CHAPTER I.

Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Robert Prince, Charles Franks

and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORTH AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY

VOLUME IV

HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES

BY LEWIS H. MORGAN

PREFACE.

The following work substantially formed the Fifth Part of the

original manuscript of "Ancient Society," under the title "Growth of

the Idea of House Architecture." As the manuscript exceeded the

limits of a single volume, this portion (Part V) was removed, and

having then no intention to publish it separately, the greater part

of it found its way into print in detached articles. A summary was

given to Johnson's New Universal Cyclopedia in the article on the

"Architecture of the American Aborigines." The chapter on the

"Houses of the Aztecs" formed the basis of the article entitled

"Montezuma's Dinner," published in the North American Review, in

April, 1876. Another chapter, that on the "Houses of the Mound

Builders," was published in the same Review in July, 1876. Finally,

the present year, at the request of the executive committee of the

"Archaeological Institute of America," at Cambridge, I prepared from

the same materials an article entitled "A Study of the Houses and

House Life of the Indian Tribes," with a scheme for the exploration

of the ruins in New Mexico, Arizona, the San Juan region, Yucatan,

and Central America.

With some additions and reductions the facts are now presented in

their original form, and as they will now have a wider distribution

than the articles named have had, they will be new to most of my

readers. The facts and suggestions made will also have the advantage

of being presented in their proper connection. Thus additional

strength is given to the argument as a whole. All the forms of this

architecture sprang from a common mind, and exhibit, as a consequence,

different stages of development of the same conceptions, operating

upon similar necessities. They also represent these several

conditions of Indian life with reasonable completeness. Their houses

will be seen to form one system of works, from the Long House of the

Iroquois to the Joint Tenement houses of adobe and of stone in New

Mexico, Yucatan, Chiapas, and Guatemala, with such diversities as

the different degrees of advancement of these several tribes would

naturally produce. Studied as one system, springing from a common

experience, and similar wants, and under institutions of the same

general character, they are seen to indicate a plan of life at once

novel, original, and distinctive.

The principal fact, which all these structures alike show, from the

smallest to the greatest, is that the family through these stages of

progress was too weak an organization to face alone the struggle of

life, and sought a shelter for itself in large households composed

of several families. The house for a single family was exceptional

throughout aboriginal America, while the house large enough to

accommodate several families was the rule. Moreover, they were

occupied as joint tenement houses. There was also a tendency to form

these households on the principle of gentile kin, the mothers with

their children being of the same gens or clan.

If we enter upon the great problem of Indian life with a

determination to make it intelligible, their house life and domestic

institutions must furnish the key to its explanation. These pages

are designed as a commencement of that work. It is a fruitful, and,

at present, but partially explored field. We have been singularly

inattentive to the plan of domestic life revealed by the houses of

the aboriginal period. Time and the influences of civilization have

told heavily upon their mode of life until it has become so far

modified, and in many cases entirely overthrown, that it must be

taken up as a new investigation upon the general facts which remain.

At the epoch of European discovery it was in full vitality in North

and South America; but the opportunities of studying its principles

and its results were neglected. As a scheme of life under

established institutions, it was a remarkable display of the

condition of mankind in two well marked ethnical periods, namely,

the Older Period and the Middle Period of barbarism, the first being

represented by the Iroquois and the second by the Aztecs, or ancient

Mexicans. In no part of the earth were these two conditions of human

progress so well represented as by the American Indian tribes. A

knowledge of the culture and of the state of the arts of life in

these periods is indispensable to a definite conception of the

stages of human progress. From the laws which govern this progress,

from the uniformity of their operation, and from the necessary

limitations of the principle of intelligence, we may conclude that

our own remote ancestors passed through a similar experience and

possessed very similar institutions. In studying the condition of

the Indian tribes in these periods we may recover some portion of

the lost history of our own race. This consideration lends incentive

to the investigation.

The first chapter is a condensation of four in "Ancient Society,"

namely, those on the gens, phratry, tribe, and confederacy of tribes.

As they formed a necessary part of that work, they become equally

necessary to this. A knowledge of these organizations is

indispensable to an understanding of the house life of the aborigines.

These organizations form the basis of American ethnology. Although

the discussion falls short of a complete explanation of their

character and of their prevalence, it will give the reader a general

idea of the organization of society among them.

We are too apt to look upon the condition of savage and of barbarous

tribes as standing on the same plane with respect to advancement.

They should be carefully distinguished as dissimilar conditions of

progress. Moreover, savagery shows stages of culture and of progress,

and the same is true of barbarism. It will greatly facilitate the

study of the facts relating to these two conditions, through which

mankind have passed in their progress to civilization, to

discriminate between ethnical periods, or stages of culture both in

savagery and in barbarism. The progress of mankind from their

primitive condition to civilization has been marked and eventful.

Each great stage of progress is connected, more or less directly,

with some important invention or discovery which materially

influenced human progress, and inaugurated an improved condition.

For these reasons the period of savagery has been divided into three

subperiods, and that of barbarism also into three, the latter of

which are chiefly important in their relation to the condition of

the Indian tribes. The Older Period of barbarism, which commences

with the introduction of the art of pottery, and the Middle Period,

which commences with the use of adobe brick in the construction of

houses, and with the cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation,

mark two very different and very dissimilar conditions of life. The

larger portion of the Indian tribes fall within one or the other of

these periods. A small portion were in the Older Period of savagery,

and none had reached the Later Period of barbarism, which

immediately precedes civilization. In treating of the condition of

the several tribes they will be assigned to the particular period to

which they severally belong under this classification.

I regret to add that I have not been able, from failing health, to

give to this manuscript the continuous thought which a work of any

kind should receive from its author. But I could not resist the

invitation of my friend Major J. W. Powell, the Director of the

Bureau of Ethnology, to put these chapters together as well as I

might be able, that they might be published by that Bureau. As it

will undoubtedly be my last work, I part with it under some

solicitude for the reason named; but submit it cheerfully to the

indulgence of my readers.

I am greatly indebted to my friend Mr. J. C. Pilling, of the same

Bureau, for his friendly labor and care in correcting the proof

sheets, and for supervising the illustrations. Such favors are very

imperfectly repaid by an author's thanks.

The late William W. Ely, M. D., LL. D., was, for a period of more

than twenty-five years, my cherished friend and literary adviser,

and to him I am indebted for many valuable suggestions, and for

constant encouragement in my labors. The dedication of this volume

to his memory is but a partial expression of my admiration of his

beautiful character, and of my appreciation of his friendship.

LEWIS H. MORGAN

ROCHESTER, N. Y., June, 1881

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.

The Gens: organized upon kin; rights, privileges, and obligations of

its members--The Phratry: its character and functions--The Tribe:

its composition and attributes--The Confederacy of Tribes: its nature,

character and functions.

CHAPTER II.

THE LAW OF HOSPITALITY AND ITS GENERAL PRACTICE.

Indian tribes in three dissimilar conditions--Savage tribes--

Partially horticultural tribes--Village Indians--Usages and customs

affecting their house life--The law of hospitality practiced by the

Iroquois; by the Algonkin tribes of lower Virginia; by the Delawares

and Munsees; by the tribes of the Missouri, of the Valley of the

Columbia; by the Dakota tribes of the Mississippi, by the Algonkin

tribes of Wisconsin; by the Cherokees, Choctaws, and Creeks; by the

Village Indians of New Mexico, of Mexico, of Central America; by the

tribes of Venezuela; by the Peruvians--Universality of the usage--It

implies communism in living in large households.

CHAPTER III.

COMMUNISM IN LIVING.

A law of their condition--Large households among Indian tribes--

Communism in living in the household--Long Houses of the Iroquois--

Several families in a house--Communism in household--Long Houses of

Virginia Indians--Clustered cabins of the Creeks--Communism in the

cluster--Hunting bands on the plains--The capture a common stock--

Fishing bands on the Columbia--The capture a common stock--Large

households in tribes of the Colombia--Communism in the household--

Mandan houses--Contained several families--Houses of the Sauks the

same--Village Indians of New Mexico--Mayas of Yucatan--Their present

communism in living--Large households of Indians of Cuba, of

Venezuela, of Carthagena, of Peru.

CHAPTER IV.

USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LAND AND FOOD.

Tribal domain owned by the tribe in common--Possessory right in

individuals and families to such land as they cultivated--Government

compensation for Indian lands paid to tribe; for improvements to

individuals--Apartments of a house and possessory rights to lands

went to gentile heirs--Tenure of land among sedentary Village

Indians at Taos, Jemex, and Zunyi--Among Aztecs or Ancient Mexicans,

as presented by Mr. Bandelier; in Peru--The usage of having but one

prepared meal each day, a dinner--Rule among Northern tribes--A

breakfast as well as a dinner claimed for the Mexicans--Separation

at meals, the men eating first, and by themselves, and the women and

children afterwards.

CHAPTER V.

HOUSES OF INDIAN TRIBES NORTH OF NEW MEXICO.

Houses of Indian tribes must be considered as parts of a common

system of construction--A common principle runs through all its forms;

that of adaptation to communism in living within the household--It

explains this architecture--Communal houses of tribes in savagery;

in California; in the valley of the Yukon; in the valley of the

Columbia--Communal house of tribes in the lower status of barbarism--

Ojibwa lodge--Dakota skin tent--Long houses of Virginia Indians; of

Nyach tribe on Long Island; of Seneca-Iroquois; of Onondaga-Iroquois--

Dirt Lodge of Mandans and Minnetarees--Thatched houses of Maricopas

and Mohaves of the Colorado; of the Pimas of the Gila--What a

comparison shows.

CHAPTER VI.

HOUSES OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO.

Improved character of houses--The defensive principle incorporated

in their plan of the Houses--Their joint tenement character--Two or

more stories high--Improved apparel, pottery, and fabrics--Pueblo of

Santo Domingo; of adobe bricks--Built in terraced town--Ground story

closed--Terraces reached by ladders--Rooms entered through

trap-doors in ceilings--Pueblo of Zunyi--Ceiling--Water-jars and

hand mill--Moki pueblo--Room in same--Ceiling like that at Zunyi--

Pueblo of Taos--Estufas for holding councils--Size of adobes--Of

doorways--Window-openings and trap-doorways--Present governmental

organization--Room in pueblo--Fire-places and chimneys of modern

introduction--Present ownership and inheritance of property--Village

Indians have declined since their discovery--Sun worship--The

Montezuma religion--Seclusion from religious motives.

CHAPTER VII.

HOUSES IN RUINS OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF THE SAN JUAN RIVER

AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.

Pueblos in stone--The best structures in New Mexico--Ruins in the

valley of the Chaco--Exploration of Lieut. J. H. Simpson in 1849; of

William H. Jackson in 1877--Map of valley--Ground plans--Pueblo

Pintado and Weje-gi--Constructed of tabular pieces of sandstone--

Estufas and their uses--Pueblos Una Vida and Hungo Pavie--Restoration

of Hungo Pavie--Pueblo of Chettro-Kettle--Room in same--Form of

ceiling--Pueblo Bonito--Room in same--Restoration of Pueblo--Pueblo

del Arroyo--Pueblo Penyasca Blanca--Seven large pueblos and two

smaller ones--Pueblo Alto without the valley on table land on the

north side--Probably the "Seven Cities of Cibola" of Coronado's

Expedition--Reasons for supposition--The pueblos constructed

gradually--Remarkable appearance of the valley when inhabited.

