and
that the office may have conferred a species of recognized rank upon their
posterity. But we have no direct evidence of the fact. Assuming it to have
been the case, and further, that the senate at its institution did not include all
the principal chiefs, and further still, that when vacancies in the senate were
subsequently filled, the selection was made on account of merit and not on
account of gens, a foundation for a patrician class might have previously
existed independently of the senate. These assumptions might be used to
explain the peculiar language of Cicero, namely that Romulus desired that
the senators might be called Fathers, possibly because this was already the
honored title of the chiefs of the gentes. In this way a limited foundation for
a patrician class may be found independent of the senate; but it would not
be broad enough to include all the recognized gentes. It was in connection
with the senators that the suggestion was made that their children and
descendants should be called patricians. The same statement is repeated by
Paterculus.371
It follows that there could be no patrician gens and no plebeian gens,
although particular families in one gens might be patricians, and in another
plebeians. There is some confusion also upon this point. All the adult male
members of the Fabian gens, to the number of three hundred and six, were
patricians.372 It must be explained by the supposition that all the families in
this gens could trace their descent from senators, or to some public act by
which their ancestors were raised to the patriciate. There were of course
patrician families in many gentes, and at a later day patrician and plebeian
families in the same gens. Thus the Claudii and Marcelli, before referred to
(supra p. 287), were two families of the Claudian gens, but the Claudii
alone were patricians. It will be borne in mind, that prior to the time of
Servius Tullius the Romans were divided into two classes, the populus and
the plebeians; but that after his time, and particularly after the Licinian
legislation (367 B. C.) by which all the dignities of the state were opened to
every citizen, the Roman people, of the degree of freemen, fell into two
political classes, which may be distinguished as the aristocracy and the
commonalty. The former class consisted of the senators, and those
descended from senators, together with those who had held either of the
three curule offices, (consul, praetor, and curule ædile) and their
descendants. The commonalty were now Roman citizens. The gentile
organization had fallen into decadence, and the old division could no longer
be maintained. Persons, who in the first period as belonging to the populus,
could not be classed with the plebeians, would in the subsequent period
belong to the aristocracy without being patricians. The Claudii could trace
their descent from Appius Claudius who was made a senator in the time of
Romulus; but the Marcelli could not trace their descent from him, nor from
any other senator, although, as Niebuhr remarks, “equal to the Apii in the
splendor of the honors they attained to, and incomparably more useful to
the commonwealth.”373 This is a sufficient explanation of the position of
the Marcelli without resorting to the fanciful hypothesis of Niebuhr, that the
Marcelli had lost patrician rank through a marriage of disparagement.374
The patrician class were necessarily numerous, because the senators, rarely
less than three hundred, were chosen as often as vacancies occurred, thus
constantly including new families; and because it conferred patrician rank
on their posterity. Others were from time to time made patricians by act of
the state.375 This distinction, at first probably of little value, became of great
importance with their increase in wealth, numbers and power; and it
changed the complexion of Roman society. The full effect of introducing a
privileged class in Roman gentile society was not probably appreciated at
the time; and it is questionable whether this institution did not exercise a
more injurious than beneficial influence upon the subsequent career of the
Roman people.
When the gentes had ceased to be organizations for governmental purposes
under the new political system, the populus no longer remained as
distinguished from the plebeians; but the shadow of the old organization
and of the old distinction remained far into the republic.376 The plebeians
under the new system were Roman citizens, but they were now the
commonalty; the question of the connection or non-connection with a gens
not entering into the distinction.
From Romulus to Servius Tullius the Roman organization, as before stated,
was simply a gentile society, without relation to territory or to property. All
we find is a series of aggregates of persons, in gentes, curiæ and tribes, by
means of which the people were dealt with by the government as groups of
persons forming these several organic unities. Their condition was precisely
like that of the Athenians prior to the time of Solon. But they had instituted
a senate in the place of the old council of chiefs, a comitia curiata in the
place of the old assembly of the people, and had chosen a military
commander, with the additional functions of a priest and judge. With a
government of three powers, co-ordinated with reference to their principal
necessities, and with a coalescence of the three tribes, composed of an equal
number of gentes and curiæ, into one people, they possessed a higher and
more complete governmental organization than the Latin tribes had before
attained. A numerous class had gradually developed, however, who were
without the pale of the government, and without religious privileges,
excepting that portion who had passed into the relation of clients. If not a
dangerous class, their exclusion from citizenship, and from all participation
in the government, was detrimental to the commonwealth. A municipality
was growing up upon a scale of magnitude unknown in their previous
experience, requiring a special organization to conduct its local affairs. A
necessity for a change in the plan of government must have forced itself
more and more upon the attention of thoughtful men. The increase of
numbers and of wealth, and the difficulty of managing their affairs, now
complex from weight of numbers and diversity of interests, began to reveal
the fact, it must be supposed, that they could not hold together under gentile
institutions. A conclusion of this kind is required to explain the several
expedients which were tried.
Numa, the successor of Romulus, made the first significant movement,
because it reveals the existence of an impression, that a great power could
not rest upon gentes as the basis of a system. He attempted to traverse the
gentes, as Theseus did, by dividing the people into classes, some eight in
number, according to their arts and trades.377 Plutarch, who is the chief
authority for this statement, speaks of this division of the people according
to their vocations as the most admired of Numa’s institutions; and remarks
further, that it was designed to take away the distinction between Latin and
Sabine, both name and thing, by mixing them together in a new distribution.
But as he did not invest the classes with the powers exercised by the gentes,
the measure failed, like the similar attempt of Theseus, and for the same
reason. Each guild, as we are assured by Plutarch, had its separate hall,
court and religious observances. These records, though traditionary, of the
same experiment in Attica and at Rome, made for the same object, for
similar reasons, and by the same instrumentalities, render the inference
reasonable that the experiment as stated was actually tried in each case.
Servius Tullius instituted the new system, and placed it upon a foundation
where it remained to the close of the republic, although changes were
afterwards made in the nature of improvements. His period (about 576-533
B. C.) follows closely that of Solon (596 B. C.), and precedes that of
Cleisthenes (509 B. C.). The legislation ascribed to him, and which was
obviously modeled upon that of Solon, may be accepted as having occurred
as early as the time named, because the system was in practical operation
when the republic was established 509 B. C., within the historical period.
Moreover, the new political system may as properly be ascribed to him as
great measures have been attributed to other men, although in both cases the
legislator does little more than formulate what experience had already
suggested and pressed upon his attention. The three principal changes
which set aside the gentes and inaugurated political society based upon
territory and upon property, were: first, the substitution of classes, formed
upon the measure of individual wealth, in the place of the gentes; second,
the institution of the comitia centuriata, as the new popular assembly, in the
place of the comitia curiata, the assembly of the gentes, with a transfer of
the substantial powers of the latter to the former; and third, the creation of
four city wards, in the nature of townships, circumscribed by metes and
bounds and named as territorial areas, in which the residents of each ward
were required to enroll their names and register their property.
Imitating Solon, with whose plan of government he was doubtless familiar,
Servius divided the people into five classes, according to the value of their
property, the effect of which was to concentrate in one class the wealthiest
men of the several gentes.378 Each class was then subdivided into centuries,
the number in each being established arbitrarily without regard to the actual
number of persons it contained, and with one vote to each century in the
comitia. The amount of political power to be held by each class was thus
determined by the number of centuries given to each. Thus, the first class
consisted of eighty centuries, with eighty votes in the comitia centuriata;
the second class of twenty centuries, to which two centuries of artisans were
attached, with twenty-two votes; the third class of twenty centuries, with
twenty votes; the fourth class of twenty, to which two centuries of horn-
blowers and trumpeters were attached, with twenty-two votes; and the fifth
class of thirty centuries, with thirty votes. In addition to these, the equites
consisted of eighteen centuries, with eighteen votes. To these classes
Dionysius adds a sixth class, consisting of one century, with one vote. It
was composed of those who had no property, or less than the amount
required for admission into the fifth class. They neither paid taxes, nor
served in war.379 The whole number of centuries in the six classes with the
equites added, made a total of one hundred and ninety-three, according to
Dionysius.380 Livy, agreeing with the former as to the number of regular
centuries in the five classes, differs from him by excluding the sixth class,
the persons being formed into one century with one vote, and included in or
attached to the fifth class. He also makes three centuries of horn-blowers
instead of two, and the whole number of centuries one more than
Dionysius.381 Cicero remarks that ninety-six centuries were a minority,
which would be equally true under either statement.382 The centuries of
each class were divided into seniors and juniors, of which the senior
centuries were composed of such persons as were above the age of fifty-
five years, and were charged with the duty, as soldiers, of defending the
city; while the junior centuries consisted of those persons who were below
this age and above seventeen, and were charged with external military
enterprises.383 The armature of each class was prescribed and made
different for each.384
It will be noticed that the control of the government, so far as the assembly
of the people could influence its action, was placed in the hands of the first
class, and the equites. They held together ninety-eight votes, a majority of
the whole. Each century agreed upon its vote separately when assembled in
the comitia centuriata, precisely as each curia had been accustomed to do in
the comitia curiata. In taking a vote upon any public question, the equites
were called first, and then the first class.385 If they agreed in their votes it
decided the question, and the remaining centuries were not called upon to
vote; but if they disagreed, the second class was called, and so on to the
last, unless a majority sooner appeared.
The powers formerly exercised by the comitia curiata, now transferred to
the comitia centuriata, were enlarged in some slight particulars in the
subsequent period. It elected all officers and magistrates on the nomination
of the senate; it enacted or rejected laws proposed by the senate, no measure
becoming a law without its sanction; it repealed existing laws on the
proposition of the same body, if they chose to do so; and it declared war on
the same recommendation. But the senate concluded peace without
consulting the assembly. An appeal in all cases involving life could be taken
to this assembly as the highest judicial tribunal of the state. These powers
were substantial, but limited—control over the finances being excluded. A
majority of the votes, however, were lodged with the first class, including
the equites, which embraced the body of the patricians, as must be
supposed, and the wealthiest citizens. Property and not numbers controlled
the government. They were able, however, to create a body of laws in the
course of time which afforded equal protection to all, and thus tended to
redeem the worst effects of the inequalities of the system.
The meetings of the comitia were held in the Campus Martius annually for
the election of magistrates and officers, and at other times when the public
necessities required. The people assembled by centuries, and by classes
under their officers, organized as an army (exercitus); for the centuries and
classes were designed to subserve all the purposes of a military as well as a
civil organization. At the first muster under Servius Tullius, eighty thousand
citizen soldiers appeared in the Campus Martius under arms, each man in
his proper century, each century in its class, and each class by itself.386
Every member of a century was now a citizen of Rome, which was the most
important fruit of the new political system. In the time of the republic the
consuls, and in their absence, the praetor, had power to convene the comitia,
which was presided over by the person who caused it to assemble.
Such a government appears to us, in the light of our more advanced
experience, both rude and clumsy; but it was a sensible improvement upon
the previous gentile government, defective and illiberal as it appears. Under
it, Rome became mistress of the world. The element of property, now rising
into commanding importance, determined its character. It had brought
aristocracy and privilege into prominence, which seized the opportunity to
withdraw the control of the government in a great measure from the hands
of the people, and bestow it upon the men of property. It was a movement in
the opposite direction from that to which the democratic principles inherited
from the gentes naturally tended. Against the new elements of aristocracy
and privilege now incorporated in their governmental institutions, the
Roman plebeians contended throughout the period of the republic, and at
times with some measure of success. But patrician rank and property
possessed by the higher classes, were too powerful for the wiser and
grander doctrines of equal rights and equal privileges represented by the
plebeians. It was even then far too heavy a tax upon Roman society to carry
a privileged class.
Cicero, patriot and noble Roman as he was, approved and commended this
gradation of the people into classes, with the bestowment of a controlling
influence in the government upon the minority of citizens. Servius Tullius,
he remarks, “having created a large number of equites from the common
mass of the people, divided the remainder into five classes, distinguishing
between the seniors and juniors, which he so constituted as to place the
suffrages, not in the hands of the multitude, but of the men of property;
taking care to make it a rule of ours, as it ought to be in every government,
that the greatest number should not have the greatest weight.”387 In the light
of the experience of the intervening two thousand years, it may well be
observed that the inequality of privileges, and the denial of the right of self-
government here commended, created and developed that mass of
ignorance and corruption which ultimately destroyed both government and
people. The human race is gradually learning the simple lesson, that the
people as a whole are wiser for the public good and the public prosperity,
than any privileged class of men, however refined and cultivated, have ever
been, or, by any possibility, can ever become. Governments over societies
the most advanced are still in a transitional stage; and they are necessarily
and logically moving, as President Grant, not without reason, intimated in
his last inaugural address, in the direction of democracy; that form of self-
government which represents and expresses the average intelligence and
virtue of a free and educated people.
The property classes subserved the useful purpose of breaking up the
gentes, as the basis of a governmental system, by transferring their powers
to a different body. It was evidently the principal object of the Servian
legislation to obtain a deliverance from the gentes, which were close
corporations, and to give the new government a basis wide enough to
include all the inhabitants of Rome, with the exception of the slaves. After
the classes had accomplished this work, it might have been expected that
they would have died out as they did at Athens; and that city wards and
country townships, with their inhabitants organized as bodies politic, would
have become the basis of the new political system, as they rightfully and
logically should. But the municipal organization of Rome prevented this
consummation. It gained at the outset, and maintained to the end the central
position in the government, to which all areas without were made
subordinate. It presents the anomaly of a great central municipal
government expanded, in effect, first over Italy, and finally over the
conquered provinces of three continents. The five classes, with some
modifications of the manner of voting, remained to the end of the republic.
The creation of a new assembly of the people to take the place of the old,
discloses the radical character of the Servian constitution. These classes
would never have acquired vitality without a newly constituted assembly,
investing them with political powers. With the increase of wealth and
population the duties and responsibilities of this assembly were much
increased. It was evidently the intention of Servius Tullius that it should
extinguish the comitia curiata, and with it the power of the gentes.
This legislator is said to have instituted the comitia tributa, a separate
assembly of each local tribe or ward, whose chief duties related to the
assessment and collection of taxes, and to furnishing contingents of troops.
At a later day this assembly elected the tribunes of the people. The ward
was the natural unit of their political system, and the centre where local
self-government should have been established had the Roman people
wished to create a democratic state. But the senate and the property classes
had forestalled them from that career.
One of the first acts ascribed to Servius was the institution of the census.
Livy pronounces the census a most salutary measure for an empire about to
become so great, according to which the duties of peace and of war were to
be performed, not individually as before, but according to the measure of
personal wealth.388 Each person was required to enroll himself in the ward
of his residence, with a statement of the amount of his property. It was done
in the presence of the censor; and the lists when completed furnished the
basis upon which the classes were formed.389 This was accompanied by a
very remarkable act for the period, the creation of four city wards,
circumscribed by boundaries, and distinguished by appropriate names. In
point of time it was earlier than the institution of the Attic deme by
Cleisthenes; but the two were quite different in their relations to the
government. The Attic deme, as has been shown, was organized as a body
politic with a similar registry of citizens and of their property, and having
besides a complete local self-government, with an elective magistracy,
judiciary and priesthood. On the other hand, the Roman ward was a
geographical area, with a registry of citizens and of their property, with a
local organization, a tribune and other elective offices, and with an
assembly. For a limited number of special objects the inhabitants of the
wards were dealt with by the government through their territorial relations.
But the government of the ward did not possess the solid attributes of that
of the Attic deme. It was a nearer copy of the previous Athenian naucrary,
which not unlikely furnished the model, as the Solonian classes did of the
Servian. Dionysius remarks, that after Servius Tullius had inclosed the
seven hills with one wall he divided the city into four parts, and gave the
names of the hills to the re-divisions: to the first, Palatina, to the second,
Suburra, to the third, Collina, and to the fourth, Esquilina; and made the city
consist of four parts, which before consisted of three; and he ordered the
people who dwelt in each of the four regions, like villagers, not to take any
other dwelling, nor to pay taxes elsewhere, nor give in their names as
soldiers elsewhere, nor pay their assessments for military purposes and
other needs, which each must furnish for the common welfare; for these
things were no longer to be done according to the three consanguine tribes
(φυλὰς τὰς γενικὰς), but according to the four local tribes (φυλὰς τὰς
τοπικὰς), which last had been arranged by himself; and he appointed
commanders over each tribe, as phylarchs or comarchs, whom he directed
to note what house each inhabited.390 Mommsen observes that “each of
these four levy-districts had to furnish the fourth part not only of the force
as a whole, but of each of its military subdivisions, so that each legion and
each century numbered an equal proportion of conscripts from each region;
evidently for the purpose of merging all distinctions of a gentile and local
nature in one common levy of the community, and especially of binding,
through the powerful leveling influence of the military spirit, the meteoci
and the burgesses into one people.”391
In like manner, the surrounding country under the government of Rome was
organized in townships (tribus rusticae), the number of which is stated at
twenty-six by some writers, and at thirty-one by others; making, with the
four city wards, a total of thirty in one case, and of thirty-five in the
other.392 The total number was never increased beyond thirty-five. These
townships did not become integral in the sense of participating in the
administration of the government.
As finally established under the Servian constitution, the government was
cast in the form in which it remained during the existence of the republic;
the consuls taking the place of the previous military commanders. It was not
based upon territory in the exclusive sense of the Athenian government, or
in the modern sense; ascending from the township or ward, the unit of
organization, to the county or arrondissement, and from the latter to the
state, each organized and invested with governmental functions as
constituents of a whole. The central government overshadowed and
atrophied the parts. It rested more upon property than upon territory, this
being made the commanding element, as is shown by the lodgment of the
controlling power of the government in the highest property classes. It had,
nevertheless, a territorial basis as well, since it recognized and used
territorial subdivisions for citizenship, and for financial and military
objects, in which the citizen was dealt with through his territorial relations.
The Romans were now carried fairly out of gentile society into and under
the second great plan of government, founded upon territory and upon
property. They had left gentilism and barbarism behind them, and entered
upon a new career of civilization. Henceforth the creation and protection of
property became the primary objects of the government, with a superadded
career of conquest for domination over distant tribes and nations. This great
change of institutions, creating political society as distinguished from
gentile society, was simply the introduction of the new elements of territory
and property, making the latter a power in the government, which before
had been simply an influence. Had the wards and rustic townships been
organized with full powers of local self-government, and the senate been
made elective by these local constituencies without distinction of classes,
the resulting government would have been a democracy, like the Athenian;
for these local governments would have moulded the state into their own
likeness. The senate, with the hereditary rank it conferred, and the property
basis qualifying the voting power in the assembly of the people, turned the
scale against democratical institutions, and produced a mixed government,
partly aristocratic and partly democratic; eminently calculated to engender
perpetual animosity between the two classes of citizens thus deliberately
and unnecessarily created by affirmative legislation. It is plain, I think, that
the people were circumvented by the Servian constitution, and had a
government put upon them which the majority would have rejected had
they fully comprehended its probable results. The evidence is conclusive of
the antecedent democratical principles of the gentes, which, however
exclusive as against all persons not in their communion, were carried out
fully among themselves. The evidence of this free spirit and of their free
institutions is so decisive that the proposition elsewhere stated, that
gentilism is incompatible with monarchy, seems to be incontrovertible.
As a whole, the Roman government was anomalous. The overshadowing
municipality of Rome, made the centre of the state in its plan of
government, was one of the producing causes of its novel character. The
primary organization of the people into an army with the military spirit it
fostered created the cohesive force which held the republic together, and
afterwards the empire. With a selective senate holding office for life, and
possessing substantial powers; with a personal rank passing to their children
and descendants; with an elective magistracy graded to the needs of a
central metropolis; with an assembly of the people organized into property
classes, possessing an unequal suffrage, but holding both an affirmative and
a negative upon all legislation; and with an elaborate military organization,
no other government strictly analogous has appeared among men. It was
artificial, illogical, approaching a monstrosity; but capable of wonderful
achievements, because of its military spirit, and because the Romans were
endowed with remarkable powers for organizing and managing affairs. The
patchwork in its composition was the product of the superior craft of the
wealthy classes who intended to seize the substance of power while they
pretended to respect the rights and interests of all.
When the new political system became established, the old one did not
immediately disappear. The functions of the senate and of the military
commander remained as before; but the property classes took the place of
the gentes, and the assembly of the classes took the place of the assembly of
the gentes. Radical as the changes were, they were limited, in the main, to
these particulars, and came in without friction or violence. The old
assembly (comitia curiata) was allowed to retain a portion of its powers,
which kept alive for a long period of time the organizations of the gentes,
curiæ and consanguine tribes. It still conferred the imperium upon all the
higher magistrates after their election was completed, though in time it
became a matter of form merely; it inaugurated certain priests, and
regulated the religious observances of the curiæ. This state of things
continued down to the time of the first Punic war, after which the comitia
curiata lost its importance and soon fell into oblivion. Both the assembly
and the curiæ were superseded rather than abolished, and died out from
inanition; but the gentes remained far into the empire, not as an
organization, for that also died out in time, but as a pedigree and a lineage.
Thus the transition from gentile into political society was gradually but
effectually accomplished, and the second great plan of human government
was substituted by the Romans in the place of the first which had prevailed
from time immemorial.
After an immensely protracted duration, running back of the separate
existence of the Aryan family, and received by the Latin tribes from their
remote ancestors, the gentile organization finally surrendered its existence,
among the Romans, to to the demands of civilization. It had held exclusive
possession of society through these several ethnical periods, and until it had
won by experience all the elements of civilization, which it then proved
unable to manage. Mankind owe a debt of gratitude to their savage
ancestors for devising an institution able to carry the advancing portion of
the human race out of savagery into barbarism, and through the successive
stages of the latter into civilization. It also accumulated by experience the
intelligence and knowledge necessary to devise political society while the
institution yet remained. It holds a position on the great chart of human
progress second to none in its influence, in its achievements and in its
history. As a plan of government, the gentile organization was unequal to
the wants of civilized man; but it is something to be said in its remembrance
that it developed from the germ the principal governmental institutions of
modern civilized states. Among others, as before stated, out of the ancient
council of chiefs came the modern senate; out of the ancient assembly of
the people came the modern representative assembly, the two together
constituting the modern legislature; out of the ancient general military
commander came the modern chief magistrate, whether a feudal or
constitutional king, an emperor or a president, the latter being the natural
and logical result; and out of the ancient custos urbis, by a circuitous
derivation, came the Roman praetor and the modern judge. Equal rights and
privileges, personal freedom and the cardinal principles of democracy were
also inherited from the gentes. When property had become created in
masses, and its influence and power began to be felt in society, slavery
came in; an institution violative of all these principles, but sustained by the
selfish and delusive consideration that the person made a slave was a
stranger in blood and a captive enemy. With property also came in gradually
the principle of aristocracy, striving for the creation of privileged classes.
The element of property, which has controlled society to a great extent
during the comparatively short period of civilization, has given mankind
despotism, imperialism, monarchy, privileged classes, and finally
representative democracy. It has also made the career of the civilized
nations essentially a property-making career. But when the intelligence of
mankind rises to the height of the great question of the abstract rights of
property,—including the relations of property to the state, as well as the
rights of persons to property,—a modification of the present order of things
may be expected. The nature of the coming changes it may be impossible to
conceive; but it seems probable that democracy, once universal in a
rudimentary form and repressed in many civilized states, is destined to
become again universal and supreme.
An American, educated in the principles of democracy, and profoundly
impressed with the dignity and grandeur of those great conceptions which
recognize the liberty, equality and fraternity of mankind, may give free
expression to a preference for self-government and free institutions. At the
same time the equal rights of every other person must be recognized to
accept and approve any form of government, whether imperial or
monarchical, that satisfies his preferences.

CHAPTER XIV. - CHANGE OF DESCENT FROM THE

FEMALE TO THE MALE LINE.
H .—I M .—
F L L .—T C .—T E .—P
A C .—T H F L .—E
M .—T S C G T .—L
D .

An important question remains to be considered, namely: whether any

evidence exists that descent was anciently in the female line in the Grecian
and Latin gentes. Theoretically, this must have been the fact at some
anterior period among their remote ancestors; but we are not compelled to
rest the question upon theory alone. Since a change to the male line
involved a nearly total alteration of the membership in a gens, a method by
which it might have been accomplished should be pointed out. More than
this, it should be shown, if possible, that an adequate motive requiring the
change was certain to arise, with the progress of society out of the condition
in which this form of descent originated. And lastly, the existing evidence
of ancient descent in the female line among them should be presented.
A gens in the archaic period, as we have seen, consisted of a supposed
female ancestor and her children, together with the children of her
daughters, and of her female descendants through females in perpetuity. The
children of her sons, and of her male descendants, through males, were
excluded. On the other hand, with descent in the male line, a gens consisted
of a supposed male ancestor and his children, together with the children of
his sons and of his male descendants through males in perpetuity. The
children of his daughters, and of his female descendants, through females,
were excluded. Those excluded in the first case would be members of the
gens in the second case, and vice versâ. The question then arises, how could
descent be changed from the female line to the male without the destruction
of the gens?
The method was simple and natural, provided the motive to make the
change was general, urgent and commanding. When done at a given time,
and by preconcerted determination, it was only necessary to agree that all
the present members of the gens should remain members, but that in future
all children, whose fathers belonged to the gens, should alone remain in it
and bear the gentile name, while the children of its female members should
be excluded. This would not break or change the kinship or relations of the
existing gentiles; but thereafter it would retain in the gens the children it
before excluded, and exclude those it before retained. Although it may seem
a hard problem to solve, the pressure of an adequate motive would render it
easy, and the lapse of a few generations would make it complete. As a
practical question, it has been changed from the female line to the male
among the American aborigines in a number of instances. Thus, among the
Ojibwas descent is now in the male line, while among their congeners, the
Delawares and Mohegans, it is still in the female line. Originally, without a
doubt, descent was in the female line in the entire Algonkin stock.
Since descent in the female line is archaic, and more in accordance with the
early condition of ancient society than descent in the male line, there is a
presumption in favor of its ancient prevalence in the Grecian and Latin
gentes. Moreover, when the archaic form of any transmitted organization
has been discovered and verified, it is impossible to conceive of its
origination in the later more advanced form.
Assuming a change of descent among them from the female line to the
male, it must have occurred very remotely from the historical period. Their
history in the Middle Status of barbarism is entirely lost, except it has been
in some measure preserved in their arts, institutions and inventions, and in
improvements in language. The Upper Status has the superadded light of
tradition and of the Homeric poems to acquaint us with its experience and
the measure of progress then made. But judging from the condition in
which their traditions place them, it seems probable that descent in the
female line had not entirely disappeared, at least among the Pelasgian and
Grecian tribes, when they entered the Upper Status of barbarism.
When descent was in the female line in the Grecian and Latin gentes, the
gens possessed the following among other characteristics: 1. Marriage in
the gens was prohibited; thus placing children in a different gens from that
of their reputed father. 2. Property and the office of chief were hereditary in
the gens; thus excluding children from inheriting the property or succeeding
to the office of their reputed father. This state of things would continue until
a motive arose sufficiently general and commanding to establish the
injustice of this exclusion in the face of their changed condition.
The natural remedy was a change of descent from the female line to the
male. All that was needed to effect the change was an adequate motive.
After domestic animals began to be reared in flocks and herds, becoming
thereby a source of subsistence as well as objects of individual property,
and after tillage had led to the ownership of houses and lands in severalty,
an antagonism would be certain to arise against the prevailing form of
gentile inheritance, because it excluded the owner’s children, whose
paternity was becoming more assured, and gave his property to his gentile
kindred. A contest for a new rule of inheritance, shared in by fathers and
their children, would furnish a motive sufficiently powerful to effect the
change. With property accumulating in masses and assuming permanent
forms, and with an increased proportion of it held by individual ownership,
descent in the female line was certain of overthrow, and the substitution of
the male line equally assured. Such a change would leave the inheritance in
the gens as before, but it would place children in the gens of their father,
and at the head of the agnatic kindred. For a time, in all probability, they
would share in the distribution of the estate with the remaining agnates; but
an extension of the principle by which the agnates cut off the remaining
gentiles, would in time result in the exclusion of the agnates beyond the
children and an exclusive inheritance in the children. Farther than this, the
son would now be brought in the line of succession to the office of his
father.
Such had the law of inheritance become in the Athenian gens in the time of
Solon or shortly after; when the property passed to the sons equally, subject
to the obligation of maintaining the daughters, and of apportioning them in
marriage; and in default of sons, to the daughters equally. If there were no
children, then the inheritance passed to the agnatic kindred, and in default
of the latter, to the gentiles. The Roman law of the Twelve Tables was
substantially the same.
It seems probable further, that when descent was changed to the male line,
or still earlier, animal names for the gentes were laid aside and personal
names substituted in their place. The individuality of persons would assert
itself more and more with the progress of society, and with the increase and
individual ownership of property, leading to the naming of the gens after
some ancestral hero. Although new gentes were being formed from time to
time by the process of segmentation, and others were dying out, the lineage
of a gens reached back through hundreds not to say thousands of years.
After the supposed substitution, the eponymous ancestor would have been a
shifting person, at long intervals of time, some later person distinguished in
the history of the gens being put in his place, when the knowledge of the
former person became obscured, and faded from view in the misty past.
That the more celebrated Grecian gentes made the change of names, and
made it gracefully, is shown by the fact, that they retained the name of the
mother of their gentile father, and ascribed his birth to her embracement by
some particular god. Thus Eumolpus, the eponymous ancestor of the Attic
Eumolpidæ, was the reputed son of Neptune and Chione; but even the
Grecian gens was older than the conception of Neptune.
Recurring now to the main question, the absence of direct proof of ancient
descent in the female line in the Grecian and Latin gentes would not silence
the presumption in its favor; but it so happens that this form of descent
remained in some tribes nearly related to the Greeks with traces of it in a
number of Grecian tribes.
The inquisitive and observing Herodotus found one nation, the Lycians,
Pelasgian in lineage, but Grecian in affiliation, among whom in his time
(440 B. C.), descent was in the female line. After remarking that the
Lycians were sprung from Crete, and stating some particulars of their
migration to Lycia under Sarpedon, he proceeds as follows: “Their customs
are partly Cretan and partly Carian. They have, however, one singular
custom in which they differ from every other nation in the world. Ask a
Lycian who he is, and he answers by giving his own name, that of his
mother, and so on in the female line. Moreover, if a free woman marry a
man who is a slave, their children are free citizens; but if a free man marry a
foreign woman, or cohabit with a concubine, even though he be the first
person in the state, the children forfeit all the rights of citizenship.”393 It
follows necessarily from this circumstantial statement that the Lycians were
organized in gentes, with a prohibition against intermarriage in the gens,
and that the children belonged to the gens of their mother. It presents a clear
exemplification of a gens in the archaic form, with confirmatory tests of the
consequences of a marriage of a Lycian man with a foreign woman, and of
a Lycian woman with a slave.394 The aborigines of Crete were Pelasgian,
Hellenic and Semitic tribes, living locally apart. Minos, the brother of
Sarpedon, is usually regarded as the head of the Pelasgians in Crete; but the
Lycians were already Hellenized in the time of Herodotus and quite
conspicuous among the Asiatic Greeks for their advancement. The
insulation of their ancestors upon the island of Crete, prior to their
migration in the legendary period to Lycia, may afford an explanation of
their retention of descent in the female line to this late period.
Among the Etruscans also the same rule of descent prevailed. “It is singular
enough,” observes Cramer, “that two customs peculiar to the Etruscans, as
we discover from their monuments, should have been noticed by Herodotus
as characteristic of the Lycians and Caunians of Asia Minor. The first is,
that the Etruscans invariably describe their parentage and family with
reference to the mother, and not the father. The other, that they admitted
their wives to their feasts and banquets.”395
Curtius comments on Lycian, Etruscan and Cretan descent in the female
line in the following language: “It would be an error to understand the
usage in question as an homage to the female sex. It is rather rooted in
primitive conditions of society, in which monogamy was not yet established
with sufficient certainty to enable descent upon the father’s side to be
affirmed with assurance. Accordingly the usage extends far beyond the
territory commanded by the Lycian nationality. It occurs, even to this day,
in India; it may be demonstrated to have existed among the ancient
Egyptians; it is mentioned by Sanchoniathon (p. 16, Orell), where the
reasons for its existence are stated with great freedom; and beyond the
confines of the East it appears among the Etruscans, among the Cretans,
who were so closely connected with the Lycians, and who called their
father-land mother-land; and among the Athenians, consult Bachofen, etc.
Accordingly, if Herodotus regards the usage in question as thoroughly
peculiar to the Lycians, it must have maintained itself longest among them
of all the nations related to the Greeks, as is also proved by the Lycian
inscriptions. Hence we must in general regard the employment of the
maternal name for a designation of descent as the remains of an imperfect
condition of social life and family law, which, as life becomes more
regulated, was relinquished in favor of usages, afterwards universal in
Greece, of naming children after the father. This diversity of usages, which
is extremely important for the history of ancient civilization, has been
recently discussed by Bachofen in his address above named.”396
In a work of vast research, Bachofen has collected and discussed the
evidence of female authority (mother-right) and of female rule (gyneocracy)
among the Lycians, Cretans, Athenians, Lemnians, Ægyptians,
Orchomenians, Locrians, Lesbians, Mantineans, and among eastern Asiatic
nations.397 The condition of ancient society, thus brought under review,
requires for its full explanation the existence of the gens in its archaic form
as the source of the phenomena. This would bring the mother and her
children into the same gens, and in the composition of the communal
household, on the basis of gens, would give the gens of the mothers the
ascendency in the household. The family, which had probably attained the
syndyasmian form, was still environed with the remains of that conjugal
system which belonged to a still earlier condition. Such a family, consisting
of a married pair with their children, would naturally have sought shelter
with kindred families in a communal household, in which the several
mothers and their children would be of the same gens, and the reputed
fathers of these children would be of other gentes. Common lands and joint
tillage would lead to joint-tenement houses and communism in living; so
that gyneocracy seems to require for its creation, descent in the female line.
Women thus entrenched in large households, supplied from common stores,
in which their own gens so largely predominated in numbers, would
produce the phenomena of mother right and gyneocracy, which Bachofen
has detected and traced with the aid of fragments of history and of tradition.
Elsewhere I have referred to the unfavorable influence upon the position of
women which was produced by a change of descent from the female line to
the male, and by the rise of the monogamian family, which displaced the
joint-tenement house, and in the midst of a society purely gentile, placed
the wife and mother in a single house and separated her from her gentile
kindred.398
Monogamy was not probably established among the Grecian tribes until
after they had attained the Upper Status of barbarism; and we seem to arrive
at chaos in the marriage relation within this period, especially in the
Athenian tribes. Concerning the latter, Bachofen remarks: “For before the
time of Cecrops the children, as we have seen, had only a mother, no father;
they were of one line. Bound to no man exclusively, the woman brought
only spurious children into the world. Cecrops first made an end of this
condition of things; led the lawless union of the sexes back to the
exclusiveness of marriage; gave to the children a father and mother, and
thus from being of one line (unilateres) made them of two lines
(bilateres).”399 What is here described as the lawless union of the sexes
must be received with modifications. We should expect at that
comparatively late day to find the syndyasmian family, but attended by the
remains of an anterior conjugal system which sprang from marriages in the
group. The punaluan family, which the statement fairly implies, must have
disappeared before they reached the ethnical period named. This subject
will be considered in subsequent chapters in connection with the growth of
the family.
There is an interesting reference by Polybius to the hundred families of the
Locrians of Italy. “The Locrians themselves,” he remarks, “have assured me
that their own traditions are more conformable to the account of Aristotle
than to that of Timæus. Of this they mention the following proofs. The first
is, that all nobility of ancestry among them is derived from women, and not
from men. That those, for example, alone are noble, who derive their origin
from the hundred families. That these families were noble among the
Locrians before they migrated; and were the same, indeed, from which a
hundred virgins were taken by lot, as the oracle had commanded, and were
sent to Troy.”400 It is at least a reasonable supposition that the rank here
referred to was connected with the office of chief of the gens, which
ennobled the particular family within the gens, upon one of the members of
which it was conferred. If this supposition is tenable, it implies descent in
the female line both as to persons and to office. The office of chief was
hereditary in the gens, and elective among its male members in archaic
times; and with descent in the female line, it would pass from brother to
brother, and from uncle to nephew. But the office in each case passed
through females, the eligibility of the person depending upon the gens of his
mother, who gave him his connection with the gens, and with the deceased
chief whose place was to be filled. Wherever office or rank runs through
females, it requires descent in the female line for its explanation.
Evidence of ancient descent in the female line among the Grecian tribes is
found in particular marriages which occurred in the traditionary period.
Thus Salmōneus and Krētheus were own brothers, the sons of Æolus. The
former gave his daughter Tyrō in marriage to her uncle. With descent in the
male line, Krētheus and Tyrō would have been of the same gens, and could
not have married for that reason; but with descent in the female line, they
would have been of different gentes, and therefore not of gentile kin. Their
marriage in that case would not have violated strict gentile usages. It is
immaterial that the persons named are mythical, because the legend would
apply gentile usages correctly. This marriage is explainable on the
hypothesis of descent in the female line, which in turn raises a presumption
of its existence at the time, or as justified by their ancient usages which had
not wholly died out.
The same fact is revealed by marriages within the historical period, when an
ancient practice seems to have survived the change of descent to the male
line, even though it violated the gentile obligations of the parties. After the
time of Solon a brother might marry his half-sister, provided they were born
of different mothers, but not conversely. With descent in the female line,
they would be of different gentes, and, therefore, not of gentile kin. Their
marriage would interfere with no gentile obligation. But with descent in the
male line, which was the fact when the cases about to be cited occurred,
they would be of the same gens, and consequently under prohibition. Cimon
married his half-sister, Elpinice, their father being the same, but their
mothers different. In the Eubulides of Demosthenes we find a similar case.
“My grandfather,” says Euxithius, “married his sister, she not being his
sister by the same mother.”401 Such marriages, against which a strong
prejudice had arisen among the Athenians as early as the time of Solon, are
explainable as a survival of an ancient custom with respect to marriage,
which prevailed when descent was in the female line, and which had not
been entirely eradicated in the time of Demosthenes.
Descent in the female line presupposes the gens to distinguish the lineage.
With our present knowledge of the ancient and modern prevalence of the
gentile organization upon five continents, including the Australian, and of
the archaic constitution of the gens, traces of descent in the female line
might be expected to exist in traditions, if not in usages coming down to
historical times. It is not supposable, therefore, that the Lycians, the
Cretans, the Athenians and the Locrians, if the evidence is sufficient to
include the last two, invented a usage so remarkable as descent in the
female line. The hypothesis that it was the ancient law of the Latin,
Grecian, and other Græco-Italian gentes affords a more rational as well as
satisfactory explanation of the facts. The influence of property and the
desire to transmit it to children furnished adequate motives for the change
to the male line.
It may be inferred that marrying out of the gens was the rule among the
Athenians, before as well as after the time of Solon, from the custom of
registering the wife, upon her marriage, in the phratry of her husband, and
the children, daughters as well as sons, in the gens and phratry of their
father.402 The fundamental principle on which the gens was founded was
the prohibition of intermarriage among its members as consanguinei. In
each gens the number of members was not large. Assuming sixty thousand
as the number of registered Athenians in the time of Solon, and dividing
them equally among the three hundred and sixty Attic gentes, it would give
but one hundred and sixty persons to each gens. The gens was a great
family of kindred persons, with common religious rites, a common burial
place, and, in general, common lands. From the theory of its constitution,
intermarriage would be disallowed. With the change of descent to the male
line, with the rise of monogamy and an exclusive inheritance in the
children, and with the appearance of heiresses, the way was being gradually
prepared for free marriage regardless of gens, but with a prohibition limited
to certain degrees of near consanguinity. Marriages in the human family
began in the group, all the males and females of which, excluding the
children, were joint husbands and wives; but the husbands and wives were
of different gentes; and it ended in marriage between single pairs, with an
exclusive cohabitation. In subsequent chapters an attempt will be made to
trace the several forms of marriage and of the family from the first stage to
the last.
A system of consanguinity came in with the gens, distinguished as the
Turanian in Asia, and as the Ganowánian in America, which extended the
prohibition of intermarriage as far as the relationship of brother and sister
extended among collaterals. This system still prevails among the American
aborigines, in portions of Asia and Africa, and in Australia.
It unquestionably prevailed among the Grecian and Latin tribes in the same
anterior period, and traces of it remained down to the traditionary period.
One feature of the Turanian system may be restated as follows: the children
of brothers are themselves brothers and sisters, and as such could not
intermarry; the children of sisters stood in the same relationship, and were
under the same prohibition. It may serve to explain the celebrated legend of
the Danaidæ, one version of which furnished to Aeschylus his subject for
the tragedy of the Suppliants. The reader will remember that Danaus and
Ægyptus were brothers, and descendants of Argive Io. The former by
different wives had fifty daughters, and the latter by different wives had
fifty sons; and in due time the sons of Ægyptus sought the daughters of
Danaus in marriage. Under the system of consanguinity appertaining to the
gens in its archaic form, and which remained until superseded by the system
introduced by monogamy, they were brothers and sisters, and for that
reason could not marry. If descent at the time was in the male line, the
children of Danaus and Ægyptus would have been of the same gens, which
would have interposed an additional objection to their marriage, and of
equal weight. Nevertheless the sons of Ægyptus sought to overstep these
barriers and enforce wedlock upon the Danaidæ; whilst the latter, crossing
the sea, fled from Egypt to Argos to escape what they pronounced an
unlawful and incestuous union. In the Prometheus of the same author, this
event is foretold to Io by Prometheus, namely: that in the fifth generation
from her future son Epaphus, a band of fifty virgins should come to Argos,
not voluntarily, but fleeing from incestuous wedlock with the sons of
Ægyptus.403 Their flight with abhorrence from the proposed nuptials finds
its explanation in the ancient system of consanguinity, independently of
gentile law. Apart from this explanation the event has no significance, and
their aversion to the marriages would have been mere prudery.
The tragedy of the Suppliants is founded upon the incident of their flight
over the sea to Argos, to claim the protection of their Argive kindred
against the proposed violence of the sons of Ægyptus, who pursued them.
At Argos the Danaidæ declare that they did not depart from Egypt under the
sentence of banishment, but fled from men of common descent with
themselves, scorning unholy marriage with the sons of Ægyptus.404 Their
reluctance is placed exclusively upon the fact of kin, thus implying an
existing prohibition against such marriages, which they had been trained to
respect. After hearing the case of the Suppliants, the Argives in council
resolved to afford them protection, which of itself implies the existence of
the prohibition of the marriages and the validity of their objection. At the
time this tragedy was produced, Athenian law permitted and even required
marriage between the children of brothers in the case of heiresses and
female orphans, although the rule seems to have been confined to these
exceptional cases; such marriages, therefore, would not seem to the
Athenians either incestuous or unlawful; but this tradition of the Danaidæ
had come down from a remote antiquity, and its whole significance
depended upon the force of the custom forbidding the nuptials. The turning-
point of the tradition and its incidents was their inveterate repugnance to the
proposed marriages as forbidden by law and custom. No other reason is
assigned, and no other is needed. At the same time their conduct is
intelligible on the assumption that such marriages were as unpermissible
then, as marriage between a brother and sister would be at the present time.
The attempt of the sons of Ægyptus to break through the barrier interposed
by the Turanian system of consanguinity may mark the time when this
system was beginning to give way, and the present system, which came in
with monogamy, was beginning to assert itself, and which was destined to
set aside gentile usages and Turanian consanguinity by the substitution of
fixed degrees as the limits of prohibition.
Upon the evidence adduced it seems probable that among the Pelasgian,
Hellenic and Italian tribes descent was originally in the female line, from
which, under the influence of property and inheritance, it was changed to
the male line. Whether or not these tribes anciently possessed the Turanian
system of consanguinity, the reader will be better able to judge after that
system has been presented, with the evidence of its wide prevalence in
ancient society.
The length of the traditionary period of these tribes is of course unknown in
the years of its duration, but it must be measured by thousands of years. It
probably reached back of the invention of the process of smelting iron ore,
and if so, passed through the Later Period of barbarism and entered the
Middle Period. Their condition of advancement in the Middle Period must
have at least equaled that of the Aztecs, Mayas and Peruvians, who were
found in the status of the Middle Period; and their condition in the Later
Period must have surpassed immensely that of the Indian tribes named. The
vast and varied experience of these European tribes in the two great ethnical
periods named, during which they achieved the remaining elements of
civilization, is entirely lost, excepting as it is imperfectly disclosed in their
traditions, and more fully by their acts of life, their customs, language and
institutions, as revealed to us by the poems of Homer. Empires and
kingdoms were necessarily unknown in these periods; but tribes and
inconsiderable nations, city and village life, the growth and development of
the arts of life, and physical, mental and moral improvement, were among
the particulars of that progress. The loss of the events of these great periods
to human knowledge was much greater than can easily be imagined.
 CHAPTER XV. - GENTES IN OTHER TRIBES OF THE
HUMAN FAMILY.
T S C .—T I S .—G T .—T G S .
—G S A T .—I N .—I U T .—H F
C .—H T .—C G P A .—G
A T .—I A T .—S F A P .—W
D G O .

Having considered the organization into gentes, phratries and tribes in their
archaic as well as later form, it remains to trace the extent of its prevalence
in the human family, and particularly with respect to the gens, the basis of
the system.
The Celtic branch of the Aryan family retained, in the Scottish clan and
Irish sept, the organization into gentes to a later period of time than any
other branch of the family, unless the Aryans of India are an exception. The
Scottish clan in particular was existing in remarkable vitality in the
Highlands of Scotland in the middle of the last century. It was an excellent
type of the gens in organization and in spirit, and an extraordinary
illustration of the power of the gentile life over its members. The illustrious
author of Waverley has perpetuated a number of striking characters
developed under clan life, and stamped with its peculiarities. Evan Dhu,
Torquil, Rob Roy and many others rise before the mind as illustrations of
the influence of the gens in molding the character of individuals. If Sir
Walter exaggerated these characters in some respects to suit the
emergencies of a tale, they had a real foundation. The same clans, a few
centuries earlier, when clan life was stronger and external influences were
weaker, would probably have verified the pictures. We find in their feuds
and blood revenge, in their localization by gentes, in their use of lands in
common, in the fidelity of the clansman to his chief and of the members of
the clan to each other, the usual and persistent features of gentile society. As
portrayed by Scott, it was a more intense and chivalrous gentile life than we
are able to find in the gentes of the Greeks and Romans, or, at the other
extreme, in those of the American aborigines. Whether the phratric
organization existed among them does not appear; but at some anterior
period both the phratry and the tribe doubtless did exist. It is well known
that the British government were compelled to break up the Highland clans,
as organizations, in order to bring the people under the authority of law and
the usages of political society. Descent was in the male line, the children of
the males remaining members of the clan, while the children of its female
members belonged to the clans of their respective fathers.
We shall pass over the Irish sept, the phis or phrara of the Albanians, which
embody the remains of a prior gentile organization, and the traces of a
similar organization in Dalmatia and Croatia; and also the Sanskrit ganas,
the existence of which term in the language implies that this branch of the
Aryan family formerly possessed the same institution. The communities of
Villeins on French estates in former times, noticed by Sir Henry Maine in
his recent work, may prove to be, as he intimates, remains of ancient Celtic
gentes. “Now that the explanation has once been given,” he remarks, “there
can be no doubt that these associations were not really voluntary
partnerships, but groups of kinsmen; not, however, so often organized on
the ordinary type of the Village-Community as on that of the House-
Community, which has recently been examined in Dalmatia and Croatia.
Each of them was what the Hindus call a Joint-Undivided family, a
collection of assumed descendants from a common ancestor, preserving a
common hearth and common meals during several generations.”405
A brief reference should be made to the question whether any traces of the
gentile organization remained among the German tribes when they first
came under historical notice. That they inherited this institution, with other
Aryan tribes, from the common ancestors of the Aryan family, is probable.
When first known to the Romans, they were in the Upper Status of
barbarism. They could scarcely have developed the idea of government
further than the Grecian and Latin tribes, who were in advance of them,
when each respectively became known. While the Germans may have
acquired an imperfect conception of a state, founded upon territory and
upon property, it is not probable that they had any knowledge of the second
great plan of government which the Athenians were first among Aryan
tribes to establish. The condition and mode of life of the German tribes, as
described by Cæsar and Tacitus, tend to the conclusion that their several
societies were held together through personal relations, and with but slight
reference to territory; and that their government was through these relations.
Civil chiefs and military commanders acquired and held office through the
elective principle, and constituted the council which was the chief
instrument of government. On lesser affairs, Tacitus remarks, the chiefs
consult, but on those of greater importance the whole community. While the
final decision of all important questions belonged to the people, they were
first maturely considered by the chiefs.406 The close resemblance of these to
Grecian and Latin usages will be perceived. The government consisted of
three powers, the council of chiefs, the assembly of the people, and the
military commander.
Cæsar remarks that the Germans were not studious of agriculture, the
greater part of their food consisting of milk, cheese and meat; nor had
anyone a fixed quantity of land, or his own individual boundaries, but the
magistrates and chiefs each year assigned to the gentes and kinsmen who
had united in one body (gentibus cognationibusque hominum, qui una
coerint) as much land, and in such places as seemed best, compelling them
the next year to remove to another place.407 To give effect to the expression
in parenthesis, it must be supposed that he found among them groups of
persons, larger than a family, united on the basis of kin, to whom, as groups
of persons, lands were allotted. It excludes individuals, and even the family,
both of whom were merged in the group thus united for cultivation and
subsistence. It seems probable, from the form of the statement, that the
German family at this time was syndyasmian; and that several related
families were united in households and practiced communism in living.
Tacitus refers to a usage of the German tribes in the arrangement of their
forces in battle, by which kinsmen were placed side by side. It would have
no significance, if kinship were limited to near consanguinei. And what is
an especial incitement of their courage, he remarks, neither chance nor a
fortuitous gathering of the forces make up the squadron of horse, or the
infantry wedge; but they were formed according to families and kinships
(familiæ et propinquitates).408 This expression, and that previously quoted
from Cæsar, seem to indicate the remains at least of a prior gentile
organization, which at this time was giving place to the mark or local
district as the basis of a still imperfect political system.
The German tribes, for the purpose of military levies, had the mark
(markgenossenschaft), which also existed among the English Saxons, and a
larger group, the gau, to which Cæsar and Tacitus gave the name of
pagus.409 It is doubtful whether the mark and the gau were then strictly
geographical districts, standing to each other in the relations of township
and county, each circumscribed by bounds, with the people in each
politically organized. It seems more probable that the gau was a group of
settlements associated with reference to military levies. As such, the mark
and the gau were the germs of the future township and county, precisely as
the Athenian naucrary and trittys were the rudiments of the Cleisthenean
deme and local tribe. These organizations seemed transitional stages
between a gentile and a political system, the grouping of the people still
resting on consanguinity.410
We naturally turn to the Asiatic continent, where the types of mankind are
the most numerous, and where, consequently, the period of human
occupation has been longest, to find the earliest traces of the gentile
organization. But here the transformations of society have been the most
extended, and the influence of tribes and nations upon each other the most
constant. The early development of Chinese and Indian civilization and the
overmastering influence of modern civilization have wrought such changes
in the condition of Asiatic stocks that their ancient institutions are not easily
ascertainable. Nevertheless, the whole experience of mankind from
savagery to civilization was worked out upon the Asiatic continent, and
among its fragmentary tribes the remains of their ancient institutions must
now be sought.
Descent in the female line is still very common in the ruder Asiatic tribes;
but there are numerous tribes among whom it is traced in the male line. It is
the limitation of descent to one line or the other, followed by the
organization of the body of consanguinei, thus separated under a common
name which indicates a gens.
In the Magar tribe of Nepaul, Latham remarks, “there are twelve thums. All
individuals belonging to the same thum are supposed to be descended from
the same male ancestor; descent from the same mother being by no means
necessary. So husband and wife must belong to different thums. Within one
and the same there is no marriage. Do you wish for a wife? If so, look to the
thum of your neighbor; at any rate look beyond your own. This is the first
time I have found occasion to mention this practice. It will not be the last;
on the contrary, the principle it suggests is so common as to be almost
universal. We shall find it in Australia; we shall find it in North and South
America; we shall find it in Africa; we shall find it in Europe; we shall
suspect and infer it in many places where the actual evidence of its
existence is incomplete.”411 In this case we have in the thum clear evidence
of the existence of a gens, with descent in the male line.
“The Munnieporees, and the following tribes inhabiting the hills round
Munniepore—the Koupooes, the Mows, the Murams, and the Murring—are
each and all divided into four families—Koomul, Looang, Angom, and
Ningthajà. A member of any of these families may marry a member of any
other, but the intermarriage of members of the same family is strictly
prohibited.”412 In these families may be recognized four gentes in each of
these tribes. Bell, speaking of the Telûsh of the Circassians, remarks that
“the tradition in regard to them is, that the members of each and all sprang
from the same stock or ancestry; and thus they may be considered as so
many septs or clans.... These cousins german, or members of the same
fraternity, are not only themselves interdicted from intermarrying, but their
serfs, too, must wed with serfs of another fraternity.”413 It is probable that
the telûsh is a gens.
Among the Bengalese “the four castes are subdivided into many different
sects or classes, and each of these is again subdivided; for instance, I am of
Nundy tribe [gens?], and if I were a heathen I could not marry a woman of
the same tribe, although the caste must be the same. The children are of the
tribe of their father. Property descends to the sons. In case the person has no
sons, to his daughters; and if he leaves neither, to his nearest relatives.
Castes are subdivided, such as Shuro, which is one of the first divisions; but
it is again subdivided, such as Khayrl, Tilly, Tamally, Tanty, Chomor, Kari,
etc. A man belonging to one of these last-named subdivisions cannot marry
a woman of the same.”414 These smallest groups number usually about a
hundred persons, and still retain several of the characteristics of a gens.
Mr. Tyler remarks, that “in India it is unlawful for a Brahman to marry a
wife whose clan-name or ghotra (literally ‘cow-stall’) is the same as his
own, a prohibition which bars marriage among relatives in the male line
indefinitely. This law appears in the code of Manu as applying to the first
three castes, and connexions on the female side are also forbidden to marry
within certain wide limits.”415 And again: “Among the Kols of Chota-
Nagpur, we find many of the Oraon and Munda clans named after animals,
as eel, hawk, crow, heron, and they must not kill or eat what they are named
after.”416
The Mongolians approach the American aborigines quite nearly in physical
characteristics. They are divided into numerous tribes. “The connection,”
says Latham, “between the members of a tribe is that of blood, pedigree, or
descent; the tribe being, in some cases, named after a real or supposed
patriarch. The tribe, by which we translate the native name aimauk, or
aimâk, is a large division falling into so many kokhums, or banners.”417 The
statement is not full enough to show the existence of gentes. Their
neighbors, the Tungusians, are composed of subdivisions named after
animals, as the horse, the dog, the reindeer, which imply the gentile
organizations, but it cannot be asserted without further particulars.
Sir John Lubbock remarks of the Kalmucks that according to De Hell, they
“are divided into hordes, and no man can marry a woman of the same
horde;” and of the Ostiaks, that they “regard it as a crime to marry a woman
of the same family or even of the same name;” and that “when a Jakut
(Siberia) wishes to marry, he must choose a girl from another clan.”418 We
have in each of these cases evidence of the existence of a gens, one of the
rules of which, as has been shown, is the prohibition of intermarriage
among its members. The Yurak Samoyeds are organized in gentes.
Klaproth, quoted by Latham, remarks that “this division of the kinsmanship
is so rigidly observed that no Samoyed takes a wife from the kinsmanship
to which he himself belongs. On the contrary, he seeks her in one of the
other two.”419
A peculiar family system prevails among the Chinese which seems to
embody the remains of an ancient gentile organization. Mr. Robert Hart, of
Canton, in a letter to the author remarks, “that the Chinese expression for
the people is Pih-sing, which means the Hundred Family Names; but
whether this is mere word-painting, or had its origin at a time when the
Chinese general family consisted of one hundred subfamilies or tribes
[gentes?] I am unable to determine. At the present day there are about four
hundred family names in this country, among which I find some that have
reference to animals, fruits, metals, natural objects, etc., and which may be
translated as Horse, Sheep, Ox, Fish, Bird, Phœnix, Plum, Flower, Leaf,
Rice, Forest, River, Hill, Water, Cloud, Gold, Hide, Bristles, etc., etc. In
some parts of the country large villages are met with, in each of which there
exists but one family name; thus in one district will be found, say, three
villages, each containing two or three thousand people, the one of the
Horse, the second of the Sheep, and the third of the Ox family name.... Just
as among the North American Indians husbands and wives are of different
tribes [gentes], so in China husband and wife are always of different
families, i.e., of different surnames. Custom and law alike prohibit
intermarriage on the part of people having the same family surname. The
children are of the father’s family, that is, they take his family surname....
Where the father dies intestate the property generally remains undivided,
but under the control of the oldest son during the life of the widow. On her
death he divides the property between himself and his brothers, the shares
of the juniors depending entirely upon the will of the elder brother.”
The family here described appears to be a gens, analogous to the Roman in
the time of Romulus; but whether it was reintegrated, with other gentes of
common descent, in a phratry does not appear. Moreover, the gentiles are
still located as an independent consanguine body in one area, as the Roman
gentes were localized in the early period, and the names of the gentes are
still of the archaic type. Their increase to four hundred by segmentation
might have been expected; but their maintenance to the present time, after
the period of barbarism has long passed away, is the remarkable fact, and an
additional proof of their immobility as a people. It may be suspected also
that the monogamian family in these villages has not attained its full
development, and that communism in living, and in wives as well, may not
be unknown among them. Among the wild aboriginal tribes, who still
inhabit the mountain regions of China and who speak dialects different
from the Mandarin, the gens in its archaic form may yet be discovered. To
these isolated tribes, we should naturally look for the ancient institutions of
the Chinese.
In like manner the tribes of Afghanistan are said to be subdivided into
clans; but whether these clans are true gentes has not been ascertained.
Not to weary the reader with further details of a similar character, a
sufficient number of cases have been adduced to create a presumption that
the gentile organization prevailed very generally and widely among the
remote ancestors of the present Asiatic tribes and nations.
The twelve tribes of the Hebrews, as they appear in the Book of Numbers,
represent a reconstruction of Hebrew society by legislative procurement.
The condition of barbarism had then passed away, and that of civilization
had commenced. The principle on which the tribes were organized, as
bodies of consanguinei, presuppose an anterior gentile system, which had
remained in existence and was now systematized. At this time they had no
knowledge of any other plan of government than a gentile society formed of
consanguine groups united through personal relations. Their subsequent
localization in Palestine by consanguine tribes, each district named after
one of the twelve sons of Jacob, with the exception of the tribe of Levi, is a
practical recognition of the fact that they were organized by lineages and
not into a community of citizens. The history of the most remarkable nation
of the Semitic family has been concentrated around the names of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, and the twelve sons of the latter.
Hebrew history commences essentially with Abraham, the account of
whose forefathers is limited to a pedigree barren of details. A few passages
will show the extent of the progress then made, and the status of
advancement in which Abraham appeared. He is described as “very rich in
cattle, in silver, and in gold.”420 For the cave of Machpelah “Abraham
weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the
sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the
merchant.”421 With respect to domestic life and subsistence, the following
passage may be cited: “And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and
said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal; knead it, and make
cakes upon the hearth.”422 “And he took butter and milk, and the calf which
he had dressed, and set it before them.”423 With respect to implements,
raiment and ornaments: “Abraham took the fire in his hand and a knife.”424
“And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and
raiment, and gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her brother and to her
mother precious things.”425 When she met Isaac, Rebekah “took a veil and
covered herself.”426 In the same connection are mentioned the camel, ass,
ox, sheep and goat, together with flocks and herds; the grain mill, the water
pitcher, earrings, bracelets, tents, houses and cities. The bow and arrow, the
sword, corn and wine, and fields sown with grain, are mentioned. They
indicate the Upper Status of barbarism for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Writing in this branch of the Semitic family was probably then unknown.
The degree of development shown corresponds substantially with that of
the Homeric Greeks.
Early Hebrew marriage customs indicate the presence of the gens, and in its
archaic form. Abraham, by his servant, seemingly purchased Rebekah as a
wife for Isaac; the “precious things” being given to the brother, and to the
mother of the bride, but not to the father. In this case the presents went to
the gentile kindred, provided a gens existed, with descent in the female line.
Again, Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. “And yet indeed,” he says,
“she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of
my mother: and she became my wife.”427
With an existing gens and descent in the female line Abraham and Sarah
would have belonged to different gentes, and although of blood kin they
were not of gentile kin, and could have married by gentile usage. The case
would have been reversed in both particulars with descent in the male line.
Nahor married his niece, the daughter of his brother Haran;428 and Amram,
the father of Moses, married his aunt, the sister of his father, who became
the mother of the Hebrew lawgiver.429 In these cases, with descent in the
female line, the persons marrying would have belonged to different gentes;
but otherwise with descent in the male line. While these cases do not prove
absolutely the existence of gentes, the latter would afford such an
explanation of them as to raise a presumption of the existence of the gentile
organization in its archaic form.
When the Mosaic legislation was completed the Hebrews were a civilized
people, but not far enough advanced to institute political society. The
scripture account shows that they were organized in a series of consanguine
groups in an ascending scale, analogous to the gens, phratry and tribe of the
Greeks. In the muster and organization of the Hebrews, both as a society
and as an army, while in the Sinaitic peninsula, repeated references are
made to these consanguine groups in an ascending series, the seeming
equivalents of a gens, phratry and tribe. Thus, the tribe of Levi consisted of
eight gentes, organized in three phratries, as follows:
 Tribe of Levi.
Sons ⎧ I. Gershon. 7,500 Males.
of ⎨ II. Kohath. 8,600 ”
Levi. ⎩ III. Merari. 6,200 ”
I. Gershonite Phratry.
Gentes.—1.Libni. 2. Shimei.

II. Kohathite Phratry.

Gentes.—1. Amram. 2. Izhar. 3. Hebron. 4. Uzziel.

