← catalogue

Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines

by Lewis Henry Morgan · English · Gutenberg #8112 · 705,936 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines

Author: Lewis Henry Morgan


        
Release date: May 1, 2005 [eBook #8112]
                Most recently updated: December 26, 2020

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8112

Credits: Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Robert Prince, Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES ***




Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Robert Prince, Charles Franks
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.




CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORTH AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY

VOLUME IV




HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES

BY LEWIS H. MORGAN




PREFACE.

The following work substantially formed the Fifth Part of the
original manuscript of "Ancient Society," under the title "Growth of
the Idea of House Architecture." As the manuscript exceeded the
limits of a single volume, this portion (Part V) was removed, and
having then no intention to publish it separately, the greater part
of it found its way into print in detached articles. A summary was
given to Johnson's New Universal Cyclopedia in the article on the
"Architecture of the American Aborigines." The chapter on the
"Houses of the Aztecs" formed the basis of the article entitled
"Montezuma's Dinner," published in the North American Review, in
April, 1876. Another chapter, that on the "Houses of the Mound
Builders," was published in the same Review in July, 1876. Finally,
the present year, at the request of the executive committee of the
"Archaeological Institute of America," at Cambridge, I prepared from
the same materials an article entitled "A Study of the Houses and
House Life of the Indian Tribes," with a scheme for the exploration
of the ruins in New Mexico, Arizona, the San Juan region, Yucatan,
and Central America.

With some additions and reductions the facts are now presented in
their original form, and as they will now have a wider distribution
than the articles named have had, they will be new to most of my
readers. The facts and suggestions made will also have the advantage
of being presented in their proper connection. Thus additional
strength is given to the argument as a whole. All the forms of this
architecture sprang from a common mind, and exhibit, as a consequence,
different stages of development of the same conceptions, operating
upon similar necessities. They also represent these several
conditions of Indian life with reasonable completeness. Their houses
will be seen to form one system of works, from the Long House of the
Iroquois to the Joint Tenement houses of adobe and of stone in New
Mexico, Yucatan, Chiapas, and Guatemala, with such diversities as
the different degrees of advancement of these several tribes would
naturally produce. Studied as one system, springing from a common
experience, and similar wants, and under institutions of the same
general character, they are seen to indicate a plan of life at once
novel, original, and distinctive.

The principal fact, which all these structures alike show, from the
smallest to the greatest, is that the family through these stages of
progress was too weak an organization to face alone the struggle of
life, and sought a shelter for itself in large households composed
of several families. The house for a single family was exceptional
throughout aboriginal America, while the house large enough to
accommodate several families was the rule. Moreover, they were
occupied as joint tenement houses. There was also a tendency to form
these households on the principle of gentile kin, the mothers with
their children being of the same gens or clan.

If we enter upon the great problem of Indian life with a
determination to make it intelligible, their house life and domestic
institutions must furnish the key to its explanation. These pages
are designed as a commencement of that work. It is a fruitful, and,
at present, but partially explored field. We have been singularly
inattentive to the plan of domestic life revealed by the houses of
the aboriginal period. Time and the influences of civilization have
told heavily upon their mode of life until it has become so far
modified, and in many cases entirely overthrown, that it must be
taken up as a new investigation upon the general facts which remain.
At the epoch of European discovery it was in full vitality in North
and South America; but the opportunities of studying its principles
and its results were neglected. As a scheme of life under
established institutions, it was a remarkable display of the
condition of mankind in two well marked ethnical periods, namely,
the Older Period and the Middle Period of barbarism, the first being
represented by the Iroquois and the second by the Aztecs, or ancient
Mexicans. In no part of the earth were these two conditions of human
progress so well represented as by the American Indian tribes. A
knowledge of the culture and of the state of the arts of life in
these periods is indispensable to a definite conception of the
stages of human progress. From the laws which govern this progress,
from the uniformity of their operation, and from the necessary
limitations of the principle of intelligence, we may conclude that
our own remote ancestors passed through a similar experience and
possessed very similar institutions. In studying the condition of
the Indian tribes in these periods we may recover some portion of
the lost history of our own race. This consideration lends incentive
to the investigation.

The first chapter is a condensation of four in "Ancient Society,"
namely, those on the gens, phratry, tribe, and confederacy of tribes.
As they formed a necessary part of that work, they become equally
necessary to this. A knowledge of these organizations is
indispensable to an understanding of the house life of the aborigines.
These organizations form the basis of American ethnology. Although
the discussion falls short of a complete explanation of their
character and of their prevalence, it will give the reader a general
idea of the organization of society among them.

We are too apt to look upon the condition of savage and of barbarous
tribes as standing on the same plane with respect to advancement.
They should be carefully distinguished as dissimilar conditions of
progress. Moreover, savagery shows stages of culture and of progress,
and the same is true of barbarism. It will greatly facilitate the
study of the facts relating to these two conditions, through which
mankind have passed in their progress to civilization, to
discriminate between ethnical periods, or stages of culture both in
savagery and in barbarism. The progress of mankind from their
primitive condition to civilization has been marked and eventful.
Each great stage of progress is connected, more or less directly,
with some important invention or discovery which materially
influenced human progress, and inaugurated an improved condition.
For these reasons the period of savagery has been divided into three
subperiods, and that of barbarism also into three, the latter of
which are chiefly important in their relation to the condition of
the Indian tribes. The Older Period of barbarism, which commences
with the introduction of the art of pottery, and the Middle Period,
which commences with the use of adobe brick in the construction of
houses, and with the cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation,
mark two very different and very dissimilar conditions of life. The
larger portion of the Indian tribes fall within one or the other of
these periods. A small portion were in the Older Period of savagery,
and none had reached the Later Period of barbarism, which
immediately precedes civilization. In treating of the condition of
the several tribes they will be assigned to the particular period to
which they severally belong under this classification.

I regret to add that I have not been able, from failing health, to
give to this manuscript the continuous thought which a work of any
kind should receive from its author. But I could not resist the
invitation of my friend Major J. W. Powell, the Director of the
Bureau of Ethnology, to put these chapters together as well as I
might be able, that they might be published by that Bureau. As it
will undoubtedly be my last work, I part with it under some
solicitude for the reason named; but submit it cheerfully to the
indulgence of my readers.

I am greatly indebted to my friend Mr. J. C. Pilling, of the same
Bureau, for his friendly labor and care in correcting the proof
sheets, and for supervising the illustrations. Such favors are very
imperfectly repaid by an author's thanks.

The late William W. Ely, M. D., LL. D., was, for a period of more
than twenty-five years, my cherished friend and literary adviser,
and to him I am indebted for many valuable suggestions, and for
constant encouragement in my labors. The dedication of this volume
to his memory is but a partial expression of my admiration of his
beautiful character, and of my appreciation of his friendship.

LEWIS H. MORGAN

ROCHESTER, N. Y., June, 1881





TABLE OF CONTENTS.



CHAPTER I.

SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.

The Gens: organized upon kin; rights, privileges, and obligations of
its members--The Phratry: its character and functions--The Tribe:
its composition and attributes--The Confederacy of Tribes: its nature,
character and functions.



CHAPTER II.

THE LAW OF HOSPITALITY AND ITS GENERAL PRACTICE.

Indian tribes in three dissimilar conditions--Savage tribes--
Partially horticultural tribes--Village Indians--Usages and customs
affecting their house life--The law of hospitality practiced by the
Iroquois; by the Algonkin tribes of lower Virginia; by the Delawares
and Munsees; by the tribes of the Missouri, of the Valley of the
Columbia; by the Dakota tribes of the Mississippi, by the Algonkin
tribes of Wisconsin; by the Cherokees, Choctaws, and Creeks; by the
Village Indians of New Mexico, of Mexico, of Central America; by the
tribes of Venezuela; by the Peruvians--Universality of the usage--It
implies communism in living in large households.



CHAPTER III.

COMMUNISM IN LIVING.

A law of their condition--Large households among Indian tribes--
Communism in living in the household--Long Houses of the Iroquois--
Several families in a house--Communism in household--Long Houses of
Virginia Indians--Clustered cabins of the Creeks--Communism in the
cluster--Hunting bands on the plains--The capture a common stock--
Fishing bands on the Columbia--The capture a common stock--Large
households in tribes of the Colombia--Communism in the household--
Mandan houses--Contained several families--Houses of the Sauks the
same--Village Indians of New Mexico--Mayas of Yucatan--Their present
communism in living--Large households of Indians of Cuba, of
Venezuela, of Carthagena, of Peru.



CHAPTER IV.

USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LAND AND FOOD.

Tribal domain owned by the tribe in common--Possessory right in
individuals and families to such land as they cultivated--Government
compensation for Indian lands paid to tribe; for improvements to
individuals--Apartments of a house and possessory rights to lands
went to gentile heirs--Tenure of land among sedentary Village
Indians at Taos, Jemex, and Zunyi--Among Aztecs or Ancient Mexicans,
as presented by Mr. Bandelier; in Peru--The usage of having but one
prepared meal each day, a dinner--Rule among Northern tribes--A
breakfast as well as a dinner claimed for the Mexicans--Separation
at meals, the men eating first, and by themselves, and the women and
children afterwards.



CHAPTER V.

HOUSES OF INDIAN TRIBES NORTH OF NEW MEXICO.

Houses of Indian tribes must be considered as parts of a common
system of construction--A common principle runs through all its forms;
that of adaptation to communism in living within the household--It
explains this architecture--Communal houses of tribes in savagery;
in California; in the valley of the Yukon; in the valley of the
Columbia--Communal house of tribes in the lower status of barbarism--
Ojibwa lodge--Dakota skin tent--Long houses of Virginia Indians; of
Nyach tribe on Long Island; of Seneca-Iroquois; of Onondaga-Iroquois--
Dirt Lodge of Mandans and Minnetarees--Thatched houses of Maricopas
and Mohaves of the Colorado; of the Pimas of the Gila--What a
comparison shows.



CHAPTER VI.

HOUSES OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO.

Improved character of houses--The defensive principle incorporated
in their plan of the Houses--Their joint tenement character--Two or
more stories high--Improved apparel, pottery, and fabrics--Pueblo of
Santo Domingo; of adobe bricks--Built in terraced town--Ground story
closed--Terraces reached by ladders--Rooms entered through
trap-doors in ceilings--Pueblo of Zunyi--Ceiling--Water-jars and
hand mill--Moki pueblo--Room in same--Ceiling like that at Zunyi--
Pueblo of Taos--Estufas for holding councils--Size of adobes--Of
doorways--Window-openings and trap-doorways--Present governmental
organization--Room in pueblo--Fire-places and chimneys of modern
introduction--Present ownership and inheritance of property--Village
Indians have declined since their discovery--Sun worship--The
Montezuma religion--Seclusion from religious motives.



CHAPTER VII.

HOUSES IN RUINS OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF THE SAN JUAN RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.

Pueblos in stone--The best structures in New Mexico--Ruins in the
valley of the Chaco--Exploration of Lieut. J. H. Simpson in 1849; of
William H. Jackson in 1877--Map of valley--Ground plans--Pueblo
Pintado and Weje-gi--Constructed of tabular pieces of sandstone--
Estufas and their uses--Pueblos Una Vida and Hungo Pavie--Restoration
of Hungo Pavie--Pueblo of Chettro-Kettle--Room in same--Form of
ceiling--Pueblo Bonito--Room in same--Restoration of Pueblo--Pueblo
del Arroyo--Pueblo Penyasca Blanca--Seven large pueblos and two
smaller ones--Pueblo Alto without the valley on table land on the
north side--Probably the "Seven Cities of Cibola" of Coronado's
Expedition--Reasons for supposition--The pueblos constructed
gradually--Remarkable appearance of the valley when inhabited.



CHAPTER VIII.

HOUSES IN RUINS OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF THE SAN JUAN RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES--(Continued.)

