which covered four-fifths, at least, of the entire existence of mankind
upon the earth. While in the Lower Status, the higher attributes of man
began to manifest themselves. Personal dignity, eloquence in speech,
religious sensibility, rectitude, manliness and courage were now
common traits of character; but cruelty, treachery and fanaticism were
equally common. Element worship in religion, with a dim conception of
personal gods, and of a Great Spirit, rude verse-making, joint-tenement
houses, and bread from maize, belong to this period. It also produced
the syndyasmian family, and the confederacy of tribes organized in
gentes and phratries. The imagination, that great faculty which has
contributed so largely to the elevation of mankind, was now producing
an unwritten literature of myths, legends and traditions, which had
already become a powerful stimulus upon the race.
III. _Property in the Middle Status of Barbarism._
The condition of mankind in this ethnical period has been more
completely lost than that of any other. It was exhibited by the
Village Indians of North and South America in barbaric splendor at
the epoch of their discovery. Their governmental institutions, their
religious tenets, their plan of domestic life, their arts and their
rules in relation to the ownership and inheritance of property, might
have been completely obtained; but the opportunity was allowed to
escape. All that remains are scattered portions of the truth buried in
misconceptions and romantic tales.
This period opens in the Eastern hemisphere with the domestication of
animals, and in the Western with the appearance of the Village Indians,
living in large joint-tenement houses of adobe brick, and, in some
areas, of stone laid in courses. It was attended with the cultivation
of maize and plants by irrigation, which required artificial canals,
and garden beds laid out in squares, with raised ridges to contain
the water until absorbed. When discovered, they were well advanced
toward the close of the Middle Period, a portion of them having made
bronze, which brought them near the higher process of smelting iron
ore. The joint-tenement house was in the nature of a fortress, and held
an intermediate position between the stockaded village of the Lower,
and the walled city of the Upper Status. There were no cities, in
the proper sense of the term, in America when discovered. In the art
of war they had made but little progress, except in defense, by the
construction of great houses generally impregnable to Indian assault.
But they had invented the quilted mantle (_escaupiles_), stuffed with
cotton, as a further shield against the arrow,[505] and the two-edged
sword (_macuahuitl_),[506] each edge having a row of angular flint
points imbedded in the wooden blade. They still used the bow and arrow,
the spear, and the war-club, flint knives and hatchets, and stone
implements,[507] although they had the copper axe and chisel, which for
some reason never came into general use.
To maize, beans, squashes and tobacco, were now added cotton, pepper,
tomato, cacao, and the care of certain fruits. A beer was made by
fermenting the juice of the maguey. The Iroquois, however, had produced
a similar beverage by fermenting maple sap. Earthen vessels of capacity
to hold several gallons, of fine texture and superior ornamentation,
were produced by improved methods in the ceramic art. Bowls, pots and
water-jars were manufactured in abundance. The discovery and use of
the native metals first for ornaments, and finally for implements and
utensils, such as the copper axe and chisel, belong to this period.
The melting of these metals in the crucible, with the probable use
of the blow-pipe and charcoal, and casting them in moulds, the
production of bronze, rude stone sculptures, the woven garment of
cotton,[508] the house of dressed stone, ideographs or hieroglyphs
cut on the grave-posts of deceased chiefs, the calendar for measuring
time, and the solstitial stone for marking the seasons, cyclopean
walls, the domestication of the llama, of a species of dog, of the
turkey and other fowls, belong to the same period in America. A
priesthood organized in a hierarchy, and distinguished by a costume,
personal gods with idols to represent them, and human sacrifices,
appear for the first time in this ethnical period. Two large Indian
pueblos, Mexico and Cusco, now appear, containing over twenty thousand
inhabitants, a number unknown in the previous period. The aristocratic
element in society began to manifest itself in feeble forms among the
chiefs, civil and military, through increased numbers under the same
government, and the growing complexity of affairs.