III. Merarite Phratry.

Gentes.—1. Mahli. 2. Mushi.
“Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their
families.... And these were the sons of Levi by their names; Gershon, and
Kohath, and Merari. And these were the names of the sons of Gershon by
their families; Libni, and Shimei. And the sons of Kohath by their families;
Amram, and Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. And the sons of Merari by their
families; Mahli, and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites by the
house of their fathers.”430
The description of these groups sometimes commences with the upper
member of the series, and sometimes with the lower or the unit. Thus: “Of
the children of Simeon, by their generations, after their families, by the
house of their fathers.”431 Here the children of Simeon, with their
generations, constitute the tribe; the families are the phratries; and the
house of the father is the gens. Again: “And the chief of the house of the
father of the families of the Kohathites shall be Elizaphan the son of
Uzziel.”432 Here we find the gens first, and then the phratry, and last the
tribe. The person named was the chief of the phratry. Each house of the
father also had its ensign or banner to distinguish it from others. “Every
man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the
ensign of their father’s house.”433 These terms describe actual
organizations; and they show that their military organization was by gentes,
by phratries and by tribes.
With respect to the first and smallest of these groups, “the house of the
father,” it must have numbered several hundred persons from the figures
given of the number in each phratry. The Hebrew term beth’ ab, signifies
paternal house, house of the father, and family house. If the Hebrews
possessed the gens, it was this group of persons. The use of two terms to
describe it would leave a doubt, unless individual families under monogamy
had then become so numerous and so prominent that this circumlocution
was necessary to cover the kindred. We have literally, the house of Amram,
of Izhar, of Hebron, and of Uzziel; but as the Hebrews at that time could
have had no conception of a house as now applied to a titled family, it
probably signified, as used, kindred or lineage.434 Since each division and
subdivision is headed by a male, and since Hebrew descents are traced
through males exclusively, descent among them, at this time, was
undoubtedly in the male line. Next in the ascending scale is the family,
which seems to be a phratry. The Hebrew term for this organization,
mishpacah, signifies union, clanship. It was composed of two or more
houses of the father, derived by segmentation from an original group, and
distinguished by a phratric name. It answers very closely to the phratry. The
family or phratry had an annual sacrificial feast.435 Lastly, the tribe, called
in Hebrew matteh, which signifies a branch, stem or shoot, is the analogue
of the Grecian tribe.
Very few particulars are given respecting the rights, privileges and
obligations of the members of these bodies of consanguinei. The idea of kin
which united each organization from the house of the father to the tribe, is
carried out in a form much more marked and precise than in the
corresponding organizations of Grecian, Latin or American Indian tribes.
While the Athenian traditions claimed that the four tribes were derived from
the four sons of Ion, they did not pretend to explain the origin of the gentes
and phratries. On the contrary, the Hebrew account not only derives the
twelve tribes genealogically from the twelve sons of Jacob, but also the
gentes and phratries from the children and descendants of each. Human
experience furnishes no parallel of the growth of gentes and phratries
precisely in this way. The account must be explained as a classification of
existing consanguine groups, according to the knowledge preserved by
tradition, in doing which minor obstacles were overcome by legislative
constraint.
The Hebrews styled themselves the “People of Israel,” and also a
“Congregation.”436 It is a direct recognition of the fact that their
organization was social, and not political.
In Africa we encounter a chaos of savagery and barbarism. Original arts and
inventions have largely disappeared, through fabrics and utensils introduced
from external sources; but savagery in its lowest forms, cannibalism
included, and barbarism in its lowest forms prevail over the greater part of
the continent. Among the interior tribes, there is a nearer approach to an
indigenous culture and to a normal condition; but Africa, in the main, is a
barren ethnological field.
Although the home of the Negro race, it is well known that their numbers
are limited and their areas small. Latham significantly remarks that “the
negro is an exceptional African.”437 The Ashiras, Aponos, Ishogos and
Ashangos, between the Congo and the Niger, visited by Du Chaillu, are of
the true negro type. “Each village,” he remarks, “had its chief, and further
in the interior the villages seemed to be governed by elders, each elder with
his people having a separate portion of the village to themselves. There was
in each clan the ifoumou, fumou, or acknowledged head of the clan
(ifoumou meaning the source, the father). I have never been able to obtain
from the natives a knowledge concerning the splitting of their tribes into
clans; they seemed not to know how it happened, but the formation of new
clans does not take place now among them.... The house of a chief or elder
is not better than those of his neighbors. The despotic form of government
is unknown.... A council of the elders is necessary before one is put to
death.... Tribes and clans intermarry with each other, and this brings about a
friendly feeling among the people. People of the same clan cannot
intermarry with each other. The least consanguinity is considered an
abomination; nevertheless the nephew has not the slightest objection to take
his uncle’s wives, and, as among the Balakai, the son takes his father’s
wives, except his own mother.... Polygamy and slavery exist everywhere
among the tribes I have visited.... The law of inheritance among the Western
tribes is, that the next brother inherits the wealth of the eldest (women,
slaves, etc.), but that if the youngest dies the eldest inherits his property, and
if there are no brothers that the nephew inherits it. The headship of the clan
or family is hereditary, following the same law as that of the inheritance of
property. In the case of all the brothers having died, the eldest son of the
eldest sister inherits, and it goes on thus until the branch is extinguished, for
all clans are considered as descended from the female side.”438
All the elements of a true gens are embodied in the foregoing particulars,
namely, descent is limited to one line, in this case the female, which gives
the gens in its archaic form. Moreover, descent is in the female line with
respect to office and to property, as well as the gentile name. The office of
chief passes from brother to brother, or from uncle to nephew, that nephew
being the son of a sister, as among the American aborigines; whilst the sons
are excluded because not members of the gens of the deceased chief.
Marriage in the gens is also forbidden. The only material omission in these
precise statements is the names of some of the gentes. The hereditary
feature requires further explanation.
Among the Banyai of the Zambezi river, who are a people of higher grade
than the negroes, Dr. Livingstone observed the following usages: “The
government of the Banyai is rather peculiar, being a sort of feudal
republicanism. The chief is elected, and they choose the son of a deceased
chief’s sister in preference to his own offspring. When dissatisfied with one
candidate, they even go to a distant tribe for a successor, who is usually of
the family of the late chief, a brother, or a sister’s son, but never his own
son or daughter.... All the wives, goods, and children of his predecessor
belong to him.”439 Dr. Livingstone does not give the particulars of their
social organization; but the descent of the office of chief from brother to
brother, or from uncle to nephew, implies the existence of the gens with
descent in the female line.
The numerous tribes occupying the country watered by the Zambezi, and
from thence southward to Cape Colony, are regarded by the natives
themselves, according to Dr. Livingstone, as one stock in three great
divisions, the Bechuanas, the Basutos, and the Kafirs.440 With respect to the
former, he remarks that “the Bechuana tribes are named after certain
animals, showing probably that in ancient times they were addicted to
animal worship like the ancient Egyptians. The term Bakatla means ‘they of
the Monkey’; Bakuona, ‘they of the Alligator’; Batlapi, ‘they of the Fish’;
each tribe having a superstitious dread of the animal after which it is
called.... A tribe never eats the animal which is its namesake.... We find
traces of many ancient tribes in individual members of those now extinct; as
Bátau, ‘they of the Lion’; Banoga, ‘they of the Serpent,’ though no such
tribes now exist.”441 These animal names are suggestive of the gens rather
than the tribe. Moreover, the fact that single individuals are found, each of
whom was the last survivor of his tribe, would be more likely to have
occurred if gens were understood in the place of tribe. Among the Bangalas
of the Cassange Valley, in Argola, Livingstone remarks that “a chief’s
brother inherits in preference to his sons. The sons of a sister belong to her
brother; and he often sells his nephews to pay his debts.”442 Here again we
have evidence of descent in the female line; but his statements are too brief
and general in these and other cases to show definitely whether or not they
possessed the gens.
Among the Australians the gentes of the Kamilaroi have already been
noticed. In ethnical position the aborigines of this great island are near the
bottom of the scale. When discovered they were not only savages, but in a
low condition of savagery. Some of the tribes were cannibals. Upon this last
question Mr. Fison, before mentioned, writes as follows to the author:
“Some, at least, of the tribes are cannibals. The evidence of this is
conclusive. The Wide Bay tribes eat not only their enemies slain in battle,
but their friends also who have been killed, and even those who have died a
natural death, provided they are in good condition. Before eating they skin
them, and preserve the skins by rubbing them with mingled fat and
charcoal. These skins they prize very highly, believing them to have great
medicinal value.”
Such pictures of human life enable us to understand the condition of
savagery, the grade of its usages, the degree of material development, and
the low level of the mental and moral life of the people. Australian
humanity, as seen in their cannibal customs, stands on as low a plane as it
has been known to touch on the earth. And yet the Australians possessed an
area of continental dimensions, rich in minerals, not uncongenial in climate,
and fairly supplied with the means of subsistence. But after an occupation
which must be measured by thousands of years, they are still savages of the
grade above indicated. Left to themselves they would probably have
remained for thousands of years to come, not without any, but with such
slight improvement as scarcely to lighten the dark shade of their savage
state.
Among the Australians, whose institutions are normal and homogeneous,
the organization into gentes is not confined to the Kamilaroi, but seems to
be universal. The Narrinyeri of South Australia, near Lacepede Bay are
organized in gentes named after animals and insects. Rev. George Taplin,
writing to my friend Mr. Fison, after stating that the Narrinyeri do not marry
into their own gens, and that the children were of the gens of their father,
continues as follows: “There are no castes, nor are there any classes, similar
to those of the Kamilaroi-speaking tribes of New South Wales. But each
tribe or family (and a tribe is a family) has its totem, or ngaitye; and indeed
some individuals have this ngaitye. It is regarded as the man’s tutelary
genius. It is some animal, bird, or insect.... The natives are very strict in
their marriage arrangements. A tribe [gens] is considered a family, and a
man never marries into his own tribe.”
Mr. Fison also writes, “that among the tribes of the Maranoa district,
Queensland, whose dialect is called Urghi, according to information
communicated to me by Mr. A. S. P. Cameron, the same classification exists
as among the Kamilaroi-speaking tribes, both as to the class names and the
totems.” With respect to the Australians of the Darling River, upon
information communicated by Mr. Charles G. N. Lockwood, he further
remarks, that “they are subdivided into tribes [gentes], mentioning the Emu,
Wild Duck, and Kangaroo, but without saying whether there are others, and
that the children take both the class name and totem of the mother.”443
From the existence of the gentile organization among the tribes named its
general prevalence among the Australian aborigines is rendered probable;
although the institution, as has elsewhere been pointed out, is in the
incipient stages of its development.
Our information with respect to the domestic institutions of the inhabitants
of Polynesia, Micronesia and the Papuan Islands is still limited and
imperfect. No traces of the gentile organization have been discovered
among the Hawaiians, Samoans, Marquesas Islanders or New Zealanders.
Their system of consanguinity is still primitive, showing that their
institutions have not advanced as far as this organization presupposes.444 In
some of the Micronesian Islands the office of chief is transmitted through
females;445 but this usage might exist independently of the gens. The
Fijians are subdivided into several tribes speaking dialects of the same stock
language. One of these, the Rewas, consists of four subdivisions under
distinctive names, and each of these is again subdivided. It does not seem
probable that the last subdivisions are gentes, for the reason, among others,
that its members are allowed to intermarry. Descent is in the male line. In
like manner the Tongans are composed of divisions, which are again
subdivided the same as the Rewas.
Around the simple ideas relating to marriage and the family, to subsistence
and to government, the earliest social organizations were formed; and with
them an exposition of the structure and principle of ancient society must
commence. Adopting the theory of a progressive development of mankind
through the experience of the ages, the insulation of the inhabitants of
Oceanica, their limited local areas, and their restricted means of subsistence
predetermined a slow rate of progress. They still represent a condition of
mankind on the continent of Asia in times immensely remote from the
present; and while peculiarities, incident to their insulation, undoubtedly
exist, these island societies represent one of the early phases of the great
stream of human progress. An exposition of their institutions, inventions
and discoveries, and mental and moral traits, would supply one of the great
needs of anthropological science.
This concludes the discussion of the organization into gentes, and the range
of its distribution. The organization has been found among the Australians
and African Negroes, with traces of the system in other African tribes. It
has been found generally prevalent among that portion of the American
aborigines who when discovered were in the Lower Status of barbarism;
and also among a portion of the Village Indians who were in the Middle
Status of barbarism. In like manner it existed in full vitality among the
Grecian and Latin tribes in the Upper Status of barbarism; with traces of it
in several of the remaining branches of the Aryan family. The organization
has been found, or traces of its existence, in the Turanian, Uralian and
Mongolian families; in the Tungusian and Chinese stocks, and in the
Semitic family among the Hebrews. Facts sufficiently numerous and
commanding have been adduced to claim for it an ancient universality in
the human family, as well as a general prevalence through the latter part of
the period of savagery, and throughout the period of barbarism.
The investigation has also arrayed a sufficient body of facts to demonstrate
that this remarkable institution was the origin and the basis of Ancient
Society. It was the first organic principle, developed through experience,
which was able to organize society upon a definite plan, and hold it in
organic unity until it was sufficiently advanced for the transition into
political society. Its antiquity, its substantial universality and its enduring
vitality are sufficiently shown by its perpetuation upon all the continents to
the present time. The wonderful adaptability of the gentile organization to
the wants of mankind in these several periods and conditions is sufficiently
attested by its prevalence and by its preservation. It has been identified with
the most eventful portion of the experience of mankind.
Whether the gens originates spontaneously in a given condition of society,
and would thus repeat itself in disconnected areas; or whether it had a single
origin, and was propagated from an original center, through successive
migrations, over the earth’s surface, are fair questions for speculative
consideration. The latter hypothesis, with a simple modification, seems to
be the better one, for the following reasons: We find that two forms of
marriage, and two forms of the family preceded the institution of the gens.
It required a peculiar experience to attain to the second form of marriage
and of the family, and to supplement this experience by the invention of the
gens. This second form of the family was the final result, through natural
selection, of the reduction within narrower limits of a stupendous conjugal
system which enfolded savage man and held him with a powerful grasp. His
final deliverance was too remarkable and too improbable, as it would seem,
to be repeated many different times, and in widely separated areas. Groups
of consanguinei, united for protection and subsistence, doubtless, existed
from the infancy of the human family; but the gens is a very different body
of kindred. It takes a part and excludes the remainder; it organized this part
on the bond of kin, under a common name, and with common rights and
privileges. Intermarriage in the gens was prohibited to secure the benefits of
marrying out with unrelated persons. This was a vital principle of the
organism as well as one most difficult of establishment. Instead of a natural
and obvious conception, the gens was essentially abstruse; and, as such, a
product of high intelligence for the times in which it originated. It required
long periods of time, after the idea was developed into life, to bring it to
maturity with its uses evolved. The Polynesians had this punaluan family,
but failed of inventing the gens; the Australians had the same form of the
family and possessed the gens. It originates in the punaluan family, and
whatever tribes had attained to it possessed the elements out of which the
gens was formed. This is the modification of the hypothesis suggested. In
the prior organization, on the basis of sex, the germ of the gens existed.
When the gens had become fully developed in its archaic form it would
propagate itself over immense areas through the superior powers of an
improved stock thus created. Its propagation is more easily explained than
its institution. These considerations tend to show the improbability of its
repeated reproduction in disconnected areas. On the other hand, its
beneficial effects in producing a stock of savages superior to any then
existing upon the earth must be admitted. When migrations were flights
under the law of savage life, or movements in quest of better areas, such a
stock would spread in wave after wave until it covered the larger part of the
earth’s surface. A consideration of the principal facts now ascertained
bearing upon this question seems to favor the hypothesis of a single origin
of the organization into gentes, unless we go back of this to the Australian
classes, which gave the punaluan family out of which the gens originated,
and regard these classes as the original basis of ancient society. In this event
wherever the classes were established, the gens existed potentially.
Assuming the unity of origin of mankind, the occupation of the earth
occurred through migrations from an original center. The Asiatic continent
must then be regarded as the cradle-land of the species, from the greater
number of original types of man it contains in comparison with Europe,
Africa and America. It would also follow that the separation of the Negroes
and Australians from the common stem occurred when society was
organized on the basis of sex, and when the family was punuluan; that the
Polynesian migration occurred later, but with society similarly constituted;
and finally, that the Ganowánian migration to America occurred later still,
and after the institution of the gentes. These inferences are put forward
simply as suggestions.
A knowledge of the gens and its attributes, and of the range of its
distribution, is absolutely necessary to a proper comprehension of Ancient
Society. This is the great subject now requiring special and extended
investigation. This society among the ancestors of civilized nations attained
its highest development in the last days of barbarism. But there were phases
of that same society far back in the anterior ages, which must now be
sought among barbarians and savages in corresponding conditions. The idea
of organized society has been a growth through the entire existence of the
human race; its several phases are logically connected, the one giving birth
to the other in succession; and that form of it we have been contemplating
originated in the gens. No other institution of mankind has held such an
ancient and remarkable relation to the course of human progress. The real
history of mankind is contained in the history of the growth and
development of institutions, of which the gens is but one. It is, however, the
basis of those which have exercised the most material influence upon
human affairs.

[Pg 380]
[Pg 381]
 PART III. - GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF THE
FAMILY.

[Pg 382]
[Pg 383]

CHAPTER I. - THE ANCIENT FAMILY.

F F F .—F , C F .—I
M S C A .—S , P .—I
T G S .—T , M .—I A ,
S , U S .—T S P F I .—
B S C .—T S N G .—T
U F .—O C , D .—G P
S .—T M .

We have been accustomed to regard the monogamian family as the form

which has always existed; but interrupted in exceptional areas by the
patriarchal. Instead of this, the idea of the family has been a growth through
successive stages of development, the monogamian being the last in its
series of forms. It will be my object to show that it was preceded by more
ancient forms which prevailed universally throughout the period of
savagery, through the Older and into the Middle Period of barbarism; and
that neither the monogamian nor the patriarchal can be traced back of the
Later Period of barbarism. They were essentially modern. Moreover, they
were impossible in ancient society, until an anterior experience under earlier
forms in every race of mankind had prepared the way for their introduction.
Five different and successive forms may now be distinguished, each having
an institution of marriage peculiar to itself. They are the following:
I. The Consanguine Family.
It was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and
collateral, in a group.
II. The Punaluan Family.
It was founded upon the intermarriage of several sisters, own and collateral,
with each others’ husbands, in a group; the joint husbands not being
necessarily kinsmen of each other. Also, on the intermarriage of several
brothers, own and collateral, with each others’ wives, in a group; these
wives not being necessarily of kin to each other, although often the case in
both instances. In each case the group of men were conjointly married to
the group of women.
III. The Syndyasmian or Pairing Family.
It was founded upon marriage between single pairs, but without an
exclusive cohabitation. The marriage continued during the pleasure of the
parties.
IV. The Patriarchal Family.
It was founded upon the marriage of one man with several wives; followed,
in general, by the seclusion of the wives.
V. The Monogamian Family.
It was founded upon marriage between single pairs, with an exclusive
cohabitation.
Three of these forms, namely, the first, second, and fifth, were radical;
because they were sufficiently general and influential to create three distinct
systems of consanguinity, all of which still exist in living forms.
Conversely, these systems are sufficient of themselves to prove the
antecedent existence of the forms of the family and of marriage, with which
they severally stand connected. The remaining two, the syndyasmian and
the patriarchal, were intermediate, and not sufficiently influential upon
human affairs to create a new, or modify essentially the then existing
system of consanguinity. It will not be supposed that these types of the
family are separated from each other by sharply defined lines; on the
contrary, the first passes into the second, the second into the third, and the
third into the fifth by insensible gradations. The propositions to be
elucidated and established are, that they have sprung successively one from
the other, and that they represent collectively the growth of the idea of the
family.
In order to explain the rise of these several forms of the family and of
marriage, it will be necessary to present the substance of the system of
consanguinity and affinity which pertains to each. These systems embody
compendious and decisive evidence, free from all suspicion of design,
bearing directly upon the question. Moreover, they speak with an authority
and certainty which leave no room to doubt the inferences therefrom. But a
system of consanguinity is intricate and perplexing until it is brought into
familiarity. It will tax the reader’s patience to look into the subject far
enough to be able to test the value and weight of the evidence it contains.
Having treated at length, in a previous work, the “Systems of Consanguinity
and Affinity of the Human Family,”446 I shall confine the statements herein
to the material facts, reduced to the lowest number consistent with
intelligibility, making reference to the other work for fuller details, and for
the general Tables. The importance of the main proposition as a part of the
history of man, namely, that the family has been a growth through several
successive forms, is a commanding reason for the presentation and study of
these systems, if they can in truth establish the fact. It will require this and
the four succeeding chapters to make a brief general exhibition of the proof.
The most primitive system of consanguinity yet discovered is found among
the Polynesians, of which the Hawaiian will be used as typical. I have
called it the Malayan system. Under it all consanguinei, near and remote,
fall within some one of the following relationships; namely, parent, child,
grandparent, grandchild, brother, and sister. No other blood relationships are
recognized. Beside these are the marriage relationships. This system of
consanguinity came in with the first form of the family, the consanguine,
and contains the principal evidence of its ancient existence. It may seem a
narrow basis for so important an inference: but if we are justified in
assuming that each relationship as recognized was the one which actually
existed, the inference is fully sustained. This system prevailed very
generally in Polynesia, although the family among them had passed out of
the consanguine into the punaluan. It remained unchanged because no
motive sufficiently strong, and no alteration of institutions sufficiently
radical had occurred to produce its modification. Intermarriage between
brothers and sisters had not entirely disappeared from the Sandwich Islands
when the American missions, about fifty years ago, were established among
them. Of the ancient general prevalence of this system of consanguinity
over Asia there can be no doubt, because it is the basis of the Turanian
system still prevalent in Asia. It also underlies the Chinese.
In course of time, a second great system of consanguinity, the Turanian,
supervened upon the first, and spread over a large part of the earth’s
surface. It was universal among the North American aborigines, and has
been traced sufficiently among those of South America to render probable
its equally universal prevalence among them. Traces of it have been found
in parts of Africa; but the system of the African tribes in general approaches
nearer the Malayan. It still prevails in South India among the Hindus who
speak dialects of the Dravidian language, and also, in a modified form, in
North India, among the Hindus who speak dialects of the Gaura language. It
also prevails in Australia in a partially developed state, where it seems to
have originated either in the organization into classes, or in the incipient
organization into gentes, which led to the same result. In the principal tribes
of the Turanian and Ganowánian families, it owes its origin to punaluan
marriage in the group and to the gentile organization, the latter of which
tended to repress consanguine marriages. It has been shown how this was
accomplished by the prohibition of intermarriage in the gens, which
permanently excluded own brothers and sisters from the marriage relation.
When the Turanian system of consanguinity came in, the form of the family
was punaluan. This is proven by the fact that punaluan marriage in the
group explains the principal relationships under the system; showing them
to be those which would actually exist in virtue of this form of marriage.
Through the logic of the facts we are enabled to show that the punaluan
family was once as wide-spread as the Turanian system of consanguinity.
To the organization into gentes and the punaluan family, the Turanian
system of consanguinity must be ascribed. It will be seen in the sequel that
this system was formed out of the Malayan, by changing those relationships
only which resulted from the previous intermarriage of brothers and sisters,
own and collateral, and which were, in fact, changed by the gentes; thus
proving the direct connection between them. The powerful influence of the
gentile organization upon society, and particularly upon the punaluan group,
is demonstrated by this change of systems.
The Turanian system is simply stupendous. It recognizes all the
relationships known under the Aryan system, besides an additional number
unnoticed by the latter. Consanguinei, near and remote, are classified into
categories; and are traced, by means peculiar to the system, far beyond the
ordinary range of the Aryan system. In familiar and in formal salutation, the
people address each other by the term of relationship, and never by the
personal name, which tends to spread abroad a knowledge of the system as
well as to preserve, by constant recognition, the relationship of the most
distant kindred. Where no relationship exists, the form of salutation is
simply “my friend.” No other system of consanguinity found among men
approaches it in elaborateness of discrimination or in the extent of special
characteristics.
When the American aborigines were discovered, the family among them
had passed out of the punaluan into the syndyasmian form; so that the
relationships recognized by the system of consanguinity were not those, in a
number of cases, which actually existed in the syndyasmian family. It was
an exact repetition of what had occurred under the Malayan system, where
the family had passed out of the consanguine into the punaluan, the system
of consanguinity remaining unchanged; so that while the relationships given
in the Malayan system were those which actually existed in the consanguine
family, they were untrue to a part of those in the punaluan family. In like
manner, while the relationships given in the Turanian system are those
which actually existed in the punaluan family, they were untrue to a part of
those in the syndyasmian. The form of the family advances faster of
necessity than systems of consanguinity, which follow to record the family
relationships. As the establishment of the punaluan family did not furnish
adequate motives to reform the Malayan system, so the growth of the
syndyasmian family did not supply adequate motives to reform the
Turanian. It required an institution as great as the gentile organization to
change the Malayan system into the Turanian; and it required an institution
as great as property in the concrete, with its rights of ownership and of
inheritance, together with the monogamian family which it created, to
overthrow the Turanian system of consanguinity and substitute the Aryan.
In further course of time a third great system of consanguinity came in,
which may be called, at pleasure, the Aryan, Semitic, or Uralian, and
probably superseded a prior Turanian system among the principal nations,
who afterwards attained civilization. It is the system which defines the
relationships in the monogamian family. This system was not based upon
the Turanian, as the latter was upon the Malayan; but it superseded among
civilized nations a previous Turanian system, as can be shown by other
proofs.
The last four forms of the family have existed within the historical period;
but the first, the consanguine, has disappeared. Its ancient existence,
however, can be deduced from the Malayan system of consanguinity. We
have then three radical forms of the family, which represent three great and
essentially different conditions of life, with three different and well-marked
systems of consanguinity, sufficient to prove the existence of these families,
if they contained the only proofs remaining. This affirmation will serve to
draw attention to the singular permanence and persistency of systems of
consanguinity, and to the value of the evidence they embody with respect to
the condition of ancient society.
Each of these families ran a long course in the tribes of mankind, with a
period of infancy, of maturity, and of decadence. The monogamian family
owes its origin to property, as the syndyasmian, which contained its germ,
owed its origin to the gens. When the Grecian tribes first came under
historical notice, the monogamian family existed; but it did not become
completely established until positive legislation had determined its status
and its rights. The growth of the idea of property in the human mind,
through its creation and enjoyment, and especially through the settlement of
legal rights with respect to its inheritance, are intimately connected with the
establishment of this form of the family. Property became sufficiently
powerful in its influence to touch the organic structure of society. Certainty
with respect to the paternity of children would now have a significance
unknown in previous conditions. Marriage between single pairs had existed
from the Older Period of barbarism, under the form of pairing during the
pleasure of the parties. It had tended to grow more stable as ancient society
advanced, with the improvement of institutions, and with the progress of
inventions and discoveries into higher successive conditions; but the
essential element of the monogamian family, an exclusive cohabitation, was
still wanting. Man far back in barbarism began to exact fidelity from the
wife, under savage penalties, but he claimed exemption for himself. The
obligation is necessarily reciprocal, and its performance correlative. Among
the Homeric Greeks, the condition of woman in the family relation was one
of isolation and marital domination, with imperfect rights and excessive
inequality. A comparison of the Grecian family, at successive epochs, from
the Homeric age to that of Pericles, shows a sensible improvement, with its
gradual settlement into a defined institution. The modern family is an
unquestionable improvement upon that of the Greeks and Romans; because
woman has gained immensely in social position. From standing in the
relation of a daughter to her husband, as among the Greeks and Romans,
she has drawn nearer to an equality in dignity and in acknowledged
personal rights. We have a record of the monogamian family, running back
nearly three thousand years, during which, it may be claimed, there has
been a gradual but continuous improvement in its character. It is destined to
progress still further, until the equality of the sexes is acknowledged, and
the equities of the marriage relation are completely recognized. We have
similar evidence, though not so perfect, of the progressive improvement of
the syndyasmian family, which, commencing in a low type, ended in the
monogamian. These facts should be held in remembrance, because they are
essential in this discussion.
In previous chapters attention has been called to the stupendous conjugal
system which fastened itself upon mankind in the infancy of their existence,
and followed them down to civilization; although steadily losing ground
with the progressive improvement of society. The ratio of human progress
may be measured to some extent by the degree of the reduction of this
system through the moral elements of society arrayed against it. Each
successive form of the family and of marriage is a significant registration of
this reduction. After it was reduced to zero, and not until then, was the
monogamian family possible. This family can be traced far back in the
Later Period of barbarism, where it disappears in the syndyasmian.
Some impression is thus gained of the ages which elapsed while these two
forms of the family were running their courses of growth and development.
But the creation of five successive forms of the family, each differing from
the other, and belonging to conditions of society entirely dissimilar,
augments our conception of the length of the periods during which the idea
of the family was developed from the consanguine, through intermediate
forms, into the still advancing monogamian. No institution of mankind has
had a more remarkable or more eventful history, or embodies the results of
a more prolonged and diversified experience. It required the highest mental
and moral efforts through numberless ages of time to maintain its existence
and carry it through its several stages into its present form.
Marriage passed from the punaluan through the syndyasmian into the
monogamian form without any material change in the Turanian system of
consanguinity. This system, which records the relationships in punaluan
families, remained substantially unchanged until the establishment of the
monogamian family, when it became almost totally untrue to the nature of
descents, and even a scandal upon monogamy. To illustrate: Under the
Malayan system a man calls his brother’s son his son, because his brother’s
wife is his wife as well as his brother’s; and his sister’s son is also his son
because his sister is his wife. Under the Turanian system his brother’s son is
still his son, and for the same reason, but his sister’s son is now his nephew,
because under the gentile organization his sister has ceased to be his wife.
Among the Iroquois, where the family is syndyasmian, a man still calls his
brother’s son his son, although his brother’s wife has ceased to be his wife;
and so with a large number of relationships equally inconsistent with the
existing form of marriage. The system has survived the usages in which it
originated, and still maintains itself among them, although untrue in the
main, to descents as they now exist. No motive adequate to the overthrow
of a great and ancient system of consanguinity had arisen. Monogamy when
it appeared furnished that motive to the Aryan nations as they drew near to
civilization. It assured the paternity of children and the legitimacy of heirs.
A reformation of the Turanian system to accord with monogamian descents
was impossible. It was false to monogamy through and through. A remedy,
however, existed, at once simple and complete. The Turanian system was
dropped, and the descriptive method, which the Turanian tribes always
employed when they wished to make a given relationship specific, was
substituted in its place. They fell back upon the bare facts of consanguinity
and described the relationship of each person by a combination of the
primary terms. Thus, they said brother’s son, brother’s grandson; father’s
brother, and father’s brother’s son. Each phrase described a person, leaving
the relationship a matter of implication. Such was the system of the Aryan
nations, as we find it in its most ancient form among the Grecian, Latin,
Sanskritic, Germanic, and Celtic tribes; and also in the Semitic, as witness
the Hebrew Scripture genealogies. Traces of the Turanian system, some of
which have been referred to, remained among the Aryan and Semitic
nations down to the historical period; but it was essentially uprooted, and
the descriptive system substituted in its place.
To illustrate and confirm these several propositions it will be necessary to
take up, in the order of their origination, these three systems and the three
radical forms of the family, which appeared in connection with them
respectively. They mutually interpret each other.
A system of consanguinity considered in itself is of but little importance.
Limited in the number of ideas it embodies, and resting apparently upon
simple suggestions, it would seem incapable of affording useful
information, and much less of throwing light upon the early condition of
mankind. Such, at least, would be the natural conclusion when the
relationships of a group of kindred are considered in the abstract. But when
the system of many tribes is compared, and it is seen to rank as a domestic
institution, and to have transmitted itself through immensely protracted
periods of time, it assumes a very different aspect. Three such systems, one
succeeding the other, represent the entire growth of the family from the
consanguine to the monogamian. Since we have a right to suppose that each
one expresses the actual relationships which existed in the family at the
time of its establishment, it reveals, in turn, the form of marriage and of the
family which then prevailed, although both may have advanced into a
higher stage while the system of consanguinity remained unchanged.
It will be noticed, further, that these systems are natural growths with the
progress of society from a lower into a higher condition, the change in each
case being marked by the appearance of some institution affecting deeply
the constitution of society. The relationship of mother and child, of brother
and sister, and of grandmother and grandchild have been ascertainable in all
ages with entire certainty; but those of father and child, and of grandfather
and grandchild were not ascertainable with certainty until monogamy
contributed the highest assurance attainable. A number of persons would
stand in each of these relations at the same time as equally probable when
marriage was in the group. In the rudest conditions of ancient society these
relationships would be perceived, both the actual and the probable, and
terms would be invented to express them. A system of consanguinity would
result in time from the continued application of these terms to persons thus
formed into a group of kindred. But the form of the system, as before stated,
would depend upon the form of marriage. Where marriages were between
brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in the group, the family would be
consanguine, and the system of consanguinity, Malayan. Where marriages
were between several sisters with each other’s husbands in a group, and
between several brothers with each other’s wives in a group, the family
would be punaluan, and the system of consanguinity Turanian; and where
marriage was between single pairs, with an exclusive cohabitation, the
family would be monogamian, and the system of consanguinity would be
Aryan. Consequently the three systems are founded upon three forms of
marriage; and they seek to express, as near as the fact could be known, the
actual relationship which existed between persons under these forms of
marriage respectively. It will be seen, therefore, that they do not rest upon
nature, but upon marriage; not upon fictitious considerations, but upon fact;
and that each in its turn is a logical as well as truthful system. The evidence
they contain is of the highest value, as well as of the most suggestive
character. It reveals the condition of ancient society in the plainest manner
with unerring directness.
These systems resolve themselves into two ultimate forms, fundamentally distinct. One of these is
classificatory, and the other descriptive. Under the first, consanguinei are never described, but are
classified into categories, irrespective of their nearness or remoteness in degree to Ego; and the same
term of relationship is applied to all the persons in the same category. Thus my own brothers, and the
sons of my father’s brothers are all alike my brothers; my own sisters, and the daughters of my mother’s
sisters are all alike my sisters; such is the classification under both the Malayan and Turanian systems.
In the second case consanguinei are described either by the primary terms of relationship or a
combination of these terms, thus making the relationship of each person specific. Thus we say brother’s
son, father’s brother, and father’s brother’s son. Such was the system of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian
families, which came in with monogamy. A small amount of classification was subsequently introduced
by the invention of common terms; but the earliest form of the system, of which the Erse and
Scandinavian are typical, was purely descriptive, as illustrated by the above examples. The radical
difference between the two systems resulted from plural marriages in the group in one case, and from
single marriages between single pairs in the other.
While the descriptive system is the same in the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, the classificatory
has two distinct forms. First, the Malayan, which is the oldest in point of time; and second, the Turanian
and Ganowánian, which are essentially alike and were formed by the modification of a previous
Malayan system.
A brief reference to our own system of consanguinity will bring into notice the principles which
underlie all systems.
Relationships are of two kinds: First, by consanguinity or blood; second, by affinity or marriage.
Consanguinity is also of two kinds, lineal and collateral. Lineal consanguinity is the connection which
subsists among persons of whom one is descended from the other. Collateral consanguinity is the
connection which exists between persons who are descended from common ancestors, but not from
each other. Marriage relationships exist by custom.
Not to enter too specially into the subject, it may be stated generally that in every system of
consanguinity, where marriage between single pairs exists, there must be a lineal and several collateral
lines, the latter diverging from the former. Each person is the centre of a group of kindred, the Ego from
whom the degree of relationship of each person is reckoned, and to whom the relationship returns. His
position is necessarily in the lineal line, and that line is vertical. Upon it may be inscribed, above and
below him, his several ancestors and descendants in a direct series from father to son, and these persons
together will constitute his right lineal male line. Out of this trunk line emerge the several collateral
lines, male and female, which are numbered outwardly. It will be sufficient for a perfect knowledge of
the system to recognize the main lineal line, and a single male and female branch of the first five
collateral lines, including those on the father’s side, and on the mother’s side, and proceeding in each
case from the parent to one only of his or her children, although it will include but a small portion of the
kindred of Ego, either in the ascending or descending series. An attempt to follow all the divisions and
branches of the several collateral lines, which increase in number in the ascending series in a
geometrical ratio, would not render the system more intelligible.
The first collateral line, male, consists of my brother and his descendants; and the first, female, of my
sister and her descendants. The second collateral line, male, on the father’s side, consists of my father’s
brother and his descendants; and the second, female, of my father’s sister and her descendants: the
second, male, on the mother’s side, is composed of my mother’s brother and his descendants; and the
second, female, of my mother’s sister and her descendants. The third collateral line, male, on the
father’s side, consists of my grandfather’s brother and his descendants; and the third, female, of my
grandfather’s sister and her descendants: on the mother’s side the same line, in its male and female
branches, is composed of my grandmother’s brother and sister and their descendants respectively. It will
be noticed, in the last case, that we have turned out of the lineal line on the father’s side into that on the
mother’s side. The fourth collateral line, male and female, commences with great-grandfather’s brother
and sister, and great-grandmother’s brother and sister: and the fifth collateral line, male and female,
with great-great-grandfather’s brother and sister; and with great-great-grandmother’s brother and sister,
and each line and branch is run out in the same manner as the third. These five lines, with the lineal,
embrace the great body of our kindred, who are within the range of practical recognition.
An additional explanation of these several lines is required. If I have several brothers and sisters, they,
with their descendants, constitute as many lines, each independent of the other, as I have brothers and
sisters; but altogether they form my first collateral line in two branches, a male and a female. In like
manner, the several brothers and sisters of my father, and of my mother, with their respective
descendants, make up as many lines, each independent of the other, as there are brothers and sisters; but
they all unite to form the second collateral line in two divisions, that on the father’s side, and that on the
mother’s side; and in four principal branches, two male, and two female. If the third collateral line were
run out fully, in its several branches, it would give four general divisions of ancestors, and eight
principal branches; and the number of each would increase in the same ratio in each successive
collateral line.
With such a mass of divisions and branches, embracing such a multitude of consanguinei, it will be seen
at once that a method of arrangement and of description which maintained each distinct and rendered
the whole intelligible would be no ordinary achievement. This task was perfectly accomplished by the
Roman civilians, whose method has been adopted by the principal European nations, and is so entirely
simple as to elicit admiration.447 The development of the nomenclature to the requisite extent must have
been so extremely difficult that it would probably never have occurred except under the stimulus of an
urgent necessity, namely, the need of a code of descents to regulate the inheritance of property.
To render the new form attainable, it was necessary to discriminate the relationships of uncle and aunt
on the father’s side and on the mother’s side by concrete terms, an achievement made in a few only of
the languages of mankind. These terms finally appeared among the Romans in patruus and amita, for
uncle and aunt on the father’s side, and in avunculus and matertera for the same on the mother’s side.
After these were invented, the improved Roman method of describing consanguinei became
established.448 It has been adopted, in its essential features, by the several branches of the Aryan family,
with the exception of the Erse, the Scandinavian, and the Slavonic.
The Aryan system necessarily took the descriptive form when the Turanian was abandoned, as in the
Erse. Every relationship in the lineal and first five collateral lines, to the number of one hundred and
more, stands independent, requiring as many descriptive phases, or the gradual invention of common
terms.
It will be noticed that the two radical forms—the classificatory and the descriptive—yield nearly the
exact line of demarkation between the barbarous and civilized nations. Such a result might have been
predicted from the law of progress revealed by these several forms of marriage and of the family.
Systems of consanguinity are neither adopted, modified, nor laid aside at pleasure. They are identified
in their origin with organic movements of society which produced a great change of condition. When a
particular form had come into general use, with its nomenclature invented and its methods settled, it
would, from the nature of the case, be very slow to change. Every human being is the centre of a group
of kindred, and therefore every person is compelled to use and to understand the prevailing system. A
change in any one of these relationships would be extremely difficult. This tendency to permanence is
increased by the fact that these systems exist by custom rather than legal enactment, as growths rather
than artificial creations, and therefore a motive to change must be as universal as the usage. While every
person is a party to the system, the channel of its transmission is the blood. Powerful influences thus
existed to perpetuate the system long after the conditions under which each originated had been
modified or had altogether disappeared. This element of permanence gives certainty to conclusions
drawn from the facts, and has preserved and brought forward a record of ancient society which
otherwise would have been entirely lost to human knowledge.
It will not be supposed that a system so elaborate as the Turanian could be maintained in different
nations and families of mankind in absolute identicalness. Divergence in minor particulars is found, but
the radical features are, in the main, constant. The system of consanguinity of the Tamil people, of
South India, and that of the Seneca-Iroquois, of New York, are still identical through two hundred
relationships; an application of natural logic to the facts of the social condition without a parallel in the
history of the human mind. There is also a modified form of the system, which stands alone and tells its
own story. It is that of the Hindi, Bengali, Marâthi and other people of North India, formed by a
combination of the Aryan and Turanian systems. A civilized people, the Brahmins, coalesced with a
barbarous stock, and lost their language in the new vernaculars named, which retain the grammatical
structure of the aboriginal speech, to which the Sanskrit gave ninety per cent. of its vocables. It brought
their two systems of consanguinity into collision, one founded upon monogamy or syndyasmy, and the
other upon plural marriages in the group, resulting in a mixed system. The aborigines, who
preponderated in number, impressed upon it a Turanian character, while the Sanskrit element introduced
such modifications as saved the monogamian family from reproach. The Slavonic stock seems to have
been derived from this intermixture of races. A system of consanguinity which exhibits but two phases
through the periods of savagery and of barbarism and projects a third but modified form far into the
period of civilization, manifests an element of permanence calculated to arrest attention.
It will not be necessary to consider the patriarchal family founded upon polygamy. From its limited
prevalence it made but little impression upon human affairs.
The house life of savages and barbarians has not been studied with the attention the subject deserves.
Among the Indian tribes of North America the family was syndyasmian; but they lived generally in
joint-tenement houses and practiced communism within the household. As we descend the scale in the
direction of the punaluan and consanguine families, the household group becomes larger, with more
persons crowded together in the same apartment. The coast tribes in Venezuela, among whom the
family seems to have been punaluan, are represented by the discoverers as living in bell-shaped houses,
each containing a hundred and sixty persons.449 Husbands and wives lived together in a group in the
same house, and generally in the same apartment. The inference is reasonable that this mode of house
life was very general in savagery.
An explanation of the origin of these systems of consanguinity and affinity will be offered in
succeeding chapters. They will be grounded upon the forms of marriage and of the family which
produced them, the existence of these forms being assumed. If a satisfactory explanation of each system
is thus obtained, the antecedent existence of each form of marriage and of the family may be deduced
from the system it explains. In a final chapter an attempt will be made to articulate in a sequence the
principal institutions which have contributed to the growth of the family through successive forms. Our
knowledge of the early condition of mankind is still so limited that we must take the best indications
attainable. The sequence to be presented is, in part, hypothetical; but it is sustained by a sufficient body
of evidence to commend it to consideration. Its complete establishment must be left to the results of
future ethnological investigations.

CHAPTER II. - THE CONSANGUINE FAMILY.

F E F .—P M S C .—H S T .—F
G R .—D S .—E I B S G .—E S
S S I .—N G R C .—I P H .—
F G R I R P .—T M S C A .
The existence of the Consanguine family must be proved by other evidence than the production of the
family itself. As the first and most ancient form of the institution, it has ceased to exist even among the
lowest tribes of savages. It belongs to a condition of society out of which the least advanced portion of
the human race have emerged. Single instances of the marriage of a brother and sister in barbarous and
even in civilized nations have occurred within the historical period; but this is very different from the
intermarriage of a number of them in a group, in a state of society in which such marriages
predominated and formed the basis of a social system. There are tribes of savages in the Polynesian and
Papuan Islands, and in Australia, seemingly not far removed from the primitive state; but they have
advanced beyond the condition the consanguine family implies. Where, then, it may be asked, is the
evidence that such a family ever existed among mankind? Whatever proof is adduced must be
conclusive, otherwise the proposition is not established. It is found in a system of consanguinity and
affinity which has outlived for unnumbered centuries the marriage customs in which it originated, and
which remains to attest the fact that such a family existed when the system was formed.
That system is the Malayan. It defines the relationships that would exist in a consanguine family; and it
demands the existence of such a family to account for its own existence. Moreover, it proves with moral
certainty the existence of a consanguine family when the system was formed.
This system, which is the most archaic yet discovered, will now be taken up for the purpose of showing,
from its relationships, the principal facts stated. This family, also, is the most archaic form of the
institution of which any knowledge remains.
Such a remarkable record of the condition of ancient society would not have been preserved to the
present time but for the singular permanence of systems of consanguinity. The Aryan system, for
example, has stood near three thousand years without radical change, and would endure a hundred
thousand years in the future, provided the monogamian family, whose relationships it defines, should so
long remain. It describes the relationships which actually exist under monogamy, and is therefore
incapable of change, so long as the family remains as at present constituted. If a new form of the family
should appear among Aryan nations, it would not affect the present system of consanguinity until after
it became universal; and while in that case it might modify the system in some particulars, it would not
overthrow it, unless the new family were radically different from the monogamian. It was precisely the
same with its immediate predecessor, the Turanian system, and before that with the Malayan, the
predecessor of the Turanian in the order of derivative growth. An antiquity of unknown duration may be
assigned to the Malayan system which came in with the consanguine family, remained for an indefinite
period after the punaluan family appeared, and seems to have been displaced in other tribes by the
Turanian, with the establishment of the organization into gentes.
The inhabitants of Polynesia are included in the Malayan family. Their system of consanguinity has
been called the Malayan, although the Malays proper have modified their own in some particulars.
Among the Hawaiians and other Polynesian tribes there still exists in daily use a system of
consanguinity which is given in the Table, and may be pronounced the oldest known among mankind.
The Hawaiian and Rotuman450 forms are used as typical of the system. It is the simplest, and therefore
the oldest form, of the classificatory system, and reveals the primitive form on which the Turanian and
Ganowánian were afterwards engrafted.
It is evident that the Malayan could not have been derived from any existing system, because there is
none, of which any conception can be formed, more elementary. The only blood relationships
recognized are the primary, which are five in number, without distinguishing sex. All consanguinei, near
and remote, are classified under these relationships into five categories. Thus, myself, my brothers and
sisters, and my first, second, third, and more remote male and female cousins, are the first grade or
category. All these, without distinction, are my brothers and sisters. The word cousin is here used in our
sense, the relationship being unknown in Polynesia. My father and mother, together with their brothers
and sisters, and their first, second, and more remote cousins, are the second grade. All these, without
distinction, are my parents. My grandfathers and grandmothers, on the father’s side and on the mother’s
side, with their brothers and sisters, and their several cousins, are the third grade. All these are my
grandparents. Below me, my sons and daughters, with their several cousins, as before, are the fourth
grade. All these, without distinction, are my children. My grandsons and granddaughters, with their
several cousins, are the fifth grade. All these in like manner are my grand-children. Moreover, all the
individuals of the same grade are brothers and sisters to each other. In this manner all the possible
kindred of any given person are brought into five categories; each person applying to every other person
in the same category with himself or herself the same term of relationship. Particular attention is invited
to the five grades of relations in the Malayan system, because the same classification appears in the
“Nine Grades of Relations” of the Chinese, which are extended so as to include two additional ancestors
and two additional descendants, as will elsewhere be shown. A fundamental connection between the
two systems is thus discovered.
There are terms in Hawaiian for grandparent, Kupŭnă; for parent, Mäkŭa; for child, Kaikee; and for
grandchild, Moopŭnă. Gender is expressed by adding the terms Käna, for male, and Wäheena, for
female; thus, Kupŭnă Käna = grandparent male, and Kupŭnă Wäheena, grandparent female. They are
equivalent to grandfather and grandmother, and express these relationships in the concrete. Ancestors
and descendants, above and below those named, are distinguished numerically, as first, second, third,
when it is necessary to be specific; but in common usage Kupŭnă is applied to all persons above
grandparent, and Moopŭnă is applied to all descendants below grandchild.
The relationships of brother and sister are conceived in the twofold form of elder and younger, and
separate terms are applied to each; but it is not carried out with entire completeness. Thus, in Hawaiian,
from which the illustrations will be taken, we have:

Elder Brother, Male Speaking, Kaikŭaäna. Female Speaking, Kaikŭnäna.

Younger Brother, ” ” Kaikaina. ” ” Kaikŭnäna.
Elder Sister, ” ” Kaikŭwäheena. ” ” Kaikŭaäna.
Younger Sister, ” ” Kaikŭwäheena. ” ” Kaikaina.451

It will be observed that a man calls his elder brother Kaikŭaäna, and that a woman calls her elder sister
the same; that a man calls his younger brother Kaikaina, and a woman calls her younger sister the same:
hence these terms are in common gender, and suggest the same idea found in the Karen system, namely,
that of predecessor and successor in birth.452 A single term is used by the males for elder and younger
sister, and a single term by the females for elder and younger brother. It thus appears that while a man’s
brothers are classified into elder and younger, his sisters are not; and, while a woman’s sisters are
classified into elder and younger, her brothers are not. A double set of terms are thus developed, one of
which is used by the males and the other by the females, a peculiarity which reappears in the system of
a number of Polynesian tribes.453 Among savage and barbarous tribes the relationships of brother and
sister are seldom conceived in the abstract.
The substance of the system is contained in the five categories of consanguinei; but there are special
features to be noticed which will require the presentation in detail of the first three collateral lines. After
these are shown the connection of the system with the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and
collateral, in a group, will appear in the relationships themselves.
First collateral line. In the male branch, with myself a male, the children of my brother, speaking as a
Hawaiian, are my sons and daughters, each of them calling me father; and the children of the latter are
my grandchildren, each of them calling me grandfather.
In the female branch my sister’s children are my sons and daughters, each of them calling me father;
and their children are my grandchildren, each of them calling me grandfather. With myself a female, the
relationships of the persons above named are the same in both branches, with corresponding changes for
sex.
The husbands and wives of these several sons and daughters are my sons-in-law and daughters-in-law;
the terms being used in common gender, and having the terms for male and female added to each
respectively.
Second collateral line. In the male branch on the father’s side my father’s brother is my father, and calls
me his son; his children are my brothers and sisters, elder or younger; their children are my sons and
daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren, each of them in the preceding and
succeeding cases applying to me the proper correlative. My father’s sister is my mother; her children are
my brothers and sisters, elder or younger; their children are my sons and daughters; and the children of
the latter are my grandchildren.
In the same line on the mother’s side my mother’s brother is my father; his children are my brothers and
sisters; their children are my sons and daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren. My
mother’s sister is my mother; her children are my brothers and sisters; their children are my sons and
daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren. The relationships of the persons named in
all the branches of this and the succeeding lines are the same with myself a female.
The wives of these several brothers, own and collateral, are my wives as well as theirs. When
addressing either one of them, I call her my wife, employing the usual term to express that connection.
The husbands of these several women, jointly such with myself, are my brothers-in-law. With myself a
female the husbands of my several sisters, own and collateral, are my husbands as well as theirs. When
addressing either of them, I use the common term for husband. The wives of these several husbands,
who are jointly such with myself, are my sisters-in-law.
Third collateral line. In the male branch of this line on the father’s side, my grandfather’s brother is my
grandfather; his children are my father’s and mother’s; their children are my brothers and sisters, elder
or younger; the children of the latter are my sons and daughters; and their children are my
grandchildren. My grandfather’s sister is my grandmother; and her children and descendants follow in
the same relationships as in the last case.
In the same line on the mother’s side, my grandmother’s brother is my grandfather; his sister is my
grandmother; and their respective children and descendants fall into the same categories as those in the
first branch of this line.
The marriage relationships are the same in this as in the second collateral line, thus increasing largely
the number united in the bonds of marriage.
As far as consanguinei can be traced in the more remote collateral lines, the system, which is all-
embracing, is the same in its classifications. Thus, my great-grandfather in the fourth collateral line is
my grandfather; his son is my grandfather also; the son of the latter is my father; his son is my brother,
elder or younger; and his son and grandson are my son and grandson.
It will be observed that the several collateral lines are brought into and merged in the lineal line,
ascending as well as descending; so that the ancestors and descendants of my collateral brothers and
sisters become mine as well as theirs. This is one of the characteristics of the classificatory system.
None of the kindred are lost.
From the simplicity of the system it may be seen how readily the relationships of consanguinei are
known and recognized, and how a knowledge of them is preserved from generation to generation. A
single rule furnishes an illustration: the children of brothers are themselves brothers and sisters; the
children of the latter are brothers and sisters; and so downward indefinitely. It is the same with the
children and descendants of sisters, and of brothers and sisters.
All the members of each grade are reduced to the same level in their relationships, without regard to
nearness or remoteness in numerical degrees; those in each grade standing to Ego in an identical
relationship. It follows, also, that knowledge of the numerical degrees formed an integral part of the
Hawaiian system, without which the proper grade of each person could not be known. The simple and
distinctive character of the system will arrest attention, pointing with such directness as it does, to the
intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group, as the source from whence it
sprung.
Poverty of language or indifference to relationships exercised no influence whatever upon the formation
of the system, as will appear in the sequel.
The system, as here detailed, is found in other Polynesian tribes besides the Hawaiians and Rotumans,
as among the Marquesas Islanders, and the Maoris of New Zealand. It prevails, also, among the
Samoans, Kusaiens, and King’s Mill Islanders of Micronesia,454 and without a doubt in every inhabited
island of the Pacific, except where it verges upon the Turanian.
From this system the antecedent existence of the consanguine family, with the kind of marriage
appertaining thereto, is plainly deducible. Presumptively it is a natural and real system, expressing the
relationships which actually existed when the system was formed, as near as the parentage of children
could be known. The usages with respect to marriage which then prevailed may not prevail at the
present time. To sustain the deduction it is not necessary that they should. Systems of consanguinity, as
before stated, are found to remain substantially unchanged and in full vigor long after the marriage
customs in which they originated have in part or wholly passed away. The small number of independent
systems of consanguinity created during the extended period of human experience is sufficient proof of
their permanence. They are found not to change except in connection with great epochs of progress. For
the purpose of explaining the origin of the Malayan system, from the nature of descents, we are at
liberty to assume the antecedent intermarriage of own and collateral brothers and sisters in a group; and
if it is then found that the principal relationships recognized are those that would actually exist under
this form of marriage, then the system itself becomes evidence conclusive of the existence of such
marriages. It is plainly inferable that the system originated in plural marriages of consanguinei,
including own brothers and sisters; in fact commenced with the intermarriage of the latter, and gradually
enfolded the collateral brothers and sisters as the range of the conjugal system widened. In course of
time the evils of the first form of marriage came to be perceived, leading, if not to its direct abolition, to
a preference for wives beyond this degree. Among the Australians it was permanently abolished by the
organization into classes, and more widely among the Turanian tribes by the organization into gentes. It
is impossible to explain the system as a natural growth upon any other hypothesis than the one named,
since this form of marriage alone can furnish a key to its interpretation. In the consanguine family, thus
constituted, the husbands lived in polygyny, and the wives in polyandry, which are seen to be as ancient
as human society. Such a family was neither unnatural nor remarkable. It would be difficult to show any
other possible beginning of the family in the primitive period. Its long continuance in a partial form
among the tribes of mankind is the greater cause for surprise; for all traces of it had not disappeared
among the Hawaiians at the epoch of their discovery.
The explanation of the origin of the Malayan system given in this chapter, and of the Turanian and
Ganowánian given in the next, have been questioned and denied by Mr. John F. McLennan, author of
“Primitive Marriage.” I see no occasion, however, to modify the views herein presented, which are the
same substantially as those given in “Systems of Consanguinity,” etc. But I ask the attention of the
reader to the interpretation here repeated, and to a note at the end of Chapter VI, in which Mr.
McLennan’s objections are considered.
If the recognized relationships in the Malayan system are now tested by this form of marriage, it will be
found that they rest upon the intermarriage of own and collateral brothers and sisters in a group.
It should be remembered that the relationships which grow out of the family organization are of two
kinds: those of blood determined by descents, and those of affinity determined by marriage. Since in the
consanguine family there are two distinct groups of persons, one of fathers and one of mothers, the
affiliation of the children to both groups would be so strong that the distinction between relationships by
blood and by affinity would not be recognized in the system in every case.
I. All the children of my several brothers, myself a male, are my sons and daughters.
Reason: Speaking as a Hawaiian, all the wives of my several brothers are my wives as well as theirs. As
it would be impossible for me to distinguish my own children from those of my brothers, if I call any
one my child, I must call them all my children. One is as likely to be mine as another.
II. All the grandchildren of my several brothers are my grandchildren.
Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.
III. With myself a female the foregoing relationships are the same.
This is purely a question of relationship by marriage. My several brothers being my husbands, their
children by other wives would be my step-children, which relationship being unrecognized, they
naturally fall into the category of my sons and daughters. Otherwise they would pass without the
system. Among ourselves a step-mother is called mother, and a step-son a son.
IV. All the children of my several sisters, own and collateral, myself a male, are my sons and daughters.
Reason: All my sisters are my wives, as well as the wives of my several brothers.
V. All the grandchildren of my several sisters are my grandchildren.
Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.
VI. All the children of my several sisters, myself a female, are my sons and daughters.
Reason: The husbands of my sisters are my husbands as well as theirs. This difference, however, exists:
I can distinguish my own children from those of my sisters, to the latter of whom I am a step-mother.
But since this relationship is not discriminated, they fall into the category of my sons and daughters.
Otherwise they would fall without the system.
VII. All the children of several own brothers are brothers and sisters to each other.
Reason: These brothers are the husbands of all the mothers of these children. The children can
distinguish their own mothers, but not their fathers, wherefore, as to the former, a part are own brothers
and sisters, and step-brothers and step-sisters to the remainder; but as to the latter, they are probable
brothers and sisters. For these reasons they naturally fall into this category.
VIII. The children of these brothers and sisters are also brothers and sisters to each other; the children of
the latter are brothers and sisters again, and this relationship continues downward among their
descendants indefinitely. It is precisely the same with the children and descendants of several own
sisters, and of several brothers and sisters. An infinite series is thus created, which is a fundamental part
of the system. To account for this series it must be further assumed that the marriage relation extended
wherever the relationship of brother and sister was recognized to exist; each brother having as many
wives as he had sisters, own or collateral, and each sister having as many husbands as she had brothers,
own or collateral. Marriage and the family seem to form in the grade or category, and to be coextensive
with it. Such apparently was the beginning of that stupendous conjugal system which has before been a
number of times adverted to.
IX. All the brothers of my father are my fathers; and all the sisters of my mother are my mothers.
Reasons, as in I, III, and VI.
X. All the brothers of my mother are my fathers.
Reason: They are my mother’s husbands.
XI. All the sisters of my mother are my mothers.
Reasons, as in VI.
XII. All the children of my collateral brothers and sisters are, without distinction, my sons and
daughters.
Reasons, as in I, III, IV, VI.
XIII. All the children of the latter are my grandchildren.
Reasons, as in II.
XIV. All the brothers and sisters of my grandfather and grandmother, on the father’s side and on the
mother’s side, are my grandfathers and grandmothers.
Reason: They are the fathers and mothers of my father and mother.
Every relationship recognized under the system is thus explained from the nature of the consanguine
family, founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group.
Relationships on the father’s side are followed as near as the parentage of children could be known,
probable fathers being treated as actual fathers. Relationships on the mother’s side are determined by
the principle of affinity, step-children being regarded as actual children.
Turning next to the marriage relationships, confirmatory results are obtained, as the following table will
show:

T . H .
My Brother’s Wife, Male speaking. Unoho, My Wife. Waheena, My Wife.
” Wife’s Sister, ” ” Unoho, ” ” Waheena, ” Wife.
” Husband’s Brother, Female ” Unoho, ” Husband. Kane, ” Husband.
” Father’s Brother’s Son’s Wife Male ” Unoho, ” Wife. Waheena, ” Wife.
” Mother’s Sister’s Son’s Wife ” ” Unoho, ” ” Waheena, ” ”
” Father’s Brother’s Daughter’s Bro.-in-
Female ” Unoho, ” Husband. Kaikoeka, ”
Husb. law.
” Mother’s Sister’s Daughter’s Husb. ” ” Unoho, ” ” Kaikoeka, ” ”

Wherever the relationship of wife is found in the collateral line, that of husband must be recognized in
the lineal, and conversely.455 When this system of consanguinity and affinity first came into use the
relationships, which are still preserved, could have been none other than those which actually existed,
whatever may have afterwards occurred in marriage usages.
From the evidence embodied in this system of consanguinity the deduction is made that the
consanguine family, as defined, existed among the ancestors of the Polynesian tribes when the system
was formed. Such a form of the family is necessary to render an interpretation of the system possible.
Moreover, it furnishes an interpretation of every relationship with reasonable exactness.
The following observation of Mr. Oscar Peschel is deserving of attention: “That at any time and in any
place the children of the same mother have propagated themselves sexually, for any long period, has
been rendered especially incredible, since it has been established that even in the case of organisms
devoid of blood, such as the plants, reciprocal fertilization of the descendants of the same parents is to a
great extent impossible.”456 It must be remembered that the consanguine group united in the marriage
relation was not restricted to own brothers and sisters; but it included collateral brothers and sisters as
well. The larger the group recognizing the marriage relation, the less the evil of close interbreeding.
From general considerations the ancient existence of such a family was probable. The natural and
necessary relations of the consanguine family to the punaluan, of the punaluan to the syndyasmian, and
of the syndyasmian to the monogamian, each presupposing its predecessor, lead directly to this
conclusion. They stand to each other in a logical sequence, and together stretch across several ethnical
periods from savagery to civilization.
In like manner the three great systems of consanguinity, which are connected with the three radical
forms of the family, stand to each other in a similarly connected series, running parallel with the former,
and indicating not less plainly a similar line of human progress from savagery to civilization. There are
reasons for concluding that the remote ancestors of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families possessed a
system identical with the Malayan when in the savage state, which was finally modified into the
Turanian after the establishment of the gentile organization, and then overthrown when the monogamian
family appeared, introducing the Aryan system of consanguinity.
Notwithstanding the high character of the evidence given, there is still other evidence of the ancient
existence of the consanguine family among the Hawaiians which should not be overlooked.
Its antecedent existence is rendered probable by the condition of society in the Sandwich Islands when
it first became thoroughly known. At the time the American missions were established upon these
Islands (1820), a state of society was found which appalled the missionaries. The relations of the sexes
and their marriage customs excited their chief astonishment. They were suddenly introduced to a phase
of ancient society where the monogamian family was unknown, where the syndyasmian family was
unknown; but in the place of these, and without understanding the organism, they found the punaluan
family, with own brothers and sisters not entirely excluded, in which the males were living in polygyny,
and the females in polyandry. It seemed to them that they had discovered the lowest level of human
degradation, not to say of depravity. But the innocent Hawaiians, who had not been able to advance
themselves out of savagery, were living, no doubt respectably and modestly for savages, under customs
and usages which to them had the force of laws. It is probable that they were living as virtuously in their
faithful observance, as these excellent missionaries were in the performance of their own. The shock the
latter experienced from their discoveries expresses the profoundness of the expanse which separates
civilized from savage man. The high moral sense and refined sensibilities, which had been a growth of
the ages, were brought face to face with the feeble moral sense and the coarse sensibilities of a savage
man of all these periods ago. As a contrast it was total and complete. The Rev. Hiram Bingham, one of
these veteran missionaries, has given us an excellent history of the Sandwich Islands, founded upon
original investigations, in which he pictures the people as practicing the sum of human abominations.
“Polygamy, implying plurality of husbands and wives,” he observes, “fornication, adultery, incest,
infant murder, desertion of husband and wives, parents and children; sorcery, covetousness, and
oppression extensively prevailed, and seem hardly to have been forbidden by their religion.”457
Punaluan marriage and the punaluan family dispose of the principal charges in this grave indictment,
and leave the Hawaiians a chance at a moral character. The existence of morality, even among savages,
must be recognized, although low in type; for there never could have been a time in human experience
when the principle of morality did not exist. Wakea, the eponymous ancestor of the Hawaiians,
according to Mr. Bingham, is said to have married his eldest daughter. In the time of these missionaries
brothers and sisters married without reproach. “The union of brother and sister in the highest ranks,” he
further remarks, “became fashionable, and continued until the revealed will of God was made known to
them.”458 It is not singular that the intermarriage of brothers and sisters should have survived from the
consanguine family into the punaluan in some cases, in the Sandwich Islands, because the people had
not attained to the gentile organization, and because the punaluan family was a growth out of the
consanguine not yet entirely consummated. Although the family was substantially punaluan, the system
of consanguinity remained unchanged, as it came in with the consanguine family, with the exception of
certain marriage relationships.
It is not probable that the actual family, among the Hawaiians, was as large as the group united in the
marriage relation. Necessity would compel its subdivision into smaller groups for the procurement of
subsistence, and for mutual protection; but each smaller family would be a miniature of the group. It is
not improbable that individuals passed at pleasure from one of these subdivisions into another in the
punaluan as well as consanguine family, giving rise to that apparent desertion by husbands and wives of
each other, and by parents of their children, mentioned by Mr. Bingham. Communism in living must, of
necessity, have prevailed both in the consanguine and in the punaluan family, because it was a
requirement of their condition. It still prevails generally among savage and barbarous tribes.
A brief reference should be made to the “Nine Grades of Relations of the Chinese.” An ancient Chinese
author remarks as follows: “All men born into the world have nine ranks of relations. My own
generation is one grade, my father’s is one, that of my grandfather’s is one, that of my grandfather’s
father is one, and that of my grandfather’s grandfather is one; thus, above me are four grades: My son’s
generation is one, that of my grandson’s is one, that of my grandson’s son is one, and that of my
grandson’s grandson is one; thus, below me are four grades; including myself in the estimate, there are,
in all nine grades. These are brethren, and although each grade belongs to a different house or family,
yet they are all my relations, and these are the nine grades of relations.”
“The degrees of kindred in a family are like the streamlets of a fountain, or the branches of a tree;
although the streams differ in being more or less remote, and the branches in being more or less near,
yet there is but one trunk and one fountain head.”459
The Hawaiian system of consanguinity realizes the nine grades of relations (conceiving them reduced to
five by striking off the two upper and the two lower members) more perfectly than that of the Chinese at
the present time.460 While the latter has changed through the introduction of Turanian elements, and still
more through special additions to distinguish the several collateral lines, the former has held, pure and
simple, to the primary grades which presumptively were all the Chinese possessed originally. It is
evident that consanguinei, in the Chinese as in the Hawaiian, are generalized into categories by
generations; all collaterals of the same grade being brothers and sisters to each other. Moreover,
marriage and the family are conceived as forming within the grade, and confined, so far as husbands
and wives are concerned, within its limits. As explained by the Hawaiian categories it is perfectly
intelligible. At the same time it indicates an anterior condition among the remote ancestors of the
Chinese, of which this fragment preserves a knowledge, precisely analogous to that reflected by the
Hawaiian. In other words, it indicated the presence of the punaluan family when these grades were
formed, of which the consanguine was a necessary predecessor.
In the “Timæus” of Plato there is a suggestive recognition of the same five primary grades of relations.
All consanguinei in the Ideal Republic were to fall into five categories, in which the women were to be
in common as wives, and the children in common as to parents. “But how about the procreation of
children?” Socrates says to Timæus. “This, perhaps, you easily remember, on account of the novelty of
the proposal; for we ordered that marriage unions and children should be in common to all persons
whatsoever, special care being taken also that no one should be able to distinguish his own children
individually, but all consider all their kindred; regarding those of an equal age, and in the prime of life,
as their brothers and sisters, those prior to them, and yet further back as their parents and grandsires,
and those below them, as their children and grandchildren.”461 Plato undoubtedly was familiar with
Hellenic and Pelasgian traditions not known to us, which reached far back into the period of barbarism,
and revealed traces of a still earlier condition of the Grecian tribes. His ideal family may have been
derived from these delineations, a supposition far more probable than that it was a philosophical
deduction. It will be noticed that his five grades of relations are precisely the same as the Hawaiian; that
the family was to form in each grade where the relationship was that of brothers and sisters; and that
husbands and wives were to be in common in the group.
Finally, it will be perceived that the state of society indicated by the consanguine family points with
logical directness to an anterior condition of promiscuous intercourse. There seems to be no escape
from this conclusion, although questioned by so eminent a writer as Mr. Darwin.462 It is not probable
that promiscuity in the primitive period was long continued even in the horde; because the latter would
break up into smaller groups for subsistence, and fall into consanguine families. The most that can
safely be claimed upon this difficult question is, that the consanguine family was the first organized
form of society, and that it was necessarily an improvement upon the previous unorganized state,
whatever that state may have been. It found mankind at the bottom of the scale, from which, as a
starting point, and the lowest known, we may take up the history of human progress, and trace it
through the growth of domestic institutions, inventions, and discoveries, from savagery to civilization.
By no chain of events can it be shown more conspicuously than in the growth of the idea of the family
through successive forms. With the existence of the consanguine family established, of which the proofs
adduced seem to be sufficient, the remaining families are easily demonstrated.
[Pg 419]
[Pg 423]

System of Relationship of the Hawaiians and Rotumans.