Ruins of stone pueblo on Animas River--Ground plan--Each room faced
with stone, showing natural faces--Constructed like those in Chaco--
Adobe mortar--Its composition and efficiency--Lime unknown in New
Mexico--Gypsum mortar probably used in New Mexico and Central America--
Cedar poles used as lintels--Cedar beams used as joists--Estufas;
neither fire-places nor chimneys--The House a fortress--Second stone
pueblo--Six other pueblos in ruins near--The Montezuma Valley--Nine
pueblos in ruins in a cluster--Diagram--Ruins of stone pueblos near
Ute Mountain--Outline of plan--Round tower of stone with three
concentric walls--Incorporated in pueblo--Another round tower--With
two concentric walls--Stands isolated--Other ruins--San Juan
district as an original centre of this Indian culture--
Mound-Builders probable emigrants from this region--Historical
tribes of Mexico emigrants from same--Indian migrations--Made under
control of physical causes.



CHAPTER IX.

HOUSES OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS.

Area of their occupation--Their condition that of Village Indians--
Probably immigrants from New Mexico--Character of their earthworks--
Embankments enclosing squares--Probable sites of their houses--
Adapted, as elevated platforms, to Long Houses--High bank works--
Capacity of embankments--Conjectural restoration of the pueblo--
Other embankments--Their probable uses--Artificial clay beds under
grave-mounds--Probably used for cremation of chiefs--Probable
numbers of the Mound Builders--Failure of attempt to transplant this
type of village life to the Ohio Valley--Their withdrawal probably
voluntary.



CHAPTER X.

HOUSES OF THE AZTECS OR ANCIENT MEXICANS.

First accounts of Pueblo of Mexico--Their extravagance--Later
American exaggerations--Kings and emperors made out of sachems and
war-chiefs--Ancient society awakens curiosity and wonder--Aztec
government a confederacy of three Indian tribes--Pueblo of Mexico in
an artificial lake--Joint-tenement houses--Several families in each
house--Houses in Cuba and Central America--Aztec houses not fully
explored--Similar to those in New Mexico--Communism in living
probable--Cortez in Pueblo of Mexico--His quarters--Explanation of
Diaz--Of Herrera--Of Bandolier--House occupied by Montezuma--A
communal house--Montezuma's dinner--According to Diaz--to Cortez--to
Herrera--To H. H. Bancroft--Excessive exaggerations--Dinner in
common by a communal household--Bandelier's "Social Organization and
Mode of Government of the Ancient Mexicans."



CHAPTER XI.

RUINS OF HOUSES OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF YUCATAN
AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

Pueblos in Yucatan and Central America--Their situation--Their house
architecture--Highest type of aboriginal architecture--Pueblos were
occupied when discovered--Uxmal houses erected on pyramidal
elevations--Governor's house--Character of its architecture--House
of the Nuns--Triangular ceiling of stone--Absence of chimneys--No
cooking done within the house--Their communal plan evidently
joint-tenement houses--Present communism of Mayas--Presumtively
inherited from their ancestors--Ruins of Zayi--The closed house--
Apartments constructed over a core of masonry--Palenque--Mr.
Stephens' misconception of these ruins--Whether the post and lintel
of stone were used as principles of construction--Plan of all these
houses communal--Also fortresses--Palenque Indians flat-heads--
American ethnography--General conclusions.




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

FRONTISPIECE. Zunyi Water Carrier.

Fig. 1. Earth Lodges of the Sacramento Valley

Fig. 2. Gallinomero Thatched Lodge

Fig. 3. Matdu Lodge in the high Sierra

Fig. 4. Yukuta Tule Lodges

Fig. 5. Kutchin Lodge

Fig. 6. Ground-plan of Necrohokioo

Fig. 7. Frame of Ojibwa Wig-e-wam

Fig. 8. Dakota Woka-yo, or Skin Tent

Fig. 9. Village of Pomeiock

Fig. 10. Village of Secotan

Fig. 11. Interior of House of Virginia Indians

Fig. 12. Ho-de-no-sote of the Seneca-Iroquois

Fig. 13. Ground-plan of Seneca-Iroquois Long-House

Fig. 14. Bartram's ground-plan and cross-section of Onondaga
Long-House.

Fig. 15. Palisaded Onondaga Village

Fig. 16. Mandan Village Plot

Fig. 17. Ground-plan of Mandan House

Fig. 18. Cross-section of Mandan House

Fig. 19. Mandan House

Fig. 20. Mandan Drying-Scaffold

Fig. 21. Mandan Ladder

Fig. 22. Pueblo of Santo Domingo

Fig. 23. Pueblo of Zunyi

Fig. 24. Room in Zunyi House

Fig. 25. Pueblo of Wolpi

Fig. 26. Room in Moki House

Fig. 27. North Pueblo of Taos

Fig. 28. Room in Pueblo of Taos

Fig. 29. Map of a portion of Chaco Canyon

Fig. 30. Ground-plans of Pueblos Pintada and Wejegi

Fig. 31. Ground-plans of Pueblos of Una Vida and Hungo Pavie

Fig. 32. Restoration of Pueblo Hungo Pavie

Fig. 33. Ground-plan of Pueblo Chettro Kettle

Fig. 34. Interior of a Room in Pueblo Chettro Kettle

Fig. 35. Ground-plan of Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 36. Room in Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 37. Restoration of Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 38. Ground-plan of Pueblo del Arroyo

Fig. 39. Ground-plan of Pueblo Peuasca Blanca

Fig. 40. Ground-plan of the Pueblo on Animas River

Fig. 41. Stone from Doorway

Fig. 41a. A finished block of Sandstone (for comparison with Fig. 41)

Fig. 42. Section of Cedar Lintel

Fig. 43. Outline of Stone Pueblo on Animas River

Fig. 44. Pueblos at commencement of McElmo Canyon

Fig. 45. Outline plan of Stone Pueblo near base of Ute Mountain

Fig. 46. Ground-plan of High Bank Pueblo

Fig. 47. Restoration of High Bank Pueblo

Fig. 48. Ground-plan and sections of house, High Bank Pueblo

Fig. 49. Mound with artificial clay basin

Fig. 50. Side elevation of Pyramidal Platform of Governor's House

Fig. 51. Governor's House at Uxmal

Fig. 52. Ground-plan of Governor's House, Uxmal

Fig. 53. Ground-plan of the House of the Nuns

Fig. 54. Section of room in House of the Nuns

Fig. 55. Ground-plan of Zayi

Fig. 56. Cross-section through one apartment





HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES.




CHAPTER I.

SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.


In a previous work I have considered the organization of the
American aborigines in gentes, phratries, and tribes, with the
functions of each in their social system. From the importance of
this organization to a right understanding of their social and
governmental life, a recapitulation of the principal features of
each member of the organic series is necessary in this connection.
[Footnote: "Ancient Society" or "Researches in the Lines of Human
Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization." Henry
Holt & Co. 1877.]

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 subperiods 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 phratra 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.



THE GENS.

Gens, [Greek: genos], and gattas in Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit have
alike the primary signification of kin. They contain the same
element as gigno, [Greek: gignouas], and ganaman, 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.

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 subperiods 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 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 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 equivalent terms from not perceiving the universality of
the latter. In previous works, and following my predecessors, I have
so used them. 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.

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.

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, while 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 die 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.
Between the two extremes, represented by the two rules of descent,
three entire ethnical periods intervene, covering many thousands of
years.

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 principal the gens afforded to each
individual member that personal protection which no other existing
power could give.

After enumerating 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
Ganowaman 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
silicious 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 earthen vessels, [Footnote:
These loaves or cakes were about six inches in diameter and an inch
thick] they tanned skins into leather, with which they manufactured
kilts leggins, 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 continent." [Footnote: North
American Review April No. 1873 p. 360 Note.] 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:


     Seneca    Cayuga   Onondaga  Oneida   Mohawks   Tuscarora
  1    Wolf      Wolf     Wolf      Wolf     Wolf      Gray Wolf
  2    Bear      Bear     Bear      Bear     Bear      Bear
  3    Turtle    Turtle   Turtle    Turtle   Turtle    Great Turtle
  4    Beaver    Beaver   Beaver                       Beaver
  5    Deer      Deer     Deer                         Yellow Wolf
  6    Snipe     Snipe    Snipe                        Snipe
  7    Heron     Eel      Eel                          Eel
  8    Hawk      Hawk     Ball                         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

    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. 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.

For a detailed exposition of these characteristics the reader is
referred to Ancient Society, pp. 72-85.

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.

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 Moki Village Indians of Arizona, 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.



THE PHRATRY.

The phratry (phratria) 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.

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 da non da 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 appears from the composition
of the phratries in the remaining Iroquois tribes. 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.

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.

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. [Footnote: League of the Iroquois, p.
294.]

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. At the
funeral of Handsome Lake (Ga-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, emblematic 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 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 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 gene 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 Tlascalan 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 advised Agamemnon to "separate the
troops by phratries and by tribes, so that phratry may support
phratry and tribe" [Footnote: Illiad]

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 Tlas-calan, 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.

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. 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.

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 12.

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 phratry also appears among the Thlinkits 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.
The members of any gens in the Wolf phratry could marry into any
gens of the opposite phratry, and vice versa.

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 Ganowanian 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.



THE TRIBE.


It is difficult to describe an Indian tribe by the affirmative
elements of its composition. Nevertheless it is clearly marked, and
is 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.

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 has resulted from
the union of a weaker with a stronger tribe speaking a closely
related dialect, as the union of the Missouris with the Otoet, 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
hindrance 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. An oral
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; and
the multiplication of the languages and dialects of the different
families of North and South America probably required 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 center, 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. Dialectic 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 can be 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 Wyandots,
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 Ganowanian 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, in
respect to the order of separation from each other of the tribes of
the same stock.

This process of subdivision has been operating among the American
aborigines for thousands of years, until several hundred tribes have
been developed from about seventy stocks as existing in as many
families of language. 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 hundred, and, at most, a few thousand people to
form a tribe and place it in a respectable position in the
Ganowanian family.

It remains to present the functions and attributes of an Indian tribe,
which are contained in 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

For a discussion of these characteristics of a tribe, reference is
made to Ancient Society, pp. 113-118.

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 preconsidering 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
preconsidering 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,
large 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.



THE CONFEDERACY OF TRIBES


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 Ottawa Confederacy of three, the
Dakota League of the "Seven Council Fires," the Moki 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 reintegrated
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 center, 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, [Footnote: They were admitted
into the Creek Confederacy after their overthrow by the French.]
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.

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 possibly 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, and portions of Canada north of Lake Ontario.
[Footnote: About 1651-1655 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.]

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. There are over six
thousand Iroquois in New York, besides scattered bands in other
parts of the United States, and a still larger number in Canada;
thus illustrating the efficiency as well as persistency of the arts
of barbarous life in sustaining existence. It is, moreover, now
ascertained that they are slowly increasing.

When the confederacy was formed, about A. D. 1400-1450, the
conditions previously named were present. [Footnote: 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. Schoolcraft's History, Condition and Prospects of the
Indian Tribes, 5, p. 631.]

The Iroquois were 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, Ha-yo-went-ha, 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-ga-no-we'-da, 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 Ha-yo-went-ha 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 persona was the founder of the confederacy it is
difficult to determine. The silent Ha-yo-went'-ha was, not unlikely,
a real person of Iroquois lineage, 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-ga-no-we'-da 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. [Footnote: My friend Horatio Hale,
the eminent philologist, came, as he informed me, to this conclusion]

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,
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, 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:
[Footnote: These names signify as follows:]

  Table of sachemships of the Iroquois.

  MOHAWKS.

  One.
     1. Da-go-e'-o-ge.   [Footnote: "Neutral," or "The Shield."]
     2. Ho-yo-went'-ha.  [Footnote: "Man who Combs."]
     3. Da-go-no-we'-do. [Footnote: "Inexhaustible."]

  Two.
     4. So-o-e-wo'-ah.   [Footnote: "Small Speech."]
     5. Da-yo'-ho-go.    [Footnote: "At the Forks."]
     6. O-o-o'-go-wo.    [Footnote: "At the Great River."]

  Three.
     7. Da-an-no-go'-e-neh.    [Footnote: "Dragging His Horns."]
     8. So-da'-go-e-wo-deh.    [Footnote: "Even Tempered."]
     9. Hos-do-weh'-se-ont-ho. [Footnote: "Hanging up Rattles."
           Thee sachems in class One belonged to
           the Turtle gens, in class Two to the Wolf gens, and in
           class Three to the Bear gens.]

  ONEDIAS.

  One.
     1. Ho-dos'-ho-the.    [Footnote: "A man bearing a Burden."]
     2. Ga-no-gweh'-yo-do. [Footnote: "A Man covered in Cat-tail Down."]
     3. Da-yo-ho'-gwen-da. [Footnote: "Opening through the Woods."]