CHAPTER VIII.

HOUSES IN RUINS OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF THE SAN JUAN RIVER

AND ITS TRIBUTARIES--(Continued.)

Ruins of stone pueblo on Animas River--Ground plan--Each room faced

with stone, showing natural faces--Constructed like those in Chaco--

Adobe mortar--Its composition and efficiency--Lime unknown in New

Mexico--Gypsum mortar probably used in New Mexico and Central America--

Cedar poles used as lintels--Cedar beams used as joists--Estufas;

neither fire-places nor chimneys--The House a fortress--Second stone

pueblo--Six other pueblos in ruins near--The Montezuma Valley--Nine

pueblos in ruins in a cluster--Diagram--Ruins of stone pueblos near

Ute Mountain--Outline of plan--Round tower of stone with three

concentric walls--Incorporated in pueblo--Another round tower--With

two concentric walls--Stands isolated--Other ruins--San Juan

district as an original centre of this Indian culture--

Mound-Builders probable emigrants from this region--Historical

tribes of Mexico emigrants from same--Indian migrations--Made under

control of physical causes.

CHAPTER IX.

HOUSES OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS.

Area of their occupation--Their condition that of Village Indians--

Probably immigrants from New Mexico--Character of their earthworks--

Embankments enclosing squares--Probable sites of their houses--

Adapted, as elevated platforms, to Long Houses--High bank works--

Capacity of embankments--Conjectural restoration of the pueblo--

Other embankments--Their probable uses--Artificial clay beds under

grave-mounds--Probably used for cremation of chiefs--Probable

numbers of the Mound Builders--Failure of attempt to transplant this

type of village life to the Ohio Valley--Their withdrawal probably

voluntary.

CHAPTER X.

HOUSES OF THE AZTECS OR ANCIENT MEXICANS.

First accounts of Pueblo of Mexico--Their extravagance--Later

American exaggerations--Kings and emperors made out of sachems and

war-chiefs--Ancient society awakens curiosity and wonder--Aztec

government a confederacy of three Indian tribes--Pueblo of Mexico in

an artificial lake--Joint-tenement houses--Several families in each

house--Houses in Cuba and Central America--Aztec houses not fully

explored--Similar to those in New Mexico--Communism in living

probable--Cortez in Pueblo of Mexico--His quarters--Explanation of

Diaz--Of Herrera--Of Bandolier--House occupied by Montezuma--A

communal house--Montezuma's dinner--According to Diaz--to Cortez--to

Herrera--To H. H. Bancroft--Excessive exaggerations--Dinner in

common by a communal household--Bandelier's "Social Organization and

Mode of Government of the Ancient Mexicans."

CHAPTER XI.

RUINS OF HOUSES OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF YUCATAN

AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

Pueblos in Yucatan and Central America--Their situation--Their house

architecture--Highest type of aboriginal architecture--Pueblos were

occupied when discovered--Uxmal houses erected on pyramidal

elevations--Governor's house--Character of its architecture--House

of the Nuns--Triangular ceiling of stone--Absence of chimneys--No

cooking done within the house--Their communal plan evidently

joint-tenement houses--Present communism of Mayas--Presumtively

inherited from their ancestors--Ruins of Zayi--The closed house--

Apartments constructed over a core of masonry--Palenque--Mr.

Stephens' misconception of these ruins--Whether the post and lintel

of stone were used as principles of construction--Plan of all these

houses communal--Also fortresses--Palenque Indians flat-heads--

American ethnography--General conclusions.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

FRONTISPIECE. Zunyi Water Carrier.

Fig. 1. Earth Lodges of the Sacramento Valley

Fig. 2. Gallinomero Thatched Lodge

Fig. 3. Matdu Lodge in the high Sierra

Fig. 4. Yukuta Tule Lodges

Fig. 5. Kutchin Lodge

Fig. 6. Ground-plan of Necrohokioo

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

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

Fig. 9. Village of Pomeiock

Fig. 10. Village of Secotan

Fig. 11. Interior of House of Virginia Indians

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

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

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

Long-House.

Fig. 15. Palisaded Onondaga Village

Fig. 16. Mandan Village Plot

Fig. 17. Ground-plan of Mandan House

Fig. 18. Cross-section of Mandan House

Fig. 19. Mandan House

Fig. 20. Mandan Drying-Scaffold

Fig. 21. Mandan Ladder

Fig. 22. Pueblo of Santo Domingo

Fig. 23. Pueblo of Zunyi

Fig. 24. Room in Zunyi House

Fig. 25. Pueblo of Wolpi

Fig. 26. Room in Moki House

Fig. 27. North Pueblo of Taos

Fig. 28. Room in Pueblo of Taos

Fig. 29. Map of a portion of Chaco Canyon

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

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

Fig. 32. Restoration of Pueblo Hungo Pavie

Fig. 33. Ground-plan of Pueblo Chettro Kettle

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

Fig. 35. Ground-plan of Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 36. Room in Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 37. Restoration of Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 38. Ground-plan of Pueblo del Arroyo

Fig. 39. Ground-plan of Pueblo Peuasca Blanca

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

Fig. 41. Stone from Doorway

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

Fig. 42. Section of Cedar Lintel

Fig. 43. Outline of Stone Pueblo on Animas River

Fig. 44. Pueblos at commencement of McElmo Canyon

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

Fig. 46. Ground-plan of High Bank Pueblo

Fig. 47. Restoration of High Bank Pueblo

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

Fig. 49. Mound with artificial clay basin

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

Fig. 51. Governor's House at Uxmal

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

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

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

Fig. 55. Ground-plan of Zayi

Fig. 56. Cross-section through one apartment

HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

CHAPTER I.

SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.

In a previous work I have considered the organization of the

American aborigines in gentes, phratries, and tribes, with the

functions of each in their social system. From the importance of

this organization to a right understanding of their social and

governmental life, a recapitulation of the principal features of

each member of the organic series is necessary in this connection.

[Footnote: "Ancient Society" or "Researches in the Lines of Human

Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization." Henry

Holt & Co. 1877.]

The gentile organization opens to us one of the oldest and most

widely-prevalent institutions of mankind. It furnished the nearly

universal plan of government of ancient society, Asiatic, European,

African, American, and Australian. It was the instrumentality by

means of which society was organized and held together. Commencing

in savagery, and continuing through the three subperiods of barbarism,

it remained until the establishment of political society, which did

not occur until after civilization had Commenced. The Grecian gens,

phratry, and tribe, the Roman gens, curia, and tribe find their

analogues in the gens, phratry, and tribe of the American aborigines.

In like manner the Irish sept, the Scottish clan, the phratra of the

Albanians, and the Sanskrit ganas, without extending the comparison

further, are the same as the American Indian gens, which has usually

been called a clan. As far as our knowledge extends, this

organization runs through the entire ancient world upon all the

continents, and it was brought down to the historical period by such

tribes as attained to civilization. Nor is this all. Gentile society

wherever found is the same in structural organization and in

principles of action; but changing from lower to higher forms with

the progressive advancement of the people. These changes give the

history of development of the same original conceptions.

THE GENS.

Gens, [Greek: genos], and gattas in Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit have

alike the primary signification of kin. They contain the same

element as gigno, [Greek: gignouas], and ganaman, in the same

languages, signifying to beget; thus implying in each an immediate

common descent of the members of a gens. A gens, therefore, is a

body of consanguinei descended from the same common ancestor,

distinguished by a gentile name, and bound together by affinities of

blood. It includes a moiety only of such descendants. Where descent

is in the female line, as it was universally in the archaic period,

the gens is composed of a supposed female ancestor and her children,

together with the children of her female descendants, through females,

in perpetuity; and where descent is in the male line--into which it

was changed after the appearance of property in masses--of a

supposed male ancestor and his children, together with the children

of his male descendants, through males, in perpetuity. The family

name among ourselves is a survival of the gentile name, with descent

in the male line, and passing in the same manner. The modern family,

as expressed by its name, is an unorganized gens, with the bond of

kin broken, and its members as widely dispersed as the family name

is found.

Among the nations named, the gens indicated a social organization of

a remarkable character, which had prevailed from an antiquity so

remote that its origin was lost in the obscurity of far distant ages.

It was also the unit of organization of a social and governmental

system, the fundamental basis of ancient society. This organization

was not confined to the Latin, Grecian, and Sanskrit speaking tribes,

with whom it became such a conspicuous institution. It has been

found in other branches of the Aryan family of nations, in the

Semitic, Uralian and Turanian families, among the tribes of Africa

and Australia, and of the American aborigines.

The gens has passed through successive stages of development in its

transition from its archaic to its final form with the progress of

mankind. These changes were limited in the main to two, firstly,

changing descent from the female line, which was the archaic rule,

as among the Iroquois, to the male line, which was the final rule,

as among the Grecian and Roman gentes; and, secondly, changing the

inheritance of the property of a deceased member of the gens from

his gentiles, who took it in the archaic period, first to his

agnatic kindred, and finally to his children. These changes, slight

as they may seem, indicate very great changes of condition as well

as a large degree of progressive development.

The gentile organization, originating in the period of savagery,

enduring through the three subperiods of barbarism, finally gave way,

among the more advanced tribes, when they attained civilization--the

requirements of which it was unable to meet. Among the Greeks and

Romans political society supervened upon gentile society, but not

until civilization had commenced. The township (and its equivalent,

the city ward), with its fixed property, and the inhabitants it

contained, organized as a body politic, became the unit and the

basis of a new and radically different system of government. After

political society was instituted this ancient and time-honored

organization, with the phratry and tribe developed from it,

gradually yielded up their existence. It was under gentile

institutions that barbarism was won by some of the tribes of mankind

while in savagery, and that civilization was won by the descendants

of some of the same tribes while in barbarism. Gentile institutions

carried a portion of mankind from savagery to civilization.

This organization may be successfully studied both in its living and

in its historical forms in a large number of tribes and races. In

such an investigation it is preferable to commence with the gens in

its archaic form I shall commence, therefore, with the gens as it

now exists among the American aborigines, where it is found in its

archaic form, and among whom its theoretical constitution and

practical workings can be investigated more successfully than in the

historical gentes of the Greeks and Romans. In fact, to understand

fully the gentes of the latter nations a knowledge of the functions

and of the rights, privileges, and obligations of the members of the

American Indian gens is imperatively necessary.

In American ethnography tribe and clan have been used in the place

of gens as equivalent terms from not perceiving the universality of

the latter. In previous works, and following my predecessors, I have

so used them. A comparison of the Indian clan with the gens of the

Greeks and Romans reveals at once their identity in structure and

functions. It also extends to the phratry and tribe. If the identity

of these several organizations can be shown, of which there can be

no doubt, there is a manifest propriety in returning to the Latin

and Grecian terminologies, which are full and precise as well as

historical.

The plan of government of the American aborigines commenced with the

gens and ended with the confederacy, the latter being the highest

point to which their governmental institutions attained. It gave for

the organic series: first, the gens, a body of consanguinei having a

common gentile name; second, the phratry, an assemblage of related

gentes united in a higher association for certain common objects;

third, the tribe, an assemblage of gentes, usually organized in

phratries, all the members of which spoke the same dialect; and

fourth, a confederacy of tribes, the members of which respectively

spoke dialects of the same stock language. It resulted in a gentile

society (societas) as distinguished from a political society or

state (civitas). The difference between the two is wide and

fundamental. There was neither a political society, nor a citizen,

nor a state, nor any civilization in America when it was discovered.

