THE IROQUOIS PHRATRY.
DEFINITION OF A PHRATRY.—KINDRED GENTES REUNITED IN A
HIGHER ORGANIZATION.—PHRATRY OF THE IROQUOIS TRIBES.—ITS
COMPOSITION.—ITS USES AND FUNCTIONS.—SOCIAL AND
RELIGIOUS.—ILLUSTRATIONS.—THE ANALOGUE OF THE GRECIAN PHRATRY;
BUT IN ITS ARCHAIC FORM.—PHRATRIES OF THE CHOCTAS.—OF THE
CHICKASAS.—OF THE MOHEGANS.—OF THE THLINKEETS.—THEIR
PROBABLE UNIVERSALITY IN THE TRIBES OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
The phratry (φρατρία) 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.
Among the Grecian tribes, where the phratric organization was nearly as
constant as the gens, it became a very conspicuous institution. Each
of the four tribes of the Athenians was organized in three phratries,
each composed of thirty gentes, making a total of twelve phratries
and three hundred and sixty gentes. Such precise numerical uniformity
in the composition of each phratry and tribe could not have resulted
from the subdivision of gentes through natural processes. It must
have been produced, as Mr. Grote suggests, by legislative procurement
in the interests of a symmetrical organization. All the gentes of a
tribe, as a rule, were of common descent and bore a common tribal
name, consequently it would not require severe constraint to unite
the specified number in each phratry, and to form the specified
number of phratries in each tribe. But the phratric organization had
a natural foundation in the immediate kinship of certain gentes as
subdivisions of an original gens, which undoubtedly was the basis on
which the Grecian phratry was originally formed. The incorporation of
alien gentes, and transfers by consent or constraint, would explain the
numerical adjustment of the gentes and phratries in the Athenian tribes.
The Roman _curia_ was the analogue of the Grecian phratry. It is
constantly mentioned by Dionysius as a phratry.[70] There were ten
gentes in each _curia_, and ten _curiae_ in each of the three Roman
tribes, making thirty _curiae_ and three hundred gentes of the Romans.
The functions of the Roman _curia_ are much better known than those
of the Grecian phratry, and were higher in degree because the _curia_
entered directly into the functions of government. The assembly of
the gentes (_comitia curiata_) voted by _curiae_, each having one
collective vote. This assembly was the sovereign power of the Roman
People down to the time of Servius Tullius.
Among the functions of the Grecian phratry was the observance of
special religious rites, the condonation or revenge of the murder of a
phrator, and the purification of a murderer after he had escaped the
penalty of his crime preparatory to his restoration to society.[71] At
a later period among the Athenians—for the phratry at Athens survived
the institution of political society under Cleisthenes—it looked after
the registration of citizens, thus becoming the guardian of descents
and of the evidence of citizenship. The wife upon her marriage was
enrolled in the phratry of her husband, and the children of the
marriage were enrolled in the gens and phratry of their father. It
was also the duty of this organization to prosecute the murderer of a
phrator in the courts of justice. These are among its known objects and
functions in the earlier and later periods. Were all the particulars
fully ascertained, the phratry would probably manifest itself in
connection with the common tables, the public games, the funerals of
distinguished men, the earliest army organization, and the proceedings
of councils, as well as in the observance of religious rites and in the
guardianship of social privileges.
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-ă-non-dă′-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 will appear when the composition
of the phratries in the remaining Iroquois tribes is considered.
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.
In like manner the Cayuga-Iroquois have eight gentes in two phratries;
but these gentes are not divided equally between them. They are the
following:
_First Phratry._
_Gentes._—1. Bear. 2. Wolf. 3. Turtle. 4. Snipe. 5. Eel.
_Second Phratry._
_Gentes._—6. Deer. 7. Beaver. 8. Hawk.
Seven of these gentes are the same as those of the Senecas; but
the Heron gens has disappeared, and the Eel takes its place, but
transferred to the opposite phratry. The Beaver and the Turtle gentes
also have exchanged phratries. The Cayugas style the gentes of the same
phratry brother gentes to each other, and those of the opposite phratry
their cousin gentes.
The Onondaga-Iroquois have the same number of gentes, but two of them
differ in name from those of the Senecas. They are organized in two
phratries as follows:
_First Phratry._
_Gentes._—1. Wolf. 2. Turtle. 3. Snipe. 4. Beaver. 5. Ball.
_Second Phratry._
_Gentes._—6. Deer. 7. Eel. 8. Bear.
Here again the composition of the phratries is different from that of
the Senecas. Three of the gentes in the first phratry are the same in
each; but the Bear gens has been transferred to the opposite phratry
and is now found with the Deer. The division of gentes is also unequal,
as among the Cayugas. The gentes in the same phratry are called brother
gentes to each other, and those in the other their cousin gentes. While
the Onondagas have no Hawk, the Senecas have no Eel gens; but the
members of the two fraternize when they meet, claiming that there is a
connection between them.