  Two.
     4. So-no-sase'.          [Footnote: "A Long String."]
     5. To-no-o-ge-o.         [Footnote: "A Man with a Headache."]
     6. Ho-de-o-dun-nent'-ho. [Footnote: "Swallowing Himself."]

  Three.
     7. Da-wo-do'-o-do-yo.   [Footnote: "Place of the Echo."]
     8. Go-ne-o-dus'-ha-yeh. [Footnote: "War-clubs on the Ground."]
     9. Ho-wus'-ho-da-o.     [Footnote: "A man Steaming Himself."
           The sachems in the first class belong to Wolf gens,
           in the second the Turtle gens, and in the third to
           the Bear gens.]

  ONONDAGAS.

  One.
     1. To-do-do'-ho.   [Footnote: "Tangled," Bear gens.]
     2. To-nes'-sa-ah.
     3. Da-ot'-ga-dose. [Footnote: "On the Watch,"
           Bear gens. This sachem and the one before him were
           hereditary councillors of the To-do-do'-ho, who
           held the most illustrious sachemship.]

  Two.
     4. Go-neo-do'-je-wake. [Footnote: "Bitter Body," Snipe gens.]
     5. Ah-wo'-ga-yat.      [Footnote: Turtle gens.]
     6. Da-o-yat'-gwo-e.    [Footnote: Not ascertained.]

  Three.
     7. Ho-no-we-ne-to.     [Footnote: This sachem was hereditary
           keeper of the wampum; Wolf gens.]

  Four.
     8.  Go-we-ne'-san-do. [Footnote: Deer gens]
     9.  Ho-e'-ho.         [Footnote: Deer gens]
     10. Ho-yo-ne-o'-ne.   [Footnote: Turtle gens]
     11. Sa-do'-kwo-seh.   [Footnote: Bear gens]

  Five.
     12. So-go-ga-ho'.   [Footnote: "Having a Glimpse," Deer gens.]
     13. Ho-sa-ho'-do.   [Footnote: "Large Mouth," Turtle gens.]
     14. Sko-no'-wun-de. [Footnote: "Over the Creek" Turtle gens.]

  CAYUGAS.

  One.
     1. Da-go'-ne-yo.       [Footnote: "Man Frightened," Deer gens.]
     2. Da-je-no'-do-web-o. [Footnote: Heron gens.]
     3. Go-do-gwa-sa.       [Footnote: Bear gens.]
     4. So-yo-wase.         [Footnote: Bear gens.]
     5. Ho-de-os'yo-no.     [Footnote: Turtle gens.]

  Two.
     6. Da-yo-o-yo'go.   [Footnote: Not ascertained.]
     7. Jote-ho-weh'-ko. [Footnote: "Very Cold," Turtle gens.]
     8. De-o-wate'-ho.   [Footnote: Heron gens.]

  Three.
     9.  To-do-e-ho'. [Footnote: Snipe gens.]
     10. Des-go'-heh. [Footnote: Snipe gens.]

  SENECAS.

  One.
     1. Ga-ne-o-di'-yo.   [Footnote: "Handsome Lake," Turtle gens.]
     2. So-do-go'-o-yase. [Footnote: "Level Heavens," Snipe gens.]

  Two.
     3. Go-no-gi'-e.   [Footnote: Turtle gens.]
     4. So-geh'-jo-wo. [Footnote: "Great Forehead." Hawk gens.]

  Three.
     5. So-de-a-no'-wus.   [Footnote: "Assistant," Bear gens.]
     6. Nis-ho-ne-a'-nent. [Footnote: "Falling Day," Snipe gens.]

  Four.
     7. Go-no-go-e-do'-we. [Footnote: "Hair Burned Off." Snipe gens.]
     8. Do-ne-ho-go'-weh.  [Footnote: "Open Door," Wolf gens.]

Two of these sachemships have been filled but once since their
creation. Ho-yo-went'-ho and Da-go-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 Go-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 the relationship in which they stood to each other.
[Footnote: 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.]

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 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-e'-no-sau-nee). [Footnote: The Long House was not peculiar to
the Iroquois, but used by many other tribes, as the Powhattan
Indians of Virginia, the Nyacks of Long Island, and other tribes.]

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 Sabrae 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 a 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 religions 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.

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-go-e-o'-do). The Onondagas came
next, under the epithet of "Name-Bearer" (Ho-de-san-no'-ge-to),
because they had been appointed to select and name the fifty
original sachems. 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.

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. 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 30). 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.

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.

Under a confederacy of tribes the office of general, "Great War
Soldier," (Hos-go-o-geh'-da-go-wo), 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.

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-wo, 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 study of 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 democratic, 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.

[Footnote: For the prevalence of the organization into gentes or
clans among the Indian tribes, see Ancient Society, ch. vi. Since
the publication of that work the same organization has been found by
Mr. Bandelier by personal exploration among the Pueblo tribes in New
Mexico, who speak the Queris language, among whom his work thus far
has been confined. Descent is in the female line. The same
indefatigable student has found very satisfactory evidence of the
same organization among the ancient Mexicans. (See article on
"The Social Organization and Mode of Government of the Ancient
Mexicans," Peabody Museum, Twelfth Annual Report, p. 576.) He has
also found additional evidence of the same organization among the
Sedentary Tribes in Central America. It seems highly probable that
this organization was anciently universal among the tribes in the
Ganowanian family.]




CHAPTER II.

THE LAW OF HOSPITALITY AND ITS GENERAL PRACTICE.


When America was discovered in its several parts the Indian tribes
were found in dissimilar conditions. The least advanced tribes were
without the art of pottery, and without horticulture, and were,
therefore, in savagery. But in the arts of life they were advanced
as far as is implied by its Upper Status, which found them in
possession of the bow and arrow. Such were the tribes in the Valley
of the Columbia, in the Hudson Bay Territory, in parts of Canada,
California, and Mexico, and some of the coast tribes of South America.
The use of pottery, and the cultivation of maize and plants, were
unknown among them. They depended for subsistence upon fish, bread,
roots, and game. The second class were intermediate between them and
the Village Indians. They subsisted upon fish and game and the
products of a limited horticulture, and were in the Lower Status of
barbarism. Such were the Iroquois, the New England and Virginia
Indians, the Creeks, Cherokees, and Choctaws, the Shawnees, Miamis,
Mandans, Minmtarees, and other tribes of the United States east of
the Missouri River, together with certain tribes of Mexico and South
America in the same condition of advancement. Many of them lived in
villages, some of which were stockaded, but village life was not as
distinctive and common among them as it was among the most advanced
tribes. The third class were the Village Indians proper, who
depended almost exclusively upon horticulture for subsistence,
cultivating maize and plants by irrigation. They constructed joint
tenement houses of adobe bricks and of stone, usually more than one
story high. Such were the tribes of New Mexico, Mexico, Central
America, and upon the plateau of the Andes. These tribes were in the
Middle Status of barbarism.

The weapons, arts, usages, and customs, inventions, architecture,
institutions, and form of government of all alike bear the impress
of a common mind, and reveal, in their wide range, the successive
stages of development of the same original conceptions. Our first
mistake consisted in overrating the degree of advancement of the
Village Indians, in comparison with that of the other tribes; our
second in underrating that of the latter; from which resulted a third,
that of separating one from the other, and regarding them as
different races. The evidence of their unity of origin has now
accumulated to such a degree as to leave no reasonable doubt upon
the question. The first two classes of tribes always held the
preponderating power, at least in North America, and furnished the
migrating bands which replenished the ranks of the Village Indians,
as well as the continent, with inhabitants. It remained for the
Village Indians to invent the process of smelting iron ore to attain
to the Upper Status of barbarism, and, beyond that, to invent a
phonetic alphabet to reach the first stage of civilization. One
entire ethnical period intervened between the highest class of
Indians and the beginning of civilization.

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote relocated to chapter end.]

It seems singular that the Village Indians, who first became
possessed of maize, the great American cereal, and of the art of
cultivation, did not rise to supremacy over the continent. With
their increased numbers and more stable subsistence they might have
been expected to extend their power and spread their migrating bands
over the most valuable areas to the gradual displacement of the
ruder tribes. But in this respect they signally failed. The means of
sustaining life among the latter were remarkably persistent. The
higher culture of the Village Indians, such as it was, did not
enable them to advance, either in their weapons or in the art of war,
beyond the more barbarous tribes, except as a superior house
architecture tended to render their villages and their habitations
impregnable to Indian assault. Moreover, in the art of government
they had not been able to rise above gentile institutions and
establish political society. This fact demonstrates the
impossibility of privileged classes and of potentates, under their
institutions, with power to enforce the labor of the people for the
erection of palaces for their use, and explains the absence of such
structures.

Horticulture and other domestic arts spread from the Village Indians
to the tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism, and thus advanced
them materially in their onward progress toward the higher condition
of the Village Indians. Numerous tribes were thus raised out of
savagery into barbarism by appropriating the arts of life of tribes
above them. This process has been a constant phenomenon in the
history of the human race. It is well illustrated in America, where
the Red Race, one in origin and possessed of homogeneous institutions,
were in three different ethnical conditions or stages of culture.

There are certain usages and customs of the Indian tribes generally
which tend to explain their plan of life--their large households,
their houses, and their house architecture. They deserve a careful
consideration and even further investigation beyond the bounds of
our present knowledge. The influence of American civilization has
very generally broken up their old plan of life, and introduced a
new one more analogous to our own. It has been much the same in
Spanish America. The old usages and customs, in the particulars
about to be stated, have now so far disappeared in their pure forms
that their recovery is not free from difficulty. Those to be
considered are the following:

I. The law of hospitality.

II. Communism in living.

III. The ownership of lands in common.

IV. The practice of having but one prepared meal each day--a dinner.

V. Their separation at meals, the men eating first and by themselves,
and the women and children afterwards.

The discussion will be confined to the period of European discovery
and to later periods while these practices remained. The object will
be to show that these usages and customs existed among them when
America was discovered in its several parts, and that they remained
in practice for some time after these several periods.



THE LAW OF HOSPITALITY.

Among the Iroquois hospitality was an established usage. If a man
entered an Indian house in any of their villages, whether a villager,
a tribesman, or a stranger, it was the duty of the women therein to
set food before him. An omission to do this would have been a
discourtesy amounting to an affront. If hungry, he ate; if not hungry,
courtesy required that he should taste the food and thank the giver.
This would be repeated at every house he entered, and at whatever
hour in the day. As a custom it was upheld by a rigorous public
sentiment. The same hospitality was extended to strangers from their
own and from other tribes. Upon the advent of the European race
among them it was also extended to them. This characteristic of
barbarous society, wherein food was the principal concern of life,
is a remarkable fact. The law of hospitality, as administered by the
American aborigines, tended to the final equalization of subsistence.
Hunger and destitution could not exist at one end of an Indian
village or in one section of an encampment while plenty prevailed
elsewhere in the same village or encampment. It reveals a plan of
life among them at the period of European discovery which has not
been sufficiently considered.

A singular illustration of the powerful influence of the custom upon
the Indian mind came to my notice some years ago at the Seneca
Reservation in New York. A Seneca chief, well to do in the world,
with farm lands and domestic animals which afforded him a
comfortable subsistence, had lost his wife by death, and his daughter,
educated in the usages of civilized life, took the position of
housekeeper. The old man, referring to the ancient custom, requested
his daughter to keep the usual food constantly prepared ready to
offer to any person who entered their house, saying that he did not
wish to see this custom of their forefathers laid aside. Their
changed condition, and particularly the adoption of the regular
meals of civilized society, for the time of which the visitor might
reasonably be expected to wait, did not in his mind outweigh the
sanctity of the custom. [Footnote: William Parker was the chief named,
a noble specimen of a Seneca Iroquois.]

