THE MATRIARCHAL FAMILY AMONG THE AMERICAN INDIANS
It is time now to turn to the actual subject of this investigation, in
order to see how far the theory of mother-right has been helped by the
lengthy examination of the patriarchal group.
Since the publication of _Das Mutterrecht_ much has been written that
has tended to raise doubts as to the soundness of the matriarchal
theory, at least in the form held by its early supporters. A reaction
in the opposite direction has set in, before which the former belief
in mother-power has been transformed, and now seems likely to
disappear altogether. In recent years, Westermarck, Starcke, Andrew
Lang, N. W. Thomas, and Crawley among others have given utterance to
this view. The prevalence of a system tracing descent through the
mother is accepted by the majority of learned opinion, though it would
seem somewhat grudgingly. Mr. Crawley is the only writer, as far as I
know, who denies that such a practice was ever common; the cases in
which it still exists, as these cannot be denied, he regards as
exceptions. He affirms: "There is no evidence that the maternal system
was ever general or always preceded the paternal system." And again:
"Though frequent, maternal descent cannot have been either universally
or generally a stage through which man has passed."[40]
[40] _The Mystic Rose_, pp. 460-461.
Mr. Crawley considers this assumption may be taken for granted; so
that he does not trouble himself about proofs. The subject of
mother-right is dismissed as unworthy of serious attention. Such an
attitude is surely instructive, and illustrates the failure, to which
I have already pointed, in considering the woman's side in these
questions. There would seem to be a tendency to doubt as being
possible any family arrangement favourable to the authority of women.
Even when descent through the mother is accepted as a phase in social
development, it is denied that such descent confers any special rights
to women.
One reason of this prejudice must be sought in the persistence of the
puritan spirit: the objection to mother-kin rests mainly on the
objection to loose sexual relationships. Thus it became necessary to
attempt a new explanation of the origin of the custom, and hence my
examination of the primordial patriarchal group. It may be thought
that I should have done better to confine my inquiry to existing
primitive peoples. But, if I am right, mother-power is rooted much
further back than history, and arose first in the dawn of the human
family. This had to be established.
It is clearly of vital importance to an inquiry that claims to set up
a new belief in a discredited theory to protect it from those
objections which hitherto have prevented its acceptance. This I have
attempted to do. I have shown that the customs connected with
mother-right had no connection at all with a state of promiscuity;
that they were the result of order in the sexual relationships, and
not of disorder. I have traced the causes which appear to have given
rise to such a system, showing that the maternal order was not the
first phase of the family, but was a natural forward movement--one
which developed slowly and quite simply from the conditions of the
patriarchal group. Moreover, I have maintained, and tried to prove,
that the initiative in progress was taken by the women, they being
inspired by their collective interest to overcome the individual
interests of the male members of the group. If this is not assented
to, then indeed, my view of mother-power can find no acceptance.
It is necessary, however, once more to guard against any mistake. I do
not wish to prove a theory of gynæcocracy, or rule of woman. The title
chosen for this chapter at once opens the way to misinterpretation. It
might appear as if I supported Bachofen's supposition that, under a
system of maternal descent women possessed supreme rule in the family
and in the clan: this is a dream only of visionaries. I declare here
that I consider the theory of the so-called matriarchate at once false
and injurious: false, because it can lead to nothing; and injurious,
because, while it cannot be supported by facts, it overthrows what can
be proved by the evidence that is open to all investigators. Nothing
will be gained by exaggeration and by claiming over much for women.
The term "matriarchal" takes too much for granted that women at one
period ruled. Such a view is far from the truth. All I claim, then, is
this: the system by which the descent of the name and the inheritance
of property passes through the female side of the family placed women
in a favourable position, with definite rights in the family and clan,
rights which, in some cases, resulted in their having great and even
extraordinary power. This, I think, may be granted. _If descent
through the father stands, as it is held to do, for the predominance
of man over woman--the husband over the wife, then it is at least
surely possible that descent through the mother may in some cases have
stood for the predominance of the wife over the husband._ The reader
will judge how far the examples of the maternal family I am able to
bring forward support this claim.
The evidence for mother-right has never yet been fully brought into
notice; but much of the evidence is now available. Our knowledge of
the customs of primitive peoples has increased greatly of late years,
and these afford a wide field for inquiry. And although the examples
of the complete maternal family existing to-day are few in
number--probably not more than twenty tribes,[41] yet the important
fact is that they occur among widely separated peoples in all the
great regions of the uncivilised world. Moreover, side by side with
these, are found a much larger number of imperfect systems, which give
unmistakable evidence of an earlier maternal stage. Such examples are
specially instructive; they belong to a transitional period, and show
the maternal family in its decline as it passes into a new patriarchal
stage; often, indeed, we see the one system competing in conflict with
the other.
[41] This is the number given by Prof. Tylor. "The
Matriarchal Family System," _Nineteenth Century_, July 1896.
In this connection I may note that Westermarck does not accept an
early period when descent was traced exclusively through the mother;
he gives a long list of peoples among whom the system is not
practised. These passages occur in his well-known _Criticism of the
Hypothesis of Promiscuity_,[42] and his whole argument is based on the
assumption that mother-right arose through the tie between the father
and the child being unrecognised. But mother-descent has no connection
at all with uncertainty of paternity. I venture to think Dr.
