ORGANISATION AND GOVERNMENT
Tribes often had a definite organisation and a regular government,
and each held sway over a territory with fixed boundaries. When the
limits were not placed at a river, lake, or mountain range they were
marked by certain trees or stones, or other natural features along the
trails. When at peace, those who entered another domain were considered
visitors, and they were expected to be friendly with all friends of the
occupants of the region. “Both the Kuchins and the Eskimos are very
jealous,” says H. H. Bancroft, “regarding their boundaries.”[363]
When I was once coming out of the Shevwits country, my Uinkarets guide
exclaimed as we passed a certain bowlder near the trail, “Now we are
out of the Shevwits land.” Beyond that point the Shevwits would not
venture except in a friendly way, so long as they were friendly with
the owners of the land. I rejoiced in this fact at the time because the
Shevwits had not been entirely agreeable, and I was glad to pass the
point where I was certain they would not bother us. We were now in the
country of the Santa Clara tribe.
The Iroquois had the habit of occupying both banks of a river or lake,
hence they did not utilise these as boundaries, but ran straight lines,
marked here and there by some well-known object. “On the boundary
line between the Onondagas and Oneidas,” says Morgan,[364] “the most
prominent point was the Deep Spring (Deosongwa) near Manlius, in the
county of Onondaga. This spring not only marked the limital line
between them, but it was a well-known stopping-place on the great
central trail or highway of the Iroquois.... From Deep Spring the
line ran due south into Pennsylvania, crossing the Susquehanna near
its confluence with the Chenango. North of this spring the line was
deflected to the west, leaving in the Oneida territory the whole
circuit of the lake. Crossing the She-u-ka or Oneida outlet, a few
miles below the lake, the line inclined again to the east, until it
reached the meridian of the Deep Spring. From thence it ran due north,
crossing Black River, at the site of Watertown, and the St. Lawrence to
the eastward of the Thousand Islands.”
This line separated territories belonging to two tribes of the
celebrated league, and was not a boundary between hostile or different
tribes. The Iroquois were exact about their internal boundary lines,
because it served to keep each member of the confederacy distinct and
independent, and enabled the idea of home rule to be properly carried
out. They always knew just whose ground they were on, just as we know
to-day which county or State we are in. It was another mark of the
wisdom with which the confederacy was planned.
When the whites came to these shores and took possession right and
left of the soil, they immediately stirred up the hostility of the
owners, who naturally desired to be considered in the matter. Penn did
consider them, and he had no trouble; and I have no doubt much of the
fighting and enmity which followed our coming might have been avoided
if Europeans had more fully recognised the native rights and had paid a
fair equivalent for what they wanted. But there was nothing to compel
this attention to the moral side, and justice must have force to bind
it; besides, owing to the large influx of whites, the Amerinds were
inevitably driven back. The English in a measure finally recognised
the Iroquois rights and then afterwards turned this to good account
by claiming sovereignty over the territory on the ground that the
Iroquois were British subjects. The Navajos recognise the San Juan
River as their northern limit and the Southern Utes correspondingly
accepted it as their southern limit. “The claims of the Susquehannocks
extended down the Chesapeake Bay on the east shore, as far as the
Choptank River and on the west shore as far as the Patuxent. In 1654
they ceded to the government of Maryland their southern territory to
these boundaries.”[365] Thus it is proved that Maryland recognised
their ownership. These examples are enough to show that the territorial
rights of each tribe were definitely understood, just as nations to-day
have established limits. When the settlements of our people finally
crowded tribes back upon each other’s domain, a great deal of confusion
and dispute arose as to ownership, and when the government began to
pay for lands it was often necessary to pay for the same tract several
times, owing to the conflicting claims.
Scattered over the territory claimed or held by a tribe were the
houses and villages of the tribe or the sub-tribes. Powell states
that “every tribe lived in a village, and every village constituted a
distinct tribe.” But the village was often spread over a wide region.