In July, 1743, John Bartram made a journey from Philadelphia to
Onondaga to attend, with Conrad Weisar, a council of the Onondaga,
Mohawk, Oneida, and Cayuga chiefs. At Shamokin he quartered with a
trader who had an Indian wife, and at a village of the Delawares.
"As soon as we alighted," he remarks, "they showed us where to lay
our luggage, and then brought us a bowl of boiled squashes, cold.
This I then thought poor entertainment, but before I came back I had
learned not to despise good Indian food. This hospitality is
agreeable to the honest simplicity of ancient times, and is so
persistently adhered to that not only what is already dressed is
immediately set before a traveler, but the most pressing business is
postponed to prepare the best they can get for him, keeping it as a
maxim that he must always be hungry. Of this we found the good
effects in the flesh and bread they got ready for us." [Footnote:
Bartram's Observations, &c, London edition, 1751, p. 16.] We have
here a perfect illustration among the Delawares of the Iroquois rule
to set food before a person when he first entered the house.
Although they had in this case nothing better than boiled squash to
offer, it was done immediately, after which they commenced preparing
a more substantial repast. Delaware and Iroquois usages were the same.

The council at Onondaga lasted two days, at the close of which they
had each day a dinner in common. "This council [first day] was
followed by a feast. After four o'clock we all dined together upon
four great kettles of Indian-corn soup, which we emptied, and then
every chief retired to his home.... The conference [second day] held
till three, after which we dined. The repast consisted of three
great kettles of Indian-corn soup, or thin hominy, with dried eels
and other fish boiled in it, and one kettle full of young squashes
and their flowers boiled in water, and a little meal mixed. This
dish was but weak food. Last of all was served a great bowl-full of
Indian dumplings made of new soft corn cut or scraped off the ear,
with the addition of some boiled beans, lapped well in Indian-corn
leaves. This is good hearty provision." [Footnote: Bartram's
Journal p. 59.]

"Again," he remarks, "we prepared for setting forward, and many of
the chiefs came once more to make their farewells. Some of them
brought us provisions for our journey. We shook hands again and set
out at nine." [Footnote: ib. p. 63]

One of the earliest notices of the hospitality of the Indian tribes
of the United States was by the expedition of Philip Amidas and
Arthur Barlow, under the auspices of Sir Walter Raleigh, which
visited the Algonkin tribes of North Carolina in the summer of 1584.
They landed at the Island of Wocoken, off Albemarle Sound, when
"there came down from all parts great store of people," whose chief
was Granganimeo. "He was very just of his promises, for oft we
trusted him, and would come within his day to keep his word. He sent
us commonly every day a brace of ducks, conies, hares, and fish,
sometimes melons, walnuts, cucumbers, pease, and divers roots....
After this acquaintance, myself, with seven more, went thirty miles
into the river Occam, that runneth toward the city Skicoack, and the
evening following we came to an isle called Roanoak, from the harbor
where we entered seven leagues: At the north end were nine houses,
builded with cedar, fortified round with sharp trees [palisaded] and
the entrance like a turnpike [turnspit]. When we came towards it,
the wife of Granganimeo came running out to meet us (her husband was
absent) commanding her people to draw our boat ashore for beating on
the billows. Others she appointed to carry us on their backs aland,
others to bring our oars into the house for stealing. When we came
into the other room (for there were five in the house) she caused us
to sit down by a great fire; and after took off our clothes and
washed them, of some our stockins, and some our feet in warm water,
and she herself took much pains to see all things well ordered and
to provide us victuals. After we had thus dried ourselves she
brought us into an inner room, where she sat on the board standing
along the house, somewhat like frumenty, sodden venison and roasted
fish; in like manner melons raw, boiled roots, and fruits of divers
kinds. Their drink is commonly water boiled with ginger, sometimes
with sassafras, and wholesome herbs.... A more kind, loving people
cannot be. Beyond this isle is the main land, and the great river
Occam, on which standeth a town called Pomeiok." [Footnote: Smith's
History of Virginia, &c. Reprint from London edition of 1627.
Richmond edition, 1819, i, 83, 84. Amidas and Barlow's account is
also in Hakluyt's Coll. of Voyages, iii, 301-7.]

This is about the first, if not the first, English picture we have
of Indian life and of English and Indian intercourse in America. It
is highly creditable to both parties; to the Indians for their
unaffected kindness and hospitality, and to the English for their
appreciation of both, and for the absence of any act of injustice.
At the same time it was simply an application by the natives of
their rules of hospitality among themselves to their foreign visitors,
and not a new thing in their experience.

In the narrative of the expedition of Hernando de Soto to Florida in
1539, by a gentleman of Elvas, there are references to the customs
of the Indian tribes of South Carolina, the Cherokees, Choctas, and
Chickasas, and of some of the tribes west of the Mississippi, whom
the expedition visited one after another. They are brief and
incomplete, but sufficiently indicate the point we are attempting to
illustrate. It was a hostile rather than a friendly visitation, and
the naturally free hospitality of the natives was frequently checked
and turned into enmity, but many instances of friendly intercourse
are mentioned in this narrative. "The fourth of April the governor
passed by a town called Altamaca, and the tenth of the month he came
to Ocute. The cacique sent him two thousand Indians with a present,
to wit, many conies and partridges, bread of maize, two hens and
many dogs." [Footnote: Historical Collections of Louisiana, part ii.
A Narrative of the Expedition of Hernando de Soto into Florida, by a
Gentleman of Elvas, p. 139.]

Again: "Two leagues before he came to Chiaha, there met him fifteen
Indians loaded with maize which the cacique had sent; and they told
him on his behalf that he waited his coming with twenty barns full
of it." [Footnote: 3 ib. p. 147.] "At Cora the chief commanded his
Indians to void their houses, wherein the governor and his men were
lodged. There was in the barns and in the fields great store of
maize and French beans. The country was greatly inhabited with many
great towns and many sown fields which reached from one to the other".
[Footnote: ib. p 152.]

After crossing the Mississippi, of which De Soto was the first
discoverer, he "rested in Pacaha forty days, in all which time the
two caciques served him with great store of fish, mantles, and skins,
and strove who should do him greatest service". [Footnote: ib. p.
175.]

The justly celebrated Moravian missionary, John Heckewelder, obtained,
through a long experience, an intimate acquaintance with the manners
and customs of the Indian tribes. He was engaged in direct
missionary labor, among the Delawares and Munsees chiefly, for
fifteen years (1771-1786) on the Muskingum and Cuyahoga in Ohio,
where, besides the Delawares and Munsees, he came in contact with
Tuscaroras and other tribes of Iroquois lineage. He was conversant
with the usages and customs of the Indian tribes of Pennsylvania and
New York. His general knowledge justifies the title of his work,
"History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations, who once
inhabited Pennsylvania and the neighboring States," and gives the
highest credibility to his statements.

In discussing the general character of the Indians, he remarks as
follows: "They think that he [the Great Spirit] made the earth and
all that it contains for the common good of mankind; when he stocked
the country that he gave them with plenty of game, it was not for
the benefit of a few, but of all. Everything was given in common to
the sons of men. Whatever liveth on the land, whatsoever groweth out
of the earth, and all that is in the rivers and waters flowing
through the same, was given jointly to all, and ever one is entitled
to his share. From this principle hospitality flows as from its
source. With them it is not a virtue, but a strict duty; hence they
are never in search of excuses to avoid giving, but freely supply
their neighbors' wants from the stock prepared for their own use.
They give and are hospitable to all without exception, and will
always share with each other and often with the stranger to the last
morsel. They rather would lie down themselves on an empty stomach
than have it laid to their charge that they had neglected their duty
by not satisfying the wants of the stranger, the sick, or the needy.
The stranger has a claim to their hospitality, partly on account of
his being at a distance from his family and friends, and partly
because he has honored them with his visit and ought to leave them
with a good impression on his mind; the sick and the poor because
they have a right to be helped out of the common stock, for if the
meat they have been served with was taken from the woods it was
common to all before the hunter took it; if corn or vegetables, it
had grown out of the common ground, yet not by the power of man, but
by that of the Great Spirit." [Footnote: Heckewelder, Indian Nations,
Philadelphia ed., 1876, p. 101]

This is a clear and definite statement of the principle of
hospitality as it was observed by the Indian tribes at the epoch of
their discovery, with the Indians' reasons on which the obligations
rested. We recognize in this law of hospitality a conspicuous virtue
of mankind in barbarism.

Lewis and Clarke refer to the usages of the tribes of the Missouri,
which were precisely the same as those of the Iroquois. "It is the
custom of all the nations on the Missouri," they remark, "to offer
every white man food and refreshments when he first enters their
tents". [Footnote: Travels, etc., London edition, 1814, p. 649.]

This was simply applying their rules of hospitality among themselves
to their white visitors.

About 1837-1838 George Catlin wintered at the Mandan Village, on the
Upper Missouri. He was an accurate and intelligent observer, and his
work on the "Manners and Customs of the North American Indians" is a
valuable contribution to American ethnography. The principal Mandan
village, which then contained fifty houses and fifteen hundred people,
was surrounded with a palisade. It was well situated for game, but
they did not depend exclusively upon this source of subsistence.
They cultivated maize, squashes, pumpkins, and tobacco in garden beds,
and gathered wild berries and a species of turnip on the prairies.
"Buffalo meat, however," says Mr. Catlin, "is the great staple and
staff of life in this country, and seldom, if ever, fails to afford
them an abundant means of subsistence."

       *       *       *       *       *

"During the summer and fall months they use the meat fresh, and cook
it in a great variety of ways--by roasting, broiling, boiling,
stewing, smoking, &c., and, by boiling the ribs and joints with the
marrow in them, make a delicious soup, which is universally used and
in vast quantities. The Mandans, I find, have no regular or stated
times for their meals, but generally eat about twice in the
twenty-four hours. The pot is always boiling over the fire, and any
one who is hungry, either from the household or from any other part
of the village, has a right to order it taken off and to fall too,
eating as he pleases. Such is an unvarying custom among the North
American Indians, and I very much doubt whether the civilized world
have in their institutions any system which can properly be called
more humane and charitable. Every man, woman, or child in Indian
communities is allowed to enter any one's lodge, and even that of
the chief of the nation, and eat when they are hungry, provided
misfortune or necessity has drawn them to it. Even so can the
poorest and most worthless drone of the nation, if he is too lazy to
hunt or to supply himself; he can walk into any lodge, and every one
will share with him as long as there is anything to eat. He, however,
who thus begs when he is able to hunt, pays dear for his meat, for
he is stigmatized with the disgraceful epithet of poltroon and beggar."
[Footnote: Manners and Customs of the North American Indians,
Hazard's edition, 1857, i, 200.] Mr. Catlin puts the case rather
strongly when he turns the free hospitality of the household into a
right of the guest to entertainment independently of their consent.
It serves to show that the provisions of the household, which as he
elsewhere states, consisted of from twenty to forty persons, were
used in common, and that each household shared their provisions in
the exercise of hospitality with any inhabitant of the village who
came to the house hungry, and with strangers from other tribes as
well. Moreover, he speaks of this hospitality as universal amongst
the Indian tribes. It is an important statement, because few men in
the early period of intercourse with the western tribes have
traveled so extensively among them.

The tribes of the Columbia Valley lived upon fish, bread-roots, and
game. Food was abundant at certain seasons, but there were times of
scarcity even in this favored area. Whatever provisions they had
were shared freely with each other, with guests, and with strangers.
Lewis and Clarke, in 1804-1806, visited in their celebrated
expedition the tribes of the Missouri and of the Valley of the
Columbia. They experienced the same generous hospitality whenever
the Indians possessed any food to offer, and their account is the
first we have at all special of these numerous tribes. Frequent
references are made to their hospitality. The Nez Perces "set before
them a small piece of buffalo meat, some dried salmon, berries, and
several kinds of roots. Among these last is one which is round and
much like an onion in appearance and sweet to the taste. It is
called quamash, and is eaten either in its natural state or boiled
into a kind of soup or made into a cake, which is then called pasheco.
After the long abstinence, this was a sumptuous treat; and we
returned the kindness of the people by a few small presents, and
then went on in company with one of the chiefs to a second village,
in the same plain at a distance of two miles. Here the party was
treated with great kindness and passed the night." [Footnote: Travels,
etc., p. 330.]

Of another tribe they remark, "As we approached the village most of
the women, though apprised of our being expected, fled with their
children into the neighboring woods. The men, however, received us
without any apprehension, and gave us a plentiful supply of
provisions. The plains were now crowded with Indians who came to see
the persons of the whites, and the strange things they brought with
them; but as our guide was perfectly a stranger to their language we
could converse by signs only." [Footnote: Travels, etc., p. 334.]