One entire ethnical period intervened between the highest American

Indian tribes and the beginning of civilization, as that term is

properly understood.

The gens, though a very ancient social organization founded upon kin,

does not include all the descendants of a common ancestor. It was

for the reason that when the gens came in marriage between single

pairs was unknown, and descent through males could not be traced

with certainty. Kindred were linked together chiefly through the

bond of their maternity In the ancient gens descent was limited to

the female line. It embraced all such persons as traced their

descent from a supposed common female ancestor, through females, the

evidence of the fact being the possession of a common gentile name.

It would include this ancestor and her children, the children of her

daughters, and the children of her female descendants, through

females, in perpetuity, while the children of her sons and the

children of her male descendants, through males, would belong to

other gentes, namely, those of their respective mothers. Such was

the gens in its archaic form, when the paternity of children was not

certainly ascertainable, and when their maternity afforded the only

certain criterion of descents.

This state of descents which can be traced back to the Middle Status

of savagery, as among the Australians, remained among the American

aborigines through the Upper Status of savagery, and into and

through the Lower Status of barbarism, with occasional exceptions.

In the Middle Status of barbarism the Indian tribes began to change

descent from the female line to the male, as die syndyasmian family

of the period began to assume monogamian characteristics. In the

Upper Status of barbarism descent had become changed to the male

line among the Grecian tribes, with the exception of the Lycians,

and among the Italian tribes, with the exception of the Etruscans.

Between the two extremes, represented by the two rules of descent,

three entire ethnical periods intervene, covering many thousands of

years.

As intermarriage in the gens was prohibited, it withdrew its members

from the evils of consanguine marriages, and thus tended to increase

the vigor of the stock. The gens came into being upon three

principal conceptions, namely, the bond of kin, a pure lineage

through descent in the female line, and non-intermarriage in the gens.

When the idea of a gens was developed, it would naturally have taken

the form of gentes in pairs, because the children of the males were

excluded, and because it was equally necessary to organize both

classes of descendants. With two gentes started into being

simultaneously the whole result would have been attained, since the

males and females of one gens would marry the females and males of

the other, and the children, following the gentes of their

respective mothers, would be divided between them. Resting on the

bond of kin as its cohesive principal the gens afforded to each

individual member that personal protection which no other existing

power could give.

After enumerating the rights, privileges, and obligations of its

members, it will be necessary to follow the gens in its organic

relations to a phratry tribe and confederacy, in order to find the

uses to which it was applied, the privileges which it conferred, and

the principles which it fostered. The gentes of the Iroquois will be

taken as the standard exemplification of this institution in the

Ganowaman family. They had carried their scheme of government from

the gens to the confederacy, making it complete in each of its parts,

and an excellent illustration of the capabilities of the gentile

organization in its archaic form.

When discovered the Iroquois were in the Lower Status of barbarism,

and well advanced in the arts of life pertaining to this condition.

They manufactured nets, twine, and rope from filaments of bark, wove

belts and burden straps, with warp and woof from the same materials,

they manufactured earthen vessels and pipes from clay mixed with

silicious materials and hardened by fire, some of which were

ornamented with rude medallions, they cultivated maize, beans,

squashes, and tobacco in garden beds, and made unleavened bread from

pounded maize, which they boiled in earthen vessels, [Footnote:

These loaves or cakes were about six inches in diameter and an inch

thick] they tanned skins into leather, with which they manufactured

kilts leggins, and moccasins, they used the bow and arrow and

war-club as their principal weapons, used flint-stone and bone

implements, wore skin garments, and were expert hunters and

fishermen They constructed long joint tenement houses large enough

to accommodate five, ten, and twenty families, and each household

practiced communism in living, but they were unacquainted with the

use of stone or adobe brick in house architecture, and with the use

of the native metals. In mental capacity and in general advancement

they were the representative branch of the Indian family north of

New Mexico General F A. Walker has sketched their military career in

two paragraphs "The career of the Iroquois was simply terrific. They

were the scourge of God upon the continent." [Footnote: North

American Review April No. 1873 p. 360 Note.] From lapse of time the

Iroquois tribes have come to differ slightly in the number and in

the names of their respective gentes, the largest number being eight,

as follows:

Seneca Cayuga Onondaga Oneida Mohawks Tuscarora

1 Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Gray Wolf

2 Bear Bear Bear Bear Bear Bear

3 Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Great Turtle

4 Beaver Beaver Beaver Beaver

5 Deer Deer Deer Yellow Wolf

6 Snipe Snipe Snipe Snipe

7 Heron Eel Eel Eel

8 Hawk Hawk Ball Little Turtle

These changes show that certain gentes in some of the tribes have

become extinct through the vicissitudes of time, and that others

have been formed by the segmentation of over full gentes.

With a knowledge of the rights, privileges, and obligations of the

members of a gens, its capabilities as the unit of a social and

governmental system will be more fully understood, as well as the

manner in which it entered into the higher organizations of the

phratry tribe, and confederacy.

The gens is individualized by the following rights, privileges, and

obligations conferred and imposed upon its members, and which made

up the jus gentilicium:

I The right of electing its sachem and chiefs

II The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs

III The obligation not to marry in the gens

IV Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased

members

V Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of

injuries

VI The right of bestowing names upon its members

VII The right of adopting strangers into the gens

VIII Common religious rites

IX A common burial place.

X A council of the gens

These functions and attributes gave vitality as well as

individuality to the organization and protected the personal rights

of its members. Such were the rights, privileges, and obligations of

the members of an Iroquois gens; and such were those of the members

of the gentes of the Indian tribes generally, as far as the

investigation has been carried.

For a detailed exposition of these characteristics the reader is

referred to Ancient Society, pp. 72-85.

All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they

were bound to defend each other's freedom; they were equal in

privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no

superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties

of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated,

were cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are material,

because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental system,

the foundation upon which Indian society was organized. A structure

composed of such units would of necessity bear the impress of their

character, for as the unit so the compound. It serves to explain

that sense of independence and personal dignity universally an

attribute of Indian character.

Thus substantial and important in the social system was the gens as

it anciently existed among the American aborigines, and as it still

exists in full vitality in many Indian tribes. It was the basis of

the phratry, of the tribe, and of the confederacy of tribes.

At the epoch of European discovery the American Indian tribes

generally were organized in gentes, with descent in the female line.

In some tribes, as among the Dakotas, the gentes had fallen out; in

others, as among the Ojibwas, the Omahas, and the Mayas of Yucatan,

descent had been changed from the female to the male line.

Throughout aboriginal America the gens took its name from some

animal or inanimate object and never from a person. In this early

condition of society the individuality of persons was lost in the

gens. It is at least presumable that the gentes of the Grecian and

Latin tribes were so named at some anterior period; but when they

first came under historical notice they were named after persons. In

some of the tribes, as the Moki Village Indians of Arizona, the

members of the gens claimed their descent from the animal whose name

they bore--their remote ancestors having been transformed by the

Great Spirit from the animal into the human form. The Crane gens of

the Ojibwas have a similar legend. In some tribes the members of a

gens will not eat the animal whose name they bear, in which they are

doubtless influenced by this consideration.

With respect to the number of persons in a gens, it varied with the

number of the gentes, and with the prosperity or decadence of the

tribe. Three thousand Senecas divided equally among eight gentes

would give an average of three hundred and seventy-five persons to a

gens. Fifteen thousand Ojibwas divided equally among twenty-three

gentes would give six hundred and fifty persons to a gens. The

Cherokees would average more than a thousand to a gens. In the

present condition of the principal Indian tribes the number of

persons in each gens would range from one hundred to a thousand.

One of the oldest and most widely prevalent institutions of mankind,

the gentes have been closely identified with human progress upon

which they have exercised a powerful influence. They have been found

in tribes in the Status of savagery, in the Lower, in the Middle,

and in the Upper Status of barbarism on different continents, and in

full vitality in the Grecian and Latin tribes after civilization had

commenced. Every family of mankind, except the Polynesian, seems to

have come under the gentile organization, and to have been indebted

to it for preservation and for the means of progress. It finds its

only parallel in length of duration in systems of consanguinity,

which, springing up at a still earlier period, have remained to the

present time, although the marriage usages in which they originated

have long since disappeared.

From its early institution, and from its maintenance through such

immense stretches of time, the peculiar adaptation of the gentile

organization to mankind, while in a savage and in a barbarous state,

must be regarded as abundantly demonstrated.

THE PHRATRY.

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

natural growth from the organization into gentes. It is an organic

union or association of two or more gentes of the same tribe for

certain common objects. These gentes were usually such as had been

formed by the segmentation of an original gens.

The phratry existed in a large number of the tribes of the American

aborigines, where it is seen to arise by natural growth, and to

stand as the second member of the organic series, as among the

Grecian and Latin tribes. It did not possess original governmental

functions, as the gens tribe and confederacy possessed them but it

was endowed with certain useful powers in the social system, from

the necessity for some organization larger than a gens and smaller

than a tribe and especially when the tribe was large. The same

institution in essential features and in character, it presents the

organization in its archaic form and with its archaic functions. A

knowledge of the Indian phratry is necessary to an intelligent

understanding of the Grecian and the Roman.

The eight gentes of the Seneca Iroquois tribe were reintegrated in

two phratries as follows:

First Phratry

Gentes--1 Bear 2 Wolf 3 Beaver 4 Turtle

Second Phratry

Gentes--5 Deer 6 Snipe 7 Heron 8 Hawk

Each phratry (De da non da a yoh) is a brotherhood as this term also

imports. The gentes in the same phratry are brother gentes to each

other and cousin gentes to those of the other phratry. They are

equal in grade, character, and privileges. It is a common practice

of the Senecas to call the gentes of their own phratry brother

gentes and those of the other phratry their cousin gentes, when they

mention them in their relation to the phratries. Originally marriage

was not allowed between the members of the same phratry but the

members of either could marry into any gens of the other. This

prohibition tends to show that the gentes of each phratry were

subdivisions of an original gens and therefore the prohibition

against marrying into a person's own gens had followed to its

subdivisions. This restriction however was long since removed except

with respect to the gens of the individual. A tradition of the

Senecas affirms that the Bear and the Deer were the original gentes,

of which the others were subdivisions. It is thus seen that the

phratry had a natural foundation in the kinship of the gentes of

which it was composed. After their subdivision from increase of

numbers there was a natural tendency to their reunion in a higher

organization for objects common to them all. The same gentes are not

constant in a phratry indefinitely, as appears from the composition

of the phratries in the remaining Iroquois tribes. Transfers of

particular gentes from one phratry to the other must have occurred

when the equilibrium in their respective numbers was disturbed. It

is important to know the simple manner in which this organization

springs up, and the facility with which it is managed as a part of

the social system of ancient society. With the increase of numbers

in a gens, followed by local separation of its members, segmentation

occurred, and the seceding portion adopted a new gentile name. But a

tradition of their former unity would remain and become the basis of

their reorganization in a phratry.