Transcriber's Note: Abbreviations: fa=father, mo=mother, GF=Grandfather, GM=Grandmother,
GD=Granddaughter, GS=Grandson, bro=Brother, str=sister, gt=great, dau=daughter ms=male speaking,
fs=female speaking, otm=older than myself, ytm=younger than myself. End of Transcriber's Note.
Vowel Sounds.—a, as in ale; ă, as in at; ä, as in father; ǐ, as in it; ŭ, as oo in food; kä′-na = male; wä-
hee′-na = female.
 By Hon.
Thomas
By Rev. John Osborne.
Miller.
Description of Persons. Translation Relationship in Translation
Relationship
Rotuman.
in
Hawaiian.
My gt-GF
1 kŭ-pŭ′-na My GP mä-pĭ-ga fä My GP, male

"

" "
"
2 "
"
"
GF's bro "

"

" "
"
"
3" "

"
hon′-ĭ
"
str female
4

" " " " "

"

" " "

GM
 "

"

"
" "
5 " "
"

" "
GM's str
"

"
"
" "
6 "

"
GF fa
"
male

"
"
" "
7 "

"
GM hon′-ĭ
"
female
8 mä-kŭ′-ă oi-fä
kä′-na
" " "
 fa parent, male fa

" mä-kŭ-ă " "

9 oi-hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

mo parent, female mo

" käi′-kee " "

10 le′-e fä
kä′-na

son child, male child, male

"

" käi′-kee "

11 le′-e hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

"
dau child, female

female

" moo-pŭ′-nă " "

12 mä-pĭ-ga fä
kă′-na

GS grandchild, male grandchild, male

" "

" moo-pŭ′-nă "

13
wä-hee′-na

" "
GD hon′-ĭ

female female
14

" " " " "

 gt-GS kă′-na fä

" "

male male

" " "

" "
15

" " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

GD female female

" "

" " "

16

" "
gt-gt-GS kä′-na fä

male male

"
" "

" "
17
"
" "
wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ
"
female female
GD
18 (ms) käi-kŭ-a-ä′- sä-sĭ-gĭ
na
 " " "

older bro bro, older bro, older

"

käi-kŭ-nä′- " "

19 (fs) sag′-ve-ven′-ĭ
na

"
bro, older bro, older

"

"

käi-kŭ-wä- " "

20 (ms) sag-hon′-ĭ
hee′-na

"
str, older str, older

str

"

käi-kŭ-a-ä′- " "

21 (fs) sa-sĭ-gĭ
na
"
str, older str, older
"

22 (ms) käi-ka-i′-na sa-sĭ-gĭ

" " "

bro, younger bro, younger

 younger
bro

" "

"

käi-kŭ-nä′-
23 (fs) " sag′-ve-ven′-ĭ "
na

"

" " "

"

käi-kŭ-wä- " "

24 (ms) sag-hon′-ĭ
hee′-na

"
str, younger str, younger

str

" "

"

25 (fs) käi-ka-i′-na " sa-sĭ-gĭ "

"

" " "

26 (ms) käi′-kee le′-e fä

kä′-na
 " " "

bro's son child, male child, male

" "

"
27 (ms) hŭ-no′-nă le′-e hon′-ĭ

" "
son-in-law

son's wife female

"

"

käi′-kee "
28 (ms) le′-e-hon′-ĭ "
wä-hee′-na

"
child, female

dau "

" "

"
29 (ms) hŭ-no′-nă le′-e fä

" "
dau-in-law

dau's husb male

30 (ms) moo-pŭ′-nă mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na
" " "
 grandchild, male grandchild, male

"

GS

" " "

" "
31 (ms)

" " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

GD female female

" " "

" "
32 (ms)

" " "

kä′-na fä

gt-GS male male

" " "

" "
33 (ms)

" " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

gt-GD female female

34 (ms) käi′-kee le′-e fä
kä′-na
" " "
 str's son child, male child, male

" "

"
35 (ms) hŭ-no′-nă le′-e hon′-ĭ

" "
dau-in-law

son's wife female

"

"

käi-kee "
36 (ms) le′-e-hon′-ĭ "
wä-hee′-na

"
child, female

dau "

" "

"
37 (ms) hŭ-no′-nă le′-e fä

" "
son-in-law

dau's husb male

38 (ms) moo-pŭ′-nă mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na
" " "

grandchild, male grandchild, male

 "

GS

"

" "
"
39 (ms) mä-pĭ-ga hon′-ĭ

" grandchild, grandchild,

wä-hee′-na
female female

GD

" " "

" "
40 (ms)

" " "

kä′-na fä

gt-GD male male

" " "

" "
41 (ms)

" " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

gt-GD female female

" käi′-kee " "

42 (fs) le′-e fä
kä′-na

bro's son child, male child, male

43 (fs) hŭ-no′-nă le′-e hon′-ĭ
 " " "

dau-in-law

" "

son's wife female

" "

käi′-kee "
44 (fs) le′-e hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

" "
child, female

dau female

" "

"
45 (fs) hŭ-no′-nă le′-e fä

" "
son-in-law

dau's husb male

"

moo-pŭ′-nă " "

46 (fs) mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

"
grandchild, male grandchild, male

GS
47 (fs)

" " " " "

 wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

" " "

GD female female

" " "

" "
48 (fs)

" " "

kä′-na fä

gt-GS male male

" " "

" "
49 (fs)

" " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

gt-GD female female

" käi′-kee " "

50 (fs) le′-e fä
kä′-na

str's son child, male child, male

51 (fs) hŭ-no′-nă le′-e hon′-ĭ

" " "

dau-in-law

" "
 son's wife female

"

"

käi′-kee "
52 (fs) le′-e hon′-ĭ "
wä-hee′-na

"
child, female

dau "

" "

"
53 (fs) hŭ-no′-na le′-e fä

" "
son-in-law

dau's husb male

"

moo-pŭ′-nă " "

54 (fs) mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

"
grandchild, male grandchild, male

GS
55 (fs)

" " " " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ
 " " "

GD female female

" " "

" "
56 (fs)

" " "

kä′-na fä

gt-GS male male

" " "

" "
57 (fs)

" " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

gt-GD female female

" mä-kŭ′-ă " "

58 oi-fä
kä′-na

fa's bro parent, male parent, male

59 mä-kŭ′-a oi-fä
wä-hee′-na
" " "

" " "

female female

"
 wife

"

" käi′-kŭ-a- " "

60 (oms) sä-sĭ-gĭ
ä′-na

bro, older bro

"

son

"

"
" "

61 (yms) käi′-ka-i-na sä-sĭ-gĭ

"
" "

younger

"

62 wä-hee′-na sag-hon′-ĭ

" " "

wife str
 "

"

son's wife

"

"

" käi′-ku-wä- "

63 (oms) sag-hon′-ĭ
hee′-na

str "

"

dau,

"

"
" "
64 (yms) " "

"
"

"
65 käi′-ko-ee′- sä-sĭ-gĭ
kä
 " " "

bro-in-law bro

"

"

dau's husb

"

" käi′-kee " "

66 le′-e fä
kä′-na

child, male child, male

"

son's son
67 käi′-kee le′-e hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na
" " "

" " "

female female

"
 "

dau

"

" "

" käi′-kee
68 le′-e fä
kä′-na

" "

"
male male

dau's son

"

" " "

"
69 le′-e hon′-ĭ

" " "

wä-hee′-na

female female

"

dau
70 moo-pŭ′-nă mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na
" " "
 grandchild, male grandchild, male

"

"

gt-GS

"

" "

" " "

71

" "
wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

"
female female

gt-GD

"

" "

" " "

72

" "
kä′-na fä

"
male male

gt−gt−GS
73
 " " " " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

" " "

female female

"

gt-gt-GD

" mä-kŭ′-ă " "

74 oi-hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

fa's str parent, female parent, female

" " "

"
75 oi-fä

" " "

kä′-na

str's husb male male

76 (oms) käi′-kŭ-a- sä-sĭ-gĭ
ä′-na
" " "

bro, older bro

"

"
 son

"

"
"

"
77 (yms) käi′-ka-i-na "

"
"

"
younger

son

"

" " "

78 wä-hee′-na sag-hon′-ĭ

wife str

"

son's wife
79 käi′-kŭ wä-
hee′-na
" " " "

str

" "
 "

dau

"

" kai-ko-ee′- " "

80 sä-sĭ-gĭ
kä

bro-in-law bro

"

dau's husb

"

" käi′-kee " "

81 le′-e fä
kä′-na

child, male child, male

"

son's son
82 käi′-kee le′-e hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na
" " "

" " "

 female female

"

son's dau

"

" "

" " "

83

" "
kä′-na fä

"
male male

dau's son

"

" "

" " "

84

" "
wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

"
female female

dau's dau
85 moo-pŭ′-nă mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na
" " "

grandchild, male grandchild, male

 "

"

gt-GS

"

" "

" " "

86

" "
wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

"
female female

gt-GD

"

" "

" " "

87

" "
kä′-na fä

"
male male

gt-gt-GS
88

" " " " "

 wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

" " "

female female

"

gt-gt-GD

" mä-kŭ-ă " "

89 oi-fä
kä′-na

mo's bro parent, male parent, male

" " "

"
90 oi-hon′-ĭ

" " "

wä-hee′-na

bro's wife female female

"

" käi′-kŭ-a- " "

91 (oms) sä-sĭ-gĭ
ä′-na

bro, older bro

"

son
92 (yms) käi′-ka-i′-
" na " " "

" " "

younger

"

son

"

" " "

93 wä-hee′-na sag-hon′-ĭ

wife str

"

son's wife
94 käi′-kŭ-wä-
hee′-na
" " " "

str

" "

"
 dau

"

" käi′-ko-ee′- " "

95 sä-sĭ-gĭ
kä

bro-in-law bro

"

dau's husb

"

" käi′-kee " "

96 le′-e fä
kä′-na

child, male child, male

"

son's son
97

" " " " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

" " "

female female
 "

dau

"

" "

" " "

98

" "
kä′-na fä

"
male male

dau's son

"

" "

" " "

99

" "
wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

"
female female

dau's dau
99

" " " " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

" " "

 female female

"

dau's dau

"

" moo-pŭ′-nă " "

100 mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

grandchild, male grandchild, male

"

gt-GS

"

" "

" " "

101

" "
wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

"
female female

gt-D
102

" " " " "

kä′-na fä
 " " "

male male

"

gt-gt-GS

"

" "

" " "

103

" "
wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

"
female female

gt-gt-GD

" mä-kŭ-ă " "

104 oi-hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

mo's str parent, female parent, female

" " "

"
105 oi-fä

" " "

kä′-na

str's husb male male

106 (oms) käi′-ku-ä- sä-sĭ-gĭ
ä′-na
 " " "

bro, older bro

"

"

son

"

"
"

"
107 (yms) käi′-ka-i-na "

"
"

"
younger

son
108 wä-hee′-na sag-hon′-ĭ

" " "

wife str

"

"
 son's wife

"

"

" käi′-kŭ wä- "

109 sag-hon′-ĭ
hee′-na

str "

"

dau

"

" käi′-ko-ee′- " "

110 sä-sĭ-gĭ
kä

bro-in-law bro

"

dau's husb
111 käi′-kee le′-e fä
kä′-na
" " "

child, male child, male

"
 "

son's son

"

" "

" käi′-kee
112 le′-e hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

" "

"
female female

son's dau

"

" "

" käi′-kee
113 le′-e fä
kä′-na

" "

"
male male

dau's son
114 käi′-kee le′-e hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na
" " "

" " "

 female female

"

dau's dau

"

" moo-pŭ′-nă " "

115 mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

grandchild, male grandchild, male

"

gt-GS

"

" "

" moo-pŭ′-nă
116 mä-pĭ-ga hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

" "

"
female female

gt-GD
117 moo-pŭ′-nă mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na
" " "
 " " "

male male

"

gt-gt-GS

"

" "

" moo-pŭ′-nă
118 mä-pĭ-ga hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

" "

"
female female

gt-gt-GD

" kŭ-pŭ′-nă " "

119 mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

fa's fa's bro GP, male GP, male

120 mä-kŭ′-ă oi-fä
kä′-na
" " "

parent, male parent, male

"

"
 bro's son

"

"
" "
mä-kŭ′-ă
121 oi-hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na

"
female female

"

dau

"

"

käi′-kŭ-a- " "

122 (older) sä-sĭ-gĭ
ä′-na

"
bro, elder bro

"

GS
123 (older) käi′-kŭ wä- sag-hon′-ĭ
 hee′-na
" " "

str, elder str

"

"

"

GD

"

"

käi′-kee " "

124 le′-e fä
kä′-na

"
child, male child, male

"

gt-GS
125 käi′-kee le'-e hon′-ĭ
wä-hee′-na
" " "
 " " "

female female

"

"

gt-GD

"

"

moo-pŭ-nă " "

126 mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

"
grandchild, male grandchild, male

"

gt-gt-GS
127 moo-pŭ-nă
wä-hee′na
" " " "

hon′-ĭ
 " " "

female female

"

"

gt-gt-GD

"

" kŭ-pŭ′-nă " " "

128
wä-hee′-na

GP female hon′-ĭ GP female

"

str
129 mä-kŭ-ă oi-fä
kä′-na
" " "

parent, male parent, male

"

"
 str's son

"

" "
"
"
130 oi-hon′-ĭ

" "
wä-hee′-na
female
female

"

dau

"

"

käi′-kŭ-a- " "

131 (older) sä-sĭ-gĭ
ä'-na

"
bro, elder bro

"

GS
132 käi′-kŭ-wä- sag-hon′-ĭ
hee'-na
 " " "

str, elder str

"

"

"

GD

"

"

käi′-kee " "

133 le′-e fä
kä′-na

"
child, male child, male

"

gt-GS
134 le'-e hon′-ĭ

" " " "

 wä-hee′-na
" " "

female female

"

"

gt-GD

"

"

moo-pŭ′-nä " "

135 mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

"
grandchild, male grandchild, male

"

gt-gt-GS
136

" " " " "

wä-hee′-na hon′-ĭ

" " "

 female female

"

"

gt-gt-GD

"
kŭ-pŭ′-nă " " "
137
kä′-na

mo's mo's
GP, male fä GP, male
bro

"

" mä-kă-ă " "

138 oi-fä
kä′-na

parent, male parent, male

"

bro's son
139 oi-hon′-ĭ

" wä-hee′-na " "

" " "

 female female
"

"

dau

"

"

käi-kŭ-a-ä′- " "

140 (older) sä-sĭ-gĭ
na

"
bro, elder bro

"

GS
141 käi′-kŭ-wä- sag-hon′-ĭ
hee-na
" " "

str, elder str

"

"
 "

GD

"

"

käi′-kee " "

142 le′-e fä
kä′-na

"
child, male child, male

"

gt-GS
143 le'-e hon′-ĭ

" " " "

wä-hee′-na

" " "

female female

"
 "

gt-GD

"

"

moo-pŭ′-nă " "

144 mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na

"
grandchild, male grandchild, male

"

gt-gt-GS
145

" " " hon′-ĭ "

wä-hee′-na

" " "

female female

"

"
 gt-gt-GD

"
kŭ-pŭ-nă " "
146
wä-hee-na
hon′-ĭ
mo's mo's
GP, male GP, male
str

"

" mä-kŭ-ă " "

147 oi-fä
kä'-na

parent, male parent, male

"

str's son

"

" " "

"
148 oi-hon′-ĭ

" " "

wä-hee′-na

female female

"

dau
149 (oms) käi′-kŭ-ă-ä- sä-sĭ-gĭ
" na " "

bro, elder bro

"

"

"

GS

"

"

käi′-kŭ-wä- " "

150 sag-hon′-ĭ
hee′-na

"
str, elder str

"

GD
151 käi′-kee- le′-e fä
kä′-na
" " "
 child, male child, male

"

"

"

gt-GS

"

" " "

"
152 le′-e hon′-ĭ

" " "

wä-hee′-na

female female

"

gt-GD
153 moo-pŭ′-nă mä-pĭ-ga fä
kä′-na
" " "

grandchild, male grandchild, male

 "

"

"

gt-gt-GS

"

" " "

"
154 mä-pĭ-ga hon′-ĭ

" " "

wä-hee′-na

female female

"

gt-gt-GD

" " "

155 kä′-na ve-ven′-ĭ

husb husb husb

156 wä-hee′-na hoi-e-nä, and hen

" " "

 wife wife wife

" mä-kŭ′-ă- " "

157 oi-fä
hŭ-nä-ai

husb's fa fa-in-law fa

"

" "
158 " oi-hon′-ĭ

"
mo-in-law mo

mo

" " "

159 " oi-fä

wife's fa fa-in-law fa

"

" "
160 " oi-hon′-ĭ

"
mo-in-law mo

mo

" hŭ-no′-nă " "

161 le′-e fä
kä′-na

son-in-law son-in-law child, male

162 le′-e hon′-ĭ

" wä-hee′-na " "

 dau-in-law dau-in-law

"

female

" " "

163 (husb's bro) kä′-na hom-fu′-e

bro-in-law husb bro-in-law

" " "

164 (str's husb, fs) " me-i

" " "

"

"
(wife's str's
165 pŭ-na-lŭ-ä
husb)

intimate
"
companion

" "

käi-ko-a′- "
166 (wife's bro) me-i
kä

" bro-in-law "

167 (wife's str) wä-hee′-na hom-fu′-e

 " " "

str-in-law wife str-in-law

" "

käi-ko-a′- "
168 (husb's str) me-i
kä

" str-in-law "

" "

"
169 (bro's wife) wä-hee′-na hom-fu′-e

" wife "

" "
(
käi-ko-a′- "
170
kä
fs )
" str-in-law "

"

"
(husb's bro's
171 pŭ-na-lŭ-ä
wife)

intimate
"
companion
172 (wife's bro's wä-hee′-na
" wife) "

wife

"

" mä-kŭ′-a " "

173 oi-fä
kä′-na

step-fa parent, male parent, male

" " "

"
174 oi-hon′-ĭ

" " "

wä-hee′-na

mo female female

"

käi′-kee " "

175 le′-e fä
kä′-na

"
child, male child, male

son
176 le′-e fä

" " " "

wä-hee′-na

" " "

 dau female female

CHAPTER III. - THE PUNALUAN FAMILY.

T P F C .—T , .—
H C P .—I P A .—T
G P G .—T T S C .—
C P F .—I E F S
.—D S .—E R O .—T
T G S C A .

The Punaluan family has existed in Europe, Asia, and America within the
historical period, and in Polynesia within the present century. With a wide
prevalence in the tribes of mankind in the Status of Savagery, it remained in
some instances among tribes who had advanced into the Lower Status of
barbarism, and in one case, that of the Britons, among tribes who had
attained the Middle Status.
In the course of human progress it followed the consanguine family, upon
which it supervened, and of which it was a modification. The transition from
one into the other was produced by the gradual exclusion of own brothers
and sisters from the marriage relation, the evils of which could not forever
escape human observation. It may be impossible to recover the events which
led to deliverance; but we are not without some evidence tending to show
how it occurred. Although the facts from which these conclusions are drawn
are of a dreary and forbidding character, they will not surrender the
knowledge they contain without a patient as well as careful examination.
Given the consanguine family, which involved own brothers and sisters and
also collateral brothers and sisters in the marriage relation, and it was only
necessary to exclude the former from the group, and retain the latter, to
change the consanguine into the punaluan family. To effect the exclusion of
the one class and the retention of the other was a difficult process, because it
involved a radical change in the composition of the family, not to say in the
ancient plan of domestic life. It also required the surrender of a privilege
which savages would be slow to make. Commencing, it may be supposed, in
isolated cases, and with a slow recognition of its advantages, it remained an
experiment through immense expanses of time; introduced partially at first,
then becoming general, and finally universal among the advancing tribes,
still in savagery, among whom the movement originated. It affords a good
illustration of the operation of the principle of natural selection.
The significance of the Australian class system presents itself anew in this
connection. It is evident from the manner in which the classes were formed,
and from the rule with respect to marriage and descents, that their primary
object was to exclude own brothers and sisters from the marriage relation,
while the collateral brothers and sisters were retained in that relation. The
former object is impressed upon the classes by an external law; but the latter,
which is not apparent on the face of the organization, is made evident by
tracing their descents.463 It is thus found that first, second, and more remote
cousins, who are collateral brothers and sisters under their system of
consanguinity, are brought perpetually back into the marriage relation, while
own brothers and sisters are excluded. The number of persons in the
Australian punaluan group is greater than in the Hawaiian, and its
composition is slightly different; but the remarkable fact remains in both
cases, that the brotherhood of the husbands formed the basis of the marriage
relation in one group, and the sisterhood of the wives the basis in the other.
This difference, however, existed with respect to the Hawaiians, that it does
not appear as yet that there were any classes among them between whom
marriages must occur. Since the Australian classes gave birth to the punaluan
group, which contained the germ of the gens, it suggests the probability that
this organization into classes upon sex once prevailed among all the tribes of
mankind who afterwards fell under the gentile organization. It would not be
surprising if the Hawaiians, at some anterior period, were organized in such
classes.
Remarkable as it may seem, three of the most important and most wide-
spread institutions of mankind, namely, the punaluan family, the organization
into gentes, and the Turanian system of consanguinity, root themselves in an
anterior organization analogous to the punaluan group, in which the germ of
each is found. Some evidence of the truth of this proposition will appear in
the discussion of this family.
As punaluan marriage gave the punaluan family, the latter would give the
Turanian system of consanguinity, as soon as the existing system was
reformed so as to express the relationships as they actually existed in this
family. But something more than the punaluan group was needed to produce
this result, namely, the organization into gentes, which permanently excluded
brothers and sisters from the marriage relation by an organic law, who before
that, must have been frequently involved in that relation. When this exclusion
was made complete it would work a change in all these relationships which
depended upon these marriages; and when the system of consanguinity was
made to conform to the new state of these relationships, the Turanian system
would supervene upon the Malayan. The Hawaiians had the punaluan family,
but neither the organization into gentes nor the Turanian system of
consanguinity. Their retention of the old system of the consanguine family
leads to a suspicion, confirmed by the statements of Mr. Bingham, that own
brothers and sisters were frequently involved in the punaluan group, thus
rendering a reformation of the old system of consanguinity impossible.
Whether the punaluan group of the Hawaiian type can claim an equal
antiquity with the Australian classes is questionable, since the latter is more
archaic than any other known constitution of society. But the existence of a
punaluan group of one or the other type was essential to the birth of the
gentes, as the latter were essential to the production of the Turanian system
of consanguinity. The three institutions will be considered separately.
I. The Punaluan Family.
In rare instances a custom has been discovered in a concrete form usable as a
key to unlock some of the mysteries of ancient society, and explain what
before could only be understood imperfectly. Such a custom is the Pŭnalŭa
of the Hawaiians. In 1860 Judge Lorin Andrews, of Honolulu, in a letter
accompanying a schedule of the Hawaiian system of consanguinity,
commented upon one of the Hawaiian terms of relationship as follows: “The
relationship of pŭnalŭa is rather amphibious. It arose from the fact that two
or more brothers with their wives, or two or more sisters with their husbands,
were inclined to possess each other in common; but the modern use of the
word is that of dear friend, or intimate companion.” That which Judge
Andrews says they were inclined to do, and which may then have been a
declining practice, their system of consanguinity proves to have been once
universal among them. The Rev. Artemus Bishop, lately deceased, one of the
oldest missionaries in these Islands, sent to the author the same year, with a
similar schedule, the following statement upon the same subject: “This
confusion of relationships is the result of the ancient custom among relatives
of the living together of husbands and wives in common.” In a previous
chapter the remark of Mr. Bingham was quoted that the polygamy of which
he was writing, “implied a plurality of husbands and wives.” The same fact is
reiterated by Dr. Bartlett: “The natives had hardly more modesty or shame
than so many animals. Husbands had many wives, and wives many
husbands, and exchanged with each other at pleasure.”464 The form of
marriage which they found created a punaluan group, in which the husbands
and wives were jointly intermarried in the group. Each of these groups,
including the children of the marriages, was a punaluan family; for one
consisted of several brothers and their wives, and the other of several sisters
with their husbands.
If we now turn to the Hawaiian system of consanguinity, in the Table, it will
be found that a man calls his wife’s sister his wife. All the sisters of his
wife, own as well as collateral, are also his wives. But the husband of his
wife’s sister he calls pŭnalŭa, i. e., his intimate companion; and all the
husbands of the several sisters of his wife the same. They were jointly
intermarried in the group. These husbands were not, probably, brothers; if
they were, the blood relationship would naturally have prevailed over the
affineal; but their wives were sisters, own and collateral. In this case the
sisterhood of the wives was the basis upon which the group was formed,
and their husbands stood to each other in the relationship of pŭnalŭa. In the
other group, which rests upon the brotherhood of the husbands, a woman
calls her husband’s brother her husband. All the brothers of her husband,
own as well as collateral, were also her husbands. But the wife of her
husband’s brother she calls pŭnalŭa, and the several wives of her husband’s
brothers stand to her in the relationship of pŭnalŭa. These wives were not,
probably, sisters of each other, for the reason stated in the other case,
although exceptions doubtless existed under both branches of the custom.
All these wives stood to each other in the relationship of pŭnalŭa.
It is evident that the punaluan family was formed out of the consanguine.
Brothers ceased to marry their own sisters; and after the gentile
organization had worked upon society its complete results, their collateral
sisters as well. But in the interval they shared their remaining wives in
common. In like manner, sisters ceased marrying their own brothers, and
after a long period of time, their collateral brothers; but they shared their
remaining husbands in common. The advancement of society out of the
consanguine into the punaluan family was the inception of a great upward
movement, preparing the way for the gentile organization which gradually
conducted to the syndyasmian family, and ultimately to the monogamian.
Another remarkable fact with respect to the custom of punalua, is the
necessity which exists for its ancient prevalence among the ancestors of the
Turanian and Ganowánian families when their system of consanguinity was
formed. The reason is simple and conclusive. Marriages in punaluan groups
explain the relationships in the system. Presumptively they are those which
actually existed when this system was formed. The existence of the system,
therefore, requires the antecedent prevalence of punaluan marriage, and of
the punaluan family. Advancing to the civilized nations, there seems to have
been an equal necessity for the ancient existence of punaluan groups among
the remote ancestors of all such as possessed the gentile organization—
Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, Hebrews—for it is reasonably certain that
all the families of mankind who rose under the gentile organization to the
practice of monogamy possessed, in prior times, the Turanian system of
consanguinity which sprang from the punaluan group. It will be found that
the great movement, which commenced in the formation of this group, was,
in the main, consummated through the organization into gentes, and that the
latter was generally accompanied, prior to the rise of monogamy, by the
Turanian system of consanguinity.
Traces of the punaluan custom remained, here and there, down to the
Middle Period of barbarism, in exceptional cases, in European, Asiatic, and
American tribes. The most remarkable illustration is given by Cæsar in
stating the marriage customs of the ancient Britons. He observes that, “by
tens and by twelves, husbands possessed their wives in common; and
especially brothers with brothers and parents with their children.”465
This passage reveals a custom of intermarriage in the group which pŭnalŭa
explains. Barbarian mothers would not be expected to show ten and twelve
sons, as a rule, or even in exceptional cases; but under the Turanian system
of consanguinity, which we are justified in supposing the Britons to have
possessed, large groups of brothers are always found, because male cousins,
near and remote, fall into this category with Ego. Several brothers among
the Britons, according to Cæsar, possessed their wives in common. Here we
find one branch of the punaluan custom, pure and simple. The correlative
group which this presupposes, where several sisters shared their husbands
in common, is not suggested directly by Cæsar; but it probably existed as
the complement of the first. Something beyond the first he noticed, namely,
that parents, with their children, shared their wives in common. It is not
unlikely that these wives were sisters. Whether or not Cæsar by this
expression referred to the other group, it serves to mark the extent to which
plural marriages in the group existed among the Britons; and which was the
striking fact that arrested the attention of this distinguished observer. Where
several brothers were married to each other’s wives, these wives were
married to each other’s husbands.
Herodotus, speaking of the Massagetæ, who were in the Middle Status of
barbarism, remarks that every man had one wife, yet all the wives were
common.466 It may be implied from this statement that the syndyasmian
family had begun to supervene upon the punaluan. Each husband paired
with one wife, who thus became his principal wife, but within the limits of
the group husbands and wives continued in common. If Herodotus intended
to intimate a state of promiscuity, it probably did not exist. The Massagetæ,
although ignorant of iron, possessed flocks and herds, fought on horseback
armed with battle-axes of copper and with copper-pointed spears, and
manufactured and used the wagon (ἅμαξα). It is not supposable that a
people living in promiscuity could have attained such a degree of
advancement. He also remarks of the Agathyrsi, who were in the same
status probably, that they had their wives in common that they might all be
brothers, and, as members of a common family, neither envy nor hate one
another.467 Punaluan marriage in the group affords a more rational and
satisfactory explanation of these, and similar usages in other tribes
mentioned by Herodotus, than polygamy or general promiscuity. His
accounts are too meager to illustrate the actual state of society among them.
Traces of the punaluan custom were noticed in some of the least advanced
tribes of the South American aborigines; but the particulars are not fully
given. Thus, the first navigators who visited the coast tribes of Venezuela
found a state of society which suggests for its explanation punaluan groups.
“They observe no law or rule in matrimony, but took as many wives as they
would, and they as many husbands, quitting one another at pleasure,
without reckoning any wrong done on either part. There was no such thing
as jealousy among them, all living as best pleased them, without taking
offence at one another.... The houses they dwelt in were common to all, and
so spacious that they contained one hundred and sixty persons, strongly
built, though covered with palm-tree leaves, and shaped like a bell.”468
These tribes used earthen vessels and were therefore in the Lower Status of
barbarism; but from this account were but slightly removed from savagery.
In this case, and in those mentioned by Herodotus, the observations upon
which the statements were made were superficial. It shows, at least, a low
condition of the family and of the marriage relation.
When North America was discovered in its several parts, the punaluan
family seems to have entirely disappeared. No tradition remained among
them, so far as I am aware, of the ancient prevalence of the punaluan
custom. The family generally had passed out of the punaluan into the
syndyasmian form; but it was environed with the remains of an ancient
conjugal system which points backward to punaluan groups. One custom
may be cited of unmistakable punaluan origin, which is still recognized in
at least forty North American Indian tribes. Where a man married the eldest
daughter of a family he became entitled by custom to all her sisters as wives
when they attained the marriageable age. It was a right seldom enforced,
from the difficulty, on the part of the individual, of maintaining several
families, although polygamy was recognized universally as a privilege of
the males. We find in this the remains of the custom of punalua among their
remote ancestors. Undoubtedly there was a time among them when own
sisters went into the marriage relation on the basis of their sisterhood; the
husband of one being the husband of all, but not the only husband, for other
males were joint husbands with him in the group. After the punaluan family
fell out, the right remained with the husband of the eldest sister to become
the husband of all her sisters if he chose to claim it. It may with reason be
regarded as a genuine survival of the ancient punaluan custom.
Other traces of this family among the tribes of mankind might be cited from
historical works, tending to show not only its ancient existence, but its wide
prevalence as well. It is unnecessary, however, to extend these citations,
because the antecedent existence of the punaluan family among the
ancestors of all the tribes who possess, or did possess, the Turanian system
of consanguinity can be deduced from the system itself.
II. Origin of the Organisation into Gentes.
It has before been suggested that the time, when this institution originated,
was the period of savagery, firstly, because it is found in complete
development in the Lower Status of barbarism; and secondly, because it is
found in partial development in the Status of savagery. Moreover, the germ
of the gens is found as plainly in the Australian classes as in the Hawaiian
punaluan group. The gentes are also found among the Australians, based
upon the classes, with the apparent manner of their organization out of
them. Such a remarkable institution as the gens would not be expected to
spring into existence complete, or to grow out of nothing, that is, without a
foundation previously formed by natural growth. Its birth must be sought in
pre-existing elements of society, and its maturity would be expected to
occur long after its origination.
Two of the fundamental rules of the gens in its archaic form are found in the
Australian classes, namely, the prohibition of intermarriage between
brothers and sisters, and descent in the female line. The last fact is made
entirely evident when the gens appeared, for the children are then found in
the gens of their mothers. The natural adaptation of the classes to give birth
to the gens is sufficiently obvious to suggest the probability that it actually
so occurred. Moreover, this probability is strengthened by the fact that the
gens is here found in connection with an antecedent and more archaic
organization, which was still the unit of a social system, a place belonging
of right to the gens.
Turning now to the Hawaiian punaluan group, the same elements are found
containing the germ of the gens. It is confined, however, to the female
branch of the custom, where several sisters, own and collateral, shared their
husbands in common. These sisters, with their children and descendants
through females, furnish the exact membership of a gens of the archaic
type. Descent would necessarily be traced through females, because the
paternity of children was not ascertainable with certainty. As soon as this
special form of marriage in the group became an established institution, the
foundation for a gens existed. It then required an exercise of intelligence to
turn this natural punaluan group into an organization, restricted to these
mothers, their children, and descendants in the female line. The Hawaiians,
although this group existed among them, did not rise to the conception of a
gens. But to precisely such a group as this, resting upon the sisterhood of
the mothers, or to the similar Australian group, resting upon the same
principle of union, the origin of the gens must be ascribed. It took this
group as it found it, and organized certain of its members, with certain of
their posterity, into a gens on the basis of kin.
To explain the exact manner in which the gens originated is, of course,
impossible. The facts and circumstances belong to a remote antiquity. But
the gens may be traced back to a condition of ancient society calculated to
bring it into existence. This is all I have attempted to do. It belongs in its
origin to a low stage of human development, and to a very ancient condition
of society; though later in time than the first appearance of the punaluan
family. It is quite evident that it sprang up in this family, which consisted of
a group of persons coincident substantially with the membership of a gens.
The influence of the gentile organization upon ancient society was
conservative and elevating. After it had become fully developed and
expanded over large areas, and after time enough had elapsed to work its
full influence upon society, wives became scarce in place of their former
abundance, because it tended to contract the size of the punaluan group, and
finally to overthrow it. The syndyasmian family was gradually produced
within the punaluan, after the gentile organization became predominant
over ancient society. The intermediate stages of progress are not well
ascertained; but, given the punaluan family in the Status of savagery, and
the syndyasmian family in the Lower Status of barbarism, and the fact of
progress from one into the other may be deduced with reasonable certainty.
It was after the latter family began to appear, and punaluan groups to
disappear, that wives came to be sought by purchase and by capture.
Without discussing the evidence still accessible, it is a plain inference that
the gentile organization was the efficient cause of the final overthrow of the
punaluan family, and of the gradual reduction of the stupendous conjugal
system of the period of savagery. While it originated in the punaluan group,
as we must suppose, it nevertheless carried society beyond and above its
plane.
III. The Turanian or Ganowdnian System of Consanguinity.
This system and the gentile organization, when in its archaic form, are
usually found together. They are not mutually dependent; but they probably
appeared not far apart in the order of human progress. But systems of
consanguinity and the several forms of the family stand in direct relations.
The family represents an active principle. It is never stationary, but
advances from a lower to a higher form as society advances from a lower to
a higher condition, and finally passes out of one form into another of higher
grade. Systems of consanguinity, on the contrary, are passive; recording the
progress made by the family at long intervals apart, and only changing
radically when the family has radically changed.
The Turanian system could not have been formed unless punaluan marriage
and the punaluan family had existed at the time. In a society wherein by
general usage several sisters were married in a group to each other’s
husbands, and several brothers in a group to each other’s wives, the
conditions were present for the creation of the Turanian system. Any system
formed to express the actual relationships as they existed in such a family
would, of necessity, be the Turanian; and would, of itself, demonstrate the
existence of such a family when it was formed.
It is now proposed to take up this remarkable system as it still exists in the
Turanian and Ganowánian families, and offer it in evidence to prove the
existence of the punaluan family at the time it was established. It has come
down to the present time on two continents after the marriage customs in
which it originated had disappeared, and after the family had passed out of
the punaluan into the syndyasmian form.
In order to appreciate the evidence it will be necessary to examine the
details of the system. That of the Seneca-Iroquois will be used as typical on
the part of the Ganowánian tribes of America, and that of the Tamil people
of South India on the part of the Turanian tribes of Asia. These forms,
which are substantially identical through upwards of two hundred
relationships of the same person, will be found in a Table at the end of this
chapter. In a previous work469 I have presented in full the system of
consanguinity of some seventy American Indian tribes; and among Asiatic
tribes and nations that of the Tamil, Telugu, and Canarese people of South
India, among all of whom the system, as given in the Table, is now in
practical daily use. There are diversities in the systems of the different
tribes and nations, but the radical features are constant. All alike salute by
kin, but with this difference, that among the Tamil people where the person
addressed is younger than the speaker, the term of relationship must be
used; but when older the option is given to salute by kin or by the personal
name. On the contrary, among the American aborigines, the address must
always be by the term of relationship. They use the system in addresses
because it is a system of consanguinity and affinity. It was also the means
by which each individual in the ancient gentes was able to trace his
connection with every member of his gens until monogamy broke up the
Turanian system. It will be found, in many cases, that the relationship of the
same person to
Ego is different as the sex of Ego is changed. For this reason it was found
necessary to state the question twice, once with a male speaking, and again
with a female. Notwithstanding the diversities it created, the system is
logical throughout. To exhibit its character, it will be necessary to pass
through the several lines as was done in the Malayan system. The Seneca-
Iroquois will be used.
The relationships of grandfather (Hoc′-sote), and grandmother (Oc′-sote),
and of grandson (Ha-yä′-da), and granddaughter (Ka-yä′-da), are the most
remote recognized either in the ascending or descending series. Ancestors
and descendants above and below these, fall into the same categories
respectively.
The relationships of brother and sister are conceived in the twofold form of
elder and younger, and not in the abstract; and there are special terms for
each, as follow:

Elder Brother, Ha′-je. Elder Sister, Ah′-jē.

Younger Brother, Ha′-gă. Younger Sister, Ka′-gă.

These terms are used by the males and females, and are applied to all such
brothers or sisters as are older or younger than the person speaking. In
Tamil there are two sets of terms for these relationships, but they are now
used indiscriminately by both sexes.
First Collateral Line. With myself a male, and speaking as a Seneca, my
brother’s son and daughter are my son and daughter (Ha-ah′-wuk, and Ka-
ah′-wuk), each of them calling me father (Hä′-nih). This is the first
indicative feature of the system. It places my brother’s children in the same
category with my own. They are my children as well as his. My brother’s
grandchildren are my grandsons and granddaughters (Ha-yä′-da, and Ka-
yä′-da, singular), each of them calling me grandfather (Hoc′-sote). The
relationships here given are those recognized and applied; none others are
known.
Certain relationships will be distinguished as indicative. They usually
control those that precede and follow. When they agree in the systems of
different tribes, and even of different families of mankind, as in the
Turanian and Ganowánian, they establish their fundamental identity.
In the female branch of this line, myself still a male, my sister’s son and
daughter are my nephew and niece (Ha-yă′-wan-da, and Ka-yă′-wan-da),
each of them calling me uncle (Hoc-no′-seh). This is a second indicative
feature. It restricts the relationships of nephew and niece to the children of a
man’s sisters, own or collateral. The children of this nephew and niece are
my grandchildren as before, each of them applying to me the proper
correlative.
With myself a female, a part of these relationships are reversed. My
brother’s son and daughter are my nephew and niece (Ha-soh′-neh, and Ka-
soh′-neh), each of them calling me aunt (Ah-ga′-huc). It will be noticed that
the terms for nephew and niece used by the males are different from those
used by the females. The children of these nephews and nieces are my
grandchildren. In the female branch, my sister’s son and daughter are my
son and daughter, each of them calling me mother (Noh-yeh′), and their
children are my grandchildren, each of them calling me grandmother (Oc′-
sote).
The wives of these sons and nephews are my daughters-in-law (Ka′-sä), and
the husbands of these daughters and nieces are my sons-in-law (Oc-na′-
hose, each term singular), and they apply to me the proper correlative.
Second Collateral Line. In the male branch of this line, on the father’s side,
and irrespective of the sex of Ego, my father’s brother is my father, and
calls me his son or daughter as I am a male or a female. Third indicative
feature. All the brothers of a father are placed in the relation of fathers. His
son and daughter are my brother and sister, elder or younger, and I apply to
them the same terms I use to designate own brothers and sisters. Fourth
indicative feature. It places the children of brothers in the relationship of
brothers and sisters. The children of these brothers, myself a male, are my
sons and daughters, and their children are my grandchildren; whilst the
children of these sisters are my nephews and nieces, and the children of the
latter are my grandchildren. But with myself a female the children of these
brothers are my nephews and nieces, the children of these sisters are my
sons and daughters, and their children, alike are my grandchildren. It is thus
seen that the classification in the first collateral line is carried into the
second, as it is into the third and more remote as far as consanguinei can be
traced.
My father’s sister is my aunt, and calls me her nephew if I am a male. Fifth
indicative feature. The relationship of aunt is restricted to the sisters of my
father, and to the sisters of such other persons as stand to me in the relation
of a father, to the exclusion of the sisters of my mother. My father’s sister’s
children are my cousins (Ah-gare′-seh, singular), each of them calling me
cousin. With myself a male, the children of my male cousins are my sons
and daughters, and of my female cousins are my nephews and nieces; but
with myself a female these last relationships are reversed. All the children
of the latter are my grandchildren.
On the mother’s side, myself a male, my mother’s brother is my uncle, and
calls me his nephew. Sixth indicative feature. The relationship of uncle is
restricted to the brothers of my mother, own and collateral, to the exclusion
of my father’s brothers. His children are my cousins, the children of my
male cousins are my sons and daughters, of my female cousins are my
nephews and nieces; but with myself a female these last relationships are
reversed, the children of all alike are my grandchildren.
In the female branch of the same line my mother’s sister is my mother.
Seventh indicative feature. All of several sisters, own and collateral, are
placed in the relation of a mother to the children of each other. My mother’s
sister’s children are my brothers and sisters, elder or younger. Eighth
indicative feature. It establishes the relationship of brother and sister among
the children of sisters. The children of these brothers are my sons and
daughters, of these sisters are my nephews and nieces; and the children of
the latter are my grandchildren. With myself a female the same
relationships are reversed as in previous cases.
Each of the wives of these several brothers, and of these several male
cousins is my sister-in-law (Ah-ge-ah′-ne-ah), each of them calling me
brother-in-law (Ha-yă′-o). The precise meaning of the former term is not
known. Each of the husbands of these several sisters and female cousins is
my brother-in-law, and they all apply to me the proper correlative. Traces of
the punaluan custom remain here and there in the marriage relationship of
the American aborigines, namely, between Ego and the wives of several
brothers and the husbands of several sisters. In Mandan my brother’s wife is
my wife, and in Pawnee and Arickaree the same. In Crow my husband’s
brother’s wife is “my comrade” (Bot-ze′-no-pä-che), in Creek my “present
occupant” (Chu-hu′-cho-wä), and in Munsee “my friend” (Nain-jose′). In
Winnebago and Achaotinne she is “my sister.” My wife’s sister’s husband,
in some tribes is “my brother,” in others my “brother-in-law,” and in Creek
“my little separater” (Un-kä-pu′-che), whatever that may mean.
Third Collateral Line. As the relationships in the several branches of this
line are the same as in the corresponding branches of the second, with the
exception of one additional ancestor, it will be sufficient to present one
branch out of the four. My father’s father’s brother is my grandfather, and
calls me his grandson. This is a ninth indicative feature, and the last of the
number. It places these brothers in the relation of grandfathers, and thus
prevents collateral ascendants from passing beyond this relationship. The
principle which merges the collateral lines in the lineal line works upward
as well as downward. The son of this grandfather is my father; his children
are my brothers and sisters; the children of these brothers are my sons and
daughters, of these sisters are my nephews and nieces; and their children are
my grandchildren. With myself a female the same relationships are reserved
as in previous cases. Moreover, the correlative term is applied in every
instance.
Fourth Collateral Line. It will be sufficient, for the same reason, to give but
a single branch of this line. My grandfather’s father’s brother is my
grandfather; his son is also my grandfather; the son of the latter is my
father; his son and daughter are my brother and sister, elder or younger; and
their children and grandchildren follow in the same relationships to Ego as
in other cases. In the fifth collateral line the classification is the same in its
several branches as in the corresponding branches of the second, with the
exception of additional ancestors.
It follows, from the nature of the system, that a knowledge of the numerical
degrees of consanguinity is essential to a proper classification of kindred.
But to a native Indian accustomed to its daily use the apparent maze of
relationships presents no difficulty.
Among the remaining marriage relationships there are terms in Seneca-
Iroquois for father-in-law (Oc-na′-hose), for a wife’s father, and (Hä-gä′-sä)
for a husband’s father. The former term is also used to designate a son-in-
law, thus showing it to be reciprocal. There are also terms for step-father
and step-mother (Hoc′-no-ese) and (Oc′-no-ese), and for step-son and step-
daughter (Ha′-no and Ka′-no). In a number of tribes two fathers-in-law and
two mothers-in-law are related, and there are terms to express the
connection. The opulence of the nomenclature, although made necessary by
the elaborate discriminations of the system, is nevertheless remarkable. For
full details of the Seneca-Iroquois and Tamil system reference is made to
the Table. Their identity is apparent on bare inspection. It shows not only
the prevalence of punaluan marriage amongst their remote ancestors when
the system was formed, but also the powerful impression which this form of
marriage made upon ancient society. It is, at the same time, one of the most
extraordinary applications of the natural logic of the human mind to the
facts of the social system preserved in the experience of mankind.
That the Turanian and Ganowánian system was engrafted upon a previous
Malayan, or one like it in all essential respects, is now demonstrated. In
about one-half of all the relationships named, the two are identical. If those
are examined, in which the Seneca and Tamil differ from the Hawaiian, it
will be found that the difference is upon those relationships which depended
on the intermarriage or non-intermarriage of brothers and sisters. In the
former two, for example, my sister’s son is my nephew, but in the latter he
is my son. The two relationships express the difference between the
consanguine and punaluan families. The change of relationships which
resulted from substituting punaluan in the place of consanguine marriages
turns the Malayan into the Turanian system. But it may be asked why the
Hawaiians, who had the punaluan family, did not reform their system of
consanguinity in accordance therewith? The answer has elsewhere been
given, but it may be repeated. The form of the family keeps in advance of
the system. In Polynesia it was punaluan while the system remained
Malayan; in America it was syndyasmian while the system remained
Turanian; and in Europe and Western Asia it became monogamian while the
system seems to have remained Turanian for a time, but it then fell into
decadence, and was succeeded by the Aryan. Furthermore, although the
family has passed through five forms, but three distinct systems of
consanguinity were created, so far as is now known. It required an organic
change in society attaining unusual dimensions to change essentially an
established system of consanguinity. I think it will be found that the
organization into gentes was sufficiently influential and sufficiently
universal to change the Malayan system into the Turanian; and that
monogamy, when fully established in the more advanced branches of the
human family, was sufficient, with the influence of property, to overthrow
the Turanian system and substitute the Aryan.
It remains to explain the origin of such Turanian relationships as differ from
the Malayan. Punaluan marriages and the gentile organizations form the
basis of the explanation.
I. All the children of my several brothers, own and collateral, myself a
male, are my sons and daughters.
Reasons: Speaking as a Seneca, all the wives of my several brothers are
mine as well as theirs. We are now speaking of the time when the system
was formed. It is the same in the Malayan, where the reasons are assigned.
II. All the children of my several sisters, own and collateral, myself a male,
are my nephews and nieces.
Reasons: Under the gentile organization these females, by a law of the gens,
cannot be my wives. Their children, therefore, can no longer be my
children, but stand to me in a more remote relationship; whence the new
relationships of nephew and niece. This differs from the Malayan.
III. With myself a female, the children of my several brothers, own and
collateral, are my nephews and nieces.
Reasons, as in II. This also differs from the Malayan.
IV. With myself a female, the children of my several sisters, own and
collateral, and of my several female cousins, are my sons and daughters.
Reasons: All their husbands are my husbands as well. In strictness these
children are my step-children, and are so described in Ojibwa and several
other Algonkin tribes; but in the Seneca-Iroquois, and in Tamil, following
the ancient classification, they are placed in the category of my sons and
daughters, for reasons given in the Malayan.
V. All the children of these sons and daughters are my grandchildren.
Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.
VI. All the children of these nephews and nieces are my grandchildren.
Reason: These were the relationships of the same persons under the
Malayan system, which presumptively preceded the Turanian. No new one
having been invented, the old would remain.
VII. All the brothers of my father, own and collateral, are my fathers.
Reason: They are the husbands of my mother. It is the same in Malayan.
VIII. All the sisters of my father, own and collateral, are my aunts.
Reason: Under the gentile organization neither can be the wife of my father;
wherefore the previous relationship of mother is inadmissible. A new
relationship, therefore, was required: whence that of aunt.
IX. All the brothers of my mother, own and collateral, are my uncles.
Reasons: They are no longer the husbands of my mother, and must stand to
me in a more remote relationship than that of father: whence the new
relationship of uncle.
X. All the sisters of my mother, own and collateral, are my mothers.
Reasons, as in IV.
XI. All the children of my father’s brothers, and all the children of my
mother’s sisters, own and collateral, are my brothers and sisters.
Reasons: It is the same in Malayan, and for reasons there given.
XII. All the children of my several uncles and all the children of my several
aunts, own and collateral, are my male and female cousins.
Reasons: Under the gentile organization all these uncles and aunts are
excluded from the marriage relation with my father and mother; wherefore
their children cannot stand to me in the relation of brothers and sisters, as in
the Malayan, but must be placed in one more remote: whence the new
relationship of cousin.
XIII. In Tamil all the children of my male cousins, myself a male, are my
nephews and nieces, and all the children of my female cousins are my sons
and daughters. This is the exact reverse of the rule among the Seneca-
Iroquois. It tends to show that among the Tamil people, when the Turanian
system came in, all my female cousins were my wives, whilst the wives of
my male cousins were not. It is a singular fact that the deviation on these
relationships is the only one of any importance between the two systems in
the relationships to Ego of some two hundred persons.
XIV. All the brothers and sisters of my grandfather and of my grandmother
are my grandfathers and grandmothers.
Reason: It is the same in Malayan, and for the reasons there given.
It is now made additionally plain that both the Turanian and Ganowánian
systems, which are identical, supervened upon an original Malayan system;
and that the latter must have prevailed generally in Asia before the Malayan
migration to the Islands of the Pacific. Moreover, there are good grounds
for believing that the system was transmitted in the Malayan form to the
ancestors of the three families, with the streams of the blood, from a
common Asiatic source, and afterward, modified into its present form by
the remote ancestors of the Turanian and Ganowánian families.
The principal relationships of the Turanian system have now been explained
in their origin, and are found to be those which would actually exist in the
punaluan family as near as the parentage of children could be known. The
system explains itself as an organic growth, and since it could not have
originated without an adequate cause, the inference becomes legitimate as
well as necessary that it was created by punaluan families. It will be
noticed, however, that several of the marriage relationships have been
changed.
The system treats all brothers as the husbands of each other’s wives, and all
sisters as the wives of each other’s husbands, and as intermarried in a
group. At the time the system was formed, wherever a man found a brother,
own or collateral, and those in that relation were numerous, in the wife of
that brother he found an additional wife. In like manner, wherever a woman
found a sister, own or collateral, and those in that relation were equally
numerous, in the husband of that sister she found an additional husband.
The brotherhood of the husbands and the sisterhood of the wives formed the
basis of the relation. It is fully expressed by the Hawaiian custom of
pŭnalŭa. Theoretically, the family of the period was coextensive with the
group united in the marriage relation; but, practically, it must have
subdivided into a number of smaller families for convenience of habitation
and subsistence. The brothers, by tens and twelves, of the Britons, married
to each other’s wives, would indicate the size of an ordinary subdivision of
a punaluan group. Communism in living seems to have originated in the
necessities of the consanguine family, to have been continued in the
punaluan, and to have been transmitted to the syndyasmian among the
American aborigines, with whom it remained a practice down to the epoch
of their discovery. Punaluan marriage is now unknown among them, but the
system of consanguinity it created has survived the customs in which it
originated. The plan of family life and of habitation among savage tribes
has been imperfectly studied. A knowledge of their usages in these respects
and of their mode of subsistence would throw a strong light upon the
questions under consideration.
Two forms of the family have now been explained in their origin by two
parallel systems of consanguinity. The proofs seem to be conclusive. It
gives the starting point of human society after mankind had emerged from a
still lower condition and entered the organism of the consanguine family.
From this first form to the second the transition was natural; a development
from a lower into a higher social condition through observation and
experience. It was a result of the improvable mental and moral qualities
which belong to the human species. The consanguine and punaluan families
represent the substance of human progress through the greater part of the
period of savagery. Although the second was a great improvement upon the
first, it was still very distant from the monogamian. An impression may be
formed by a comparison of the several forms of the family, of the slow rate
of progress in savagery, where the means of advancement were slight, and
the obstacles were formidable. Ages upon ages of substantially stationary
life, with advance and decline, undoubtedly marked the course of events;
but the general movement of society was from a lower to a higher
condition, otherwise mankind would have remained in savagery. It is
something to find an assured initial point from which mankind started on
their great and marvelous career of progress, even though so near the
bottom of the scale, and though limited to a form of the family so peculiar
as the consanguine.
[Pg 447]
[Pg 452]

Comparative Table of the System of Relationship of the Seneca-Iroquois

Indians of New York, and of the People of South-India speaking the Tamil
Dialect of the Drâvidian Language. En = my.
Transcriber's Note: Abbreviations: fa=father, mo=mother, GF=Grandfather,
GM=Grandmother, GD=Granddaughter, GS=Grandson, bro=Brother,
str=sister, gt=great, dau=daughter. End of Transcriber's Note.
 Translation.
Relationship in Seneca-
Description of persons Translation. Relationship in Tamil.
Iroquois.