The Indians of the Columbia, unlike the tribes previously named,
boiled their food in wooden vessels, or in ground cavities lined
with skins, by means of heated stones. They were ignorant of pottery.
"On entering one of their houses he [Captain Clarke] found it
crowded with men, women, and children, who immediately provided a
mat for him to sit on, and one of the party undertook to prepare
something to eat. He began by bringing in a piece of pine wood that
had drifted down the river, which he split into small pieces with a
wedge made of the elk's horn by means of a mallet of stone curiously
carved. The pieces were then laid on the fire, and several round
stones placed upon them. One of the squaws now brought a bucket of
water, in which was a large salmon about half dried, and as the
stones became heated they were put into the bucket till the salmon
was sufficiently boiled for use. It was then taken out, put on a
platter of rushes neatly made, and laid before Captain Clarke, and
another was boiled for each of his men." [Footnote: Travels, p. 353.]

One or two additional cases of which a large number are mentioned by
these authors will sufficiently illustrate the practice of
hospitality of these tribes and its universality. They went to a
village of seven houses of the Chilluckittequaw tube and to the
house of the chief. "He received us kindly," they remark, "and set
before us pounded fish, filberts, nuts, the berries of the sacacommis,
and white bread made of roots.... The village is a part of the same
nation with the village we passed above, the language of the two
being the same, and their houses of similar form and materials, and
calculated to contain about thirty souls. The inhabitants were
unusually hospitable and good humored." [Footnote: Travels, etc.,
p. 375-376.]

While among the Shoshones, and before arriving at the Columbia they
"reached an Indian lodge of brush inhabited by seven families of the
Shoshones. They behaved with great civility, and gave the whole
party as much boiled salmon as they could eat, and added a present
of several dried salmon and a considerable quantity of chokechinies;"
[Footnote: ib. p. 288.] and Captain Lewis remarks of the same people,
that "an Indian invited him into his bower, and gave him a small
morsel of boiled antelope, and a piece of fresh salmon roasted. This
was the first salmon he had seen, and perfectly satisfied him that
he was now on the waters of the Pacific." [Footnote: ib. p. 268.]

Thus far among the tribes we find a literal repetition of the rule
of hospitality as practiced by the Iroquois. Mr. Dall, speaking of
the Aleuts, says, "hospitality was one of their prominent traits,"
[Footnote: On the Remains of Later Prehistoric Man, Alaska Ter.
Smithsonian Cont., No. 318, p. 3. Travels, etc., Phila. ed., 1796,
p. 171.] and Powers, of the Pomo Indians of California remarks, that
"they would always divide the last morsel of dried salmon with
genuine savage thriftlessness," and of the Mi-oal'-a-wa-gun, that,
"like all California Indians they are very hospitable." [Footnote:
Powell's Contributions to North American Ethnology, Power's Tribes
of California, vol. iii. p. 153.]

Father Marquette and Lieutenant Joliet, who first discovered the
Upper Mississippi in 1673, had friendly intercourse with some of the
tribes on its eastern bank, and were hospitably entertained by them.
"The council being over, we were invited to a feast, which consisted
of four dishes. The first was a dish of sagamite--that is, some
Indian meal boiled in water and seasoned with grease--the master of
ceremonies holding a spoonful of it, which he put thrice into my
mouth and then did the like to M. Joliet. The second dish consisted
of three fish, whereof he took a piece, and having taken out the
bones and blown upon it to cool it, he put it into my mouth. The
third dish was a large dog, which they had killed on purpose, but
understanding that we did not eat this animal they sent it away. The
fourth was a piece of buffalo meat, of which they put the fattest
pieces into our mouths." [Footnote: Historical Collections of
Louisiana. part ii. An Account of the Discovery of some New
Countries and Nations of North America in 1673, by Pere Marquette
and Sieur Joliet, p. 287.]

Lower down the river, below the mouth of the Ohio, they fell in with
another tribe, of whom they speak as follows. "We therefore
disembarked and went to their village. They entertained us with
buffalo and bear's meat and white plums, which were excellent. We
observed they had guns, knives, axes, shovels, glass beads, and
bottles in which they put their powder. They wear their hair long as
the Iroquois, and their women are dressed as the Hurons."
[Footnote: ib,. p. 293]

In 1766 Jonathan Carver visited the Dakota tribes of the Mississippi,
the Sauks and Foxes, and Winnebagos of Wisconsin, and the Ojibwas of
Upper Michigan. He speaks generally of the hospitality of these
tribes as follows: "No people are more hospitable, kind, and free
than the Indians. They will readily share with any of their own
tribe the last part of their provisions, and even with those
of a different nation, if they chance to come in when they are
eating. Though they do not keep one common stock, yet that
community of goods which is so prevalent among them, and their
generous disposition, render it nearly of the same effect."
[Footnote: Carver's Travels, etc. Phila. ed. 1796, p. 171.]

The "community of goods, which is so prevalent among them," is
explained by their large households formed of related families, who
shared their provisions in common. The "seven families of Shoshones"
in one house, and also the houses "crowded with men, women, and
children," mentioned by Lewis and Clarke, are fair samples of Indian
households in the early period.

We turn again to the southern tribes of the United States, the
Cherokees, Choctas, Chickasas, and Confederated Creek tribes. James
Adair, whose work was published in 1775, remarks generally upon
their usages in the following language. "They are so hospitable,
kind-hearted, and free, that they would share with those of their
own tribe the last part of their own provisions, even to a single
ear of corn; and to others, if they called when they were eating;
for they have no stated meal time. An open generous temper is a
standing virtue among them; to be narrow-hearted, especially to
those in want, or to any of their own family, is accounted a great
crime, and to reflect scandal on the rest of the tribe. Such
wretched misers they brand with bad characters.... The Cherokee
Indians have a pointed proverbial expression to the same effect--
simtaweh ne wara, the great hawk is at home. However, it is a very
rare thing to find any of them of a narrow temper; and though they
do not keep one promiscuous common stock, yet it is to the very same
effect; for every one has his own family or tribe; and when one of
them is speaking, either of the individuals or habitations of any of
his tribe, he says, 'he is of my house,' or 'it is my house'....
When the Indians are traveling in their own country, they inquire
for a house of their own tribe [gens]; and if there be any, they go
to it, and are kindly received, though they never saw the persons
before--they eat, drink, and regale themselves with as much freedom
as at their own table, which is the solid ground covered with a
bear-skin.... Every town has a state-house or synedrion, as the
Jewish sanhedrim, where, almost every night, the head men convene
about public business; or the town's people to feast, sing, dance,
and rejoice in the divine presence, as will fully be described
hereafter. And if a stranger calls there, he is treated with the
greatest civility and hearty kindness--he is sure to find plenty of
their simple home fare, and a large cane-bed covered with the
softened skins of bears or buffaloes to sleep on. But, when his
lineage is known to the people (by a stated custom, they are slow in
greeting one another), his relations, if he has any there, address
him in a familiar way, invite him home, and treat him as a kinsman."
[Footnote: History of the American Indians, London ed., 1775, p. 17.]

All these tribes were organized in gentes or clans, and the gentes
of each tribe were usually reintegrated in two or more phratries. It
is the gens to which Mr. Adair refers when he speaks of the
"family," "relations," and "lineage." We find among them the same
rule of hospitality, substantially, as prevailed among the Iroquois.

It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, that among all the tribes,
north of New Mexico, the law of hospitality, as practiced by the
Iroquois, was universally recognized; and that in all Indian
villages and encampments without distinction the hungry were fed
through the open hospitality of those who possessed a surplus.
Notwithstanding this generous custom, it is well known that the
Northern Indians were often fearfully pressed for the means of
subsistence during a portion of each year. A bad season for their
limited productions, and the absence of accumulated stores, not
unfrequently engendered famine over large districts. From the
severity of the struggle for subsistence, it is not surprising that
immense areas were entirely uninhabited, that other large areas were
thinly peopled, and that dense population nowhere existed.

Among the Village Indians of New Mexico the same hospitality is now
extended to Americans visiting their pueblos, and which
presumptively is simply a reflection of their usage among themselves
and toward other tribes. In 1852 Dr. Tenbroeck, assistant surgeon
United States Army, accompanied his command to the Moki pueblos. In
his journal he remarks: "Between eleven and twelve to-day we arrived
at the first towns of Moki. All the inhabitants turned out, crowding
the streets and house-tops to have a view of the white men. All the
old men pressed forward to shake hands with us, and we were most
hospitably received and conducted to the governor's house, where we
were at once feasted upon guavas and a leg of mutton broiled upon
the coals. After the feast we smoked with them, and they then said
that we should move our camp in, and that they would give us a room
and plenty of wood for the men, and sell us corn for the animals."
[Footnote: Schoolcraft's History, Condition, and Prospects of the
Indian Tribes, iv. 81.]

In 1858 Lieut. Joseph C. Ives was at the Moki Pueblo of Mooskahneh
[Mi-shong-i-ni-vi]. "The town is nearly square," he remarks,
"and surrounded by a stone wall fifteen feet high, the top of which
forms a landing extending around the whole. Flights of stone steps
lead from the first to a second landing, upon which the doors of the
houses open. Mounting the stairway opposite to the ladder, the chief
crossed to the nearest door and ushered us into a low apartment,
from which two or three others opened towards the interior of the
dwelling. Our host courteously asked us to be seated upon some skins
spread along the floor against the wall and presently his wife
brought in a vase of water and a tray filled with a singular
substance that looked more like sheets of thin blue wrapping paper
rolled up into bundles than anything else that I have ever seen. I
learned afterwards that it was made of corn meal, ground very fine,
made into a gruel, and poured over a heated stone to be baked. When
dry it has a surface slightly polished like paper. The sheets are
folded and rolled together, and form the staple article of food with
the Moki Indians. As the dish was intended for our entertainment,
and looked clean, we all partook of it. It had a delicate
fresh-bread flavor, and was not at all unpalatable, particularly
when eaten with salt." [Footnote: Report upon Colorado River of the
West, Lieut. Ives, p. 121.]

Lieutenant-Colonel (now General) Emory visited the Pima villages on
the Gila River in 1846. "I rode leisurely in the rear through the
thatched huts of the Pimas. Each abode consisted of a dome-shaped
wicker-work about six feet high, and from twenty to fifty feet in
diameter, thatched with straw or cornstalks. In front is usually a
large arbor, on top of which is piled the cotton on the pod for
drying. In the houses were stowed watermelons, pumpkins, beans, corn,
and wheat, the three last articles generally in large baskets.
Sometimes the corn was in baskets, covered with earth, and placed on
the tops of the domes. A few chickens and dogs were seen, but no
other domestic animals except horses, mules, and oxen.... Several
acquaintances formed in our camp yesterday, were recognized, and
they received me cordially, made signs to dismount, and when I did
so offered watermelons and pinole. Pinole is the heart of Indian corn,
baked, ground up, and mixed with sugar. When dissolved in water it
affords a delicious beverage; it quenches thirst, and is very
nutritious.... The population of the Pimas and Maricopas together is
estimated variously at from three to ten thousand. The first is
evidently too low. This peaceful and industrious race are in
possession of a beautiful and fertile basin. Living remote from the
civilized world they are seldom visited by whites, and then only by
those in distress, to whom they generously furnish horses and food."
[Footnote: Military Reconnaissance in New Mexico, pp. 85, 86.]

In this case and in those stated by Lieutenant Ives and Dr.
Tenbroeck we find a repetition of the Iroquois rule to set food
before the guest when he first enters the house.

With respect to the Village Indians of Mexico, Central and South
America, our information is, in the main, limited to the hospitality
extended to the Spaniards; but it is sufficient to show that it was
a part of their plan of life, and, as it must be supposed, a
repetition of their usages in respect to each other. In every part
of America that they visited, the Spaniards, although often in
numbers as a military force, were assigned quarters in Indian houses,
emptied of their inhabitants for that purpose, and freely supplied
with provisions. Thus at Zempoala "the lord came out, attended by
ancient men, two persons of note supporting him by the arms, because
it was the custom among them to come out in that manner when one
great man received another. This meeting was with much courtesy and
abundance of compliments, and people were already appointed to find
the Spaniards quarters and furnish provisions" [Footnote: Herrera's
History of America, ii, 212.]