Speaking of this, Adair says: “A stranger might be in the middle of
one of their populous, extensive towns without seeing half a dozen
houses in the direct course of his path.”[366] But this was only in
the interior of the country of a tribe. Along the frontier the towns
would be more compactly arranged, in order that the people might easily
be called to defend them. The villages were usually permanent, though
they were frequently, some annually, abandoned temporarily at certain
seasons for the pursuit of game or for some other good reason, all
the people coming together again as the cold weather approached. The
Navajos often have a winter home in the lower, sheltered lands of their
territory, while in summer they proceed to the higher levels where
the winter snows are deep and the summer grass is high. Each Amerind
village always had at least one assembly place for which they had
their special names, but the general term that is now often used by
ethnologists is that of _kiva_,[367] borrowed from the Mokis, because
the Moki kiva is a representative of the general assembly hall and
council-chamber, or lodge. The kiva, besides being used for social
purposes, as a lounging-place and a working-place for the men, is
also used for religious functions. Those structures, therefore, which
crowned the mounds of the United States and Mexico, and are usually
designated as “temples,” were possibly more of the nature of kivas,
a temple in our usage being a structure devoted solely to worship,
whereas many Amerind buildings of this class were used for various
purposes. Often there were several, depending on the size of the tribe.
The tribe was organised on the basis of the gens or the clan, and each
gens or clan might have its own kiva. They might also belong to some of
the secret orders, so that we may enumerate three kinds: the tribal,
or chief kiva, the kiva belonging to the gens or clan, and the kiva
belonging to the phratry, or secret society. The gens and the clan were
groups of blood relations, or, as put by Powell, “an organised body
of consanguineal kindred.”[368] The members of a gens often lived in
one house or in a group of houses; for example, among the Iroquois in
the long-house,[369] with its row of camp-fires, while in some other
tribes each family might have its own house or tent, but they would
then generally pitch or build it contiguous to the other habitations
of their gens. It was this principle, in vogue in almost all the
tribes of America, which directed the character of most of the Amerind
structures. Everybody in a tribe belonged to a gens or clan, otherwise
he could not be in the tribe. The complete organisation of the tribe
then was: a group of families forming a gens or clan, two gentes being
represented in each family; the “father must belong to one gens and
the mother and her children to another,” descent being commonly in
the female line, and marriage within a gens being forbidden; a group
of gentes formed the phratry, and a group of phratries formed the
tribe, while a group of tribes formed the confederacy, probably the
highest form of government the Amerinds reached. The phratry as an
organisation was often absent, and the tribe was then composed of the
gentes without any further grouping. Powell seems to use “phratry” in
a different sense from Morgan and some other writers. Morgan described
a phratry as a group of gentes, whereas Powell defines it as simply
a brotherhood or society. Each gens governed itself so far as its
internal affairs were concerned; that is, it had home rule, just as
we have it to-day in our towns, counties, etc. It sent delegates
to the council of the tribe to represent it, and it elected its own
officers. There was sometimes no tribal or head chief. I never could
learn of any among the Navajos, and the Iroquois had none. When, as was
frequent, there was a sachem, or tribal chief, he was chosen or elected
by the chiefs of the various clans or gentes forming the council,
but in some tribes he inherited the office, or at least the right to
hold it. I understood this to be the case among the Kaivavits Utes of
southern Utah. A gens had the right to take into its ranks any alien
it chose to. Such a person was then a member of that gens and partook
of all the benefits or disadvantages, as the case might be. He was a
son or brother or husband, or the corresponding relationships if a
woman, and on all occasions was treated as if he had been born into the
gens or clan instead of adopted into it. He was therefore eligible for
all offices in the tribe, and white men in this way sometimes became
chiefs. Beckwourth,[370] who, however, was really supposed by a Crow
woman to be her long-lost son, became head chief of the Crows, and held
the office with distinction for a number of years. He began by being
fifth councillor. “In the Crow nation there are six councillors, and by
them the nation is ruled. There are also two head chiefs, who sit with
the council whenever it is in session. The office of first councillor
is the highest in the nation next to the head chiefs, whose authority
is equal. If in any of these divisions, when a matter is brought to