1 My gt-GF's fa hoc´-sote My GF En muppáddan My 3d GF

"
"
"
" "
2 oc´-sote
"
"
GM muppáddi

"
GM

" " " "

3 hoc´-sote

gt-GF GF páddan 2d GF

"
"
" "
4 oc´-sote

"
GM páddi
" GM
GM

" " " "

5 hoc´-sote

GF GF páddan GF

" " " "

6 oc´-sote

GM GM páddi GM

" " " "

7 hä´-nih

fa fa takkáppăn fa

" " " "

8 no-yeh´

mo mo táy mo
9 há-ah´-wuk
 " " " "

son son măkăn son

" " " "

10 ka-ah´-wuk

dau dau măkăl dau

" " " "

11 ha-yä´-da

GS GS pêrăn GS

" " " "

12 ha-yä´-da

GD GD pêrtti GD

" " " "

13 ha-yä´-da

gt-GS GS irandám pêrăn 2d GS

"

" "
14 ka-yä´-da
pêrtti
"
gt-GD GD

GD

" " " "

15 ha-yä´-da

gt-GS's son GS mŭndam pêrăn 3d GS

"
"

"
16 ka-yä´-da
"
pêrtti
"
GD
"
GD
dau
17 hä´-je
" " " "

elder bro elder bro tamaiyăn, b annăn elder bro

" " "

"
18 ah´-je

" " "

akkàrl, b tămăkay

str str str

" " " "

19 ha´-gă

younger bro younger bro tambi younger bro

" " "

"
20 ka´-gă

" " "

tambi

str str str

" " " "

21 da-yä-guä-dan´-no-dä

bros bros săkothăree bros (Skr)

" " " "

22 "

str str săkothăree str (Skr)

" " " "

23 (ms) ha-ah´-wuk

bro's son son măkăn son

24 " ka´-säh´

" " " "

dau-in-law mărŭmăkăl dau-in-law & niece

"
 son's wife

"

" " "

25 " ka-ah´-wuk

"
dau măkăl dau

dau

"

"
" "
26 " oc-na´-hosc

" son-in-law &

son-in-law mărŭmăkăn
nephew

dau's hus

"

" " "

27 " ha-yä´-da

"
GS pêrăn GS

GS

"

" " "

28 " ka-yä´-da

"
GD pêrtti GD

GD

"

" " "

29 " ha-yä´-da

"
GS irandám pêrăn 2d GS

gt-GS
30 " ka-yä´-da

" " pêrtti GD

 GD

"

gt-GD

" " " "

31 " ha-yă-´-wan-da

str's son nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

" " "

32 " ka´-sä

"
dau-in-law măkăl dau

son's wife

"

" " "

33 " ka-yă´-wan-da

"
niece mărŭmăkăl niece

dau

"

" " "

34 " oc-na´-hosc

"
son-in-law măkăn son

dau's hus

"

" " "

35 " ha-yä´-da

"
GS pêrăn GS

GS
36 " ka-yä´-da

" " " "

 GD pêrtti GD

"

GD

"

" " "

37 " ha-yä´-da

"
GS irandám pêrăn 2d GS

gt-GS

"

" " "

38 " ka-yä´-da

"
GD irandám pertti 2d GD

gt-GD

" " " "

39 (fs) ha-soh′-neh

bro's son nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

" " "

40 " ka′-sä

"
dau-in-law măkăl dau

son's wife

"

" " "

41 " ka-soh′-neh

"
niece mărŭmăkăl niece

dau
42 " oc-na′-hose

" " " "

 son-in-law măkan son

"

dau's hus

"

" " "

43 " ha-yä′-da

"
GS pêrăn GS

GS

"

" " "

44 " ka-yä′-da

"
GD pêrtti GD

GD

"

" " "

45 " ha-yä′-da

"
GS irandám pêrăn 2d GS

gt-GS

"

"
46 " ka-yä′-da
pêrtti GD
"
GD

gt-GD

" " " "

47 " ha-ah′-wuk

str's son son măkăn son

48 " ka′-sä

" " " "

 dau-in-law mărŭmăkăl dau-in-law & niece

"

son's wife

"

" " "

49 " ka-ah′-wuk

"
dau măkăl dau

dau

"

" " "

50 " oc-na′-hose

"
son-in-law măkăn son

dau's hus

"

" " "

51 " ha-yä′-da

"
GS pêrăn GS

GS

"

" " "

52 " ka-yä′-da

"
GD pêrtti GD

GD
53 " ha-yä′-da

" " " "

GS irandám pêrăn 2d GS

"
 gt-GS

"

"
54 " ka-yä′-da
pêrtti GD
"
GD

gt-GD

" " "

fa's bro " periya tăkkăppăn gt-fa (if older)

55 hä′-nih

fa " "

seriya tăkkăppăn little-fa (if younger)

"

" " "

56 uc-no′-ese

"
step-mo táy mo (th'n my fa)

bro's wife

"

" " " "

57 (otm) hä′-je

elder bro tămaiyăn elder bro

"

son
58 (ytm) ha′-gă

" " " "

younger bro tambi younger bro

"
 "

son

"

" " " "

59 ah-gt-ah′-ne-ah

str-in-law maittumi (o.) an̤n̤i (y.) cousin str-in-law

"

son's wife

"

" " " "

60 (otm) ah′-je

elder str akkarl b, tamakay elder str

"

dau

"

"

" " "

61 (ytm) ka′-gă

" younger str tangaichchi b, tangay younger str

"

62 ha-yă′-o
 " " " "

bro-in-law măittŭnăn bro-in-law & csn

"

"

dau's hus

"

" " " "

63 (ms) ha-ah′-wuk

son măkăn son

"

son's son

"

" " " "

64 (fs) ha-soh′-neh

nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

son's son
65 (ms) ka-ah′-wuk

" " " "

dau măkăl dau

"

"
 son's dau

"

" " " "

66 (fs) ka-soh′-neh

niece mărŭmăkăl niece

"

son's dau

"

" " " "

67 (ms) ha-yă′-wän-da

nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

dau's son

"

" " " "

68 (fs) ha-ah′-wuk

son măkăn son

"

dau's son
69 (ms) ka-yă′-wän-da

" " " "

niece mărŭmăkăl niece

"
 "

dau's dau

"

" " " "

70 (fs) ka-ah′-wuk

dau măkăl dau

"

dau's dau

"

" " " "

71 ha-yä′-da

GS pêrăn GS

"

gt-GS

"

" " " "

72 ka-yä'-da

GD pêrtti GD

"

gt-GD

" " " "

73 ah-ga′-huc

fa's str aunt attai aunt

74 hoc-no′-ese
 " " " "

step-fa máman uncle

"

str's hus

"

" " " "

75 (ms) ah-găre′-seh

cousin attàn b, măittŭnăn cousin

"

son

"

" " " "

76 (fs) ah-găre′-seh

cousin măchchăn cousin

"

son

"

" " " "

77 ah-gt-ah'-ne-ah

str-in-law tangay younger str

"

son's wife
78 (ms) ah-găre′-seh
 " " " "

cousin măittuni cousin

"

"

dau

"

" " " "

79 (fs) ah-găre′-seh

cousin măchchi b, măchchărl cousin

"

dau

"

" " " "

80 ah-găre′-seh

bro-in-law an̤n̤an (o.) tambi (y.) elder or ygr bro

"

dau's hus
81 (ms) ha-ah′-wuk

" " " "

son mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

"
 son's son

"

" " " "

82 (fs) ha-soh′-neh

nephew măkăn son

"

son's son

"

" " " "

83 (ms) ka-ah′-wuk

dau mărŭmăkăl niece

"

son's dau

"

" " " "

84 (fs) ka-soh′-neh

niece măkăl dau

"

son's dau
85 (ms) ha-ya′-wän-da

" " " "

nephew măkăn son

"
 "

dau's son

"

" " " "

86 (fs) ha-ah′-wuk

son mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

dau's son

"

" " " "

87 (ms) ka-ya′-wän-da

niece măkăl dau

"

dau's dau

"

" " " "

88 (fs) ka-ah′-wuk

dau mărŭmăkăl niece

"

dau's dau
89 ha-yä′-da

" " " "

GS pêrăn GS
 "

"

gt-GS

"

" " " "

90 ka-yä′-da

GD pêrtti GD

"

gt-GD

" " " "

91 hoc-no′-seh

mo's bro uncle mămăn uncle

"

" " "

92 ah-ga-na-ah

"
aunt-mo măme aunt

bro's wife

"

" " " "

93 (ms) ah-gare′-seh

cousino măittŭnăn cousin

"

son
94 (fs) ah-gare′-seh
 " " " "

cousin măchchăn cousin

"

"

son

"

" " " "

95 ah-gt-ah′-ne-ah

str-in-law tăngay younger str

"

son's wife

"

" " " "

96 (ms) ah-găre′-seh

cousin măittŭni cousin

"

dau
97 (fs) ah-găre′-seh

" " " "

cousin măchchärl cousin

"

"
 dau

"

" " " "

98 ha-yă′-o

bro-in-law an̤n̤an (o.) tambi (y.) elder or younger bro

"

dau's hus

"

" " " "

99 (ms) ha-ah′-wuk

son mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

son's son

"

" " " "

100 (fs) ha-soh′-neh

nephew măkăn son

"

son's son
101 (ms) ka-ah′-wuk

" " " "

dau mărŭmăkăl niece

"
 "

son's dau

"

" " " "

102 (fs) ka-soh′-neh

niece măkăl dau

"

son's dau

"

" " " "

103 (ms) ha-yă′-wän-da

nephew măkăn son

"

dau's son

"

" " " "

104 (fs) ha-ah′-wuk

son mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

dau's son
105 (ms) ka-yă′-wän-da

" " " "

niece măkăl dau

 "

"

dau's dau

"

" " " "

106 (fs) ka-ah′-wuk

dau mărŭmăkăl niece

"

dau's dau

"

" " " "

107 ha-yä′-da

GS pêrăn GS

"

gt-GS

"

" " " "

108 ka-yä′-da

GD pêrtti GD

"

gt-GD
109 no-yeh′

" " " "

 mo's str mo pêriyă tăy (if older than,) mo, great or little

"

sĕriyă tăy (if y'r myself)

110

" "

" "
hoc-no′-ese fa, great or little

"
step-fa takkăppăn (P. or S.)

str's hus
111

" "

elder bro

" " "

(otm) hä′-je

elder bro tămăiyăn, b, an̤n̤an

"

son
112

" "

younger bro

" " "

(ytm) ha′-gă

younger bro tambi

"

son
113 ah-gt-ah′-ne-ah

" " " "

str-in-law măittŭni str-in-law & cousin

"
 "

son's wife
114

" "

elder str

" " "

(otm) ah′-je

elder str akkàrl b, tămăkay

"

dau
115

" "

younger str

" " "

(ytm) ka′-gă

younger str tăngăichchi, b, tangay

"

dau
116

" "

bro-in-law & cousin

" " "

ha-yă′-o

bro-in-law măittŭnăn

"

dau's hus
117 (ms) ha-ah′-wuk

" " " "

 son măkăn son
"

"

son's son

"

" " " "

118 (fs) ha-soh′-neh

nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

son's son

"

" " " "

119 (ms) ka-ah′-wuk

dau măkăl dau

"

son's dau

"

" " " "

120 (fs) ka-soh′-neh

niece mărŭmăkăl niece

"

son's dau
121 (ms) ha-yă′-wän-da
 " " " "

nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

"

dau's son

"

" " " "

122 (fs) ha-ah′-wuk

son măkăn son

"

dau's son

"

" " " "

123 (ms) ka-yā′-wän-da

niece mărŭmăkăl niece

"

dau's dau
124 (fs) ka-ah′-wuk

" " " "

dau măkăl dau

"

"
 dau's dau

"

" " " "

125 ha-yä′-da

GS pêrăn GS

"

gt-GS

"

" " " "

126 ka-yä′-da

GD pêrtti GD

"

gt-GD

" " " "

127 hoc′-sote

fa's fa's bro GF păddăn (P. and S.) GF, g't or lit.

"

" " " "

128 hä′-nih

fa takkăppăn (P. and S.) fa, g't or lit.

"

bro's son
129 (otm) hä′-je

" " " "

 elder bro an̤n̤an, b, tămăiyăn elder bro

"

"

"

son's son

"

"

"

" " "

130 (ytm) ha′-gă

" younger bro tambi younger bro

"

"

131 (ms) ha-ah′-wuk

" " " "

son măkăn son

"

"
 "

"

son's son

"

"

"

" " "

132 " (fs) ka-soh′-neh

nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

"

"

133 (ms) ka-ah′-wuk

" " " "

dau măkăl dau

"

"
 "

"

"

dau

"

"

"

" " "

134 " (fs) ka-soh′-neh

niece mărŭmăkăl niece

"

"

"

135 ha-yä′-da

" " " "

GS pêrăn GS

"
 "

"

gt-gt-GS

"

"

"

" " "

136 ka-yä′-da

"
GD pêrtti GD

"

"

GD

" " " "

137 oc′-sote

fa's fa's str GM păddi (P. and S.) GM g't or lit.

138 ah-ga′-huc

" " " "

aunt táy (P. and S.) mo g't or lit.

"
 "

str's dau

"

"

" " "

139 (ms) ah-găre′-seh

"
cousin tămăkăy (o.) tăngăy (y.) elder or younger str

"

dau's dau

"

"

" " "

140 (fs) ah-găre′-seh

"
cousin tămăkăy (o.) tăngăy (y.) elder or younger str

"

dau's dau
141 (ms) ha-yă′-wän-da

" " " "

nephew mărŭmăkăn? nephew

"

"
 "

dau's dau's son

"

"

" " "

142 (fs) ha-ah′wuk

"
son măkăn? son

"

dau's dau's son

"

"

" " "

143 (ms) ka-yă′-wän-da

"
niece mărŭmăkăl? niece

"

dau's dau's dau

144 (fs) ka-ah′-wuk

" " " "

dau măkăl? dau

"
 "

"

dau's dau's dau

"

"

" " "

145 ha-yä′-da

"
GS pêrăn GS

"

gt-gt-GS

"

"

" " "

146 ka-yä′-da

"
GD pêrtti GD

"

gt-gt-GD

" " " "

147 hoc′-sote

mo's mo's bro GF păddăn (P. and S.) GF, g't or lit.
148 hoc-no-seh
 " " " "

uncle mămăn uncle

"

"

bro's son

"

"
" " "
149 (ms) ah-găre′-seh
"
cousin măittŭnăn cousin

"

son's son

"

"

"

" " "

150 (fs) ah-găre′-seh
"
cousin măchchăn cousin

"

"

151 (ms) ha-ah′-wuk

 " " " "

son mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

"

"

"

son's son

"

"

"

" " "

152 " (fs) ha-soh′-neh

nephew măkăn son

"

"

"
153 (ms) ka-ah′-wuk

" " " "

dau mărŭmăkăl niece

 "

"

"

"

"

dau

"

"

"

"
" " "
154 (fs) ka-soh′-neh

niece mărŭmăkăl dau

"

"

"

155 ha-yä′-da

" " " "

 GS pêrăn GS

"

"

"

gt-gt-GS

"

"

"

" " "

156 ka-yä′-da
"
GD pêrtti GD

"

"

GD

" " " "

157 oc′-sote

mo's mo's str GM păddi (P. and S.) GM, g't or lit.
158 no-yeh′

" " " "

mo táy (P. and S.) mo, g't or lit.

"
 "

str's dau

"

"

" " "

159 (otm) ah′-je

"
elder str tămăkăy elder str

"

dau's dau

"

"

"

" " "

160 (ytm) ka′-ga

" younger str tăngăy younger str

"

"

161 (ms) ha-yă′-wän-da

" " " "

 nephew mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

"

"

"

dau's son

"

"

"

" " "

162 " (fs) ha-ah′-wuk

son măkăn son

"

"

"

163 (ms) ka-yă′-wän-da

" " " "

 niece mărŭmăkăl niece

"

"

"

"

"

dau
164 (fs) ka-an′-wuk

" " " "

dau măkăl dau

"

"

"

"

"

"
 "

"

" " "

165 ha-yä′-da

"
GS pêrăn GS

"

gt-gt-GS

"

"

" " "

166 ka-yä′-da

"
GD pêrtti GD

"

gt-gt-GD

" " " "

167 hoc′-sote

fa's fa's fa's bro GF irandám păddăn GF

168 hoc′-sote

" " " "

GF păddăn (P.and S.) GF, g't or lit.

"
 "

" bro's son

"

"

" " "

169 (otm) hä′-nih

"
fa tăkăppăn (P. and S.) fa, g't or lit.

"

" son's son

"

"

" " "

170 (ms) ha-ah′-wuk
"

son măkăn son

"

"

" son's son

171 ha-yä′-da

" " " "

GS pêrăn GS

"
 "

"

"

"

" son's son

" " "

172 oc′-sote

GM irandám păddi 2d GM

" " " "

173 oc′-sote

fa's fa's fa's str's dau GM păddi (P. and S.) GM, g't or lit.

"

"

" " "

174 no-yeh′
"
mo táy (P. and S.) mo, g't or lit.

"

" dau's dau

175 (ms) ah′-je

" " " "

elder str tămăkăy b, tăngăy? str, elder or younger

 "

"

"

"

" dau's dau

"

"

"
" " "
176 ha-soh′-neh

niece mărŭmăkăl niece

"

"

"

" dau's dau

177 ha-yä′-da

" " " "

GD pêrtti GD

"

"
 "

"

"

"

" dau's dau

" " " "

178 hoc′-sote

mo's mo's mo's bro GF irandám păddăn 2d GF

"

"
" " "
179 hoc′-sote
"
GF păddăn (P. or S.) GF, g't or lit.

"

bro's son

"

"
" " "
180 hoc-no′-seh
"
uncle mămăn uncle

"

" son's son

181 (ms) ah-găre′-seh
 " " " "

cousin măitŭnăn cousin

"

"

"

"

" son's son

"

"

"
" " "
182 (fs) ha-ah′-wuk

son mărŭmăkăn nephew

"

"

"

" son's son

183 ha-yä′-da

" " " "

GS pêrăn GC

"

"
 "

"

"

"

" son's son

" " " "

184 oc′-sote

mo's mo's mo's str GM irandám păddi 2d GM

"

"
" " "
185 oc′-sote
"
GM păddi (P. or S.) GM, g't or lit.

"

str's dau

"

"

" " "

186 " no-yeh′

mo táy (P. or S.) mo, g't or lit.

"

" dau's dau

187 (otm) ah′-je
 " " " "

elder str akkárl elder str

"

"

"

"

" dau's dau

"

"

"

" " "

188 (fs) ka-yä′-wän-da
"
niece măkăl dau

"

"

" dau's dau

189 ka-yä′-da

" " " "

GD pêrtti GD

"
 "

"

"

"

"

" dau's dau

" " " "

190 da-yake′-ne

hus hus kănavăn, b, purnshan hus

" " " "

191 da-yake′-ne

wife wife măinavi, b, pernchátti wife

" " " "

192 hä-ga′-sä

hus's fa fa-in-law mámăn, b, mámanär uncle & fa-in-law

"

" " "

193 ong-ga′-sä

"
mo-in-law mámi, b, mánnai aunt & mo-in-law

mo
194 oc-na′-hose

" " " "

 wife's fa fa-in-law mămăn uncle & fa

"

" " "

195 oc-na′-hose

"
mo-in-law mámi aunt

mo

"
" " "
196 oc-na′-hose

son-in-law &
son-in-law son-in-law mápillai, b, mărŭmăkăn
nephew

" " " "

197 ka′-sä

daugt-in-law dau-in-law marŭmăkal dau-in-law & niece

" " (Widows cannot

198 hoc-no′-ese
marry.)

step-fa step-fa

"

" "
199 oc-no′-ese My little mo

"
step-mo sĕriya táymy

mo

"

" " "

200 ha′-no

"
step-son măkăn son

son
201 ka′-no

" " " "

step-dau măkăl dau

 "

dau

"

"
"
202

" bro, older or

an̤n̤an (o.) tambi (y.)
younger

bro

"

" "
203

"
akkárl (o.) tăngăy (y.) str, older or younger

str

"
" " "
204 (hus's bro) ha-yă′-o

bro'r-in-law &
bro-in-law bro-in-law măittŭnăn
cousin

"

"
" "
205 " (str's hus, ms) ah-gt-ah′-ne-o

bro'r-in-law &
bro-in-law măittŭnăn
cousin

"

"
" " "
206 (str's hus, fs) ha-yă′-o

bro'r-in-law &
bro-in-law bro-in-law attan (o.) maichchăn
cousin
207 (wife's bro) ah-ge′-ah′-ne-o

" " " "

 bro-in-law bro-in-law măittŭnăn bro'r-in-law &
cousin

"
" "
208 (wife's str's hus) no relation

bro'r-in-law &
bro-in-law sakălăn
cousin

" " "

209 (hus's str's hus) no relation

bro-in-law sakotaran bro-in-law & cousin

" " "

210 (wife's str ) ka-yă′-o My str-in-law

str -in-law korlunti (o.) măittŭini str-in-law & cousin

" " "

211 (hus' str) ah-gt-ah′-ne-o My str-in-law

str -in-law năttănae str-in-law & cousin

" " "

212 (bro's wife, ms) ka-yă′-o My str-in-law

str -in-law an̤n̤i (o.) măittŭni (y.) str-in-law & cousin

" " "

213 (bro's wife, fs) ah-gt-ah′-ne-o My str-in-law

str -in-law an̤n̤i (o.) măittŭni (y.) str-in-law & cousin

" " "

214 (hus' bro's wife) no relation

str -in-law orakatti str-in-law & cousin

" (wife's bro's " "

215 no relation
wife)

str -in-law tămăkăy (o.) tāngăy (y.) str-in-law & cousin

" "
216 go-no-kw′-yes′-hä′-ah widow widow

widow kiempun
217 ho-no-kw′-yes′-hä′-ah widower
 "

widower

"
218 tas-geek′-hăt twins Dithambathie twins (Sanskrit)

twins
 CHAPTER IV. - THE SYNDYASMIAN AND THE
PATRIARCHAL FAMILIES.
T S F .—H C .—I C .—I
G O .—P P D .—A S
E .—T P F .
—P P E C .—P .—T R
F .—P P F .

When the American aborigines were discovered, that portion of them who
were in the Lower Status of barbarism, had attained to the syndyasmian or
pairing family. The large groups in the marriage relation, which must have
existed in the previous period, had disappeared; and in their places were
married pairs, forming clearly marked, though but partially individualized
families. In this family, may be recognized the germ of the monogamian,
but it was below the latter in several essential particulars.
The syndyasmian family was special and peculiar. Several of them were
usually found in one house, forming a communal household, in which the
principle of communism in living was practiced. The fact of the conjunction
of several such families in a common household is of itself an admission
that the family was too feeble an organization to face alone the hardships of
life. Nevertheless it was founded upon marriage between single pairs, and
possessed some of the characteristics of the monogamian family. The
woman was now something more than the principal wife of her husband;
she was his companion, the preparer of his food, and the mother of children
whom he now began with some assurance to regard as his own. The birth of
children, for whom they jointly cared, tended to cement the union and
render it permanent.
But the marriage institution was as peculiar as the family. Men did not seek
wives as they are sought in civilized society, from affection, for the passion
of love, which required a higher development than they had attained, was
unknown among them. Marriage, therefore, was not founded upon
sentiment but upon convenience and necessity. It was left to the mothers, in
effect, to arrange the marriages of their children, and they were negotiated
generally without the knowledge of the parties to be married, and without
asking their previous consent. It sometimes happened that entire strangers
were thus brought into the marriage relation. At the proper time they were
notified when the simple nuptial ceremony would be performed. Such were
the usages of the Iroquois and many other Indian tribes. Acquiescence in
these maternal contracts was a duty which the parties seldom refused. Prior
to the marriage, presents to the gentile relatives of the bride, nearest in
degree, partaking of the nature of purchasing gifts, became a feature in
these matrimonial transactions. The relation, however, continued during the
pleasure of the parties, and no longer. It is for this reason that it is properly
distinguished as the pairing family. The husband could put away his wife at
pleasure and take another without offence, and the woman enjoyed the
equal right of leaving her husband and accepting another, in which the
usages of her tribe and gens were not infringed. But a public sentiment
gradually formed and grew into strength against such separations. When
alienation arose between a married pair, and their separation became
imminent, the gentile kindred of each attempted a reconciliation of the
parties, in which they were often successful; but if they were unable to
remove the difficulty their separation was approved. The wife then left the
home of her husband, taking with her their children, who were regarded as
exclusively her own, and her personal effects, upon which her husband had
no claim; or where the wife’s kindred predominated in the communal
household, which was usually the case, the husband left the home of his
wife.470 Thus the continuance of the marriage relation remained at the
option of the parties.
There was another feature of the relation which shows that the American
aborigines in the Lower Status of barbarism had not attained the moral
development implied by monogamy. Among the Iroquois, who were
barbarians of high mental grade, and among the equally advanced Indian
tribes generally, chastity had come to be required of the wife under severe
penalties which the husband might inflict; but he did not admit the
reciprocal obligation. The one cannot be permanently realized without the
other. Moreover, polygamy was universally recognized as the right of the
males, although the practice was limited from inability to support the
indulgence. There were other usages, that need not be mentioned, tending
still further to show that they were below a conception of monogamy, as
that great institution is properly defined. Exceptional cases very likely
existed. It will be found equally true, as I believe, of barbarous tribes in
general. The principal feature which distinguished the syndyasmian from
the monogamian family, although liable to numerous exceptions, was the
absence of an exclusive cohabitation. The old conjugal system, a record of
which is still preserved in their system of consanguinity, undoubtedly
remained, but under reduced and restricted forms.
Among the Village Indians in the Middle Status of barbarism the facts were
not essentially different, so far as they can be said to be known. A
comparison of the usages of the American aborigines, with respect to
marriage and divorce, shows an existing similarity sufficiently strong to
imply original identity of usages. A few only can be noticed. Clavgero
remarks that among the Aztecs “the parents were the persons who settled all
marriages, and none were ever executed without their consent.”471 “A priest
tied a point of the huepilli, or gown of the bride, with the tilmatli, or mantle
of the bridegroom, and in this ceremony the matrimonial contract chiefly
consisted.”472 Herrera, after speaking of the same ceremony, observes that
“all that the bride brought was kept in memory, that in case they should be
unmarried again, as was usual among them, the goods might be parted; the
man taking the daughters, and the wife the sons, with liberty to marry
again.”473
It will be noticed that the Aztec Indian did not seek his wife personally any
more than the Iroquois. Among both it was less an individual than a public
or gentile affair, and therefore still remained under parental control
exclusively. There was very little social intercourse between unmarried
persons of the two sexes in Indian life; and as attachments were not
contracted, none were traversed by these marriages, in which personal
wishes were unconsidered, and in fact unimportant. It appears further, that
the personal effects of the wife were kept distinct among the Aztecs as
among the Iroquois, that in case of separation, which was a common
occurrence as this writer states, she might retain them in accordance with
general Indian usage. Finally, while among the Iroquois in the case of
divorce the wife took all the children, the Aztec husband was entitled to the
daughters, and the wife to the sons; a modification of the ancient usage
which implies a prior time when the Iroquois Indian rule existed among the
ancestors of the Aztecs.
Speaking of the people of Yucatan generally Herrera further remarks that
“formerly they were wont to marry at twenty years of age, and afterwards
came to twelve or fourteen, and having no affection for their wives were
divorced for every trifle.”474 The Mayas of Yucatan were superior to the
Aztecs in culture and development; but where marriages were regulated on
the principle of necessity, and not through personal choice, it is not
surprising that the relation was unstable, and that separation was at the
option of either party. Moreover, polygamy was a recognized right of the
males among the Village Indians, and seems to have been more generally
practiced than among the less advanced tribes. These glimpses at
institutions purely Indian as well as barbarian reveal in a forcible manner
the actual condition of the aborigines in relative advancement. In a matter
so personal as the marriage relation, the wishes or preferences of the parties
were not consulted. No better evidence is needed of the barbarism of the
people.
We are next to notice some of the influences which developed this family
from the punaluan. In the latter there was more or less of pairing from the
necessities of the social state, each man having a principal wife among a
number of wives, and each woman a principal husband among a number of
husbands; so that the tendency in the punaluan family, from the first, was in
the direction of the syndyasmian.
The organization into gentes was the principal instrumentality that
accomplished this result; but through long and gradual processes. Firstly. It
did not at once break up intermarriage in the group, which it found
established by custom; but the prohibition of intermarriage in the gens
excluded own brothers and sisters, and also the children of own sisters,
since all of these were of the same gens. Own brothers could still share their
wives in common, and own sisters their husbands; consequently the gens
did not interfere directly with punaluan marriage, except to narrow its
range. But it withheld permanently from that relation all the descendants in
the female line of each ancestor within the gens, which was a great
innovation upon the previous punaluan group. When the gens subdivided,
the prohibition followed its branches, for long periods of time, as has been
shown was the case among the Iroquois. Secondly. The structure and
principles of the organization tended to create a prejudice against the
marriage of consanguinei, as the advantages of marriages between unrelated
persons were gradually discovered through the practice of marrying out of
the gens. This seems to have grown apace until a public sentiment was
finally arrayed against it which had become very general among the
American aborigines when discovered.475 For example, among the Iroquois
none of the blood relatives enumerated in the Table of Consanguinity were
marriageable. Since it became necessary to seek wives from other gentes
they began to be acquired by negotiation and by purchase. The gentile
organization must have led, step by step, as its influence became general, to
a scarcity of wives in place of their previous abundance; and as a
consequence, have gradually contracted the numbers in the punaluan group.
This conclusion is reasonable, because there are sufficient grounds for
assuming the existence of such groups when the Turanian system of
consanguinity was formed. They have now disappeared although the system
remains. These groups must have gradually declined, and finally
disappeared with the general establishment of the syndyasmian family.
Fourthly. In seeking wives, they did not confine themselves to their own,
nor even to friendly tribes, but captured them by force from hostile tribes. It
furnishes a reason for the Indian usage of sparing the lives of female
captives, while the males were put to death. When wives came to be
acquired by purchase and by capture, and more and more by effort and
sacrifice, they would not be as readily shared with others. It would tend, at
least, to cut off that portion of the theoretical group not immediately
associated for subsistence; and thus reduce still more the size of the family
and the range of the conjugal system. Practically, the group would tend to
limit itself, from the first, to own brothers who shared their wives in
common, and to own sisters who shared their husbands in common. Lastly.
The gentes created a higher organic structure of society than had before
been known, with processes of development as a social system adequate to
the wants of mankind until civilization supervened. With the progress of
society under the gentes, the way was prepared for the appearance of the
syndyasmian family.
The influence of the new practice, which brought unrelated persons into the
marriage relation, must have given a remarkable impulse to society. It
tended to create a more vigorous stock physically and mentally. There is a
gain by accretion in the coalescence of diverse stocks which has exercised
great influence upon human development. When two advancing tribes, with
strong mental and physical characters, are brought together and blended
into one people by the accidents of barbarous life, the new skull and brain
would widen and lengthen to the sum of the capabilities of both. Such a
stock would be an improvement upon both, and this superiority would
assert itself in an increase of intelligence and of numbers.
It follows that the propensity to pair, now so powerfully developed in the
civilized races, had remained unformed in the human mind until the
punaluan custom began to disappear. Exceptional cases undoubtedly
occurred where usages would permit the privilege; but it failed to become
general until the syndyasmian family appeared. This propensity, therefore,
cannot be called normal to mankind, but is, rather, a growth through
experience, like all the great passions and powers of the mind.
Another influence may be adverted to which tended to retard the growth of
this family. Warfare among barbarians is more destructive of life than
among savages, from improved weapons and stronger incentives. The
males, in all periods and conditions of society, have assumed the trade of
fighting, which tended to change the balance of the sexes, and leave the
females in excess. This would manifestly tend to strengthen the conjugal
system created by marriages in the group. It would, also, retard the
advancement of the syndyasmian family by maintaining sentiments of low
grade with respect to the relations of the sexes, and the character and
dignity of woman.
On the other hand, improvement in subsistence, which followed the
cultivation of maize and plants among the American aborigines, must have
favored the general advancement of the family. It led to localization, to the
use of additional arts, to an improved house architecture, and to a more
intelligent life. Industry and frugality, though limited in degree, with
increased protection of life, must have accompanied the formation of
families consisting of single pairs. The more these advantages were
realized, the more stable such a family would become, and the more its
individuality would increase. Having taken refuge in a communal
household, in which a group of such families succeeded the punaluan
group, it now drew its support from itself, from the household, and from the
gentes to which the husbands and wives respectively belonged. The great
advancement of society indicated by the transition from savagery into the
Lower Status of barbarism, would carry with it a corresponding
improvement in the condition of the family, the course of development of
which was steadily upward to the monogamian. If the existence of the
syndyasmian family were unknown, given the punaluan toward one
extreme, and the monogamian on the other, the occurrence of such an
intermediate form might have been predicted. It has had a long duration in
human experience. Springing up on the confines of savagery and barbarism,
it traversed the Middle and the greater part of the Later Period of barbarism,
when it was superseded by a low form of the monogamian. Overshadowed
by the conjugal system of the times, it gained in recognition with the
gradual progress of society. The selfishness of mankind, as distinguished
from womankind, delayed the realization of strict monogamy until that
great fermentation of the human mind which ushered in civilization.
Two forms of the family had appeared before the syndyasmian and created
two great systems of consanguinity, or rather two distinct forms of the same
system; but this third family neither produced a new system nor sensibly
modified the old. Certain marriage relationships appear to have been
changed to accord with those in the new family; but the essential features of
the system remained unchanged. In fact, the syndyasmian family continued
for an unknown period of time enveloped in a system of consanguinity,
false in the main, to existing relationships, and which it had no power to
break. It was for the sufficient reason that it fell short of monogamy, the
coming power able to dissolve the fabric. Although this family has no
distinct system of consanguinity to prove its existence, like its predecessors,
it has itself existed over large portions of the earth within the historical
period, and still exists in numerous barbarous tribes.
In speaking thus positively of the several forms of the family in their
relative order, there is danger of being misunderstood. I do not mean to
imply that one form rises complete in a certain status of society, flourishes
universally and exclusively wherever tribes of mankind are found in the
same status, and then disappears in another, which is the next higher form.
Exceptional cases of the punaluan family may have appeared in the
consanguine, and vice versâ; exceptional cases of the syndyasmian may
have appeared in the midst of the punaluan, and vice versâ; and exceptional
cases of the monogamian in the midst of the syndyasmian, and vice versâ.
Even exceptional cases of the monogamian may have appeared as low
down as the punaluan, and of the syndyasmian as low down as the
consanguine. Moreover, some tribes attained to a particular form earlier
than other tribes more advanced; for example, the Iroquois had the
syndyasmian family while in the Lower Status of barbarism, but the
Britons, who were in the Middle Status, still had the punaluan. The high
civilization on the shores of the Mediterranean had propagated arts and
inventions into Britain far beyond the mental development of its Celtic
inhabitants, and which they had imperfectly appropriated. They seem to
have been savages in their brains, while wearing the art apparel of more
advanced tribes. That which I have endeavored to substantiate, and for
which the proofs seem to be adequate, is, that the family began in the
consanguine, low down in savagery, and grew, by progressive development,
into the monogamian, through two well-marked intermediate forms. Each
was partial in its introduction, then general, and finally universal over large
areas; after which it shaded off into the next succeeding form, which, in
turn, was at first partial, then general, and finally universal in the same
areas. In the evolution of these successive forms the main direction of
progress was from the consanguine to the monogamian. With deviations
from uniformity in the progress of mankind through these several forms, it
will generally be found that the consanguine and punaluan families belong
to the status of savagery—the former to its lowest, and the latter to its
highest condition—while the punaluan continued into the Lower Status of
barbarism; that the syndyasmian belongs to the Lower and to the Middle
Status of barbarism, and continued into the Upper; and that the
monogamian belongs to the Upper Status of barbarism, and continued to the
period of civilization.
It will not be necessary, even if space permitted, to trace the syndyasmian
family through barbarous tribes in general upon the partial descriptions of
travelers and observers. The tests given may be applied by each reader to
cases within his information. Among the American aborigines in the Lower
Status of barbarism it was the prevailing form of the family at the epoch of
their discovery. Among the Village Indians in the Middle Status, it was
undoubtedly the prevailing form, although the information given by the
Spanish writers is vague and general. The communal character of their
joint-tenement houses is of itself strong evidence that the family had not
passed out of the syndyasmian form. It had neither the individuality nor the
exclusiveness which monogamy implies.
The foreign elements intermingled with the native culture in sections of the
Eastern hemisphere produced an abnormal condition of society, where the
arts of civilized life were remolded to the aptitudes and wants of savages
and barbarians.476 Tribes strictly nomadic have also social peculiarities,
growing out of their exceptional mode of life, which are not well
understood. Through influences, derived from the higher races, the
indigenous culture of many tribes has been arrested, and so far adulterated
as to change the natural flow of their progress. Their institutions and social
state became modified in consequence.
It is essential to systematic progress in Ethnology that the condition both of
savage and of barbarous tribes should be studied in its normal development
in areas where the institutions of the people are homogeneous. Polynesia
and Australia, as elsewhere suggested, are the best areas for the study of
savage society. Nearly the whole theory of savage life may be deduced from
their institutions, usages and customs, inventions and discoveries. North
and South America, when discovered, afforded the best opportunities for
studying the condition of society in the Lower and in the Middle Status of
barbarism. The aborigines, one stock in blood and lineage, with the
exception of the Eskimos, had gained possession of a great continent, more
richly endowed for human occupation than the Eastern continents, save in
animals capable of domestication. It afforded them an ample field for
undisturbed development. They came into its possession apparently in a
savage state; but the establishment of the organization into gentes put them
into possession of the principal germs of progress possessed by the
ancestors of the Greeks and Romans.477 Cut off thus early, and losing all
further connection with the central stream of human progress, they
commenced their career upon a new continent with the humble mental and
moral endowments of savages. The independent evolution of the primary
ideas they brought with them commenced under conditions insuring a
career undisturbed by foreign influences. It holds true alike in the growth of
the idea of government, of the family, of household life, of property, and of
the arts of subsistence. Their institutions, inventions and discoveries, from
savagery, through the Lower and into the Middle Status of barbarism, are
homogeneous, and still reveal a continuity of development of the same
original conceptions.
In no part of the earth, in modern times, could a more perfect
exemplification of the Lower Status of barbarism be found than was
afforded by the Iroquois, and other tribes of the United States east of the
Mississippi. With their arts indigenous and unmixed, and with their
institutions pure and homogeneous, the culture of this period, in its range,
elements and possibilities, is illustrated by them in the fullest manner. A
systematic exposition of these several subjects ought to be made, before the
facts are allowed to disappear.
In a still higher degree all this was true with respect to the Middle Status of
barbarism, as exemplified by the Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico,
Central America, Grenada, Ecuador, and Peru. In no part of the earth was
there to be found such a display of society in this Status, in the sixteenth
century, with its advanced arts and inventions, its improved architecture, its
nascent manufactures and its incipient sciences. American scholars have a
poor account to render of work done in this fruitful field. It was in reality a
lost condition of ancient society which was suddenly unveiled to European
observers with the discovery of America; but they failed to comprehend its
meaning, or to ascertain its structure.
There is one other great condition of society, that of the Upper Status of
barbarism, not now exemplified by existing nations; but it may be found in
the history and traditions of the Grecian and Roman, and later of the
German tribes. It must be deduced, in the main, from their institutions,
inventions and discoveries, although there is a large amount of information
illustrative of the culture of this period, especially in the Homeric poems.
When these several conditions of society have been studied in the areas of
their highest exemplification, and are thoroughly understood, the course of
human development from savagery, through barbarism to civilization, will
become intelligible as a connected whole. The course of human experience
will also be found as before suggested to have run in nearly uniform
channels.
The patriarchal family of the Semitic tribes requires but a brief notice, for
reasons elsewhere stated; and it will be limited to little more than a
definition. It belongs to the Later Period of barbarism, and remained for a
time after the commencement of civilization. The chiefs, at least, lived in
polygamy; but this was not the material principle of the patriarchal
institution. The organization of a number of persons, bond and free, into a
family, under paternal power, for the purpose of holding lands, and for the
care of flocks and herds, was the essential characteristic of this family.
Those held to servitude, and those employed as servants, lived in the
marriage relation, and, with the patriarch as their chief, formed a patriarchal
family. Authority over its members and over its property was the material
fact. It was the incorporation of numbers in servile and dependent relations,
before that time unknown, rather than polygamy, that stamped the
patriarchal family with the attributes of an original institution. In the great
movement of Semitic society, which produced this family, paternal power
over the group was the object sought; and with it a higher individuality of
persons.
The same motive precisely originated the Roman family under paternal
power (patria potestas); with the power in the father of life and death over
his children and descendants, as well as over the slaves and servants who
formed its nucleus and furnished its name; and with the absolute ownership
of all the property they created. Without polygamy, the pater familias was a
patriarch and the family under him was patriarchal. In a less degree, the
ancient family of the Grecian tribes had the same characteristics. It marks
that peculiar epoch in human progress when the individuality of the person
began to rise above the gens, in which it had previously been merged,
craving an independent life, and a wider field of individual action. Its
general influence tended powerfully to the establishment of the
monogamian family, which was essential to the realization of the objects
sought. These striking features of the patriarchal families, so unlike any
form previously known, have given to it a commanding position; but the
Hebrew and Roman forms were exceptional in human experience. In the
consanguine and punaluan families, paternal authority was impossible as
well as unknown; under the syndyasmian it began to appear as a feeble
influence; but its growth steadily advanced as the family became more and
more individualized, and became fully established under monogamy, which
assured the paternity of children. In the patriarchal family of the Roman
type, paternal authority passed beyond the bounds of reason into an excess
of domination.
No new system of consanguinity was created by the Hebrew patriarchal
family. The Turanian system would harmonize with a part of its
relationships; but as this form of the family soon fell out, and the
monogamian became general, it was followed by the Semitic system of
consanguinity, as the Grecian and Roman were by the Aryan. Each of the
three great systems—the Malayan, the Turanian, and the Aryan—indicates
a completed organic movement of society, and each assured the presence,
with unerring certainty, of that form of the family whose relationships it
recorded.

CHAPTER V. - THE MONOGAMIAN FAMILY.

T F M .—T T F .—F A G .—O
H G .—O G .—S W .—O M
M .—T R F .—W P .—A S
C .—I M .—P S T .—
T T A .—R A S C .—
D F .—P M F .—T .

The origin of society has been so constantly traced to the monogamian

family that the comparatively modern date now assigned to this family
bears the semblance of novelty. Those writers who have investigated the
origin of society philosophically, found it difficult to conceive of its
existence apart from the family as its unit, or of the family itself as other
than monogamian. They also found it necessary to regard the married pair
as the nucleus of a group of persons, a part of whom were servile, and all of
whom were under power; thus arriving at the conclusion that society began
in the patriarchal family, when it first became organized. Such, in fact, was
the most ancient form of the institution made known to us among the Latin,
Grecian and Hebrew tribes. Thus, by relation, the patriarchal family was
made the typical family of primitive society, conceived either in the Latin or
Hebrew form, paternal power being the essence of the organism.
The gens, as it appeared in the later period of barbarism, was well
understood, but it was erroneously supposed to be subsequent in point of
time to the monogamian family. A necessity for some knowledge of the
institutions of barbarous and even of savage tribes, is becoming constantly
more apparent as a means for explaining our own institutions. With the
assumption made that the monogamian family was the unit of organization
in the social system, the gens was treated as an aggregation of families, the
tribe as an aggregation of gentes, and the nation as an aggregate of tribes.
The error lies in the first proposition. It has been shown that the gens
entered entire in the phratry, the phratry into the tribe, and the tribe into the
nation; but the family could not enter entire into the gens, because husband
and wife were necessarily of different gentes. The wife, down to the latest
period, counted herself of the gens of her father, and bore the name of his
gens among the Romans. As all the parts must enter into the whole, the
family could not become the unit of the gentile organization. That place was
held by the gens. Moreover, the patriarchal family, whether of the Roman or
of the Hebrew type, was entirely unknown throughout the period of
savagery, through the Older, and probably through the Middle, and far into
the Later Period of barbarism. After the gens had appeared, ages upon ages,
and even period upon period, rolled away before the monogamian family
came into existence. It was not until after civilization commenced that it
became permanently established.
Its modern appearance among the Latin tribes may be inferred from the
signification of the word family, derived from familia, which contains the
same element as famulus, = servant, supposed to be derived from the Oscan
famel, = servus, a slave.478 In its primary meaning the word family had no
relation to the married pair or their children, but to the body of slaves and
servants who labored for its maintenance, and were under the power of the
pater familias. Familia in some testamentary dispositions is used as
equivalent to patrimonium, the inheritance which passed to the heir.479 It
was introduced in Latin society to define a new organism, the head of which
held wife and children, and a body of servile persons under paternal power.
Mommsen uses the phrase “body of servants” as the Latin signification of
familia.480 This term, therefore, and the idea it represents, are no older than
the iron-clad family system of the Latin tribes, which came in after field
agriculture and after legalized servitude, as well as after the separation of
the Greeks and Latins. If any name was given to the anterior family it is not
now ascertainable.
In two forms of the family, the consanguine and punaluan, paternal power
was impossible. When the gens appeared in the midst of the punaluan group
it united the several sisters, with their children and descendants in the
female line, in perpetuity, in a gens, which became the unit of organization
in the social system it created. Out of this state of things the syndyasmian
family was gradually evolved, and with it the germ of paternal power. The
growth of this power, at first feeble and fluctuating, then commenced, and it
steadily increased, as the new family more and more assumed monogamian
characteristics, with the upward progress of society. When property began
to be created in masses, and the desire for its transmission to children had
changed descent from the female line to the male, a real foundation for
paternal power was for the first time established. Among the Hebrew and
Latin tribes, when first known, the patriarchal family of the Hebrew type
existed among the former, and of the Roman type among the latter; founded
in both cases upon the limited or absolute servitude of a number of persons
with their families, all of whom, with the wives and children of the
patriarch in one case, and of the pater familias in the other, were under
paternal power. It was an exceptional, and, in the Roman family, an
excessive development of paternal authority, which, so far from being
universal, was restricted in the main to the people named. Gaius declares
that the power of the Roman father over his children was peculiar to the
Romans, and that in general no other people had the same power.481
It will be sufficient to present a few illustrations of the early monogamian
family from classical writers to give an impression of its character.
Monogamy appears in a definite form in the Later Period of barbarism.
Long prior to this time some of its characteristics had undoubtedly attached
themselves to the previous syndyasmian family; but the essential element of
the former, an exclusive cohabitation, could not be asserted of the latter.
One of the earliest and most interesting illustrations was found in the family
of the ancient Germans. Their institutions were homogeneous and
indigenous; and the people were advancing toward civilization. Tacitus, in a
few lines, states their usages with respect to marriage, without giving the
composition of the family or defining its attributes. After stating that
marriages were strict among them, and pronouncing it commendable, he
further remarks, that almost alone among barbarians they contented
themselves with a single wife—a very few excepted, who were drawn into
plural marriages, not from passion, but on account of their rank. That the
wife did not bring a dowry to her husband, but the husband to his wife, ... a
caparisoned horse, and a shield, with a spear and sword. That by virtue of
these gifts the wife was espoused.482 The presents, in the nature of
purchasing gifts, which probably in an earlier condition went to the gentile
kindred of the bride, were now presented to the bride.
Elsewhere he mentions the two material facts in which the substance of
monogamy is found:483 firstly, that each man was contented with a single
wife (singulis uxoribus contenti sunt); and, secondly, that the women lived
fenced around with chastity (septæ pudicitia agunt). It seems probable,
from what is known of the condition of the family in different ethnical
periods, that this of the ancient Germans was too weak an organization to
face alone the hardships of life; and, as a consequence, sheltered itself in a
communal household composed of related families. When slavery became
an institution, these households would gradually disappear. German society
was not far enough advanced at this time for the appearance of a high type
of the monogamian family.
With respect to the Homeric Greeks, the family, although monogamian, was
low in type. Husbands required chastity in their wives, which they sought to
enforce by some degree of seclusion; but they did not admit the reciprocal
obligation by which alone it could be permanently secured. Abundant
evidence appears in the Homeric poems that woman had few rights men
were bound to respect. Such female captives as were swept into their
vessels by the Grecian chiefs, on their way to Troy, were appropriated to
their passions without compunction and without restraint. It must be taken
as a faithful picture of the times, whether the incidents narrated in the
poems were real or fictitious. Although the persons were captives, it reflects
the low estimate placed upon woman. Her dignity was unrecognized, and
her personal rights were insecure. To appease the resentment of Achilles,
Agamemnon proposed, in a council of the Grecian chiefs, to give to him,
among other things, seven Lesbian women excelling in personal beauty,
reserved for himself from the spoil of that city, Briseis herself to go among
the number; and should Troy be taken, the further right to select twenty
Trojan women, the fairest of all next to Argive Helen.484 “Beauty and
Booty” were the watchwords of the Heroic Age unblushingly avowed. The
treatment of their female captives reflects the culture of the period with
respect to women in general. Men having no regard for the parental, marital
or personal rights of their enemies, could not have attained to any high
conception of their own.
In describing the tent life of the unwedded Achilles, and of his friend
Patroclus, Homer deemed it befitting the character and dignity of Achilles
as a chief to show, that he slept in the recess of his well-constructed tent,
and by his side lay a female, fair-cheeked Diomede, whom he had brought
from Lesbos. And that Patroclus on the other side reclined, and by him also
lay fair-waisted Iphis, whom noble Achilles gave him, having captured her
at Scyros.485 Such usages and customs on the part of unmarried as well as
married men, cited approvingly by the great poet of the period, and
sustained by public sentiment, tend to show that whatever of monogamy
existed, was through an enforced constraint upon wives, while their
husbands were not monogamists in the preponderating number of cases.
Such a family has quite as many syndyasmian as monogamian
characteristics.
The condition of woman in the Heroic Age is supposed to have been more
favorable, and her position in the household more honorable than it was at
the commencement of civilization, and even afterwards under their highest
development. It may have been true in a far anterior period before descent
was changed to the male line, but there seems to be little room for the
conjecture at the time named. A great change for the better occurred, so far
as the means and mode of life were concerned, but it served to render more
conspicuous the real estimate placed upon her through the Later Period of
barbarism.
Elsewhere attention has been called to the fact, that when descent was
changed from the female line to the male, it operated injuriously upon the
position and rights of the wife and mother. Her children were transferred
from her own gens to that of her husband, and she forfeited her agnatic
rights by her marriage without obtaining an equivalent. Before the change,
the members of her own gens, in all probability, predominated in the
household, which gave full force to the maternal bond, and made the
woman rather more than the man the center of the family. After the change
she stood alone in the household of her husband, isolated from her gentile
kindred. It must have weakened the influence of the maternal bond, and
have operated powerfully to lower her position and arrest her progress in
the social scale. Among the prosperous classes, her condition of enforced
seclusion, together with the avowed primary object of marriage, to beget
children in lawful wedlock (παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως), lead to the inference
that her position was less favorable in the Heroic Age than in the
subsequent period, concerning which we are much better informed.
From first to last among the Greeks there was a principle of egotism or
studied selfishness at work among the males, tending to lessen the
appreciation of woman, scarcely found among savages. It reveals itself in
their plan of domestic life, which in the higher ranks secluded the wife to
enforce an exclusive cohabitation, without admitting the reciprocal
obligation on the part of her husband. It implies the existence of an
antecedent conjugal system of the Turanian type, against which it was
designed to guard. So powerfully had the usages of centuries stamped upon
the minds of Grecian women a sense of their inferiority, that they did not
recover from it to the latest period of Grecian ascendency. It was, perhaps,
one of the sacrifices required of womankind to bring this portion of the
human race out of the syndyasmian into the monogamian family. It still
remains an enigma that a race, with endowments great enough to impress
their mental life upon the world, should have remained essentially barbarian
in their treatment of the female sex at the height of their civilization.
Women were not treated with cruelty, nor with discourtesy within the range
of the privileges allowed them; but their education was superficial,
intercourse with the opposite sex was denied them, and their inferiority was
inculcated as a principle, until it came to be accepted as a fact by the
women themselves. The wife was not the companion and the equal of her
husband, but stood to him in the relation of a daughter; thus denying the
fundamental principle of monogamy, as the institution in its highest form
must be understood. The wife is necessarily the equal of her husband in
dignity, in personal rights and in social position. We may thus discover at
what a price of experience and endurance this great institution of modern
society has been won.
Our information is quite ample and specific with respect to the condition of
Grecian women and the Grecian family during the historical period. Becker,
with the marvelous research for which his works are distinguished, has
collected the principal facts and presented them with clearness and force.486
His statements, while they do not furnish a complete picture of the family
of the historical period, are quite sufficient to indicate the great difference
between the Grecian and the modern civilized family, and also to show the
condition of the monogamian family in the early stages of its development.
Among the facts stated by Becker, there are two that deserve further notice:
first, the declaration that the chief object of marriage was the procreation of
children in lawful wedlock; and second, the seclusion of women to insure
this result. The two are intimately connected, and throw some reflected light
upon the previous condition from which they had emerged. In the first
place, the passion of love was unknown among the barbarians. They are
below the sentiment, which is the offspring of civilization and superadded
refinement. The Greeks in general, as their marriage customs show, had not
attained to a knowledge of this passion, although there were, of course,
numerous exceptions. Physical worth, in Grecian estimation, was the
measure of all the excellences of which the female sex were capable.
Marriage, therefore, was not grounded upon sentiment, but upon necessity
and duty. These considerations are those which governed the Iroquois and
the Aztecs; in fact they originated in barbarism, and reveal the anterior
barbarous condition of the ancestors of the Grecian tribes. It seems strange
that they were sufficient to answer the Greek ideal of the family relation in
the midst of Grecian civilization. The growth of property and the desire for
its transmission to children was, in reality, the moving power which brought
in monogamy to insure legitimate heirs, and to limit their number to the
actual progeny of the married pair. A knowledge of the paternity of children
had begun to be realized under the syndyasmian family, from which the
Grecian form was evidently derived, but it had not attained the requisite
degree of certainty because of the survival of some portion of the ancient
jura conjugialia. It explains the new usage which made its appearance in
the Upper Status of barbarism; namely, the seclusion of wives. An
implication to this effect arises from the circumstance that a necessity for
the seclusion of the wife must have existed at the time, and which seems to
have been so formidable that the plan of domestic life among the civilized
Greeks was, in reality, a system of female confinement and restraint.
Although the particulars cited relate more especially to the family among
the prosperous classes, the spirit it evinces was doubtless general.
Turning next to the Roman family, the condition of woman is more
favorable, but her subordination the same.
She was treated with respect in Rome as in Athens, but in the Roman family
her influence and authority were greater. As mater familias she was
mistress of the family. She went into the streets freely without restraint on
the part of her husband, and frequented with the men the theaters and
festive banquets. In the house she was not confined to particular apartments,
neither was she excluded from the table of the men. The absence of the
worst restrictions placed upon Grecian females was favorable to the growth
of a sense of personal dignity and of independence among Roman women.
Plutarch remarks that after the peace with the Sabines, effected through the
intervention of the Sabine women, many honorable privileges were
conferred upon them; the men were to give them the way when they met on
the street; they were not to utter a vulgar word in the presence of females,
nor appear nude before them.487 Marriage, however, placed the wife in the
power of her husband (in manum viri); the notion that she must remain
under power following, by an apparent necessity, her emancipation by her
marriage from paternal power. The husband treated his wife as his daughter,
and not as his equal. Moreover, he had the power of correction, and of life
and death in case of adultery; but the exercise of this last power seems to
have been subject to the concurrence of the council of her gens.
Unlike other people, the Romans possessed three forms of marriage. All
alike placed the wife in the hand of her husband, and recognized as the
chief end of marriage the procreation of children in lawful wedlock
(liberorum querendorum causa).488 These forms (confarreatio, coëmptio,
and usus) lasted through the Republic, but fell out under the Empire, when a
fourth form, the free marriage, was generally adopted, because it did not
place the wife in the power of her husband. Divorce, from the earliest
period, was at the option of the parties, a characteristic of the syndyasmian
family, and transmitted probably from that source. They rarely occurred,
however, until near the close of the Republic.489
The licentiousness which prevailed in Grecian and Roman cities at the
height of civilization has generally been regarded as a lapse from a higher
and purer condition of virtue and morality. But the fact is capable of a
different, or at least of a modified explanation. They had never attained to a
pure morality in the intercourse of the sexes from which to decline.
Repressed or moderated in the midst of war and strife endangering the
national existence, the license revived with peace and prosperity, because
the moral elements of society had not risen against it for its extirpation.
This licentiousness was, in all probability, the remains of an ancient
conjugal system, never fully eradicated, which had followed down from
barbarism as a social taint, and now expressed its excesses in the new
channel of hetærism. If the Greeks and Romans had learned to respect the
equities of monogamy, instead of secluding their wives in the gynæconitis
in one case, and of holding them under power in the other, there is reason to
believe that society among them would have presented a very different
aspect. Since neither one nor the other had developed any higher morality,
they had but little occasion to mourn over a decay of public morals. The
substance of the explanation lies in the fact that neither recognized in its
integrity the principle of monogamy, which alone was able to place their
respective societies upon a moral basis. The premature destruction of the
ethnic life of these remarkable races is due in no small measure to their
failure to develop and utilize the mental, moral and conservative forces of
the female intellect, which were not less essential than their own
corresponding forces to their progress and preservation. After a long
protracted experience in barbarism, during which they won the remaining
elements of civilization, they perished politically, at the end of a brief
career, seemingly from the exhilaration of the new life they had created.
Among the Hebrews, whilst the patriarchal family in the early period was
common with the chiefs, the monogamian, into which the patriarchal soon
subsided, was common among the people. But with respect to the
constitution of the latter, and the relations of husband and wife in the
family, the details are scanty.
Without seeking to multiply illustrations, it is plain that the monogamian
family had grown into the form in which it appeared, at the commencement
of the historical period, from a lower type; and that during the classical
period it advanced sensibly, though without attaining its highest form. It
evidently sprang from a previous syndyasmian family as its immediate
germ; and while improving with human progress it fell short of its true ideal
in the classical period. Its highest known perfection, at least, was not
attained until modern times. The portraiture of society in the Upper Status
of barbarism by the early writers implies the general practice of monogamy,
but with attending circumstances indicating that it was the monogamian
family of the future struggling into existence under adverse influences,
feeble in vitality, rights and immunities, and still environed with the
remains of an ancient conjugal system.
As the Malayan system expressed the relationships that existed in the
consanguine family, and as the Turanian expressed those which existed in
the punaluan, so the Aryan expressed those which existed in the
monogamian; each family resting upon a different and distinct form of
marriage.
It cannot be shown absolutely, in the present state of our knowledge, that
the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian families of mankind formerly possessed the
Turanian system of consanguinity, and that it fell into desuetude under
monogamy. Such, however, would be the presumption from the body of
ascertained facts. All the evidence points in this direction so decisively as to
exclude any other hypothesis. Firstly. The organization into gentes had a
natural origin in the punaluan family, where a group of sisters married to
each other’s husbands furnished, with their children and descendants in the
female line, the exact circumscription as well as the body of a gens in its
archaic form. The principal branches of the Aryan family were organized in
gentes when first known historically, sustaining the inference that, when
one undivided people, they were thus organized. From this fact the further
presumption arises that they derived the organization through a remote
ancestry who lived in that same punaluan condition which gave birth to this
remarkable and wide-spread institution. Besides this, the Turanian system
of consanguinity is still found connected with the gens in its archaic form
among the American aborigines. This natural connection would remain
unbroken until a change of social condition occurred, such as monogamy
would produce, having power to work its overthrow. Secondly. In the Aryan
system of consanguinity there is some evidence pointing to the same
conclusion. It may well be supposed that a large portion of the
nomenclature of the Turanian system would fall out under monogamy, if
this system had previously prevailed among the Aryan nations. The
application of its terms to categories of persons, whose relationships would
now be discriminated from each other, would compel their abandonment. It
is impossible to explain the impoverished condition of the original
nomenclature of the Aryan system except on this hypothesis. All there was
of it common to the several Aryan dialects are the terms for father and
mother, brother and sister, and son and daughter; and a common term (San.,
naptar; Lat., nepos; Gr., ἀνεψίος;) applied indiscriminately to nephew,
grandson, and cousin. They could never have attained to the advanced
condition implied by monogamy with such a scanty nomenclature of blood
relationships. But with a previous system, analogous to the Turanian, this
impoverishment can be explained. The terms for brother and sister were
now in the abstract, and new creations, because these relationships under
the Turanian system were conceived universally as elder and younger; and
the several terms were applied to categories of persons, including persons
not own brothers and sisters. In the Aryan system this distinction is laid
aside, and for the first time these relationships were conceived in the
abstract. Under monogamy the old terms were inapplicable because they
were applied to collaterals. Remains of a prior Turanian system, however,
still appear in the system of the Uralian family, as among the Hungarians,
where brothers and sisters are classified into elder and younger by special
terms. In French, also, besides frère, and sœur, we find aîné, elder brother,
pûné and cadet, younger brother, and aînée and cadette, elder and younger
sister. So also in Sanskrit we find agrajar, and amujar, and agrajri, and
amujri for the same relationships; but whether the latter are from Sanskrit
or aboriginal sources, I am unable to state. In the Aryan dialects the terms
for brother and sister are the same words dialectically changed, the Greek
having substituted ἀδελφός for φράτηρ. If common terms once existed in
these dialects for elder and younger brother and sister, their previous
application to categories of persons would render them inapplicable, as an
exclusive distinction, to own brothers and sisters. The falling out from the
Aryan system of this striking and beautiful feature of the Turanian requires
a strong motive for its occurrence, which the previous existence and
abandonment of the Turanian system would explain. It would be difficult to
find any other. It is not supposable that the Aryan nations were without a
term for grandfather in the original speech, a relationship recognized
universally among savage and barbarous tribes; and yet there is no common
term for this relationship in the Aryan dialects. In Sanskrit we have
pitameha, in Greek πάππος, in Latin avus, in Russian djed, in Welsh
hendad, which last is a compound like the German grossvader and the
English grandfather. These terms are radically different. But with a term
under a previous system, which was applied not only to the grandfather
proper, his brothers, and his several male cousins, but also to the brothers
and several male cousins of his grandmother, it could not be made to signify
a lineal grandfather and progenitor under monogamy. Its abandonment
would be apt to occur in course of time. The absence of a term for this
relationship in the original speech seems to find in this manner a sufficient
explanation. Lastly. There is no term for uncle and aunt in the abstract, and
no special terms for uncle and aunt on the father’s side and on the mother’s
side running through the Aryan dialects. We find pitroya, πάτρως, and
patruus for paternal uncle in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin; stryc in Slavonic
for the same, and a common term, eam, oom, and oheim in Anglo-Saxon,
Belgian, and German, and none in the Celtic. It is equally inconceivable
that there was no term in the original Aryan speech for maternal uncle, a
relationship made so conspicuous by the gens among barbarous tribes. If
their previous system was Turanian, there was necessarily a term for this
uncle, but restricted to the own brothers of the mother, and to her several
male cousins. Its application to such a number of persons in a category,
many of whom could not be uncles under monogamy, would, for the
reasons stated, compel its abandonment. It is evident that a previous system
of some kind must have given place to the Aryan.
Assuming that the nations of the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian families
formerly possessed the Turanian system of consanguinity, the transition
from it to a descriptive system was simple and natural, after the old system,
through monogamy, had become untrue to descents as they would then
exist. Every relationship under monogamy is specific. The new system,
formed under such circumstances, would describe the persons by means of
the primary terms or a combination of them: as brother’s son for nephew,
father’s brother for uncle, and father’s brother’s son for cousin. Such was
the original of the present system of the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian
families. The generalizations they now contain were of later introduction.
All the tribes possessing the Turanian system describe their kindred by the
same formula, when asked in what manner one person was related to
another. A descriptive system precisely like the Aryan always existed both
with the Turanian and the Malayan, not as a system of consanguinity, for
they had a permanent system, but as a means of tracing relationships. It is
plain from the impoverished conditions of their nomenclatures that the
Aryan, Semitic and Uralian nations must have rejected a prior system of
consanguinity of some kind. The conclusion, therefore, is reasonable that
when the monogamian family became generally established these nations
fell back upon the old descriptive form, always in use under the Turanian
system, and allowed the previous one to die out as useless and untrue to
descents. This would be the natural and obvious mode of transition from the
Turanian into the Aryan system; and it explains, in a satisfactory manner,
the origin as well as peculiar character of the latter.
In order to complete the exposition of the monogamian family in its
relations to the Aryan system of consanguinity, it will be necessary to
present this system somewhat in detail, as has been done in the two
previous cases.
A comparison of its forms in the several Aryan dialects shows that the
original of the present system was purely descriptive.490 The Erse, which is
the typical Aryan form, and the Esthonian, which is the typical Uralian, are
still descriptive. In the Erse the only terms for the blood relationships are
the primary, namely, those for father and mother, brother and sister, and son
and daughter. All the remaining kindred are described by means of these
terms, but commencing in the reverse order: thus brother, son of brother,
and son of son of brother. The Aryan system exhibits the actual
relationships under monogamy, and assumes that the paternity of children is
known.
In course of time a method of description, materially different from the
Celtic, was engrafted upon the new system; but without changing its radical
features. It was introduced by the Roman civilians to perfect the framework
of a code of descents, to the necessity for which we are indebted for its
existence. Their improved method has been adopted by the several Aryan
nations among whom the Roman influence extended. The Slavonic system
has some features entirely peculiar and evidently of Turanian origin.491 To
obtain a knowledge historically of our present system it is necessary to
resort to the Roman, as perfected by the civilians.492 The additions were
slight, but they changed the method of describing kindred. They consisted
chiefly, as elsewhere stated, in distinguishing the relationships of uncle and
aunt on the father’s side from those on the mother’s side, with the invention
of terms to express these relationships in the concrete; and in creating a
term for grandfather to be used as the correlative of nepos. With these terms
and the primary, in connection with suitable augments, they were enabled to
systematize the relationships in the lineal and in the first five collateral
lines, which included the body of the kindred of every individual. The
Roman is the most perfect and scientific system of consanguinity under
monogamy which has yet appeared; and it has been made more attractive
by the invention of an unusual number of terms to express the marriage
relationships. From it we may learn our own system, which has adopted its
improvements, better than from the Anglo-Saxon or Celtic. In a table, at the
end of this chapter, the Latin and Arabic forms are placed side by side, as
representatives, respectively, of the Aryan and Semitic systems. The Arabic
seems to have passed through processes similar to the Roman, and with
similar results. The Roman only will be explained.
From Ego to tritavus, in the lineal line, are six generations of ascendants,
and from the same to trinepos are the same number of descendants, in the
description of which but four radical terms are used. If it were desirable to
ascend above the sixth ancestor, tritavus would become a new starting-point
of description; thus, tritavi pater, the father of tritavus, and so upward to
tritavi tritavus, who is the twelfth ancestor of Ego in the lineal right line,
male. In our rude nomenclature the phrase grandfather’s grandfather must
be repeated six times to express the same relationship, or rather to describe
the same person. In like manner trinepotis trinepos carries us to the twelfth
descendant of Ego in the right lineal male line.
The first collateral line, male, which commences with brother, frater, runs
as follows: Fratris filius, son of brother, fratris nepos, grandson of brother,
fratris pronepos, great-grandson of brother, and on to fratris trinepos, the
great-grandson of the great-grandson of the brother of Ego. If it were
necessary to extend the description to the twelfth descendant, fratris
trinepos would become a second starting-point, from which we should have
fratris trinepotis trinepos, as the end of the series. By this simple method
frater is made the root of descent in this line, and every person belonging to
it is referred to him by the force of this term in the description; and we
know at once that each person thus described belongs to the first collateral
line, male. It is therefore specific and complete. In like manner, the same
line, female, commences with sister, soror, giving for the series, sororis
filia, sister’s daughter, sororis neptis, sister’s granddaughter, sororis
proneptis, sister’s great-granddaughter, and on to sororis trineptis, her sixth
descendant, and to sororis trineptis trineptis, her twelfth descendant. While
the two branches of the first collateral line originate, in strictness, in the
father, pater, the common bond of connection between them, yet, by
making the brother and sister the root of descent in the description, not only
the line but its two branches are maintained distinct, and the relationship of
each person to Ego is specialized. This is one of the chief excellences of the
system, for it is carried into all the lines, as a purely scientific method of
distinguishing and describing kindred.
The second collateral line, male, on the father’s side, commences with
father’s brother, patruus, and is composed of him and his descendants. Each
person, by the terms used to describe him, is referred with entire precision
to his proper position in the line, and his relationship is indicated
specifically; thus, patrui filius, son of paternal uncle, patrui nepos,
grandson of, and patrui pronepos, great-grandson of paternal uncle, and on
to patrui trinepos, the sixth descendant of patruus. If it became necessary to
extend this line to the twelfth generation we should have, after passing
through the intermediate degrees, patrui trinepotis trinepos, who is the
great-grandson of the great-grandson of patrui trinepos, the great-grandson
of the great-grandson of patruus. It will be observed that the term for cousin
is rejected in the formal method used in the Pandects. He is described as
patrui filius, but he was also called a brother patrual, frater patruelis, and
among the people at large by the common term consobrinus, from which
our term cousin is derived.493 The second collateral line, female, on the
father’s side, commences with father’s sister, amita, paternal aunt; and her
descendants are described according to the same general plan; thus, amitæ
filia, paternal aunt’s daughter, amitæ neptis, paternal aunt’s granddaughter,
and on to amitæ trineptis, and to amitæ trineptis trineptis. In this branch of
the line the special term for this cousin, amitina, is also set aside for the
descriptive phrase amitæ filia.
In like manner the third collateral line, male, on the father’s side
commences with grandfather’s brother, who is styled patruus magnus, or
great paternal uncle. At this point in the nomenclature, special terms fail,
and compounds are resorted to, although the relationship itself is in the
concrete. It is evident that this relationship was not discriminated until a
comparatively modern period. No existing language, so far as the inquiry
has been extended, possesses an original term for this relationship, although
without it this line cannot be described except by the Celtic method. If he
were called simply grandfather’s brother, the phrase would describe a
person, leaving the relationship to implication; but if he is styled a great-
uncle, it expresses a relationship in the concrete. With the first person in this
branch of the line thus made definite, all of his descendants are referred to
him, by the form of the description, as the root of descent; and the line, the
side, the particular branch, and the degree of the relationship of each person
are at once fully expressed. This line also may be extended to the twelfth
descendant, which would give for the series patrui magni filius, son of the
paternal great-uncle, patrui magni nepos, and on to patrui magni trinepos,
and ending with patrui magni trinepotis trinepos. The same line, female,
commences with grandfather’s sister, amita magna, great paternal aunt; and
her descendants are similarly described.
The fourth and fifth collateral lines, male, on the father’s side, commence,
respectively, with great-grandfather’s brother, who is styled patruus major,
greater paternal uncle, and with great-great-grandfather’s brother, patruus
maximus, greatest paternal uncle. In extending the series we have in the
fourth patrui majoris filius, and on to patrui majoris trinepos; and in the
fifth patrui maximi filius, and on to patrui maximi trinepos. The female
branches commence, respectively, with amita major, greater, and amita
maxima, greatest paternal aunt; and the description of persons in each
follows in the same order.
Thus far the lines have been on the father’s side only. The necessity for
independent terms for uncle and aunt on the mother’s side to complete the
Roman method of description is now apparent; the relatives on the mother’s
side being equally numerous, and entirely distinct. These terms were found
in avunculus, maternal uncle, and matertera, maternal aunt. In describing
the relatives on the mother’s side, the lineal female line is substituted for the
male, but the first collateral line remains the same. In the second collateral
line, male, on the mother’s side, we have for the series avunculus, maternal
uncle, avunculi filius, avunculi nepos, and on to avunculi trinepos, and
ending with avunculi trinepotis trinepos. In the female branch, matertera,
maternal aunt, materteræ filia, and on as before. The third collateral line,
male and female, commence, respectively, with avunculus magnus, and
matertera magna, great maternal uncle, and aunt; the fourth with avunculus
major, and matertera major, greater maternal uncle, and aunt; and the fifth
with avunculus maximus, and matertera maxima, greatest maternal uncle,
and aunt. The descriptions of persons in each line and branch are in form
corresponding with those previously given.
Since the first five collateral lines embrace as wide a circle of kindred as it
was necessary to include for the practical objects of a code of descents, the
ordinary formula of the Roman civilians did not extend beyond this number.
In terms for the marriage relationships, the Latin language is remarkably
opulent, whilst our mother English betrays its poverty by the use of such
unseemly phrases as father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, step-father,
and step-son, to express some twenty very common, and very near
relationships, nearly all of which are provided with special terms in the
Latin nomenclature.
It will not be necessary to pursue further the details of the Roman system of
consanguinity. The principal and most important of its features have been
presented, and in a manner sufficiently special to render the whole
intelligible. For simplicity of method, felicity of description, distinctness of
arrangement by lines and branches, and beauty of nomenclature, it is
incomparable. It stands in its method pre-eminently at the head of all the
systems of relationship ever perfected by man, and furnishes one of many
illustrations that to whatever the Roman mind had occasion to give organic
form, it placed once for all upon a solid foundation.
No reference has been made to the details of the Arabic system; but, as the
two forms are given in the Table, the explanation made of one will suffice
for the other, to which it is equally applicable.
With its additional special terms, and its perfected method, consanguinei are
assumed to be connected, in virtue of their descent, through married pairs,
from common ancestors. They arrange themselves in a lineal and several
collateral lines; and the latter are perpetually divergent from the former.
These are necessary consequences of monogamy. The relationship of each
person to the central Ego is accurately defined and, except as to those who
stand in an identical relationship, is kept distinct from every other by means
of a special term or descriptive phrase. It also implies the certainty of the
parentage of every individual, which monogamy alone could assure.
Moreover, it describes the relationships in the monogamian family as they
actually exist. Nothing can be plainer than that this form of marriage made
this form of the family, and that the latter created this system of
consanguinity. The three are necessary parts of a whole where the
descriptive system is exclusive. What we know by direct observation to be
true with respect to the monogamian family, its law of marriage and its
system of consanguinity, has been shown to be equally true with respect to
the punaluan family, its law of marriage and its system of consanguinity;
and not less so of the consanguine family, its form of marriage and its
system of consanguinity. Any of these three parts being given, the existence
of the other two with it, at some one time, may be deduced with certainty. If
any difference could be made in favor of the superior materiality of any one
of the three, the preference would belong to systems of consanguinity. They
have crystallized the evidence declaring the marriage law and the form of
the family in the relationship of every individual person; thus preserving not
only the highest evidence of the fact, but as many concurring declarations
thereto as there are members united by the bond of consanguinity. It
furnishes a test of the high rank of a domestic institution, which must be
supposed incapable of design to pervert the truth, and which, therefore, may
be trusted implicitly as to whatever it necessarily teaches. Finally, it is with
respect to systems of consanguinity that our information is most complete.
The five successive forms of the family, mentioned at the outset, have now been presented and explained,
with such evidence of their existence, and such particulars of their structure as our present knowledge
furnishes. Although the treatment of each has been general, it has touched the essential facts and attributes,
and established the main proposition, that the family commenced in the consanguine, and grew, through
successive stages of development, into the monogamian. There is nothing in this general conclusion which
might not have been anticipated from à priori considerations; but the difficulties and the hindrances which
obstructed its growth are seen to have been far greater than would have been supposed. As a growth with the
ages of time, it has shared in all the vicissitudes of human experience, and now reveals more expressively,
perhaps, than any other institution, the graduated scale of human progress from the abyss of primitive
savagery, through barbarism, to civilization. It brings us near to the daily life of the human family in the
different epochs of its progressive development, indicating, in some measure, its hardships, its struggles and
also its victories, when different periods are contrasted. We should value the great institution of the family, as
it now exists, in some proportion to the expenditure of time and of intelligence in its production; and receive
it as the richest legacy transmitted to us by ancient society, because it embodies and records the highest
results of its varied and prolonged experience.
When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the
question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given
is, that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It
is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved
greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable
that it is capable of still farther improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the
monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society, assuming the continuous
progress of civilization, it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.
[Pg 493]
[Pg 497]