Westermarck has not sufficiently considered this aspect of the
question, and, if I mistake not, it is this confusion of
mother-descent with promiscuity which explains his attitude towards
the maternal system, and his failure to recognise its favourable
influence on the status of women. In his opinion this system of
tracing descent does not materially affect the relative power of the
two sexes.[43] In such a view I cannot help thinking he is mistaken;
and I am supported in this by the fact that he makes the important
qualification that the husband's power is impaired when he lives among
his wife's kinsfolk. Now, it is this form of marriage, or the more
primitive custom when the husband only visits his wife, that is
practised among the peoples who have preserved the complete maternal
family. Under such a domestic arrangement, which really reverses the
position of the wife and the husband, mother-right is found; this
maternal marriage is, indeed, the true foundation of the woman's
power. Where the marriage system has been changed from the maternal to
the paternal form, and the wife is taken from the protection of her
own kindred to live in the home of her husband, even when descent is
still traced through the mother, the chief authority is almost always
in the hands of the father. Thus it need not cause surprise to find
mother-descent combined with a fully established patriarchal rule. But
among such peoples practices may often be met with that can be
explained only as survivals from an earlier maternal system. Moreover,
in other cases, we meet with tribes that have not yet advanced to the
maternal stage. A study of existing tribes, and of the records of
ancient civilisations, will yield any number of examples.
[42] _History of Human Marriage_, pp. 97-104.
[43] "The Position of Woman in Early Civilisations,"
_Sociological Papers_, 1904.
Unmistakable traces of mother-right may, indeed, be found by those,
whose eyes are opened to see, in all races. In peasant festivals and
dances, and in many religious beliefs and ceremonies, we may meet
with such survivals. They may be traced in our common language,
especially in the words used for sex and for kin relationships. We can
also find them shadowed in certain of our marriage rites, and sex
habits to-day. Another source of evidence is furnished by the
widespread early occurrence of mother-goddesses, who must be connected
with a system which places the mother in the forefront of religious
thought. Further proof may be gathered from folk stories and heroic
legends, whose interest offers rich rewards in suggestions of a time
when honour rested with the sex to whom the inheritance belonged.
Thus, the difficulty of establishing a claim for mother-right and
mother-power does not rest in any paucity of proof--but rather in its
superabundance.
It would be superfluous for me to dwell on the difficulties of such an
inquiry. The subject is immensely complicated and wide-reaching, so
that I must keep strictly to the path set before me. It is my purpose
to outline the domestic relations in the maternal family clan, and to
examine the sex-customs and forms of marriage. I shall limit myself to
those matters which throw some light on the position of women, and
shall touch on the features of social life only in so far as they
illustrate this. These questions will be discussed in the three
succeeding chapters. Some portion of the matter given has appeared
already in the section on the "Mother-Age Civilisation" in _The Truth
about Woman_, which gives examples of the maternal family in America,
Australia, India and other countries. Such examples formed a necessary
part of the historical section of that work; they are even more
necessary to this inquiry. Many new examples will be given, and the
examination of the whole subject will be more exhaustive. These
chapters will be followed by a discussion of certain difficulties, and
an examination of the transition period in which the maternal family
gave way to the second patriarchal stage with the family founded on
the authority of the father. A short chapter will be devoted to the
work done by women in primitive tribes and its importance in relation
to their position. Then will come as full an account as is possible of
the traces of the mother-age to be found in the records of ancient and
existing civilised races; while a brief chapter will be added on
certain myths and legends which help to elucidate the theory of
women's early power. The final chapter will treat of general
conclusions, with an attempt to suggest certain facts which seem to
bear on present-day problems. Throughout I shall support my
investigation (as far as can be done in a work primarily designed for
a text-book) by examples, which, in each case, have been carefully
chosen from trustworthy evidence of those who are personally
acquainted with the habits of the peoples of whom they write. I shall
try to avoid falling into the error of a one-sided view. Facts will be
more important than reflections, and as far as possible, I shall let
these speak for themselves.
Let us now concentrate our attention on the complete maternal family,
where the clan is grouped around the mothers.
The examples in this chapter will be taken from the aboriginal tribes
of North and South America among whom traces of the maternal system
are common, while in some cases mother-right is still in force. At the
period of European discovery the American Indians were already well
advanced in the primitive arts, and were very far removed from
savagery. Their domestic and social habits showed an organisation of a
very remarkable character; among certain tribes there was a communal
maternal family, interesting and complicated in its arrangements. Such
customs had prevailed from an antiquity so remote that their origin
seems to have been lost in the obscurity of the ages. It is possible,
however, to see how this communism in living may have arisen and
developed out of the conditions we have studied in the far distant
patriarchal groups. For this reason they afford a very special
interest to our inquiry.
Morgan, who was commissioned by the American Government to report on
the customs of the aboriginal inhabitants, gives a description of the
system as it existed among the Iroquois--
"Each household was made up on the principle of kin. The
married women, usually sisters, own or collateral, were of
the same _gens_ or clan, the symbol or _totem_ of which was
often painted upon the house, while their husbands and the
wives of their sons belonged to several other _gentes_. The
children were of the _gens_ of their mother. As a rule the
sons brought home their wives, and in some cases the
husbands of the daughters were admitted to the maternal
household. Thus each household was composed of persons of
different _gentes_, but the predominating number in each
household would be of the same _gens_, namely, that of the
mother."[44]
[44] Morgan, _Houses and House-Life of the American
Aborigines_, p. 64.