From the differences in the composition of the phratries in the

several tribes it seems probable that the phratries are modified in

their gentes at intervals of time to meet changes of condition. Some

gentes prosper and increase in numbers, while others, through

calamities, decline, and others become extinct; so that transfers of

gentes from one phratry to another were found necessary to preserve

some degree of equality in the number of phrators in each. The

phratric organization has existed among the Iroquois from time

immemorial. It is probably older than the confederacy which was

established more than four centuries ago. The amount of difference

in their composition, as to the gentes they contain, represents the

vicissitudes through which each tribe has passed in the interval. In

any view of the matter it is small, tending to illustrate the

permanence of the phratry as well as the gens.

The Iroquois tribes had a total of thirty-eight gentes, and in four

of the tribes a total of eight phratries.

The phratry among the Iroquois was partly for social and partly for

religious objects. Its functions and uses can be best shown by

practical illustrations. We begin with the lowest, with games, which

were of common occurrence at tribal and confederate councils. In the

ball game, for example, among the Senecas, they play by phratries,

one against the other, and they bet against each other upon the

result of the game. Each phratry puts forward its best players,

usually from six to ten on a side, and the members of each phratry

assemble together, but upon opposite sides of the field in which the

game is played. Before it commences, articles of personal property

are hazarded upon the result by members of the opposite phratries.

These are deposited with keepers to abide the event. The game is

played with spirit and enthusiasm, and is an exciting spectacle. The

members of each phratry, from their opposite stations, watch the

game with eagerness, and cheer their respective players at every

successful turn of the game. [Footnote: League of the Iroquois, p.

294.]

Again, when a murder had been committed it was usual for the gens of

the murdered person to meet in council, and, after ascertaining the

facts, to take measures for avenging the deed. The gens of the

criminal also held a council, and endeavored to effect an adjustment

or condonation of the crime with the gens of the murdered person;

but it often happened that the gens of the criminal called upon the

other gentes of their phratry, when the slayer and the slain

belonged to opposite phratries, to unite with them to obtain a

condonation of the crime. In such a case the phratry held a council,

and then addressed itself to the other phratry, to which it sent a

delegation with a belt of white wampum asking for a council of the

phratry and for an adjustment of the crime. They offered reparation

to the family and gens of the murdered person in expressions of

regret and in presents of value. Negotiations were continued between

the two councils until an affirmative or a negative conclusion was

reached. The influence of a phratry composed of several gentes would

be greater than that of a single gens; and by calling into action

the opposite phratry the probability of a condonation would be

increased, especially if there were extenuating circumstances. We

may thus see how naturally the Grecian phratry, prior to civilization,

assumed the principal though not exclusive management of cases of

murder, and also of the purification of the murderer if he escaped

punishment, and after the institution of political society with what

propriety the phratry assumed the duty of prosecuting the murderer

in the courts of justice.

At the funerals of persons of recognized importance in the tribe the

phratric organization manifested itself in a conspicuous manner The

phrators of the decedent in a body were the mourners, and the

members of the opposite phratry conducted the ceremonies. At the

funeral of Handsome Lake (Ga-ne-o-di'-yo), one of the eight Seneca

sachems (which occurred some years ago), there was an assemblage of

sachems and chiefs to the number of twenty-seven, and a large

concourse of members of both phratries The customary address to the

dead body, and the other addresses before the removal of the body,

were made by members of the opposite phratry After the addresses

were concluded the body was borne to the grave by persons selected

from the last named phratry, followed, first, by the sachems and

chiefs, then by the family and gens of the decedent, next by his

remaining phrators, and last by the members of the opposite phratry

After the body had been deposited in the grave the sachems and

chiefs formed in a circle around it for the purpose of filling it

with earth. Each in turn, commencing with the senior in years, cast

in three shovelfuls, a typical number in their religious system, of

which the first had relation to the Great Spirit, the second to the

Sun, and the third to Mother Earth When the grave was filled the

senior sachem, by a figure of speech, deposited "the horns" of the

departed sachem, emblematic of his office, upon the top of the grave

over his head, there to remain until his successor was installed In

that subsequent ceremony "the horns" were said to be taken from the

grave of the deceased ruler and placed upon the head of his

successor The social and religious functions of the phratry, and its

naturalness in the organic system of ancient society, are rendered

apparent by this single usage.

The phratry was also directly concerned in the election of sachems

and chiefs of the several gentes, upon which they had a negative as

well as a confirmative vote After the gens of a deceased sachem had

elected his successor, or had elected a chief of the second grade,

it was necessary, as elsewhere stated, that their choice should be

accepted and confirmed by each phratry It was expected that the

gentes of the same phratry would confirm the choice almost as a

matter of course, but the opposite phratry also must acquiesce, and

from this source opposition sometimes appeared A council of each

phratry was held and pronounced upon the question of acceptance or

rejection. If the nomination made was accepted by both it became

complete, but if either refused it was thereby set aside and a new

election was made by the gens. When the choice made by the gens had

been accepted by the phratries it was still necessary, as before

stated, that the new sachem, or the new chief, should be invested by

the council of the confederacy, which alone had power to invest with

office.

The phratry was without governmental functions in the strict sense

of the phrase, these being confined to the gens tribe and confederacy;

but it entered into their social affairs with large administrative

powers, and would have concerned itself more and more with their

religious affairs as the condition of the people advanced. Unlike

the Grecian phratry and the Roman curia, it had no official head.

There was no chief of the phratry as such, and no religious

functionaries belonging to it as distinguished from the gene and

tribe. The phratric institution among the Iroquois was in its

rudimentary archaic form; but it grew into life by natural and

inevitable development, and remained permanent because it met

necessary wants Every institution of mankind which attained

permanence will be found linked with a perpetual want. With the gens

tribe and confederacy in existence the presence of the phratry was

substantially assured. It required time, however, and further

experience to manifest all the uses to which it might be made

subservient.

Among the Village Indians of Mexico and Central America the phratry

must have existed, reasoning upon general principles, and have been

a more fully developed and influential organization than among the

Iroquois Unfortunately mere glimpses at such an institution are all

that can be found in the teeming narratives of the Spanish writers

within the first century after the Spanish conquest. The four

"lineages" of the Tlascalans who occupied the four quarters of the

pueblo of Tlascalan were, in all probability, so many phratries. They

were sufficiently numerous for four tribes, but as they occupied the

same pueblo and spoke the same dialect the phratric organization was

apparently a necessity. Each lineage or phratry, so to call it, had

a distinct military organization, a peculiar costume and banner, and

its head war-chief (Teuctli), who was its general military commander.

They went forth to battle by phratries. The organization of a

military force by phratries and by tribes was not unknown to the

Homeric Greeks Thus, Nestor advised Agamemnon to "separate the

troops by phratries and by tribes, so that phratry may support

phratry and tribe" [Footnote: Illiad]

Under gentile institutions of the most advanced type the principle

of kin became to a considerable extent the basis of the army

organization. The Aztecs, in like manner occupied the pueblo of

Mexico in four distinct divisions, the people of each of which were

more nearly related to each other than to the people of the other

divisions. They were separate lineages, like the Tlas-calan, and it

seems highly probable were four phratries, separately organized as

such They were distinguished from each--other by costumes and

standards, and went out to war as separate divisions. Their

geographical areas were called the four quarters of Mexico.

With respect to the prevalence of this organization among the Indian

tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism the subject has been but

slightly investigated. It is probable that it was general in the

principal tribes from the natural manner in which it springs up as a

necessary member of the organic series, and from the uses, other

than governmental, to which it was adapted.

In some of the tribes the phratries stand out prominently upon the

face of their organization. Thus the Chocta gentes are united in two

phratries which must be mentioned first in order to show the

relation of the gentes to each other. The first phratry is called

"Divided People," and contains four gentes. The second is called

"Beloved People" and also contains four gentes. This separation of

the people into two divisions by gentes created two phratries. Some

knowledge of the functions of these phratries is of course desirable,

but without it, the fact of their existence is established by the

divisions themselves. The evolution of a confederacy from a pair of

gentes--for less than two are never found in any tribe--may be

deduced theoretically from the known facts of Indian experience.

Thus the gens increases in the number of its members and divides

into two these again subdivide and in time reunite in two or more

phratries. These phratries form a tribe and its members speak the

same dialect. In course of time this tribe falls into several by the

process of segmentation, which in turn reunite in a confederacy.

Such a confederacy is a growth, through the tribe and phratry, from

a pair of gentes.

The Chickasas are organized in two phratries, of which one contains

four and the other eight gentes, as follows:

I. Panther Phratry.

Gentes. Wild Cat 2. Bird. 3. Fish. 4. Deer.

II. Spanish Phratry.

Gentes--5. Raccoon. 6. Spanish. 7. Royal. 8. Hush-ko'-ni. 9.

Squirrel 10. Alligator. 11 Wolf. 12. Blackbird.

A very complete illustration of the manner in which phratries are

formed by natural growth through the subdivision of gentes is

presented by the organization of the Mohegan tribe. It had three

original gentes, the Wolf, the Turtle, and the Turkey.

Each of these subdivided, and the subdivisions became independent

gentes; but they retained the names of the original gentes as their

respective phratric names In other words, the subdivisions of each

gens reorganized in a phratry. It proves conclusively the natural

process by which in course of time a gens breaks up into several,

and these remain united in a phratric organization, which is

expressed by assuming a phratric name. They are as follows:

I. Wolf Phratry

Gentes. 1. Wolf 2. Bear 3. Dog. 4 Opossum.

II. Turtle Phratry

Gentes--5 Little Turtle. 6. Mud Turtle. 7. Great Turtle

8. Yellow Eel.

III. Turkey Phratry

Gentes--9. Turkey 10. Crane 11. Chicken 12.

It is thus seen that the original Wolf gens divided into four gentes,

the Turtle into four, and the Turkey into three. Each new gens took

a new name, the original retaining its own, which became by

seniority that of the phratry. It is rare among the American Indian

tribes to find such plain evidence of the segmentation of gentes in

their external organization, followed by the formation into

phratries of their respective subdivisions. It shows also that the

phratry is founded upon the kinship of the gentes. As a rule, the

name of the original gens out of which others had formed is not known;

but in each of these cases it remains as the name of the phratry.

Since the latter, like the Grecian, was a social and religious

rather than a governmental organization, it is externally less

conspicuous than a gens or tribe, which were essential to the

government of society. The name of but one of the twelve Athenian

phratries has come down to us in history. Those of the Iroquois had

no name but that of a brotherhood.

The phratry also appears among the Thlinkits of the Northwest coast

upon the surface of their organization into gentes. They have two

phratries, as follows:

I. Wolf Phratry.

Gentes. 1. Bear 2. Eagle. 3. Dolphin. 4. Shark. 5. Alca.

II. Raven Phratry.

Gentes. 6. Frog. 7. Goose. 8. Sea-lion. 9. Owl. 10. Salmon.

Intermarriage in the phratry is prohibited, which shows of itself

that the gentes of each phratry were derived from an original gens.

The members of any gens in the Wolf phratry could marry into any

gens of the opposite phratry, and vice versa.

From the foregoing facts the existence of the phratry is established

in several linguistic stocks of the American aborigines. Its

presence in the tribes named raises a presumption of its general

prevalence in the Ganowanian family. Among the Village Indians,

where the numbers in a gens and tribe were greater, it would

necessarily have been more important, and consequently more fully

developed. As an institution it was still in its archaic form, but

it possessed the essential elements of the Grecian and the Roman.