Roman and Arabic System of Relationship.

Transcriber's Note: Abbreviations: fa=father, mo=mother, GF=Grandfather, GM=Grandmother,
GD=Granddaughter, GS=Grandson, bro=Brother, str=sister, gt=great, dau=daughter. End of Transcriber's
Note.
Relationship Relationship
Description of Persons. Translation Translation
in Latin. in Arabic.
1 gt-GF's gt-GF tritavus gt-GF's gt-GF jidd jidd jiddi GF of GF of GF my

"

" "

2 atavu jidd jidd abi

GF
" "

GF

"

fa my
 3 abavus gt-gt-GF jidd jiddi
" "

" "

fa GF my

"

4 abavia sitt sitti GM of GM my

GM
"

mo
5 gt-GF proavus gt-GF jidd abi GF of fa my
GM

"

"
6 proavia sitt abi
"
GM
GM

"

7 GF avus GF jidd GF my
GM

8 GM avia GM sitti
"

9 fa pater fa abi fa my
mo

10 mo mater mo ummi
"

son

11 son filius son ibni

"

12 dau filia dau ibneti b, binti dau

"
13 GS nepos GS ibn ibni son of son my
14 GD neptis GD ibnet ibni dau of son my
15 gt-GS pronepos gt-GS ibn ibn ibni son of son of son my

" "
16 proneptis bint bint binti dau of dau of dau my

GM GD

"
17 gt-GS's son abnepos ibn ibn ibn ibni son of son of son of son my

gt-GS

" "

18 abneptis bint bint bint binti dau of dau of dau of dau my

" "

dau GD

"

19 atnepos gt-GS's GS ibn ibn ibn ibn ibni son of son of son of son of son my

"

GS

" "

20 atneptis bint bint bint bint binti dau of dau of dau of dau of dau my

" "

GD GD

" "

21 trinepos ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibni son of son of son of son of son of son my

" "

gt-GS gt-GS
22 trinepos ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibni dau of dau of dau of dau of dau of dau my

" "
 " "

" "

GD GD
23 bros fratres bros ahwati bros my
strs

24 strs sorores strs ahwati

"

bro

25 bro frater bro akhi

"

(First Collateral Line)

26 bro's son fratris filius son of bro ibn akhi son of bro my

"
27 fratris filii uxor wife of son of bro amrat ibn akhi wife of son of bro my

son's wife

"
28 fratris filia dau of bro bint akhi dau of bro my

dau

"
29 fratris filiae vir husb of dau of bro zoj bint akhi husb of dau of bro my

dau's husb

"
30 fratris nepos GS of bro ibn ibn akhi son of son of bro my

GS

" " "

31 GD bint ibn akhi dau of son of bro my

GD neptis "

" " "

32 gt-GS ibn ibn ibn akhi son of son of son of bro my

gt-GS pronepos "

33 fratris proneptis gt-GD bint bint bint akhi dau of dau of dau of bro my
 " "

"

"

GD
34 str soror str akhti str my
35 str's son sororis filius son of str ibn akhti son of str my

"
36 sororis filii uxor wife of son of str amrât ibn akhti wife of son of str my

son's wife

" "
37 dau of str bint akhti dau of str my

son's dau filia

" "
38 husb of dau of str zoj bint akhti husb of dau of str my

dau's husb filiae vir

" "
39 str's GS ibn akhti son of str my

GS nepos

" " "

40 bint akhti dau of str my

GD neptis GD

" " "

41 ibn ibn akhti son of son of str my

gt-GS pronepos gt-GS

" "
42 bint bint akhti dau of dau of str my
proneptis
gt-GD GD
(Second Collateral Line)
43 fa's bro patruus pat uncle ammi pat uncle my

" pat
44 patrui uxor wife of amrât ammi wife of pat uncle my
uncle

bro's wife
45 son of ibn ammi son of
 " " " "

filius

" " "

son

"

"

"
"

"
46 wife of son of amrâtibn ammi wife of son of "

"
filii uxor "

son's wife "

"

"
"

"
47 dau of bint ammi dau of of "

"
filia "

dau "

"

"
"

"
48 husb of dau of zôj bint ammi husb of dau of "

"
filiae vir "

dau's husb "

49 GS of of ibn bint ammi son of son of

" " " "

 nepos

" " "

GS

"

"

"
"

"
50 GD of bint bint ammi dau of dau of "

"
neptis "

GD "

"

"
"

"
51 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn ammi son of son of son of "

"
pronepos "

gt-GS "

"

"
"

"
52 gt-GD of bint bint bint ammi dau of dau of dau of "

"
proneptis "

gt-GD "

53 fa's str amita pat aunt ammeti pat aunt my

"
54 amitae vir husb of pat aunt arât ammeti husb of pat aunt my

str's husb
55 son of ibn ammeti son of
" " " "

filius

" " "

son

"

"

"
"

"
56 wife of son of amrât ibn ammeti wife of son of "

"
filii uxor "

son's wife "

"

"
"

"
57 dau of bint ammeti dau of "

"
filia "

dau "

"

"
"

"
58 husb of dau of zôj bint ammeti husb of dau of "

"
filiae vir "

dau's husb "

59 GS of ibn ibn ammeti GS of

" " " "

 nepos

" " "

GS

"

"

"
"

"
60 GD of bint bint ammeti dau of dau of "

"
neptis "

GD "

"

"
"

"
61 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn ammeti son of son of son of "

"
pronepos "

gt-GS "

"

"
"

"
62 bint bint bint ammeti dau of dau of dau of "
GD of
"
proneptis "

gt-GD "

63 mo's bro avunculus mat uncle khâli mat uncle my

" mat
64 avunculi uxor wife of amrat khâli wife of mat uncle my
uncle

bro's wife
65 son of ibn khâli son of
" " " "

filius

" " "

son

"

"

"
"

"
66 wife of son of amrat ibn khâli wife of son of "

"
filii uxor "

son's wife "

"

"
"

"
67 dau of bint khâli dau of "

"
filia "

dau "

"

"
"

"
68 husb of dau of zôj bint khâli husb of dau of "

"
filiae vir "

dau's husb "

69 GS of ibn ibn khâli son of son of

" " " "

 nepos

" " "

GS

"

"

"
"

"
70 GD of bint bint khâli dau of dau of "

"
neptis "

GD "

"

"
"

"
71 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn khâli son of son of son of "

"
pronepos "

gt-GS "

"

"
"

"
72 gt-GD of bint bint bint khâli dau of dau of dau of "

"
proneptis "

gt-GD "

73 mo's str matertera mat aunt khâleti mat aunt my

" mat
74 materterae vir husb of zôj khâleti husb of mat aunt my
aunt

str's husb
75 son of ibn khâleti son of
" " " "

filius

" " "

son

"

"

"
"

"
76 wife of son of amrât ibn khâleti wife of son of "

"
filii uxor "

son's wife "

"

"
"

"
77 dau of bint khâleti dau of "

"
filia "

dau "

"

"
"

"
78 husb of dau of zôj bint khâleti husb of dau of "

"
filiae vir "

dau's husb "

79 GS of ibn ibn khâleti son of son of

" " " "

 nepos

" " "

GS

"

"

"
"

"
80 GD of bint bint khâleti dau of dau of "

"
neptis "

GD "

"

"
"

"
81 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn khâleti son of son of son of "

"
pronepos "

gt-GS "

"

"
"

"
82 gt-GD of bint bint bint khâleti dau of dau of dau of "

"
proneptis "

gt-GD "

(Third Collateral Line).

83 fa's fa's bro patruus magnus gt pat uncle amm ăbi pat uncle of fa my
84 patrui magni son of gt pat ibn ammi ăbi son of pat uncle of fa my
filius uncle
"
 "

bro's son

"

"
"
"
"

"
"
85 GS of ibn ibn ammi ăbi son of son of "

"

"
"
nepos "

GS

"

"

"
"
"
"

"
"
86 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn ammi ăbi son of son of son of "

"

"
"
pronepos "

gt-GS

"

87 amita magna gt pat aunt ammet ăbi pat aunt of fa my

"

"
 str

"

amitae magnae gt pat

88 dau of bint ammet ăbi dau of pat aunt of fa my
filia aunt

"

str's dau

"

"
"

"

"
89 GD of bint bint ammet ăbi dau of dau of "

"

"
neptis "

GD

"

"

"
" "

"

"
90 gt-GD of " bint bint bint ammet ăbi dau of dau of dau of "

"

"
proneptis " "

gt-GD

"
91 mo's mo's bro avunculus gt mat uncle khâl ŭmmi mat uncle of mo my
magnus

"

avunculi magni gt mat

92 son of ibn khâl ŭmmi son of mat uncle of mo my
filius uncle

"

bro's son

"
"

"
" "
"
93 GS of ibn ibn khâl ŭmmi son of son of "
" "

"
nepos "
"
"

GS

"
"

"
" "
"
94 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn khâl ŭmmi son of son of son of "
" "

"
pronepos "
"
"

gt-GS

"

matertera
95 gt mat aunt khâlet ŭmmi mat aunt of mo my
magna

"

str
96 materterae dau of gt mat bint khâlet ŭmmi dau of mat aunt of mo my
magnae filia aunt
"
 "

str's dau

"
"

"
" "
"
97 GD of bint bint khâlet ŭmmi dau of dau of "
" "

"
neptis "
"
"

GD

"
"

"
" "
"
98 gt-GD of bint bint bint khâlet ŭmmi dau of dau of dau of "
" "

"
proneptis "
"
"

gt-GD
(Fourth Collateral Line).
99 fa's fa's fa's bro patruus major pat gt-gt-uncle amm jiddi pat uncle of GF my

"

pat gt-
" patrui majoris
100 son of gt- ibn amm jiddi son of pat uncle of GF my
filius
uncle

"

bro's son
101 GS of ibn ibn amm jiddi son of son of

" nepos " "

" "

"
" "
 "
" "

GS

"

"

"

"
"

"
"

"
102 " gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn amm jiddi son of son of son of "
pronepos
"

" "
"

gt-GS

"

"

"
103 amita major pat gt-gt aunt ammet jiddi pat aunt of GF my

"

str

"

" amitae majoris pat gt-

104 dau of bint ammet jiddi dau of pat aunt of GF my
filia gt-aunt

"

str's dau
105 GD of bint bint ammet jiddi dau of dau of
" " " "

" " " "

" neptis " "

str's GD " "

"

"
" "
" "
" "
106 gt-GD of bint bint bint ammet jiddi dau of dau of dau of
" "
" "
proneptis "
str's gt-GD "
"
avunculus
107 mo's mo's mo's bro mat gt-gt uncle khâl sitti mat uncle of GM my
major

"

" avunculi mat gt-

108 son of ibn khâl sitti son of mat uncle of GM my
majoris filius gt uncle

"

bro's son

"
"
"
"
" "
"
109 GS of ibn ibn khâl sitti son of son of "
" "
"
"
" nepos
"
"
GS

110 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn khâl sitti son of son of son of

" " " "

 " " " "

" pronepos " "

" " "

gt-GS "

"

"
111 matertera major mat gt-gt aunt khâlet sitti mat aunt of GM my

"

str

"

" materterae mat gt-

112 dau of bint khâlet sitti dau of mat aunt of GM my
majoris filia gt aunt

"

str's dau

"

"
"
"
"
113 GD of bint bint khâlet sitti dau of dau of "
"
"
"
neptis
str's GD
"

114 gt-GD of bint bint bint khâlet sitti dau of dau of dau of

" " "

" " "

" proneptis "

 str's gt-GD "

"

(Fifth Collateral Line).

patruus
115 fa's fa's fa's fa's bro pat gt-gt-uncle amm jidd ăbi pat uncle of GF of fa my
maximus

"

"
pat gt-
patrui maximi
116 son of gt- ibn amm jidd ăbi son of pat uncle of GF of fa my
filius
" uncle

"

bro's son

"

" "
"

" " "

"
117 GS of ibn ibn amm jidd ăbi son of son of
" " "
"

" nepos "

"

GS "

"
118 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn amm jidd ăbi son of son of son of

" " " "

" " " "

" pronepos " "

" " "

gt-GS "

"
 "

"

"

119 amita maxima pat gt-gt-gt-aunt ammet jidd ăbi pat aunt of GF of fa my
"

"

str

"

"
pat gt-
amitae
120 dau of gt-gt- bint ammet jidd ăbi dau of pat aunt of GF of fa my
maximae filia
" aunt

"

str's dau

"

"
" "

"
" " "

121 GD of " bint bint ammet jidd ăbi dau of dau of

" " "

"
" neptis "

"
str's GD "

"
122 gt-GD of bint bint bint ammet jidd dau of dau of dau of
ăbi
" " " "

" " " "

" proneptis " "

 " " "

str's gt-GD " "

"

"
avunculus
123 mo's mo's mo's mo's bro mat gt-gt-gt-uncle khâl sitt ŭmmi mat uncle of GM of mo my
maximus

"

"
mat gt-
avunculi
124 son of gt-gt- ibn khâl sitt ŭmmi son of mat uncle of GM of mo my
maximi filius
" uncle

"

bro's son

"

" "
"

" "
" "

125 GS of " ibn ibn khâl sitt ŭmmi son of son of "
" "

" "
" nepos

" "
bro's GS

"

126 gt-GS of ibn ibn ibn khâl sitt ŭmmi son of son of son of

" " " "

" " " "

" pronepos " "

" " "

 bro's gt-GS " "

"

"

"

"
matertera
127 mat gt-gt-gt-aunt khâlet sitt ŭmmi mat aunt of GM of mo my
maxima
"

"

str

"

"
mat gt-
materterae
128 dau of gt-gt- bint khâlet sitt ŭmmi dau of mat aunt of GM of mo my
maximae filia
" aunt

"

str's dau

"

" "
"

" "
" "

129 GD of " bint bint khâlet sitt ŭmmi dau of dau of "
" "

" "
" neptis

" "
str's GD

"

130 gt-GD bint bint bint khâlet sitt dau of dau of dau of
ŭmmi
 " " " "

" " " "

" proneptis " "

" " "

str's gt-GD " "

"

"

(Marriage
Relationships).
131 husband vir b, maritus husband zoji husband my
132 husband's father socer father-in-law ammi uncle my

"
133 socrus mother-in-law amrât ammi wife of uncle my

mother

"
134 socer magnus great father-in-law jidd zoji grandfather of husband my

grandfather
grandmother

"

"
135 socrus magnus sitt zoji
"
mother-in-law
grandmother
"

136 wife uxor b, marita wife amrâti wife

137 wife's father socer father-in-law ammi uncle my

"
138 socrus mother-in-law amrât ammi wife of uncle my

mother

"
139 socer magnus gt father-in-law jidd amrâti GF of wife my

GF
140 socrus magnus gt mo-in-law sitt amrâti GM
"

"
GM

"

"

141 step-father vitricus step-father ammi uncle my

" "
142 noverca khâleti aunt my

mother mother

" " "

143 privignus karŭti

son son son my

" " "

144 privigna karŭti

daughter daughter daughter my

145 son-in-law gener son-in-law khatan b, saha son-in-law
146 daughter-in-law nurus daughter-in-law kinnet daughter-in-law
bro-in-law (husb's
147 lever bro-in-law ibn ămmi son of uncle my
bro'r)

"

"
148 maritus sororis bro-in-law zôj akhti husb of str my

"

(str's husb)

"

"
149 uxoris frater bro of wife ibn ămmi son of uncle my

"

(wife's bro)
150 str-in-law (wife's str) uxoris soror str of wife bint ămmi dau of uncle my
151 gloss str-in-law bint ămmi

" "
 " "

" "

(husb's str) "

"

"
152 fratria str-in-law amrât akhi wife of bro my

"

(bro's wife)
153 widow vidua widow armelet widow
154 widower viduus widower armel widower
155 relations by fa's side agnati agnates
156 relations by mo's side cognati cognati
157 relations by marriage affines marriage relations

CHAPTER VI. - SEQUENCE OF INSTITUTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE FAMILY.

S H .—R I O O .—E O
O .—H D .—T A M .

It remains to place in their relations the customs and institutions which have contributed to the growth of the
family through successive forms. Their articulation in a sequence is in part hypothetical; but there is an
intimate and undoubted connection between them.
This sequence embodies the principal social and domestic institutions which have influenced the growth of
the family from the consanguine to the monogamian.494 They are to be understood as originating in the
several branches of the human family substantially in the order named, and as existing generally in these
branches while in the corresponding status.

First Stage of Sequence.

I. Promiscuous Intercourse.
II. Intermarriage of Brothers and Sisters, own and collateral, in a Group: Giving,—
III. The Consanguine Family. (First Stage of the Family): Giving,—
IV. The Malayan System of Consanguinity and Affinity.
Second Stage of Sequence.
V. The Organization upon the basis of Sex, and the Punaluan Custom, tending to check the intermarriage
of brothers and sisters: Giving,—
VI. The Punaluan Family. (Second Stage of the Family): Giving,—
VII. The Organization into Gentes, which excluded brothers and sisters from the marriage relation:
Giving,—
VIII. The Turanian and Ganowánian System of Consanguinity and Affinity.
Third Stage of Sequence.
IX. Increasing Influence of Gentile Organisation and improvement in the arts of life, advancing a portion
 of mankind into the Lower Status of barbarism: Giving,—
X. Marriage between Single Pairs, but without an exclusive cohabitation: Giving,—
XI. The Syndyasmian Family. (Third Stage of the Family.)
Fourth Stage of Sequence.
XII. Pastoral life on the plains in limited areas: Giving,—
XIII. The Patriarchal Family. (Fourth, but exceptional Stage of the Family.)
Fifth Stage of Sequence.
XIV. Rise of Property, and settlement of lineal succession to estates: Giving,—
XV. The Monogamian Family. (Fifth Stage of the Family): Giving—
XVI. The Aryan, Semitic and Uralian system of Consanguinity and Affinity; and causing the overthrow of
the Turanian.

A few observations upon the foregoing sequence of customs and institutions, for the purpose of tracing their
connection and relations, will close this discussion of the growth of the family.
Like the successive geological formations, the tribes of mankind may be arranged, according to their relative
conditions, into successive strata. When thus arranged, they reveal with some degree of certainty the entire
range of human progress from savagery to civilization. A thorough study of each successive stratum will
develop whatever is special in its culture and characteristics, and yield a definite conception of the whole, in
their differences and in their relations. When this has been accomplished, the successive stages of human
progress will be definitely understood. Time has been an important factor in the formation of these strata;
and it must be measured out to each ethnical period in no stinted measure. Each period anterior to
civilization necessarily represents many thousands of years.
Promiscuous Intercourse.—This expresses the lowest conceivable stage of savagery—it represents the
bottom of the scale. Man in this condition could scarcely be distinguished from the mute animals by whom
he was surrounded. Ignorant of marriage, and living probably in a horde, he was not only a savage, but
possessed a feeble intellect and a feebler moral sense. His hope of elevation rested in the vigor of his
passions, for he seems always to have been courageous; in the possession of hands physically liberated, and
in the improvable character of his nascent mental and moral powers. In corroboration of this view, the
lessening volume of the skull and its increasing animal characteristics, as we recede from civilized to savage
man, deliver some testimony concerning the necessary inferiority of primitive man. Were it possible to reach
this earliest representative of the species, we must descend very far below the lowest savage now living upon
the earth. The ruder flint implements found over parts of the earth’s surface, and not used by existing
savages, attest the extreme rudeness of his condition after he had emerged from his primitive habitat, and
commenced, as a fisherman, his spread over continental areas. It is with respect to this primitive savage, and
with respect to him alone, that promiscuity may be inferred.
It will be asked whether any evidence exists of this antecedent condition. As an answer, it may be remarked
that the consanguine family and the Malayan system of consanguinity presuppose antecedent promiscuity. It
was limited, not unlikely, to the period when mankind were frugivorous and within their primitive habitat,
since its continuance would have been improbable after they became fishermen and commenced their spread
over the earth in dependence upon food artificially acquired. Consanguine groups would then form, with
intermarriage in the group as a necessity, resulting in the formation of consanguine families. At all events,
the oldest form of society which meets us in the past through deduction from systems of consanguinity is this
family. It would be in the nature of a compact on the part of several males for the joint subsistence of the
group, and for the defense of their common wives against the violence of society. In the second place, the
consanguine family is stamped with the marks of this supposed antecedent state. It recognized promiscuity
within defined limits, and those not the narrowest, and it points through its organism to a worse condition
against which it interposed a shield. Between the consanguine family and the horde living in promiscuity, the
step, though a long one, does not require an intermediate condition. If such existed, no known trace of it
remains. The solution of this question, however, is not material. It is sufficient, for the present at least, to
have gained the definite starting-point far down in savagery marked out by the consanguine family, which
carries back our knowledge of the early condition of mankind well toward the primitive period.
There were tribes of savages and even of barbarians known to the Greeks and Romans who are represented
as living in promiscuity. Among them were the Auseans of North Africa, mentioned by Herodotus,495 the
Garamantes of Æthiopia, mentioned by Pliny,496 and the Celts of Ireland, mentioned by Strabo.497 The latter
repeats a similar statement concerning the Arabs.498 It is not probable that any people within the time of
recorded human observation have lived in a state of promiscuous intercourse like the gregarious animals.
The perpetuation of such a people from the infancy of mankind would evidently have been impossible. The
cases cited, and many others that might be added, are better explained as arising under the punaluan family,
which, to the foreign observer, with limited means of observation, would afford the external indications
named by these authors. Promiscuity may be deduced theoretically as a necessary condition antecedent to the
consanguine family; but it lies concealed in the misty antiquity of mankind beyond the reach of positive
knowledge.
II. Intermarriage of Brothers and Sisters, own and collateral, in a Group.—In this form of marriage the
family had its birth. It is the root of the institution. The Malayan system of consanguinity affords conclusive
evidence of its ancient prevalence. With the ancient existence of the consanguine family established, the
remaining forms can be explained as successive derivations from each other. This form of marriage gives
(III.) the consanguine family and (IV.) the Malayan system of consanguinity, which disposes of the third and
fourth members of the sequence. This family belongs to the Lower Status of savagery.
V. The Punaluan Custom.—In the Australian male and female classes united in marriage, punaluan groups
are found. Among the Hawaiians, the same group is also found, with the marriage custom it expresses. It has
prevailed among the remote ancestors of all the tribes of mankind who now possess or have possessed the
Turanian system of consanguinity, because they must have derived it from punaluan ancestors. There is
seemingly no other explanation of the origin of this system. Attention has been called to the fact that the
punaluan family included the same persons found in the previous consanguine, with the exception of own
brothers and sisters, who were theoretically if not in every case excluded. It is a fair inference that the
punaluan custom worked its way into general adoption through a discovery of its beneficial influence. Out of
punaluan marriage came (VI.) the punaluan family, which disposes of the sixth member of the sequence.
This family originated, probably, in the Middle Status of savagery.
VII. The Organization into Gentes.—The position of this institution in the sequence is the only question here
to be considered. Among the Australian classes, the punaluan group is found on a broad and systematic
scale. The people are also organized in gentes. Here the punaluan family is older than the gens, because it
rested upon the classes which preceded the gentes. The Australians also have the Turanian system of
consanguinity, for which the classes laid the foundation by excluding own brothers and sisters from the
punaluan group united in marriage. They were born members of classes who could not intermarry. Among
the Hawaiians, the punaluan family was unable to create the Turanian system of consanguinity. Own
brothers and sisters were frequently involved in the punaluan group, which the custom did not prevent,
although it tended to do so. This system requires both the punaluan family and the gentile organization to
bring it into existence. It follows that the latter came in after and upon the former. In its relative order it
belongs to the Middle Status of savagery.
VIII. and IX. These have been sufficiently considered.
X. and XI. Marriage between Single Pairs, and the Syndyasmian Family.—After mankind had advanced out
of savagery and entered the Lower Status of barbarism, their condition was immensely improved. More than
half the battle for civilization was won. A tendency to reduce the groups of married persons to smaller
proportions must have begun to manifest itself before the close of savagery, because the syndyasmian family
became a constant phenomenon in the Lower Status of barbarism. The custom which led the more advanced
savage to recognize one among a number of wives as his principal wife, ripened in time into the practice of
pairing, and in making this wife a companion and associate in the maintenance of a family. With the growth
of the propensity to pair came an increased certainty of the paternity of children. But the husband could put
away his wife, and the wife could leave her husband, and each seek a new mate at pleasure. Moreover, the
man did not recognize, on his part, the obligations of the marriage tie, and therefore had no right to expect its
recognition by his wife. The old conjugal system, now reduced to narrower limits by the gradual
disappearance of the punaluan groups, still environed the advancing family, which it was to follow to the
verge of civilization. Its reduction to zero was a condition precedent to the introduction of monogamy. It
finally disappeared in the new form of hetærism, which still follows mankind in civilization as a dark
shadow upon the family. The contrast between the punaluan and syndyasmian families was greater than
between the latter and the monogamian. It was subsequent in time to the gens, which was largely
instrumental in its production. That it was a transitional stage of the family between the two is made evident
by its inability to change materially the Turanian system of consanguinity, which monogamy alone was able
to overthrow. From the Columbia River to the Paraguay, the Indian family was syndyasmian in general,
punaluan in exceptional areas, and monogamian perhaps in none.
XII. and XIII. Pastoral Life and the Patriarchal Family.—It has been remarked elsewhere that polygamy
was not the essential feature of this family, which represented a movement of society to assert the
individuality of persons. Among the Semitic tribes, it was an organization of servants and slaves under a
patriarch for the care of flocks and herds, for the cultivation of lands, and for mutual protection and
subsistence. Polygamy was incidental. With a single male head and an exclusive cohabitation, this family
was an advance upon the syndyasmian, and therefore not a retrograde movement. Its influence upon the
human race was limited; but it carries with it a confession of a state of society in the previous period against
which it was designed to form a barrier.
XIV. Rise of Property and the establishment of lineal succession to Estates.—Independently of the
movement which culminated in the patriarchal family of the Hebrew and Latin types, property, as it
increased in variety and amount, exercised a steady and constantly augmenting influence in the direction of
monogamy. It is impossible to overestimate the influence of property in the civilization of mankind. It was
the power that brought the Aryan and Semitic nations out of barbarism into civilization. The growth of the
idea of property in the human mind commenced in feebleness and ended in becoming its master passion.
Governments and laws are instituted with primary reference to its creation, protection and enjoyment. It
introduced human slavery as an instrument in its production; and, after the experience of several thousand
years, it caused the abolition of slavery upon the discovery that a freeman was a better property-making
machine. The cruelty inherent in the heart of man, which civilization and Christianity have softened without
eradicating, still betrays the savage origin of mankind, and in no way more pointedly than in the practice of
human slavery, through all the centuries of recorded history. With the establishment of the inheritance of
property in the children of its owner, came the first possibility of a strict monogamian family. Gradually,
though slowly, this form of marriage, with an exclusive cohabitation, became the rule rather than the
exception; but it was not until civilization had commenced that it became permanently established.
XV. The Monogamian Family.—As finally constituted, this family assured
the paternity of children, substituted the individual ownership of real as
well as personal property for joint ownership, and an exclusive inheritance
by children in the place of agnatic inheritance. Modern society reposes
upon the monogamian family. The whole previous experience and progress
of mankind culminated and crystallized in this pre-eminent institution. It
was a slow growth, planting its roots far back in the period of savagery—a
final result toward which the experience of the ages steadily tended.
Although essentially modern, it was the product of a vast and varied
experience.
XVI. The Aryan, Semitic and Uralian systems of consanguinity, which are
essentially identical, were created by the monogamian family. Its
relationships are those which actually existed under this form of marriage
and of the family. A system of consanguinity is not an arbitrary enactment,
but a natural growth. It expresses, and must of necessity express, the actual
facts of consanguinity as they appeared to the common mind when the
system was formed. As the Aryan system establishes the antecedent
existence of a monogamian family, so the Turanian establishes the
antecedent existence of a punaluan family, and the Malayan the antecedent
existence of a consanguine family. The evidence they contain must be
regarded as conclusive, because of its convincing character in each case.
With the existence established of three kinds of marriage, of three forms of
the family, and of three systems of consanguinity, nine of the sixteen
members of the sequence are sustained. The existence and relations of the
remainder are warranted by sufficient proof.
The views herein presented contravene, as I am aware, an assumption
which has for centuries been generally accepted. It is the hypothesis of
human degradation to explain the existence of barbarians and of savages,
who were found, physically and mentally, too far below the conceived
standard of a supposed original man. It was never a scientific proposition
supported by facts. It is refuted by the connected series of inventions and
discoveries, by the progressive development of the social system, and by
the successive forms of the family. The Aryan and Semitic peoples
descended from barbarous ancestors. The question then meets us, how
could these barbarians have attained to the Upper Status of barbarism, in
which they first appear, without previously passing through the experience
and acquiring the arts and development of the Middle Status; and, further
than this, how could they have attained to the Middle Status without first
passing through the experience of the Lower. Back of these is the further
question, how a barbarian could exist without a previous savage. This
hypothesis of degradation leads to another necessity, namely; that of
regarding all the races of mankind without the Aryan and Semitic
connections as abnormal races—races fallen away by degeneracy from their
normal state. The Aryan and Semitic nations, it is true, represent the main
streams of human progress, because they have carried it to the highest point
yet attained; but there are good reasons for supposing that before they
became differentiated into Aryan and Semitic tribes, they formed a part of
the indistinguishable mass of barbarians. As these tribes themselves sprang
remotely from barbarous, and still more remotely from savage ancestors,
the distinction of normal and abnormal races falls to the ground.
This sequence, moreover, contravenes some of the conclusions of that body
of eminent scholars who, in their speculations upon the origin of society,
have adopted the patriarchal family of the Hebrew and Latin types as the
oldest form of the family, and as producing the earliest organized society.
The human race is thus invested from its infancy with a knowledge of the
family under paternal power. Among the latest, and holding foremost rank
among them, is Sir Henry Maine, whose brilliant researches in the sources
of ancient law, and in the early history of institutions, have advanced so
largely our knowledge of them. The patriarchal family, it is true, is the
oldest made known to us by ascending along the lines of classical and
Semitic authorities; but an investigation along these lines is unable to
penetrate beyond the Upper Status of barbarism, leaving at least four entire
ethnical periods untouched, and their connection unrecognized. It must be
admitted, however, that the facts with respect to the early condition of
mankind have been but recently produced, and that judicious investigators
are justly careful about surrendering old doctrines for new.
Unfortunately for the hypothesis of degradation, inventions and discoveries
would come one by one; the knowledge of a cord must precede the bow and
arrow, as the knowledge of gunpowder preceded the musket, and that of the
steam-engine preceded the railway and the steamship; so the arts of
subsistence followed each other at long intervals of time, and human tools
passed through forms of flint and stone before they were formed of iron. In
like manner institutions of government are a growth from primitive germs
of thought. Growth, development and transmission, must explain their
existence among civilized nations. Not less clearly was the monogamian
family derived, by experience, through the syndyasmian from the punaluan,
and the still more ancient consanguine family. If, finally, we are obliged to
surrender the antiquity of the monogamian family, we gain a knowledge of
its derivation, which is of more importance, because it reveals the price at
which it was obtained.
The antiquity of mankind upon the earth is now established by a body of
evidence sufficient to convince unprejudiced minds. The existence of the
race goes back definitely to the glacial period in Europe, and even back of it
into the anterior period. We are now compelled to recognize the prolonged
and unmeasured ages of man’s existence. The human mind is naturally and
justly curious to know something of the life of man during the last hundred
thousand or more years, now that we are assured his days have been so long
upon the earth. All this time could not have been spent in vain. His great
and marvelous achievements prove the contrary, as well as imply the
expenditure of long protracted ethnical periods. The fact that civilization
was so recent suggests the difficulties in the way of human progress, and
affords some intimation of the lowness of the level from which mankind
started on their career.
The foregoing sequence may require modification, and perhaps essential
change in some of its members; but it affords both a rational and a
satisfactory explanation of the facts of human experience, so far as they are
known, and of the course of human progress, in developing the ideas of the
family and of government in the tribes of mankind.

NOTE. - MR. J. F. McLENNAN’S “PRIMITIVE MARRIAGE.”

As these pages are passing through the press, I have obtained an enlarged edition of the above-named
work. It is a reprint of the original, with several Essays appended; and is now styled “Studies in
Ancient History Comprising a Reprint of Primitive Marriage.”

In one of these Essays, entitled “The Classificatory System of Relationships,” Mr. McLennan devotes
one section (41 pages) to an attempted refutation of my explanation of the origin of the classificatory
system; and another (36 pages) to an explanation of his own of the origin of the same system. The
hypothesis first referred to is contained in my work on the “Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of
the Human Family” (pp. 479-486). The facts and their explanation are the same, substantially, as
those presented in preceding chapters of this volume (Chaps. II. and III., Part III.). “Primitive
Marriage” was first published in 1865, and “Systems of Consanguinity,” etc., in 1871.

Having collected the facts which established the existence of the classificatory system of
consanguinity, I ventured to submit, with the Tables, an hypothesis explanatory of its origin. That
hypotheses are useful, and often indispensable to the attainment of truth, will not be questioned. The
validity of the solution presented in that work, and repeated in this, will depend upon its sufficiency
in explaining all the facts of the case. Until it is superseded by one better entitled to acceptance on
this ground, its position in my work is legitimate, and in accordance with the method of scientific
inquiry.

Mr. McLennan has criticised this hypothesis with great freedom. His conclusion is stated generally as
follows (Studies, etc., p. 371): “The space I have devoted to the consideration of the solution may
seem disproportioned to its importance; but issuing from the press of the Smithsonian Institution, and
its preparation having been aided by the United States Government, Mr. Morgan’s work has been
very generally quoted as a work of authority, and it seemed worth while to take the trouble necessary
to show its utterly unscientific character.” Not the hypothesis alone, but the entire work is covered by
the charge.

That work contains 187 pages of “Tables of Consanguinity and Affinity,” exhibiting the systems of
139 tribes and nations of mankind representing four-fifths, numerically, of the entire human family. It
is singular that the bare facts of consanguinity and affinity expressed by terms of relationship, even
when placed in tabular form, should possess an “utterly unscientific character.” The body of the work
is taken up with the dry details of these several systems. There remains a final chapter, consisting of
43 out of 590 pages, devoted to a comparison of these several systems of consanguinity, in which this
solution or hypothesis appears. It was the first discussion of a large mass of new material, and had
Mr. McLennan’s charge been limited to this chapter, there would have been little need of a discussion
here. But he has directed his main attack against the Tables; denying that the systems they exhibit are
systems of consanguinity and affinity, thus going to the bottom of the subject.499

Mr. McLennan’s position finds an explanation in the fact, that as systems of consanguinity and
affinity they antagonize and refute the principal opinions and the principal theories propounded in
“Primitive Marriage.” The author of “Primitive Marriage” would be expected to stand by his
preconceived opinions.

As systems of consanguinity, for example: (1.) They show that Mr. McLennan’s new terms,
“Exogamy and Endogamy” are of questionable utility—that as used in “Primitive Marriage,” their
positions are reversed, and that “endogamy” has very little application to the facts treated in that
work, while “exogamy” is simply a rule of a gens, and should be stated as such. (2.) They refute Mr.
McLennan’s phrase, “kinship through females only,” by showing that kinship through males was
recognized as constantly as kinship through females by the same people. (3.) They show that the Nair
and Tibetan polyandry could never have been general in the tribes of mankind. (4.) They deny both
the necessity and the extent of “wife stealing” as propounded in “Primitive Marriage.”
An examination of the grounds, upon which Mr. McLennan’s charge is made, will show not only the
failure of his criticisms, but the insufficiency of the theories on which these criticisms are based.
Such an examination leads to results disastrous to his entire work, as will be made evident by the
discussion of the following propositions, namely:

I. That the principal terms and theories employed in “Primitive Marriage” have no value in
Ethnology.

II. That Mr. McLennan’s hypothesis to account for the origin of the classificatory system of
relationship does not account for its origin.

III. That Mr. McLennan’s objections to the hypothesis presented in “Systems of Consanguinity,” etc.,
are of no force.

These propositions will be considered in the order named.

I. That the principal terms and theories employed in “Primitive Marriage” have no value in
Ethnology.

When this work appeared it was received with favor by ethnologists, because as a speculative treatise
it touched a number of questions upon which they had long been working. A careful reading,
however, disclosed deficiencies in definitions, unwarranted assumptions, crude speculations and
erroneous conclusions. Mr. Herbert Spencer in his “Principles of Sociology” (Advance Sheets,

Popular Science Monthly, Jan., 1877, p. 272), has pointed out a number of
them. At the same time he rejects the larger part of Mr. McLennan’s
theories respecting “Female Infanticide,” “Wife Stealing,” and “Exogamy
and Endogamy.” What he leaves of this work, beyond its collocation of
certain ethnological facts, it is difficult to find.

It will be sufficient under this head to consider three points.

I. Mr. McLennan’s use of the terms “Exogamy” and “Endogamy.”

“Exogamy” and “endogamy”—terms of his own coinage—imply, respectively, an obligation to

“marry out,” and an obligation to “marry in,” a particular group of persons.

These terms are applied so loosely and so imprecisely by Mr. McLennan to the organized groups
made known to him by the authors he cites, that both his terms and his conclusions are of little value.
It is a fundamental difficulty with “Primitive Marriage” that the gens and the tribe, or the groups they
represent, are not distinguished from each other as members of an organic series, so that it might be
known of which group “exogamy” or “endogamy” is asserted. One of eight gentes of a tribe, for
example, may be “exogamous” with respect to itself, and “endogamous” with respect to the seven
remaining gentes. Moreover, these terms, in such a case, if correctly applied, are misleading. Mr.
McLennan seems to be presenting two great principles, representing distinct conditions of society
which have influenced human affairs. In point of fact, while “endogamy” has very little application
to conditions of society treated in “Primitive Marriage,” “exogamy” has reference to a rule or law of
a gens—an institution—and as such the unit of organization of a social system. It is the gens that has
influenced human affairs, and which is the primary fact. We are at once concerned to know its
functions and attributes, with the rights, privileges and obligations of its members. Of these material
circumstances Mr. McLennan makes no account, nor does he seem to have had the slightest
conception of the gens as a governing institution of ancient society. Two of its rules are the
following: (1.) Intermarriage in the gens is prohibited. This is Mr. McLennan’s “exogamy”—
restricted as it always is to a gens, but stated by him without any reference to a gens. (2.) In the
archaic form of the gens descent is limited to the female line, which is Mr. McLennan’s “kinship
through females only,” and which is also stated by him without any reference to a gens.

Let us follow this matter further. Seven definitions of tribal system, and of tribe are given (Studies,
etc., 113-115).

“Exogamy Pure.—I. Tribal (or family) system.—Tribes separate. All the members of each tribe of
the same blood, or feigning themselves to be so. Marriage prohibited between the members of the
tribe.

“2. Tribal system.—Tribe a congeries of family groups, falling into divisions, clans, thums, etc. No
connubium between members of same division: connubium between all the divisions.

“3. Tribal system.—Tribe a congeries of family groups. * * * No connubium between persons whose
family name points them out as being of the same stock.

“4. Tribal system.—Tribe in divisions. No connubium between members of the same divisions:
connubium between some of the divisions; only partial connubium between others. * * *

“5. Tribal system.—Tribe in divisions. No connubium between persons of the same stock: connubium
between each division and some other. No connubium between some of the divisions. Caste.

“Endogamy Pure. 6. Tribal (or family) system.—Tribes separate. All the members of each tribe of
the same blood, or feigning themselves to be so. Connubium between members of the tribe: marriage
without the tribe forbidden and punished.

“7. Tribal system indistinct.” * * * The italics are mine. Seven definitions of the tribal system ought
to define the group called a tribe, with sufficient distinctness to be recognized.

The first definition, however, is a puzzle. There are several tribes in a tribal system, but no term for
the aggregate of tribes. They are not supposed to form a united body. How the separate tribes fall into
a tribal system or are held together does not appear. All the members of each tribe are of the same
blood, or pretend to be, and therefore cannot intermarry. This might answer for a description of a
gens; but the gens is never found alone, separate from other gentes. There are several gentes
intermingled by marriage in every tribe composed of gentes. But Mr. McLennan could not have used
tribe here as equivalent to gens, nor as a congeries of family groups. As separate bodies of
consanguinei held together in a tribal system, the bodies undefined and the system unexplained, we
are offered something altogether new. Definition 6 is much the same. It is not probable that a tribe
answering to either of these definitions ever existed in any part of the earth; for it is neither a gens,
nor a tribe composed of gentes, nor a nation formed by the coalescence of tribes.

Definitions 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th are somewhat more intelligible. They show in each case a tribe
composed of gentes, or divisions based upon kin. But it is a gentile rather than a tribal system. As
marriage is allowed between the clans, thums, or divisions of the same tribe, “exogamy” cannot be
asserted of the tribe in either case. The clan, thum, or division is “exogamous,” with respect to itself,
but “endogamous” with respect to the other clans, thums, or divisions. Particular restrictions are
stated to exist in some instances.

When Mr. McLennan applies the terms “exogamy” or “endogamy” to a tribe, how is it to be known
whether it is one of several separate tribes in a tribal system, whatever this may mean, or a tribe
defined as a congeries of family groups? On the next page (116) he remarks: “The separate
endogamous tribes are nearly as numerous, and they are in some respects as rude, as the separate
exogamous tribes.” If he uses tribe as a congeries of family groups, which is a tribe composed of
gentes, then “exogamy” cannot be asserted of the tribe. There is not the slightest probability that
“exogamy” ever existed in a tribe composed of gentes in any part of the earth. Wherever the gentile
organization has been found intermarriage in the gens is forbidden. It gives what Mr. McLennan calls
“exogamy.” But, as an equally general rule, intermarriage between the members of a gens and the
members of all the other gentes of the same tribe is permitted. The gens is “exogamous,” and the
tribe is essentially “endogamous.” In these cases, if in no others, it was material to know the group
covered by the word tribe. Take another illustration (p. 42): “If it can be shown, firstly, that
exogamous tribes exist, or have existed; and, secondly, that in ruder times the relations of separate
tribes were uniformly, or almost uniformly, hostile, we have found a set of circumstances in which
men could get wives only by capturing them.” Here we find the initial point of Mr. McLennan’s
theory of wife stealing. To make the “set of circumstances” (namely, hostile and therefore
independent tribes), tribe as used here must refer to the larger group, a tribe composed of gentes. For
the members of the several gentes of a tribe are intermingled by marriage in every family throughout
the area occupied by the tribe. All the gentes must be hostile or none. If the term is applied to the
smaller group, the gens, then the gens is “exogamous,” and the tribe, in the given case, is seven-
eighths “endogamous,” and what becomes of the “set of circumstances” necessitating wife stealing?

The principal cases cited in “Primitive Marriage” to prove “exogamy” are the Khonds, Kalmucks,
Circassians, Yurak Samoyeds, certain tribes of India and Australia, and certain Indian tribes of
America, the Iroquois among the number (pp. 75-100). The American tribes are generally composed
of gentes. A man cannot marry a woman of the same gens with himself; but he may marry a woman
of any other gens of his own tribe. For example, a man of the Wolf gens of the Seneca tribe of the
Iroquois is prohibited from marrying a woman of the same gens, not only in the Seneca tribe, but also
in either of the five remaining Iroquois tribes. Here we have Mr. McLennan’s “exogamy,” but
restricted, as it always is, to the gens of the individual. But a man may marry a woman in either of the
seven remaining Seneca gentes. Here we have “endogamy” in the tribe, practiced by the members of
each gens in the seven remaining Seneca gentes. Both practices exist side by side at the same time, in
the same tribe, and have so existed from time immemorial. The same fact is true of the American
Indian tribes in general. They are cited, nevertheless, by Mr. McLennan, as examples of “exogamous
tribes”; and thus enter into the basis of his theories.

With respect to “endogamy,” Mr. McLennan would probably refrain from using it in the above case:
firstly, because “exogamy” and “endogamy” fail here to represent two opposite principles as they
exist in his imagination; and, secondly, because there is, in reality, but one fact to be indicated,
namely, that intermarriage in the gens is prohibited. American Indians generally can marry in their
own or in a foreign tribe as they please, but not in their gens. Mr. McLennan was able to cite one fair
case of “endogamy,” that of the Mantchu Tartars (p. 116), “who prohibited marriage between persons
whose family names are different.” A few other similar cases have been found among existing tribes.

If the organizations, for example, of the Yurak Samoyeds of Siberia (82), the Magars of Nepaul (83),
the Munnieporees, Koupooees, Mows, Muram and Murring tribes of India (87), were examined upon
the original evidence, it is highly probable that they would be found exactly analogous to the Iroquois
tribes; the “divisions” and “thums” being gentes. Latham, speaking of the Yurak or Kasovo group of
the Samoyeds, quotes from Klaproth, as follows: “This division of the kinsmanship is so rigidly
observed that no Samoyed takes a wife from the kinsmanship to which he himself belongs. On the
contrary, he seeks her in one of the other two.”500 The same author, speaking of the Magars,
remarks: “There are twelve thums. All individuals belonging to the same thum are supposed to be
descended from the same male ancestor; descent from the same great mother being by no means
necessary. So husband and wife must belong to different thums. With one and the same there is no
marriage. Do you wish for a wife? If so, look to the thum of your neighbor; at any rate look beyond
your own. This is the first time I have had occasion to mention this practice. It will not be the last: on
the contrary, the principle it suggests is so common as to be almost universal.”501 The Murring and
other tribes of India are in divisions, with the same rule in respect to marriage. In these cases it is
probable that we have tribes composed of gentes, with intermarriage in the gens prohibited. Each
gens is “exogamous” with respect to itself, and “endogamous” with respect to the remaining gentes
of the tribe. They are cited by Mr. McLennan, nevertheless, as examples of “exogamous” tribes. The
principal Australian tribes are known to be organized in gentes, with intermarriage in the gens
prohibited. Here again the gens is “exogamous” and the tribe “endogamous.”

Where the gens is “exogamous” with respect to itself, and “endogamous” with respect to the
remaining gentes of the same tribe, of what use is this pair of terms to mark what is but a single fact
—the prohibition of intermarriage in the gens? “Exogamy” and “endogamy” are of no value as a pair
of terms, pretending as they do to represent or express opposite conditions of society. They have no
application in American ethnology, and probably none in Asiatic or European. “Exogamy,” standing
alone and applied to the small group (the gens), of which only it can be asserted, might be tolerated.
There are no “exogamous” tribes in America, but a plenty of “exogamous” gentes: and when the gens
is found, we are concerned with its rules, and these should always be stated as rules of a gens. Mr.
McLennan found the clan, thum, division, “exogamous,” and the aggregate of clans, thums,
divisions, “endogamous”; but he says nothing about the “endogamy.” Neither does he say the clan,
division, or thum is “exogamous,” but that the tribe is “exogamous.” We might suppose he intended
to use tribe as equivalent to clan, thum, and division; but we are met with the difficulty that he
defines a “tribe [as] a congeries of family groups, falling into divisions, clans, thums, etc.” (114), and
immediately (116) he remarks that “the separate endogamous tribes are nearly as numerous, and they
are in some respects as rude, as the separate exogamous tribes.” If we take his principal definitions, it
can be said without fear of contradiction that Mr. McLennan has not produced a single case of an
“exogamous” tribe in his volume.

There is another objection to this pair of terms. They are set over against each other to indicate
opposite and dissimilar conditions of society. Which of the two is the ruder, and which the more
advanced? Abundant cautions are here thrown out by Mr. McLennan. “They may represent a
progression from exogamy to endogamy, or from endogamy to exogamy” (115); “they may be
equally archaic” (116); and “they are in some respects” equally rude (116); but before the discussion
ends, “endogamy” rises to the superior position, and stands over toward civilization, while
“exogamy” falls back in the direction of savagery. It became convenient in Mr. McLennan’s
speculations for “exogamy” to introduce heterogeneity, which “endogamy” is employed to expel, and
bring in homogeneity; so that “endogamy” finally gets the better of “exogamy” as an influence for
progress.

One of Mr. McLennan’s mistakes was his reversal of the positions of these terms. What he calls
“endogamy” precedes “exogamy” in the order of human progress, and belongs to the lowest
condition of mankind. Ascending to the time when the Malayan system of consanguinity was formed,
and which preceded the gens, we find consanguine groups in the marriage relation. The system of
consanguinity indicates both the fact and the character of the groups, and exhibits “endogamy” in its
pristine force. Advancing from this state of things, the first check upon “endogamy” is found in the
punaluan group, which sought to exclude own brothers and sisters from the marriage relation, while
it retained in that relation first, second, and more remote cousins, still under the name of brothers and
sisters. The same thing precisely is found in the Australian organization upon sex. Next in the order
of time the gens appeared, with descent in the female line, and with intermarriage in the gens
prohibited. It brought in Mr. McLennan’s “exogamy.” From this time forward “endogamy” may be
dismissed as an influence upon human affairs.

According to Mr. McLennan, “exogamy” fell into decay in advancing communities; and when
descent was changed to the male line it disappeared in the Grecian and Roman tribes (p. 220). So far
from this being the case, what he calls “exogamy” commenced in savagery with the gens, continued
through barbarism, and remained into civilization. It existed as completely in the gentes of the
Greeks and Romans in the time of Solon and of Servius Tullius as it now exists in the gentes of the
Iroquois. “Exogamy” and “endogamy” have been so thoroughly tainted by the manner of their use in
“Primitive Marriage,” that the best disposition which can now be made of them is to lay them aside.