The Mohawks and Oneidas have but three gentes, the Bear, the Wolf, and
the Turtle, and no phratries. When the confederacy was formed, seven
of the eight Seneca gentes existed in the several tribes as is shown
by the establishment of sachemships in them; but the Mohawks and
Oneidas then had only the three named. It shows that they had then lost
an entire phratry, and one gens of that remaining, if it is assumed
that the original tribes were once composed of the same gentes. When
a tribe organized in gentes and phratries subdivides, it might occur
on the line of the phratric organization. Although the members of a
tribe are intermingled throughout by marriage, each gens in a phratry
is composed of females with their children and descendants, through
females, who formed the body of the phratry. They would incline at
least to remain locally together, and thus might become detached in a
body. The male members of the gens married to women of other gentes and
remaining with their wives would not affect the gens since the children
of the males do not belong to its connection. If the minute history
of the Indian tribes is ever recovered it must be sought through the
gentes and phratries, which can be followed from tribe to tribe. In
such an investigation it will deserve attention whether tribes ever
disintegrated by phratries. It is at least improbable.
The Tuscarora-Iroquois became detached from the main stock at some
unknown period in the past, and inhabited the Neuse river region in
North Carolina at the time of their discovery. About A. D. 1712 they
were forced out of this area, whereupon they removed to the country of
the Iroquois and were admitted into the confederacy as a sixth member.
They have eight gentes organized in two phratries, as follows:
_First Phratry._
_Gentes_.—1. Bear. 2. Beaver. 3. Great Turtle. 4. Eel.
_Second Phratry._
_Gentes._—5. Gray Wolf. 6. Yellow Wolf. 7. Little Turtle. 8. Snipe.
They have six gentes in common with the Cayugas and Onondagas, five
in common with the Senecas, and three in common with the Mohawks and
Oneidas. The Deer gens, which they once possessed, became extinct in
modern times. It will be noticed, also, that the Wolf gens is now
divided into two, the Gray and the Yellow, and the Turtle into two,
the Great and Little. Three of the gentes in the first phratry are the
same with three in the first phratry of the Senecas and Cayugas, with
the exception that the Wolf gens is double. As several hundred years
elapsed between the separation of the Tuscaroras from their congeners
and their return, it affords some evidence of permanence in the
existence of a gens. The gentes in the same phratry are called brother
gentes to each other, and those in the other phratry their cousin
gentes, as among the other tribes.
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.
In its objects and uses the Iroquois phratry falls below the Grecian,
as would be supposed, although our knowledge of the functions of the
latter is limited; and below what is known of the uses of the phratry
among the Roman tribes. In comparing the latter with the former we
pass backward through two ethnical periods, and into a very different
condition of society. The difference is in the degree of progress, and
not in kind; for we have the same institution in each race, derived
from the same or a similar germ, and preserved by each through immense
periods of time as a part of a social system. Gentile society remained
of necessity among the Grecian and Roman tribes until political society
supervened; and it remained among the Iroquois tribes because they were
still two ethnical periods below civilization. Every fact, therefore,
in relation to the functions and uses of the Indian phratry is
important, because it tends to illustrate the archaic character of an
institution which became so influential in a more developed condition
of society.
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.[72]
In many ways the phratric organization manifested itself. At a council
of the tribe the sachems and chiefs in each phratry usually seated
themselves on opposite sides of an imaginary council-fire, and the
speakers addressed the two opposite bodies as the representatives of
the phratries. Formalities, such as these, have a peculiar charm for
the Red Man in the transaction of business.
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. In the case of a
sachem it was usual for the opposite phratry to send, immediately
after the funeral, the official wampum belt of the deceased ruler to
the central council fire at Onondaga, as a notification of his demise.
This was retained until the installation of his successor, when it was
bestowed upon him as the insignia of his office. At the funeral of
Handsome Lake (Gä-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, emblematical 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.[73] 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 Senecas have now lost their Medicine Lodges which fell out in
modern times; but they formerly existed and formed a prominent part
of their religious system. To hold a Medicine Lodge was to observe
their highest religious rites, and to practice their highest religious
mysteries. They had two such organizations, one in each phratry,
which shows still further the natural connection of the phratry with
religious observances. Very little is now known concerning these lodges
or their ceremonies. Each was a brotherhood, into which new members
were admitted by a formal initiation.
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 gens 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 Tlascala, 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 advises Agamemnon to “separate the troops by phratries and
by tribes, so that phratry may support phratry and tribe.”[74]
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 Tlascalan, 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. This subject will be referred to again.
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._—1. 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.
The particulars with respect to the Chocta and Chickasa phratries I am
unable to present. Some fourteen years ago these organizations were
given to me by Rev. Doctor Cyrus Byington and Rev. Charles C. Copeland,
but without discussing their uses and functions.
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.
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 Delawares and Munsees have the same three gentes, the Wolf, the
Turtle, and the Turkey. Among the Delawares there are twelve embryo
gentes in each tribe, but they seem to be lineages within the gentes
and had not taken gentile names. It was a movement, however, in that
direction.
The phratry also appears among the Thlinkeets 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.[75]
The members of any gens in the Wolf phratry could marry into any gens
of the opposite phratry, and _vice versâ_.
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 Ganowánian 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. It can now be asserted that the full
organic series of ancient society exists in full vitality upon the
American continent; namely, the gens, the phratry, the tribe, and the
confederacy of tribes. With further proofs yet to be adduced, the
universality of the gentile organization upon all the continents will
be established.
If future investigation is directed specially to the functions of the
phratric organization among the tribes of the American aborigines, the
knowledge gained will explain many peculiarities of Indian life and
manners not well understood, and throw additional light upon their
usages and customs, and upon their plan of life and government.