We see here, at once, the persistence and development of the
conditions and later customs of the patriarchal family-group, now
evolved into the clan. In the far-distant days the jealous spirit was
still strong; now it has been curbed and regulated, and the female
yoke binds the clan together. We have the mothers as the centre of the
communal home; the sons bringing their wives to live in the circle,
while the daughters' husbands are received as permanent guests. Under
such a system the mothers are related to each other, and belong to the
same clan, and their children after them; the fathers are not bound
together by the same ties and are of different clans. The limits
within which marriage can take place are fixed, and we can trace the
action of the ancient primal law in the bar that prohibits the husband
from being of the same clan as his wife. Though the husband takes up
his abode in the wife's family, dwelling there _during her life and
his good behaviour_,[45] he still belongs to his own family. The
children of the marriage are of the kindred of the mother, and never
of his kindred: they are lost to his family. Thus there can be no
extension of the clan through the males, it is the wife's clan that is
extended by marriage.[46]
[45] Tylor, "The Matriarchal Family System," _Nineteenth
Century_, July 1896.
[46] McLennan, _The Patriarchal Theory_, p. 208. Heriot,
_Travels through the Canadas_, p. 323.
The important point to note is that the conditions of the clan are
still favourable to the social conduct of the women, who are attached
much more closely to the home and to each other than can be the case
with the men. The wife never leaves the home, because she is
considered the mistress, or, at least, the heiress. In the house all
the duties and the honour as the head of the household fall upon her.
This position may be illustrated by the wife's obligation to her
husband and his family, which are curiously in contrast with what is
usually expected from a woman. Thus a wife is not only bound to give
food to her husband, to cook his provisions when he sets out on
expeditions, but she has likewise to assist members of his family when
they cultivate their fields, and to provide wood for an allotted
period for the use of his family. In this work she is assisted by
women of her clan. The women are also required in case of need to look
after their parents.
There are many interesting customs in the domestic life of the
Iroquois. I can notice a few only. The system of living, at the time
Morgan visited the tribes, consisted of a plan at once novel and
distinctive. Each _gens_ or clan lived in a long tenement house, large
enough to accommodate the separate families. These houses were
erected on frames of poles, covered with bark, and were from fifty to
a hundred feet in length. A passage way led down the centre, and rooms
were portioned off on either side: the doors were at each end of the
passage. An apartment was allotted to each family. There were several
fireplaces, usually one for every four families, which were placed in
the central passage: there were no chimneys. The Iroquois lived in
these long houses, _Ho-de-no-sau-nee_, up to A.D. 1700, and in
occasional instances for a hundred years later. They were not peculiar
to the Iroquois, but were used by many tribes. Unfortunately this wise
plan of living has now almost entirely passed away.
I wish that I had space to give a fuller account of these
families.[47] Each household practised communism in living, and made a
common stock of the provisions acquired by fishing and hunting, and by
the cultivation of maize and plants. The curse of individual
accumulation would seem not to have existed. Ownership of land and all
property was held in common. Each household was directed by the matron
who supervised its domestic economy. After the daily meal was cooked
at the several fires, the matron was summoned, and it was her duty to
apportion the food from the kettle to the different families according
to their respective needs. What food remained was placed in the
charge of another woman until it was required by the matron. In this
connection Mr. Morgan says: "This plan of life shows that their
domestic economy was not without method, and it displays the care and
management of women, low down in barbarism, for husbanding their
resources and for improving their conditions."
[47] The reader is referred to Morgan's interesting _Houses
and House-Life of the Aborigines_. It is from this work that
many of the facts I give have been taken.
In this statement, made by one who was intimately acquainted with the
customs of this people there is surely confirmation of what I have
claimed for women? The further we go in our inquiry the more we are
driven to the conclusion that the favourable conditions uniting the
women with one another exerted a powerful influence on their
character. I think this is a view of the maternal family system that
has never received its proper meed of attention.
It must be noted that the women did not eat with the men; but the fact
that the apportioning of the food was in the women's hands is
sufficient proof that this separation of women and men, common among
most primitive peoples, has no connection with the superiority of one
sex over the other. It is interesting to find that only one prepared
meal was served in each day. But the pots were always kept boiling
over the fires, and any one who was hungry, either from the household
or from any other part of the village, had a right to order it to be
taken off and to eat as he or she pleased.
We may notice the influence of their communistic living in all the
Indian customs. At all times the law of hospitality was strictly
observed. Food was dispensed in every case to those who needed it; no
excuse was ever made to avoid giving. If through misfortune one
household fell into want, the needs were freely supplied from the
stock laid by for future use in another household. Hunger and
destitution could not exist in any part of an Indian village or
encampment while plenty prevailed elsewhere. Such generosity at a time
when food was often difficult to obtain, and its supply was the first
concern of life, is a remarkable fact. Nor does this generosity seem,
as might be thought, to have led to idleness and improvidence. He who
begged, when he could work, was stigmatised with the disgraceful name
of "poltroon" or "beggar"; but the miser who refused to assist his
neighbour was branded as "a bad character." Mr. Morgan, commenting on
this phase of the Indian life says: "I much doubt if the civilised
world would have in their institutions any system which can properly
be called more humane and charitable."
These reflections induce one to ask: What were the causes of this
humane system of living among a people considered as uncivilised? Now,
I do not wish to claim overmuch for women. We have seen, however, that
the control and distribution of the supply of food was placed in the
hands of the matrons, thus their association with the giving of food
must be accepted. Is not this fact sufficient to indicate the reason
that made possible this communism? To me it is plain that these
remarkable institutions were connected with the maternal family, in
which the collective interests were more considered than is possible
in a patriarchal society, based upon individual inclination and
proprietary interests.