2. Mr. McLennan’s phrase: “the system of kinship through females only.”

“Primitive Marriage” is deeply colored with this phrase. It asserts that this kinship, where it
prevailed, was the only kinship recognized; and thus has an error written on its face. The Turanian,
Ganowánian and Malayan systems of consanguinity show plainly and conclusively that kinship
through males was recognized as constantly as kinship through females. A man had brothers and
sisters, grandfathers and grandmothers, grandsons and granddaughters, traced through males as well
as through females. The maternity of children was ascertainable with certainty, while their paternity
was not; but they did not reject kinship through males because of uncertainty, but gave the benefit of
the doubt to a number of persons—probable fathers being placed in the category of real fathers,
probable brothers in that of real brothers, and probable sons in that of real sons.

After the gens appeared, kinship through females had an increased importance, because it now
signified gentile kin, as distinguished from non-gentile kin. This was the kinship, in a majority of
cases, made known to Mr. McLennan by the authors he cites. The children of the female members of
the gens remained within it, while the children of its male members were excluded. Every member of
the gens traced his or her descent through females exclusively when descent was in the female line,
and through males exclusively when descent was in the male line. Its members were an organized
body of consanguinei bearing a common gentile name. They were bound together by affinities of
blood, and by the further bond of mutual rights, privileges, and obligations. Gentile kin became, in
both cases, superior to other kin; not because no other kin was recognized, but because it conferred
the rights and privileges of a gens. Mr. McLennan’s failure to discover this difference indicates an
insufficient investigation of the subject he was treating. With descent in the female line, a man had
grandfathers and grandmothers, mothers, brothers and sisters, uncles, nephews and nieces, and
grandsons and granddaughters in his gens; some own and some collateral; while he had the same out
of his gens with the exception of uncles; and in addition, fathers, aunts, sons and daughters, and
cousins. A woman had the same relatives in the gens as a man, and sons and daughters in addition,
while she had the same relatives out of the gens as a man. Whether in or out of the gens, a brother
was recognized as a brother, a father as a father, a son as a son, and the same term was applied in
either case without discrimination between them. Descent in the female line, which is all that
“kinship through females only” can possibly indicate, is thus seen to be a rule of a gens, and nothing
more. It ought to be stated as such, because the gens is the primary fact, and gentile kinship is one of
its attributes.

Prior to the gentile organization, kinship through females was undoubtedly superior to kinship
through males, and was doubtless the principal basis upon which the lower tribal groups were
organized. But the body of facts treated in “Primitive Marriage” have little or no relation to that
condition of mankind which existed prior to the gentile system.

3. There is no evidence of the general prevalence of the Nair and Tibetan polyandry.

These forms of polyandry are used in Mr. McLennan’s speculations as though universal in practice.
He employs them in his attempted explanation of the origin of the classificatory system of
relationship. The Nair polyandry is where several unrelated persons have one wife in common (p.
146). It is called the rudest form. The Tibetan polyandry is where several brothers have one wife in
common. He then makes a rapid flight through the tribes of mankind to show the general prevalence
of one or the other of these forms of polyandry, and fails entirely to show their prevalence. It does not
seem to have occurred to Mr. McLennan that these forms of polyandry are exceptional, and that they
could not have been general even in the Neilgherry Hills or in Tibet. If an average of three men had
one wife in common (twelve husbands to one wife was the Nair limit, p. 147), and this was general
through a tribe, two-thirds of the marriageable females would be without husbands. It may safely be
asserted that such a state of things never existed generally in the tribes of mankind, and without better
evidence it cannot be credited in the Neilgherry Hills or in Tibet. The facts in respect to the Nair
polyandry are not fully known. “A Nair may be one in several combinations of husbands; that is, he
may have any number of wives” (p. 148). This, however, would not help the unmarried females to
husbands, although it would increase the number of husbands of one wife. Female infanticide cannot
be sufficiently exaggerated to raise into general prevalence these forms of polyandry. Neither can it
be said with truth that they have exercised a general influence upon human affairs.

The Malayan, Turanian and Ganowánian systems of consanguinity and affinity, however, bring to
light forms of polygyny and polyandry which have influenced human affairs, because they were as
universal in prevalence as these systems were, when they respectively came into existence. In the
Malayan system, we find evidence of consanguine groups founded upon brother and sister marriages,
but including collateral brothers and sisters in the group. Here the men lived in polygyny, and the
women in polyandry. In the Turanian and Ganowánian system we find evidence of a more advanced
group—the punaluan in two forms. One was founded on the brotherhood of the husbands, and the
other on the sisterhood of the wives; own brothers and sisters being now excluded from the marriage
relation. In each group the men were polygynous, and the women polyandrous. Both practices are
found in the same group, and both are essential to an explanation of their system of consanguinity.
The last-named system of consanguinity and affinity presupposes punaluan marriage in the group.
This and the Malayan exhibit the forms of polygyny and polyandry with which ethnography is
concerned; while the Nair and Tibetan forms of polyandry are not only insufficient to explain the
systems, but are of no general importance.

These systems of consanguinity and affinity, as they stand in the Tables, have committed such havoc
with the theories and opinions advanced in “Primitive Marriage” that I am constrained to ascribe to
this fact Mr. McLennan’s assault upon my hypothesis explanatory of their origin; and his attempt to
substitute another, denying them to be systems of consanguinity and affinity.

II. That Mr. McLennan’s hypothesis to account for the origin of the classificatory system does not
account for its origin.

Mr. McLennan sets out with the statement (p. 372) that “the phenomena presented in all the forms [of
the classificatory system] are ultimately referable to the marriage law; and that accordingly its origin
must be so also.” This is the basis of my explanation; it is but partially that of his own.

The marriage law, under which he attempts to explain the origin of the Malayan system, is that found
in the Nair polyandry; and the marriage-law under which he attempts to explain the origin of the
Turanian and Ganowánian system is that indicated by the Tibetan polyandry. But he has neither the
Nair nor Tibetan system of consanguinity and affinity, with which to explain or to test his hypothesis.
He starts, then, without any material from Nair or Tibetan sources, and with forms of marriage-law
that never existed among the tribes and nations possessing the classificatory system of relationship.
We thus find at the outset that the explanation in question is a mere random speculation.

Mr. McLennan denies that the systems in the Tables (Consanguinity, pp. 298-382; 523-567) are
systems of consanguinity and affinity. On the contrary, he asserts that together they are “a system of
modes of addressing persons.” He is not unequivocal in his denial, but the purport of his language is
to that effect. In my work of Consanguinity I pointed out the fact that the American Indians in
familiar intercourse and in formal salutation addressed each other by the exact relationship in which
they stood to each other, and never by the personal name; and that the same usage prevailed in South
India and in China. They use the system in salutation because it is a system of consanguinity and
affinity—a reason paramount. Mr. McLennan wishes us to believe that these all-embracing systems
were simply conventional, and formed to enable persons to address each other in salutation, and for
no other purpose. It is a happy way of disposing of these systems, and of throwing away the most
remarkable record in existence respecting the early condition of mankind.

Mr. McLennan imagines there must have been a system of consanguinity somewhere entirely
independent of the system of addresses; “for it seems reasonable to believe,” he remarks (p. 373),
“that the system of blood-ties and the system of addresses would begin to grow up together, and for
some little time would have a common history.” A system of blood-ties is a system of consanguinity.
Where, then, is the lost system? Mr. McLennan neither produces it nor shows its existence. But I find
he uses the systems in the Tables as systems of consanguinity and affinity, so far as they serve his
hypothesis, without taking the trouble to modify the assertion that they are simply “modes of
addressing persons.”

That savage and barbarous tribes the world over, and through untold ages, should have been so
solicitous concerning the proper mode of addressing relations as to have produced the Malayan,
Turanian and Ganowánian systems, in their fullness and complexity, for that purpose and no other,
and no other systems than these two—that in Asia, Africa, Polynesia, and America they should have
agreed, for example, that a given person’s grandfather’s brother should be addressed as grandfather,
that brothers older than one’s self should be addressed as elder brothers, and those younger as
younger brothers, merely to provide a conventional mode of addressing relatives—are coincidences
so remarkable and for so small a reason, that it will be quite sufficient for the author of this brilliant
conception to believe it.

A system of modes of addressing persons would be ephemeral, because all conventional usages are
ephemeral. They would, also, of necessity, be as diverse as the races of mankind. But a system of
consanguinity is a very different thing. Its relationships spring from the family and the marriage-law,
and possess even greater permanence than the family itself, which advances while the system
remains unchanged. These relationships expressed the actual facts of the social condition when the
system was formed, and have had a daily importance in the life of mankind. Their uniformity over
immense areas of the earth, and their preservation through immense periods of time, are
consequences of their connection with the marriage-law.

When the Malayan system of consanguinity was formed, it may be supposed that a mother could
perceive that her own son and daughter stood to her in certain relationships that could be expressed
by suitable terms; that her own mother and her mother’s own mother stood to her in certain other
relationships; that the other children of her own mother stood to her in still other relationships; and
that the children of her own daughter stood to her in still others—all of which might be expressed by
suitable terms. It would give the beginning of a system of consanguinity founded upon obvious
blood-ties. It would lay the foundation of the five categories of relations in the Malayan system, and
without any reference to marriage-law.

When marriage in the group and the consanguine family came in, of both of which the Malayan
system affords evidence, the system would spread over the group upon the basis of these primary
conceptions. With the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group, the
resulting system of consanguinity and affinity would be Malayan. Any hypothesis explanatory of the
origin of the Malayan system must fail if these facts are ignored. Such a form of marriage and of the
family would create the Malayan system. It would be a system of consanguinity and affinity from the
beginning, and explainable only as such.

If these views are correct, it will not be necessary to consider in detail the points of Mr. McLennan’s
hypothesis, which is too obscure for a philosophical discussion, and utterly incapable of affording an
explanation of the origin of these systems.

III. That Mr. McLennan’s objections to the hypothesis presented in “Systems of Consanguinity,” etc.,
are of no force.

The same misapprehension of the facts, and the same confusion of ideas which mark his last Essay,
also appear in this. He does not hold distinct the relationships by consanguinity and those by
marriage, when both exist between the same persons; and he makes mistakes in the relationships of
the systems also.

It will not be necessary to follow step by step Mr. McLennan’s criticisms upon this hypothesis, some
of which are verbal, others of which are distorted, and none of which touch the essence of the
questions involved. The first proposition he attempts to refute is stated by him as follows: “The
Malayan system of relationships is a system of blood-relationships. Mr. Morgan assumes this, and
says nothing of the obstacles to making the assumption” (p. 342). It is in part a system of blood-
relationships, and in part of marriage-relationships. The fact is patent. The relationships of father and
mother, brother and sister, elder or younger, son and daughter, uncle and aunt, nephew and niece and
cousin, grandfather and mother, grandson and daughter; and also of brother-in-law and sister-in-law,
son-in-law and daughter-in-law, besides others, are given in the Tables and were before Mr.
McLennan. These systems speak for themselves, and could say nothing else but that they are systems
of consanguinity and affinity. Does Mr. McLennan suppose that the tribes named had a system other
or different from that presented in the Tables? If he did, he was bound to produce it, or to establish
the fact of its existence. He does neither.

Two or three of his special points may be considered. “And indeed,” he remarks (p. 346), “if a man is
called the son of a woman who did not bear him, his being so called clearly defies explanation on the
principle of natural descents. The reputed relationship is not, in that case, the one actually existing as
near as the parentage of individuals could be known; and accordingly Mr. Morgan’s proposition is
not made out.” On the face of the statement the question involved is not one of parentage, but of
marriage-relationship. A man calls his mother’s sister his mother, and she calls him her son, although
she did not bear him. This is the case in the Malayan, Turanian and Ganowánian systems. Whether
we have consanguine or punaluan marriages, a man’s mother’s sister is the wife of his reputed father.
She is his step-mother as near as our system furnishes an analogue; and among ourselves a step-
mother is called mother, and she calls her step-son, son. It defies explanation, it is true, as a blood-
relationship, which it does not pretend to be, but as a marriage-relationship, which it pretends to be,
this is the explanation. The reasoning of Mr. McLennan is equally specious and equally faulty in a
number of cases.

Passing from the Malayan to the Turanian system, he remarks (p. 354): “It follows from this that a
man’s son and his sister’s daughter, while reputed brother and sister, would have been free, when the
‘tribal organization’ had been established, to intermarry, for they belonged to different tribes of
descent.” From this he branches out in an argument of two or three pages to prove that “Mr.
Morgan’s reason, then, is insufficient.” If Mr. McLennan had studied the Turanian or the Ganowánian
system of consanguinity with very moderate attention, he would have found that a “man’s son and his
sister’s daughter” are not “reputed brother and sister.” On the contrary, they are cousins. This is one
of the most obvious as well as important differences between the Malayan and Turanian systems, and
the one which expresses the difference between the consanguine family of the Malayan, and the
punaluan family of the Turanian system.

The general reader will hardly take the trouble necessary to master the details of these systems.
Unless he can follow the relationships with ease and freedom, a discussion of the system will be a
source of perplexity rather than of pleasure. Mr. McLennan uses the terms of relationship freely, but
without, in all cases, using them correctly.

In another place (p. 360), Mr. McLennan attributes to me a distinction between marriage and
cohabitation which I have not made; and follows it with a rhetorical flourish quite equal to the best in
“Primitive Marriage.”

Finally, Mr. McLennan plants himself upon two alleged mistakes which vitiate, in his opinion, my
explanation of the origin of the classificatory system. “In attempting to explain the origin of the
classificatory system, Mr. Morgan made two radical mistakes. His first mistake was, that he did not
steadily contemplate the main peculiarity of the system—its classification of the connected persons;
that he did not seek the origin of the system in the origin of the classification” (p. 360). What is the
difference in this case, between the system and the classification? The two mean the same thing, and
cannot by any possibility be made to mean anything different. To seek the origin of one is to seek the
origin of the other.

“The second mistake, or rather I should say error, was to have so lightly assumed the system to be a
system of blood ties” (p. 361). There is no error here, since the persons named in the Tables are
descended from common ancestors, or connected by marriage with some one or more of them. They
are the same persons who are described in the Table showing the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian
systems (Consanguinity, pp. 79-127). In each and all of these systems they are bound to each other in
fact by consanguinity and affinity. In the latter each relationship is specialized; in the former they are
classified in categories; but in all alike the ultimate basis is the same, namely, actual consanguinity
and affinity. Marriage in the group in the former, and marriage between single pairs in the latter,
produced the difference between them. In the Malayan, Turanian and Ganowánian systems, there is a
solid basis for the blood-relationships they exhibit in the common descent of the persons; and for the
marriage-relationships we must look to the form of marriage they indicate. Examination and
comparison show that two distinct forms of marriage are requisite to explain the Malayan and
Turanian systems; whence the application, as tests of consanguine marriage in one case, and a
punaluan marriage in the other.

While the terms of relationship are constantly used in salutation, it is because they are terms of
relationship that they are so used. Mr. McLennan’s attempt to turn them into conventional modes of
addressing persons is futile. Although he lays great stress upon this view he makes no use of them as
“modes of address” in attempting to explain their origin. So far as he makes any use of them he
employs them strictly as terms of consanguinity and affinity. It was as impossible that “a system of
modes of addressing persons” should have grown up independently of the system of consanguinity
and affinity (p. 373), as that language should have grown up independently of the ideas it represents
and expresses. What could have given to these terms their significance as used in addressing
relatives, but the relationship whether of consanguinity or affinity which they expressed? The mere
want of a mode of addressing persons could never have given such stupendous systems, identical in
minute details over immense sections of the earth.

Upon the essential difference between Mr. McLennan’s explanation of the origin of the classificatory
system, and the one presented in this volume—whether it is a system of modes of addressing persons,
or a system of consanguinity and affinity—I am quite content to submit the question to the judgment
of the reader.

[Pg 522]
[Pg 523]
 PART IV. - GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF
PROPERTY.

[Pg 524]
[Pg 525]

CHAPTER I. - THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE.

P S S .—S R P .—F R I .—
P D G .—P L S B .—
G S R I .—D A K .—I
C M .—P M S .—R I K .
—A I P .

It remains to consider the growth of property in the several ethnical periods,

the rules that sprang up with respect to its ownership and inheritance, and
the influence which it exerted upon ancient society.
The earliest ideas of property were intimately associated with the
procurement of subsistence, which was the primary need. The objects of
ownership would naturally increase in each successive ethnical period with
the multiplication of those arts upon which the means of subsistence
depended. The growth of property would thus keep pace with the progress
of inventions and discoveries. Each ethnical period shows a marked
advance upon its predecessor, not only in the number of inventions, but also
in the variety and amount of property which resulted therefrom. The
multiplicity of the forms of property would be accompanied by the growth
of certain regulations with reference to its possession and inheritance. The
customs upon which these rules of proprietary possession and inheritance
depend, are determined and modified by the condition and progress of the
social organization. The growth of property is thus closely connected with
the increase of inventions and discoveries, and with the improvement of
social institutions which mark the several ethnical periods of human
progress.
I. Property in the Status of Savagery.
In any view of the case, it is difficult to conceive of the condition of
mankind in this early period of their existence, when divested of all they
had gained through inventions and discoveries, and through the growth of
ideas embodied in institutions, usages and customs. Human progress from a
state of absolute ignorance and inexperience was slow in time, but
geometrical in ratio. Mankind may be traced by a chain of necessary
inferences back to a time when, ignorant of fire, without articulate
language, and without artificial weapons, they depended, like the wild
animals, upon the spontaneous fruits of the earth. Slowly, almost
imperceptibly, they advanced through savagery, from gesture language and
imperfect sounds to articulate speech; from the club, as the first weapon, to
the spear pointed with flint, and finally to the bow and arrow; from the flint-
knife and chisel to the stone axe and hammer; from the ozier and cane
basket to the basket coated with clay, which gave a vessel for boiling food
with fire; and, finally, to the art of pottery, which gave a vessel able to
withstand the fire. In the means of subsistence, they advanced from natural
fruits in a restricted habitat to scale and shell fish on the coasts of the sea,
and finally to bread roots and game. Rope and string-making from filaments
of bark, a species of cloth made of vegetable pulp, the tanning of skins to be
used as apparel and as a covering for tents, and finally the house
constructed of poles and covered with bark, or made of plank split by stone
wedges, belong, with those previously named, to the Status of Savagery.
Among minor inventions may be mentioned the fire-drill, the moccasin and
the snow-shoe.
Before the close of this period, mankind had learned to support themselves
in numbers in comparison with primitive times; they had propagated
themselves over the face of the earth, and come into possession of all the
possibilities of the continents in favor of human advancement. In social
organization, they had advanced from the consanguine horde into tribes
organized in gentes, and thus became possessed of the germs of the
principal governmental institutions. The human race was now successfully
launched upon its great career for the attainment of civilization, which even
then, with articulate language among inventions, with the art of pottery
among arts, and with the gentes among institutions, was substantially
assured.
The period of savagery wrought immense changes in the condition of
mankind. That portion, which led the advance, had finally organized gentile
society and developed small tribes with villages here and there which
tended to stimulate the inventive capacities. Their rude energies and ruder
arts had been chiefly devoted to subsistence. They had not attained to the
village stockade for defense, nor to farinaceous food, and the scourge of
cannibalism still pursued them. The arts, inventions and institutions named
represent nearly the sum of the acquisitions of mankind in savagery, with
the exception of the marvelous progress in language. In the aggregate it
seems small, but it was immense potentially; because it embraced the
rudiments of language, of government, of the family, of religion, of house
architecture and of property, together with the principal germs of the arts of
life. All these their descendants wrought out more fully in the period of
barbarism, and their civilized descendants are still perfecting.
But the property of savages was inconsiderable. Their ideas concerning its
value, its desirability and its inheritance were feeble. Rude weapons,
fabrics, utensils, apparel, implements of flint, stone and bone, and personal
ornaments represent the chief items of property in savage life. A passion for
its possession had scarcely been formed in their minds, because the thing
itself scarcely existed. It was left to the then distant period of civilization to
develop into full vitality that “greed of gain” (studium lucri), which is now
such a commanding force in the human mind. Lands, as yet hardly a subject
of property, were owned by the tribes in common, while tenement houses
were owned jointly by their occupants. Upon articles purely personal,
which were increasing with the slow progress of inventions, the great
passion was nourishing its nascent powers. Those esteemed most valuable
were deposited in the grave of the deceased proprietor for his continued use
in the spirit-land. What remained was sufficient to raise the question of its
inheritance. Of the manner of its distribution before the organization into
gentes, our information is limited, or altogether wanting. With the
institution of the gens came in the first great rule of inheritance, which
distributed the effects of a deceased person among his gentiles. Practically
they were appropriated by the nearest of kin; but the principle was general,
that the property should remain in the gens of the decedent, and be
distributed among its members. This principle was maintained into
civilization by the Grecian and Latin gentes. Children inherited from their
mother, but took nothing from their reputed father.
II. Property in the Lower Status of Barbarism.
From the invention of pottery to the domestication of animals, or, as an
equivalent, the cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation, the duration of
the period must have been shorter than that of savagery. With the exception
of the art of pottery, finger weaving and the art of cultivation, in America,
which gave farinaceous food, no great invention or discovery signalized this
ethnical period. It was more distinguished for progress in the development
of institutions. Finger weaving, with warp and woof, seems to belong to this
period, and it must rank as one of the greatest of inventions; but it cannot be
certainly affirmed that the art was not attained in savagery. The Iroquois
and other tribes of America in the same status, manufactured belts and
burden-straps with warp and woof of excellent quality and finish; using fine
twine made of filaments of elm and basswood bark.502 The principles of
this great invention, which has since clothed the human family, were
perfectly realized; but they were unable to extend it to the production of the
woven garment. Picture writing also seems to have made its first
appearance in this period. If it originated earlier, it now received a very
considerable development. It is interesting as one of the stages of an art
which culminated in the invention of a phonetic alphabet. The series of
connected inventions seem to have been the following: 1. Gesture
Language, or the language of personal symbols; 2. Picture Writing, or
idiographic symbols; 3. Hieroglyphs, or conventional symbols; 4.
Hieroglyphs of phonetic power, or phonetic symbols used in a syllabus; and
5. A Phonetic Alphabet, or written sounds. Since a language of written
sounds was a growth through successive stages of development, the rise of
its antecedent processes is both important and instructive. The characters on
the Copan monuments are apparently hieroglyphs of the grade of
conventional symbols. They show that the American aborigines, who
practiced the first three forms, were proceeding independently in the
direction of a phonetic alphabet.
The invention of the stockade as a means of village defense, of a raw-hide
shield as a defense against the arrow, which had now become a deadly
missile, of the several varieties of the war-club, armed with an encased
stone or with a point of deer horn, seem also to belong to this period. At all
events they were in common use among the American Indian tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism when discovered. The spear pointed with flint or
bone was not a customary weapon with the forest tribes, though sometimes
used.503 This weapon belongs to the period of savagery, before the bow and
arrow were invented, and reappears as a prominent weapon in the Upper
Status of barbarism, when the copper-pointed spear came into use, and
close combat became the mode of warfare. The bow and arrow and the war-
club were the principal weapons of the American aborigines in the Lower
Status of barbarism. Some progress was made in pottery in the increased
size of the vessels produced, and in their ornamentation;504 but it remained
extremely rude to the end of the period. There was a sensible advance in
house architecture, in the size and mode of construction. Among minor
inventions were the air-gun for bird-shooting, the wooden mortar and
pounder for reducing maize to flour, and the stone mortar for preparing
paints; earthen and stone pipes, with the use of tobacco; bone and stone
implements of higher grades, with stone hammers and mauls, the handle
and upper part of the stone being encased in raw hide; and moccasins and
belts ornamented with porcupine quills. Some of these inventions were
borrowed, not unlikely, from tribes in the Middle Status; for it was by this
process constantly repeated that the more advanced tribes lifted up those
below them, as fast as the latter were able to appreciate and to appropriate
the means of progress.
The cultivation of maize and plants gave the people unleavened bread, the
Indian succotash and hominy. It also tended to introduce a new species of
property, namely, cultivated lands or gardens. Although lands were owned
in common by the tribe, a possessory right to cultivated land was now
recognized in the individual, or in the group, which became a subject of
inheritance. The group united in a common household were mostly of the
same gens, and the rule of inheritance would not allow it to be detached
from the kinship.
The property and effects of husband and wife were kept distinct, and
remained after their demise in the gens to which each respectively
belonged. The wife and children took nothing from the husband and father,
and the husband took nothing from the wife. Among the Iroquois, if a man
died leaving a wife and children, his property was distributed among his
gentiles in such a manner that his sisters and their children, and his maternal
uncles, would receive the most of it. His brothers might receive a small
portion. If a woman died, leaving a husband and children, her children, her
sisters, and her mother and her sisters inherited her effects; but the greater
portion was assigned to her children. In each case the property remained in
the gens. Among the Ojibwas, the effects of a mother were distributed
among her children, if old enough to use them; otherwise, or in default of
children, they went to her sisters, and to her mother and her sisters, to the
exclusion of her brothers. Although they had changed descent to the male
line, the inheritance still followed the rule which prevailed when descent
was in the female line.
The variety and amount of property were greater than in savagery, but still
not sufficient to develop a strong sentiment in relation to inheritance. In the
mode of distribution above given may be recognized, as elsewhere stated,
the germ of the second great rule of inheritance, which gave the property to
the agnatic kindred, to the exclusion of the remaining gentiles. Agnation
and agnatic kindred, as now defined, assume descent in the male line; but
the persons included would be very different from those with descent in the
female line. The principle is the same in both cases, and the terms seem as
applicable in the one as in the other. With descent in the female line, the
agnates are those persons who can trace their descent through females
exclusively from the same common ancestor with the intestate; in the other
case, who can trace their descent through males exclusively. It is the blood
connection of persons within the gens by direct descent, in a given line,
from the same common ancestor which lies at the foundation of agnatic
relationship.
At the present time, among the advanced Indian tribes, repugnance to
gentile inheritance has begun to manifest itself. In some it has been
overthrown, and an exclusive inheritance in children substituted in its place.
Evidence of this repugnance has elsewhere been given, among the Iroquois,
Creeks, Cherokees, Choctas, Menominees, Crows and Ojibwas, with
references to the devices adopted to enable fathers to give their property,
now largely increased in amount, to their children.
The diminution of cannibalism, that brutalizing scourge of savagery, was
very marked in the Older Period of barbarism. It was abandoned as a
common practice; but remained as a war practice, as elsewhere explained,
through this, and into the Middle Period. In this form it was found in the
principal tribes of the United States, Mexico, and Central America. The
acquisition of farinaceous food was the principal means of extricating
mankind from this savage custom.
We have now passed over, with a mere glance, two ethnical periods, which
covered four-fifths, at least, of the entire existence of mankind upon the
earth. While in the Lower Status, the higher attributes of man began to
manifest themselves. Personal dignity, eloquence in speech, religious
sensibility, rectitude, manliness and courage were now common traits of
character; but cruelty, treachery and fanaticism were equally common.
Element worship in religion, with a dim conception of personal gods, and of
a Great Spirit, rude verse-making, joint-tenement houses, and bread from
maize, belong to this period. It also produced the syndyasmian family, and
the confederacy of tribes organized in gentes and phratries. The
imagination, that great faculty which has contributed so largely to the
elevation of mankind, was now producing an unwritten literature of myths,
legends and traditions, which had already become a powerful stimulus upon
the race.
III. Property in the Middle Status of Barbarism.
The condition of mankind in this ethnical period has been more completely
lost than that of any other. It was exhibited by the Village Indians of North
and South America in barbaric splendor at the epoch of their discovery.
Their governmental institutions, their religious tenets, their plan of domestic
life, their arts and their rules in relation to the ownership and inheritance of
property, might have been completely obtained; but the opportunity was
allowed to escape. All that remains are scattered portions of the truth buried
in misconceptions and romantic tales.
This period opens in the Eastern hemisphere with the domestication of
animals, and in the Western with the appearance of the Village Indians,
living in large joint-tenement houses of adobe brick, and, in some areas, of
stone laid in courses. It was attended with the cultivation of maize and
plants by irrigation, which required artificial canals, and garden beds laid
out in squares, with raised ridges to contain the water until absorbed. When
discovered, they were well advanced toward the close of the Middle Period,
a portion of them having made bronze, which brought them near the higher
process of smelting iron ore. The joint-tenement house was in the nature of
a fortress, and held an intermediate position between the stockaded village
of the Lower, and the walled city of the Upper Status. There were no cities,
in the proper sense of the term, in America when discovered. In the art of
war they had made but little progress, except in defense, by the construction
of great houses generally impregnable to Indian assault. But they had
invented the quilted mantle (escaupiles), stuffed with cotton, as a further
shield against the arrow,505 and the two-edged sword (macuahuitl),506 each
edge having a row of angular flint points imbedded in the wooden blade.
They still used the bow and arrow, the spear, and the war-club, flint knives
and hatchets, and stone implements,507 although they had the copper axe
and chisel, which for some reason never came into general use.
To maize, beans, squashes and tobacco, were now added cotton, pepper,
tomato, cacao, and the care of certain fruits. A beer was made by
fermenting the juice of the maguey. The Iroquois, however, had produced a
similar beverage by fermenting maple sap. Earthen vessels of capacity to
hold several gallons, of fine texture and superior ornamentation, were
produced by improved methods in the ceramic art. Bowls, pots and water-
jars were manufactured in abundance. The discovery and use of the native
metals first for ornaments, and finally for implements and utensils, such as
the copper axe and chisel, belong to this period. The melting of these metals
in the crucible, with the probable use of the blow-pipe and charcoal, and
casting them in moulds, the production of bronze, rude stone sculptures, the
woven garment of cotton,508 the house of dressed stone, ideographs or
hieroglyphs cut on the grave-posts of deceased chiefs, the calendar for
measuring time, and the solstitial stone for marking the seasons, cyclopean
walls, the domestication of the llama, of a species of dog, of the turkey and
other fowls, belong to the same period in America. A priesthood organized
in a hierarchy, and distinguished by a costume, personal gods with idols to
represent them, and human sacrifices, appear for the first time in this
ethnical period. Two large Indian pueblos, Mexico and Cusco, now appear,
containing over twenty thousand inhabitants, a number unknown in the
previous period. The aristocratic element in society began to manifest itself
in feeble forms among the chiefs, civil and military, through increased
numbers under the same government, and the growing complexity of
affairs.
Turning to the Eastern hemisphere, we find its native tribes, in the
corresponding period, with domestic animals yielding them a meat and milk
subsistence, but probably without horticultural and without farinaceous
food. When the great discovery was made that the wild horse, cow, sheep,
ass, sow and goat might be tamed, and, when produced in flocks and herds,
become a source of permanent subsistence, it must have given a powerful
impulse to human progress. But the effect would not become general until
pastoral life for the creation and maintenance of flocks and herds became
established. Europe, as a forest area in the main, was unadapted to the
pastoral state; but the grass plains of high Asia, and upon the Euphrates, the
Tigris and other rivers of Asia, were the natural homes of the pastoral
tribes. Thither they would naturally tend; and to these areas we trace our
own remote ancestors, where they were found confronting like pastoral
Semitic tribes. The cultivation of cereals and plants must have preceded
their migration from the grass plains into the forest areas of Western Asia
and of Europe. It would be forced upon them by the necessities of the
domestic animals now incorporated in their plan of life. There are reasons,
therefore, for supposing that the cultivation of cereals by the Aryan tribes
preceded their western migration, with the exception perhaps of the Celts.
Woven fabrics of flax and wool, and bronze implements and weapons
appear in this period in the Eastern hemisphere.
Such were the inventions and discoveries which signalized the Middle
Period of barbarism. Society was now more highly organized, and its affairs
were becoming more complex. Differences in the culture of the two
hemispheres now existed in consequence of their unequal endowments; but
the main current of progress was steadily upward to a knowledge of iron
and its uses. To cross the barrier into the Upper Status, metallic tools able to
hold an edge and point were indispensable. Iron was the only metal able to
answer these requirements. The most advanced tribes were arrested at this
barrier, awaiting the invention of the process of smelting iron ore.
From the foregoing considerations it is evident that a large increase of
personal property had now occurred, and some changes in the relations of
persons to land. The territorial domain still belonged to the tribe in
common; but a portion was now set apart for the support of the government,
another for religious uses, and another and more important portion, that
from which the people derived their subsistence, was divided among the
several gentes, or communities of persons who resided in the same pueblo
(supra, p. 200). That any persons owned lands or houses in his own right,
with power to sell and convey in fee-simple to whomsoever he pleased, is
not only unestablished but improbable. Their mode of owning their lands in
common, by gentes, or by communities of persons, their joint-tenement
houses, and their mode of occupation by related families, precluded the
individual ownership of houses or of lands. A right to sell an interest in
such lands or in such houses, and to transfer the same to a stranger, would
break up their plan of life.509 The possessory right, which we must suppose
existed in individuals or in families, was inalienable, except within the
gens, and on the demise of the person would pass by inheritance to his or
her gentile heirs. Joint-tenement houses, and lands in common, indicate a
plan of life adverse to individual ownership.
The Moqui Village Indians, besides their seven large pueblos and their
gardens, now have flocks of sheep, horses and mules, and considerable
other personal property. They manufacture earthen vessels of many sizes
and of excellent quality, and woolen blankets in looms, and with yarn of
their own production. Major J. W. Powell noticed the following case at the
pueblo of Oraybe, which shows that the husband acquires no rights over the
property of the wife, or over the children of the marriage. A Zunian married
an Oraybe woman, and had by her three children. He resided with them at
Oraybe until his wife died, which occurred while Major Powell was at the
pueblo. The relatives of the deceased wife took possession of her children
and of her household property; leaving to him his horse, clothing and
weapons. Certain blankets which belonged to him he was allowed to take,
but those belonging to his wife remained. He left the pueblo with Major
Powell, saying he would go with him to Santa Fé, and then return to his
own people at Zuñi. Another case of a similar kind occurred at another of
the Moqui pueblos (She-pow-e-luv-ih), which also came to the notice of my
informant. A woman died, leaving children and a husband, as well as
property. The children and the property were taken by the deceased wife’s
relatives; all the husband was allowed to take was his clothing. Whether he
was a Moqui Indian or from another tribe, Major Powell, who saw the
person, did not learn. It appears from these cases that the children belonged
to the mother, and not to the father, and that he was not allowed to take
them even after the mother’s death. Such also was the usage among the
Iroquois and other northern tribes. Furthermore, the property of the wife
was kept distinct, and belonged to her relatives after her death. It tends to
show that the wife took nothing from her husband, as an implication from
the fact that the husband took nothing from the wife. Elsewhere it has been
shown that this was the usage among the Village Indians of Mexico.
Women, as well as men, not unlikely, had a possessory right to such rooms
and sections of these pueblo houses as they occupied; and they doubtless
transmitted these rights to their nearest of kin, under established
regulations. We need to know how these sections of each pueblo are owned
and inherited, whether the possessor has the right to sell and transfer to a
stranger, and if not, the nature and limits of his possessory right. We also
need to know who inherits the property of the males, and who inherits the
property of the females. A small amount of well-directed labor would
furnish the information now so much desired.
The Spanish writers have left the land tenure of the southern tribes in
inextricable confusion. When they found a community of persons owning
lands in common, which they could not alienate, and that one person among
them was recognized as their chief, they at once treated these lands as a
feudal estate, the chief as a feudal lord, and the people who owned the lands
in common as his vassals. At best, it was a perversion of the facts. One
thing is plain, namely, that these lands were owned in common by a
community of persons; but one, not less essential, is not given, namely, the
bond of union which held these persons together. If a gens, or a part of a
gens, the whole subject would be at once understood.
Descent in the female line still remained in some of the tribes of Mexico
and Central America, while in others, and probably in the larger portion, it
had been changed to the male line. The influence of property must have
caused the change, that children might participate as agnates in the
inheritance of their father’s property. Among the Mayas, descent was in the
male line, while among the Aztecs, Tezcucans, Tlacopans and Tlascalans, it
is difficult to determine whether it was in the male or the female line. It is
probable that descent was being changed to the male line among the Village
Indians generally, with remains of the archaic rule manifesting themselves,
as in the case of the office of Teuctli. The change would not overthrow
gentile inheritance. It is claimed by a number of Spanish writers that the
children, and in some cases the eldest son, inherited the property of a
deceased father; but such statements, apart from an exposition of their
system, are of little value.
Among the Village Indians, we should expect to find the second great rule
of inheritance which distributed the property among the agnatic kindred.
With descent in the male line, the children of a deceased person would
stand at the head of the agnates, and very naturally receive the greater
portion of the inheritance. It is not probable that the third great rule, which
gave an exclusive inheritance to the children of the deceased owner, had
become established among them. The discussion of inheritances by the
earlier and later writers is unsatisfactory, and devoid of accurate
information. Institutions, usages and customs still governed the question,
and could alone explain the system. Without better evidence than we now
possess, an exclusive inheritance by children cannot be asserted.

CHAPTER II. - THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE—

CONTINUED.
P U S B .—S .—T L G T .
—C P .—I B .—T R I .—E
C .—H T .—R I .—D Z .—P
P , G .—T R .—A I .
—E C .—T R .—I G .—H .
—W .—R I .—T R .—P G .—
A A .—P C H R .—U O
M .

The last great period of barbarism was never entered by the American
aborigines. It commenced in the Eastern, according to the scheme adopted,
with the production and use of iron.
The process of smelting iron ore was the invention of inventions, as
elsewhere suggested, beside which all other inventions and discoveries hold
a subordinate position. Mankind, notwithstanding a knowledge of bronze,
were still arrested in their progress for the want of efficient metallic tools,
and for the want of a metal of sufficient strength and hardness for
mechanical appliances. All these qualities were found for the first time in
iron. The accelerated progress of human intelligence dates from this
invention. This ethnical period, which is made forever memorable, was, in
many respects, the most brilliant and remarkable in the entire experience of
mankind. It is so overcrowded with achievements as to lead to a suspicion
that many of the works ascribed to it belong to the previous period.
IV. Property in the Upper Status of Barbarism.—Near the end of this
period, property in masses, consisting of many kinds and held by individual
ownership, began to be common, through settled agriculture, manufactures,
local trade and foreign commerce; but the old tenure of lands under which
they were held in common had not given place, except in part, to ownership
in severalty. Systematic slavery originated in this status. It stands directly
connected with the production of property. Out of it came the patriarchal
family of the Hebrew type, and the similar family of the Latin tribes under
paternal power, as well as a modified form of the same family among the
Grecian tribes. From these causes, but more particularly from the increased
abundance of subsistence through field agriculture, nations began to
develop, numbering many thousands under one government, where before
they would be reckoned by a few thousands. The localization of tribes in
fixed areas and in fortified cities, with the increase of the numbers of the
people, intensified the struggle for the possession of the most desirable
territories. It tended to advance the art of war, and to increase the rewards of
individual prowess. These changes of condition and of the plan of life
indicate the approach of civilization, which was to overthrow gentile and
establish political society.
Although the inhabitants of the Western hemisphere had no part in the
experience which belongs to this status, they were following down the same
lines on which the inhabitants of the Eastern had passed. They had fallen
behind the advancing column of the human race by just the distance
measured by the Upper Status of barbarism and the superadded years of
civilization.
We are now to trace the growth of the idea of property in this status of
advancement, as shown by its recognition in kind, and by the rules that
existed with respect to its ownership and inheritance.
The earliest laws of the Greeks, Romans and Hebrews, after civilization had
commenced, did little more than turn into legal enactments the results
which their previous experience had embodied in usages and customs.
Having the final laws and the previous archaic rules, the intermediate
changes, when not expressly known, may be inferred with tolerable
certainty.
At the close of the Later Period of barbarism, great changes had occurred in
the tenure of lands. It was gradually tending to two forms of ownership,
namely, by the state and by individuals. But this result was not fully secured
until after civilization had been attained. Lands among the Greeks were still
held, as we have seen, some by the tribes in common, some by the phratry
in common for religious uses, and some by the gens in common; but the
bulk of the lands had fallen under individual ownership in severalty. In the
time of Solon, while Athenian society was still gentile, lands in general
were owned by individuals, who had already learned to mortgage them;510
but individual ownership was not then a new thing. The Roman tribes, from
their first establishment, had a public domain, the Ager Romanus; while
lands were held by the curia for religious uses, by the gens, and by
individuals in severalty. After these social corporations died out, the lands
held by them in common gradually became private property. Very little is
known beyond the fact that certain lands were held by these organizations
for special uses, while individuals were gradually appropriating the
substance of the national areas.
These several forms of ownership tend to show that the oldest tenure, by
which land was held, was by the tribe in common; that after its cultivation
began, a portion of the tribe lands was divided among the gentes, each of
which held their portion in common; and that this was followed, in course
of time, by allotments to individuals, which allotments finally ripened into
individual ownership in severalty. Unoccupied and waste lands still
remained as the common property of the gens, the tribe and the nation.
This, substantially, seems to have been the progress of experience with
respect to the ownership of land. Personal property, generally, was subject
to individual ownership.
The monogamian family made its first appearance in the Upper Status of
barbarism, the growth of which out of a previous syndyasmian form was
intimately connected with the increase of property, and with the usages in
respect to its inheritance. Descent had been changed to the male line; but all
property, real as well as personal, remained, as it had been from time
immemorial, hereditary in the gens.
Our principal information concerning the kinds of property, that existed
among the Grecian tribes in this period, is derived from the Homeric
poems, and from the early laws of the period of civilization which reflect
ancient usages. Mention is made in the Iliad of fences511 around cultivated
fields, of an enclosure of fifty acres (πεντηκοντόγυος), half of which was fit
for vines and the remainder for tillage;512 and it is said of Tydeus that he
lived in a mansion rich in resources, and had corn-producing fields in
abundance.513 There is no reason to doubt that lands were then fenced and
measured, and held by individual ownership. It indicates a large degree of
progress in a knowledge of property and its uses. Breeds of horses were
already distinguished for particular excellence.514 Herds of cattle and flocks
of sheep possessed by individuals are mentioned, as “sheep of a rich man
standing countless in the fold.”515 Coined money was still unknown,
consequently trade was by barter of commodities, as indicated by the
following lines: “Thence the long-haired Greeks bought wine, some for
brass, some for shining iron, others for hides, some for the oxen themselves,
and some for slaves.”516 Gold in bars, however, is named as passing by
weight and estimated by talents.517 Manufactured articles of gold, silver,
brass and iron, and textile fabrics of linen and woolen in many forms,
together with houses and palaces, are mentioned. It will not be necessary to
extend the illustrations. Those given are sufficient to indicate the great
advance society had attained in the Upper Status of barbarism, in contrast
with that in the immediately previous period.
After houses and lands, flocks and herds, and exchangeable commodities
had become so great in quantity, and had come to be held by individual
ownership, the question of their inheritance would press upon human
attention until the right was placed upon a basis which satisfied the growing
intelligence of the Greek mind. Archaic usages would be modified in the
direction of later conceptions. The domestic animals were a possession of
greater value than all kinds of property previously known put together.
They served for food, were exchangeable for other commodities, were
usable for redeeming captives, for paying fines, and in sacrifices in the
observance of their religious rites. Moreover, as they were capable of
indefinite multiplication in numbers, their possession revealed to the human
mind its first conception of wealth. Following upon this, in course of time,
was the systematical cultivation of the earth, which tended to identify the
family with the soil, and render it a property-making organization. It soon
found expression, in the Latin, Grecian and Hebrew tribes, in the family
under paternal power, involving slaves and servants. Since the labor of the
father and his children became incorporated more and more with the land,
with the production of domestic animals, and with the creation of
merchandise, it would not only tend to individualize the family, now
monogamian, but also to suggest the superior claims of children to the
inheritance of the property they had assisted in creating. Before lands were
cultivated, flocks and herds would naturally fall under the joint ownership
of persons united in a group, on a basis of kin, for subsistence. Agnatic
inheritance would be apt to assert itself in this condition of things. But
when lands had become the subject of property, and allotments to
individuals had resulted in individual ownership, the third great rule of
inheritance, which gave the property to the children of the deceased owner,
was certain to supervene upon agnatic inheritance. There is no direct
evidence that strict agnatic inheritance ever existed among the Latin,
Grecian or Hebrew tribes, excepting in the reversion, established alike in
Roman, Grecian and Hebrew law; but that an exclusive agnatic inheritance
existed in the early period may be inferred from the reversion.
When field agriculture had demonstrated that the whole surface of the earth
could be made the subject of property owned by individuals in severalty,
and it was found that the head of the family became the natural center of
accumulation, the new property career of mankind was inaugurated. It was
fully done before the close of the Later Period of barbarism. A little
reflection must convince any one of the powerful influence property would
now begin to exercise upon the human mind, and of the great awakening of
new elements of character it was calculated to produce. Evidence appears,
from many sources, that the feeble impulse aroused in the savage mind had
now become a tremendous passion in the splendid barbarian of the heroic
age. Neither archaic nor later usages could maintain themselves in such an
advanced condition. The time had now arrived when monogamy, having
assured the paternity of children, would assert and maintain their exclusive
right to inherit the property of their deceased father.518
In the Hebrew tribes, of whose experience in barbarism very little is known,
individual ownership of lands existed before the commencement of their
civilization. The purchase from Ephron by Abraham of the cave of
Machpelah is an illustration.519 They had undoubtedly passed through a
previous experience in all respects similar to that of the Aryan tribes; and
came out of barbarism, like them, in possession of the domestic animals and
of the cereals, together with a knowledge of iron and brass, of gold and
silver, of fictile wares and of textile fabrics. But their knowledge of field
agriculture was limited in the time of Abraham. The reconstruction of
Hebrew society, after the Exodus, on the basis of consanguine tribes, to
which on reaching Palestine territorial areas were assigned, shows that
civilization found them under gentile institutions, and below a knowledge
of political society. With respect to the ownership and inheritance of
property, their experience seems to have been coincident with that of the
Roman and Grecian tribes, as can be made out, with some degree of
clearness, from the legislation of Moses. Inheritance was strictly within the
phratry, and probably within the gens, namely “the house of the father.” The
archaic rule of inheritance among the Hebrews is unknown, except as it is
indicated by the reversion, which was substantially the same as in the
Roman law of the Twelve Tables. We have this law of reversion, and also
an illustrative case, showing that after children had acquired an exclusive
inheritance, daughters succeeded in default of sons. Marriage would then
transfer their property from their own gens to that of their husband’s, unless
some restraint, in the case of heiresses, was put on the right. Presumptively
and naturally, marriage within the gens was prohibited. This presented the
last great question which arose with respect to gentile inheritance. It came
before Moses as a question of Hebrew inheritance, and before Solon as a
question of Athenian inheritance, the gens claiming a paramount right to its
retention within its membership; and it was adjudicated by both, in the same
manner. It may be reasonably supposed that the same question had arisen in
the Roman gentes, and was in part met by the rule that the marriage of a
female worked a deminutio capitis, and with it a forfeiture of agnatic rights.
Another question was involved in this issue; namely, whether marriage
should be restricted by the rule forbidding it within the gens, or become
free; the degree, and not the fact of kin, being the measure of the limitation.
This last rule was to be the final outcome of human experience with respect
to marriage. With these considerations in mind, the case to be cited sheds a
strong light upon the early institutions of the Hebrews, and shows their
essential similarity with those of the Greeks and Romans under gentilism.
Zelophehad died leaving daughters, but no sons, and the inheritance was
given to the former. Afterwards, these daughters being about to marry out
of the tribe of Joseph, to which they belonged, the members of the tribe
objecting to such a transfer of the property, brought the question before
Moses, saying: “If they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of
the children of Israel, then shall the inheritance be taken from the
inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe
whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our
inheritance.”520 Although this language is but the statement of the results of
a proposed act, it implies a grievance; and that grievance was the transfer of
the property from the gens and tribe to which it was conceived as belonging
by hereditary right. The Hebrew lawgiver admits this right in the language
of his decision. “The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath spoken well. This is
the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of
Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best: only to the
family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. So shall not the
inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every
one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe
of his fathers. And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any
tribe of the children of Israel shall be wife unto one of the family of the
tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the
inheritance of his fathers.”521 They were required to marry into their own
phratry (supra, p. 368), but not necessarily into their own gens. The
daughters of Zelophehad were accordingly “married to their father’s
brother’s sons,”522 who were not only members of their own phratry, but
also of their own gens. They were also their nearest agnates.
On a previous occasion, Moses had established the rule of inheritance and
of reversion in the following explicit language. “And thou shalt speak unto
the children of Israel, saying, If a man die and have no son, then you shall
cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughters. And if he have no daughter,
then you shall give his inheritance unto his brothers. And if he have no
brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if
his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his
kinsman, that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it.”523
Three classes of heirs are here named; first, the children of the deceased
owner; second, the agnates, in the order of their nearness; and third, the
gentiles, restricted to the members of the phratry of the decedent. The first
class of heirs were the children; but the inference would be that the sons
took the property, subject to the obligation of maintaining the daughters. We
find elsewhere that the eldest son had a double portion. In default of sons,
the daughters received the inheritance. The second class were the agnates,
divided into two grades; first, the brethren of the decedent, in default of
children, received the inheritance; and second, in default of them, the
brethren of the father of the decedent. The third were the gentiles, also in
the order of their nearness, namely, “his kinsman that is next to him of his
family.” As the “family of the tribe” is the analogue of the phratry (supra, p.
369), the property, in default of children and of agnates, went to the nearest
phrator of the deceased owner. It excluded cognates from the inheritance, so
that a phrator, more distant than a father’s brother, would inherit in
preference to the children of a sister of the decedent. Descent is shown to
have been in the male line, and the property must remain hereditary in the
gens. It will be noticed that the father did not inherit from his son, nor the
grandfather from his grandson. In this respect and in nearly all respects, the
Mosaic law agrees with the law of the Twelve Tables. It affords a striking
illustration of the uniformity of human experience, and of the growth of the
same ideas in parallel lines in different races.
At a later day, the Levitical law established marriage upon a new basis
independent of gentile law. It prohibited its occurrence within certain
prescribed degrees of consanguinity and affinity, and declared it free
beyond those degrees. This uprooted gentile usages in respect to marriage
among the Hebrews; and it has now become the rule of Christian nations.
Turning to the laws of Solon concerning inheritances, we find them
substantially the same as those of Moses. From this coincidence, an
inference arises that the antecedent usages, customs and institutions of the
Athenians and Hebrews were much the same in relation to property. In the
time of Solon, the third great rule of inheritance was fully established
among the Athenians. The sons took the estate of their deceased father
equally; but charged with the obligation of maintaining the daughters, and
of apportioning them suitably on their marriage. If there were no sons, the
daughters inherited equally. This created heiresses (ἐπίκληροι) by investing
women with estates, who like the daughters of Zelophehad, would transfer
the property, by their marriage, from their own gens to that of their
husband. The same question came before Solon that had been brought
before Moses, and was decided in the same way. To prevent the transfer of
property from gens to gens by marriage, Solon enacted that the heiress
should marry her nearest male agnate, although they belonged to the same
gens, and marriage between them had previously been prohibited by usage.
This became such a fixed rule of Athenian law, that M. De Coulanges, in
his original and suggestive work, expresses the opinion that the inheritance
passed to the agnate, subject to the obligation of marrying the heiress.524
Instances occurred where the nearest agnate, already married, put away his
wife in order to marry the heiress, and thus gain the estate. Protomachus, in
the Eubulides of Demosthenes, is an example.525 But it is hardly supposable
that the law compelled the agnate to divorce his wife and marry the heiress,
or that he could obtain the estate without becoming her husband. If there
were no children, the estate passed to the agnates, and in default of agnates,
to the gentiles of the deceased owner. Property was retained within the gens
as inflexibly among the Athenians as among the Hebrews and the Romans.
Solon turned into a law what, probably, had before become an established
usage.
The progressive growth of the idea of property is illustrated by the
appearance of testamentary dispositions established by Solon. This right
was certain of ultimate adoption; but it required time and experience for its
development. Plutarch remarks that Solon acquired celebrity by his law in
relation to testaments, which before that was not allowed; but the property
and homestead must remain in the gens (γένει) of the decedent. When he
permitted a person to devise his own property to any one he pleased, in case
he had no children, he honored friendship more than kinship, and made
property the rightful possession of the owner.526 This law recognized the
absolute individual ownership of property by the person while living, to
which was now superadded the power of disposing of it by will to
whomsoever he pleased, in case he had no children; but the gentile right to
the property remained paramount so long as children existed to represent
him in the gens. Thus at every point we meet the evidence that the great
principles, which now govern society, were elaborated step by step,
proceeding in sequences, and tending invariably in the same upward
direction. Although several of these illustrations are drawn from the period
of civilization, there is no reason for supposing that the laws of Solon were
new creations independent of antecedents. They rather embodied in positive
form those conceptions, in relation to property, which had gradually
developed through experience, to the full measure of the laws themselves.
Positive law was now substituted for customary law.

The Roman law of the Twelve Tables (first promulgated 449 B. C.)527
contain the rules of inheritance as then established. The property passed
first to the children, equally with whom the wife of the decedent was a co-
heiress; in default of children and descendants in the male line, it passed to
the agnates in the order of their nearness; and in default of agnates it passed
to the gentiles.528 Here we find again, as the fundamental basis of the law,
that the property must remain in the gens. Whether the remote ancestors of
the Latin, Grecian and Hebrew tribes possessed, one after the other, the
three great rules of inheritance under consideration, we have no means of
knowing, excepting through the reversion. It seems a reasonable inference
that inheritance was acquired in the inverse order of the law as it stands in
the Twelve Tables; that inheritance by the gentiles preceded inheritance by
the agnates, and that inheritance by the agnates preceded an exclusive
inheritance by the children.
During the Later Period of barbarism a new element, that of aristocracy, had
a marked development. The individuality of persons, and the increase of
wealth now possessed by individuals in masses, were laying the foundation
of personal influence. Slavery, also, by permanently degrading a portion of
the people, tended to establish contrasts of condition unknown in the
previous ethnical periods. This, with property and official position,
gradually developed the sentiment of aristocracy, which has so deeply
penetrated modern society, and antagonized the democratical principles
created and fostered by the gentes. It soon disturbed the balance of society
by introducing unequal privileges, and degrees of respect for individuals
among people of the same nationality, and thus became the source of
discord and strife.
In the Upper Status of barbarism, the office of chief in its different grades,
originally hereditary in the gens and elective among its members, passed,
very likely, among the Grecian and Latin tribes, from father to son, as a
rule. That it passed by hereditary right cannot be admitted upon existing
evidence; but the possession of either of the offices of archon, phylo-
basileus, or basileus among the Greeks, and of princeps and rex among the
Romans, tended to strengthen in their families the sentiment of aristocracy.
It did not, however, become strong enough to change essentially the
democratic constitution of the early governments of these tribes, although it
attained a permanent existence. Property and office were the foundations
upon which aristocracy planted itself.
Whether this principle shall live or die has been one of the great problems
with which modern society has been engaged through the intervening
periods. As a question between equal rights and unequal rights, between
equal laws and unequal laws, between the rights of wealth, of rank and of
official position, and the power of justice and intelligence, there can be little
doubt of the ultimate result. Although several thousand years have passed
away without the overthrow of privileged classes, excepting in the United
States, their burdensome character upon society has been demonstrated.
Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been so
immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its management
so intelligent in the interests of its owners, that it has become, on the part of
the people, an unmanageable power. The human mind stands bewildered in
the presence of its own creation. The time will come, nevertheless, when
human intelligence will rise to the mastery over property, and define the
relations of the state to the property it protects, as well as the obligations
and the limits of the rights of its owners. The interests of society are
paramount to individual interests, and the two must be brought into just and
harmonious relations. A mere property career is not the final destiny of
mankind, if progress is to be the law of the future as it has been of the past.
The time which has passed away since civilization began is but a fragment
of the past duration of man’s existence; and but a fragment of the ages yet
to come. The dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a
career of which property is the end and aim; because such a career contains
the elements of self-destruction. Democracy in government, brotherhood in
society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education,
foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience,
intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a
higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.
Some of the principles, and some of the results of the growth of the idea of
property in the human mind have now been presented. Although the subject
has been inadequately treated, its importance at least has been shown.
With one principle of intelligence and one physical form, in virtue of a
common origin, the results of human experience have been substantially the
same in all times and areas in the same ethnical status.
The principle of intelligence, although conditioned in its powers within
narrow limits of variation, seeks ideal standards invariably the same. Its
operations, consequently, have been uniform through all the stages of
human progress. No argument for the unity of origin of mankind can be
made, which, in its nature, is more satisfactory. A common principle of
intelligence meets us in the savage, in the barbarian, and in civilized man. It
was in virtue of this that mankind were able to produce in similar conditions
the same implements and utensils, the same inventions, and to develop
similar institutions from the same original germs of thought. There is
something grandly impressive in a principle which has wrought out
civilization by assiduous application from small beginnings; from the arrow
head, which expresses the thought in the brain of a savage, to the smelting
of iron ore, which represents the higher intelligence of the barbarian, and,
finally, to the railway train in motion, which may be called the triumph of
civilization.
It must be regarded as a marvelous fact that a portion of mankind five
thousand years ago, less or more, attained to civilization. In strictness but
two families, the Semitic and the Aryan, accomplished the work through
unassisted self-development. The Aryan family represents the central
stream of human progress, because it produced the highest type of mankind,
and because it has proved its intrinsic superiority by gradually assuming the
control of the earth. And yet civilization must be regarded as an accident of
circumstances. Its attainment at some time was certain; but that it should
have been accomplished when it was, is still an extraordinary fact. The
hindrances that held mankind in savagery were great, and surmounted with
difficulty. After reaching the Middle Status of barbarism, civilization hung
in the balance while barbarians were feeling their way, by experiments with
the native metals, toward the process of smelting iron ore. Until iron and its
uses were known, civilization was impossible. If mankind had failed to the
present hour to cross this barrier, it would have afforded no just cause for
surprise. When we recognize the duration of man’s existence upon the
earth, the wide vicissitudes through which he has passed in savagery and in
barbarism, and the progress he was compelled to make, civilization might
as naturally have been delayed for several thousand years in the future, as to
have occurred when it did in the good providence of God. We are forced to
the conclusion that it was the result, as to the time of its achievement, of a
series of fortuitous circumstances. It may well serve to remind us that we
owe our present condition, with its multiplied means of safety and of
happiness, to the struggles, the sufferings, the heroic exertions and the
patient toil of our barbarous, and more remotely, of our savage ancestors.
Their labors, their trials and their successes were a part of the plan of the
Supreme Intelligence to develop a barbarian out of a savage, and a civilized
man out of this barbarian.
 FOOTNOTES.
[1]
Et pueros commendarunt mulierbreque saeclum
Vocibus, et gestu, cum balbe signifcarent,
Imbecillorum esse aequm miserier omnium.
—De Rerum Natura, lib. v, 1020.
[2] Mr. Edwin B. Tylor observes that Goquet “first propounded, in the last century, the notion that the
way in which pottery came to be made, was that people daubed such combustible vessels as these
with clay to protect them from fire, till they found that clay alone would answer the purpose, and thus
the art of pottery came into the world.”—Early History of Mankind, p. 273. Goquet relates of Capt.
Gonneville who visited the southeast coast of South America in 1503, that he found “their household
utensils of wood, even their boiling pots, but plastered with a kind of clay, a good finger thick, which
prevented the fire from burning them.”—Ib. 273.
[3] Pottery has been found in aboriginal mounds in Oregon within a few years past.—Foster’s Pre-
Historic Races of the United States, I, 152. The first vessels of pottery among the Aborigines of the
United States seem to have been made in baskets of rushes or willows used as moulds which were
burned off after the vessel hardened.—Jones’s Antiquities of the Southern Indians, p. 461. Prof. Rau’s
article on Pottery. Smithsonian Report, 1866, p. 352.
[4] Early History of Mankind, p. 181; Pre-Historic Times, pp. 437, 441, 462, 477, 533, 542.
[5] Lewis and Clarke (1805) found plank in use in houses among the tribes of the Columbia River.—
Travels, Longman’s Ed., 1814, p. 503. Mr. John Keast Lord found “cedar plank chipped from the
solid tree with chisels and hatchets made of stone,” in Indian houses on Vancouver’s Island.—
Naturalist in British Columbia, I, 169.
[6] Tylor’s Early History of Mankind, p. 265, et seq.
[7] Geological Survey of Indiana, 1873, p. 119. He gives the following analysis: Ancient Pottery,
“Bone Bank,” Posey Co., Indiana.

Moisture at 212° F., 1.00

Silica, 36.00
Carbonate of Lime, 25.50
Carbonate of Magnesia, 3.02
Alumina, 5.00
Peroxide of Iron, 5.50
Sulphuric Acid, .20
Organic Matter (alkalies and loss), 23.60
———
 100.00
[8] History of the American Indians, Lond. ed., 1775, p. 424. The Iroquois affirm that in ancient
times their forefathers cured their pottery before a fire.
[9]
Necdum res igni scibant tractare, nec uti
Pellibus, et spoliis corpus vestire ferarum:
Sed nemora, atque cavos montis, silvasque colebant,
Et frutices inter condebant squalida membra,
Verbera ventorum vitare imbrisque coacti.
[10] As a combination of forces it is so abstruse that it not unlikely owed its origin to accident. The
elasticity and toughness of certain kinds of wood, the tension of a cord of sinew or vegetable fibre by
means of a bent bow, and finally their combination to propel an arrow by human muscle, are not very
obvious suggestions to the mind of a savage. As elsewhere noticed, the bow and arrow are unknown
to the Polynesians in general, and to the Australians. From this fact alone it is shown that mankind
were well advanced in the savage state when the bow and arrow made their first appearance.
[11] Chips from a German Workshop, Comp. Table, ii, p. 42.
[12] History of Rome, Scribner’s ed., 1871, I, p. 38.
[13] The early Spanish writers speak of a “dumb dog” found domesticated in the West India Islands,
and also in Mexico and Central America. (See figures of the Aztec dog in pl. iii, vol. I, of Clavigero’s
History of Mexico). I have seen no identification of the animal. They also speak of poultry as well as
turkeys on the continent. The aborigines had domesticated the turkey, and the Nahuatlac tribes some
species of wild fowl.
[14] We learn from the Iliad that the Greeks milked their sheep, as well as their cows and goats:
ὥστ' ὄϊες πολυπάμονος ἀνδρὸς ἐν αὐλῇ
μυρίαι ἑστήκασιν ἀμελγόμεναι γάλα λευκὸν.—Iliad, iv, 433.