Turning to the Eastern hemisphere, we find its native tribes, in the
corresponding period, with domestic animals yielding them a meat and
milk subsistence, but probably without horticultural and without
farinaceous food. When the great discovery was made that the wild
horse, cow, sheep, ass, sow and goat might be tamed, and, when produced
in flocks and herds, become a source of permanent subsistence, it must
have given a powerful impulse to human progress. But the effect would
not become general until pastoral life for the creation and maintenance
of flocks and herds became established. Europe, as a forest area in the
main, was unadapted to the pastoral state; but the grass plains of high
Asia, and upon the Euphrates, the Tigris and other rivers of Asia, were
the natural homes of the pastoral tribes. Thither they would naturally
tend; and to these areas we trace our own remote ancestors, where they
were found confronting like pastoral Semitic tribes. The cultivation of
cereals and plants must have preceded their migration from the grass
plains into the forest areas of Western Asia and of Europe. It would
be forced upon them by the necessities of the domestic animals now
incorporated in their plan of life. There are reasons, therefore, for
supposing that the cultivation of cereals by the Aryan tribes preceded
their western migration, with the exception perhaps of the Celts. Woven
fabrics of flax and wool, and bronze implements and weapons appear in
this period in the Eastern hemisphere.
Such were the inventions and discoveries which signalized the Middle
Period of barbarism. Society was now more highly organized, and its
affairs were becoming more complex. Differences in the culture of the
two hemispheres now existed in consequence of their unequal endowments;
but the main current of progress was steadily upward to a knowledge of
iron and its uses. To cross the barrier into the Upper Status, metallic
tools able to hold an edge and point were indispensable. Iron was the
only metal able to answer these requirements. The most advanced tribes
were arrested at this barrier, awaiting the invention of the process of
smelting iron ore.
From the foregoing considerations it is evident that a large increase
of personal property had now occurred, and some changes in the
relations of persons to land. The territorial domain still belonged
to the tribe in common; but a portion was now set apart for the
support of the government, another for religious uses, and another
and more important portion, that from which the people derived their
subsistence, was divided among the several gentes, or communities of
persons who resided in the same pueblo (_supra_, p. 200). That any
persons owned lands or houses in his own right, with power to sell
and convey in fee-simple to whomsoever he pleased, is not only
unestablished but improbable. Their mode of owning their lands in
common, by gentes, or by communities of persons, their joint-tenement
houses, and their mode of occupation by related families, precluded
the individual ownership of houses or of lands. A right to sell an
interest in such lands or in such houses, and to transfer the same to
a stranger, would break up their plan of life.[509] The possessory
right, which we must suppose existed in individuals or in families, was
inalienable, except within the gens, and on the demise of the person
would pass by inheritance to his or her gentile heirs. Joint-tenement
houses, and lands in common, indicate a plan of life adverse to
individual ownership.
The Moqui Village Indians, besides their seven large pueblos and their
gardens, now have flocks of sheep, horses and mules, and considerable
other personal property. They manufacture earthen vessels of many
sizes and of excellent quality, and woolen blankets in looms, and with
yarn of their own production. Major J. W. Powell noticed the following
case at the pueblo of Oraybe, which shows that the husband acquires
no rights over the property of the wife, or over the children of the
marriage. A Zunian married an Oraybe woman, and had by her three
children. He resided with them at Oraybe until his wife died, which
occurred while Major Powell was at the pueblo. The relatives of the
deceased wife took possession of her children and of her household
property; leaving to him his horse, clothing and weapons. Certain
blankets which belonged to him he was allowed to take, but those
belonging to his wife remained. He left the pueblo with Major Powell,
saying he would go with him to Santa Fé, and then return to his own
people at Zuñi. Another case of a similar kind occurred at another of
the Moqui pueblos (She-pow-e-luv-ih), which also came to the notice of
my informant. A woman died, leaving children and a husband, as well
as property. The children and the property were taken by the deceased
wife’s relatives; all the husband was allowed to take was his clothing.
Whether he was a Moqui Indian or from another tribe, Major Powell, who
saw the person, did not learn. It appears from these cases that the
children belonged to the mother, and not to the father, and that he was
not allowed to take them even after the mother’s death. Such also was
the usage among the Iroquois and other northern tribes. Furthermore,
the property of the wife was kept distinct, and belonged to her
relatives after her death. It tends to show that the wife took nothing
from her husband, as an implication from the fact that the husband took
nothing from the wife. Elsewhere it has been shown that this was the
usage among the Village Indians of Mexico.
Women, as well as men, not unlikely, had a possessory right to such
rooms and sections of these pueblo houses as they occupied; and they
doubtless transmitted these rights to their nearest of kin, under
established regulations. We need to know how these sections of each
pueblo are owned and inherited, whether the possessor has the right to
sell and transfer to a stranger, and if not, the nature and limits of
his possessory right. We also need to know who inherits the property
of the males, and who inherits the property of the females. A small
amount of well-directed labor would furnish the information now so much
desired.