THE TRIBE.

It is difficult to describe an Indian tribe by the affirmative

elements of its composition. Nevertheless it is clearly marked, and

is the ultimate organization of the great body of the American

aborigines. The large number of independent tribes into which they

had fallen by the natural process of segmentation is the striking

characteristic of their condition. Each tribe was individualized by

a name, by a separate dialect, by a supreme government, and by the

possession of a territory which it occupied and defended as its own.

The tribes were as numerous as the dialects, for separation did not

become complete until dialectical variation had commenced. Indian

tribes, therefore, are natural growths through the separation of the

same people in the area of their occupation, followed by divergence

of speech, segmentation, and independence.

The exclusive possession of a dialect and of a territory has led to

the application of the term nation to many Indian tribes,

notwithstanding the fewness of the people in each. Tribe and nation,

however, are not strict equivalents. A nation does not arise, under

gentile institutions, until the tribes united under the same

government have coalesced into one people, as the four Athenian

tribes coalesced in Attica, three Dorian tribes at Sparta, and three

Latin and Sabine tribes at Rome. Federation requires independent

tribes in separate territorial areas; but coalescence unites them by

a higher process in the same area, although the tendency to local

separation by gentes and by tribes would continue. The confederacy

is the nearest analogue of the nation, but not strictly equivalent.

Where the gentile organization exists, the organic series gives all

the terms which are needed for a correct description.

An Indian tribe is composed of several gentes, developed from two or

more, all the members of which are intermingled by marriage, and all

of whom speak the same dialect. To a stranger the tribe is visible,

and not the gens. The instances are extremely rare, among the

American aborigines, in which the tribe embraced peoples speaking

different dialects. When such cases are found it has resulted from

the union of a weaker with a stronger tribe speaking a closely

related dialect, as the union of the Missouris with the Otoet, after

the overthrow of the former. The fact that the great body of the

aborigines were found in independent tribes illustrates the slow and

difficult growth of the idea of government under gentile institutions.

A small portion only had attained to the ultimate stage known Among

them, that of a confederacy of tribes speaking dialects of the same

stock language. A coalescence of tribes into a nation had not

occurred in any case in any part of America.

A constant tendency to disintegration, which has proved such a

hindrance to progress among savage and barbarous tribes, existed in

the elements of the gentile organization. It was aggravated by a

further tendency to divergence of speech, which was inseparable from

their social state and the large areas of their occupation. An oral

language, although remarkably persistent in its vocables, and still

more persistent in its grammatical forms, is incapable of permanence.

Separation of the people in area was followed in time by variation

in speech; and this, in turn, led to separation in interests and

ultimate independence. It was not the work of a brief period, but of

centuries of time, aggregating finally into thousands of years; and

the multiplication of the languages and dialects of the different

families of North and South America probably required for their

formation the time measured by three ethnical periods.

New tribes, as well as new gentes, were constantly forming by

natural growth, and the process was sensibly accelerated by the

great expanse of the American continent. The method was simple. In

the first place there would occur a gradual outflow of people from

some overstocked geographical center, which possessed superior

advantages in the means of subsistence. Continued from year to year,

a considerable population would thus be developed at a distance from

the original seat of the tribe In course of time the emigrants would

become distinct in interests, strangers in feeling, and, last of all,

divergent in speech. Separation and independence would follow,

although their territories were contiguous. A new tribe was thus

created. This is a concise statement of the manner in which the

tribes of the American aborigines were formed, but the statement

must be taken as general. Repeating itself from age to age in newly

acquired as well as in old areas, it must be regarded as a natural

as well as inevitable result of the gentile organization, united

with the necessities of their condition. When increased numbers

pressed upon the means of subsistence, the surplus removed to a new

seat, where they established themselves with facility, because the

government was perfect in every gens, and in any number of gentes

united in a band. Among the Village Indians the same thing repeated

itself in a slightly different manner. When a village became

overcrowded with numbers, a colony went up or down on the same

stream and commenced a new village. Repeated at intervals of time,

several such villages would appear, each independent of the other

and a self-governing body, but united in a league or confederacy for

mutual protection. Dialectic variation would finally spring up, and

thus complete their growth into tribes.

The manner in which tribes are evolved from each other can be shown

directly by examples. The fact of separation can be derived in part

from tradition, in part from the possession by each of a number of

the same gentes, and deduced in part from the relations of their

dialects. Tribes formed by the subdivisions of an original tribe

would possess a number of gentes in common, and speak dialects of

the same language. After several centuries of separation they would

still have a number of the same gentes. Thus the Hurons, now Wyandots,

have six gentes of the same name with six of the gentes of the

Seneca-Iroquois, after at least four hundred years of separation.

The Potawattamies have eight gentes of the same name with eight

among the Ojibwas, while the former have six, and the latter fourteen,

which are different, showing that new gentes have been formed in

each tribe by segmentation since their separation. A still older

offshoot from the Ojibwas, or from the common parent tribe of both,

the Miamis, have but three gentes in common with the former, namely,

the Wolf, the Loon, and the Eagle. The minute social history of the

tribes of the Ganowanian family is locked up in the life and growth

of the gentes. If investigation is ever turned strongly in this

direction, the gentes themselves would become reliable guides, in

respect to the order of separation from each other of the tribes of

the same stock.

This process of subdivision has been operating among the American

aborigines for thousands of years, until several hundred tribes have

been developed from about seventy stocks as existing in as many

families of language. Their experience, probably was but a

repetition of that of the tribes of Asia, Europe, and Africa when

they were in corresponding conditions.

From the preceding observations it is apparent that an American

Indian tribe is a very simple as well as humble organization. It

required but a few hundred, and, at most, a few thousand people to

form a tribe and place it in a respectable position in the

Ganowanian family.

It remains to present the functions and attributes of an Indian tribe,

which are contained in the following propositions:

I The possession of a territory and a name

II The exclusive possession of a dialect

III The right to invest sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes.

IV The right to depose these sachems and chiefs

V The possession of a religious faith and worship

VI A supreme government consisting of a council of chiefs

VII A head-chief of the tribe in some instances

For a discussion of these characteristics of a tribe, reference is

made to Ancient Society, pp. 113-118.

The growth of the idea of government commenced with the organization

into gentes in savagery. It reveals three great stages of

progressive development between its commencement and the institution

of political society after civilization had been attained. The first

stage was the government of a tribe by a council of chiefs elected

by the gentes. It may be called a government of one power, namely

the council. It prevailed generally among tribes in the Lower Status

of barbarism. The second stage was a government co-ordinated between

a council of chiefs and a general military commander, one

representing the civil and the other the military functions. This

second form began to manifest itself in the Lower Status of

barbarism after confederacies were formed, and it became definite in

the Middle Status. The office of general, or principal military

commander, was the germ of that of a chief executive magistrate, the

king, the emperor, and the president. It may be called a government

of two powers, namely, the council of chiefs and the general. The

third stage was the government of a people or nation by a council of

chiefs an assembly of the people, and a general military commander.

It appeared among the tribes who had attained to the Upper Status of

barbarism, such, for example, as the Homeric Greeks and the Italian

tribes of the period of Romulus. A Large increase in the number of

people united in a nation, their establishment in walled cities, and

the creation of wealth in lands and in flocks and herds, brought in

the assembly of the people as an instrument of government. The

council of chiefs, which still remained, found it necessary, no doubt,

through popular constraint, to submit the most important public

measures to an assembly of the people for acceptance or rejection;

whence the popular assembly. This assembly did not originate measures.

It was its function to adopt or reject, and its action was final.

From its first appearance it became a permanent power in the

government. The council no longer passed important public measures,

but became a preconsidering council, with power to originate and

mature public acts to which the assembly alone could give validity.

It may be called a government of three powers, namely, the

preconsidering council, the assembly of the people, and the general.

This remained until the institution of political society, when, for

example, among the Athenians, the council of chiefs became the senate,

and the assembly of the people the ecclesia or popular assembly. The

same organizations have come down to modern times in the two houses

of Parliament, of Congress, and of legislatures. In like manner the

office of general military commander, as before stated, was the germ

of the office of the modern chief executive magistrate.

Recurring to the tribe, it was limited in the numbers of the people,

feeble in strength, and poor in resources; but yet a completely

organized society. It illustrates the condition of mankind in the

Lower Status of barbarism. In the Middle Status there was a sensible

increase of numbers in a tribe, and an improved condition, but with

a continuance of gentile society without essential change. Political

society was still impossible from want of advancement. The gentes

organized into tribes remained as before, but confederacies must

have been more frequent. In some areas, as in the Valley of Mexico,

large numbers were developed under a common government, with

improvements in the arts of life, but no evidence exists of the

overthrow among them of gentile society and the substitution of

political. It is impossible to found a political society or a state

upon gentes. A state must rest upon territory and not upon persons,

upon the township as the unit of a political system, and not upon

the gens, which is the unit of a social system. It required time and

a vast experience, beyond that of the American Indian tribes, as a

preparation for such a fundamental change of systems. It also

required men of the mental stature of the Greeks and Romans, and

with the experience derived from a long chain of ancestors, to

devise and gradually introduce that new plan of government under

which civilized nations are living at the present time.

THE CONFEDERACY OF TRIBES

A tendency to confederate for mutual defense would very naturally

exist among kindred and contiguous tribes. When the advantages of a

union had been appreciated by actual experience, the organization,

at first a league, would gradually cement into a federal unity. The

state of perpetual warfare in which they lived would quicken this

natural tendency into action among such tribes as were sufficiently

advanced in intelligence and in the arts of life to perceive its

benefits. It would be simply a growth from a lower into a higher

organization by an extension of the principle which united the

gentes in a tribe.

As might have been expected, several confederacies existed in

different parts of North America when discovered, some of which were

quite remarkable in plan and structure. Among the number may be

mentioned the Iroquois Confederacy of five independent tribes, the

Creek Confederacy of six, the Ottawa Confederacy of three, the

Dakota League of the "Seven Council Fires," the Moki Confederacy in

New Mexico of Seven Pueblos, and the Aztec Confederacy of three

tribes in the Valley of Mexico. It is probable that the Village

Indians in other parts of Mexico, in Central and in South America

were quite generally organized in confederacies consisting of two or

more kindred tribes. Progress necessarily took this direction from

the nature of their institutions and from the law governing their

development. Nevertheless the formation of a confederacy out of such

materials and with such unstable geographical relations was a

difficult undertaking. It was easiest of achievement by the Village

Indians from the nearness to each other of their pueblos and from

the smallness of their areas; but it was accomplished in occasional

instances by tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism, and notably by

the Iroquois. Wherever a confederacy was formed it would of itself

evince the superior intelligence of the people.

The two highest examples of Indian confederacies in North America

were those of the Iroquois and of the Aztecs. From their

acknowledged superiority as military powers, and from their

geographical positions, these confederacies in both cases produced

remarkable results. Our knowledge of the structure and principles of

the former is definite and complete, while of the latter it is far

from satisfactory. The Aztec Confederacy has been handled in such a

manner historically as to leave it doubtful whether it was simply a

league of three kindred tribes, offensive and defensive, or a

systematic confederacy like that of the Iroquois. That which is true

of the latter was probably in a general sense true of the former, so

that a knowledge of one will tend to elucidate the other.