[15]
Inque dies magis in montem succedere silvas
Cogebant, infraque locum concedere cultis;
Prata, lacus, rivas, segetes, vinetaque lacta
Collibus et campis ut haberent.—Lucr. De Re. Nat., v, 1369.
[16] The Egyptians may have invented the crane (See Herodotus, ii, 125). They also had the balance
scale.
[17] The phonetic alphabet came, like other great inventions, at the end of successive efforts. The
slow Egyptian, advancing the hieroglyph through its several forms, had reached a syllabus composed
of phonetic characters, and at this stage was resting upon his labors. He could write in permanent
characters upon stone. Then came in the inquisitive Phœnician, the first navigator and trader on the
sea, who, whether previously versed in hieroglyphs or otherwise, seems to have entered at a bound
upon the labors of the Egyptian, and by an inspiration of genius to have mastered the problem over
which the latter was dreaming. He produced that wondrous alphabet of sixteen letters which in time
gave to mankind a written language and the means for literary and historical records.
[18] ἀρχηγέτην εἶναι τῆς γεωγραφικῆς εἶναι Ὅμηρον.—Strabo, I, 2.
[19] Barley κριθὴ, white barley κρῖ λευκόν.—Iliad, v, 196; viii, 564: barley flour ἄλφιτον.—Il., xi,
631: barley meal, made of barley and salt, and used as an oblation οὐλοχύται.—Il., i, 449: wheat
πυρός.—Il., xi, 756: rye ὀλῦρα.—Il., v, 196, viii, 564: bread σῖτος.—Il., xxiv, 625: an inclosed 50
acres of land πεντηκοντόγυος.—Il., ix, 579: a fence ἕρκος.—Il., v, 90: a field ἀλωά.—Il., v, 90:
stones set for a field boundary.—Il., xxi, 405: plow ἄροτρον.—Il., x, 353; xiii, 703.
[20] The house or mansion δόμος.—Il., vi, 390: odoriferous chambers of cedar, lofty roofed.—Il., vi,
390: house of Priam, in which were fifty chambers of polished stones αὐτὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ πεντήκοντ'
ἔνεσαν θάλαμοι ξεστοῖο λίθοιο.—Il., vi, 243.
[21] Ship νηῦς.—Il., i, 485: white sail λευκὸν ἱστιόν.—Il., i, 480: cable or hawser πρυμνήσιος.—Il.,
i, 476: oar ἐρετμός.—Odyssey, iv, 782: mast ἱστός.—Od., iv, 781: keel στείρη.—Il., i, 482: ship plank
δουρὸς.—Il., iii, 61: long plank μακρὰ δούρατα.—Od., v, 162: nail ἧλος.—Il., xi, 633: golden nail
χρύσειος ἧλος.—Il., xi, 633.
[22] Chariot or vehicle ὄχος.—Il., viii, 389, 565: four-wheeled wagon τετράκυκλη ἀπήνη.—Il., xxiv,
324: chariot δίφρος.—Il., v, 727, 837; viii, 403: the same ἅρμα.—Il., ii, 775; vii, 426.
[23] Helmet κόρυς.—Il., xviii, 611; xx, 398: cuirass or corselet θώραξ.—Il., xvi, 133; xviii, 610:
greaves κνημίς.—Il., xvi, 131.
[24] Spear ἔγχος.—Il., xv, 712; xvi, 140: shield of Achilles σάκος.—Il., xviii, 478, 609: round shield
ἀσπις.—Il., xiii, 611.
[25] Sword ξίφος.—Il., vii, 303; xi, 29: silver-studded sword ξίφος ἀργυρόηλον.—Il., vii, 303: the
sword φάσγανον.—Il., xxiii, 807; xv, 713: a double-edged sword ἄμφηκες φάσγανον.—Il., x, 256.
[26] Wine οἶνος.—Il., viii, 506: sweet wine μελιηδέα οἶνον.—Il., x, 579.
[27] Potter’s wheel τροχός.—Il., xviii, 600: hand-mill for grinding grain μύλος.—Od., vii, 104; xx,
106.
[28] Linen λῖς.—Il., xviii, 352; xxiii, 254: linen corselet λινοθώρηξ.—Il., ii, 529: robe of Minerva
πεπλός.—Il., v, 734: tunic χιτῶν.—Il., x, 131: woolen cloak χλαῖνα.—Il., x, 133; xxiv, 280: rug or
coverlet τάπης.—Il., xxiv, 280, 645: mat ῥῆγος.—Il., xxiv, 644: veil κρήδεμνον.—Il., xxii, 470.
[29] Axe πέλλεκυς.—Il., iii, 60; xxiii, 114, 875: spade or mattock μάκελλον—Il., xxi, 259.
[30] Hatchet or battle-axeἀξίνη.—Il., xiii, 612; xv, 711: knife μάχαιρα.—Il., xi, 844; xix, 252: chip-
axe or adz σκέπαρνον.—Od., v, 273.
[31] Hammer ῥαιστήρ.—Il., xviii, 477: anvil ἄκμων.—Il., xviii, 476: tongs πυράγρα.—Il., xviii, 477.
[32] Bellows φῦσα.—Il., xviii, 372, 468: furnace, the boshes χόανος.—Il., xviii, 470.
[33] Horse ἵππος.—Il., xi, 680: distinguished into breeds: Thracian.—Il., x, 588; Trojan, v, 265:
Erechthomus owned three thousand mares τρισχίλιαι ἵπποι.—Il., xx, 221: collars, bridles and reins.—
Il., xix, 339: ass ὄνος.—Il., xi, 558: mule ἡμίονος.—Il., x, 352; vii, 333: ox βοῦς.—Il., xi, 678; viii,
333: bull ταῦρος; cow βοῦς.—Od., xx, 251: goat αἴξ.—Il., xi, 679: dog κύων.—v, 476; viii, 338; xxii,
509: sheep ὄïς.—Il., xi, 678: boar or sow σῦς.—Il., xi, 679; viii, 338: milk γλάγος.—Il., xvi, 643:
pails full of milk περιγλαγέας πέλλας.—Il., xvi, 642.
[34] Homer mentions the native metals; but they were known long before his time, and before iron.
The use of charcoal and the crucible in melting them prepared the way for smelting iron ore. Gold
χρυσός.—Iliad, ii, 229: silver ἄργυρος.—Il., xviii, 475: copper, called brass χαλκός.—Il., iii, 229;
xviii, 460: tin, possibly pewter, κασσίτερος.—Il., xi, 25; xx, 271; xxi, 292: lead μόλιβος.—Il., ii, 237:
iron σίδηρος.—Il., vii, 473: iron axle-tree.—Il., v, 723: iron club.—Il., vii, 141: iron wagon-tire.—Il.,
xxiii, 505.
[35] The researches of Beckmann have left a doubt upon the existence of a true bronze earlier than a
knowledge of iron among the Greeks and Latins. He thinks electrum, mentioned in the Iliad, was a
mixture of gold and silver (History of Inventions, Bohn’s ed., ii, 212); and that the stannum of the
Romans, which consisted of silver and lead, was the same as the kassiteron of Homer (Ib., ii, 217).
This word has usually been interpreted as tin. In commenting upon the composition called bronze, he
remarks: “In my opinion the greater part of these things were made of stannum, properly so called,
which by the admixture of the noble metals, and some difficulty of fusion, was rendered fitter for use
than pure copper.” (Ib., ii, 213). These observations were limited to the nations of the Mediterranean,
within whose areas tin was not produced. Axes, knives, razors, swords, daggers, and personal
ornaments discovered in Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, and other parts of Northern Europe, have
been found, on analysis, composed of copper and tin, and therefore fall under the strict definition of
bronze. They were also found in relations indicating priority to iron.
[36] The origin of language has been investigated far enough to find the grave difficulties in the way
of any solution of the problem. It seems to have been abandoned, by common consent, as an
unprofitable subject. It is more a question of the laws of human development and of the necessary
operations of the mental principle, than of the materials of language. Lucretius remarks that with
sounds and with gesture, mankind in the primitive period intimated their thoughts stammeringly to
each other (Vocibus, et gestu, cum balbe significarent.—v, 1021). He assumes that thought preceded
speech, and that gesture language preceded articulate language. Gesture or sign language seems to
have been primitive, the elder sister of articulate speech. It is still the universal language of
barbarians, if not of savages, in their mutual intercourse when their dialects are not the same. The
American aborigines have developed such a language, thus showing that one may be formed
adequate for general intercourse. As used by them it is both graceful and expressive, and affords
pleasure in its use. It is a language of natural symbols, and therefore possesses the elements of a
universal language. A sign language is easier to invent than one of sounds; and, since it is mastered
with greater facility, a presumption arises that it preceded articulate speech. The sounds of the voice
would first come in, on this hypothesis, in aid of gesture; and as they gradually assumed a
conventional signification, they would supersede, to that extent, the language of signs, or become
incorporated in it. It would also tend to develop the capacity of the vocal organs. No proposition can
be plainer than that gesture has attended articulate language from its birth. It is still inseparable from
it; and may embody the remains, by survival, of an ancient mental habit. If language were perfect, a
gesture to lengthen out or emphasize its meaning would be a fault. As we descend through the
gradations of language into its ruder forms, the gesture element increases in the quantity and variety
of its forms until we find language so dependent upon gestures that without them they would be
substantially unintelligible. Growing up and flourishing side by side through savagery, and far into
the period of barbarism, they remain, in modified forms, indissolubly united. Those who are curious
to solve the problem of the origin of language would do well to look to the possible suggestions from
gesture language.
[37] The Egyptians are supposed to affiliate remotely with the Semitic family.
[38] Whitney’s Oriental and Linguistic Studies, p. 341.
[39] M. Quiquerez, a Swiss engineer, discovered in the canton of Berne the remains of a number of
side-hill furnaces for smelting iron ore; together with tools, fragments of iron and charcoal. To
construct one, an excavation was made in the side of a hill in which a bosh was formed of clay, with
a chimney in the form of a dome above it to create a draft. No evidence was found of the use of the
bellows. The boshes seem to have been charged with alternate layers of pulverized ore and charcoal,
combustion being sustained by fanning the flames. The result was a spongy mass of partly fused ore
which was afterwards welded into a compact mass by hammering. A deposit of charcoal was found
beneath a bed of peat twenty feet in thickness. It is not probable that these furnaces were coeval with
the knowledge of smelting iron ore; but they were, not unlikely, close copies of the original furnace.
—Vide Figuier’s Primitive Man, Putnam’s ed., p. 301.
[40] Palace of Priam.—Il., vi, 242.
[41] House of Ulysses.—Od., xvi, 448.
[42] Od., vii, 115.
[43] In addition to the articles enumerated in the previous notes the following may be added from the
Iliad as further illustrations of the progress then made: The shuttle κερκίς.—xxii, 448: the loom
ἱστός.—xxii, 440: a woven fillet πλεκτὴ ἀναδέσμη.—xxii, 469: silver basin ἀργύρεος κρητήρ.—
xxiii, 741: goblet, or drinking cup δέπας.—xxiv, 285: golden goblet χρύσεον δέπας.—xxiv, 285:
basket, made of reeds, κάνεον.—xxiv, 626: ten talents in gold χρυσοῦ δέκα πάντα τάλαντα.—xix,
247: a harp φόρμιγξ.—ix, 186, and κίθαρα.—xiii, 731: a shepherd’s pipe σύριγξ.—xviii, 526: sickle,
or pruning knife, δρεπάνη.—xviii, 551: fowler’s net πάναγρον.—v, 487: mesh of a net ἀψίς.—v, 487:
a bridge γέφυρα.—v, 89: also a dike.—xxi, 245: rivets δέσμοι.—xviii, 379: the bean κύαμος.—xiii,
589: the pea ἐρέβινθος.—xiii, 589: the onion κρόμνον.—xi, 630: the grape σταφυλή.—xviii, 561: a
vineyard ἀλωή.—xviii, 561: wine οἶνος.—viii, 506; x, 579: the tripod τρίπους.—ix, 122: a copper
boiler or caldron λέβης.—ix, 123: a brooch ἐνετή.—xiv, 180: ear-ring τρίγληνος.—xiv, 183: a sandal
or buskin πέδιλον.—xiv, 186: leather ῥινός.—xvi, 636: a gate πύλη.—xxi, 537: bolt for fastening gate
ὀχεύς.—xxi, 537. And in the Odyssey: a silver basin ἀργύρεος λέβης.—i, 137: a table τράπεζα.—i,
138: golden cups χρύσεια κύπελλα.—Od., i, 142: rye or spelt ζειά.—iv, 41: a bathing tub ἀσάμινθος.
—iv, 48: cheese τυρός: milk γάλα.—iv, 88: distaff or spindle ἠλακάτη.—iv, 131; vii, 105; xvii, 97:
silver basket ἀργύρεος τάλαρος.—iv, 125: bread σῖτος.—iv, 623: xiv, 456: tables loaded with bread,
meat and wine ἐΰξεστοι δὲ τράπεζαι σίτου καὶ κρειῶν ἠδ' οἴνου βεβρίθασιν.—xv, 333: shuttle κερκίς.
—v, 62: bed λέκτρον.—viii, 337: brazier plunging an axe or adz in cold water for the purpose of
tempering it
ὡς δ' ὅτ' ἀνὴρ χαλκεὺς πέλεκυν μέγαν ἠὲ σκέπαρνον
εἰν ὕδατι ψυχρῷ βάπτῃ μεγάλα ἰάχοντα
φαρμάσσων· τὸ γὰρ αὖτε σιδήρου γε κράτος ἐστιν.
salt ἅλς.—xi, 123; xxiii, 270: bow τόξον.—xxi, 31, 53: quiver γωρυτός.—xxi, 54: sickle δρεπάνη.—
xviii, 368.
[44] The Romans made a distinction between connubium, which related to marriage considered as a
civil institution, and conjugium, which was a mere physical union.
[45] For the detailed facts of the Australian system I am indebted to the Rev. Lorimer Fison, an
English missionary in Australia, who received a portion of them from the Rev. W. Ridley, and
another portion from T. E. Lance, Esq., both of whom had spent many years among the Australian
aborigines, and enjoyed excellent opportunities for observation. The facts were sent by Mr. Fison
with a critical analysis and discussion of the system, which, with observations of the writer, were
published in the Proceedings of the Am. Acad. of Arts and Sciences for 1872. See vol. viii, p. 412. A
brief notice of the Kamilaroi classes is given in McLennan’s Primitive Marriage, p. 118; and in
Tylor’s Early History of Mankind, p. 288.
[46] Padymelon: a species of kangaroo.
[47] Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, (Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge), vol. xvii, p. 420, et seq.
[48] If a diagram of descents is made, for example, of Ippai and Kapota, and carried to the fourth
generation, giving to each intermediate pair two children, a male and a female, the following results
will appear. The children of Ippai and Kapota are Murri and Mata. As brothers and sisters the latter
cannot marry. At the second degree, the children of Murri, married to Buta, are Ippai and Ippata, and
of Mata married to Kumbo, are Kubbi and Kapota. Of these, Ippai marries his cousin Kapota, and
Kubbi marries his cousin Ippata. It will be noticed that the eight classes are reproduced from two in
the second and third generations, with the exception of Kumbo and Buta. At the next or third degree,
there are two Murris, two Matas, two Kumbos, and two Butas; of whom the Murris marry the Butas,
their second cousins, and the Kubbis the Matas, their second cousins. At the fourth generation there
are four each of Ippais Kapotas Kubbis and Ippatas, who are third cousins. Of these, the Ippais marry
the Kapotas, and the Kubbis the Ippatas; and thus it runs from generation to generation. A similar
chart of the remaining marriageable classes will produce like results. These details are tedious, but
they make the fact apparent that in this condition of ancient society they not only intermarry
constantly, but are compelled to do so through this organization upon sex. Cohabitation would not
follow this invariable course because an entire male and female class were married in a group; but its
occurrence must have been constant under the system. One of the primary objects secured by the
gens, when fully matured, was thus defeated: namely, the segregation of a moiety of the descendants
of a supposed common ancestor under a prohibition of intermarriage, followed by a right of marrying
into any other gens.
[49] Proc. Am. Acad. Arts and Sciences, viii, 436.
[50] In Letters on the Iroquois by Skenandoah, published in the American Review in 1847; in the
League of the Iroquois, published in 1851; and in Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the
Human Family, published in 1871. (Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xvii.) I have used
tribe as the equivalent of gens, and in its place; but with an exact definition of the group.
[51] These loaves or cakes were about six inches in diameter and an inch thick.
[52] North American Review, April No., 1873, p. 370 Note.
[53] The sons of several sisters are brothers to each other, instead of cousins. The latter are here
distinguished as collateral brothers. So a man’s brother’s son is his son instead of his nephew; while
his collateral sister’s son is his nephew, as well as his own sister’s son. The former is distinguished as
a collateral nephew.
[54] Pronounced gen'-ti-les, it may be remarked to those unfamiliar with Latin.
[55] History of America, Lond. ed., 1725, Stevens’ Trans., iv, 171.
[56] Ib., iv, 34.
[57] History of America, iii, 298.
[58] Royal Commentaries, Lond. ed., 1688, Rycaut’s Trans., p. 107.
[59] Herrera, iv, 231.
[60] “Their hearts burn violently day and night without intermission till they have shed blood for
blood. They transmit from father to son the memory of the loss of their relations, or one of their own
tribe, or family, though it was an old woman.”—Adair’s Hist. Amer. Indians, Lond. ed., 1775, p. 150.
[61] Mommsen’s History of Rome, Scribner’s ed., Dickson’s Trans., i, 49.
[62] One of the twelve gentes of the Omahas is Lä′-tä-dä, the Pigeon-Hawk, which has, among
others, the following names:

Boys’ Names.
Ah-hise′-na-da, “Long Wing.”
Gla-dan′-noh-che, “Hawk balancing itself in the air.”
Nes-tase′-kä, “White-Eyed Bird.”
Girls’ Names.
Me-ta′-na, “Bird singing at daylight.”
Lä-tä-dä′-win, “One of the Birds.”
Wä-tä′ na, “Bird’s Egg.”
[63] When particular usages are named it will be understood they are Iroquois unless the contrary is
stated.
[64] After the people had assembled at the council house one of the chiefs made an address giving
some account of the person, the reason for his adoption, the name and gens of the person adopting,
and the name bestowed upon the novitiate. Two chiefs taking the person by the arms then marched
with him through the council house and back, chanting the song of adoption. To this the people
responded in musical chorus at the end of each verse. The march continued until the verses were
ended, which required three rounds. With this the ceremony concluded. Americans are sometimes
adopted as a compliment. It fell to my lot some years ago to be thus adopted into the Hawk gens of
the Senecas, when this ceremony was repeated.
[65] Grote’s Hist. of Greece, i, 194.
[66] League of the Iroquois, p. 182.
[67] The “Keepers of the Faith” were about as numerous as the chiefs, and were selected by the wise-
men and matrons of each gens. After their selection they were raised up by a council of the tribe with
ceremonies adapted to the occasion. Their names were taken away and new ones belonging to this
class bestowed in their place. Men and women in about equal numbers were chosen. They were
censors of the people, with power to report the evil deeds of persons to the council. It was the duty of
individuals selected to accept the office; but after a reasonable service each might relinquish it, which
was done by dropping his name as a Keeper of the Faith, and resuming his former name.
[68] League of the Iroquois, p. 182.
[69] History of the American Indians, p. 183.
[70]
εἴη δ' ἂν Ἑλλαδι γλώττη τὰ ονόματα ταῦτα μεθερμηνευόμενα
φυλὴ μὲν καὶ τριττὺς ἡ τρίβους, φράτρα δὲ καὶ λόχος ἡ κουρία
—Dionysius, lib. II, cap. vii; and vid. lib. II, c. xiii.
[71] That purification was performed by the phratry is intimated by Æschylus:
ποία δὲ χέρνιψ φρατέρων προσδέξεται.—The Eumenides, 656.
[72] League of the Iroquois, p. 294.
[73] It was a journey of ten days from earth to heaven for the departed spirit, according to Iroquois
belief. For ten days after the death of a person, the mourners met nightly to lament the deceased, at
which they indulged in excessive grief. The dirge or wail was performed by women. It was an
ancient custom to make a fire on the grave each night for the same period. On the eleventh day they
held a feast; the spirit of the departed having reached heaven, the place of rest, there was no further
cause for mourning. With the feast it terminated.
[74] Iliad, ii, 362.
[75] Bancroft’s Native Races of the Pacific States, I, 109.
[76] O-tä′-was.
[77] The Ojibwas manufactured earthen pipes, water jars, and vessels in ancient times, as they now
assert. Indian pottery has been dug up at different times at the Sault St. Mary, which they recognize
as the work of their forefathers.
[78] The Potawattamie and the Cree have diverged about equally. It is probable that the Ojibwas
Otawas and Crees were one people in dialect after the Potawattamies became detached.
[79] As a mixture of forest and prairie it was an excellent game country. A species of bread-root, the
kamash, grew in abundance in the prairies. In the summer there was a profusion of berries. But in
these respects it was not superior to other areas. That which signalized the region was the
inexhaustible supply of salmon in the Columbia, and other rivers of the coast. They crowded these
streams in millions, and were taken in the season with facility, and in the greatest abundance. After
being split open and dried in the sun, they were packed and removed to their villages, and formed
their principal food during the greater part of the year. Beside these were the shell fisheries of the
coast, which supplied a large amount of food during the winter months. Superadded to these
concentrated advantages, the climate was mild and equable throughout the year—about that of
Tennessee and Virginia. It was the paradise of tribes without a knowledge of the cereals.
[80] It can be shown with a great degree of probability, that the Valley of the Columbia was the seed
land of the Ganowánian family, from which issued, in past ages, successive streams of migrating
bands, until both divisions of the continent were occupied. And further, that both divisions continued
to be replenished with inhabitants from this source down to the epoch of European discovery. These
conclusions may be deduced from physical causes, from the relative conditions, and from the
linguistic relations of the Indian tribes. The great expanse of the central prairies, which spread
continuously more than fifteen hundred miles from north to south, and more than a thousand miles
from east to west, interposed a barrier to a free communication between the Pacific and Atlantic sides
of the continent in North America. It seems probable, therefore, that an original family commencing
its spread from the Valley of the Columbia, and migrating under the influence of physical causes,
would reach Patagonia sooner than they would Florida. The known facts point so strongly to this
region as the original home of the Indian family, that a moderate amount of additional evidence will
render the hypothesis conclusive.
The discovery and cultivation of maize did not change materially the course of events, or suspend the
operation of previous causes; though it became an important factor in the progress of improvement. It
is not known where this American cereal was indigenous; but the tropical region of Central America,
where vegetation is intensely active, where this plant is peculiarly fruitful, and where the oldest seats
of the Village Indians were found, has been assumed by common consent, as the probable place of its
nativity. If, then, cultivation commenced in Central America, it would have propagated itself first
over Mexico, and from thence to New Mexico and the valley of the Mississippi, and thence again
eastward to the shores of the Atlantic; the volume of cultivation diminishing from the starting-point
to the extremities. It would spread, independently of the Village Indians, from the desire of more
barbarous tribes to gain the new subsistence; but it never extended beyond New Mexico to the Valley
of the Columbia, though cultivation was practiced by the Minnitarees and Mandans of the Upper
Missouri, by the Shyans on the Red River of the North, by the Hurons of Lake Simcoe in Canada,
and by the Abenakies of the Kennebec, as well as generally by the tribes between the Mississippi and
the Atlantic. Migrating bands from the Valley of the Columbia, following upon the track of their
predecessors, would press upon the Village Indians of New Mexico and Mexico, tending to force
displaced and fragmentary tribes toward and through the Isthmus into South America. Such expelled
bands would carry with them the first germs of progress developed by Village Indian life. Repeated
at intervals of time it would tend to bestow upon South America a class of inhabitants far superior to
the wild bands previously supplied, and at the expense of the northern section thus impoverished. In
the final result, South America would attain the advanced position in development, even in an
inferior country, which seems to have been the fact. The Peruvian legend of Manco Capac and Mama
Oello, children of the sun, brother and sister, husband and wife, shows, if it can be said to show
anything, that a band of Village Indians migrating from a distance, though not necessarily from North
America direct, had gathered together and taught the rude tribes of the Andes the higher arts of life,
including the cultivation of maize and plants. By a simple and quite natural process the legend has
dropped out the band, and retained only the leader and his wife.
[81] Coll. Ternaux-Compans, IX, pp. 181-183.
[82] Acosta. The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies, Lond. ed., 1604,
Grimstone’s Trans., pp. 500-503.
[83] Near the close of the last century the Seneca-Iroquois, at one of their villages on the Alleghany
river, set up an idol of wood, and performed dances and other religious ceremonies around it. My
informer, the late William Parker, saw this idol in the river into which it had been cast. Whom it
personated he did not learn.
[84] They were admitted into the Creek Confederacy after their overthrow by the French.
[85] About 1651-5, they expelled their kindred tribes, the Eries, from the region between the Genesee
river and Lake Erie, and shortly afterwards the Neutral Nations from the Niagara river, and thus came
into possession of the remainder of New York, with the exception of the lower Hudson and Long
Island.
[86] The Iroquois claimed that it had existed from one hundred and fifty to two hundred years when
they first saw Europeans. The generations of sachems in the history by David Cusick (a Tuscarora),
would make it more ancient.
[87] My friend, Horatio Hale, the eminent philologist, came, as he informed me, to this conclusion.
[88] These names signify as follows: 1. “Neutral,” or “the Shield.”
[89] “Man who Combs.”
[90] “Inexhaustible.”
[91] “Small Speech.”
[92] “At the Forks.”
[93] “At the Great River.”
[94] “Dragging his Horns.”
[95] “Even-Tempered.”
[96] “Hanging up Rattles.” The sachems in class one belonged to the Turtle tribe, in class two to the
Wolf tribe, and in class three to the Bear tribe.
[97] “A Man bearing a Burden.”
[98] “A Man covered with Cat-tail Down.”
[99] “Opening through the Woods.”
[100] “A Long String.”
[101] “A Man with a Headache.”
[102] “Swallowing Himself.”
[103] “Place of the Echo.”
[104] “War-club on the Ground.”
[105] “A Man Steaming Himself.” The sachems in the first class belonged to the Wolf tribe, in the
second to the Turtle tribe, and in the third to the Bear tribe.
[106] “Tangled,” Bear tribe.
[107] “On the Watch,” Bear tribe. This sachem and the one before him, were hereditary councilors of the To-do-dä´-ho, who held the most
illustrious sachemship.
[108] “Bitter Body,” Snipe tribe.
[109] Turtle tribe.
[110] This sachem was hereditary keeper of the wampum; Wolf tribe.
[111] Deer tribe.
[112] Deer tribe.
[113] Turtle tribe.
[114] Bear tribe.
[115] “Having a Glimpse,” Deer tribe.
[116] “Large Mouth,” Turtle tribe.
[117] “Over the Creek,” Turtle tribe.
[118] “Man Frightened,” Deer tribe.
[119] Heron tribe.
[120] Bear tribe.
[121] Bear tribe.
[122] Turtle tribe.
[123] Not ascertained.
[124] “Very Cold,” Turtle tribe.
[125] Heron tribe.
[126] Snipe tribe.
[127] Snipe tribe.
[128] “Handsome Lake,” Turtle tribe.
[129] “Level Heavens,” Snipe tribe.
[130] Turtle tribe.
[131] “Great Forehead,” Hawk tribe.
[132] “Assistant,” Bear tribe.
[133] “Falling Day,” Snipe tribe.
[134] “Hair Burned Off,” Snipe tribe.
[135] “Open Door,” Wolf tribe.
[136] The children of brothers are themselves brothers and sisters to each other, the children of the latter were also brothers and sisters, and
so downwards indefinitely; the children and descendants of sisters are the same. The children of a brother and sister are cousins, the children
of the latter are cousins, and so downwards indefinitely. A knowledge of the relationships to each other of the members of the same gens is
never lost.
[137] A civil council, which might be called by either nation, was usually summoned and opened in the following manner: If, for example,
the Onondagas made the call, they would send heralds to the Oneidas on the east, and the Cayugas on the west of them, with belts containing
an invitation to meet at the Onondaga council-grove on such a day of such a moon, for purposes which were also named. It would then
become the duty of the Cayugas to send the same notification to the Senecas, and of the Oneidas to notify the Mohawks. If the council was
to meet for peaceful purposes, then each sachem was to bring with him a bundle of fagots of white cedar, typical of peace; if for warlike
objects then the fagots were to be of red cedar, emblematical of war.
At the day appointed the sachems of the several nations, with their followers, who usually arrived a day or two before and remained
encamped at a distance, were received in a formal manner by the Onondaga sachems at the rising of the sun. They marched in separate
processions from their camps to the council-grove, each bearing his skin robe and bundle of fagots, where the Onondaga sachems awaited
them with a concourse of people. The sachems then formed themselves into a circle, an Onondaga sachem, who by appointment acted as
master of the ceremonies, occupying the side toward the rising sun. At a signal they marched round the circle moving by the north. It may be
here observed that the rim of the circle toward the north is called the “cold side,” (o-to′-wa-ga); that on the west “the side toward the setting
sun,” (ha-gă-kwăs′-gwä); that on the south “the side of the high sun,” (en-de-ih′-kwä); and that on the east “the side of the rising sun,” (t´-kă-
gwit-kăs′-gwä). After marching three times around on the circle single file, the head and-foot of the column being joined, the leader stopped
on the rising sun side, and deposited before him his bundle of fagots. In this he was followed by the others, one at a time, following by the
north, thus forming an inner circle of fagots. After this each sachem spread his skin robe in the same order, and sat down upon it, cross-
legged, behind his bundle of fagots, with his assistant sachem standing behind him. The master of the ceremonies, after a moment’s pause,
arose, drew from his pouch two pieces of dry wood and a piece of punk with which he proceeded to strike fire by friction. When fire was
thus obtained, he stepped within the circle and set fire to his own bundle, and then to each of the others in the order in which they were laid.
When they were well ignited, and at a signal from the master of the ceremonies, the sachems arose and marched three times around the
Burning Circle, going as before by the north. Each turned from time to time as he walked, so as to expose all sides of his person to the
warming influence of the fires. This typified that they warmed their affections for each other in order that they might transact the business of
the council in friendship and unity. They then reseated themselves each upon his own robe. After this the master of the ceremonies again
rising to his feet, filled and lighted the pipe of peace from his own fire. Drawing three whiffs, one after the other, he blew the first toward the
zenith, the second toward the ground, and the third toward the sun. By the first act he returned thanks to the Great Spirit for the preservation
of his life during the past year, and for being permitted to be present at this council. By the second, he returned thanks to his Mother, the
Earth, for her various productions which had ministered to his sustenance. And by the third, he returned thanks to the Sun for his never-
failing light, ever shining upon all. These words were not repeated, but such is the purport of the acts themselves. He then passed the pipe to
the first upon his right toward the north, who repeated the same ceremonies, and then passed it to the next, and so on around the burning
circle. The ceremony of smoking the calumet also signified that they pledged to each other their faith, their friendship, and their honor.
These ceremonies completed the opening of the council, which was then declared to be ready for the business upon which it had been
convened.
[138] Tradition declares that the Onondagas deputed a wise-man to visit the territories of the tribes and select and name the new sachems as
circumstances should prompt: which explains the unequal distribution of the office among the several gentes.
[139] At the beginning of the American revolution the Iroquois were unable to agree upon a declaration of war against our confederacy for
want of unanimity in council. A number of the Oneida sachems resisted the proposition and finally refused their consent. As neutrality was
impossible with the Mohawks, and the Senecas were determined to fight, it was resolved that each tribe might engage in the war upon its
own responsibility, or remain neutral. The war against the Eries, against the Neutral Nation and Susquehannocks, and the several wars
against the French, were resolved upon in general council. Our colonial records are largely filled with negotiations with the Iroquois
Confederacy.
[140]
δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντ' ἀπαγγέλλειν με χρὴ
δήμου προβούλοις τῆσδε καδμείας πόλεως.
—Æschylus, The Seven against Thebes, 1005.
[141] One of the Cayuga sachems.
[142] One of the Seneca sachems, and the founder of the New Religion of the Iroquois.
[143] One of the Seneca sachems.
[144] Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. (Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xvii, 1871, p. 131.)
[145]
1. Wolf, Tor-yoh′-ne. 5. Deer, Nä-o′-geh.
2. Bear, Ne-e-ar-guy′-ee. 6. Snipe, Doo-eese-doo-we′.
3. Beaver, Non-gar-ne′-e-ar-goh. 7. Heron, Jo-äs′-seh.
4. Turtle, Gä-ne-e-ar-teh-go′-wä. 8. Hawk, Os-sweh-gä-dä-gä′-ah.
[146]

1. Ah-na-rese′-kwä, Bone Gnawers. 5. Os-ken′-o-toh, Roaming.

2. Ah-nu-yeh′, Tree Liver. 6. Sine-gain′-see, Creeping.
3.Tso-tä′-ee, Shy Animal. 7. Ya-ra-hats′-see, Tall Tree.
4. Ge-ah′-wish, Fine Land. 8. Dä-soak′ Flying.
[147] Mr. Horatio Hale has recently proved the connection of the Tutelos with the Iroquois.
[148] Mr. Francis Parkman, author of the brilliant series of works on the colonization of America, was the first to establish the affiliation of
the Susquehannocks with the Iroquois.
[149] Travels in North America, Phila. ed., 1796, p. 164.
[150] Travels in North America, p. 165.
[151]
1. Wä-sä′-be. 2. De-a-glie′-ta. 3. Na-ko-poz′-na. 4. Moh-kuh′.
5. Wä-shä′-ba. 6. Wä-zhä′-zha. 7. Noli′-ga. 8. Wali′ga.
[152]
1. Wä′-zhese-ta. 2. Ink-ka′-sa-ba. 3. Lä′-tä-dä. 4. Kä′-ih.
5. Da-thun′-da. 6. Wä-sä′-ba. 7. Hun′-ga. 8. Kun′zä.
9. Tä′-pä. 10. In-grä′-zhe-da. 11. Ish-dä′-sun-da. 12. O-non-e′-kä-
[153]
1. Me-je′-rä-ja. 2. Too-num′-pe. 3. Ah′-ro-whä. 4. Ho′-dash.
5. Cheh′-he-tä. 6. Lu′-chih. 7. Wä-keeh′. 8. Mä′-kotch.
ḣ represents a deep sonant guttural. It is quite common in the dialects of the Missouri tribes, and also in the Minnitaree and Crow.
[154]

1. Me-je′-rä-ja. 2. Moon′-cha. 3. Ah′-ro-whä. 4. Hoo′-ma.

5. Kḣa′-ă. 6. Lute′-ja. 7. Wä′-kä. 8. Mä′-kotch.
[155]

1. Tä-we-kä-she′-gä. 2. Sin′-ja-ye-ga. 3. Mo-e′-kwe-ah-hä.

4. Hu-e′-yă. 5. Hun-go-tin′-ga. 6. Me-hä-shun′-gă.
7. O′-pă. 8. Me-kä′. 9. Sho′-ma-koo-sa.
10. Do-ḣă-kel′-yă. 11. Mo-e′-ka-ne-kä′-she-gä. 12. Dä-sin′-ja-hă-gă.
13. Ic′-hä-she. 14. Lo-ne′-kä-she-gä.
[156]

1. Shonk-chun′-ga-dă. 2. Hone-cha′-dä. 3. Cha′-rä.

4. Wahk-cha′-he-dä. 5. Hoo-wun′-nä. 6. Chä′-rä.
7. Wä-kon′-nä. 8. Wa-kon′-cha-rä.
[157] Travels, loc. cit., p. 166.
[158]

1. Ilo-ra-ta′-mŭ-make. 2. Mä-to′-no-mäke. 3. See-poosh′-kä.

4. Tä-na-tsŭ′-kä. 5. Ki-tä′-ne-mäke. 6. E-stä-pa′.
7. Me-te-ah′-ke.
[159]

1. Mit-che-ro′-ka. 2. Min-ne-pä′-ta. 3. Bä-ho-ḣä′-ta.

4. Seech-ka-be-ruh-pä′-ka. 5. E-tish-sho′-ka.
6. Aḣ-naḣ-ha-nä′-me-te. 7. E-ku′-pä-be-ka.
[160]

1. A-che-pä-be′-cha. 2. E-sach′-ka-buk. 3. Ho-ka-rut′-cha.

4. Ash-bot-chee-ah. 5. Ah-shin′-nä-de′-ah. 6. Ese-kep-kä′-buk.
7. Oo-sä-bot′-see. 8. Ah-hä-chick. 9. Ship-tet′-zä.
10. Ash-kane′-na. 11. Boo-a-dă′-sha. 12. O-hot-dŭ′-sha.
13. Pet-chale-ruḣ-pä′-ka.
[161] This practice as an act of mourning is very common among the Crows, and also as a religious offering when they hold a “Medicine
Lodge,” a great religious ceremonial. In a basket hung up in a Medicine Lodge for their reception as offerings, fifty, and sometimes a
hundred finger joints, I have been told, are sometimes thus collected. At a Crow encampment on the Upper Missouri I noticed a number of
women and men with their hands mutilated by this practice.
[162]
 1. Yä′-hä. 2. No-kuse′. 3. Ku′-mu. 4. Kal-pŭt′-lŭ.
5. E′-cho. 6. Tus′-wă. 7. Kat′-chŭ. 8. Ho-tor′-lee.
9. So-päk′-tŭ. 10. Tŭk′-ko. 11. Chŭ′-lä. 12. Wo′-tko.
13. Hŭ′-hlo. 14. Ŭ′-che. 15. Ah′-ah. 16. O-che′.
17. Ok-chŭn′-wä. 18. Kŭ-wä′-ku-che. 19. Tä-mul′-kee. 20. Ak-tŭ-yä-chu
21. Is-fä-nŭl′-ke. 22. Wä-hläk-kŭl′-kee.
[163] Sig’n = signification.
[164]

First. Ku-shap′. Ok′-lä.

1. Kush-ik′-sä. 2. Law-ok′-lä. 3. Lu-lak Ik′sä. 4. Lin-ok-lŭ′-sha.
Second. Wă-tăk-i-Hŭ-lä′-tä.
1. Chu-fan-ik′-sä. 2. Is-kŭ-la′-ni. 3. Chi′-to. 4. Shak-chuk′-la.
[165]

I. Koi.
1. Ko-in-chush. 2. Hä-täk-fu-shi. 3. Nun-ni. 4. Is-si.
II. Ish-pän-ee.
1. Shä-u-ee. 2. Ish-pän-ee. 3. Ming-ko. 4. Hush-ko-ni.
5. Tun-ni. 6. Ho-chon-chab-ba. 7. Nä-sho-lă. 8. Chuh-hlä.
[166]

1. Ah-ne-whǐ′-yä. 2. Ah-ne-who′-teh. 3. Ah-ne-ga-tä-ga′-nih.

4. Dsŭ-nǐ-li′-a-nä. 5. U-ni-sdä′-sdi. 6. Ah-nee-kä′-wih.
7. Ah-nee-sä-hok′-nih. 8. Ah-nŭ-ka-lo′-high. ah-nee signifies the plural.
[167] 1. From the Ojibwa, gǐ-tchi′, great, and gä′me, lake, the aboriginal name of Lake Superior, and other great lakes.
[168]

1. My-een′-gun. 2. Mä-kwä′. 3. Ah-mik′.

4. Me-she′-kă. 5. Mik-o-noh′. 6. Me-skwä-da′-re.
7. Ah-dik′. 8. Chu-e-skwe′-ske-wă. 9. O-jee-jok′.
10. Ka-kake′. 11. O-me-gee-ze′. 12. Mong.
13. Ah-ah′-weh. 14. She-shebe′. 15. Ke-na′-big.
16. Wa-zhush′. 17. Wa-be-zhaze′. 18. Moosh-kä-oo-ze′.
19. Ah-wah-sis′-sa. 20. Nä-ma′-bin. 21. ——
22. Nă-ma′. 23. Ke-no′-zhe
[169] An Ojibwa sachem, Ke-we′-kons, who died about 1840, at the age of ninety years, when asked by my informant why he did not retire
from office and give place to his son, replied, that his son could not succeed him; that the right of succession belonged to his nephew, E-
kwä′-ka-mik, who must have the office. This nephew was a son of one of his sisters. From this statement it follows that descent, anciently,
and within a recent period, was in the female line. It does not follow from the form of the statement that the nephew would take by
hereditary right, but that he was in the line of succession, and his election was substantially assured.
[170]

1. Mo-ăh′. 2. M′-ko′. 3. Muk. 4. Mis-shă′-wă.

5. Maak. 6. K′-nou′. 7. N′-mă′. 8. N′-mă-pe-nă′.
9. M′-ge-ze′-wä. 10. Che′-kwa. 11. Wä-bo′-zo. 12. Kä-käg′-she.
13. Wake-shǐ′. 14. Pen′-nă. 15. M′-ke-tash′-she-kă-kah′.
 16. O-tä′-wa.
[171] Pronounced O-tä′-wa.
[172]

1. Mo-wha′-wä. 2. Mon-gwä′. 3. Ken-da-wă′. 4. Ah-pă′-kose-e-ă.

5. Ka-no-zä′-wa. 6. Pǐ-la-wä′. 7. Ah-se-pon′-nä. 8. Mon-nă′-to.
9. Kul-swä′. 10. (Not obtained).
[173]

1. M′-wa-′. 2. Ma-gwä′. 3. M′-kwä′. 4. We-wä′-see.

5. M′-se′-pa-se. 6. M′-ath-wa′. 7. Pa-la-wä′. 8. Psake-the′.
9. Sha-pä-tă′. 10. Na-ma-thä′. 11. Ma-na-to′. 12. Pe-sa-wä′.
13. Pä-täke-e-no-the′.
[174] In every tribe the name indicated the gens. Thus, among the Sauks and Foxes Long Horn is a name belonging to the Deer gens; Black
Wolf, to the wolf. In the Eagle gens the following are specimen names: Ka′-po-nä, “Eagle drawing his nest;” Ja-ka-kwä-pe, “Eagle sitting
with his head up;” Pe-ă-tä-na-kä-hok, “Eagle flying over a limb.”
[175]

1. Mo-whă-wis′-so-uk. 2. Ma-kwis′-so-jik. 3. Pă-sha′-ga-sa-wis-so-uk.

4. Mă-shă-wă-uk′. 5. Kă-kă-kwis′-so-uk. 6. Pă-mis′-so-uk.
7. Nă-mă-sis′-so-uk. 8. Na-nus-sus′-so-uk. 9. Nă-nă-ma′-kew-uk.
10. Ah-kuh′-ne-näk. 11. Wä-ko-a-wis′-so-jik. 12. Kă-che-kone-a-we′-so-u
13. Nă-mă-we′-so-uk. 14. Mă-she′-mă-täk.
[176]

1. Ki′-no. 2. Mä-me-o′-ya. 3. Ah-pe-ki′. 4. A-ne′-po.

5. Po-no-kix′.
[177]

1. Ah-ah′-pi-tä-pe. 2. Ah-pe-ki′-e. 3. Ih-po′-se-mä.

4. Ka-ka′-po-ya. 5. Mo-tă′-to-sis. 6. Kä-ti′-ya-ye-mix.
7. Kä-ta′-ge-mă-ne. 8. E-ko′-to-pis-taxe.
[178]

I. Wolf. Took′-seat.
1. Mä-an′-greet, Big Feet. 7. Pun-ar′-you, Dog standing
2. Wee-sow-het′-ko, Yellow Tree. 8. Kwin-eek′-cha, Long Body
3. Pä-sa-kun-ă′-mon, Pulling Corn. 9. Moon-har-tar′-ne, Digging
4. We-yar-nih′-kä-to, Care Enterer. 10. Non-har′-min, Pulling up S
5. Toosh-war-ka′-ma, Across the River. 11. Long-ush-har-kar′-to, Brus
6. O-lum′-a-ne, Vermilion. 12. Maw-soo-toh′, Bringing A
II. Turtle. Poke-koo-un′-go.
1. O-ka-ho′-ki, Ruler. 6. Toosh-ki-pa-kwis-i, Green
2. Ta-ko-ong′-o-to, High Bank Shore. 7. Tung-ul-ung′-si, Smallest T
3. See-har-ong′-o-to, Drawing down Hill. 8. We-lun-ŭng-si, Little Turtl
4. Ole-har-kar-me′-kar-to, Elector. 9. Lee-kwin-ă-i′, Snapping Tu
5. Mä-har-o-luk′-ti, Brave. 10. Kwis-aese-kees′-to, Deer.
 The two remaining sub-gentes are extinct.
III. Turkey. Pul-la′-ook.
1. Mo-har-ä′-lä, Big Bird. 7. Tong-o-nä′-o-to, Drift Log
2. Le-le-wa′-you, Bird’s Cry. 8. Nool-ă-mar-lar′-mo, Living
3. Moo-kwung-wa-ho′-ki, Eye Pain. 9. Muh-krent-har′-ne, Root D
4. Moo-har-mo-wi-kar′-nu, Scratch the Path. 10. Muh-karm-huk-se, Red Fa
5. O-ping-ho′-ki, Opossum Ground. 11. Koo-wä-ho′-ke, Pine Regio
6. Muh-ho-we-kä′-ken, Old Shin. 12. Oo-chuk′-ham, Ground Sc
[179]

I. Took-se-tuk′.
1. Ne-ḣ′-jä-o. 2. Mä′-kwä. 3. N-de-yä′-o. 4. Wä-pa-kwe′.
II. Tone-ba′-o.
1. Gak-po-mute′. 2. ——. 3. Tone-bä′-o. 4. We-saw-mä′-un.
III. Turkey.
1. Nä-ah-mä′-o. 2. Gä-ḣ′-ko. 3. ——.
[180] In Systems of Consanguinity, the aboriginal names of the principal Indian tribes, with their significations, may be found.
[181]