When near Tlascala the Tlascallans "sent three hundred turkeys, two
hundred baskets of cakes of teutli, which they call tamales, being
about two hundred arrobas; that is, fifty hundred weight of bread,
which was an extraordinary supply for the Spaniards, considering the
distress they were in;" and when at Tlascala, Cortes and his men
"were generously treated, and supplied with all necessaries."
[Footnote: ib., ii. 261, 279.]

"They entered Cholula and went to a house where they lodged
altogether, and their Indians with them, although upon their guard,
being for the present plentifully supplied with provisions."
[Footnote: ib., ii, 311]

Although the Spaniards numbered about four hundred, and their allied
Indians about a thousand, they found accommodations in a single
joint tenement house of the Aboriginal American model. Attention is
called to this fact, because we shall find the Village Indians, as a
rule, living in large houses, each containing many apartments, and
accommodating five hundred or more persons. The household of several
families of the northern Indians reappears in the southern tribes in
a much greater household of a hundred or more families in a single
joint tenement house, but not unlikely broken up into several
household groups. The pueblo consisted sometimes of one, sometimes
of two or three, and sometimes of a greater number of such houses.
The plan of life within these houses is not well understood, but it
can still be seen in New Mexico, and it is to be hoped it will
attract investigation.

Speaking of the Maya Indians of Yucatan, Herrera remarks that
"they are still generous and free-hearted, so that they will make
everybody eat that comes into their houses, which is everywhere
practiced in traveling." [Footnote: Herrera's History of America,
iv, 117.]

This is a fair statement of the Iroquois law of hospitality found
among the Mayas, practiced among themselves and towards strangers
from other tribes. When Grijalva, about 1517, discovered the Tabasco
River, he held friendly intercourse with some of the tribes of
Yucatan. "They immediately sent thirty Indians loaded with roasted
fish, hens, several sorts of fruit, and bread made of Indian wheat."
[Footnote: ib., ii, 126]

When Cortes, in 1525, made his celebrated expedition to Honduras, he
passed near the pueblo of Palenque and near that of Copan without
being aware of either, and visited the shore of Lake Peten.
"Being well received in the city of Apoxpalan, Cortes and all the
Spaniards, with their horses, were quartered in one house, the
Mexicans being dispersed into others, and all of them plentifully
supplied with provisions during their stay." [Footnote: ib., iii, 359.]

They numbered one hundred and fifty Spanish horse and several
hundred Aztecs. It was at this place, according to Herrera, that
Quatemozin, who accompanied Cortes as a prisoner, was barbarously
executed by his command. [Footnote: ib., iii, 361.] Cortes next
visited an island in Lake Peten, where he was sumptuously
entertained by Canec, the chief of the tribe, where they "sat down
to dinner in stately manner, and Canec ordered fowls, fish cakes,
honey, and fruit." [Footnote: ib., iii, 362.]

In South America the same account of the hospitality of the Indian
tribes is given by the early explorers. About the year 1500
Christopher Guerra made a voyage to the coast of Venezuela:
"They came to an anchor before a town called Curiana, where the
Indians entreated them to go ashore, but the Spaniards being no more
than thirty-three in all durst not venture.... At length, being
convinced of their sincerity, the Spaniards went ashore, and being
courteously entertained, staid there twenty days. They plentifully
supplied them for food with venison, rabbits, geese, ducks, parrots,
fish, bread made of maize or Indian wheat, and other things, and
brought them all the game they would ask for.... They perceived
that they kept markets or fairs, and that they made use of jars,
pitchers, pots, dishes, and porringers, besides other vessels of
several shapes." [Footnote: Herrera's Hist. America, iv, 248.]

Pizarro found the same custom among the Peruvians and other tribes
of the coast. At the time of his first visit to the coast of Peru he
found a female chief by whom he was entertained. "The lady came out
to meet them with a great retinue, in good order, holding green
boughs and ears of Indian wheat, having made an arbor where were
seats for the Spaniards, and for the Indians at some distance. They
gave them to eat fish and flesh dressed in several ways, much fruit,
and such bread and liquor as the country afforded." [Footnote: ib.,
i, 229.]

When on the coast of Tumbez, and before landing, "ten or twelve
floats were immediately sent out with a plenty of provisions, fruits,
pots of water, and of chica, which is their liquor, as also a lamb."
[Footnote: ib., iv, 3.]

After entering Peru, on his second visit to the coast, "Atahuallpa's
messengers came and presented the governor with ten of their sheep
from the Inca, and some other things of small value, telling him
very courteously that Atahuallpa had commanded them to inquire what
day he intended to be at Caxamalca, that he might have provisions on
the way." [Footnote: ib., iii, 399.]

       *       *       *       *       *

"The next day more messengers came from Atahuallpa with provisions,
which he received with thanks.". [Footnote: ib., iv, 244.]

The native historian, Garcilasso de la Viga, remarks: "Nor were the
Incas, among their other charities, forgetful of the conveniences
for travelers, but in all the great roads built houses or inns for
them, which they called corpahuaci, where they were provided with
victuals and other necessaries for their journeys out of the royal
stores; and in case any traveler fell sick on the way, he was there
attended and care taken of him in a better manner perhaps than at
his own home." [Footnote: Royal Commentaries of Peru, Lond. ed., 1688;
Recent Trans., p 145.]

These illustrations, which might be multiplied, are sufficient to
show the universality of the practice of hospitality among the
Indian tribes of America at the epoch of European discovery. Among
all these forms, as stated by different observers, the substance of
the Iroquois law of hospitality is plainly found, namely: If a man
entered an Indian house, whether a villager, a tribesman, or a
stranger, and at whatever hour of the day, it was the duty of the
women of the house to set food before him. An omission to do this
would have been a discourtesy amounting to an affront. If hungry, he
ate, if not hungry, courtesy required that he should taste the food
and thank the giver. It is seen to have been a usage running through
three ethnic conditions of the Indian race, becoming stronger as the
means of subsistence increased in variety and amount, and attaining
its highest development among the Village Indians in the Middle
Status of barbarism. It was an active, well-established custom of
Indian society, practiced among themselves and among strangers from
other tribes, and very naturally extended to Europeans when they
made their first appearance among them. Considering the number of
the Spaniards often in military companies, and another fact which
the aborigines were quick to notice, namely, that a white man
consumed and wasted five times as much as an Indian required, their
hospitality in many cases must have been grievously overtaxed.
[Footnote: "The appetite of the Spaniards appeared to the American
inhabitants voracious; and they affirmed that one Spaniard devoured
more food in a day than was sufficient for ten Americans."--
(Robertson's History of America, Lond. ed., 1856, i, p. 72.)]

Attention has been called to this law of hospitality, and to its
universality, for two reasons: firstly, because it implies the
existence of common stores, which supplied the means for its practice;
and secondly, because, wherever found, it implies communistic living
in large households. It must be evident that this hospitality could
not have been habitually practiced by the Iroquois and other
northern tribes, and much less by the Village Indians of Mexico,
Central and South America, with such uniformity, if the custom in
each case had depended upon the voluntary contributions of single
families. In that event it would have failed oftener than it would
have succeeded. The law of hospitality, as administered by the
American aborigines, indicates a plan of life among them which has
not been carefully studied, nor have its effects been fully
appreciated. Its explanation must be sought in the ownership of
lands in common, the distribution of their products to households
consisting of a number of families, and the practice of communism in
living in the household. Common stores for large households, and
possibly for the village, with which to maintain village hospitality,
are necessary to explain the custom. It could have been maintained
on such a basis, and it is difficult to see how it could have been
maintained on any other. The common and substantially universal
practice of this custom, among the American Indian Tribes, at the
period of their discovery, among whom the procurement of subsistence
was their vital need, must be regarded as evidence of a generous
disposition, and as exhibiting a trait of character highly
creditable to the race.

[Relocated Footnote: PROPOSED ETHNIC OR CULTURE PERIODS.

      PERIOD OF SAVAGERY.               PERIOD OF BARBARISM.
  Subperiods.       Conditions.     Subperiods.       Conditions.
Older Period ..... Lower Status    Older Period .... Lower Status
Middle Period .... Middle Status   Middle Period ... Middle Status
Later Period ..... Upper Status    Later Period .... Upper Status.

                      PERIOD OF CIVILIZATION

                         RECAPITULATION

OLDER PERIOD OF SAVAGERY.--From the infancy of the human race
to the knowledge of fire and the acquisition of fish subsistence.

MIDDLE PERIOD.--From the acquisition of a fish subsistence to
the invention of the bow and arrow.

LATER PERIOD.--From the invention of the bow and arrow to the
invention of the art of pottery.

OLDER PERIOD OF BARBARISM.--From a knowledge of pottery to the
domestication of animals in the eastern hemisphere, and in the
western to the cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation.

MIDDLE PERIOD.--From the domestication of animals, &c., to the
invention of the process of smelting iron ore.

LATER PERIOD.--From the knowledge of iron to the invention of a
phonetic alphabet, or the use of hieroglyphs upon stone as an
equivalent.

CIVILIZATION.--From the invention of a phonetic alphabet and
the use of letters in literary composition to the present time.]




CHAPTER III.

COMMUNISM IN LIVING.


We are now to consider the remaining usages and customs named in the
last chapter.


THEIR COMMUNISM IN LIVING.

Communism in living had its origin in the necessities of the family,
which, prior to the Later Period of barbarism, was too weak an
organization to face alone the struggle of life. In savagery and in
the Older and the Middle Period of barbarism the family was in the
syndyasmian or pairing form into which it had passed from a previous
lower form. [Footnote: Ancient Society, p. 459.]

Wherever the gentile organization prevailed, several families,
related by kin, united as a rule in a common household and made a
common stock of the provisions acquired by fishing and hunting, and
by the cultivation of maize and plants. They erected joint tenement
houses large enough to accommodate several families, so that,
instead of a single family in the exclusive occupation of a single
house, large households as a rule existed in all parts of America in
the aboriginal period. This community of provisions was limited to
the household; but a final equalization of the means of subsistence
was in some measure affected by the law of hospitality. To a very
great extent communism in living was a necessary result of the
condition of the Indian tribes. It entered into their plan of life
and determined the character of their houses. In effect it was a
union of effort to procure subsistence, which was the vital and
commanding concern of life. The desire for individual accumulation
had not been aroused in their minds to any sensible extent. It is
made evident by a comparison of the conditions of barbarous tribes
on different continents that communism has widely prevailed among
them, and that the influence of this ancient practice had not
entirely disappeared among the more advanced tribes when
civilization finally appeared. The common meal-bin of the ancient
and the common tables of the later Greeks seem to be survivals of an
older communism in living. This practice, though never investigated
as a specialty, may be shown by the known customs of a number of
Indian tribes, and may be confirmed by an examination of the plans
of their houses.

Our first illustration will be taken from the usages of the Iroquois.
In their villages they constructed houses, consisting of frames of
poles covered with bark, thirty, fifty, eighty, and a hundred feet
in length, with a passage-way through the center, a door at each end,
and with the interior partitioned off at intervals of about seven
feet. Each apartment or stall thus formed was open for its entire
width upon the passage-way. These houses would accommodate five, ten,
and twenty families, according to the number of apartments, one
being usually allotted to a family. Each household was made up on
the principle of kin. The married women, usually sisters, own or
collateral, were of the same gens or clan, the symbol or totem of
which was often painted upon the house, while their husbands and
the wives of their sons belong to several other gentes. The
children were of the gens of their mother. While husband and
wife belonged to different gentes, the preponderating number
in each household would be of the same gens, namely, that of
their mothers. As a rule the sons brought home their wives, and
in some cases the husbands of the daughters were admitted to
the maternal house. Thus each household was composed of a
mixture of persons of different gentes; but this would not
prevent the numerical ascendency of the particular gens to
whom the house belonged. In a village of one hundred and twenty
houses, as the Seneca village of Tiotohatton described by
Mr. Greenbalgh i n 1677, there would be several such houses
belonging to each gens. It presented a general picture of Indian
life in all parts of America at the epoch of European discovery.
[Footnote: Documentary History of New York, i, 13.]