A brief notice must now be given to the system of government. An
Indian tribe was composed of several _gentes_ or clans, united in what
is known as a _phratry_ or brotherhood. The tribe was an assemblage of
the _gentes_. The _phratry_ among the Iroquois was organised partly
for social and partly for religious objects. Each _gens_ was ruled by
chiefs of two grades, distinguished by Morgan as the _sachem_ and
common chiefs. The _sachem_ was the official head of the _gens_, and
was elected by its adult members, male and female. The _sachems_ and
chiefs claimed no superiority and were never more than the exponents
of the popular will of the people. Unanimity among the _sachems_ was
required on all public questions. This was the fundamental law of the
brotherhood; if all efforts failed to gain agreement the matter in
question was dropped. Under such a system individual rule or the power
of one _gens_ over the other became impossible. All the members of the
different _gentes_ were personally free; equal in privileges, and in
position, and in rights. "Liberty, equality, and fraternity," though
never formulated, were the cardinal principles of the _gens_.[48] Mr.
Morgan holds the opinion that "this serves to explain that sense of
independence and personal dignity universally attributed to the Indian
character."
[48] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 62. Also _Houses and
House-Life of the American Aborigines_.
Regarding the part taken by the women in the government, we have very
remarkable testimony. Schoolcraft,[49] in his elaborate study of the
customs of the Indian tribes, states that the women had "a
conservative power in the political deliberations. The matrons had
their representatives in the public councils, and they exercised a
negative, or what we call a veto, power, in the important question of
the declaration of war." They had also the right to interpose in
bringing about a peace. Heriot also affirms: "In the women is vested
the foundation of all real authority. They give efficiency to the
councils and are the arbiters of war and peace.... It is also to their
disposal that the captured slaves are committed." And again: "Although
by custom the leaders are chosen from among the men, and the affairs
which concern the tribe are settled by a council of ancients, it would
yet seem that they only represented the women, and assisted in the
discussion of subjects which principally related to that sex."[50]
[49] _Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the
History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the
United States_, 6 vols., Vol. III, p. 195. See also _Notes on
the Iroquois_ and _The Indian in his Wigwam_.
[50] Heriot, _op. cit._, pp. 321-322.
These remarkable social and domestic conditions were common to the
American Indians under the maternal system. The direct influence of
women, as directors through the men, is a circumstance of much
interest. Among the Senecas, an Iroquoian tribe with the complete
maternal family, the authority was very certainly in the hands of the
women. Morgan quotes an account of their family system, given by the
Rev. Ashur Wright for many years a resident among the Senecas, and
familiar with their language and customs.
"As to their family system, it is probable that one clan
predominated (in the houses), the women taking in husbands,
however, from other clans, and sometimes for novelty, some
of their sons bringing in their young wives, until they felt
brave enough to leave their mothers. Usually the female
portion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough
about it. The stores were in common, but woe to the luckless
husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of
the providing. No matter how many children or whatever goods
he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered
to pack up his blanket and budge, and after such orders it
would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey; the
house would be too hot for him, and unless saved by the
intercession of some aunt or grandmother, he must retreat to
his own clan, or, as was often done, go and start a new
matrimonial alliance in some other. The women were the great
power among the clans as everywhere else. They did not
hesitate, when occasion required, to 'knock off the horns,'
as it was technically called, from the head of a chief and
send him back to the ranks of the warrior. The original
nomination of the chief also always rested with them."
Mr. Morgan affirms his acceptance of the Indian women's authority, and
says, after quoting this passage: "The mother-right and gynæcocracy
among the Iroquois here plainly indicated is not over-drawn. The
mothers and their children, as we have seen, were of the same _gens_,
and to them the household belonged. The position of the mother was
eminently favourable to her influence in the household, and tended to
strengthen the maternal bond."[51]
[51] _Houses and House-Life of American Aborigines_, pp.
65-66.
It is important to note that among the Iroquois polygamy is not
permitted, nor does it appear ever to be practised. Many instances are
reported in the Seneca tribe of a woman having more than one husband,
but an Iroquoian man is never allowed more than one wife.[52] This is
the more remarkable when we consider the fact that the mothers nurse
their children for a very long period, during which time they do not
cohabit with their husbands. Such entire absence of polygamy is to be
explained, in part, by the maternal marriage, a system which in its
origin was closely connected with sexual regulation; nor would
plurality of wives be possible in a society in which all the members
of both sexes enjoyed equal privileges, and were in a position of
absolute equality. Marriages usually take place at an early age. Under
the maternal form, the husband living with the wife worked for her
family, and commonly gained his footing only through his service. As
suitor he was required to make presents to the bride's family. During
the first year of marriage all the produce of his hunting expeditions
belonged to the wife, and afterwards he shared his goods equally with
her. The marriages were negotiated by the mothers: sometimes the
father was consulted, but this was little more than a compliment, as
his approbation or opposition was usually disregarded. Often it was
customary for the bridegroom to seek private interviews at night with
his betrothed; clearly a survival from a time when such secrecy in
love was necessary. In some instances it was enough if the suitor went
and sat by the girl's side in her apartment; if she permitted this,
and remained where she was, it was taken for consent, and the act
would suffice for marriage. Girls were allowed the right of choice in
the selection of their partners. There is abundant testimony as to the
happiness of the marriage state. Divorce was, however, allowed by
mutual consent, and was carried out without dispute, quarrel or
contradiction.[53] If a husband and a wife could not agree, they
parted amicably, or two unhappy pairs would exchange husbands and
wives. An early French missionary remonstrated with a couple on such a
transaction, and was told: "My wife and I could not agree; my
neighbour was in the same case, so we exchanged wives and all four
were content. What can be more reasonable than to render one another
mutually happy, when it costs so little, and does nobody any
harm."[54] It would seem that these maternal peoples have solved many
difficulties of domestic and social life better than we ourselves have
done.
