CHAPTER VII.

SOCIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS--_conclusion_.

3.--/Family Life./--Relations of the two sexes before

marriage--_Marriage and family_--Theory of promiscuity--Group

marriage--Exogamy and endogamy--Matriarchate--Degrees of

relationship and filiation--Polyandry--Levirate--Polygamy and

monogamy--Patriarchate--Rape and purchase of the bride--Duration

of conjugal union--_Children_--Birth--Nurture--Name of the child

and of adults--Initiation, circumcision, etc.--_Old men and their

fate_--_Funereal rites_--Mourning.

4.--/Social Life./--(_a_) _Home life of a people_--_Economic

organisation_--The forms of property depend on production--Common

property and family property--Village community--Individual

property--_Social organisation_--Totemism--Clan rule--Family

rule--Territorial rule--Caste and class rule--Democratic

rule--Social morals--Right and justice--Taboo--Retaliation,

vendetta, and ordeals--Secret societies--Extra legal

judges--Formulæ of politeness--(_b_) _International life

of peoples_--Absence of sympathetic relations--Hostile

relations--_War_--Arms of offence--Bow and arrows--Arms of

defence--Neutral relations--_Commerce_--Money--Cowry--Transports

and means of communication--Primitive vehicles--Navigation.

The subjects about to be treated are so vast and complicated that it is

almost impossible to give an idea of them in a few words and without

going into details. So our account will of necessity be somewhat

dogmatic, and will only touch on some salient facts of family and

social life.

3.--FAMILY LIFE.

_The relations of the two sexes_ are somewhat free among uncivilised

and half-civilised peoples so long as there is no formal marriage

or birth of a child. In the whole of Oceania, Malaysia, among the

Samoyeds, Mongols, and certain Negroes, sexual intercourse between the

young people of both sexes is by no means prohibited.[261] Sometimes

even, as among the Bavenda for example, the young men and women give

themselves up to obscene “games.”[262] Uncivilised peoples among whom

the loss of virginity would be considered dishonouring to a girl are

somewhat rare (Nias islanders, Igorrotes, Malays of Menangkabau). Most

of them treat it with indifference, and among some of them defloration

is obligatory before marriage; it is effected artificially or naturally

by the parents (Bataks, Pelew islanders), by the matrons (Bissayas of

the Philippines), by the priests (Cambodia), and even, it is said, by

persons paid for this kind of work.[263] It would be possible to give

instances of many other customs which shock our ideas about chastity

and marriage. Thus in the Algerian Arab tribe of the Ouled-Naïl, no

young girl will find a husband if she has not previously acquired

a dowry by regular prostitution. On the other hand, it must not be

forgotten that the prostitution of girls before marriage was required

by certain cults of antiquity (cult of Aphrodite at Abydos, Ephesus,

etc., cult of Mylitta in Babylonia, etc.).

_Marriage and Family._--But marriage once contracted, the woman, among

almost all uncivilised and half-civilised peoples, is no longer free.

From this moment either the husband, the family on the mother’s or

father’s side, or the clan, see strictly to the observation of the

marriage rules which are in vogue, and the laws, written or unwritten,

punish every slip of the woman who was so free before marriage. It is

the contrary to what one often sees in our civilised societies. In

fine, _marriage_ is above all a social convention, and the form which

it takes in different ethnic groups is intimately connected with the

social and economic constitution of these groups. The position of

woman in society, ideas on conjugal obligations, etc., are entirely

subordinated to the ideas which prevail about property and the social

organism.

_Theory of Promiscuity._--We often hear it said that marriage has

sprung from a “state of promiscuity” in which mankind primitively

lived; every man could then couple with every woman, “like the

animals,” people sometimes add, forgetting that among animals the most

akin to man this state of promiscuity is rather exceptional, and that

the polygamous and even monogamous family exist among a great number of

birds and mammals.[264]

The theory of promiscuity or “communal marriage,” so well summed up

some time ago by Lubbock,[265] has few defenders at the present day.

We know that actually there does not exist on the earth any population

practising an “irregular promiscuity,” and the evidence of history is

reduced to three or four texts of Herodotus, Strabo, and Solinus, the

interpretation of which is far from easy.[266]

_Group Marriage._--What has been often taken for promiscuity is only

a form of marriage, different from our individual marriage, which,

nevertheless, represents the first attempt to regulate sexual relations

and to define ties of kinship in order to ensure the existence and

bringing up of children. This form of marriage, admirably studied by

Howitt and Fison[267] among the Australians, has received from them

the name of “group marriage.” Its essential feature is that men and

women, by the fact of belonging to such and such a group or clan are

not marriageable one with another, and are obliged by the fact of their

birth to contract unions with members of other groups of the tribe.

Marriage by groups is met with in its most pronounced form among

the Australians and some tribes of India (Nairs, Todas). Among the

Australians this custom co-exists with individual exogamous marriage

(the “Noa” of the Dieri of Central Australia), and exhibits itself in

its simplest form in the example of the Wotjoballuk Australians of

the north-west of Victoria. This tribe is divided into two classes

or clans, the Gamutch and the Krokitch. The men of the Gamutch clan

are by right the husbands of all the women of the Krokitch tribe, and

_vice-versâ_. But it is only a virtual right. In practice, during the

great festivals of _initiation_ (see p. 241), the old men of the tribe,

assembled in council, distribute among the bachelors of a clan the

unappropriated girls of the other clan. This marriage, called “Pirauru”

among the Dieri, and known under the name of “Paramour custom” by the

colonials, gives the right to the man of the Gamutch clan, for example,

to contract a marriage with the woman of the Krokitch clan thus

allotted to him when the occasion shall present itself; he may also

take with him one or more of these women and make her or them live with

his wife of the individual marriage. However, as the same woman may be

allotted in the successive festivals to several men, there are certain

rules of precedence to observe in the fulfilment of the conjugal

duties, if chance puts two men before their “common” wife: the elder

brother takes precedence of the younger, the man up in years of the

youth.[268]

_Exogamy and Endogamy._--Group marriage is closely connected with what

is called _exogamy_ or _exogeny_, that is to say, marriage outside

the clan, as opposed to _endogamy_ or _endogeny_, marriage within the

clan. It must be said, however, that exogamy is as often met in the

individual form of marriage, and that sometimes endogamy, interdicted

within the limits of a clan, is, on the contrary, practised within the

limits of the tribe of which these clans are the components. There is

in this case exogamy in relation to the clan and endogamy in relation

to the tribe.

_Matriarchate._--But how are matters of filiation and family to be

decided with such a system of marriage, for it is impossible to settle

the question of paternity in this case? To Bachofen and McLennan[269]

we must attribute the honour of having discovered a complete system

of filiation, in vogue among many uncivilised peoples, and the

exact opposite to that which we are accustomed to in our societies:

filiation by the mother, or _matriarchate_. Thus in our example of the

Australians of Wotjoballuk (p. 232), the posterity of a man of the

Gamutch clan married to a woman of the Krokitch clan will belong to the

Krokitch clan; if, on the contrary, the father is a Krokitch and the

mother a Gamutch, the children will belong to the Gamutch clan. This

filiation establishes the uterine relationship and, united to exogamy,

prevents marriage between nearest relatives. In fact, the son of the

first couple being of the Krokitch clan, will not be able to marry

his uterine sister, since she is of the same clan as he is, but only

an alien woman, or a relative, according to our conventions, of the

Gamutch clan, for example, the sister of his father. Theoretically, a

father of the Gamutch clan would be able to marry his daughter, since

she belongs to the Krokitch clan; but in practice these cases are

forbidden by custom, for example among the Australian Dieri,[270] or

they are avoided by the existence not of two, but of four or a greater

number of classes in the tribe, with prohibitions against the marriage

of people of certain of these classes.[271]

However, peoples who practise group marriage and exogamy have not to

regard incest very seriously, for _degrees of relationship_ are not

fixed with them as with us. To fix relationship, they make use of a

system called by Morgan, who discovered it (among the American Indians

first), and described it admirably,[272] the “_classificatory system_.”