The conditions under which confederacies spring into being and the

principles on which they are formed are remarkably simple. They grow

naturally with time out of pre-existing elements. Where one tribe

had divided into several, and these subdivisions occupied

independent but contiguous territories, the confederacy reintegrated

them in a higher organization on the basis of the common gentes they

possessed and of the affiliated dialects they spoke. The sentiment

of kin embodied in the gens, the common lineage of the gentes, and

their dialects, still mutually intelligible, yielded the material

elements for a confederation. The confederacy, therefore, had the

gentes for its basis and center, and stock language for its

circumference. No one has been found that reached beyond the bounds

of the dialects of a common language. If this natural barrier had

been crossed it would have forced heterogeneous elements into the

organization. Cases have occurred where the remains of a tribe, not

cognate in speech, as the Natchez, [Footnote: They were admitted

into the Creek Confederacy after their overthrow by the French.]

have been admitted into an existing confederacy, but this exception

would not invalidate the general proposition. It was impossible for

an Indian power to arise upon the American continent through a

confederacy of tribes organized in gentes, and advance to a general

supremacy, unless their numbers were developed from their own stock.

The multitude of stock languages is a standing explanation of the

failure. There was no possible way of becoming connected on equal

terms with a confederacy excepting through membership in a gens and

tribe and a common speech.

The Iroquois have furnished an excellent illustration of the manner

in which a confederacy is formed by natural growth assisted by

skillful legislation. Originally emigrants from beyond the

Mississippi, and possibly a branch of the Dakota stock, they first

made their way to the valley of the St. Lawrence and settled

themselves near Montreal. Forced to leave this region by the

hostility of surrounding tribes, they sought the central region of

New York. Coasting the eastern shore of Lake Ontario in canoes, for

their numbers were small, they made their first settlement at the

mouth of the Oswego River, where, according to their traditions,

they remained for a long period of time. They were then in at least

three distinct tribes, the Mohawks, the Onondagas, and the Senecas.

One tribe subsequently established themselves at the head of the

Canandaigua Lake and became the Senecas. Another tribe occupied the

Onondaga Valley and became the Onondagas. The third passed eastward

and settled first at Oneida, near the site of Utica, from which

place the main portion removed to the Mohawk Valley and became the

Mohawks. Those who remained became the Oneidas. A portion of the

Onondagas or Senecas settled along the eastern shore of the Cayuga

Lake and became the Cayugas. New York, before its occupation by the

Iroquois, seems to have been a part of the area of the Algonkin

tribes. According to Iroquois traditions, they displaced its

anterior inhabitants as they gradually extended their settlements

eastward to the Hudson and westward to the Genesee. Their traditions

further declare that a long period of time elapsed after their

settlement in New York before the confederacy was formed, during

which they made common cause against their enemies, and thus

experienced the advantages of the federal principle both for

aggression and defense. They resided in villages, which were usually

surrounded with stockades, and subsisted upon fish and game and the

products of a limited horticulture. In numbers they did not at any

time exceed 20,000 souls, if they ever reached that number.

Precarious subsistence and incessant warfare repressed numbers in

all the aboriginal tribes, including the Village Indians as well.

The Iroquois were enshrouded in the great forests which then

overspread New York, against which they had no power to contend.

They were first discovered A. D. 1608. About 1675 they attained

their culminating point, when their dominion reached over an area

remarkably large, covering the greater parts of New York,

Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and portions of Canada north of Lake Ontario.

[Footnote: About 1651-1655 they expelled their kindred tribes, the

Eries, from the region between the Genesee River and Lake Erie, and

shortly afterwards the Neutral Nations from the Niagara River, and

thus came into possession of the remainder of New York, with the

exception of the Lower Hudson and Long Island.]

At the time of their discovery they were the highest representatives

of the red race north of New Mexico in intelligence and advancement,

though perhaps inferior to some of the Gulf tribes in the arts of

life. In the extent and quality of their mental endowments they must

be ranked among the highest Indians in America. There are over six

thousand Iroquois in New York, besides scattered bands in other

parts of the United States, and a still larger number in Canada;

thus illustrating the efficiency as well as persistency of the arts

of barbarous life in sustaining existence. It is, moreover, now

ascertained that they are slowly increasing.

When the confederacy was formed, about A. D. 1400-1450, the

conditions previously named were present. [Footnote: The Iroquois

claimed that it had existed from one hundred and fifty to two

hundred years when they first saw Europeans. The generations of

sachems in the history by David Cusick (a Tuscarora) would make it

more ancient. Schoolcraft's History, Condition and Prospects of the

Indian Tribes, 5, p. 631.]

The Iroquois were in five independent tribes, occupied territories

contiguous to each other, and spoke dialects of the same language

which were mutually intelligible. Beside these facts, certain gentes

were common in the several tribes, as has been shown. In their

relations to each other, as separated parts of the same gens, these

common gentes afforded a natural and enduring basis for a confederacy.

With these elements existing, the formation of a confederacy became

a question of intelligence and skill. Other tribes in large numbers

were standing in precisely the same relations in different parts of

the continent without confederating. The fact that the Iroquois

tribes accomplished the work affords evidence of their superior

capacity. Moreover, as the confederacy was the ultimate stage of

organization among the American aborigines, its existence would be

expected in the most intelligent tribes only.

It is affirmed by the Iroquois that the confederacy was formed by a

council of wise men and chiefs of the five tribes which met for that

purpose on the north shore of Onondaga Lake, near the site of

Syracuse; and that before its session was concluded the organization

was perfected and set in immediate operation. At their periodical

councils for raising up sachems they still explain its origin as the

result of one protracted effort of legislation. It was probably a

consequence of a previous alliance for mutual defense, the

advantages of which they had perceived and which they sought to

render permanent.

The origin of the plan is ascribed to a mythical, or, at least,

traditionary person, Ha-yo-went-ha, the Hiawatha of Longfellow's

celebrated poem, who was present at this council and the central

person in its management. In his communications with the council he

used a wise man of the Onondagas, Da-ga-no-we'-da, as an interpreter

and speaker to expound the structure and principles of the proposed

confederacy. The same tradition further declares that when the work

was accomplished Ha-yo-went-ha miraculously disappeared in a white

canoe, which arose with him in the air and bore him out of their

sight. Other prodigies, according to this tradition, attended and

signalized the formation of the confederacy, which is still

celebrated among them as a masterpiece of Indian wisdom. Such in

truth it was; and it will remain in history as a monument of their

genius in developing gentile institutions. It will also be

remembered as an illustration of what tribes of mankind have been

able to accomplish in the art of government while in the Lower

Status of barbarism, and under the disadvantages this condition

implies.

Which of the two persona was the founder of the confederacy it is

difficult to determine. The silent Ha-yo-went'-ha was, not unlikely,

a real person of Iroquois lineage, but tradition has enveloped his

character so completely in the supernatural that he loses his place

among them as one of their number. If Hiawatha were a real person,

Da-ga-no-we'-da must hold a subordinate place; but if a mythical

person invoked for the occasion, then to the latter belongs the

credit of planning the confederacy. [Footnote: My friend Horatio Hale,

the eminent philologist, came, as he informed me, to this conclusion]

The Iroquois affirm that the confederacy, as formed by this council,

with its powers, functions, and mode of administration, has come

down to them through many generations to the present time with

scarcely a change in its internal organization. When the Tuscaroras

were subsequently admitted, their sachems were allowed by courtesy

to sit as equals in the general council, but the original number of

sachems was not increased, and in strictness those of the Tuscaroras

formed no part of the ruling body.

The general features of the Iroquois Confederacy may be summarized

in the following propositions:

I. The Confederacy was a union of Five Tribes, composed of common

gentes, under one government on the basis of equality; each Tribe

remaining independent in all matters pertaining to local

self-government.

II. It created a General Council of Sachems, who were limited in

number, equal in rank and authority, and invested with supreme

powers over all matters pertaining to the Confederacy.

III. Fifty Sachemships were created and named in perpetuity in

certain gentes of the several Tribes; with power in these gentes to

fill vacancies, as often as they occurred, by election from among

their respective members, and with the further power to depose from

office for cause; but the right to invest these Sachems with office

was reserved to the General Council.

IV. The Sachems of the Confederacy were also Sachems in their

respective Tribes, and with the Chiefs of these Tribes formed the

Council of each, which was supreme over all matters pertaining to

the Tribe exclusively.

V. Unanimity in the Council of the Confederacy was made essential to

every public act.

VI. In the General Council the Sachems voted by Tribes, which gave

to each Tribe a negative upon the others.

VII. The Council of each Tribe had power to convene the General

Council; but the latter had no power to convene itself.

VIII. The General Council was open to the orators of the people for

the discussion of public questions; but the Council alone decided.

IX. The Confederacy had no chief Executive Magistrate or official

head.

X. Experiencing the necessity for a General Military Commander, they

created the office in a dual form, that one might neutralize the

other. The two principal War-chiefs created were made equal in powers.

These several propositions will be considered and illustrated, but

without following the precise form or order in which they are stated.

At the institution of the confederacy fifty permanent sachemships

were created and named, and made perpetual in the gentes to which

they were assigned. With the exception of two, which were filled but

once, they have been held by as many different persons in succession

as generations have passed away between that time and the present.

The name of each sachemship is also the personal name of each sachem

while he holds the office each one in succession taking the name of

his predecessor. These sachems, when in session, formed the council

of the confederacy in which the legislative, executive, and judicial

powers were vested, although such a discrimination of functions had

not come to be made. To secure order in the succession, the several

gentes in which these offices were made hereditary were empowered to

elect successors from among their respective members when vacancies

occurred as elsewhere explained. As a further measure of protection

to their own body, each sachem, after his election and its

confirmation, was invested with his office by a council of the

confederacy. When thus installed his name was "taken away" and that

of the sachemship was bestowed upon him. By this name he was

afterwards known among them. They were all upon equality in rank

authority, and privileges.

These sachemships were distributed unequally among the five tribes;

but without giving to either a preponderance of power; and unequally

among the gentes of the last three tribes. The Mohawks had nine

sachems, the Oneidas nine, the Onondagas fourteen, the Cayugas ten,

and the Senecas eight. This was the number at first, and it has

remained the number to the present time. A table of these sachemships,

founded at the institution of the Confederacy with the names which

have been borne by their sachems in succession from its formation to

the present time, is subjoined, with their names in the Seneca

dialect, and their arrangement in classes to facilitate the

attainment of unanimity in council. In foot-notes will be found the

signification of these names, and the gentes to which they belonged:

[Footnote: These names signify as follows:]

Table of sachemships of the Iroquois.

MOHAWKS.

One.

1. Da-go-e'-o-ge. [Footnote: "Neutral," or "The Shield."]

2. Ho-yo-went'-ha. [Footnote: "Man who Combs."]

3. Da-go-no-we'-do. [Footnote: "Inexhaustible."]

Two.

4. So-o-e-wo'-ah. [Footnote: "Small Speech."]

5. Da-yo'-ho-go. [Footnote: "At the Forks."]

6. O-o-o'-go-wo. [Footnote: "At the Great River."]

Three.

7. Da-an-no-go'-e-neh. [Footnote: "Dragging His Horns."]

8. So-da'-go-e-wo-deh. [Footnote: "Even Tempered."]

9. Hos-do-weh'-se-ont-ho. [Footnote: "Hanging up Rattles."

Thee sachems in class One belonged to

the Turtle gens, in class Two to the Wolf gens, and in

class Three to the Bear gens.]