Whatever was gained by any member of the household on hunting or
fishing expeditions, or was raised by cultivation, was made a common
stock. Within the house they lived from common stores. Each house
had several fires, usually one for each four apartments, which was
placed in the middle of the passage-way and without a chimney. Every
household was organized under a matron who supervised its domestic
economy. After the single daily meal was cooked at the several fires
the matron was summoned, and it was her duty to divide the food,
from the kettle, to the several families according to their
respective needs. What remained was placed in the custody of another
person until it was required by the matron. The Iroquois lived in
houses of this description as late as A. D. 1700, and in occasional
instances a hundred years later. An elderly Seneca woman informed
the writer, thirty years ago, that when she was a girl she lived in
one of these joint tenement houses (called by them long-houses),
which contained eight families and two fires, and that her mother
and her grandmother, in their day, had acted as matrons over one of
these large households. [Footnote: The late Mrs. William Parker, of
Tonawanda.]

This mere glimpse at the ancient Iroquois plan of life, now entirely
passed away, and of which remembrance is nearly lost, is highly
suggestive. It shows that their domestic economy was not without
method, and it displays the care and management of woman, low down
in barbarism, for husbanding their resources and for improving their
condition. A knowledge of these houses, and how to build them, is
not even yet lost among the Senecas. Some years ago Mr. William
Parker, a Seneca chief, constructed for the writer a model of one of
these long-houses, showing in detail its external and internal
mechanism.

The late Rev. Ashur Wright, DD., for many years a missionary among
the Senecas, and familiar with their language and customs, wrote to
the author in 1873 on the subject of these households, 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 wore 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."

The mother-right and gyneocracy among the Iroquois here plainly
indicated is not overdrawn. The mothers and their children, as we
have seen, were of the same gens, and to them the house belonged. It
was a gentile house. In case of the death of father or mother, the
apartments they occupied could not be detached from the kinship, but
remained to its members. The position of the mother was eminently
favorable to her influence in the household, and tended to
strengthen the maternal bond. We may see in this an ancient phase of
human life which has had a wide prevalence in the tribes of
mankind, Asiatic, European, African, American, and Australian. Not
until after civilization had begun among the Greeks, and gentile
society was superseded by political society, was the influence
of this old order of society overthrown. It left behind, at least
among the Grecian tribes, deep traces of its previous existence.

[Footnote: These statements illustrate the gyneocracy and
mother-right among the ancient Grecian tribes discussed by Bachofen
in "Das Mutterrecht." The phenomena discovered by Bachofen owes
its origin, probably, to descent in the female line, and to the
junction of several families in one house, on the principle of kin,
as among the Iroquois.]

Among the Iroquois, those who formed a household and cultivated
gardens gathered the harvest and stored it in their dwelling as a
common stock. There was more or less of individual ownership of
these products, and of their possession by different families. For
example, the corn, after stripping back the husk, was braided by the
husk in bunches and hung up in the different apartments; but when
one family had exhausted its supply, their wants were supplied by
other families so long as any remained. Each hunting and fishing
party made a common stock of the capture, of which the surplus, on
their return, was divided among the several families of each
household, and, having been cured, was reserved for winter use The
village did not make a common stock of their provisions, and thus
offer a bounty to imprudence It was confined to the household But
the principle of hospitality then came in to relieve the
consequences of destitution We can speak with some confidence of the
ancient usages and customs of the Iroquois; and when any usage is
found among them in a definite and positive form, it renders
probable the existence of the same usage in other tribes in the same
condition, because their necessities were the same.

In the History of Virginia, by Capt. John Smith, the houses of the
Powhatan Indians are partially described, and are found to be much
the same as those of the Iroquois We have already quoted from this
work the description of a house on Roanoke Island containing five
chambers. Speaking of the houses in the vicinity of James River in
1606-1608, he remarks, "Their houses are built like our arbors, of
small young sprigs bowed and tied, and so close covered with mats,
or the bark of trees, very handsomely, that notwithstanding either
wind, rain, or weather, they are as warm as stoves but very smoky,
yet at the top of the house there is a hole made for the smoke to go
into right over the fire. Against the fire they lie on little
hurdles of reeds covered with a mat, borne from the ground a foot
and more by a hurdle of wood On these, round about the house, they
lie, heads and points, one by the other, against the fire, some
covered with mats, some with skins, and some stark naked lie on the
ground, from six to twenty in a house.... In some places are from
two to fifty of these houses together, or but little separated by
groves of trees." [Footnote: Smith's History of Virginia, Richmond
ed., 1819, i, 130]

The noticeable fact in this statement is the number of persons in
the house, which shows a household consisting of several families
Their communism in living may be inferred Elsewhere he speaks of
"houses built after their manner, some thirty, some forty yards long,"
and speaking of one of the houses of Powhatan he says, "This house
is fifty or sixty yards in length," and again, at Pamunk, "A great
fire was made in a long-house, a mat was spread on one side as on
the other, and on one side they caused him to sit." [Footnote: 5,
Ib, 1, 142, 143; Smith's Hist. Va., Richmond ed., 1819, i, 160.]

We here find among the Virginia Indians at the epoch of their
discovery long-houses very similar to the long-houses of the Iroquois,
with the same evidence of a large household. It may safely be taken
as a rule that every Indian household in the aboriginal period,
whether large or small, lived from common stores.

Mr. Caleb Swan, who visited the Creek Indians of Georgia in 1790,
found the people living in small houses or cabins, but in clusters,
each cluster being occupied by a part of a gens or clan. He remarks
that "the smallest of their towns have from ten to forty houses, and
some of the largest from fifty to two hundred, that are tolerably
compact. These houses stand in clusters of four, five, six,
seven, and eight together.... Each cluster of houses contains
a clan or family of relations who eat and live in common."
[Footnote: Schoolcraft's Hist. Cond. and Pros. of Indian Tribes,
vol. v. 262.]

Here the fact of several families uniting on the principle of kin,
living in a cluster of houses, and practicing communism, is
expressly stated.

James Adair, writing still earlier of the southern Indians of the
United States generally, remarks in a passage before quoted, as
follows: "I have observed, with much inward satisfaction, the
community of goods that prevailed among them.... And though they do
not keep one promiscuous common stock, yet it is to the very same
effect, for every one has his own family or tribe, and when any one
is speaking either of the individuals or habitations of his own
tribe, he says, 'He is of my house,' or, 'It is my house.'"
[Footnote: History of the American Indians, p. 17.]

It is singular that this industrious investigator did not notice,
what is now known to be the fact, that all these tribes were
organized in gentes and phratries. It would have rendered his
observations upon their usages and customs more definite. Elsewhere
he remarks further that "formerly the Indian law obliged every town
to work together in one body, in sewing or planting their crops,
though their fields were divided by proper marks, and their harvest
is gathered separately. The Cherokees and Muscogees [Creeks] still
observe that old custom, which is very necessary for such idle people."
[Footnote: ib., p. 430.]

They cultivated, like the Iroquois, three kinds of maize, an
"early variety," the "hominy corn," and the "bread corn," also beans,
squashes, pumpkins, and tobacco. [Footnote: History of the American
Indians, p. 430] Chestnuts, a tuberous root something like the
potato but gathered in the marshes, berries, fish, and game, entered
into their subsistence. Like the Iroquois, they made unleavened
bread of maize flour, which was boiled in earthen vessels, in the
form of cakes, about six inches in diameter and an inch thick.
[Footnote: ib. pp. 406, 408.] Among the tribes of the plains, who
subsist almost exclusively upon animal food, their usages in the
hunt indicate the same tendency to communism in food. The Blackfeet,
during the buffalo hunt, follow the herds on horseback in large
parties, composed of men, women, and children. When the active
pursuit of the herd commences, the hunters leave the dead animals in
the track of the chase to be appropriated by the first persons who
come up behind. This method of distribution is continued until all
are supplied. All the Indian tribes who hunt upon the plains, with
the exception of the half-blood Crees, observe the same custom of
making a common stock of the capture. It tended to equalize, at the
outset, the means of subsistence obtained. They cut the beef into
strings, and either dried it in the air or in the smoke of a fire.
Some of the tribes made a part of the capture into pemmican, which
consists of dried and pulverized meat mixed with melted buffalo fat,
which is baled in the hide of the animal.

During the fishing season in the Columbia River, where fish are more
abundant than in any other river on the earth, all the members of
the tribe encamp together, and make a common stock of the fish
obtained. They are divided each day according to the number of women,
giving to each an equal share. At the Kootenay Falls, for example,
they are taken by spearing, and in huge baskets submerged in the
water below the falls. The salmon, during the spring run, weigh from
six to forty pounds, and are taken in the greatest abundance, three
thousand a day not being an unusual number. Father De Smet, the late
Oregon missionary, informed the writer, in 1862, that he once spent
several days with the Kootenays at these falls, and that the share
which fell to him, as one of the party, loaded, when dried, thirty
pack mules. The fish are split open, scarified, and dried on
scaffolds, after which they are packed in baskets and then removed
to their villages. This custom makes a general distribution of the
capture, and leaves each household in possession of its share.

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote relocated to chapter end.]

Their communism in living is involved in the size of the household,
which ranged from ten to forty persons. "The houses of the Sokulks
are made of large mats of rushes, and are generally of a square or
oblong form, varying in length from fifteen to sixty feet; the top
is covered with mats, leaving a space of twelve or fifteen inches,
the whole length of the house, for the purpose of admitting the
light and suffering the smoke to pass through; the roof is nearly
flat ... and the house is not divided into apartments, the fire
being in the middle of the large room, and immediately under the
hole in the roof.... On entering one of these houses he [Captain
Clarke] found it crowded with men, women, and children, who
immediately provided a mat for him to sit on, and one of the party
immediately undertook to prepare something to eat." [Footnote: Lewis
and Clarke's Travels, pp. 351-353.]

Again: "He landed before five houses close to each other, but no one
appeared, and the doors, which were of mats, were closed. He went
towards one of them with a pipe in his hand, and pushing aside the
mat entered the lodge, where he found thirty-two persons, chiefly
men and women, with a few children, all in the greatest consternation."
[Footnote: ib., p. 357.] And again: "This village being part of the
same nation with the village we passed above, the language of the
two being the same, and their houses being of the same form and
materials, and calculated to contain about thirty souls."
[Footnote: ib., p. 376.]

In enumerating the people Lewis and Clarke often state the number of
inhabitants with the number of houses, thus:

"The Killamucks, who number fifty houses and a thousand souls."

"The Chilts, who ... are estimated at seven hundred souls and
thirty-eight houses."

"The Clamoitomish, of twelve houses and two hundred and sixty souls."

"The Potoashees, of ten houses and two hundred souls."

"The Pailsk, of ten houses and two hundred souls."

"The Quinults, of sixty houses and one thousand souls."

[Footnote: Lewis and Clarke's Travels, pp. 426-428.]

Speaking generally of the usages and customs of the tribes of the
"Columbia plains," they make the following statements: "Their large
houses usually contain several families, consisting of the parents,
their sons and daughters-in-law and grandchildren, among whom the
provisions are common, and whose harmony is scarcely ever
interrupted by disputes. Although polygamy is permitted by their
customs, very few have more than a single wife, and she is brought
immediately after the marriage into the husband's family, where she
resides until increasing numbers oblige them to seek another house.
In this state the old man is not considered the head of the family,
since the active duties, as well as the responsibility, fall on some
of the younger members. As these families gradually expand into bands,
or tribes, or nations, the paternal authority is represented by the
chief of each association. This chieftain, however, is not hereditary."
[Footnote: ib., p. 443.] Here we find among the Columbian tribes, as
elsewhere, communism in living, but restricted to large households
composed of several families.

A writer in Harper's Magazine, speaking of the Aleutians, remarks:
"When first discovered this people were living in large yurts, or
dirt houses, partially underground ... having the entrances through
a hole in the top or centre, going in and out on a rude ladder.
Several of these ancient yurts were very large, as shown by the ruins,
being from thirty to eighty yards long and twenty to forty in width....
In these large yurts the primitive Aleuts lived by fifties and
hundreds for the double object of protection and warmth."
[Footnote: Harper's Magazine, vol. 55, p. 806.]

Whether these tribes at this time were organized in gentes and
phratries is not known. At the time of the Wilkes expedition
(1838-1842) the gentile organization did not exist among them;
neither does it now exist; but it is still found among the tribes
of the Northwest Coast, and among the Indian tribes generally. The
composition of the household, as here described, is precisely like
the household of the Iroquois prior to A.D. 1700.