In its simplest form, such as it is met with, for example, among the

Micronesians and the Maoris, it may be thus summed up. All persons

allied by consanguinity are divided into five groups. The first is

formed of _myself_ and my brothers, sisters, and cousins; we all bear

the same name, which is that of the whole group. The second group is

formed of my father and mother with their brothers and sisters, as

well as their cousins, all likewise bearing the same name; the third

group comprises my grandparents, with their brothers, sisters, etc.;

the fourth, the cousins of my children, whom I consider as my sons and

daughters; lastly, the fifth group is composed of the grandchildren

of my brothers and sisters, whom I consider as my grandchildren. A

similar system of nomenclature is very common among certain peoples of

India, and sometimes causes much embarrassment to English judges newly

landed. To give an example: A witness said that his father was at home

at such and such an hour; then, a few minutes after, he affirmed that

his father was in the fields. The judge is perplexed until, by a series

of questions, he elicits the fact that the witness means his “little”

father, equivalent to our term uncle.[273] Westermarck has tried to

interpret the classificatory system differently; he sees in it only

an artifice of speech, a way of addressing persons of different ages;

but as Fison judiciously observes, if it be held that this system has

no reference to degrees of relationship we should have to deny any

idea whatever of this subject to certain peoples who have no other

expressions to denote degrees of relationship.[274]

_Polyandry_, that is to say, marriage in which the woman possesses

several husbands, is considered by the majority of authors as a form

derived from group marriage. With the exception of two doubtful

examples (Khasias and Saporogian Cossacks), polyandry always assumes

the fraternal form; that is to say, the husbands of the woman are

brothers. The classic country of polyandry is Thibet. There each of

the brothers cohabits in turn with their common wife, a certain period

being allotted. Among the ancient Arabs, according to Strabo, matters

were arranged less systematically, and the first comer on his arrival

at the woman’s house asserted his marital rights, after having taken

care, however, to place his staff across the door, as is still done

in the case of temporary marriages in Persia and among the Todas,

who leave the cloak as well as the staff. Polyandry is practised by

several peoples living on the borders of Thibet (Miris, Dophlas,

Abors, Khasias, Ladakhis, etc.), but appears to be but rarely met

with elsewhere, and almost never outside of India. It is explained by

the scarcity of women in these countries (a statement not confirmed by

statistics in regard to certain of them), and by the necessities of the

pastoral life of these peoples.

_Levirate_, or compulsory marriage with a dead brother’s widow,

a very widespread custom in India (where it is called _niyoga_),

among the Iroquois and other American Indians, the Melanesians, the

Negroes, as well as the ancient Egyptians and Jews, is considered as

a survival of polyandry. However, Maine, Westermarck, and others see

in it only a custom established with a view to securing the protection

of orphan children.[275] With polyandry is also connected, on not

very good grounds it seems to me, _parental marriage_. In this form

of union the father or uncle or some other relative really cohabits

with the nominal wife of his son or nephew during the minority of the

latter. This custom, according to Shortt, prevails in India among the

Reddies or Naickers, and according to Haxthausen among the peasantry

in Russia, where a modification of this kind of relation, strongly

reprehended, however, is still known at the present day under the name

“Snokhachestvo.”[276]

_Polygamy and Monogamy._--Individual marriage, which may, as we have

seen in Australia, co-exist with group marriage, assumes two different

forms--_polygamy_ and _monogamy_. The latter does not necessarily

proceed from the former. Many savage tribes, like the Veddahs and the

Andamanese, are monogamous, as are also a certain number of mammals

and birds. Among others (Fuegians, Bushmen) polygamy is exceptional.

In reality it only takes root in societies a little more advanced, in

which, especially, the idea of individual property is already more or

less firmly planted. Woman is then considered very much as a slave,

from whom pleasure and labour may be obtained; she is treated like any

other property; the more wives a man has, the richer and more esteemed

is he. Polygamy is widely diffused over the world, either in its pure

form (Mahomedans, Australians, American Indians, Negroes, etc.) or in

its modified forms: lawful concubinage (all over the East), or unlawful

(Europe), and temporary marriage (Persia, Japan).

It is only with the development of society that _monogamy_, nominal or

real, develops, and with it a little respect for woman. She enjoys more

liberty, as do also the children who have passed a certain age. Thus is

constituted the family of to-day, in which, however, the patriarchal

spirit is still dominant.

_Patriarchate._--Individual polygamous marriage is most frequently

allied to a new form of affiliation, that of kinship through males,

which, in its turn, is rooted in the constitution of property and

the subordination of woman to man. In the matriarchate the natural

protector of the child and the family is the mother’s brother; in the

patriarchate his place is taken by the father, who extends the right

of property not only to include the mother, but also the children; he

may sell them, hire them out, etc. The patriarchate is the _régime_

under which live most half-civilised peoples and a great number of

uncivilised.

Several _matrimonial customs_ may be explained by the primitive forms

of marriage. Thus the practice of showing hospitality to a stranger

by lending him one’s wife, so common among savages and half-civilised

nomads, may be explained as a relic of group marriage, in which, as we

have seen, the exchange and the lending of women are practised.[277]

Similarly, the custom, very prevalent, especially in Malaysia, which

requires a husband to live in his wife’s family, is considered by most

authors as a relic of the matriarchate. Another custom, nearly always

allied to the first, but which is also met with as a survival in the

cases where the woman goes to live with her husband’s family, is that

prohibiting newly-married couples from speaking to their fathers and

mothers-in-law (_avoidance_). The best known form, widely diffused

from the Kafirs to the Mongols, is the forbidding of the husband not

only to speak to, but even to see his mother-in-law; if by chance he

should meet her, he is obliged to take to flight, or, at any rate, to

turn aside out of the way. Among several peoples of the Caucasus and

certain North American Indians this custom is observed only until the

birth of the first child. This custom, in a general way, is considered

as a relic either of exogamy (Tylor) or of anti-incest customs

(Westermarck).[278]

Among the most widely diffused practices having a connection with

marriage, we must mention the abduction of the wife, whether real

(Arabs, Turco-Mongols, Caribs, Patagonians, Burmese, Australians, etc.)

or simulated and symbolic, and often forming part of the marriage

ceremonies (among a host of peoples). Ethnologists are not agreed as to

the origin of this custom; some see in it the last vestiges of exogamy,

others the relic of the slavery of women, etc.

Side by side with simulated abduction there is almost always the

purchase of the wife from her parents (the “Kalym” of the Turco-Tatars,

etc.), which proves that marriage by purchase took the place of

marriage by capture in the exogamous relations between tribes, and

contributed to their social cohesion, preventing quarrels and wars

(Tylor). The _marriage portion_ is only found in societies having a

relatively high organisation. It is, as it were, a payment for the

guardianship which the husband assumes over the wife and her children

under the patriarchal system. The institution of the marriage portion

is probably derived from the practice still in vogue among many

peoples, according to which the parents offer presents in exchange for

the money or the service given as the purchase-price of their daughter.

_The duration of the conjugal union_ varies so much among different

peoples that no general rule can be laid down regarding it. From unions

of a night (under the _régime_ of group marriage, in temporary or

trial marriages) to the indissolubility prescribed by the Christian

religions, there is quite a scale of conjugal relations more or less

durable. Most frequently the husband may discard the wife when she has

ceased to please him; sometimes _divorce_ is hedged round with certain

formalities of established custom.

_Children._--In all societies, as in the animal world, the family is

principally established for the bringing up of _children_. But it is

far from true that the arrival of children is everywhere accepted

with joy. The voluntary limitation of progeny is not an invention of

advanced civilisation. Savages could teach us much on this point.

The Australians with this object practise ovariotomy on women, the

operation “mika” (artificial hypospadias) on men, or simply kill off

the superfluous infants. Infanticide on a large scale was practised by

the Polynesians before their “Europeanisation”; it exists still here

and there in Thibet, so far as girls are concerned. Some would even see

in this custom the origin of polyandry.

_Birth._--But having once decided to let a child live, the uncivilised

look well after it. One could write a volume, if one wished to

enumerate all the hygienic and at the same time superstitious customs

attendant on the pregnancy, parturition, and recovery of the woman

among different peoples. The act of generation is considered by nearly

all the uncivilised as something at once mysterious and impure. The

pregnant woman is kept quiet and rubbed; she has to occupy a hut apart

before, during, or after the birth of the child, according to the

custom of the different countries. Rarely is the woman allowed to be

confined alone; the examples quoted have reference for the most part

to isolated cases, such as may happen even among the civilised. She is

often assisted at the time of the confinement by one or more women, and

sometimes by men.[279]

Among the customs which accompany birth, the most curious is that of

the “couvade” practised by the Basques, the Indians of Brazil and

Guiana, and other peoples. According to this custom, the husband,

after the coming into the world of the child, behaves exactly as if

it were he who had been confined; he betakes himself to bed, receives

congratulations, sometimes looks after the baby. E. B. Tylor sees

in this custom a survival of the matriarchate in a society with a

patriarchal _régime_. It would be the ransom paid by the husband for

the right, which formerly belonged to the mother, to be called the head

of the house.[280]

As to the child, from the moment of his entrance into the world, every

effort is made to keep away from him the spirits which might harm

him; the Laotians, in the vicinity of the house which shelters him,

hang bells, rattles, and cloth-bands, so that, shaken by the wind,

they may make a noise and keep away evil spirits (Harmand, Neis). The

Malays and the Nias Islanders for this purpose prepare special fetiches

(Modigliani).

The _name_ which is given to a child is also the result of much care

and forethought. Fetichers, shamans, sorcerers, and priests are

consulted. The name chosen is sometimes determined by the locality

or house of the birth. Thus the Kalmuks who were exhibited at Paris

in 1882 gave the name of “Paris” to the child which one of their

number brought into the world. The Negroes of Senegal, under similar

circumstances in 1895, called one of their new-born “The Frenchman.”