the vote, the suffrages are equal, one of the old pipemen is summoned
before the council and the subject under discussion is stated to him,
with the substance of the arguments advanced on both sides; after
hearing this he gives his casting vote, and the question is finally
settled.”[371]
[Illustration: PLENTY-HORSES, A CHEYENNE
Photographed by J. K. Hillers, U. S. Geological Survey
]
[Illustration: NORTH-WEST COAST BASKETRY HATS
Made of grass and spruce roots
A. Parasol-shaped hat with totemic design on top and painted in solid
colour on remainder of outside surface. Tlinkit
B. Has wooden appendages representing the beak of the raven. Tlinkit
C. Cedar bark hat. G shows method of plaiting it
E. Top view of D, showing totemic design of hooyeh, the raven. Haida
H. Is method of weaving the top, F of the bottom part of D
See also figures on pp. 146, 160
]
George Bancroft says, “There have been chiefs who could not tell when,
where, or how they obtained power.... Opinion could crowd a civil
chief into retirement, and could dictate his successor.” Opinion was a
most potent factor in all tribes, and this would be largely directed
by those having popularity and power. Officers, in fact all persons,
become extremely well known in the small community of an Amerind
tribe. Every peculiarity of temperament was understood, and the
individual was respected or despised according to his predominating
characteristics. Those who were bold and fierce and full of strategy
were made war-chiefs, while those who possessed judgment and decision
were made civil chiefs or governors. In many tribes the civil and the
military branches of government are separate and distinct. Certain
chieftains were the peace chiefs. “They could neither go to war
themselves, nor send nor receive the war belt—the ominous string of
dark wampum, which indicated that the tempest of strife was to be let
loose. Their proper badge was the wampum belt, with a diamond-shaped
figure in the centre, worked in white beads, which was the symbol
of the peaceful council fire, and was called by that name. War was
declared by the people at the instigation of the ‘war-captains,’
valorous braves, of any birth or family, who had distinguished
themselves by personal prowess, and especially by good success in
forays against the enemy. Nor did the authority of the chiefs extend
to any infringement on the traditional rights of the gens, as, for
instance, that of blood revenge. The ignorance of this limitation of
the central power led to various misunderstandings at the time, on the
part of the colonial authorities, and since then, by later historians.
Thus in 1728 the Delaware Indians on Brandywine were summoned by the
Governor to answer about a murder. Their chief, Civility, answered that
it was committed by the Minisinks, ‘over whom they had no authority.’
This did not mean but that in some matters authority could be exerted,
but not in a question relating to a feud of blood.”[372] War-chiefs as
well as civil chiefs were elected by the council, and could be deposed
also by the council whenever it was desirable.
[Illustration: NORTH-WEST COAST MORTUARY AND COMMEMORATIVE COLUMNS
A. Kaigani. Contains a box holding ashes of the dead
B. Kaigani. Compartment boarded up contains the remains in a box
C. Kaigani. Supported box contains the dead
D. Different form of C
E. Haida. Commemorative column put in front of the house of deceased,
the body being placed at a distance
F. Haida. Commemorative column same as last but with two posts
]
Brinton says, “The gentile system is by no means universal, ... where
it exists, it is often traced in the male line; both property and
dignities may be inherited directly from the father.... In fact, no one
element of the system was uniformly respected, and it is an error of
theorists to make it appear so. It varied widely in the same stock and
in all its expressions.”[373] This intricate subject cannot be fully
understood till the organisation of many tribes has been studied in
detail. “In some tribes, as the Dakota, the gentes had fallen out;
in others as among the Ojibways, the Omahas and the Mayas of Yucatan
descent had been changed from the female to the male line.”[374] But
Powell and Morgan both hold that the majority of the Amerind tribes
were organised on the basis of descent in the female line. “The gens
came into being,” says Morgan, “upon three principal conceptions,
namely: the bond of kin, a pure lineage through descent in the female
line, and non-intermarriage in the gens.”[375]
Powell in his article on the “North American Indians” in Johnson’s
_Cyclopedia_ seems to use the term “clan” to describe a body of kindred
with descent in the female line, and “gens” where the descent is in the
male line. “In most of the tribes the fundamental unit of organisation
was the clan,” he says, and then again, “a few of the tribes were
organised on the gentile plan and in the gens kinship is reckoned in
the male line.” Such a distinction would be convenient, but Morgan did
not recognise it at the time of his writing, as is evident from the
quotation above from his _Ancient Society_, and general usage seems
not to have defined gens to mean descent in either line specifically.