The Mandan village contained at the time of Catlin's visit (1832),
as elsewhere stated, about fifty houses and about fifteen hundred
people. "These cabins are so spacious," Catlin remarks, "that they
hold from twenty to forty persons--a family and all their connections....
From the great numbers of the inmates in these lodges they are
necessarily very spacious, and the number of beds considerable. It
is no uncommon thing to see these lodges fifty feet in diameter
inside (which is an immense room), with a row of these curtained
beds extending quite around their sides, being some ten or twelve of
them, placed four or five feet apart, and the space between them
occupied by a large post, fixed quite firmly in the ground, and six
or seven feet high, with large wooden pegs or bolts in it, on which
are hung or grouped, with a wild and startling taste, the arms and
armor of the respective proprietors." [Footnote: North American
Indians, Philadelphia ed., 1857, i, 139.]

The household, according to the custom of the Indians, was a large
one. The number of inhabitants divided among the number of houses
would give an average of thirty persons to each house. It is evident
from several statements of Catlin before given that the household
practiced communism in living, and that it was formed of related
families, on the principle of gentile kin, as among the Iroquois.
Elsewhere he intimates that the Mandans kept a public store or
granary as a refuge for the whole community in a time of scarcity.
[Footnote: ib., i, 210.]

In like manner Carver, speaking generally of the usages and customs
of the Dakota tribes and of the tribes of Wisconsin, remarks that
"they will readily share with any of their own tribe the last part
of their provisions, and even with those of a different nation, if
they chance to come in when they are eating. Though they do not keep
one common store, yet that community of goods which is so prevalent
among them, and their generous disposition, render it nearly of the
same effect." [Footnote: Travels, etc, p. 171.]

What this author seems to state is that community of goods existed
in the household, and that it was lengthened out to the tribe by the
law of hospitality. Elsewhere, speaking of the large village of the
Sauks, he says: "This is the largest Indian town I ever saw. It
contains about ninety houses, each large enough for several families."
[Footnote: Travels, etc., Phila. ed. 1796, p. 29.]

In a previous chapter (supra p. 49.) Heckewelder's observations upon
hospitality among the Delawares and Munsees, implying the principle
of communism, have been given. He remarks further that "there is
nothing in an Indian's house or family without its particular owner.
Every individual knows what belongs to him, from the horse or cow
down to the dog, cat, kitten, and little chicken.... For a litter of
kittens or a brood of chickens there are often as many different
owners as there are individual animals. In purchasing a hen with her
brood one frequently has to deal for it with several children. Thus,
while the principle of community of goods prevails in the State, the
rights of property are acknowledged among the members of the family.
This is attended with a very good effect, for by this means every
living creature is properly taken care of." [Footnote: Indian Nations,
p. 158.]

I do not understand what Heckewelder means by the remark that
"the principle of community of goods prevails in the state," unless
it be that the rule of hospitality was so all-pervading that it was
tantamount to a community of goods, while individual property was
everywhere recognized until it was freely surrendered. This may be
the just view of the result of their communism and hospitality, but
it is a higher one than I have been able to take.

The household of the Mandans consisting of from twenty to forty
persons, the households of the Columbian tribes of about the same
number, the Shoshone household of seven families, the households of
the Sauks, of the Iroquois, and of the Creeks each composed of
several families, are fair types of the households of the Northern
Indians at the epoch of their discovery. The fact is also
established that these tribes constructed as a rule large joint
tenement houses, each of which was occupied by a large household
composed of several families, among whom provisions were in common,
and who practiced communism in living in the household.

Among the Village Indians of New Mexico a more advanced form of
house architecture appears, and their joint tenement character is
even more pronounced. They live in large houses, two, three, and
four stories high, constructed of adobe brick, and of stone imbedded
in adobe mortar, and containing fifty, a hundred, two hundred, and
in some cases five hundred apartments in a house. They are built in
the terraced form, with fireplaces and chimneys added since their
discovery, the first story closed up solid, and is entered by ladders,
which ascend to the platform-roof of the first story. These houses
are fortresses, and were erected as strongholds to resist the
attacks of the more barbarous tribes by whom they were perpetually
assailed. Each house was probably occupied by a number of household
groups, whose apartments were doubtless separated from each other by
partition walls. In a subsequent chapter the character of these
houses will be more fully shown.

Our knowledge of the plan of life in these houses in the aboriginal
period is still very imperfect. They still practice the old
hospitality, own their lands in common, but with allotments to
individuals and to families, and are governed by a cacique or sachem
and certain other officers annually elected. An American missionary
to the Laguna Village Indians, Rev. Samuel Gorman, in an address
before the Historical Society of New Mexico in 1869, remarks as
follows: "They generally marry very young, and the son-in-law
becomes the servant of the father-in-law, and very often they all
live together in one family for years, even if there be several
sons-in-law; and this clannish mode of living is often, if not
generally, a fruitful source of evil among this people. Their women
generally have control over the granary, and they are more provident
than their Spanish neighbors about the future. Ordinarily they try
to have one year's provisions on hand. It is only when they have two
years of scarcity succeeding each other that pueblos as a community
suffer hunger." [Footnote: Address, p. 14.]

The usages of these Indians have doubtless modified in the last two
hundred years under Spanish influence; they have decreased in numbers,
and the family group is probably smaller than formerly. But it is
not too late to recover the aboriginal plan of life among them if
the subject were intelligently investigated. It is to be hoped that
some one will undertake this work.

The Spanish writers do not mention the practice of communism in
living as existing among the Village Indians of Mexico or Central
America. They are barren of practical information concerning their
mode of life; but we have the same picture of large households
composed of several families, whose communism in the household may
reasonably be inferred.

We have also the striking illustration of "Montezuma's Dinner,"
hereafter to be noticed, which was plainly a dinner in common by a
communal household. Beside these facts we have the ownership of
lands in common by communities of persons. Moreover, the ruins of
ancient houses in Central and South America, and in parts of Mexico,
show very plainly their joint tenement character. From the plans of
these houses the communism of the people by households may be
deduced theoretically with reasonable certainty.

Yucatan, when discovered, was occupied by a number of tribes of Maya
Indians. The Maya language spread beyond the limits of Yucatan. This
region, with Chiapas, Guatemala, and a part of Honduras, contained
and still contains evidence, in the ruins of ancient structures, of
a higher advancement in the arts of life than any other part of
North America. The present Maya Indians of Yucatan are the
descendants of the people who occupied the country at the period of
the Spanish conquest, and who occupied the massive stone houses now
in ruins, from which they were forced by Spanish oppression.

We have a notable illustration of communism in living among the
present Maya Indians, as late as the year 1840, through the work of
John L Stephens. At Nohcacab, a few miles east of the ruins of Uxmal,
Mr. Stephens, having occasion to employ laborers, went to a
settlement of Maya Indians, of whom he gives the following account:
"Their community consists of a hundred labradores, or working men;
their lands are held and wrought in common, and the products are
shared by all. Their food is prepared at one hut, and every family
sends for its portion, which explains a singular spectacle we had
seen on our arrival, a procession of women and children, each
carrying an earthen bowl containing a quantity of smoking hot broth,
all coming down the same road, and disappearing among the different
huts. Every member belonging to the community, down to the smallest
pappoose, contributing in turn a hog. From our ignorance of the
language, and the number of other and more pressing matters claiming
our attention, we could not learn all the details of their internal
economy, but it seemed to approximate that improved state of
association which is sometimes heard of among us; and as theirs has
existed for an unknown length of time, and can no longer be
considered merely experimental, Owen on Fourier might perhaps take
lessons from them with advantage." [Footnote: Incidents of Travel in
Yucatan, ii, 14.]

A hundred working men indicate a total of five hundred persons, who
were then depending for their daily food upon a single fire, the
provisions being supplied from common stores, and divided from the
caldron. It is, not unlikely, a truthful picture of the mode of life
of their forefathers in the "House of the Nuns," and in the
"Governor's House" at Uxmal, at the epoch of the Spanish conquest.

It is well known that Spanish adventurers captured these pueblos,
one after the other, and attempted to enforce the labor of the
Indians for personal ends, and that the Indians abandoned their
pueblos and retreated into the inaccessible forests to escape
enslavement, after which their houses of stone fell into decay, the
ruins of which, and all there ever was of them, still remain in all
parts of these countries.

It is hardly supposable that the communism here described by Mr.
Stephens was a new thing to the Mayas; but far more probable that it
was a part of their ancient mode of life, to which these ruined
houses were eminently adapted. The subject of the adaptation of the
old pueblo houses in Yucatan and Central America to communism in
living will be elsewhere considered.

When Columbus first landed on the island of Cuba, he sent two men
into the interior, who reported that "they traveled twenty-two
leagues, and found a village of fifty houses, built like those
before spoken of, and they contained about one thousand persons,
because a whole generation lived in a house; and the prime men came
out to meet them, led them by the arms, and lodged them in one of
these new houses, causing them to sit down on seats ... and they
gave them boiled roots to eat, which tasted like chestnuts."
[Footnote: Herrera, i, 55.]

One of the first expeditions which touched the main land on the
coast of Venezuela in South America found much larger houses than
these last described. "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." [Footnote: ib., 216.]

Herrera further remarks of the same tribe, that "they observed 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
offense at one another." [Footnote: ib., i, 216.]

This shows communism in husbands as well as wives, and rendered
communism in food a necessity of their condition. Elsewhere the same
author speaks of the habitations of the tribes on the coast of
Carthagena. "Their houses were like long arbors, with several
apartments, and they had no beds but hammocks." [Footnote: ib., 348.]
Many similar statements are scattered through his work.

Among the more advanced tribes of Peru the lands were divided, and
allotted to different uses; one part was for the support of the
government, another for the support of religion, and another for
the support of individuals. The first two parts were cultivated by
the people under established regulations, and the crops were placed
in public storehouses. This is the statement of Garcilasso.
[Footnote: Royal Com. l. c., pp. 154, 157.]

Herrera, however, says generally that the people lived from common
stores. "The Spaniards drawing near to Caxamalca begun to have a
view of the Inca army lying near the bottom of a mountain.... They
were pleased to see the beauty of the fields, most regularly
cultivated, for it was an ancient law among these people that all
should be fed from common stores, and none should touch the standing
corn." [Footnote: Herrera, iv, 249.] The discrepancy between Herrera
and Garcilasso may perhaps be explained by the reservation of the
crops grown on lands set apart for the government and for religion.

The reason for presenting the foregoing observations of different
authors concerning the households, the houses, and the practice of
communism in food, has been to show, firstly, that the household of
the Indian tribes was a large one, composed of several families;
secondly, that their houses were constructed to accommodate several
families; and thirdly, that the household practiced communism in
living. These are the material facts, and they have been
sufficiently illustrated. The single family of civilized society
live from common stores, yet it is not communism; but where several
families coalesce in one common household and make a common stock of
their provisions, and this is found to be a general rule in entire
tribes, it is a form of communism important to be noticed. It is
seen to belong to a society in a low stage of development, where it
springs from the necessities of their condition. These usages and
customs exhibit their plan of life, and reveal the wide difference
between their condition and that of civilized society; between the
Indian family, without individuality, and the highly individualized
family of civilization.

[Relocated Footnote: Alfred W. Howitt, F. G. S., Bariusdale,
Australia, mentions, in a letter to the author, the following
singular custom of an Australian tribe concerning the distribution
of food in the family group:

A man catches seven river eels; they are divided thus (it is
supposed that his family consists only of these named):

1st eel. Front half himself; hind half his wife.

2d eel. Front half his wife's mother; hind half his wife's sister.

3d eel. Front half his elder sons; hind half his younger sons.

4th eel. Front half his elder daughters; hind half his younger
daughters.

5th eel. Front half his brother's sons; hind half his brother's
daughters.

6th eel. One whole eel to his married daughter's husband.

7th eel. One whole eel to his married daughter.

This custom may be supposed to show the ordinary household group,
and the order of their relative nearness to Ego. It foots up himself
and wife, wife's mother and sister, his sons and daughters, his
brother's sons and daughters, and his daughter's husband. It implies
also other members of the household, who are obliged to take care of
themselves: viz. his brothers and sisters.]




CHAPTER IV.

USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LANDS AND TO FOOD


T

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/8112