[52] Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 324. Heriot, _op.
cit._, pp. 323, 329. Schoolcraft, _op. cit._, Vol. III, p.
191.
[53] Heriot, pp. 231-237. See also Report of an Official of
Indian Affairs on two of the Iroquoian tribes, cited by
Hartland. _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, p. 298.
[54] _Charleroix_, Vol. V, p. 48, quoted by Hartland, _op.
cit._, Vol. II, p. 66.
The Wyandots, another Iroquoian tribe, maintained the maternal
household, though they seem to have reached a later stage of
development than the Senecas. They camped in the form of a horse-shoe,
every clan together in regular order. Marriage between members of the
same clan was forbidden; the children belonged to the clan of the
mother. The husbands retained all their rights and privileges in their
own _gentes_, though they lived in the _gentes_ of their wives. After
marriage the pair resided, for a time, at least, with the wife's
mother, but afterwards they set up housekeeping for themselves.[55]
[55] Powell, _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, I, 63.
We may note in this change of residence the creeping in of changes
which inevitably led in time to the decay of the maternal family and
the reassertion of the patriarchal authority of the father. This is
illustrated further by the Musquakies, also belonging to the
Algonquian stock. Though still organised in clans, descent is no
longer reckoned through the mother; the bridegroom, however, serves
his wife's family, and he lives in her home. This does not make him
of her clan, but she belongs to his, till his death or divorce
separates her from him. As for the children, the minors at the
termination of the marriage belong to the mother's clan, but those who
had had the puberty feast are counted to the father's clan.[56]
[56] Owen: _Musquakie Indians_, p. 72.
The male authority was felt chiefly in periods of war. This may be
illustrated by the Wyandots, who have an elaborate system of
government. In each _gens_ there is a small council composed of four
women, called _yu-waí-yu-wá-na_; chosen by the heads of the household.
These women select a chief of the _gens_ from its male members, that
is, from their brothers and sons. He is the head of the _gentile_
council. The council of the tribe is composed of the aggregated
_gentile_ councils; and is thus made up of four-fifths of women and
one-fifth of men. The _sachem_ of the tribes, or tribal-chief, is
chosen by the chiefs of the _gentes_. All the civil government of the
_gens_ and of the tribe is carried on by these councils; and as the
women so largely outnumbered the men, who are also--with the one
exception of the tribal-chief--chosen by them, it is evident that the
social government of the _gens_ and tribe is largely controlled by
them. On military affairs, however, the men have the direct authority,
though, as has been stated, the women have a veto power and are
"allowed to exercise a decision in favour of peace." There is a
military council of all the able-bodied men of the tribe, with a
military chief chosen by the council.[57] This seems a very wise
adjustment of civic duties; the constructive social work and the
maintaining of peace directed by the women; the destructive work of
war in the hands of men.
[57] I have summarised the account of the Wyandot government
as given by Hartland, who quotes from Powell's "Wyandot
Government," _First Annual Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology_, 1879-1880, pp. 61 ff.
Powell gives an interesting account of their communal life. Each clan
owns its own lands which it cultivates; but within these lands each
household has its own patch. It is the women councillors who partition
the clan lands among the households. The partition takes place every
two years. But while each household has its own patch of ground, the
cultivation is communal; that is, all the able-bodied women of the
clan take a share in cultivating every patch. Each clan has a right to
the service of all its women in the cultivation of the soil. It would
be difficult to find a more striking example than this of communism in
labour. I claim it as proof of what I have stated in an earlier
chapter of the conditions driving women into combination and social
conduct.
If we turn now to the South American continent we shall find many
interesting survivals of the complete maternal family, in particular
among the Pueblo peoples of New Mexico and Arizona, so called from the
Spanish word _pueblo_, a town. The customs of the people have been
carefully studied and recorded by Bancroft, Schoolcraft, Morgan,
Tylor, McGee, the Spanish historian, Herrera, and other travellers.
When first visited by European anthropologists the country was divided
into provinces, and in many provinces the people lived in communities
or little republics. The communal life was here more developed even
than among the Northern Indians. The people lived together in joint
tenement houses, much larger, and of more advanced architecture, than
the long houses of the Iroquois. These houses are constructed of
adobe, brick and stone, imbedded in mortar; one house will contain as
many as 50, 100, 200, and in some cases, 500 apartments. Speaking of
these houses, Bancroft states: "The houses are common property, and
both women and men assist in building them; the men erect the wooden
frames, and the women make the mortar and build the walls. In place of
lime for mortar they mix ashes with earth and charcoal. They make
_adobes_, or sun-dried bricks, by mixing ashes and earth with
water."[58] Cushing, who visited and lived with the Zuñi Indians,
records that among them the houses are entirely built by the women,
the men supplying the material. These houses are erected in terrace
form; within they are provided with windows, fireplaces and chimneys,
and the entrance to the different apartments is gained by rude pole
ladders. The pueblo, or village, consists of one or two, or sometimes
a greater number of these houses, each containing a hundred or more
families, according to the number of apartments.