ONEDIAS.

One.

1. Ho-dos'-ho-the. [Footnote: "A man bearing a Burden."]

2. Ga-no-gweh'-yo-do. [Footnote: "A Man covered in Cat-tail Down."]

3. Da-yo-ho'-gwen-da. [Footnote: "Opening through the Woods."]

Two.

4. So-no-sase'. [Footnote: "A Long String."]

5. To-no-o-ge-o. [Footnote: "A Man with a Headache."]

6. Ho-de-o-dun-nent'-ho. [Footnote: "Swallowing Himself."]

Three.

7. Da-wo-do'-o-do-yo. [Footnote: "Place of the Echo."]

8. Go-ne-o-dus'-ha-yeh. [Footnote: "War-clubs on the Ground."]

9. Ho-wus'-ho-da-o. [Footnote: "A man Steaming Himself."

The sachems in the first class belong to Wolf gens,

in the second the Turtle gens, and in the third to

the Bear gens.]

ONONDAGAS.

One.

1. To-do-do'-ho. [Footnote: "Tangled," Bear gens.]

2. To-nes'-sa-ah.

3. Da-ot'-ga-dose. [Footnote: "On the Watch,"

Bear gens. This sachem and the one before him were

hereditary councillors of the To-do-do'-ho, who

held the most illustrious sachemship.]

Two.

4. Go-neo-do'-je-wake. [Footnote: "Bitter Body," Snipe gens.]

5. Ah-wo'-ga-yat. [Footnote: Turtle gens.]

6. Da-o-yat'-gwo-e. [Footnote: Not ascertained.]

Three.

7. Ho-no-we-ne-to. [Footnote: This sachem was hereditary

keeper of the wampum; Wolf gens.]

Four.

8. Go-we-ne'-san-do. [Footnote: Deer gens]

9. Ho-e'-ho. [Footnote: Deer gens]

10. Ho-yo-ne-o'-ne. [Footnote: Turtle gens]

11. Sa-do'-kwo-seh. [Footnote: Bear gens]

Five.

12. So-go-ga-ho'. [Footnote: "Having a Glimpse," Deer gens.]

13. Ho-sa-ho'-do. [Footnote: "Large Mouth," Turtle gens.]

14. Sko-no'-wun-de. [Footnote: "Over the Creek" Turtle gens.]

CAYUGAS.

One.

1. Da-go'-ne-yo. [Footnote: "Man Frightened," Deer gens.]

2. Da-je-no'-do-web-o. [Footnote: Heron gens.]

3. Go-do-gwa-sa. [Footnote: Bear gens.]

4. So-yo-wase. [Footnote: Bear gens.]

5. Ho-de-os'yo-no. [Footnote: Turtle gens.]

Two.

6. Da-yo-o-yo'go. [Footnote: Not ascertained.]

7. Jote-ho-weh'-ko. [Footnote: "Very Cold," Turtle gens.]

8. De-o-wate'-ho. [Footnote: Heron gens.]

Three.

9. To-do-e-ho'. [Footnote: Snipe gens.]

10. Des-go'-heh. [Footnote: Snipe gens.]

SENECAS.

One.

1. Ga-ne-o-di'-yo. [Footnote: "Handsome Lake," Turtle gens.]

2. So-do-go'-o-yase. [Footnote: "Level Heavens," Snipe gens.]

Two.

3. Go-no-gi'-e. [Footnote: Turtle gens.]

4. So-geh'-jo-wo. [Footnote: "Great Forehead." Hawk gens.]

Three.

5. So-de-a-no'-wus. [Footnote: "Assistant," Bear gens.]

6. Nis-ho-ne-a'-nent. [Footnote: "Falling Day," Snipe gens.]

Four.

7. Go-no-go-e-do'-we. [Footnote: "Hair Burned Off." Snipe gens.]

8. Do-ne-ho-go'-weh. [Footnote: "Open Door," Wolf gens.]

Two of these sachemships have been filled but once since their

creation. Ho-yo-went'-ho and Da-go-no-we'-da consented to take the

office among the Mohawk sachems, and to leave their names in the

list upon condition that after their demise the two should remain

thereafter vacant. They were installed upon these terms, and the

stipulation has been observed to the present day. At all councils

for the investiture of sachems their names are still called with the

others as a tribute of respect to their memory. The general council,

therefore, consisted of but forty-eight members.

Each sachem had an assistant sachem, who was elected by the gens of

his principal from among its members, and who was installed with the

same forms and ceremonies. He was styled an "aid." It was his duty

to stand behind his superior on all occasions of ceremony, to act as

his messenger, and in general to be subject to his directions. It

gave to the aid the office of chief and rendered probable his

election as the successor of his principal after the decease of the

latter. In their figurative language these aids of the sachems were

styled "Braces in the Long House," which symbolized the confederacy.

The names bestowed upon the original sachems became the names of

their respective successors in perpetuity. For example, upon the

demise of Go-ne-o-di'-yo, one of the eight Seneca sachems, his

successor would be elected by the Turtle gens in which this

sachemship was hereditary, and when raised up by the general council

he would receive this name, in place of his own, as a part of the

ceremony. On several different occasions I have attended their

councils for raising up sachems both at the Onondaga and Seneca

reservations, and witnessed the ceremonies herein referred to.

Although but a shadow of the old confederacy now remains, it is

fully organized with its complement of sachems and aids, with the

exception of the Mohawk tribe, which removed to Canada about 1775.

Whenever vacancies occur their places are filled, and a general

council is convened to install the new sachems and their aids. The

present Iroquois are also perfectly familiar with the structure and

principles of the ancient confederacy.

For all purposes of tribal government the five tribes were

independent of each other. Their territories were separated by fixed

boundary lines, and their tribal interests were distinct. The eight

Seneca sachems, in conjunction with the other Seneca chiefs, formed

the council of the tribe by which its affairs were administered,

leaving to each of the other tribes the same control over their

separate interests. As an organization the tribe was neither

weakened nor impaired by the confederate compact. Each was in

vigorous life within its appropriate sphere, presenting some analogy

to our own States within an embracing Republic. It is worthy of

remembrance that the Iroquois commended to our forefathers a union

of the colonies similar to their own as early as 1755. They saw in

the common interests and common speech of the several colonies the

elements for a confederation, which was as far as their vision was

able to penetrate.

The tribes occupied positions of entire equality in the confederacy

in rights, privileges, and obligations. Such special immunities as

were granted to one or another indicate no intention to establish an

unequal compact or to concede unequal privileges. There were organic

provisions apparently investing particular tribes with superior power;

as, for example, the Onondagas were allowed fourteen sachems and the

Senecas but eight; and a larger body of sachems would naturally

exercise a stronger influence in council than a smaller. But in this

case it gave no additional power, because the sachems of each tribe

had an equal voice in forming a decision, and a negative upon the

others. When in council they agreed by tribes, and unanimity in

opinion was essential to every public act. The Onondagas were made

"Keepers of the Wampum," and "Keepers of the Council Brand," the

Mohawks "Receivers of Tribute" from subjugated tribes, and the

Senecas "Keepers of the Door" of the Long House. These and some

other similar provisions were made for the common advantage.

The cohesive principle of the confederacy did not spring exclusively

from the benefits of an alliance for mutual protection, but had a

deeper foundation in the bond of kin. The confederacy rested upon

the tribes ostensibly, but primarily upon common gentes. All the

members of the same gens, whether Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas,

Cayugas, or Senecas, were brothers and sisters to each other in

virtue of their descent from the same common ancestor, and they

recognized each other as such with the fullest cordiality. When they

met, the first inquiry was the name of each other's gens, and next

the immediate pedigree of their respective sachems; after which they

were usually able to find, under their peculiar system of

consanguinity the relationship in which they stood to each other.

[Footnote: The children of brothers are themselves brothers and

sisters to each other; the children of the latter were also brothers

and sisters, and so downwards indefinitely. The children and

descendants of sisters are the same. The children of a brother and

sister are cousins; the children of the latter are cousins, and so

downwards indefinitely. A knowledge of the relationships to each

other of the members of the same gens is never lost.]

Three of the gentes--namely, the Wolf, Bear, and Turtle--were common

to the five tribes; these and three others were common to three

tribes. In effect, the Wolf gens, through the division of an

original tribe into five, was now in five divisions, one of which

was in each tribe. It was the same with the Bear and the Turtle

gentes. The Deer, Snipe, and Hawk gentes were common to the Senecas,

Cayugas, and Onondagas. Between the separated parts of each gens,

although its members spoke different dialects of the same language,

there existed a fraternal connection which linked the nations

together with indissoluble bonds. When the Mohawk of the Wolf gens

recognized an Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, or Seneca of the same gens

as a brother, and when the members of the other divided gentes did

the same, the relationship was not ideal, but a fact founded upon

consanguinity, and upon faith in an assured lineage older than their

dialects and coeval with their unity as one people. In the

estimation of an Iroquois every member of his gens, in whatever tribe,

was as certainly a kinsman as an own brother. This cross

relationship between persons of the same gens in the different

tribes is still preserved and recognized among them in all its

original force. It explains the tenacity with which the fragments of

the old confederacy still cling together. If either of the five

tribes had seceded from the confederacy it would have severed the

bond of kin, although this would have been felt but slightly. But

had they fallen into collision it would have turned the gens of the

Wolf against their gentile kindred, Bear against Bear; in a word,

brother against brother. The history of the Iroquois demonstrates

the reality as well as persistency of the bond kin, and the fidelity

with which it was respected. During the long period through which

the confederacy endured they never fell into anarchy nor ruptured

the organization.

The "Long House" (Ho-de'-no-sote) was made the symbol of the

confederacy, and they styled themselves the "People of the Long House"

(Ho-e'-no-sau-nee). [Footnote: The Long House was not peculiar to

the Iroquois, but used by many other tribes, as the Powhattan

Indians of Virginia, the Nyacks of Long Island, and other tribes.]

This was the name, and the only name, with which they distinguished

themselves. The confederacy produced a gentile society more complex

than that of a single tribe, but it was still distinctively a

gentile society. It was, however, a stage of progress in the

direction of a nation, for nationality is reached under gentile

institutions. Coalescence is the last stage in this process. The

four Athenian tribes coalesced in Attica into a nation by the

intermingling of the tribes in the same area, and by the gradual

disappearance of geographical lines between them. The tribal names

and organizations remained in full vitality as before, but without

the basis of an independent territory. When political society was

instituted on the basis of the deme or township, and all the

residents of the deme became a body politic, irrespective of their

gens or tribe, the coalescence became complete.

The coalescence of the Latin and Sabrae gentes into the Roman people

and nation was a result of the same processes. In all alike the gens,

phratry and tribe were the first three stages of organization. The

confederacy followed as the fourth. But it does not appear, either

among the Grecian or Latin tribes in the Later Period of barbarism,

that it became more than a loose league for offensive and defensive

purposes. Of the nature and details of organization of the Grecian

and Latin confederacies our knowledge is limited and imperfect,

because the facts are buried in the obscurity of the traditionary

period. The process of coalescence arises later than the confederacy

in gentile society; but it was a necessary as well as a vital stage

of progress by means of which the nation, the state, and political

society were at last attained. Among the Iroquois tribes it had not

manifested itself.