Nevertheless, there is probably no reason why the distinction should
not be made with regard to the Amerinds, at least, if it should be
agreed upon. Powell also says: “As a clan is a group of people who
reckon kinship through females to some ancestral female, real or
conventional, so a gens is a group of people who reckon kinship through
males to some ancestral male, real or conventional. It seems that
the primordial constitution of the tribe is by clanship and that the
clanship tribe is developed into the gentile tribe. Most of the tribes
of North America have clanship organisation, yet there is a goodly
number with gentile organisation, while perhaps it may be said that
a majority of the clanship tribes have some elements of the gentile
organisation; so that it may be justly affirmed that a great many of
the tribes on this continent are in the stage of transition, and there
is scarcely a gentile tribe which has not some feature of clanship
organisation as a survival.”[376] The privileges and obligations of the
gens (or clan) were, according to Morgan as follows:
“I. The right of electing its sachem or chief.
“II. The right of deposing its sachem or chief.
“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, defence, 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.”[377]
Among the Wyandots there is a council in each gens composed of four
women. “These four women councillors select a chief of the gens from
its male members—that is, from their brothers and sons. This gentile
chief is the head of the gentile council. The council of the tribe is
composed of the aggregated gentile councils. The tribal council then is
composed of one-fifth men and four-fifths women.”[378] This is not the
case with other tribes, however. Among the Tlinkits it is the richest
who “obtain the highest places,” the selection of the chiefs depending
entirely on the amount of property they have; that is, on a property
basis. These Amerinds have a better appreciation of property than any
others I have ever seen. They seldom haggle, but in selling they state
a price and adhere to it. A smaller amount offered is usually treated
with scorn.
The sign of clan or gens membership was the totem, all members of the
same gens having the same totem, and his or her name usually indicating
this totem. For example, if we know an Amerind woman’s name to be
Spotted Fawn, we place her at once in the deer clan. The deer is the
animal that she looks up to as being most intimately connected with
her past and her future, and from which her ancestors were descended.
This is the clan or gens totem. As mentioned in a previous chapter,
there are also two other kinds of totems, those pertaining to sex and
those pertaining to the individual alone. Totems are always chosen from
a class of organic objects, while a fetich may be anything at all.
Thus the totems are deer, frogs, bears, snakes, corn, etc., while a
fetich may be a pebble, a piece of glass wrapped in a bit of buckskin
together with a feather, or some similar object. The fetich was a
talisman, the totem a beneficent attending spirit and a sign of family
and origin.
The Iroquois confederacy was planned by Hiawatha through Däganowédä
as an interpreter of his ideas and wishes. Some, Horatio Hale for
one, think that Hiawatha was a real person, and others that it
was Däganowédä who did the work under the guise of representing
Hiawatha.[379] However this may be, the organisation of the several
tribes into the confederacy was a work of genius, and this was one
of the highest governments that was discovered on this continent. We
cannot say, however, that it was _the_ highest that ever existed, next
to that of the Aztecs or the other Central Amerinds, for we really
do not know what there may have been before, not only in Mexico and
Central America, but in the Mississippi valley or even in the State
of New York. As noted in a previous chapter, if the Iroquois had
disappeared before our arrival, we could have gained no conception
of their remarkable government from any remains that we would have
found. The Mississippi valley and the South-west, as well as Mexico and
Central America, exhibit traces of tribes who may easily have arrived
at a governmental development equal to, if, indeed, not superior to,
that of the Aztecs or the Iroquois. These tribes were undoubtedly
Amerind, but there is nothing to prove that earlier Amerind tribes were
inferior in their political development to later ones.