But most frequently the name given is of a plant or animal (Red

Indians, Mongols, etc.). It must be said, however, that among many

peoples the name given at birth is not borne throughout life. It may

be changed more than once. The most frequent cause for doing this is

the fear of spirits; the Dyaks and the Mongols change the name of sick

persons to “deceive the spirit” who has caused the disease; among

the Fuegians, the Indians of North America, the Polynesians, and the

Malays, the name of a dead man is not allowed to be uttered, and all

his namesakes are obliged to change their name. Often, too, the name

is changed because their “trade” requires it; the Okanda healers bear

another name when they practise their art; and among civilised peoples

changes of name are bound up with certain social conditions (monks,

actors, prostitutes, etc.).

_Education of Children._--Suckling ordinarily lasts a very long time

among uncivilised peoples, till the child is two, three, four, and

five years old, sometimes even older.[281] Children are treated kindly

by uncivilised peoples, and rarely are they chastised as they are in

Europe, though a certain “discipline” appears among the half-civilised,

with the necessity of making the child learn many more things. At

the age of puberty, among most uncivilised peoples, the ceremony of

_initiation_ takes place. This is a sort of higher education with

certain tests, followed by a ceremony, after which the individual is

declared adult. It is met with among the Australians, as also among

the American Indians, Negroes, etc., with the same essential features.

The young men of the tribe are led into a place apart, where the

sorcerers, the fetichers, or the “old men,” teach them during a varying

period all that a “man” should know about social and sexual life. The

candidates are then put tests, sometimes very cruel, to make sure of

their power to resist thirst, hunger, and physical pain. Those who

emerge victorious from these tests are brought back triumphantly into

the villages, and feasted during several days.[282]

Among the operations to which young men are subjected during

initiation, we must specially notice _circumcision_, generally

practised all over Oceania, among the American Indians and other

peoples, without taking into account the Israelite and Mussulman world,

in which this custom has now but a religious symbolic signification.

Moreover, several religions have kept the custom of initiation, giving

to it very varied forms (shaving of the forelock among Buddhists, first

communion among Catholics, etc.).

_The lot of the old men_ is not an enviable one in primitive societies.

They are not cared for, and often when they become infirm they are

left to die of hunger. The voluntary suicide of the old men, which

is committed amid great pomp among the Chukchi[283] and some other

peoples, may be explained as much by the miseries of existence as by

the belief in a better life beyond the tomb, which is the basis of

_funereal rites_.[284] Among nearly all peoples it is customary to

put into the grave objects which the dead had used in their ordinary

occupations, but only such as constituted private property: weapons by

the side of a warrior, pottery near to a woman, etc.[285] These objects

are usually broken to signify that they also are dead, and that their

“soul” goes to accompany their owner into the other life. It is also

with this idea that a warrior’s favourite horse is sacrificed on his

grave (Red Indians, Altaians), or a symbolic ceremony suffices, the

animal being led in the funeral procession, a custom still practised

all over Europe at the interments of superior officers. In India women

are sacrificed, slaves in Dahomey and among the Dyaks, etc., in order

that the dead may not be deprived of anything in the other world.[286]

Funeral ceremonies and the practice of going into mourning give place

to feasts of diverse character. Among the Dualas of the Cameroons

(Western Africa), the “feast of the dead” lasts nine days, the time

required for his soul to make the journey to _Bela_, the place of

eternal rest. Among the Battas of Sumatra, we find these funeral feasts

accompanied by dances and a special kind of game, the _Topingha_. The

exhumation of the bones of the dead person at the end of a certain

time, practised by several Indonesian, Melanesian, and American tribes,

is the occasion of orgies; I may also mention the habit of visiting the

cemetery at stated periods, and taking food either on the grave or by

the side of it, which is very general in Europe.

Among the feasts organised in honour of the dead let us mention the

_Bung_ of the Japanese, at the end of which miniature skiffs in straw

are thrown into the sea, supposed to transport the souls of the dead

who have been present at the feast back to their dwelling-place.

_The modes of sepulture_, although very varied,--interment,

incineration, exposure to the air (natural mummification), embalming,

pure and simple abandonment on the earth or to the waves,--have not a

great importance from the ethnical point of view; often two or three

modes may co-exist among the same people (examples, Mongols, Papuans).

_Mourning._--Outward manifestations of grief caused by the death

of a near relative exist among all peoples of the world, even the

most uncivilised. These are, first, cries, lamentations, and tears

(Bushmen, Bechuana, ancient Egyptians, Caribs of Guiana, Italians,

Russians). Then succeed material signs displayed on the body, some of

which are the consequence of cruel practices which seem to suggest the

idea of sacrifice for the purpose of removing the anger of “the dead

man’s soul,” which wanders about the survivors. We need only mention

the cutting off of the finger-joints among the Bushmen, of the toes

among the Fijians, the drawing out of teeth in Eastern Polynesia,

the laceration of the skin among the Australians, the burnings among

the New Caledonians. Under a milder form the same idea of sacrifice

manifests itself in the custom of plucking out the hair of the beard

(Australians, Fijians), of cutting or shaving off a part or the whole

of the hair (Jews and Egyptians in ancient times, Huns, Albanians,

Hovas, Malays, American Indians, Basutos, Gallas). Certain signs

of mourning on the body seem to be caused by the desire not to be

recognised by the “spirit” of the dead person; such is the custom of

daubing the face or the whole body, practised by the Negroes of Central

Africa, the Australians, the Polynesians, etc. Among peoples who are

more clothed, the mode of dress is altered. General negligence in

dress is a sign of grief among the Bechuana and the Malays; tearing of

the garments is practised among the American Indians; the Manganya of

Southern Africa wrap the body in palm-leaves, which they wear until

they fall withered to the ground. The conventional colour of the

clothes, white among the Chinese, black among Europeans, is a sign of

the same kind.

4.--SOCIAL LIFE.

Social life may be studied both as limited to a given people (inner

life) and in the relations of one people with another (international

life).

_The inner life_ of a given ethnical group comprises economic or

property organisation, and social organisation properly so called

(administration and politics). Ideas of morals, right, and justice

depend much on the forms which these organisations have taken, as well

as on usages and customs; and the latter in their turn are derived

principally from family organisation and religious ideas.

_The international life_ of peoples manifests itself in three different

ways: either in hostile relations (war), in pacific neutral relations

(commerce), or in sympathetic relations (exchange of ideas and

feelings, feasts, congresses, etc.).

_Inner Life of a People--Economic Organisation._--_The system by

which property is held_ depends on the mode of production, for the

distribution and consumption of wealth are in intimate relation with

the mode of procuring it. Among savage hunters it is often necessary

for several to combine to catch big game; thus Australians hunt the

kangaroo in bands of several dozen individuals; the Eskimo gather quite

a flotilla of kayaks for whale-fishing. The captured kangaroos, the

whale brought to shore, are considered common property; each eats of

the spoil according to his hunger. The territory of each tribe among

the Australians and Red Indians is considered collective property;

every one hunts on it in his own way, on condition that he does not

encroach on the territory of neighbouring tribes. But in the midst of

this common property certain objects used solely by the individual, his

garments, his weapons, etc., are considered personal property, while

the tent with its furniture, etc., belongs to the family; as the canoe

which is used for whale fishing, holding five or six persons, belongs

to these persons in common.

Thus in the same society three sorts of property, collective, family,

and individual, may exist simultaneously side by side. What decides

its category is the character of the labour expended, the mode of

_production_. I have made a flint implement with my own hands, it is

mine; with the assistance of my wife and children I have built the

hut, it belongs to the family; I have hunted with the people of my

tribe, the beasts slain belong to us all in common. The animals which

I have killed by myself on the territory of the tribe are mine, and if

by chance the animal wounded by me escapes and is killed by another,

it belongs to both of us and the skin is his who gave the finishing

stroke. For this reason each arrow bears the mark of its owner.

It is thus that matters are arranged among the Tunguses and North

American Indians. Among the latter, rules have been strictly laid

down in regard to bison-hunting from the point of view of individual

property.[287]

But since the introduction of fire-arms, the balls bearing no

distinctive marks, the slain bisons are divided equally; they are

considered as common property. This example shows plainly how closely

are related production and the system by which property is held. Common

and private property do not lead among savages to monopoly, for the

products of the chase cannot be kept for long without getting spoilt;

so after having taken what he wants for himself, the hunter gives the

remainder to his relatives, his family, or the tribe. It is this which

partly explains the carelessness of savages and the absence among them

of the spirit of thrift and thought for the future.

_Family Property._--With the introduction of agriculture, most of the

objects of personal property become family property; the transformation

frequently coincides with the appearance of the patriarchal form of

family life; the land still remains for some time common property,

but soon it likewise becomes family property. The members of the same

family group enjoy in common the products of the soil, which common

labour has fertilised. This mode of property existed in Russia before

the sixteenth century, that is to say, before the establishment of

the communal ownership of the soil still in vogue to-day. It is found

in England from the thirteenth to the fourteenth century (Seebohm),

and in certain parts of France (in the Nivernais, according to the

statement of Guy Coquille) in the form of “porçonneries” having “pot

and fire” in common, working in the same fields and accumulating their

savings in the same box.[288] With the growth of population, this

family joint-ownership developed into an agricultural commune, the

true “village community” of English authors, with the alienation of

holdings and the admission of strangers into its midst, with periodic

distributions of the various strips of land. The best type of this kind

of community is the Russian “mir.” In India it is met with side by side

with the family commune among the Dravidian and Aryan peoples, and in

Western Europe numerous traces of it are found.[289] But these are only

traces and survivals, for communal property has been destroyed here as

in the Mussulman world, often by means of force, with the establishment

of the feudal system, which gave birth to the different modes of land

tenure which we find to-day. In Russia and in India the dissolution

of the communal system is still taking place under our eyes, but from

intrinsically different causes, especially the rapid increase of

population and diminution of the size of holdings.