[58] _The Native Races of the Pacific States of South
America_, 5 vols., Vol. I, p. 555. See also Morgan.
Among the Creek Indians of Georgia, Morgan recounts a somewhat
different mode of communal dwelling as formerly being practised. In
1790 they were living in small houses, placed in clusters of from four
to eight together; and each cluster forming a _gens_ or clan, who ate
and lived in common. The food was prepared in one hut, and each family
sent for its portion. The smallest of these "garden cities" contained
10 to 40 groups of houses, the largest from 50 to 200.[59] These
communistic dwelling-houses are so interesting and so important that I
would add a few words. Here, we have among these maternal peoples a
system of living which appears to be identical with the improved
conditions of associated dwelling now beginning to be tried. How often
we consider new things that really are very old! In the light of these
examples, our co-operative dwelling-houses and garden cities can no
longer be regarded as experiments. They were in use in the mother-age,
when many of our new (!) ideas seem to have been common. Can this be
because of the extended power held by women, who are more practical
and careful of detail than men are? I believe that it is possible.
This would explain, too, the revival of the same ideas to-day, when
women are taking up their part again in social life. To those who are
questioning the waste and discomfort of our solitary homes I would
recommend a careful study of this primitive communism. I would point
out the connection of the social ideal with the maternal family, while
the home that is solitary and unsocial must be regarded as having
arisen from the patriarchal customs. I have had occasion again and
again to note that collective interests are more considered by women;
and individual interests by men. This, at least, is how I see it; and
a study of the Indian maternal families seems to give confirmation to
such a conclusion.
[59] Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes_, p. 262, gives an account
of these houses. A similar plan of living is reported of the
Maya Indians.
But to return to the Pueblo peoples. The tribes are divided into
exogamous totem clans. Kinship is reckoned through the women, and in
several tribes we find the complete maternal family. Among such
peoples the husband goes to live with the wife and becomes an inmate
of her family. If the house is not large enough, additional rooms are
built on to the communal home and connected with those already
occupied. Hence a family with many daughters increases, while one
consisting of sons dies out.
The marriage customs and relationships between the young men and the
girls are instructive; they vary in the different tribes, but have
some points in common. The Pueblos are monogamists, and polygamy is
not allowed amongst them. Bancroft records a very curious custom. The
morals of the young people are carefully guarded by a kind of secret
police, whose duty it is to report all irregularities; and in the
event of such taking place the young man and the girl are compelled to
marry.[60] Now, whatever opinion may be held of such interference with
the love-making of the young people, it affords strong proof of the
error which has hitherto connected the maternal system with
unregulated sexual relationships. This is a fact I am again and again
compelled to point out, risking the fear of wearying the reader.
[60] Bancroft, _op. cit._, pp. 546, 547.
Among some tribes freedom is permitted to the women before marriage.
Heriot states that the natives who allow this justify the custom, and
say "that a young woman is mistress of her own person, and a free
agent."[61] The tie of marriage is, however, observed more strictly
than among many civilised monogamous races. And this is so, although
divorce is always easy and by mutual consent; a couple being able to
separate at once if they are dissatisfied with each other. Here are
facts that may well cause us to think. As for the courtship, the usual
custom is reversed; when a girl is disposed to marry she does not wait
for a young man to propose to her, but selects one to her liking, and
then consults her family as to his suitability as a husband. The
suitor has to serve the bride's family before he can be accepted, and
in some cases the conditions are binding and exceedingly curious.
[61] Heriot, _op. cit._, p. 340.
How simple and really beautiful are the conditions of life among these
people may be seen from the idyllic record of the Zuñi Indians given
by Mr. Cushing.[62] He describes how the Zuñi girl, when taking a
fancy to a young man, conveys a present of thin _hewe_-bread to him as
a token, and becomes his affianced, or as they say "his-to-be." He
then sews clothes and moccasins for her, makes her a necklace of gay
beads, and combs her hair out on the terrace in the sun. After his
term of service is over, and all is settled, he takes up his residence
with her; then the married life begins. "With the woman rests the
security of the marriage tie, and, it must be said, in her high
honour, that she rarely abuses the privilege; that is, never sends her
husband 'to the home of his fathers' unless he richly deserves it."
Divorce is by mutual consent, and a husband and wife would "rather
separate than live together unharmoniously." This testimony is
confirmed by Mrs. Stevenson, who visited the Zuñis, and writes with
enthusiasm of the people. "Their domestic life might well serve as an
example for the civilised world. They do not have large families. The
husband and wife are deeply attached to one another and to their
children." "The keynote of this harmony is the supremacy of the wife
in the home. The house with all that is in it is hers, descending to
her through her mother from a long line of ancestresses; and the
husband is merely her permanent guest. The children--at least the
female children--have their share in the common home; the father has
none." "Outside the house the husband has some property in the fields,
although in earlier times he had no possessory rights and the land was
held in common. Modern influences have reached the Zuñi, and
mother-right seems to have begun its inevitable decay."[63]
[62] Cushing, "My Visit to the Zuñi Indians," _Century
Magazine_, 1883. Prof. Tylor gives these passages in his
account of the Zuñi Indians, "The Patriarchal Family System,"
_Nineteenth Century_, 1896. I have quoted from him.
[63] Mrs. Stevenson, in the _Report Bureau Ethnological_,
XXIII, pp. 290-293.