The misconceptions of the Spaniards due to ignorance of Amerind
organisation gave false colouring to the Aztec confederacy; and the
flowing diction of Prescott, gemmed with terms and titles applicable
to Old-World society, but having no place in that of the New, added to
the confusion. Pages relating to “nobles,” “princes,” “royal allies,”
“sovereigns,” “lords,” etc., do not help in fathoming the intricacies
of Amerind government. Had the Spaniards met with the Iroquois we
should have had something similar in their case; and the fact that they
had no head chief would not have been discovered by the conquistadores,
so eager for other prey. One of the war-chiefs would again have been
taken for a royal personage, and the sachems and councillors would
have been nobles and princes, while the outlying tribes of the Five
Nations would have filled the bill for royal allies. It is likely
that the Aztec government was in advance of that of the Iroquois,
but that there was any royalty about it must be doubted till better
evidence is available. On the other hand, Morgan’s attempt to prove
that the Aztec organisation was not beyond that of the Pueblos or the
Iroquois is to be taken with caution. Brinton says: “The government
of these states did not differ in principle from that of the northern
tribes, though its development had reached a later stage. Descent was
generally reckoned in the male line, and the male children of the
deceased were regarded as the natural heirs both to his property and
his dignities. Where the latter, however, belonged rather to the gens
than the individual, a form of election was held, the children of the
deceased being given the preference. In this sense, which was the usual
limitation in America, many positions were hereditary, including that
of the chieftaincy of the tribe or confederation. The Montezuma who
was the ruler who received Cortez, was the grandson of Axayacatl, who
in turn was the son of the first Montezuma, each of whom exercised the
chief power.”[380] The daughter of the first Montezuma seems to have
occupied the position of head chief for a time, or, as Prescott would
put it, she was queen. It is possible that while Montezuma was a war
chief he may have combined certain civil powers with his war office,
and that the confederacy was actually on the road to an absolute
monarchy[381] or something of the kind, which, if human progress
takes always the same general directions, was the next stage to be
expected on this soil. Bandelier, Morgan, and others see in the various
Mexican tribes and confederacies little that is different from the
organisation of the Amerinds to the northward, and probably when all is
well understood we may find that they are not far from correct; that,
while there are differences, they are yet not sufficient to entitle
the Mexicans to the separation from other Amerinds that has been
claimed for them by romantic writers. Speaking of Tlaxcala, the famous
“province” where Cortes found a resting-place on his inward journey,
Bandelier says: “Owing to a misconception of aboriginal institutions,
it has been palmed off as a kind of Mexican Switzerland, as a free
republic in the midst of despotically ruled communities. Such was not
the case. There was not the slightest fundamental difference between
the social organisation and mode of government of the Tlaxcaltecos
and that of the Mexican tribe; but the exceptional geographical
position of the latter and the natural barrenness of their land led
them to seek means of subsistence from abroad. The confederacy of
tribes grew out of tribal organisation, and the greater ability of the
inhabitants of the Central Valley gave to their confederacy a power
of aggression superior to that of any other aboriginal cluster in the
same country.... The Tlaxcaltecos were organised in four localised
_phratries_, like the Mexicans. Two elective chiefs—that is, elective
in regard to the individual, but with heredity of office in a certain
_gens_—formed the nominal head of the tribe. The true directive power,
however, lay in the council of the tribe. The tribe of Mexico had a
similar organisation. What created an apparent dissimilarity was the
confederacy of the valley tribes, with its chief-captain always taken
from the Mexicans. As, in the single tribe, the war-chief office was
hereditary in the _gens_, so, in the confederacy, the same office
becomes hereditary in the _tribe_.”[382] How different is the wording
of Prescott when speaking of the Aztec organisation! “The government
was an elective monarchy. Four of the principal nobles, who had been
chosen by their own body in the preceding reign, filled the office of