_Social Organisation._--The constitution of society is modelled on

that of property. In the simplest cases the family organisation is

at the same time the social organisation. Under the _régime_ of

group marriage, and even after its partial replacement by individual

marriage, tribes are divided into a certain number of clans, each of

which, with the majority of peoples, has its _totem_. The totem is a

class of material objects (never an isolated object, thus differing

from the fetish) for which uncivilised man professes a superstitious

veneration, believing in a sort of mysterious connection between

himself and each representative of the class of objects. Most

frequently the totem is some species of animal or vegetable which

the members of the clan regard as their ancestor, and also as the

patron and protector of the whole clan. The Iroquoian legends relate

circumstantially how the tortoise, their totem and ancestor, got rid of

its shell and gradually developed into man. The totem is represented

on different objects belonging to the clan. Our blazons and armorial

bearings are derived from the totem, as well as marks of ownership.

The totemistic divisions are independent of the territorial divisions

of the tribe; the connection is, rather, a moral one. The inhabitants

of a territorial district may belong to several clans, and, on the

other hand, the members of one and the same “totem” may inhabit places

distant from each other.

Nearly always the totem is subject to taboo[290] (page 252). The

social organisation of _clans_ and “phratries” (groups of clans of

which the members are intermarriable) joined to totemism is widespread

among North American Indians, Australians, Melanesians of the Solomon

Islands, the Tshi-speaking tribes of the Gold Coast, etc. It exists

side by side with other social organisations among the Kirghis, the

Kevsurs of the Caucasus (Kovalewsky), the Mandingoes (Binger), etc.

Under this primitive _régime_ there are no permanent chiefs, but

intermittent councils, formed of the “old men” in each clan. If several

clans are united into a tribe, an elective chief sometimes appears, but

always invested with only a temporary and very limited power.

_Family Organisation._--With the change from the hunting to the

agricultural mode of life, with the establishment of affiliation by

blood and the patriarchal family, with the constitution of family

ownership, the social organisation is also transformed. All the members

of the family gathered under the same roof (often in the literal sense

of the word; for example, among the Indonesians and the Pueblo Indians)

constitute the social unit. Such is the origin of the commune in China

and Japan, of the “fine” in Ireland, etc. The chief of the race, the

living “ancestor,” becomes the chief of the society, and his power

tends to become hereditary.[291]

_Territorial Organisation._--When family ownership is replaced by

communal ownership, the social organisation takes the _territorial_

form. All the people inhabiting a given territory, whether related by

blood or not, form the social unit. The Russian “Volost,” the Annamese

commune, the Japanese “Mura,” the “Calpulli” of the ancient Toltecs,

are examples of this kind of grouping.[292] Sometimes these territorial

organisations form by themselves independent states, governed by an

elected chief, assisted by the delegates of each commune (Moqui in

North America, Krumen and Vakamba in Africa, Samoans in Oceania), or

controlled by popular assemblies (New Hebrideans, most of the peoples

of Western Africa and the Congo basin). Sometimes also they form part

of vaster confederations at the head of which is an elected chief, a

council, etc. (Rejangs of Sumatra with their “Pangherans,” or princes,

Afghans with their “Khans,” etc.).

_Organisation of Castes and Classes._--We may find already in the

territorial organisation of society the rudiments of the formation of

classes, shown by the development of private property and wealth, and

also by the authority of the chiefs and powerful persons who become

the “protectors” of the weak. This differentiation of classes is also

marked by the appearance of _slavery_, the result of wars and the right

of private property (enslavement for debt). It takes definite form in

the class organisation which presupposes the existence of two groups of

citizens at least--the lords and nobles, the aristocracy or directing

class, and the “people,” the plebeian or directed class. The relations

between these classes may extend from the complete servitude of the one

and the exercise of the right of life and death by the other, to an

almost absolute equality of the two.

There is similarly a perfect gradation for non-free people, as opposed

to citizens divided into two or more classes. At the foot of the

ladder are “slaves,” in the strict sense of the word, not regarded even

as men; while at the top are found those who by birth are not free, but

who by fortune or otherwise may come to occupy a position almost equal

to that of free citizens of the highest class.

What are the qualifications required in order to become _chief_ in

primitive social organisations? Most often, by election, those become

chief who are bravest in war, strongest, most skilful in the chase

(American Indians, Congolese), or the chiefs are the richest (Indians,

Polynesians, Negroes), or simply they are the biggest, the best fed

(Athapascans, according to Bancroft). But whatever may be the ground

on which they are chosen, the power of these chiefs is often most

precarious, and it may disappear with the cause of its origin (war,

hunting expedition). Chiefs elected for a stated period are invested

with more real power. Sometimes they are elected for life; this is a

step towards hereditary power which may degenerate into the purest

absolutism (ancient Dahomey). The outward ensigns of authority are

of various sorts: clubs and commander’s staffs (Oceania and Europe),

parasols (Asia, Africa),[293] etc. In the same way as the clan is

responsible for the misdeeds of each of its members, so the absolute

monarch, king, sultan, khan, prince, etc., is responsible for the

acts committed by his subjects. The corollary of the conception that

kings or other potentates represent the most skilful, influential, and

bravest men is that of forfeiture of power when the holder becomes aged

or infirm, or when he shows himself incapable of reigning (Quechuas,

Masai); in certain absolute States the right of revolt against an

incapable holder of royal power is expressly recognised (China), at

least in theory.[294]

_Feudal and Democratic Organisation._--It would be out of place here to

dwell on the development of the feudal system and the theocracy which

result from the _régime_ of classes. Let us merely say that almost all

half-civilised peoples are still in the midst of the feudal _régime_

or are just emerging from it. The recognition of individual liberty

forms the first step towards the organisations of modern European

states, constitutional monarchies or republics, in which the aim is to

reduce to a minimum governmental action and the differences of classes,

especially before the law,--to establish, in a word, a _democratic

régime_.

_Social morality_, or the basis of conduct imposed on the members of

society, is a convention recognised by the laws and by public opinion.

This is to say that it changes from one people to another, according

to the degree of culture, surrounding circumstances, etc. In the most

uncivilised tribes life has a relative security, owing to certain rules

of conduct to which each member submits from fear of punishment or the

disapprobation of public opinion. The right of the strongest is not

applied in all its brutal logic even among savages.

Their rules of morality are of course not always in accordance with

ours. Among the uncivilised, it is not a question of absolute right, of

absolute morality; everything is reduced to a very restricted altruism,

not extending beyond kin and immediate neighbours. It is wrong to kill

a man of one’s own clan, or to steal something from the collective

property of the clan; but it is, on the contrary, very praiseworthy

to strike down with a well-directed arrow a stranger to the clan, or

to carry off something from a neighbouring clan. Gradually the moral

sentiment extends to people of the same tribe, of the same class or

caste, of the same religion, but such extension is slow. Among the

civilised the moral code sometimes varies as it is applied on this or

that side of political or social boundaries.

Besides, in a general way, a number of acts regarded as culpable by the

codes of all civilised states, are yet tolerated, and even extolled,

in certain particular circumstances; such as the taking of life, for

example, in legitimate defence, in a duel, during war, or as capital

punishment. Thus in recalling examples of this kind, we shall be

less severe on a Dyak who cuts off a man’s head solely that he may

carry this trophy to his bride; for if he did otherwise he would be

repulsed by all, and would not be able to marry. Among the uncivilised,

morality is purely utilitarian; it encourages acts of utility to the

clan, to the tribe (hospitality, protection of children, respect for

common property, etc.), it reprobates those which are not advantageous

(support of the old people, compassion for slaves, etc.).

_Right and Justice._--At the origin of societies morals and the action

of justice are indistinguishable, public opinion constitutes “common

law,” often respected even by the legislations of the civilised. I

cannot undertake to speak here of morals based on religious ideas, nor

of ethnical jurisprudence.[295] Let it suffice to give some examples

of customs which bring into prominence some of the ideas of right and

justice of uncivilised peoples.

_Taboo_ is one of the customs which show in the clearest way the

power of public opinion in primitive societies. This custom, common

in Australia, Melanesia, and especially in Polynesia, may be briefly

defined as an interdiction, by the authority of the council of old

men, chiefs, priests, etc., to in any way use a certain object or

living thing. Thus, young Australians are forbidden to eat the flesh

of the emu before reaching the age when they undergo “initiation” (see

p. 241); taboo in this case has a utilitarian purpose, as also in

Polynesia, where chickens, bananas, and yams are tabooed when there

is a scarcity. Sometimes taboo is only to be observed by women or

children, etc. Whoever infringes this law runs the risk of punishment

by death.