The Hopis, another Pueblo tribe, are more conservative, and with them
the women own all the property except the horses and donkeys, which
belong to the men. Among the Pueblos the women commonly have control
over the granary, and they are very provident about the future.
Ordinarily they try to have one year's provisions on hand. It is only
when two years of scarcity succeed each other that the community
suffers hunger. Like the Zuñis, the Hopis are monogamists. Sexual
freedom is, however, permitted to a girl before marriage. This in no
way detracts from her good repute; even if she has given birth to a
child "she will be sure to marry later on, unless she happens to be
shockingly ugly." Nor does the child suffer, for among these maternal
peoples, the bastard takes an equal place with the child born in
wedlock. The bride lives for the first few weeks with her husband's
family, during which time the marriage takes place, the ceremony being
performed by the bridegroom's mother, whose family also provides the
bride with her wedding outfit. The couple then return to the home of
the wife's parents, where they remain, either permanently, or for some
years, until they can obtain a separate dwelling. The husband is
always a stranger, and is so treated by his wife's kin. The dwelling
of his mother remains his true home, in sickness he returns to her to
be nursed, and stays with her until he is well again. Often his
position in his wife's home is so irksome that he severs his
connection with her and her family, and returns to his old home. On
the other hand, it is not uncommon for the wife, should her husband be
absent, to place his goods outside the door: an intimation which he
well understands, and does not intrude upon her again.[64]
[64] Voth, _Traditions of the Hopi_, pp. 67, 96, 133. _Rep.
Bur. Ethn._, XIII, 340. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol.
II, pp. 74-76.
Again, among the Pueblo peoples, we may consider the Sai. Like the
other tribes they are divided into exogamous totem clans; descent is
traced only through the mother. The tribe through various reasons has
been greatly reduced in numbers, and whole clans have died out, and
under these circumstances exogamy has ceased to be strictly enforced.
This has led to other changes. The Sai are still normally monogamous.
When a young man wishes to marry a girl he speaks first to her
parents; if they are willing he addresses himself to her. On the day
of the marriage he goes alone to her home, carrying his presents
wrapped in a blanket, his mother and father having preceded him
thither. When the young people are seated together the parents address
them in turn, enjoining unity and forbearance. This constitutes the
ceremony. Tribal custom requires the bridegroom to reside with the
wife's family.[65]
[65] _Rep. Bur. Ethn._ IX, p. 19. Hartland, _Ibid._, pp.
76-77.
All the Pueblo peoples are more advanced than the greater number of
the neighbouring tribes; their matrimonial customs are more refined,
their domestic life much happier, and they have an appreciation of
love, a rare thing in primitive peoples.[66] Among other tribes
purchase of a wife is common, always a sure sign of the enslavement of
women. Thus in Columbia what is most prized in a woman is her aptitude
for labour, and the price paid for her (usually in horses) depends on
her capacity as a beast of burden. Sometimes, as in California, a
suitor obtains a wife on credit, but then the man is called "half
married;" and until her price is paid he has to labour as a slave for
her parents. Here, as elsewhere, morality is simply a custom of habit;
Bancroft says that purchase of a wife has become accepted as
honourable, so that among the Californian Redskins "the children of a
wife who has cost nothing to her husband are looked down upon."[67]
Such customs are in sharp contrast to the liberty granted to the woman
among the Pueblos. As an example of women's power carried to the
limit of tyranny, we may note the Nicaraguans, of whom Bancroft states
that "the husbands are said to have been so much under the control of
their wives that they were obliged to do the housework, while the
women attended to the trading." Under these circumstances it is
perhaps not surprising to find the women described as "great shrews,
who would on the slightest provocation drive their offending husbands
out of the house."[68] This is a curious case of the despotic rule of
women. Westermarck accounts for their position by the strict monogamy
that is enforced, but I do not think this can be the true
explanation.[69]
[66] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, p. 549.
[67] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, p. 277. Power's _Tribes of
California_, pp. 22, 56.
[68] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 685.
[69] _History of Human Marriage_, p. 500.
Among the Guanas the women make their own stipulations with their
lovers before marriage, arranging what they are to do in the
household. They are also said to decide the conditions of the
marriage, whether it is to be monogamous, or if polygamy or polyandry
is to be allowed.[70] The Zapotecs and other tribes inhabiting the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec, are remarkable for "the gentleness, affection,
and frugality that characterises the marital relations. Polygamy is
not permitted, which is very remarkable as the women greatly outnumber
the men."[71]
[70] Azara, _Voyages dans l'Amérique Méridionale_, Vol. II,
p. 93.
[71] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, pp. 661-662.
Lastly, I wish to bring forward a very striking example of the
complete maternal family among the Seri Indians, on the south-west
coast of North America, now reduced to a single tribe. Their curious
and interesting marriage customs have been described by McGee, who
visited the people to report on their customs for the American
Government. The Seri are probably the most primitive tribe in the
American continent. At the time of Mr. McGee's visit they preserved
the maternal system in its early form, and are therefore an
instructive example by which to estimate the position of the
women.[72]
[72] "The Beginning of Marriage," _American Anthropologist_,
Vol. IX, p. 376. Also _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, XVII, 275.