The valley of Onondaga, as the seat of the central tribe, and the

place where the Council Brand was supposed to be perpetually burning,

was the usual though not the exclusive place for holding the

councils of the confederacy. In ancient times it was summoned to

convene in the autumn of each year but public exigencies often

rendered its meetings more frequent. Each tribe had power to summon

the council, and to appoint the time and place of meeting at the

council house of either tribe, when circumstances rendered a change

from the usual place at Onondaga desirable. But the council had no

power to convene itself.

Originally the principal object of the council was to raise up

sachems to fill vacancies in the ranks of the ruling body occasioned

by death or deposition; but it transacted all other business which

concerned the common welfare. In course of time, as they multiplied

in numbers and their intercourse with foreign tribes became more

extended, the council fell into three distinct kinds, which may be

distinguished as Civil, Mourning, and Religious. The first declared

war and made peace, sent and received embassies, entered into

treaties with foreign tribes, regulated the affairs of subjugated

tribes, and took all needful measures to promote the general welfare.

The second raised up sachems and invested them with office. It

received the name of Mourning Council because the first of its

ceremonies was the lament for the deceased ruler whose vacant place

was to be filled. The third was held for the observance of a general

religious festival. It was made an occasion for the confederated

tribes to unite under the auspices of a general council in the

observance of common religions rites; but as the Mourning Council

was attended with many of the same ceremonies it came in time to

answer for both. It is now the only council they hold, as the civil

powers of the confederacy terminated with the supremacy over them of

the state.

When the sachems met in council at the time and place appointed, and

the usual reception ceremony had been performed, they arranged

themselves in two divisions and seated themselves upon opposite

sides of the council-fire. Upon one side were the Mohawk, Onondaga,

and Seneca sachems. The tribes they represented were, when in council,

brother tribes to each other and father tribes to the other two. In

like manner their sachems were brothers to each other and fathers to

those opposite. They constituted a phratry of tribes and of sachems,

by an extension of the principle which united gentes in a phratry.

On the opposite side of the fire were the Oneida and Cayuga and at a

later day the Tuscarora sachems. The tribes they represented were

brother tribes to each other and son tribes to the opposite three.

Their sachems also were brothers to each other, and sons of those in

the opposite division. They formed a second tribal phratry. As the

Oneidas were a subdivision of the Mohawks, and the Cayugas a

subdivision of the Onondagas or Senecas, they were in reality junior

tribes; whence their relation of seniors and juniors, and the

application of the phratric principle. When the tribes are named in

council the Mohawks, by precedence, are mentioned first. Their

tribal epithet was "The Shield" (Da-go-e-o'-do). The Onondagas came

next, under the epithet of "Name-Bearer" (Ho-de-san-no'-ge-to),

because they had been appointed to select and name the fifty

original sachems. Next in the order of precedence were the Senecas,

under the epithet of "Door-Keeper" (Ho-nan-ne-ho'-ont). They were

made perpetual keepers of the western door of the Long House. The

Oneidas, under the epithet of "Great Tree" (Ne-ar'-de-on dar'-go-war),

and the Cayugas, under that of "Great Pipe" (So-nus'-ho-gwar-to-war),

were named fourth and fifth. The Tuscaroras, who came late into the

confederacy, were named last, and had no distinguishing epithet.

Forms, such as these, were more important in ancient society than we

would be apt to suppose.

Unanimity among the sachems was required upon all public questions,

and essential to the validity of every public act. It was a

fundamental law of the confederacy. They adopted a method for

ascertaining the opinions of the members of the council which

dispensed with the necessity of casting votes. Moreover, they were

entirely unacquainted with the principle of majorities and

minorities in the action of councils. They voted in council by tribes,

and the sachems of each tribe were required to be of one mind to

form a decision. Recognizing unanimity as a necessary principle, the

founders of the confederacy divided the sachems of each tribe into

classes as a means for its attainment. This will be seen by

consulting the table (supra, p 30). No sachem was allowed to express

an opinion in council in the nature of a vote until he had first

agreed with the sachem or sachems of his class upon the opinion to

be expressed, and had been appointed to act as speaker for the class.

Thus the eight Seneca sachems being in four classes, could have but

four opinions, and the ten Cayuga sachems, being in the same number

of classes, could have but four. In this manner the sachems in each

class were first brought to unanimity among themselves. A

cross-consultation was then held between the four sachems appointed

to speak for the four classes; and when they had agreed they

designated one of their number to express their resulting opinion,

which was the answer of their tribe. When the sachems of the several

tribes had, by this ingenious method, become of one mind separately,

it remained to compare their several opinions, and if they agreed

the decision of the council was made. If they failed of agreement

the measure was defeated and the council was at an end. The five

persons appointed to express the decision of the five tribes may

possibly explain the appointment and the functions of the six

electors, so called, in the Aztec confederacy.

By this method of gaining assent the equality and independence of

the several tribes were recognized and preserved. If any sachem was

obdurate or unreasonable, influences were brought to bear upon him,

through the preponderating sentiment, which he could not well resist,

so that it seldom happened that inconvenience or detriment resulted

from their adherence to the rule. Whenever all efforts to procure

unanimity had failed, the whole matter was laid aside because

further action had become impossible.

Under a confederacy of tribes the office of general, "Great War

Soldier," (Hos-go-o-geh'-da-go-wo), makes its first appearance.

Cases would now arise when the several tribes in their confederate

capacity would be engaged in war, and the necessity for a

general commander to direct the movements of the united bands

would be felt. The introduction of this office as a permanent

feature in the government was a great event in the history of human

progress. It was the beginning of a differentiation of the military

from the civil power, which, when completed, changed essentially the

external manifestation of the government; but even in later stages

of progress, when the military spirit predominated, the essential

character of the government was not changed. Gentilism arrested

usurpation. With the rise of the office of general, the government

was gradually changed from a government of one power into a

government of two powers. The functions of government became, in

course of time, co-ordinated between the two. This new office was

the germ of that of a chief executive magistrate for out of the

general came the king, the emperor, and the president, as elsewhere

suggested. The office sprang from the military necessities of

society and had a logical development.

When the Iroquois confederacy was formed, or soon after that event

two permanent war-chiefships were created and named, and both were

assigned to the Seneca tribe. One of them (Ta-wan'-ne-ars,

signifying needle-breaker) was made hereditary in the Wolf, and the

other (So-no'-so-wo, signifying great oyster shell) in the Turtle

gens. The reason assigned for giving them both to the Senecas was

the greater danger of attack at the west end of their territories.

They were elected in the same manner as the sachems, were raised up

by a general council, and were equal in rank and power. Another

account states that they were created later. They discovered

immediately after the confederacy was formed that the structure of

the Long House was incomplete, because there were no officers to

execute the military commands of the confederacy. A council was

convened to remedy the omission, which established the two perpetual

war-chiefs named. As general commanders they had charge of the

military affairs of the confederacy and the command of its joint

forces when united in a general expedition. Governor Blacksnake,

recently deceased, held the office first named, thus showing that

the succession has been regularly maintained. The creation of two

principal war-chiefs instead of one, and with equal powers, argues a

subtle and calculating policy to prevent the domination of a single

man even in their military affairs. They did without experience

precisely as the Romans did in creating two consuls instead of one,

after they had abolished the office of rex. Two consuls would

balance the military power between them, and prevent either from

becoming supreme. Among the Iroquois this office never became

influential.

In Indian ethnography the subjects of primary importance are the gens,

phratry, tribe, and confederacy. They exhibit the organization of

society. Next to these are the tenure and functions of the office of

sachem and chief, the functions of the council of chiefs, and the

tenure and functions of the office of principal war-chief. When

these are ascertained the structure and principles of their

governmental system will be known. A knowledge of their usages and

customs, of their arts and inventions, and of their plan of life

will then fill out the picture. In the work of American

investigators too little attention has been given to the former.

They still afford a rich field in which much information may be

gathered. Our knowledge, which is now general, should be made minute

and comparative. The Indian tribes in the Lower and in the Middle

Status of barbarism represent two of the great stages of progress

from savagery to civilization. Our own remote forefathers passed

through the same conditions, one after the other, and possessed,

there can scarcely be a doubt, the same, or very similar institutions,

with many of the same usages and customs. However little we may be

interested in the American Indians personally, their experience

touches us more nearly, as an exemplification of the experience of

our own ancestors. Our primary institutions root themselves in a

prior gentile society in which the gens, phratry, and tribe were the

organic series, and in which the council of chiefs was the

instrument of government. The phenomena of their ancient society

must have presented many points in common with that of the Iroquois

and other Indian tribes. This view of the matter lends an additional

interest to the study of comparative institutions of mankind.

The Iroquois confederacy is an excellent exemplification of a

gentile society under this form of organization. It seems to realize

all the capabilities of gentile institutions in the Lower Status of

barbarism, leaving an opportunity for further development, but no

subsequent plan of government until the institutions of political

society, founded upon territory and upon property, with the

establishment of which the gentile organization would be overthrown.

The intermediate stages were transitional, remaining military

democracies to the end, except where tyrannies founded upon

usurpation were temporarily established in their places. The

confederacy of the Iroquois was essentially democratic, because it

was composed of gentes each of which was organized upon the common

principles of democracy, not of the highest but of the primitive type;

and because the tribes reserved the right of local self-government.

They conquered other tribes and held them in subjection, as for

example the Delawares; but the latter remained under the government

of their own chiefs, and added nothing to the strength of the

confederacy. It was impossible in this state of society to unite

tribes under one government who spoke different languages, or to

hold conquered tribes under tribute with any benefit but the tribute.

This exposition of the Iroquois confederacy is far from exhaustive

of the facts, but it has been carried far enough to answer my

present object. The Iroquois were a vigorous and intelligent people,

with a brain approaching in volume the Aryan average. Eloquent in

oratory, vindictive in war, and indomitable in perseverance, they

have gained a place in history. If their military achievements are

dreary with the atrocities of savage warfare, they have illustrated

some of the highest virtues of mankind in their relations with each

other. The confederacy which they organized must be regarded as a

remarkable production of wisdom and sagacity. One of its avowed

objects was peace--to remove the cause of strife by uniting their

tribes under one government, and then extending it by incorporating

other tribes of the same name and lineage. They urged the Eries and

the Neutral Nation to become members of the confederacy, and for

their refusal expelled them from their borders. Such an insight into

the highest objects of government is creditable to their intelligence.

Their numbers were small, but they counted in their ranks a large

number of able men. This proves the high grade of the stock.

[Footnote: For the prevalence of the organization into gentes or

clans among the Indian tribes, see Ancient Society, ch. vi. Since

the publication of that work the same organization has been found by

Mr. Bandelier by personal exploration among the Pueblo tribes in New

Mexico, who speak the Queris language, among whom his work thus far

has been confined. Descent is in the female line. The same

indefatigable student has found very satisfactory evidence of the

same organization among the ancient Mexicans. (See article on

"The Social Organization and Mode of Government of the Ancient

Mexicans," Peabody Museum, Twelfth Annual Report, p. 576.) He has

also found additional evidence of the same organization among the

Sedentary Tribes in Central America. It seems highly probable that

this organization was anciently universal among the tribes in the

Ganowanian family.]