Another example of judicial and social custom is the _vendetta_. At

the beginnings of socialisation, in groups organised in clans, every

offensive act had to be personally “avenged” by the victim. The

vengeance assumes then the form of a _judicial combat_ (prototype of

European _duel_). In the case of murder, it is the near relatives

who take upon themselves the duty of avenging it, but as the search

for the true culprit is sometimes difficult, the whole clan is held

responsible for the act committed by one of its members, and it becomes

lawful to kill any one belonging to this clan to avenge the murder.

The law of retaliation also implies that the misdeed should be avenged

in nearly the same form in which it was committed. Gradually, however,

vengeance passes into the hands of the representatives of society

(judges, magistrates), and the penal code is established.

_Ordeals_ represent one of the most widespread methods of judicial

procedure of non-civilised peoples. Most frequently the carrying out

of these trials is entrusted to magicians believed to have the faculty

of discovering the guilty person. Needless to say that the presents

offered by interested parties had a considerable influence on the

decision of these umpires.[296]

The _taking of an oath_ is the last remnant of this mode of procedure;

it is a moral test which, among many peoples, is associated with the

obligation of swallowing certain special beverages (the rust of a sword

in wine in Malaysia, blood among the Chinese, etc.).

_Secret Societies--Extra-legal Judges._--In every social organisation

which is imperfect or powerless to give satisfaction to the just

claims of its members, secret societies are formed which undertake the

redressing of wrongs and the re-establishment of justice. Such, for

example, are the societies of the “Duk-Duk” of New Britain, usually

formed of a confidant of the chief of the tribe, and of young men

who have entered the “club” on payment of a somewhat large sum. Each

Duk-Duk is on occasion a justiciary; clad in his particular dress and

wearing a horrible mask, he runs howling through the village, and all

those who are not in the secret run away terrified. He goes to the

hut of the native against whom a complaint had been lodged or who is

suspected of a crime, and inflicts punishment which may vary from a

simple fine to death. No one dare resist him, for sooner or later a

violent end would be the fate of him who had raised his hand against

the Duk-Duk. The members of this secret society, who recognise each

other by certain signs, meet together in places to which the profane

are forbidden to approach under pain of death. They give themselves

up in these places to songs, dances, and copious feasting, in which

human flesh often forms the chief dish. They are also sorcerers and

healers.[297]

Similar societies exist among the Yoruba Negroes of Guinea, and the

traces of like institutions are found in Europe, as, for example, the

famous “Oat-field procedure” (_Haberfeld treiben_), an ancient custom

which is kept up in the region of upper Bavaria situated between

the Inn and the Isar. It is a sort of trial by a secret tribunal of

misdemeanours which are not reached by the ordinary penal law. The

court of Munich had in 1896 to deal with one of these procedures, which

have now become very rare.[298]

_Rules of Politeness._--Departments of social life which depend on

mutual sympathy or the feeling of solidarity are not numerous. We

must include in this category associations formed for the chase or

for agricultural work like harvest, assistance in the reconstruction

of a house destroyed by fire, etc. This kind of labour in common is

chiefly known in societies in which the commune is the basis of social

life, among Southern Slavs and Russians. The custom of “exchanging

blood,” or drinking in the same cup, widely spread among these

Slavs, as among the Malays, the Indonesians, and the Negroes, is

also one of the expressions of sincere mutual sympathy, while _rules

of politeness_ are the manifestations, frequently hypocritical, of

feelings of sociability. They vary infinitely. Thus _salutations_

present a great diversity, but the origin of them all is the desire

to show inferiority to the person saluted, and to express sympathy and

devotion. The expression of inferiority is a posture which puts you

lower than the person saluted. This posture varies from prostration

to the ground (Negroes, Cambodians) to simple inclination of the head

(Europeans), passing through a series of intermediate forms: touching

the ground with the forehead (Chinese), simple genuflexion, and the

“curtsey” of our mothers. As to manifestations of sympathy, they are

almost always expressed by an embrace or kiss. In the case of the

most humble submission, the kiss is given to the soil trodden by

the feet of the person saluted, while in that of friendship between

equals it is bestowed on the cheek or lips; intermediate forms are

not wanting here either, and the various habits of kissing the foot,

the garments, the hand, etc., are universally known. To these two

principal manifestations of politeness several others may be added.

A person meeting a friend or even a casual acquaintance uncovers the

whole or a part of the body, the breast (certain Negroes), the arm or

head (Europeans); each rubs the other with oil or with earth, nose is

brought into contact with nose, and each “sniffs” the other’s health

(Lapps, Eskimo, Malays, Polynesians);[299] each shakes the other’s

hands, places the hand on the forehead (Hindus) or on the breast

(Mussulmans), or draws out the tongue while scratching at the same time

the ear (Thibetans, etc.).[300]

_International Life of Peoples._--The relations of ethnical groups one

with another may be of three sorts--hostile, neutral, or sympathetic.

The relations of the last category are only just indicated among

civilised peoples in the form of international festivals, exhibitions,

and congresses; international scientific, charitable, and professional

gatherings, etc. Inter-gatherings are non-existent, or reduced to a

few feasts and rejoicings among the uncivilised and half-civilised; on

the other hand, hostile relations (or war) exist among all peoples,

from the most savage to the most refined. Neutral relations (commerce)

are but little developed among the uncivilised, and only begin really

to assume any importance among the half-civilised; they attain a high

degree of development among the civilised.

_War_ is made on various pretexts among the uncivilised, who have

no special armies, each member having to fight in conjunction with

the other members of his clan, tribe, or people, as the case may be,

either to procure for himself provisions, slaves, wives, or cattle,

or to avenge defeat, murder, or robbery on the individuals of a

“foreign,” and consequently hostile (_Hostis_ of the Romans) clan,

tribe, or people. The conflicts are not very deadly at this stage of

civilisation; frequently the hostilities are reduced to mutual insults,

to manœuvres in which efforts are made to frighten the enemy by

cries, by warlike dances, by disguises and masks of horrible aspect.

Sometimes also the fate of the battle is decided by single combat

between two chiefs or two braves selected from each of the adverse

camps. Ambushes, traps, and surprises are more common than pitched

battles.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 73.--Chipped flint dagger of the Californian

Indians, with otter-skin wrapping for grip.

(_From O. Mason._)]

On the whole, war in primitive societies is only a species of

_man-hunt_. Thus the offensive weapons are nearly always the same for

hunting and war. It is only among the half-civilised that, with more or

less permanent armies, weapons specially designed for war make their

appearance, as well as works of a defensive character--fortresses,

palisades, protective moats, and caltrops.

I can give here but a very brief description of offensive and defensive

weapons.[301]

_Offensive weapons_ may be divided into two categories--weapons held

firmly in the hand and missile weapons; each of these categories

comprises striking, cutting, and piercing weapons.

Among the _weapons held firmly in the hand_, the _striking_ or _blunt_

ones play an important part among the uncivilised, for these are

derived directly from the staff, pre-eminently the weapon of primitive

peoples. The most common is the _club_, only just distinguished from a

staff by its terminal swelling in Australia; it takes the most varied

forms in Oceania, where almost every island or group of islands has its

particular forms of club. The sharp-ended clubs of the New Hebrides

are the connecting-link with _pointed weapons_, of which the spear,

the lance, the assagai, the fork, are the best known forms. The point

of these weapons is sometimes of flint (as among Melanesians of the

Admiralty Islands), sometimes of bone, wood, shark’s teeth (natives of

the Gilbert or Kingsmill Islands), sometimes of bronze (prehistoric

Europe, China), of iron (Negroes), steel (Europeans). _Cutting

weapons_, with the exception of the axe, the form of which varies

infinitely (Figs. 66, 74, 114, 158), are generally piercing weapons

as well. The simplest is the knife, whether it be of flint (Fig. 56),

bronze, or iron (Fig. 146); from it is derived the sabre; and the flint

poignard or dagger, which gradually became transformed into the steel

sword.[302]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 74.--Axe of the Banyai (Matabeleland), employed

in hunting elephants; special hafting, partly by means of bands.

(_After Wood._)]

_Missile Weapons._--The readiest missile weapon to throw at the quarry

or the enemy is the weapon carried in the hand; this is what must have

happened many times to primitive man in the excitement of the combat or

chase.

But to throw a staff, a stone, or any weapon whatever so adroitly as

to wound an animal or a man was a difficult thing to do. It became

necessary to increase the force of the propulsion, which could be done

only in two ways: either by giving a special form to the projectile, or

by discharging it by means of a special apparatus constructed for the

purpose.

The first of these methods did not produce very brilliant results.