"The tribe is divided into exogamous totem clans. Marriage
is arranged exclusively by the women. The elder woman of the
suitor's family carries the proposal to the girl's clan
mother. If this is entertained, the question of marriage is
discussed at length by the matrons of the two clans. The
girl herself is consulted; a _jacal_ is erected for her, and
after many deliberations, the bridegroom is provisionally
received into the wife's clan for a year under conditions of
the most exacting character. He is expected to prove his
worthiness of a permanent relationship by demonstrating his
ability as a provider, and by showing himself an implacable
foe to aliens. He is compelled to support all the female
relatives of his bride's family by the products of his skill
and industry in hunting and fishing for one year. There is
also another provision of a very curious nature. The lover
is permitted to share the _jacal_, or sleeping-robe,
provided for the prospective matron by her kinswomen, not
as a privileged spouse, but merely as a protective
companion; and throughout this probationary time he is
compelled to maintain continence--he must display the most
indubitable proof of his moral force."
This test of the Seri lover must not mistakenly be thought to be
connected, as might appear, with the modern idea of continence. As is
pointed out by McGee, it arose out of the primitive sexual taboos, and
is imposed on the young man as a test of his strength to abstain from
any sexual relationships outside the proscribed limits. Such a moral
test may once have been common, but seems to have been lost except
among the Seri; though a curious vestige appears in the anti-nuptial
treatment of the bridegroom, in the Salish tribe. The material test is
common among many peoples, and must not be confused with the later
custom of payment for the wife by presents given to her family. Still
this Seri marriage is one of the most curious I know among any
primitive peoples. And the continence demanded from the bridegroom
appears more extraordinary if we compare it with the freedom granted
to the bride. "During this period the always dignified position
occupied by the daughters of the house culminates." Among other
privileges she is allowed to receive the "most intimate attentions
from the clan-fellows of the group." "She is the receiver of the
supplies furnished by her lover, measuring his competence as would-be
husband. Through his energy she is enabled to dispense largess with a
lavish hand, and thus to dignify her clan and honour her spouse in the
most effective way known to primitive life; and at the same time she
enjoys the immeasurable moral stimulus of realising she is the arbiter
of the fate of a man who becomes a warrior or an outcast at her
bidding, and through him of the future of two clans--she is raised to
a responsibility in both personal and tribal affairs which, albeit
temporary, is hardly lower than that of the warrior chief." At the
close of the year, if all goes well, the probation ends in a feast
provided by the lover, who now becomes the husband, and finally enters
his wife's _jacal_ as "consort-guest." His position is wholly
subordinate, and without any authority whatever, either over his
children or over the property. In his mother's hut he has rights,
which seem to continue after his marriage, but in his wife's hut he
has none.
I have now collected together, with as much exactitude as I could,
what is known of the maternal family in the American continents. There
are many tribes in which descent is reckoned through the father, and
it would be bold to assert that these have all passed through the
maternal stage. An examination of their customs shows, in some cases,
survivals, which point to such conclusion; among other tribes it seems
probable that the maternal clan has not developed. As illustrations of
mother-power, I claim the examples given speak for themselves. It may,
of course, be urged that these complete maternal families are
exceptions, and thus to dismiss them as unimportant. But this is
surely an unscientific way of settling the question. One has to accept
these cases, or to prove that they are untrue. Moreover, I have by no
means exhausted the evidence; and to these complete maternal families
might be added examples from other tribes which would furnish similar
proofs, but there is such consistency of custom among them all that
further accounts may be dispensed with.
There is one other matter for which I would claim attention before
closing this chapter on the American Indians, and that is the
remarkable similarity to be noticed in many tribes between the faces
of the men and the women. To me this is a point of deep interest,
though I do not claim to understand it. My attention was first drawn
to notice this likeness between the two sexes when I came to know some
Iroquois natives who live in England. I was at once struck with the
appearance of the men: though strong and powerfully built, they were
strikingly like women. Since then I have examined many portraits of
the North Indian tribes; I have found that the great majority of men
approach much more nearly to the feminine than the male type. I might,
however, hesitate to bring the matter forward, were it founded only on
my own observation. But in my reading I have found an important
reference to the question in a recent work, "The Indians of North
America in Recent Times," by Mr. Cyrus Thomas, Ph.D., Archæologist, in
the _Bureau of American Ethnology_. He writes as follows (p. 41)--
"Another curious fact, which has not hitherto received
special notice, though apparently of considerable interest,
is the prevailing feminine physiognomy of the males, at
least of those of the northern section. If any one will take
the trouble to study carefully a hundred or more good
photographs of males of pure blood he will find that two
thirds, if not a greater proportion, show feminine faces.
The full significance of this fact is not apparent, but it
seems to bear to some extent upon the question of the
evolution of the race."
What this fact suggests is a problem to which it is very difficult
even to guess at an answer. Does this lack of differentiation in the
physiognomy of the Indians point to something much deeper? Are the men
really like the women? Such a conception opens up considerations of
very great significance. So far as I understand the matter, it appears
that, as well as the deep inherent differences between the two sexes,
there are other differences due to divergence in function. It seems
probable that changes in environment or in function (as when one sex,
for some reason or other, performs the duties usually undertaken by
the other sex), may alter or modify the differences which tend to
thrust the sexes apart. I feel very sure that there can be changes in
the secondary sexual characters of the male and female. This is
sufficiently proved by many examples. Can we, then, accept the theory
that an environment, which favours women's forceful function, may
modify the infinitely complicated characters of sex, which, as yet, we
so imperfectly understand? I do not know with any certainty. Yet I can
see no other interpretation; and, if I mistake not, it may be possible
in this way to cast a light on one of the most difficult problems with
which we are faced to-day.