1. Mals′-sŭm. 2. Pis-suh′. 3. Ah-weḣ′-soos.

4. Skooke. 5. Ah-lunk′-soo. 6. Ta-mä′-kwa.
7. Mä-guḣ-le-loo′. 8. Kä-bäḣ′-seh. 9. Moos-kwă-suh′.
10. K′-che-gä-gong′-go. 11. Meḣ-ko-ă′. 12. Che-gwä′-lis.
13. Koos-koo′. 14. Mä-dä′-weh-soos.
[182] Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., ii, Intro., cxlix.
[183] Alaska and its Resources, p. 414.
[184] Native Races of the Pacific States, i, 109.
[185] The Shawnees formerly worshiped a Female Deity, called Go-gome-tha-mä′, “Our Grand-Mother.”
[186] Schoolcraft’s Hist., etc., of Indian Tribes, iv, 86.
[187] Address, p. 12.
[188] General History of America, Lond. ed., 1726. Stevens’ Trans., iii, 299.
[189] Ib., iv, 171.
[190] Ib., iii, 203.
[191] Ib., iv, 33.
[192] General History of America, iv, 171.
[193] Early History of Mankind, p. 287.
[194] Gen. Hist. of Amer., iv, 231.
[195] Early History of Mankind, p. 287.
[196] Indian Tribes of Guiana, p. 98; cited by Lubbock, Origin of Civilization, p. 98.
[197] The histories of Spanish America may be trusted in whatever relates to the acts of the
Spaniards, and to the acts and personal characteristics of the Indians; in whatever relates to their
weapons, implements and utensils, fabrics, food and raiment, and things of a similar character. But in
whatever relates to Indian society and government, their social relations, and plan of life, they are
nearly worthless, because they learned nothing and knew nothing of either. We are at full liberty to
reject them in these respects and commence anew; using any facts they may contain which
harmonize with what is known of Indian society.
[198] The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies, Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s
Trans., pp. 497-504.
[199] The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies, p. 499.
[200] General History of America, Lond. ed., 1725, Stevens’ Trans., iii, 188.
[201] History of Mexico, Philadelphia ed., 1817, Cullen’s Trans., i, 119.
[202] Herrera, Hist. of Amer., iii, 110.
[203] History of Mexico, loc. cit., i, 162.
[204] Clavigero, Hist. of Mex., i, 229: Herrera, iii, 312: Prescott, Conq. of Mex., i, 18.
[205] The Aztecs, like the Northern Indians, neither exchanged or released prisoners. Among the
latter the stake was the doom of the captive unless saved by adoption; but among the former, under
the teachings of the priesthood, the unfortunate captive was offered as a sacrifice to the principal god
they worshiped. To utilize the life of the prisoner in the service of the gods, a life forfeited by the
immemorial usages of savages and barbarians, was the high conception of the first hierarchy in the
order of institutions. An organized priesthood first appeared among the American aborigines in the
Middle Status of barbarism; and it stands connected with the invention of idols and human sacrifices,
as a means of acquiring authority over mankind through the religious sentiments. It probably has a
similar history in the principal tribes of mankind. Three successive usages with respect to captives
appeared in the three sub-periods of barbarism. In the first he was burned at the stake, in the second
he was sacrificed to the gods, and in the third he was made a slave. All alike they proceeded upon the
principle that the life of the prisoner was forfeited to his captor. This principle became so deeply
seated in the human mind that civilization and Christianity combined were required for its
displacement.
[206] There is some difference in the estimates of the population of Mexico found in the Spanish
histories; but several of them concurred in the number of houses, which, strange to say, is placed at
sixty thousand. Zuazo, who visited Mexico in 1521, wrote sixty thousand inhabitants (Prescott,
Conq. of Mex., ii, 112, note); the Anonymous Conqueror, who accompanied Cortes also wrote sixty
thousand inhabitants, “soixante mille habitans” (H. Ternaux-Compans, x, 92); but Gomora and
Martyr wrote sixty thousand houses, and this estimate has been adopted by Clavigero (Hist. of Mex.,
ii, 360), by Herrera (Hist. of Amer., ii, 360), and by Prescott (Conq. of Mex., ii, 112). Solis says sixty
thousand families (Hist. Conq. of Mex., l. c., i, 393). This estimate would give a population of
300,000, although London at that time contained but 145,000 inhabitants (Black’s London, p. 5).
Finally, Torquemada, cited by Clavigero (ii, 360, note), boldly writes one hundred and twenty
thousand houses. There can scarcely be a doubt that the houses in this pueblo were in general large
communal, or joint-tenement houses, like those in New Mexico of the same period, large enough to
accommodate from ten to fifty and a hundred families in each. At either number the mistake is
egregious. Zuazo and the Anonymous Conqueror came the nearest to a respectable estimate, because
they did not much more than double the probable number.
[207] League of the Iroquois, p. 78.
[208] Herrera, iii, 194, 209.
[209] Herrera, ii, 279, 304: Clavigero, i, 146.
[210] Clavigero, i, 147; The four war-chiefs were ex officio members of the Council. Ib., ii, 137.
[211] Herrera, ii, 310.
[212] Herrera, iii, 194.
[213] Cronica Mexicana, De Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc, ch. li, p. 83, Kingsborough, v, ix.
[214] History of Mexico, ii, 141.
[215] History of America, iii, 314. The above is a retranslation by Mr. Bandelier from the Spanish
text.
[216] Popol Vuh, Intro. p. 117, note 2.
[217] History of the Indies of New Spain and Islands of the Main Land, Mexico, 1867. Ed. by Jose F.
Ramirez, p. 102. Published from the original MS. Translated by Mr. Bandelier.
[218] The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies, Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s
Trans., p. 485.
[219] History of America, iii, 224.
[220] Cronica Mexicana, cap. xcvii, Bandelier’s Trans.
[221] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chichimeca, Kingsborough, Mex. Antiq. ix, p. 243.
[222] History of Mexico, ii, 132.
[223] “The title of Teuctli was added in the manner of a surname to the proper name of the person
advanced to this dignity, as Chichimeca-Teuctli, Pil-Teuctli, and others. The Teuctli took precedency
of all others in the senate, both in the order of sitting and voting, and were permitted to have a servant
behind them with a seat, which was esteemed a privilege of the highest honor.”—Clavigero, ii, 137.
This is a re-appearance of the sub-sachem of the Iroquois behind his principal.
[224] Historia Chichimeca, ch. xxxii, Kingsborough: Mex. Antiq., ix, 219.
[225] History of Mexico, l. c., ii, 136.
[226] Clavigero, ii, 126.
[227] Historia General, ch. xviii.
[228] In the West India Islands the Spaniards discovered that when they captured the cacique of a
tribe and held him a prisoner, the Indians became demoralized and refused to fight. Taking advantage
of this knowledge when they reached the main-land they made it a point to entrap the principal chief,
by force or fraud, and hold him a prisoner until their object was gained. Cortes simply acted upon this
experience when he captured Montezuma and held him a prisoner in his quarters; and Pizaarro did
the same when he seized Atahuallpa. Under Indian customs the prisoner was put to death, and if a
principal chief, the office reverted to the tribe and was at once filled. But in these cases the prisoner
remained alive, and in possession of his office, so that it could not be filled. The action of the people
was paralyzed by novel circumstances. Cortes put the Aztecs in this position.
[229] History of Mexico, iii, 66.
[230] Ib., iii, 67.
[231] Clavigero, ii, 406
[232] Ib., ii, 404.
[233] Herrera, iii, 393.
[234] The phratries were not common to the Dorian tribes.—Müller’s Dorians, Tufnel and Law’s
Trans., Oxford ed., ii, 82.
[235] Hermann mentions the confederacies of Ægina, Athens, Prasia, Nauplia, etc.—Political
Antiquities of Greece, Oxford Trans., ch. i, s. 11.
[236] “In the ancient Rhetra of Lycurgus, the tribes and obês are directed to be maintained unaltered:
but the statement of O. Müller and Boeckh—that there were thirty obês in all, ten to each tribe,—
rests upon no higher evidence than a peculiar punctuation in this Rhetra, which various other critics
reject; and seemingly with good reason. We are thus left without any information respecting the obê,
though we know that it was an old peculiar and lasting division among the Spartan people.”—Grote’s
History of Greece, Murray’s ed., ii, 362. But see Müller’s Dorians, l. c., ii, 80.
[237]
καίτοι τίς ἔστιν ὅστις ἂν εἰς τὰ πατρῷα
μνήματα τοὺς μηδὲν ἐν γένει τιθέντας ἐάσαι.
—Demosthenes, Eubulides, 1307.
[238] History of Greece, iii, 53, et seq.
[239] History of Greece, iii, 60.
[240] Diogenes Laertius, Vit. Aristotle, v, 1.
[241] Political Antiquities of the Greeks, c. v, s. 100; and vide Eubulides of Demosthenes, 24.
[242] Historical Antiquities of the Greeks, Woolrych’s Trans., Oxford ed., 1837, i, 451.
[243] Political Antiquities, l. c., cap. v, s. 100.
[244] Charicles, Metcalfe’s Trans., Lond. ed., 1866, p. 477; citing Isaeus de Cir. her. 217:
Demosthenes adv. Ebul., 1304: Plutarch, Themist., 32: Pausanias, i, 7, 1: Achill. Tat., i, 3.
[245] Hermann, l. c., v, s. 100 and 101.
[246] History of Greece, iii, 55.
[247] “We find the Asklepiadæ in many parts of Greece—the Aleuadæ in Thessaly—the Midylidæ,
Psalychidæ, Belpsiadæ, Euxenidæ, at Aegina—the Branchidæ at Miletus—the Nebridæ at Kôs—the
Iamidæ and Klytiadæ at Olympia—the Akestoridæ at Argos—the Kinyradæ at Cyprus—the
Penthilidæ at Mitylene—the Talthybiadæ at Sparta—not less than the Kodridæ, Eumolpidæ,
Phytalidæ, Lykomêdæ, Butadæ, Euneidæ, Hesychidæ, Brytiadæ, etc., in Attica. To each of these
corresponded a mythical ancestor more or less known, and passing for the first father as well as the
eponymous hero of the gens—Kodrus, Eumolpus, Butes, Phytalus, Hesychus, etc.”—Grote’s Hist. of
Greece, iii, 62.
[248] History of Greece, iii, 62, et seq.
[249] Hist. of Greece, iii, 58, et seq.
[250] History of Greece, iii, 58.
[251] Wachsmuth’s Historical Antiquities of the Greeks, l. c., i, 449, app. for text.
[252] Iliad, ii, 362.
[253] Tacitus, Germania, cap. vii.
[254] Grote’s History of Greece, iii, 55. The Court of Areopagus took jurisdiction over homicides.—
Ib., iii, 79.
[255] Ποία δε χέρνιψ φρατέρων προσδέξεται.—Eum., 656.
[256] The Ancient City, Small’s Trans., p. 157. Boston, Lee & Shepard.
[257] Aristotle, Thucydides, and other writers, use the term basileia (βασιλεία) for the governments
of the heroic period.
[258] Ἑλληνικὸν δὲ ἄρα καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔθος ἦν. τοῖς γοῦν βασιλεῦσιν, ὅσοι τε πατρίους ἀρχὰς
παραλάβοιεν καὶ ὅσους ἡ πληθὺς ἀυτὴ καταστήσαιτο ἡγεμόνας, βουλευτήριον ἦν ἐκ τῶν κρατίστων,
ὡς Ὅμηρός τε καὶ οἱ παλαιότατοι τῶν ποιητῶν μαρτυροῦσι· καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνοις
αὐθάδεις καὶ μονογνώμονες ἦσαν αἱ τῶν ἀρχαίων βασιλέων δυναστεῖαι.—Dionysius, 2, xii.
[259]
δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντ' ἀπαγγέλλειν με χρὴ
δήμου προβούλοις τῆσδε Καδμείας πόλεως·
Ἐτεοκλέα μὲν τόνδ' ἐπ' εὐνοίᾳ χθονὸς
θάπτειν ἔδοξε γῆς φίλαις κατασκαφαῖς.
—Aeschylus, The Seven against Thebes, 1005.
[260] Euripides, Orestes, 884.
[261]
Πανδημίᾳ γὰρ χερσὶ δεξιωνύμοις
ἔφριξεν αἰθὴρ τόνδε κραινόντων λόγον.
—Aeschylus, The Suppliants, 607.
[262] History of Greece, ii, 69.
[263] History of Greece, ii, 69, and Iliad, ii, 204.
[264] Mr. Gladstone, who presents to his readers the Grecian chiefs of the heroic age as kings and
princes, with the superadded qualities of gentlemen, is forced to admit that “on the whole we seem to
have the custom or law of primogeniture sufficiently, but not oversharply defined.”—Juventus
Mundi, Little & Brown’s ed., p. 428.
[265]
Οὐ μέν πως πάντες βασιλεύσομεν ἐνθάδ' Ἀχαιοί.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη· εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω,
εἷς βασιλεύς, ᾧ ἔδωκε Κρόνου παῖς ἀγκυλομήτεω.
[σκῆπτρόν τ' ἠδὲ θέμιστας, ἵνα σφίσι βασιλεύῃ.]
—Iliad, ii, 203.
The words in brackets are not found in several MS., for example, in the commentary of Eustasius.
[266] Smith’s Dic., Art. Rex, p. 991.
[267] Thucydides, i, 13.
[268]
βασιλείας μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμὸν, μία μὲν ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωϊκοὺς χρόνους· αὕτη δ'
ἦν ἑκόντων μέν, ἐπὶ τισὶ δ' ὡρισμένων· στρατηγὸς γὰρ ἦν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ τῶν πρὸς
θεοὺς κύριος. Δευτέρα δὲ ἡ βαρβαρικὴ αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν ἐκ γένους ἀρχὴ δεσποτικὴ κατὰ νόμον. Τρίτη δὲ
ἣν αἰσυμνητίαν προσαγορεύουσιν· αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς. Τετάρτη δ' ἡ Λακωνικὴ τούτων·
αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν, ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁπλῶς, στρατηγία κατὰ γένος ἀΐδιος.—Aristotle, Politics, iii, c. x.
[269] History of Greece, ii, 61, and see 69.
[270] Thucydides, lib. i, 2-13.
[271] Thucyd., lib. ii, c. 15. Plutarch speaks nearly to the same effect: “He settled all the inhabitants
of Attica in Athens, and made them one people in one city, who before were scattered up and down,
and could with difficulty be assembled on any urgent occasion for the public welfare.... Dissolving
therefore the associations, the councils, and the courts in each particular town, he built one common
prytaneum and court hall, where it stands to this day. The citadel with its dependencies, and the city
or the old and new town, he united under the common name of Athens.”—Plutarch, Vit. Theseus, cap.
24.
[272] “Of the nine archons, whose number continued unaltered from 683 B. C. to the end of the
democracy, three bore special titles—the Archon Eponymus, from whose name the designation of the
year was derived, and who was spoken of as the Archon, the Archon Basileus (King), or more
frequently, the Basileus; and the Polemarch. The remaining six passed by the general name of
Thesmothetæ.... The Archon Eponymus determined all disputes relative to the family, the gentile, and
the phratric relations: he was the legal protector of orphans and widows. The Archon Basileus (or
King Archon) enjoyed competence in complaints respecting offenses against the religious sentiment
and respecting homicide. The Polemarch (speaking of times anterior to Kleisthenês) was the leader of
military force, and judge in disputes between citizens and non-citizens.”—Grote’s History of Greece,
l. c., iii, 74.
[273] Public Economy of Athens, Lamb’s Trans., Little & Brown’s ed., p. 353.
[274] History of Greece, iii, 65.
[275] History of Greece, iii, 133.
[276] The Latin tribus = tribe, signified originally “a third part,” and was used to designate a third
part of the people when composed of three tribes; but in course of time, after the Latin tribes were
made local instead of consanguine, like the Athenian local tribes, the term tribe lost its numerical
quality, and came, like the phylon of Cleisthenes to be a local designation.—Vide Mommsen’s Hist.
of Rome, l. c., i, 71.
[277] Anglo Saxon Law, by Henry Adams and others, pp. 20, 23.
[278] See particularly the Orations against Eubulides, and Marcatus.
[279] Hermann’s Political Antiquities of Greece, l. c., p. 187, s. 96.
[280] “The primitive Grecian government is essentially monarchical, reposing on personal feeling
and divine right.”—History of Greece, ii, 69.
[281] Sparta retained the office of basileus in the period of civilization. It was a dual generalship, and
hereditary in a particular family. The powers of government were co-ordinated between the Gerousia
or council, the popular assembly, the five ephors, and two military commanders. The ephors were
elected annually, with powers analogous to the Roman tribunes. Royalty at Sparta needs
qualification. The basileis commanded the army, and in their capacity of chief priests offered the
sacrifices to the gods.
[282] “During the period when the Indo-Germanic nations which are now separated still formed one
stock speaking the same language, they attained a certain stage of culture, and they had a vocabulary
corresponding to it. This vocabulary the several nations carried along with them, in its conventionally
established use, as a common dowry and a foundation for further structures of their own.... In this
way we possess evidence of the development of pastoral life at that remote epoch in the unalterably
fixed names of domestic animals; the Sanskrit gâus is the Latin bos, the Greek [βοῦς Greek: bous];
Sanskrit avis, is the Latin ovis, the Greek ὄϊς; Sanskrit açvas, Latin equus, Greek ἵππος; Sanskrit
hañsas, Latin anser, Greek [χήν Greek: chên]; ... on the other hand, we have as yet no certain proofs
of the existence of agriculture at this period. Language rather favors the negative view.”—
Mommsen’s History of Rome, Dickson’s Trans., Scribner’s ed., 1871, i, 37. In a note he remarks that
“barley, wheat, and spelt were found growing together in a wild state on the right bank of the
Euphrates, northwest from Anah. The growth of barley and wheat in a wild state in Mesopotamia had
already been mentioned by the Babylonian historian, Berosus.”
Fick remarks upon the same subject as follows: “While pasturage evidently formed the foundation of
primitive social life we can find in it but very slight beginnings of agriculture. They were acquainted
to be sure with a few of the grains, but the cultivation of these was carried on very incidentally in
order to gain a supply of milk and flesh. The material existence of the people rested in no way upon
agriculture. This becomes entirely clear from the small number of primitive words which have
reference to agriculture. These words are yava, wild fruit, varka, hoe, or plow, rava, sickle, together
with pio, pinsere [to bake] and mak, Gk. μάσσω, which give indications of threshing out and grinding
of grain.”—Fick’s Primitive Unity of Indo-European Languages, Göttingen, 1873, p. 280. See also
Chips From a German Workshop, ii, 42.
With reference to the possession of agriculture by the Graeco-Italic people, see Mommsen, i, p. 47, et
seq.
[283] The use of the word Romulus, and of the names of his successors, does not involve the
adoption of the ancient Roman traditions. These names personify the great movements which then
took place with which we are chiefly concerned.
[284] History of Rome, l. c., i, 241, 245.
[285] Qui sint autem gentiles, primo commentario rettulimus; et cum illic admonuerimus, totum
gentilicium jus in desuetudinem abisse, superuacuum est, hoc quoque loco de ea re curiosius tractare.
—Inst., iii, 17.
[286] Gentiles sunt, qui inter se eodem nomine sunt. Non est satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. Ne
id quidem satis est. Quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit. Abest etiam nunc. Qui capite non
sunt deminuti. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim video Scaevolam, Pontificem, ad hanc definitionem
addidisse.—Cicero, Topica 6.
[287] Gentilis dicitur et ex eodem genere ortus, et is qui simili nomine appellatur.—Quoted in
Smith’s Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Article, Gens.
[288] The following is the text extended: Ut in hominibus quaedam sunt agnationes ac gentilitates,
sic in verbis; ut enim ab Aemilio homines orti Aemilii, ac gentiles; sic ab Aemilii nomine declinatae
voces in gentilitate nominali; ab eo enim, quod est impositum recto casu Aemilius, Aemilium,
Aemilios, Aemiliorum; et sic reliqua, ejusdem quae sunt stirpes.—Varro, De Lingua Latina, lib. viii,
cap. 4.
[289] Quid enim in re est aliud, si plebeiam patricius duxerit, si patriciam plebeius? Quid juris
tandem mutatur? nempe patrem sequuntur liberi.—Livy, lib. iv, cap. 4.
[290] “When there was only one daughter in a family, she used to be called from the name of the
gens; thus, Tullia, the daughter of Cicero, Julia, the daughter of Caesar; Octavia, the sister of
Augustus, etc.; and they retained the same name after they were married. When there were two
daughters, the one was called Major and the other Minor. If there were more than two, they were
distinguished by their number: thus, Prima, Secunda, Tertia, Quarta, Quinta, etc.; or more softly,
Tertulla, Quartilla, Quintilla, etc.... During the flourishing state of the republic, the names of the
gentes, and surnames of the familiæ, always remained fixed and certain. They were common to all
the children of the family, and descended to their posterity. But after the subversion of liberty they
were changed and confounded.”—Adams’s Roman Antiquities, Glasgow ed., 1825, p. 27.
[291] Suetonius, Vit. Octavianus, c. 3 and 4.
[292] Gaius, Institutes, lib. iii, 1 and 2. The wife was a co-heiress with the children.
[293] Ib., lib. iii, 9.
[294] Gaius, Inst., lib. iii, 17.
[295] A singular question arose between the Marcelli and Claudii, two families of the Claudian gens,
with respect to the estate of the son of a freedman of the Marcelli; the former claiming by right of
family, and the latter by right of gens. The law of the Twelve Tables gave the estate of a freedman to
his former master, who by the act of manumission became his patron, provided he died intestate, and
without sui heredes; but it did not reach the case of the son of a freedman. The fact that the Claudii
were a patrician family, and the Marcelli were not, could not affect the question. The freedman did
not acquire gentile rights in his master’s gens by his manumission, although he was allowed to adopt
the gentile name of his patron; as Cicero’s freedman, Tyro, was called M. Tullius Tyro. It is not
known how the case, which is mentioned by Cicero (De Oratore, i, 39), and commented upon by
Long (Smith’s Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Art. Gens), and Niebuhr, was decided; but the latter suggests
that it was probably against the Claudii (Hist. of Rome, i, 245, note). It is difficult to discover how
any claim whatever could be urged by the Claudii; or any by the Marcelli, except through an
extension of the patronal right by judicial construction. It is a noteworthy case, because it shows how
strongly the mutual rights with respect to the inheritance of property were intrenched in the gens.
[296] History of Rome, i, 242
[297] Patricia gens Claudia ... agrum insuper trans Anienem clientibus locumque sibi ad sepulturam
sub capitolio, publice accepit.—Suet., Vit. Tiberius, cap. 1.
[298] Vari corpus semiustum hostilis laceraverat feritas; caput ejus abscisum, latumque ad
Maroboduum, et ab eo missum ad Caesarem, gentilitii tumuli sepultura honoratum est.—Velleius
Paterculus, ii, 119.
[299] Iam tanta religio est sepulcrorum, ut extra sacra et gentem inferi fas negent esse; idque apud
majores nostros A. Torquatus in gente Popilia judicavit.—De Leg., ii, 22.
[300] Cicero, De Leg., ii, 23.
[301] “There were certain sacred rites (sacra gentilicia) which belonged to a gens, to the observance
of which all the members of a gens, as such, were bound, whether they were members by birth,
adoption or adrogation. A person was freed from the observance of such sacra, and lost the privileges
connected with his gentile rights when he lost his gens.”—Smith’s Dic. Antiq., Gens.
[302] Cicero, Pro Domo, c. 13.
[303] History of Rome, i, 241.
[304] Cicero, De Leg., ii, 23.
[305] Dionysius, ii, 22.
[306] Ib., ii, 21.
[307] Niebuhr’s History of Rome, i, 241.
[308] Bina jugera quod a Romulo primum diuisa [dicebantur] viritim, quae [quod] haeredem
sequerentur, haeredium appellarunt.—Varro, De Re Rustica, lib. i, cap. 10.
[309] History of Rome, i, 62. He names the Camillii, Galerii, Lemonii, Pollii, Pupinii, Voltinii,
Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Horatii, Menenii, Papirii, Romilii, Sergii, Veturii.—Ib., p. 63.
[310] History of Rome, i, 63.
[311] “A fixed local centre was quite as necessary in the case of such a canton as in that of a
clanship; but as the members of the clan, or, in other words, the constituent elements of the canton,
dwelt in villages, the centre of the canton cannot have been a town or place of joint settlement in the
strict sense. It must, on the contrary, have been simply a place of common assembly, containing the
seat of justice and the common sanctuary of the canton, where the members of the canton met every
eighth day for purposes of intercourse and amusement, and where, in case of war, they obtained a
safer shelter for themselves and their cattle than in the villages; in ordinary circumstances this place
of meeting was not at all or but scantily inhabited.... These cantons accordingly, having their
rendezvous in some stronghold, and including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive
political unities with which Italian history begins.... All of these cantons were in primitive times
politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the
council of elders and the assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship based on
community of descent and of language not only pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in
an important religious and political institution—the perpetual league of the collective Latin
cantons.”—Hist. of Rome, i, 64-66. The statement that the canton or tribe was governed by its prince
with the co-operation of the council, etc., is a reversal of the correct statement, and therefore
misleading. We must suppose that the military commander held an elective office, and that he was
deposable at the pleasure of the constituency who elected him. Further than this, there is no ground
for assuming that he possessed any civil functions. It is a reasonable, if not a necessary conclusion,
therefore, that the tribe was governed by a council composed of the chiefs of the gentes, and by an
assembly of the warriors, with the co-operation of a general military commander, whose functions
were exclusively military. It was a government of three powers, common in the Upper Status of
barbarism, and identified with institutions essentially democratical.
[312] Ap. Claudio in vinculo ducto, C. Claudius inimicum Claudiamque omnem gentem sordidatum
fuisse.—Livy, vi, 20.
[313] History of Rome, i, 242.
[314] Responsum tulisse, se collecturos, quanti damnatus esset, absolvere eum non posse.—Liv., v,
32.
[315] History of Rome, i, 242: citing Dionysius, ii, 10: (ἔδει τοὺς πελάτας) τῶν ἀναλωμάτων ὡς τοὺς
γένει προσήκοντας μετέχειν
[316] History of Rome, i, 240.
[317] “Nevertheless, affinity in blood always appeared to the Romans to lie at the root of the
connection between the members of the clan, and still more between those of a family; and the
Roman community can only have interfered with these groups to a limited extent consistent with the
retention of their fundamental character of affinity.”—Mommsen’s History of Rome, i, 103.
[318] It is a curious fact that Cleisthenes of Argos changed the names of the three Dorian tribes of
Sicyon, one to Hyatæ, signifying in the singular a boar; another to Oneatæ, signifying an ass, and a
third to Choereatæ, signifying a little pig. They were intended as an insult to the Sicyonians; but they
remained during his life-time, and for sixty years afterwards. Did the idea of these animal names
come down through tradition?—See Grote’s History of Greece, iii, 33, 36.
[319] Peregrinae conditionis homines vetuit usurpare Romana nomina, duntaxat gentilicia.—Sueton.,
Vit. Claudius, cap. 25.
[320] Cicero, Pro Domo, cap. 13.
[321] Livy, xxv, 5.
[322] Smith’s Dic., Art. Pontifex.
[323] History of Rome, i, 66.
[324] Ib., i, 258.
[325] Livy, ii, 48.
[326] Ib., ii, 49.
[327] Trecentos sex perisse satis convenit: unum prope pubescem aetate relictum stirpem gente
Fabiae, dubiisque rebus populi Romani sepe domi bellique vel maximum futurum auxilium.—Livy,
ii, 50; and see Ovid, Fasti, ii, 193.
[328] Itaque, quum populum in curias triginta divideret, nomina earum curiis imposuit.—Livy, i, 13.
[329] φράτρα δὲ καὶ λόχος ἡ κουρία. —Dionys., Antiq. of Rome, ii, 7.
[330]
διῄρηντο δὲ καὶ εἰς δεκάδας αἱ φρᾶτραι πρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡγεμὼν ἑκάστην ἐκόσμει δεκάδαρχος κατὰ
τὴν ἐπιχώριον γλῶτταν προσαγορευόμενος. —Dionys., ii, 7.
[331] Ἑκάστη δὲ φυλὴ δέκα φρατρίας εἶχεν, ἃς ἔνιοι λέγουσιν ἐπωνύμους εἶναι ἐκείνων τῶν
γυναικῶν.—Plutarch, Vit. Romulus, cap. 20.
[332] Whether Niebuhr used the word “house” in the place of gens, or it is a conceit of the
translators, I am unable to state. Thirlwall, one of the translators, applies this term frequently to the
Grecian gens, which at best is objectionable.
[333] History of Rome, i, 244.
[334] Dionysius has given a definite and circumstantial analysis of the organization ascribed to
Romulus, although a portion of it seems to belong to a later period. It is interesting from the parallel
he runs between the gentile institutions of the Greeks, with which he was equally familiar, and those
of the Romans. In the first place, he remarks, I will speak of the order of his polity which I consider
the most sufficient of all political arrangements in peace, and also in time of war. It was as follows:
After dividing the whole multitude into three divisions, he appointed the most prominent man as a
leader over each of the divisions; in the next place dividing each of the three again into ten, he
appointed the bravest men leaders, having equal rank; and he called the greater divisions tribes, and
the less curiæ, as they are also still called according to usage. And these names interpreted in the
Greek tongue would be the tribus, a third part, a phylê (φυλὴ); the curia, a phratry (φράτρα), and also
a band (λόχος); and those men who exercised the leadership of the tribes were both phylarchs
(φύλαρχοι) and trittyarchs (τριττύαρχοι), whom the Romans call tribunes; and those who had the
command of the curiæ both phratriarchs (φρατρίαρχοι) and lochagoi (λοχαγοὶ), whom they call
curiones. And the phratries were also divided into decades, and a leader called in common parlance a
decadarch (δεκάδαρχος) had command of each. And when all had been arranged into tribes and
phratries, he divided the land into thirty equal shares, and gave one full share to each phratry,
selecting a sufficient portion for religious festivals and temples, and leaving a certain piece of ground
for common use.—Antiq. of Rome, ii, 7.
[335] Dionysius, ii, 7.
[336] Smith’s Dic., l. c., Art. Tribune.
[337] Dionysius, ii, 7.
[338] The thirty curiones, as a body, were organized into a college of priests, one of their number
holding the office of curio maximus. He was elected by the assembly of the gentes. Besides this was
the college of augurs, consisting under the Ogulnian law (300 B. C.) of nine members, including their
chief officer (magister collegii); and the college of pontiffs, composed under the same law of nine
members, including the pontifex maximus.
[339] Livy, i, 8.
[340] Eo ex finitimis populis turba omnis sine discrimine, liber an servus esset, avida novarum rerum
perfugit; idque primum ad coeptam magnitudinem roboris fuit.—Livy, i, 8.
[341] Vit. Romulus, cap. 20.
[342] Antiq. of Rome, ii, 15.
[343] Livy, i, 30.
[344] Ib., i, 33.
[345] Livy, i, 38.
[346] In the pueblo houses in New Mexico all the occupants of each house belonged to the same
tribe, and in some cases a single joint-tenement house contained a tribe. In the pueblo of Mexico
there were four principal quarters, as has been shown, each occupied by a lineage, probably a
phratry; while the Tlatelulcos occupied a fifth district. At Tlascala there were also four quarters
occupied by four lineages, probably phratries.
[347] History of Rome, i, 258.
[348] Centum creat senatores: sive quia is numerus satis erat; sive quia soli centum erant, qui creari
Patres possent, Patres certe ab honore, patriciique progenies eorum appellati.—Liv., i, 8. And Cicero:
Principes, qui appellati sunt propter caritatem, patres.—De Rep., ii, 8.
[349] Dionysius, ii, 47.
[350] Nec minus regni sui firmandi, quam augendae republicae, memor, centum in Patres legit; qui
deinde minorum gentium sunt appellati: factio haud dubia regis, cuius beneficio in curiam venerant.
—Liv., i, 35.
[351] Isque [Tarquinius] ut de suo imperio legem tulit, principio duplicavit illum pristinum patrum
numerum; et antiquos patres maiorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat; a se
adscitos, minorum.—Cicero, De Rep., ii, 20.
[352] Cicero, De Rep., ii, 20.
[353] This was substantially the opinion of Niebuhr. “We may go further and affirm without
hesitation, that originally, when the number of houses [gentes] was complete, they were represented
immediately by the senate, the number of which was proportionate to theirs. The three hundred
senators answered to the three hundred houses, which was assumed above on good grounds to be the
number of them; each gens sent its decurion, who was its alderman and the president of its meetings
to represent it in the senate.... That the senate should be appointed by the kings at their discretion, can
never have been the original institution. Even Dionysius supposes that there was an election: his
notion of it, however, is quite untenable, and the deputies must have been chosen, at least originally,
by the houses and not by the curiæ.”—Hist. of Rome, i, 258. An election by the curiæ is, in principle,
most probable, if the office did not fall to the chief ex officio, because the gentes in a curia had a
direct interest in the representation of each gens. It was for the same reason that a sachem elected by
the members of an Iroquois gens must be accepted by the other gentes of the same tribe before his
nomination was complete.
[354] Livy, i, 43. Dionys., ii, 14; iv, 20, 84.
[355] Numa Pompilius (Cicero, De Rep., ii, 11; Liv., i, 17), Tullus Hostilius (Cicero, De Rep., ii, 17),
and Ancus Martius (Cic., De Rep., ii, 18; Livy, i, 32) were elected by the comitia curiata. In the case
of Tarquinius Priscus, Livy observes that the people by a great majority elected him rex (i, 35). It was
necessarily by the comitia curiata. Servius Tullius assumed the office which was afterwards
confirmed by the comitia (Cicero, De Rep., ii, 21). The right of election thus reserved to the people,
shows that the office of rex was a popular one, and that his powers were delegated.
[356] Mr. Leonhard Schmitz, one of the ablest defenders of the theory of kingly government among
the Greeks and Romans, with great candor remarks: “It is very difficult to determine the extent of the
king’s powers, as the ancient writers naturally judged of the kingly period by their own republican
constitution, and frequently assigned to the king, the senate, and the comitia of the curia the
respective powers and functions which were only true in reference to the consuls, the senate and the
comitia of their own time.”—Smith’s Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Art. Rex.
[357] Dionys., ii, 12.
[358] Dionysius, iv, 1.
[359] Niebuhr says: “The existence of the plebs as acknowledgedly a free and very numerous portion
of the nation, may be traced back to the reign of Ancus; but before the time of Servius it was only an
aggregate of unconnected parts, not a united regular whole.”—History of Rome, l. c., i, 315.
[360] History of Rome, i, 315.
[361] “That the clients were total strangers to the plebeian commonalty and did not coalesce with it
until late, when the bond of servitude had been loosened, partly from the houses of their patrons
dying off or sinking into decay, partly from the advance of the whole nation toward freedom, will be
proved in the sequel of this history.”—History of Rome, i, 315.
[362] Dionysius, ii, 8.
[363] Plutarch, Vit. Rom., xiii, 16.
[364] Vit. Tiberius, cap. 1.
[365] Hist. of Rome, i, 256, 450.
[366] Smith’s Dic., Articles Gens, Patricii, and Plebs.
[367] Dionysius, ii, 8; Plutarch, Vit. Rom., xiii.
[368] Ib., ii, 8.
[369] Quum ille Romuli Senatus, qui constabat ex optimatibus, quibus ipse Rex tantum tribuisset, ut
eos patres vellet nominari patriciosque eorum liberos, tentaret, etc.—De Rep., ii, 12.
[370] Patres certe ab honore, patriciique progenies eorum appellati.—Liv., i, 8.
[371] Hic centum homines electos, appellatosque Patres, instar habuit consilii publici. Hanc originem
nomen Patriciorum habet.—Velleius Paterculus, i, 8.
[372] Livy, ii, 49.
[373] History of Rome, i, 246.
[374] Ib., i, 246.
[375] Livy, iv, 4.
[376] A plebe consensu populi consulibus negotium mandatur.—Liv., iv. 51.
[377] Ἦν δὲ ἡ διανομὴ κατὰ τὰς τέχνας, αὐλητῶν, χρυσοχόων, τεκτόνων, βαφέων, σκυτοτόμων,
σκυτοδεψῶν, χαλκέων, κεραμέων.—Plutarch, Vit. Numa, xvii, 20.
[378] The property qualification for the first class was 100,000 asses; for the second class, 75,000
asses; for the third, 50,000; for the fourth, 25,000; and for the fifth, 11,000 asses.—Livy, i, 43.
[379] Dionysius, iv, 20.
[380] Ib., iv, 16, 17, 18.
[381] Livy, i, 43.
[382] De Rep., ii, 20.
[383] Dionysius, iv, 16.
[384] Livy, i, 43.
[385] Livy, i, 43. But Dionysius places the equites in the first class, and remarks that this class was
first called.—Dionys., iv, 20.
[386] Livy, i, 44; Dionysius states the number at 84,700.—iv, 22.
[387] Cicero, De Rep., ii, 20.
[388] Censum enim instituit, rem saluberrimam tanto futuro imperio: ex quo belli pacisque munia
non viritim, ut ante, sed pro habitu pecuniarum fierent.—Livy, i, 42.
[389] Dionysius, iv, 15.
[390] Dionysius, iv, 14.
[391] History of Rome, l. c., Scribner’s ed., i, 136.
[392] Dionysius, iv, 15; Niebuhr has furnished the names of sixteen country townships, as follows:
Aemilian, Camilian, Cluentian, Cornelian, Fabian, Galerian, Horatian, Lemonian, Menenian,
Paperian, Romilian, Sergian, Veturnian, Claudian.—Hist. of Rome, i, 320, note.
[393] Rawlinson’s Herodotus, i, 173.
[394] If a Seneca-Iroquois man marries a foreign woman their children are aliens; but if a Seneca-
Iroquois woman marries an alien, or an Onondaga, their children are Iroquois of the Seneca tribe; and
of the gens and phratry of their mother. The woman confers her nationality and her gens upon her
children, whoever may be their father.
[395] Description of Ancient Italy, i, 153; citing Lanzi, ii, 314.
[396] History of Greece, Scribner & Armstrong’s ed., Ward’s Trans., i, 94, note. The Etiocretes, of
whom Minos was the hero, were doubtless Pelasgians. They occupied the east end of the Island of
Crete. Sarpedon, a brother of Minos, led the emigrants to Lycia where they displaced the Solymi, a
Semitic tribe probably; but the Lycians had become Hellenized, like many other Pelasgian tribes,
before the time of Herodotus, a circumstance quite material in consequence of the derivation of the
Grecian and Pelasgian tribes from a common original stock. In the time of Herodotus the Lycians
were as far advanced in the arts of life as the European Greeks (Curtius, i, 93; Grote, i, 224). It seems
probable that descent in the female line was derived from their Pelasgian ancestors.
[397] Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, 1861.
[398] Bachofen, speaking of the Cretan city of Lyktos, remarks that “this city was considered a
Lacedaemonian colony, and as also related to the Athenians. It was in both cases only on the
mother’s side, for only the mothers were Spartans; the Athenian relationship, however, goes back to
those Athenian women whom the Pelasgian Tyrrhenians are said to have enticed away from the
Brauron promontory.”—Das Mutterrecht, ch. 13, p. 31.
With descent in the male line the lineage of the women would have remained unnoticed; but with
descent in the female line the colonists would have given their pedigrees through females only.
[399] Das Mutterecht, ch. 38, p. 73.
[400] Polybius, xii, extract the second, Hampton’s Trans., iii, 242.
[401]
ἀδελφὴν γὰρ ὁ πάππος οὑμὸς ἔγημεν οὐχ ὁμομητρίαν.—Demosthenes contra Ebulides, 20.
[402] Demosth., Eubul., 24: In his time the registration was in the Deme; but it would show who
were the phrators, blood relatives, fellow demots and gennetes of the person registered; as Euxitheus
says, λέγω φράτερσι, συγγενέσι, δημόταις, γεννήταις vide also Hermann’s Polit. Antiq. of Greece, §.
100.
[403] Prometheus, 853.
[404]
ἀλλ' αὺτογενεῖ φυξανορίᾳ,
γάμου Αἰγύπτου Παίδων ἀσεβῆ τ'
ὀνοταζόμεναι.
—Aeschylus, Supp., 9.
[405] Early History of Institutions, Holt’s ed., p. 7.
[406] Germania, c. ii.
[407] De Bell. Gall., vi, 22.
[408] Germania, cap. 7. The line of battle, this author remarks, is formed by wedges. Acies per
cuneos componitur.—Ger., c. 6. Kohlrausch observes that “the confederates of one mark or hundred,
and of one race or sept, fought united.”—History of Germany, Appletons’ ed., trans. by J. D. Haas, p.
28.
[409] De Bell. Gall., iv, 1. Germania, cap. 6.
[410] Dr. Freeman, who has studied this subject specially, remarks: “The lowest unit in the political
system is that which still exists under various names, as the mark, the geminde, the commune, or the
parish. This, as we have seen, is one of many forms of the gens or clan, that in which it is no longer a
wandering or a mere predatory body, but when, on the other hand, it has not joined with others to
form one component element of a city commonwealth. In this stage the gens takes the form of an
agricultural body, holding its common lands—the germ of the ager publicus of Rome, and of the
folkland of England. This is the markgenossenschaft, the village community of the West. This lowest
political unit, this gathering of real or artificial kinsmen, is made up of families, each living under the
rule, the murd of its own father, that patria potestas which survived at Rome to form so marked and
lasting a feature of Roman law. As the union of families forms the gens, and as the gens in its
territorial aspect forms the markgenossenschaft, so the union of several such village communities and
their marks or common lands forms the next higher political union, the hundred, a name to be found
in one shape or another in most lands into which the Teutonic race has spread itself.... Above the
hundred comes the pagus, the gau, the Danish syssel, the English shire, that is, the tribe looked at as
occupying a certain territory. And each of these divisions, greater and smaller, had its chiefs.... The
hundred is made up of villages, marks, geminden, whatever we call the lowest unit; the shire, the
gau, the pagus, is made up of hundreds.”—Comparative Politics, McMillan & Co.’s ed., p. 116.
[411] Descriptive Ethnology, i, 80.
[412] McLennan’s Primitive Marriage, p. 109.
[413] Quoted in Primitive Marriage, p. 101.
[414] Letter to the Author, by Rev. Gopenath Nundy, a Native Bengalese, India.
[415] Early History of Mankind, p. 282.
[416] Primitive Culture, Holt & Co.’s ed., ii, 235.
[417] Descriptive Ethnology, i, 290.
[418] Origin of Civilization, 96.
[419] Descriptive Ethnology, i, 475.
[420] Genesis, xiii, 2
[421] Genesis, xxiii, 16.
[422] Ib., xviii, 6.
[423] Ib., xviii, 8.
[424] Ib., xxii, 6.
[425] Ib., xxiv, 53.
[426] Ib., xxiv, 65.
[427] Ib., xx, 12.
[428] Genesis, xi, 29.
[429] Exodus, vi, 20.
[430] Numbers, iii, 15-20.
[431] Ib., i, 22.
[432] Ib., iii, 30.
[433] Ib., ii, 2.
[434] Kiel and Delitzschs, in their commentaries on Exodus vi, 14, remark, that “‘father’s house’ was
a technical term applied to a collection of families called by the name of a common ancestor.” This is
a fair definition of a gens.
[435] 1 Samuel, xx, 6, 29.
[436] Numbers, i, 2.
[437] Descript. Eth., ii, 184.
[438] Ashango Land, Appletons’ ed., p. 425, et seq.
[439] Travels in South Africa, Appletons’ ed., ch. 30, p. 660.—“When a young man takes a liking for
a girl of another village, and the parents have no objection to the match, he is obliged to come and
live at their village. He has to perform certain services for the mother-in-law.... If he becomes tired of
living in this state of vassalage, and wishes to return to his own family, he is obliged to leave all his
children behind—they belong to his wife.”—Ib., p. 667
[440] Travels in South Africa, p. 219.
[441] Ib., p. 471.
[442] Ib., p. 471.
[443] See also Taylor’s Early History of Mankind, p. 284.
[444] Systems of Consanguinity, etc., loc. cit., pp. 451, 482.
[445] Missionary Herald, 1853, p. 90.
[446] Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xvii.
[447] Pandects, lib. xxxviii, title x. De gradibus, et ad finibus et nominibus eorum: and Institutes of
Justinian, lib. iii, title vi. De gradibus cognationem.
[448] Our term aunt is from amita, and uncle from avunculus. Avus, grandfather, gives avunculus by
adding the diminutive. It therefore signifies a ‘little grandfather.’ Matertera is supposed to be derived
from mater and altera, = another mother.
[449] Herrera’s Hist. of Amer., i, 216, 218, 348.
[450] The Rotuman is herein for the first time published. It was worked out by the Rev. John Osborn,
Wesleyan missionary at Rotuma, and procured and forwarded to the author by the Rev. Lorimer
Fison, of Sydney, Australia.
[451] a as in ale; ä as a in father; ă as a in at; ǐ as i in it; ŭ as oo in food.
[452] Systems of Consanguinity, loc. cit., p. 445.
[453] Ib., pp. 525, 573.
[454] Systems of Consanguinity, etc., l. c., Table iii, pp. 542, 573.
[455] Among the Kafirs of South Africa, the wife of my father’s brother’s son, of my father’s sister’s
son, of my mother’s brother’s son, and of my mother’s sister’s son, are all alike my wives, as well as
theirs, as appears by their system of consanguinity.
[456] Races of Man, Appleton’s ed. 1876, p. 232.
[457] Bingham’s Sandwich Islands, Hartford ed., 1847, p. 21.
[458] Ib., p. 23.
[459] Systems of Consanguinity, etc., p. 415.
[460] Ib., p. 432, where the Chinese system is presented in full.
[461] Timæus, c. ii, Davis’s trans.
[462] Descent of Man, ii, 360.
[463] The Ippais and Kapotas are married in a group. Ippai begets Murri, and Murri in turn begets
Ippai; in like manner Kapota begets Mata, and Mata in turn begets Kapota; so that the grandchildren
of Ippai and Kapota are themselves Ippais and Kapotas, as well as collateral brothers and sisters; and
as such are born husbands and wives.
[464] Historical Sketch of the Missions, etc., in the Sandwich Islands, etc., p. 5.
[465] Uxores habent deni duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum fratribus
parentesque cum liberis.—De Bell. Gall., v, 14.
[466] γυναῖκα μὲν γαμέει ἕκαστος, ταύτῃσι δὲ ἐπίκοινα χρέωνται. —Lib. i, c. 216.
[467] ἐπίκοινον δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν τὴν μίξιν ποιεῦνται, ἵνα κασίγνητοί τε ἀλλήλων ἔωσι καὶ οἰκήïοι
ἐόντες πάντες μήτε φθόνῳ μήτ' ἔχθεï χρέωνται ἐς ἀλλήλους.—Lib. iv, c. 104.
[468] Herrera’s History of America, l. c., i, 216. Speaking of the coast tribes of Brazil, Herrera further
remarks that “they live in bohios, or large thatched cottages, of which there are about eight in every
village, full of people, with their nests or hammocks to lye in.... They live in a beastly manner,
without any regard to justice or decency.”—Ib., iv, 94. Garcilasso de la Vega gives an equally
unfavorable account of the marriage relation among some of the lowest tribes of Peru.—Royal Com.
of Peru, l. c., pp. 10 and 106.
[469] Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge, vol. xvii.
[470] The late Rev. Ashur Wright, for many years a missionary among the Senecas, wrote the author
in 1873 on this subject as follows: “As to their family system, when occupying the old long-houses, it
is probable that some one clan predominated, the women taking in husbands, however, from the other
clans; and sometimes, for a novelty, some of their sons bringing in their young wives until they felt
brave enough to leave their mothers. Usually, the female portion ruled the house, and were doubtless
clannish enough about it. The stores were in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who
was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children, or whatever goods
he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pick up his blanket and budge; and
after such orders it would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey. The house would be too hot
for him; and, unless saved by the intercession of some aunt or grandmother, he must retreat to his
own clan; or, as was often done, go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other. The women
were the great power among the clans, as everywhere else. They did not hesitate, when occasion
required, ‘to knock off the horns,’ as it was technically called, from the head of a chief, and send him
back to the ranks of the warriors. The original nomination of the chiefs also always rested with
them.” These statements illustrate the gyneocracy discussed by Bachofen in “Das Mutterrecht.”
[471] History of Mexico, Phil. ed., 1817, Cullen’s trans., ii, 99.
[472] Ib., ii, 101.
[473] History of America, l. c., iii, 217.
[474] History of America., iv, 171.
[475] A case among the Shyans was mentioned to the author, by one of their chiefs, where first
cousins had married against their usages. There was no penalty for the act; but they were ridiculed so
constantly by their associates that they voluntarily separated rather than face the prejudice.
[476] Iron has been smelted from the ore by a number of African tribes, including the Hottentots, as
far back as our knowledge of them extends. After producing the metal by rude processes acquired
from foreign sources, they have succeeded in fabricating rude implements and weapons.
[477] The Asiatic origin of the American aborigines is assumed. But it follows as a consequence of
the unity of origin of mankind—another assumption, but one toward which all the facts of
anthropology tend. There is a mass of evidence sustaining both conclusions of the most convincing
character. Their advent in America could not have resulted from a deliberate migration; but must
have been due to the accidents of the sea, and to the great ocean currents from Asia to the North-west
coast.
[478] Famuli origo ab Oscis dependet, apud quo servus Famul nominabuntur, unde familia vocata.—
Festus, p. 87.
[479] Amico familiam suam, id est patrimonium suum mancipio dabat.—Gaius, Inst., ii, 102.
[480] History of Rome, l. c., 1, 95.
[481] Item in potestate nostra sunt liberi nostri, quos justis nuptiis procreauimus, quod jus proprium
ciuium Romanorum est: fere enim nulli alii sunt homines, qui talem in filios suos habent potestatem,
qualem nos habemus.—Inst., 1, 55. Among other things they had the power of life and death—jus
vitæ necisque.
[482] Germania, c. 18.
[483] Ib., c. 19.
[484] Iliad, ix, 128.
[485] Il., ix, 663.
[486] The following condensed statement, taken from Charicles (Excursus, xii, Longman’s ed.,
Metcalfe’s trans.), contains the material facts illustrative of the subject. After expressing the opinion
that the women of Homer occupied a more honorable position in the household than the women of
the historical period, he makes the following statements with respect to the condition of women,
particularly at Athens and Sparta, during the high period of Grecian culture. He observes that the
only excellence of which a woman was thought capable differed but little from that of a faithful slave
(p. 464); that her utter want of independence led to her being considered a minor all her life long; that
there were neither educational institutions for girls, nor any private teachers at home, their whole
instruction being left to the mothers, and to nurses, and limited to spinning and weaving and other
female avocations (p. 465); that they were almost entirely deprived of that most essential promoter of
female culture, the society of the other sex; strangers as well as their nearest relatives being entirely
excluded; even their fathers and husbands saw them but little, the men being more abroad than at
home, and when at home inhabiting their own apartments; that the gynæconitis, though not exactly a
prison, nor yet a locked harem, was still the confined abode allotted for life to the female portion of
the household; that it was particularly the case with the maidens, who lived in the greatest seclusion
until their marriage, and, so to speak, regularly under lock and key (p. 465); that it was unbecoming
for a young wife to leave the house without her husband’s knowledge, and in fact she seldom quitted
it; she was thus restricted to the society of her female slaves; and her husband, if he chose to exercise
it, had the power of keeping her in confinement (p. 466); that at those festivals, from which men were
excluded, the women had an opportunity of seeing something of each other, which they enjoyed all
the more from their ordinary seclusion; that women found it difficult to go out of their houses from
these special restrictions; that no respectable lady thought of going without the attendance of a
female slave assigned to her for that purpose by her husband (p. 469); that this method of treatment
had the effect of rendering the girls excessively bashful and even prudish, and that even a married
woman shrunk back and blushed if she chanced to be seen at the window by a man (p. 471); that
marriage in reference to the procreation of children was considered by the Greeks a necessity,
enforced by their duty to the gods, to the state and to their ancestors; that until a very late period, at
least, no higher consideration attached to matrimony, nor was strong attachment a frequent cause of
marriage (p. 473); that whatever attachment existed sprang from the soil of sensuality, and none other
than sensual love was acknowledged between man and wife (p. 473); that at Athens, and probably in
the other Grecian states as well, the generation of children was considered the chief end of marriage,
the choice of the bride seldom depending on previous, or at least intimate acquaintance; and more
attention was paid to the position of the damsel’s family, and the amount of her dowry, than to her
personal qualities; that such marriages were unfavorable to the existence of real affection, wherefore
coldness, indifference, and discontent frequently prevailed (p. 477); that the husband and wife took
their meals together, provided no other men were dining with the master of the house, for no woman
who did not wish to be accounted a courtesan, would think even in her own house of participating in
the symposia of the men, or of being present when her husband accidentally brought home a friend to
dinner (p. 490); that the province of the wife was the management of the entire household, and the
nurture of the children—of the boys until they were placed under a master, of the girls until their
marriage; that the infidelity of the wife was judged most harshly; and while it might be supposed that
the woman, from her strict seclusion, was generally precluded from transgressing, they very
frequently found means of deceiving their husbands; that the law imposed the duty of continence in a
very unequal manner, for while the husband required from the wife the strictest fidelity, and visited
with severity any dereliction on her part, he allowed himself to have intercourse with hetæræ, which
conduct, though not exactly approved, did not meet with any marked censure, and much less was it
considered any violation of matrimonial rights (p. 494).
[487] Vit. Rom., c. 20.
[488] Quinctilian.
[489] With respect to the conjugal fidelity of Roman women, Becker remarks “that in the earlier
times excesses on either side seldom occurred,” which must be set down as a mere conjecture; but
“when morals began to deteriorate, we first meet with great lapses from this fidelity, and men and
women outbid each other in wanton indulgence. The original modesty of the women became
gradually more rare, while luxury and extravagance waxed stronger, and of many women it could be
said, as Clitipho complained of his Bacchis (Ter., Heaut., ii, 1, 15), Mea est petax, procax, magnifica,
sumptuosa, nobilis. Many Roman ladies, to compensate for the neglect of their husbands, had a lover
of their own, who, under the pretense of being the procurator of the lady, accompanied her at all
times. As a natural consequence of this, celibacy continually increased amongst the men, and there
was the greatest levity respecting divorces”—Gallus, Excursus, i, p. 155, Longman’s ed., Metcalfe’s
trans.
[490] Systems of Consanguinity, Table I, p. 79.
[491] Systems of Consanguinity, etc., p. 40.
[492] Pandects, lib. xxviii, tit. x, and Institutes of Justinian, lib. iii, tit. vi.
[493] Item fratres patrueles, sorores patrueles, id est qui quæ-ve ex duobus fratribus progenerantur;
item consobrini consobrinæ, id est qui quæ-ve ex duobus sororibus nascuntur (quasi consorini); item
amitini amitinæ, id est qui quæ-ve ex fratre ex sorore propagantur; sed fere vulgos istos omnes
communi appellatione consobrinus vocat.—Pand., lib. xxxviii, tit. x.
[494] It is a revision of the sequence presented in Systems of Consanguinity, etc., p. 480.
[495] μῖξιν δὲ ἐπίκοινον τῶν γυναικῶν ποιέονται, οὔτε συνοικέοντες κτηνηδόν τε μισγόμενοι.—Lib.
iv, c. 180.
[496] Garamantes matrimonium exsortes passim cum femines degunt.—Nat. Hist., lib. v, c. 8.
[497]—καὶ φανερῶς μίσγεσθαι ταῖς τε ἄλλαις γυναιξὶ καὶ μητράσι καὶ ἀδελφαὶς.—Lib. iv. c. 5, § 4.
[498] Lib. xvi. c. 4, § 25.
[499] “The Tables, however, are the main results of this investigation. In their importance and value
they reach beyond any present use of their contents the writer may be able to indicate.”—Systems of
Consanguinity, etc., Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xvii, p. 8.
[500] Descriptive Ethnology, Lond. ed., 1859, i, 475.
[501] Ib., i, 80.
[502] League of the Iroquois, p. 364.
[503] For example, the Ojibwas used the lance or spear, She-mä′-gun, pointed with flint or bone.
[504] The Creeks made earthen vessels holding from two to ten gallons (Adair’s History of American
Indians, p. 424); and the Iroquois ornamented their jars and pipes with miniature human faces
attached as buttons. This discovery was recently made by Mr. F. A. Cushing, of the Smithsonian
Institution.
[505] Herrera, l. c., iv, 16.
[506] Ib., iii, 13; iv, 16, 137. Clavigero, ii, 165.
[507] Clavigero, ii, 238. Herrera, ii, 145; iv, 133.
[508] Hakluyt’s Coll. of Voyages, l. c., iii, 377.
[509] The Rev. Samuel Gorman, a missionary among the Laguna Pueblo Indians, remarks in an
address before the Historical Society of New Mexico (p. 12), that “the right of property belongs to
the female part of the family, and descends in that line from mother to daughter. Their land is held in
common, as the property of the community, but after a person cultivates a lot he has personal claim to
it, which he can sell to one of the community.... Their women, generally, have control of the granary,
and they are more provident than their Spanish neighbors about the future. Ordinarily they try to have
a year’s provisions on hand. It is only when two years of scarcity succeed each other, that Pueblos, as
a community, suffer hunger.”
[510] Σεμνύνεται γὰρ Σόλων ἐν τούτοις, ὅτι τῆς τε προϋποκείμενης γῆς
Ὅρους ἀνεῖλε πολλαχῆ πεπηγότας·
πρόσθεν δὲ δουλεύουσα, νῦν ἐλευθέρα.
—Plutarch, in Solon, c. xv.
[511] Iliad, v, 90.
[512] Ib., ix, 577.
[513] Ib., xiv, 121.
[514] Ib., v, 265.
[515] Ib., iv, 433, Buckley’s trans.
[516] Ib., vii, 472, Buckley’s trans.
[517] Iliad, xii, 274.
[518] The German tribes when first known historically were in the Upper Status of barbarism. They
used iron, but in limited quantities, possessed flocks and herds, cultivated the cereals, and
manufactured coarse textile fabrics of linen and woolen; but they had not then attained to the idea of
individual ownership in lands. According to the account of Cæsar, elsewhere cited, the arable lands
were allotted annually by the chiefs, while the pasture lands were held in common. It would seem,
therefore, that the idea of individual property in lands was unknown in Asia and Europe in the
Middle Period of barbarism, but came in during the Later Period.
[519] Genesis, xxiii, 13.
[520] Numbers, xxxvi, 4.
[521] Numbers, xxxvi, 5-9.
[522] Ib., xxxvi, 11.
[523] Ib., xxvii, 8-11.
[524] The Ancient City, Lee & Shepard’s ed., Small’s trans., p. 99.
[525] Demosthenes against Eubul., 41.
[526] Εὐδοκίμησε δὲ κἀν τῷ περὶ διαθηκῶν νόμῳ· πρότερον γὰρ οὐκ ἐξῆν, ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ γένει τοῦ
τεθνηκότος ἔδει τὰ χρήματα καὶ τὸν οἶκον καταμένειν, ὁ δ' ᾧ βούλεταί τις ἐπιτρέψας, εἰ μὴ παῖδες
εἶεν αὐτῷ, δοῦναι τὰ αὑτοῦ, φιλίαν τε συγγενείας ἐτίμησε μᾶλλον καὶ χάριν ἀνάγκης, καὶ τὰ χρήματα
κτήματα τῶν ἐχόντων ἐποίησεν.—Plutarch, Vita Solon, c, 21.
[527] Livy, iii, 54, 57.
[528] Intestatorum hereditates lege xii tabularum primum ad suos heredes pertinent.—Gaius, Inst.,
iii, 1. Si nullus sit suorum heredum, tunc hereditas pertinet ex eadem lege xii tabularum ad adgnatos.
—Ib., iii, 9. Si nullus agnatus sit, eadem lex xii tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem uocat.—Ib., iii, 17.
INDEX.
 A
Abipones, 183.
Adair, James, 15, 77, note; 83, 530.
Adams, Prof. Henry, 273.
Adoption, ceremony of, among Iroquois, 81, note.
Age of Stone, of Bronze, and of Iron, 8.
Algonkin tribes, 165.
Alphabet, phonetic, 12.
Its invention, 31, note.
Animals, their domestication, 11, 42.
Archon, office of, 261.
Arickarees, 165.
Aristocracy.
Its rise, 260.
Its future, 549.
Army organization in gentile society, by gentes, by phratries, and by tribes, 237.
In Athenian political society by property classes, 265.
In Roman by same, 334.
Arts of subsistence, 19.
1. Fruits and Roots, 20.
2. Fish, 21.
3. Farinaceous Food, 22.
4. Meat and Milk, 24.
Field Agriculture, 26.
Arrawaks, 182.
Aryan, Family of, 39, 468.
System of consanguinity and affinity, 484.
Table, 493.
Assembly of the people, 119, 120.
Agora of Athenians, 245.
Comitia Curiata of the Romans, 315, 340.
Comitia Centuriata, 331, 333.
Ashangos, 371.
Athapasco-Apache Tribes, 175.
Australian organization on basis of sex, 50.
Classes, 52.
Descents, 57, note.
Aztec Confederacy, 186.
Of three Nahuatlac tribes, 189.
When established, 192.
Extent of territorial domination, 193.
Population of Valley of Mexico, 195.
Of Pueblo, of Mexico, 196, note.
Gentes and phratries, 197.
Ownership of lands in common, 200.
Council of Chiefs, 203.
Office of Teuctli, or principal war-chief, 206.
Aztec monarchy a fiction, 213.

B
Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, 348-349, 350, 350, note.
Bandelier, Ad. F., 200, 201, note; 203, note.
Bancroft, H. H., 176.
Barbarism, period of, 42.
Inventions and discoveries in Later Period, 32.
In Middle Period, 33.
In Older Period, 35.
Great achievements in this Period, 42.
Basileus, 246.
Probably elective, 248.
Office without civil functions, 252.
Office of Roman Rex elective, 253.
Each a general, with the additional functions of a priest and judge, 250.
Aristotle’s definition, 251.
Early Grecian governments military democracies, 252, 274.
Romans under the reges, the same, 253.
Office of basileus abolished by the Athenians, 260, 274.
Of rex by the Romans, 319.
Basileia, 249.
 Aristotle’s definition, 256.
Becker, Prof. W. A. Family of ancient Greeks, 475, note.
Of Romans, 478, note.
Blackfeet tribes, 171.
Blood revenge, 77, 238.
Bow and arrow; its invention created an epoch, 10.
Difficult to invent, 21, note.
Burial place of gens.
Usually common among Indian tribes, 83.
Of Tuscaroras, 84.
Byington, Rev. Dr. Cyrus, 162.

C
Cameron, Mr. A. S. P., 375.
Categories of relatives: of Hawaiians, 405.
Of Chinese, 416.
In Timæus of Plato, 417.
Cayugas, gentes, 70.
Phratries, 91.
Chief, office of, elective, 72, 145.
Head-chief of tribe, 118.
Described as a lord, 202.
No analogy, ib.
Chief of Grecian gens, 261.
Cherokees, 164.
Chickasas, gentes, 163.
Phratries, ib.
Choctas, gentes, 161.
Phratries, 99.
Civilization, Period of.
Its contributions to knowledge, 30, 31.
Cleisthenes.
Founder of second great plan of government, 216, 254.
His legislation, 270.
Institution of Athenian political Society, 270.
 The Deme, or Township, ib.
Local tribe or county, 271.
Commonwealth or State, 272.
Inhabitants of each an organized self-governing body politic, 270-272.
Coalescence of tribes in a nation, 135, 259.
Confederacy of tribes, 122.
Iroquois Confederacy, 126.
Its organization and functions, 128.
Common gentes, and dialects of a common language its basis, 123.
Aztec Confederacy, 186.
Comanches, 177.
Columbia River, Valley of.
Seed land of Ganowánian family, 108, note.
Its salmon fisheries, bread roots, and game, 109, note.
Comitia Curiata, 315, 340.
Centuriata, 331, 333.
Tributa, 336.
Consanguine Family, 384, 401.
Consanguinity, Malayan system of, oldest, 385.
Turanian and Ganowánian, the second great form, 386.
Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian, third great form, 388.
Systems natural growths, 393.
Two ultimate forms: one classificatory, the other descriptive, 394.
Nature of a system of consanguinity, 395.
Its permanence, 402, 408.
Details of Malayan system, 404.
Relatives in categories, 407.
Its origin, 410.
Details of Ganowánian and Turanian, 435.
Origin of system, 422.
Aryan system, 485.
Its origin, 490.
Communism in living, 446, 453.
Coulanges, M. De. His work, “The Ancient City,” 234, 240, 549.
Council of Chiefs, 119.
 Iroquois Council invested chiefs with office, 136, 141.
Manner of convening, 137, note.
Manner of transacting business, 139.
Unanimity required, 140.
Aztec Council, 203.
Grecian Council, 243.
Its universality, 244.
Roman Comitia, 298.
Senate, 307, 315.
Comitia Centuriata, 331.
Cox, Prof. Edward F. Analysis of pottery of Mound Builders, 15.
Creeks, 160.
Crees, 167.
Crows, 159.
Curtius, Prof., 348.
Cushing, Mr. N. A., 530, note.

D
Dakota tribes, 154.
Dance. A form of worship among Indian tribes, 116.
Delawares, 101, 171.
Deme, or township of Athenians, 217.
Democracy.
Universal in Ancient Society and inherited from the gentes, 73, 253.
Liberty, equality, and fraternity cardinal principles of the gens, 85.
Athenian Democracy, 253, 270.
Descent in female line when gens is in archaic form, 67.
In American Indian tribes, 153-183.
In male line, 155-157, 166-169, 171-182.
How changed from female line to male, 344.
Causes which produced the change in Grecian gentes, 345.
In female line among Lycians, 347.
Etruscans, 348.
Views of Curtius, 348.
Of Bachofen, 349.
 Among Athenians prior to Cecrops, 350.
Required to explain certain marriages, 351.
Legend of Danaidæ, 354.
In female line among Ashiras, Aponos, and Ashangos of Africa, 371.
Banyi, 372.
Bangalas, 373.
Du Chaillu, 371.

E
Ethnical Periods, 8-13.
Advantages of these subdivisions, 16.
Their relative length, 38.
Ephoralty of the Spartans, 250.
Eries, 126, note; 149-153.
Etruscans, 279, 348.

F
Family, the, Five successive forms, 384.
The consanguine, 384, 401.
The punaluan, 384, 424.
The syndyasmian or pairing, 384, 453.
The patriarchal, 384, 465.
The monogamian, 384, 468.
First, second, and fifth radical, creating three systems of consanguinity and affinity, 324.
Consanguine family, origin of relationship in, 410.
Punaluan family, origin of relationship in, 422.
Syndyasmian, 453-461.
Patriarchal, 465.
Monogamian family of ancient Germans, 471;
of Homeric Greeks, 472, 475, note;
of Romans, 477.
Origin of relationship in, 485-490.
Sequence of institutions connected with the family, 498.
Freeman, Dr., on the organization of German tribes, 361, note.
Fison, Rev. Lorimer, 14, 51, note; 54, 374, 375, 403.
 G
Ganowánian family, its name, 152.
Ganowánian system of consanguinity and affinity, 432, 435.
Table, 447.
Gentile organization, 62, 185.
Institutions democratical, 212.
Gens of Australian tribes, 51-56,
of Iroquois, 62.
Founded upon kin, 63.
Definition of a gens, 67.
Descent in female line, 68.
Intermarriage in the gens prohibited, 69.
Rights, privileges, and obligations of its members, 71-84.
Liberty, equality, and fraternity, its cardinal principles, 85.
Grecian gens, 215.
Descent in male line, 216.
Rights, privileges, and obligations of its members, 222.
Unit of the social system, 226.
Roman gens, 277.
Definition of a gentilis, 283.
Descent in male line, 284.
Rights, privileges, and obligations of its members, 285.
Number of persons in a Roman gens, 299.
Gentes in other tribes of mankind, 357-379.
Probable origin of the gens, 377.
Gibbs, George, 175, 176.
Government.
First plan gentile and social, 6.
Organic series, gens, phratry, tribe, and confederacy, with a final coalescence of tribes in a
nation, 49, 66.
First stage, a government of one power, the council of chiefs; second, of two powers, a
council and a military commander; third, of three powers, a council, a general, and an
assembly of the people, 119, 120, 257.
Second plan territorial and political, 6.
Property classes of Solon, 264.
Attic Deme or township, 270.
 Registration in Deme, ib.
Local tribe or county, 271.
The state, 272.
Athenian democracy, 273.
No chief executive magistrate, 275.
Roman political society, 322.
Property classes of Servius Tullius, 331.
The centuries, 333.
Comitia Centuriata, 333.
The census, 336. City wards, 337.
Registration in ward of residence, 336.
Municipality of Rome, 339.
Transition from gentile into political society, 340.
Grote, on Grecian gentes, phratries and tribes, 220-228, 230-232.
His view of the early Grecian governments erroneous, 247.
His illustration from the Iliad, 248.

H
Hale, Horatio, 127, note; 153, 175.
Hart, Robert. On the hundred families of the Chinese, 364.
Hebrew tribes, 366.
Marriages in early period indicate gentes, with descent in the female line, 367.
Gentes and phratries in the time of Moses, 368.
Hodenosaunian tribes, 153.
House life, and plan of living among savage and barbarous tribes deserve special study, 399, 446.

/> I
Iowas, 156, 166.
Inventions and discoveries, 29, 45.
Iron, 11.
Process of smelting, 43.
Ancient side hill furnaces in Switzerland, 43, note.
Iroquois, gentes, 63-70.
Phratries, 90-97.
Tribes, 102.
Confederacy, 122.
 Sachems of the general council, 150.

J
Jones, C. C., 14, note.

K
Kaskaskias, 107.
Kaws, 106, 156.
Keepers of the faith in the Iroquois, 82.
Kennicott, Robert, 175.
Kikapoos, 170.
Kolushes, 175.

L
Lagunas, 180.
Lands owned in common among Indian tribes in Lower Status of barbarism, 151-174.
With a possessory right in individuals to occupied lands, 530.
In common by Aztec gentes probably, 200.
By Roman gentes, 290, 292, note, 541.
Some by phratries and tribes, 292.
Latham, R. G., 362, 364, 371.
Language, growth of, 5.
Question of its origin, 36, note.
Lockwood, Charles G. N., 375.
Locrians, hundred families of, 350.
Lycians, descent in female line, 347, 348.
Lubbock, Sir John, 14, 183, 364.

M
Magars of Nepaul, 362.
Maine, Sir Henry, 227.
On Celtic groups of kinsmen on French estates, 358.
His original researches, 507.
Malayan system of consanguinity and affinity, its origin, 410.
McLennan, Mr J. F., 362, 409.
Note concerning his work on “Primitive Marriage,” 509-521.
Mandans, 158.
Marriage, Australian scheme, 53, 57.
Hebrew, 410.
Consanguine, 401.
Punaluan, 424.
Syndyasmian, 453.
Monogamian, 468.
Menominees, 170.
Metals, native, 44.
Minnitarees, 158.
Miamis, 107, 168.
Mississippi tribes, 168.
Missouri tribes, 155.
Mohegan gentes, 173.
Phratries, 174.
Mohawks, 125.
Mommsen, Theodor, on domestication of animals, 23.
Family names, 78.
On introduction of agriculture, 277, note.
Roman gens, 281.
On gentile and tribal lands, 291.
Montezuma, principal war-chief of Aztec Confederacy, 206, 207.
Tenure and functions of the office, note.
His seizure of Cortes, 211, note.
His deposition by the Aztecs, 211.
Monogamian Family, 384, 468.
Monarchy incompatible with gentilism, 124, 252.
Moqui Village Indians, 86, 179.
Müller, Max, 23.
Munsees, 173.

N
Names of members of a gens, 78.
How bestowed, 79.
The name conferred gentile rights, ib.
Nation formed by coalescence of tribes, 135, 242, 259.
Neutral nation, 149, 153.
Naucraries of Athenians, 262.
Niebuhr, on Roman and Grecian gentile questions, 23, 281, 287, 292, note, 295, 298, 305, 313, 315,
325.

O
Ojibwas, 106, 166.
Omahas, 106, 155.
Oneidas, 70.
Onondagas, gentes, 70.
Phratries, 91.
Osages, 106.
Osborn, Rev. John, Rotuman system of consanguinity, 403, note; 419.
Otawas, 167.
Otawa Confederacy, 106.
Otoes, 106, 156.

P
Parkman, Francis, 153, note.
Patriarchal Family, 384, 465, 480.
Patricians, Roman, 326, 330.
Pawnees, 164.
Peorias, 107.
Peschel, Oscar, 14, 413.
Phratry, its character, 89.
Of Iroquois, 90.
Its functions, 94-97.
Phratric organization in American Indian tribes, 90 et seq.
Of Athenians, 220.
Obês of Spartans, 219.
Definition of Dikæarchus, 236.
Objects of phratry, 237.
Uses in army organization, 287.
Phratriarch, 240.
Blood revenge, 238.
Roman curia a phratry, 303.
 Its composition and functions, 304, 305.
Piankeshaws, 107.
Plebeians, persons unconnected with any gens, 266.
Unattached class, at Athens, 267.
Made citizens by Solon, 268.
Roman plebeians, 324, 325.
Potawattamies, 166, 167.
Property, growth of, 6.
Its inheritance. First Rule: In American Indian tribes, 75, 153, 185, 528, 530;
in Status of savagery, 526;
in Lower Status of barbarism, 528.
Second Rule, 531: Property in Middle Status, 540;
in Upper Status, ib.
Third Rule, 544: Hebrew inheritance, 545, 547;
daughters of Zelophehad, 546;
Athenian inheritance, 548;
Roman, 550;
property career of civilized nations, 522.
Polyandry, 409.
Polygyny, 404.
Political society, 218.
Institution of Athenian, 256.
Experiments of Theseus, 258, 259.
Draco, 263.
Legislation of Solon, 264.
Property classes, ib.
Organization of army, 265.
Legislation of Cleisthenes, 270.
Attic deme or township, ib.
Inhabitants of each a body politic, with powers of local self-government, 271.
Local tribe or county, ib.
The Athenian Commonwealth or State, 272.
Government founded upon territory and upon property, ib.
Powers of gentes, phratries, and tribes transferred to the demes, counties, or state, 272, 274.
No chief executive magistrate, 275.
 Institution of Roman political society, 323-342.
Pottery, 13, 15, 16.
Punaluan Family, 384, 424.
Of Hawaiians, 427.
Of Britons, 429.
Other tribes, 430, 431.
Punkas, 106, 155.
Powell, Maj. J. W., 536, 537.

Q
Quappas, 106.

R
Ratio of human progress, 29.
Geometrical, 38.
Raw, Prof. Charles, 14, note.
Religious ideas, growth of, 5.
Religious rites, 81, 222, 289.
Faith and worship of American Indian tribes, 115.
Roman tribe, 314.
State, 319, 331.
Rome, founding of, 278, 309, 310, 312.

S
Sachem, 71.
Elective tenure of the office, 72.
Iroquois mode of electing and investing sachems, 141, 144.
Aztec sachems, 202.
Salish, Sahaptin, and Kootenay tribes, 177.
Savagery, its contributions to knowledge, 36.
Formative period of mankind, 41.
American aborigines commenced their career in America in savagery, 40.
Sawks and Foxes, 170.
Schoolcraft, Henry R., on the word “totem,” 165.
Scottish Clan, 357.
Semitic family, 39.
Senecas, gentes, 70.
Phratries, 90.
Medicine Lodges, 97.
Sequence of institutions connected with the family, 498.
Shawnees, 168.
Shoshones, 177.
Society, gentile and political. See “Government,” and “Political Society.”
South American Indian tribes, 182.
Subsistence, Arts of, 19.
Fish and game, 26.
Farinaceous food, 22, 26.
Meat and milk, 24.
Made unlimited by field agriculture, 26.
Syndyasmian family, 384, 453.

T
Taplin, Rev. George, 374.
Thlinkeets, gentes, 101, 176.
Phratries, 101.
Thums, or gentes of Magars of Nepaul, 362.
Totem. The symbol of a gens; thus, the figure of a wolf is the totem of the wolf gens, 165.
Tribe, Indian. Definition of, 103.
Natural growth through segmentation, 104, 125.
Attributes of an American Indian tribe, 112, 116.
Athenian tribe, 241.
Roman tribe, 302, 311.
Turanian system of consanguinity and affinity, 435.
Its origin, 422, 445.
Remains of system in Grecian and Roman tribes, 482.
Tuscaroras, gentes, 70.
Phratries, 93.
Burial-place, 84.
Tylor, Mr. Edward B., 13, 14, 182.
On the clans of tribes in India, 364.

U
Upper Missouri tribes, 158.

V
Valley of Columbia, seed land of Ganowánian family, 109, and note.
Village Indians, 151, 178.

W
Wampum, belts of, their use, 139, 142.
War-chief, germ of the office of a chief executive Magistrate, King, Emperor, and President, 129,
146.
Principal war-chiefs of Iroquois, 146.
Office elective, ib.
Of Aztecs, 207.
Office of Teuctli elective, 210.
Basileus of Grecian tribes, 246.
Probably elective, ib.
Rex of Roman tribes, 300.
Nominated by the Senate, and elected by the Comitia Curiata, ib.
Weaws, 107.
Winnebagoes, 157.
Wright, Rev. Ashur, 83, 455.
Wyandotes, 153.

Z
Zuñi Village Indians, 178.
Transcriber's note:

The book cover image displayed by some versions of this file was created
by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANCIENT

SOCIETY***
******* This file should be named 45950-h.txt or 45950-h.zip *******
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/5/9/5/45950
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be
renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one
owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and
you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific
permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook,
complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly
any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
 *** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU
DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all
the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-
tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a
copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without
complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below.
There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free
future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E
below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the
United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on
the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of
promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you
share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm
work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country outside the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the
terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted
with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and
distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or
charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you
must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7
or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with
the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must
comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms
imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the
Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of
the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or
any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on
the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that

You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to
donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public
domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on
which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited
to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright
or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot
be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to
you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-
tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic

works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and
donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information
page at www.gutenberg.org

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary

Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)

(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's
laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks,
AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout
numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing
the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely
distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of
equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to
$5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the
IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways
including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate,
please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm

concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a
copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to
our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.