The Zandeh peoples and their congeners of Central Africa considerably

modified the knife to make use of it as a weapon to throw with the

hand (_trumbache_); the Franks had the missile battle-axe called

“francisque,” and the Romans javelins of all sorts. But the use of

these weapons was very restricted in all times. Clubs are still used

as missile-weapons either by reducing their size (the kerri-kerri of

the Bantu Negroes) or by changing their form (the boomerang of the

Australians). The boomerang (Fig. 75) is a wooden blade, the form of

which varies from a very gentle curve to that of a square; its surface

is always slightly curved. Thrown into the air, certain kinds of

boomerang have a secondary movement of gyration and return to the foot

of the thrower, as a hoop returns to the child when he throws it before

him, having given it first a rotatory motion. Similar weapons (_singa_)

exist among the Khonds of Orissa (India); they existed also in ancient

Egypt, and have served perhaps as models for the “trumbaches” of the

Zandeh of the present day. Let us add to the boomerang the “bolas”

of the Patagonians (which must not be confounded with the _lasso_)

and the balls of bone united by little cords which the Eskimo use for

killing birds, and we shall have exhausted the list of weapons thrown

directly by the hand, which, moreover, are not very effective. The true

improvements in missile-weapons have only been attained by the second

solution of the problem--that is to say, by increasing the power of

propulsion by means of special apparatus.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 75.--Missile arms of the Australians: _a_, _b_,

boomerangs; _c_, transverse section of a boomerang; _f_, _Lil-lil_, a

kind of boomerang, with geographical map representing the environs of

Broken River; _d_, the same seen sideways.

(_After Br. Smyth._)]

The contrivances for hurling missiles may be divided into three

categories, according to the three forces which set them in motion:

direct application of the muscular force of man, elasticity of certain

solid bodies, and lastly, the pressure of gases. Of the first of these

forces but little use is made. The _amentum_ of classic antiquity had

only a restricted use. The throwing-stick,[303] or stick provided with

a notch which serves to increase the force of the impulse given by

the arm to a javelin, is only used in some very circumscribed regions

of the globe, especially on the borders of the Pacific Ocean, in

Australia, where it bears the name of _Woomera_, in Melanesia (Fig.

76), in the north-west of America, among the Eskimo and Chukchis.

It was also known in pre-Columban times in Mexico and Peru, whence,

perhaps, it passed into Brazil. Another similar weapon, _the sling_,

in former times much used by Semitic peoples, and still surviving as

a common toy of our children, is scarcely used as a weapon of any

importance, except by some Polynesian or American tribes (Hupa Indians,

Araucans, Fuegians).

Missile weapons which make use of the pressure of gases are very little

known among uncivilised peoples. We can only mention the blow-tube,

the _Sarbacan_, or more correctly speaking the _Zarabatana_, of the

South American Indians, and its homologue the _Sumpitan_ of the Malays,

in common use among the Indonesians of the Asiatic Archipelago and

Indo-China.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 76.--Throwing-stick of the Papuans of German New

Guinea, and the manner of using it in order to hurl a javelin; below,

longitudinal section of a throwing-stick.

(_Partly after Von Luschan._)]

This weapon is known in Europe from the circumstance of a child’s

toy bearing the first of these names. It is a long tube from which

a little arrow is expelled by the breath, resembling in size and

appearance a knitting-needle, and provided at its unpointed end with a

ball of elderpith or tow, which serves as wadding. The range of this

arm is from 75 to 100 feet. The sumpitan may be considered as a weapon

indirectly set in motion by muscular force, for the arrow is expelled

from it as the result of contractions of the thoracic muscles, but

it is better to regard it as the prototype of the fire-arm, as the

arrow may be discharged by utilising the expansion of gas, and thus

transformed into a fire-arm. As to true fire-arms, known to the Chinese

and peoples of antiquity, they have only made real headway in Europe,

and that from the fifteenth century.

But if the missile weapons in the two categories which I have just

enumerated are little known to uncivilised peoples (setting aside,

of course, the fire-arms imported by civilised man), those of the

third category, in which advantage is taken of the muscular force of

an elastic body (the bow), is universally employed by them, as it

was formerly in Europe. The most perfected arm of this kind was the

complicated cross-bow of our ancestors and the Chinese.

_The Bow and Arrow._[304]--The origin of the bow is unknown; certain

authors consider that a flexible twig arranged as a snare would

give the first idea of it. This may be so, for among the Maoris of

New Zealand there used to be a hand-weapon which bore a striking

resemblance to this snare: a whip with a flexible handle, by means

of which an arrow held in the hand was shot off.[305] Among several

Eurasian peoples there is a toy which reproduces this weapon as a

survival; among the Votiaks it even bears the name of _n’el_, which

means arrow in several Finnish languages.[306] However that may be, we

may divide the infinite variety of bows into two groups: the _plain_

bow--that is to say, the bow formed of a single piece of wood, and the

_composite_ bow, made of various materials--wood, horn, ivory, sinews,

leather, etc., glued solidly together.

The least complicated type of the composite bow is that of the eastern

Eskimo, of wood and horn, or of wood and bone, the weapon being

strengthened by a cord of sinews applied along the “back” or the _outer

side_ (opposed to the “belly,” _inner side_, which is nearest the

archer when he bends the bow).[307]

Among simple bows we must mention that of the Melanesians, having a

groove sometimes on the outer, sometimes on the inner side; that of the

Monbuttus, provided with a “grip”; lastly, that of the Andamanese, in

the form of an #S#, resembling in its general appearance on the

one hand certain bows of the Eskimo, and on the other, those of certain

Bantu Negroes of Eastern Africa (according to Foa).[308]

Arrows cut wholly from one piece of wood are rare. Most of them are

composed of three distinct parts fitted together: head, shaft, and

feather. The head is of hard wood (sometimes hardened in the fire) or

of human bone among the Melanesians; of chipped stone among certain

American Indians and our quaternary ancestors; of bone, wood, and

iron among various Siberian peoples; of iron among most of the other

peoples. The form of the head varies infinitely; but the varieties

turn around two types: sagittal (as a classic or conventional arrow)

and lanceolate (as a laurel leaf). There are likewise arrow-heads with

transverse or hollowed edges in the form of the fruit of the maple

(Turks and Tunguses of Siberia, Negroes of the Congo). Lastly, there

are arrows of which the head has nothing pointed about it, for it is

shaped like a ball, an olive or cone upside down, etc. These arrows are

used by several Siberian peoples (Ostiaks, Tunguses), by Negroes of the

Congo, Indians of Western Brazil, etc., as a blunt weapon for killing

animals whose fur, being valuable, might be spoilt by the blood flowing

from a wound. The Buriats of old used whistling arrows, probably to

frighten their enemies, etc. The feather is wanting in several forms

of Melanesian arrows very complicated as regards the head, in certain

African arrows, etc. Among the Monbuttus it consists of the hair of

animals; everywhere else, however, of birds’ feathers.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 77.--Different methods of arrow release. Top,

primitive release. Middle, Mongolian release. Bottom, Mediterranean

release.

(_After E. Morse._)]

The mode of shooting the arrow and bending the bow vary too with

different countries. The Veddahs draw the cord lying on the back,

holding the bow between the feet; the Andamanese and the Eskimo hold

the bow vertically, the Omahas and the Siouans, horizontally, etc. To

bend the immense Mongolian or Scythian bow it was necessary to hold

it by the knees, etc. Morse[309] distinguishes five special methods

of releasing the arrow. The most primitive (_primary release_) is

that which is naturally adopted by children of every race when they

attempt for the first time to draw the bow (Fig. 77, top): the arrow

and the cord are held between the stretched-out thumb and the second

joint of the bent forefinger (Ainus, Chippewas, Assyrians, etc.). The

second method is only a variant of the first, and is widespread like

the first, especially among the North American Indians. Both give but

a moderate propelling power to the arrow. The third method consists

in holding the arrow between the thumb and the second joint of the

scarcely bent forefinger, whilst the first joint of this finger draws

the string, with the help of the third finger. In this method of

release it is necessary to hold the bow horizontally (Omahas, Siamese,

the natives of the greater Andaman Island, the Egyptians and the Greeks

of antiquity). The fourth, so-called Mediterranean, method (Fig. 77,

bottom) consists in drawing the string by the first joints of all the

fingers except the thumb and the little finger, the arrow being nipped

between the fore and middle fingers and placed on the left of the bow;

this is the method practised by European archers of all ages, as well

as that of the Hindus, Arabs, Eskimo, and Veddahs. Lastly, the fifth

method, known as the Mongolian method (Fig. 77, middle), is quite

different from the others. The string in this case is drawn by the bent

thumb, kept in this position by the forefinger; the arrow, taken in the

hollow at the base of these two fingers, is placed on the right of the

bow. This method has been practised from the most remote antiquity by

Asiatic peoples: Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Persians,

and was likewise practised by the ancient Scythians; in order that the

hand may be protected from the recoil of the string, it is necessary to

wear a special kind of ring, either of bone, horn, ivory, or metal, on

the thumb, or a peculiar three-fingered glove.

_Defensive Weapons._--Originally, in their simplest forms, they would

not differ appreciably from offensive weapons such as tree-branches, or

clubs, perhaps a little broader and flatter than those used for attack.