electors, to whom were added, with merely honourary rank, however, the
two royal allies of Tezcuco and Tlacopan. The sovereign was selected
from the brothers of the deceased prince, or, in default of them,
from his nephews. Thus the election was always restricted to the same
family. The candidate preferred must have distinguished himself in
war, though, as in the case of the last Montezuma.”[383] In other
words, the election was restricted to a certain gens. Morgan says:
“Nearly all American Indian tribes had two grades of chiefs, who may
be distinguished as sachems and common chiefs. Of these two primary
grades all other grades were varieties. They were elected in each
gens from among its members. A son could not be chosen to succeed his
father when descent was in the female line, because he belonged to a
different gens, and no gens would have a chief or sachem from any gens
but its own.” (Morgan here evidently forgot the right of adoption. It
would be perfectly regular, should a gens wish to do so, to adopt a
son into the gens in order that he might succeed his father.) “The
office of sachem was hereditary in the gens, in the sense that it was
filled as often as a vacancy occurred; while the office of chief was
non-hereditary, because it was bestowed in reward of personal merit,
and died with the individual. Moreover, the duties of a sachem were
confined to the affairs of peace. He could not go out to war as a
sachem. On the other hand, the chiefs who were raised to office for
personal bravery, for wisdom of affairs, or for eloquence in council,
were usually the superior class in ability, though not in authority
over the gens. The relation of the sachem was primarily to the gens, of
which he was the official head, while that of the chief was primarily
to the tribe, of the council of which he, as well as the sachem, were
members.”[384]
[Illustration: ANCIENT PUEBLOAN MOCCASINS OF FIBRE, ARIZONA
Except lower left hand one worn by the Ainos of Yezo, Japan.
Introduced for comparison. The Ainos were probably the earliest
inhabitants of Japan. In language and character they are different
from Japanese
]
As the Iroquois league was such an important affair, and as it was so
thoroughly studied by Morgan, I will quote him further by giving his
statement of the main points in the organisation.
“I. The Confederacy was a union of Five Tribes (afterwards Six),
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 neutralise the other.
The two principal War-chiefs created were made equal in powers.”[385]
[Illustration: CHIMMESYAN HEAD-DRESS REPRESENTING THE WHITE OWL
It is made of maple; eyes, tongue, eye-ornament on wings, and
ornament at base of the wing-feathers inlaid in Haliotis shell.
Wings and eyebrows of owl, and eyebrows, eyes, and noses of the
surrounding men painted black; margin of beak and body of the owl
except talons and knees, mouths, arms, and legs of the surrounding
men and the broad band surrounding the owl’s body, painted red. 6¼
in. wide, 7½ in. high. In the American Museum
]
Such was the remarkable construction of the government of these Amerind
people of New York. In its conception, in its details, and in its
execution it was one of the most extraordinary primitive governments
ever recorded. From a comparatively weak people it placed the Iroquois,
though they were far inferior in numbers to surrounding tribes, in a
commanding position, and enabled them to extend their sway over a vast
territory. They made no attempt to hold the region that was subject to
their devastation, but probably, had not the European appeared on the
scene, they would have gradually expanded until their villages covered
many times the area which they specifically claimed when our people
first came. An increase of population which would have overtaxed the
game-supply would have pushed the development of their agriculture and
forced the confederacy to move along higher and broader lines. One
great drawback to Amerindian progress, internecine wars, was entirely
obliterated by the masterly organisation of the Iroquois league,
while at the same time they gained by their union a strength for
offence and defence that, together with their fertile and well-watered
domain, rendered their organisation impregnable. This and the Mexican
confederacy prove that the Amerind was capable of great things in
governmental organisation. It only remained for him to discover the
secrets of smelting and forging, and he was apparently on the brink of
these discoveries, to step into a foremost place of development and
progress. In some respects it is a pity the Europeans did not remain in
ignorance of this continent for another five hundred years.
[Illustration: WOODEN “SEAL” DISH, HAIDA]