The Spanish writers have left the land tenure of the southern tribes
in inextricable confusion. When they found a community of persons
owning lands in common, which they could not alienate, and that one
person among them was recognized as their chief, they at once treated
these lands as a feudal estate, the chief as a feudal lord, and the
people who owned the lands in common as his vassals. At best, it was a
perversion of the facts. One thing is plain, namely, that these lands
were owned in common by a community of persons; but one, not less
essential, is not given, namely, the bond of union which held these
persons together. If a gens, or a part of a gens, the whole subject
would be at once understood.
Descent in the female line still remained in some of the tribes of
Mexico and Central America, while in others, and probably in the
larger portion, it had been changed to the male line. The influence of
property must have caused the change, that children might participate
as agnates in the inheritance of their father’s property. Among the
Mayas, descent was in the male line, while among the Aztecs, Tezcucans,
Tlacopans and Tlascalans, it is difficult to determine whether it
was in the male or the female line. It is probable that descent was
being changed to the male line among the Village Indians generally,
with remains of the archaic rule manifesting themselves, as in the
case of the office of Teuctli. The change would not overthrow gentile
inheritance. It is claimed by a number of Spanish writers that the
children, and in some cases the eldest son, inherited the property of a
deceased father; but such statements, apart from an exposition of their
system, are of little value.
Among the Village Indians, we should expect to find the second great
rule of inheritance which distributed the property among the agnatic
kindred. With descent in the male line, the children of a deceased
person would stand at the head of the agnates, and very naturally
receive the greater portion of the inheritance. It is not probable
that the third great rule, which gave an exclusive inheritance to the
children of the deceased owner, had become established among them.
The discussion of inheritances by the earlier and later writers is
unsatisfactory, and devoid of accurate information. Institutions,
usages and customs still governed the question, and could alone explain
the system. Without better evidence than we now possess, an exclusive
inheritance by children cannot be asserted.
CHAPTER II.
THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE—CONTINUED.
PROPERTY IN THE UPPER STATUS OF BARBARISM.—SLAVERY.—TENURE
OF LANDS IN GRECIAN TRIBES.—CULTURE OF THE PERIOD.—ITS
BRILLIANCY.—THIRD RULE OF INHERITANCE.—EXCLUSIVELY IN
CHILDREN.—HEBREW TRIBES.—RULE OF INHERITANCE.—DAUGHTERS OF
ZELOPHEHAD.—PROPERTY REMAINED IN THE PHRATRY, AND PROBABLY IN
THE GENS.—THE REVERSION.—ATHENIAN INHERITANCE.—EXCLUSIVELY
IN CHILDREN.—THE REVERSION.—INHERITANCE REMAINED IN
THE GENS.—HEIRESSES.—WILLS.—ROMAN INHERITANCE.—THE
REVERSION.—PROPERTY REMAINED IN THE GENS.—APPEARANCE OF
ARISTOCRACY.—PROPERTY CAREER OF THE HUMAN RACE.—UNITY OF
ORIGIN OF MANKIND.
The last great period of barbarism was never entered by the American
aborigines. It commenced in the Eastern, according to the scheme
adopted, with the production and use of iron.
The process of smelting iron ore was the invention of inventions, as
elsewhere suggested, beside which all other inventions and discoveries
hold a subordinate position. Mankind, notwithstanding a knowledge of
bronze, were still arrested in their progress for the want of efficient
metallic tools, and for the want of a metal of sufficient strength and
hardness for mechanical appliances. All these qualities were found for
the first time in iron. The accelerated progress of human intelligence
dates from this invention. This ethnical period, which is made forever
memorable, was, in many respects, the most brilliant and remarkable
in the entire experience of mankind. It is so overcrowded with
achievements as to lead to a suspicion that many of the works ascribed
to it belong to the previous period.
IV. _Property in the Upper Status of Barbarism._—Near the end of this
period, property in masses, consisting of many kinds and held by
individual ownership, began to be common, through settled agriculture,
manufactures, local trade and foreign commerce; but the old tenure of
lands under which they were held in common had not given place, except
in part, to ownership in severalty. Systematic slavery originated
in this status. It stands directly connected with the production of
property. Out of it came the patriarchal family of the Hebrew type,
and the similar family of the Latin tribes under paternal power, as
well as a modified form of the same family among the Grecian tribes.