The inhabitants of Drummond Island (Gilbert or Kingsmill archipelago,

Micronesia), as well as the natives of the Samoan Islands, can ward

off hostile arrows in a marvellous way with only cudgels and clubs;

several other peoples (Hawaiians, Tahitians) are acquainted neither

with buckler nor cuirasse, and defend themselves with clubs, their

native weapons. The Dinkas of the upper White Nile, the Mundas, their

neighbours on the south, as well as the Baghirmis of the Central Sudan,

can turn aside the arrows of their enemies by means of sticks, either

straight or bent like a bow, and somewhat thicker in the middle.

The different forms of shield are only derivatives from the primitive

weapon, the club. The evolution must have been effected in various

ways, according to local conditions. We may, however, distinguish two

principal lines, two types, of evolution to which all the others can

be referred. The first is only the development in breadth and the

flattening out of the club; this is the origin of most of the long

shields. The second is characterised by the presence of a piece of

wood, skin, etc., applied to the club around the place where it is held

by the hand; this hand-guard was the origin of the round shields and

some of the long ones.

The most striking example of the first type is furnished by the

shields of the Australians. Certain of them (the _Tamarangs_) are only

clubs a little flattened out and enlarged in the middle; others (the

_Mulabakas_) are very narrow little boards rounded towards both ends

with a hilt formed by the slit made in the hinder side, which is a

little bulging or ridge-like (Fig. 78); others take the form of boards

somewhat broad, oval, and sometimes ridge-like. Shields of a similar

kind, with the ridge a little enlarged at both ends, are used by the

Alfurus of the Southern Moluccas (Fig. 79, _b_). The characteristic

shield of the Dyaks and other Indonesians (including those of lower

Burma, see Frontispiece) is also derived from a type analogous to the

_Mulabaka_. It is a ridge-like wooden board, sometimes adorned with

human hair (Fig. 79, _f_).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 78.--Australian shield in wood; three sides

shown.]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 79.--Indonesian shields--_b_, of the Alfurus of

the Moluccas (wood and inlayings); _f_, of the Dyaks (painted wood,

tufts of human hair).]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 80.--Shield of Zulu-Kafirs, in ox skin, with

medial club.]

The second mode of development of the shield is marked by the placing

on the club some sort of wooden, metal, or skin guard. The clubs or

primitive shields of the Monudus are surrounded in the middle by a

band of buffalo skin, under which the hand is passed to hold them. Let

us suppose that some day this annular band, becoming half-detached,

formed in front of the hand a bulwark, the somewhat large surface of

which protected it more effectually than the primitive ring, and we

understand the origin of shields formed of bits of animal skin fixed

on a club, at first very small, like those of the Hottentots, then

becoming enormous, like those of the Zulus (Fig. 80). Similar, but

quadrangular bucklers are found among the Shulis of the upper White

Nile, the Fans of the Ogowé, etc. Among other equestrian and nomadic

peoples the frequent changes of place that were rendered necessary

decided the rounded, lighter form of the leather shield, the club of

which has disappeared, the hand-grip being made of a thong. Such are

the shields of the Bejas, the Abyssinians, the Somalis, and also those

of the North American Indians.

In countries where cattle are scarce, shields similar to those of the

Zulus are made with rattan twigs or reeds, or palm-leaves artistically

plaited; such are the large shields of the Niam-Niams, of certain Dyak

and Naga tribes (Frontispiece), etc. These shields are not very strong,

but there is this to be said for them, that the arrows striking them

instead of rebounding, pierce them, and remain fixed, to the benefit of

the owner of the defensive weapon.

The space which we have given to the description of shields hardly

permits us to dwell longer on _protective armour_, breast-plates, coats

of mail, helmets, vantbraces, greaves,[310] etc. It may, however, be

said that there exist peculiar kinds of armour among certain peoples

and in certain regions of the world: the dress of the natives of the

Kingsmill Islands, woven from cocoa-nut fibres, which affords an

admirable protection against their wood-handled weapons with sharks’

teeth fixed in their edges; breast-plates of buffalo skin, in use

among the Indians of America; the padded breast-plates of the Baghirmi

warriors and Chinese soldiers, ancient Japanese and ancient Mexicans.

Among the latter, armour consisting of little boards of lacquered wood

was further affixed to the breast-plate, similar kinds being found all

around the shores of the North Pacific, among the Eskimo, the Chukchi,

the Koriaks (little ivory or bone plates), and among the Tlinkit

Indians of the north-west of America (wooden plates sewn on stuffs),

etc.[311]

But it would require a volume to describe all the inventions which

have resulted from the hostile relations of peoples. Let us pass on

to a more peaceful subject, to _neutral relations_, which are more

profitable to men.

_Commerce_ is almost unknown among uncivilised hunters. It could only

develop in societies already numerous, inhabiting various territories,

their products differing to such an extent that they might be exchanged

with advantage. The progress of industry, with the division of labour

and the specialisation which it involves, also had something to do with

it. Thus, in Guiana, each tribe has its special industry and visits

even a hostile tribe to effect exchanges.[312] This is the primitive

form of commerce, originating probably in the custom of exchanging

presents.

Primitive commerce is not infrequently conducted in such a way that

the treating parties do not see each other. According to Humboldt,

at the beginning of this century the modern Mexicans traded with

savage tribes, wandering on their northern frontier, in this way.

The barterers did not see each other; the goods were fastened to

posts devoted to this use and then left. The purchaser came for them,

replacing them by objects having an equal value. It is thus that the

Sakai still traffic with the Malays, the Veddahs with the Singhalese.

The Veddahs even order things in this silent way; they deposit, for

example, side by side with the goods which they offer, cut leaves

representing the form of the spear-head which they desire to acquire

from the Singhalese blacksmiths.

Commerce, indispensable to societies at all complex, developed

everywhere as soon as man emerged from savagery, and it has been a

powerful agent in the diffusion of ideas, and often even an agent of

civilisation. It has profoundly modified societies in which it has

developed, opening out before them new horizons and making them learn

foreign tongues and the manners of other societies.

It was a step towards broader solidarity, but at the same time

it opened the door to the spirit of lucre, to monopoly of wealth,

to mercantile egoism, to greed of gain. This explains why in most

primitive societies merchants were but little esteemed.[313]

_Money._--In the primitive forms of commerce exchanges were made

directly; object was bartered for object, as we see it still done

to-day sporadically in many countries. But soon the need for values

was felt--standards which would render exchanges more rapid, easy, and

equitable. For this purpose objects coveted by the greatest number of

persons were chosen. These objects were either ornaments (on which

primitive commerce especially depends) or things which everybody

wanted. It is thus that jewels, objects of adornment (feathers, pearls,

shells, etc.), stuffs, furs (Siberian peoples, Alaska), salt (Laos),

cattle (Africa, “Pecunia” of the Romans), slaves (Africa, New Guinea),

became the first current money of primitive commerce. Later, certain

objects were chosen which by their rarity are of great value. It is

thus that the Pelew islanders treasure up as current money (Andou)

a certain number of obsidian or porcelain beads (Fig. 81, 1 and 8)

and terra-cotta prisms, imported no one knows when and how into the

country, which have a very great value; a certain tribe possesses _one_

single clay prism (called _Baran_) and regards it as a public treasure,

etc. In the island of Yap, in the neighbourhood of the Pelews, the

place of money is taken by blocks of aragonite, a rock which, being

unknown on the island, has to be sought for in the Pelews. The greater

the block the greater its value. Fifty pound bank-notes are replaced

here by enormous mill-stones, so heavy that two men can hardly carry

them; they serve rather to flatter the vanity of the rich people of

the country, who exhibit them before their huts, than to facilitate

exchanges.[314] It is clear from this example that the rarity of a

substance is not sufficient to make it into good money. The second

condition is that it may be easily handled, and though small in bulk,

may represent a high value, either real or fiduciary. Such are the

teeth of the Wapiti deer (_Cervus canadensis_), which the Shoshone

Indians and the Bannocks of Idaho and Montana[315] still make use of

in their transactions. Such, again, is the skin-money of the ancient

Carthaginians and Scandinavians,[316] the cocoa-seed money of the

ancient Mexicans, the use of which is kept up to the present day; the

animal skull-money of the Mishmee, etc.[317]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 81.--Money of uncivilised peoples: 1, 8, pearls

(Pelew Islands); 2, iron plates (Ubangi); 3, rings of copper (Central

Africa); 4, 5, cowries; 6, string of cowries; 7, “wampum” (N. Am.

Indians); 9, money pick-axe (Negroes of the Upper Nile). Figs. 1, 4, 5,

and 8 are two-thirds, the others one-eighth of actual size.]

Let us give a glance at eatables employed as money: rice-grains by

the ancient Coreans and the modern natives of the Philippines; grains

of salt in Abyssinia and at Laos; “cakes of tea,” which serve as the

monetary unit in Mongolia. Let us also make but a passing reference

to the pieces of stuff of a fixed length, which have a current value

in China, Thibet, Mongolia, Africa, etc., and come to the subject of

shells. Several species are employed as money: the _Dentalum entalis_

by the Indians of the north-west of America, the _Venus mercenaria_,

transformed into beads (wampum) by the Indians of the Atlantic coast of

the United States (Fig. 81, 7), etc. But of all shells, the cowry is

the best known. Two species are specially utilised as money, _Monetaria

(cyprea) moneta_, _L._ (Fig. 81, 4, 5, 6), and _Monetaria annulus_,

_L._ The first-mentioned seems to be most commonly used in Asia, the

second in Africa.[318] Both are known all over the Indian Ocean, but

they are gathered in great quantities only at two points, the Maldive

Islands (to the west of Ceylon) and the Sooloo Islands (between the

Philippines and Borneo). On the Asiatic continent the use of them was

widespread, especially in Siam and in Laos. Twenty years ago 100 to 150

of these shells were worth a halfpenny. In Bengal, in the middle of

last century, 2,400 to 2,560 cowries were worth a rupee, 100 a penny.

The true zone in which the cowry circulates is, however, tropical

Africa; the fact is explained by its rarity, for the shell not being

known in the Atlantic, it is only by commercial relations that it

could have been propagated from east to west across the continent,

from Zanzibar to the Senegal, and these commercial relations must

have existed for a long period, for Cadamosto and other Portuguese

travellers of the fifteenth century mention the use of the cowry

as money among the “Moors” of the Senegal. The rate of exchange of

the cowry is much higher in Africa than in Asia, which shows that

this shell is an imported object. It was probably by the Arabs that

the cowry was introduced to the east coast of Africa. Later on the

Europeans also got hold of this trade.[319]

The cowry is still current to-day along all the west coast of Africa

as far as the Cuanza River in Angola; farther south, as far as

Walfisch Bay, another kind of “shell-money” is found, chaplets formed

of fragments of a great land shell, the _Achatina monetaria_, strung

on cord; they are principally made in the interior of the country of

Benguela, in the district of “Selles,” and are despatched along the

whole coast, and as far as London. These chaplets, about eighteen

inches long, were worth fifteen years ago from fivepence to one

shilling and threepence.[320]

But it is to metals especially that we may trace the origin of true

money. Iron or bronze plates of fixed size or weight served as money in

Assyria, among the Mycenians, and the inhabitants of Great Britain at

the time of Julius Cæsar. Metal plates of varying form are in general

use in Africa as money, as for example the “loggos” of the Bongos and

other negroes of the Upper Nile (Fig. 81, 9), the spear-heads of the

Jurs, the iron plates of the peoples of the basin of the Ubangi (Fig.

81, 2), the X-shaped bronze objects made in Lunda, which are current

all over the Congo. Thirty years ago, in Cambodia, iron money, in the

form of thin rings, from five and a half to six inches long, and

weighing about seven ounces, was used.

A general fact to be noted in regard to primitive money is that it may

be transformed without much trouble into an object of use (lance-iron,

shovel, hoe, arrow-head, sword). In China the first bronze money had

the form of a knife, the handle of which terminated in a ring; in time

the blade became shorter and shorter, and at last disappeared, leaving

only the ring, which was transformed into that Chinese money, pierced

with a square hole, called “sapec,” or “cash.” Brass or copper wire,

of which pieces are cut up (Fig. 81, 3), represents money in Central

Africa. Silver bars, pieces of which are cut according to need, are

also current money in China, as they were in Russia in the fifteenth

century, as well as skins.

The question of _transport_ and _means of communication_ is closely

allied to that of commerce. There is little to say about trade-routes,

which most frequently are tracks made by chance in savage countries,

and sometimes horrible neck-breaking roads in half-civilised countries.

The means of transport are very varied, and may furnish matter for an

interesting monograph, as O. Mason has shown.[321] The simplest mode of

transport is that on men’s backs, with or without the aid of special

apparatus, like the _ski_ and snow-shoes in cold countries (Figs. 115

and 116). To be noted apart are the attachments for climbing trees,

used from Spain to New Caledonia, passing through Africa and India

(Fig. 82). We come next to the utilisation of animals, the ass, horse,

mule, camel, ox, zebra, dog, etc., which at first carried the loads on

their backs, and were afterwards employed as draught animals.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 82.--Method of tree-climbing in India.

(_After B. Hurst._)]

_Primitive Vehicles._--Most uncivilised peoples are unacquainted with

any form of vehicle. This is so among the Australians, Melanesians, and

most of the natives of Africa and America. But there are also a number

of populations pretty well advanced in civilisation whom their special

circumstances do not permit the use of chariots or other vehicles on

wheels; such are the Eskimo and other Hyperboreans, the Polynesians,

etc. The sledges of the former, the canoes of the latter, fitly take

the place of the carriage. Nomadic peoples have a kind of aversion to

every sort of vehicle; they prefer to carry things on the backs of

camel, ass, or horse. The earliest vehicle must have been something

of the same description as that seen among the Prairie Indians of the

present day--two tree branches attached to the sides of a horse, that

is to say, inclined shafts, the ends of which drag on the ground; on

them is laden the luggage, which is used by these Indians as a seat.

Let us suppose that one day this primitive vehicle happens to break,

but incompletely, so that one portion of the branch drags horizontally

on the ground, and we shall understand the advantage which men must

have taken of this mishap. He must have understood at once that

traction is made easier by joining at an obtuse angle one pair of

horizontal branches to another serving as shafts. From this point to

placing pieces of wood transversely on horizontal branches there is

only a step, and the sledge, as we see it still among the Finns and

Russian peasants, was invented. Primitive as is this vehicle, it is

admirably adapted to primitive roads, and still remains to-day the sole

means of locomotion, winter as well as summer, in the forest regions

of northern Russia, where no wheeled carriage would be able to pass,

the pathways being scarcely visible across the dense virgin forest,

when the ground is covered with a thick bed of moss and grass. It is

only later, and in less wooded countries, that man thought of putting

rollers under the horizontal branches of the sledge, contrivances which

afterwards became transformed into true wheels. If this genesis of the

vehicle be accepted, the appearance of sledges in funeral rites, even

at the time when wheeled carriages were already invented, is explained

quite simply as the survival of a custom the more venerated the greater

its antiquity.[322]

The two-wheeled chariot was known in Asia from the most remote

antiquity; it was used either in war (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians)

or for purposes of transport. Even at the present day in India,

Ceylon, Indo-China, the light waggon drawn by zebras or asses is much

more common than the four-wheeled cart drawn by buffaloes. In the far

East, where man is employed for draught purposes, the wheel-barrow

takes the place of the car, and the Japanese _jinrickshaw_, as well

as the Indo-Chinese _pousse-pousse_, are only adaptations of modern

carriages to this mode of transport by men. It is only to the north

of the Yang-tse-Kiang that one comes across Chinese cars with two

cogged wheels, and heavy waggons, a sort of tumbrel without springs,

with massive and sometimes solid wheels, drawn by buffaloes. It

is perhaps such vehicles that served as the type for the Russian

_tarantass_, a box fixed on long parallel shafts which rest on the

axles. It was likewise from Asia that the Greeks and Romans, and

perhaps the Egyptians, brought back the models of their elegant and

light war-chariots. As to four-wheeled waggons, the populations of

Europe must have known them at least from the bronze age, to judge

from the remains found in the lake-dwellings of Italy and the tombs of

Scandinavia. The waggons of the ancient Germanic peoples, also employed

in war, resembled those which are still met with at the present day

among the peasants of central and western Europe. The same kind of

conveyances have been transported by the Dutch Boers as far as South

Africa, and by the colonists of the Latin race even into the solitudes

of the Pampas.

_Navigation._--Transport by water has undergone more important

transformations than vehicular transport. From the air-filled leather

bottle, on which, after the manner of the ancient Assyrians, rivers

are still crossed in Turkestan and Persia,[323] to elegant sailing

yachts; from the primitive reed rafts of the Egyptians and the natives

of lake Lob-Nor (Chinese Turkestan) to the great ocean liners, there

are numberless intermediate forms. Australian canoes made from a

hollowed-out tree-trunk, Fuegian canoes made of pieces of bark joined

together by cords of seal’s sinews, the effective Eskimo “kayaks”

made with seal skins, the elegant skiffs of the Polynesians with

their outriggers or balancing beams which defy the tempests of the

ocean (Fig. 83), heavy Chinese junks, etc. We cannot enter into the

details of this subject; let us merely observe that there is a great

difference in the aptitude of various peoples for navigation. It is

not enough to live by the sea-shore to become a good sailor; take for

example the case of the Negroes who have never been able to go far

away from their coasts, and who often have not even an elementary

knowledge of navigation, while the Polynesians and the Malays make

bold and perilous voyages of several thousand miles across the Pacific

and Indian oceans; canoes of the Malay type are seen from Honolulu and

Easter Island to Ceylon and Madagascar. With the taste for navigation

and voyages migrations become more numerous, and the intellectual

horizons widen perceptibly. It is thus one of the great means of

bringing peoples into closer relationship.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 83.--Malayo-Polynesian canoe with outrigger

(seventeenth century).

(_After O. Mason._)]