From these causes, but more particularly from the increased abundance
of subsistence through field agriculture, nations began to develop,
numbering many thousands under one government, where before they would
be reckoned by a few thousands. The localization of tribes in fixed
areas and in fortified cities, with the increase of the numbers of
the people, intensified the struggle for the possession of the most
desirable territories. It tended to advance the art of war, and to
increase the rewards of individual prowess. These changes of condition
and of the plan of life indicate the approach of civilization, which
was to overthrow gentile and establish political society.
Although the inhabitants of the Western hemisphere had no part in the
experience which belongs to this status, they were following down the
same lines on which the inhabitants of the Eastern had passed. They
had fallen behind the advancing column of the human race by just the
distance measured by the Upper Status of barbarism and the superadded
years of civilization.
We are now to trace the growth of the idea of property in this status
of advancement, as shown by its recognition in kind, and by the rules
that existed with respect to its ownership and inheritance.
The earliest laws of the Greeks, Romans and Hebrews, after
civilization had commenced, did little more than turn into legal
enactments the results which their previous experience had embodied
in usages and customs. Having the final laws and the previous archaic
rules, the intermediate changes, when not expressly known, may be
inferred with tolerable certainty.
At the close of the Later Period of barbarism, great changes had
occurred in the tenure of lands. It was gradually tending to two forms
of ownership, namely, by the state and by individuals. But this result
was not fully secured until after civilization had been attained. Lands
among the Greeks were still held, as we have seen, some by the tribes
in common, some by the phratry in common for religious uses, and some
by the gens in common; but the bulk of the lands had fallen under
individual ownership in severalty. In the time of Solon, while Athenian
society was still gentile, lands in general were owned by individuals,
who had already learned to mortgage them;[510] but individual
ownership was not then a new thing. The Roman tribes, from their first
establishment, had a public domain, the _Ager Romanus_; while lands
were held by the _curia_ for religious uses, by the gens, and by
individuals in severalty. After these social corporations died out,
the lands held by them in common gradually became private property.
Very little is known beyond the fact that certain lands were held by
these organizations for special uses, while individuals were gradually
appropriating the substance of the national areas.
These several forms of ownership tend to show that the oldest tenure,
by which land was held, was by the tribe in common; that after its
cultivation began, a portion of the tribe lands was divided among the
gentes, each of which held their portion in common; and that this
was followed, in course of time, by allotments to individuals, which
allotments finally ripened into individual ownership in severalty.
Unoccupied and waste lands still remained as the common property of
the gens, the tribe and the nation. This, substantially, seems to have
been the progress of experience with respect to the ownership of land.
Personal property, generally, was subject to individual ownership.
The monogamian family made its first appearance in the Upper Status of
barbarism, the growth of which out of a previous syndyasmian form was
intimately connected with the increase of property, and with the usages
in respect to its inheritance. Descent had been changed to the male
line; but all property, real as well as personal, remained, as it had
been from time immemorial, hereditary in the gens.
Our principal information concerning the kinds of property, that
existed among the Grecian tribes in this period, is derived from the
Homeric poems, and from the early laws of the period of civilization
which reflect ancient usages. Mention is made in the Iliad of
_fences_[511] around cultivated fields, of an _enclosure of fifty
acres_ (πεντηκοντόγυος), half of which was fit for vines and the
remainder for tillage;[512] and it is said of Tydeus that he lived
in a mansion rich in resources, and had corn-producing fields in
abundance.[513] There is no reason to doubt that lands were then
fenced and measured, and held by individual ownership. It indicates
a large degree of progress in a knowledge of property and its
uses. Breeds of horses were already distinguished for particular
excellence.[514] Herds of cattle and flocks of sheep possessed by
individuals are mentioned, as “sheep of a rich man standing countless
in the fold.”[515] Coined money was still unknown, consequently trade
was by barter of commodities, as indicated by the following lines:
“Thence the long-haired Greeks bought wine, some for brass, some for
shining iron, others for hides, some for the oxen themselves, and
some for slaves.”[516] Gold in bars, however, is named as passing by
weight and estimated by talents.[517] Manufactured articles of gold,
silver, brass and iron, and textile fabrics of linen and woolen in many
forms, together with houses and palaces, are mentioned. It will not be
necessary to extend the illustrations. Those given are sufficient to
indicate the great advance society had attained in the Upper Status of
barbarism, in contrast with that in the immediately previous period.
After houses and lands, flocks and herds, and exchangeable commodities
had become so great in quantity, and had come to be held by individual
ownership, the question of their inheritance would press upon human
attention until the right was placed upon a basis which satisfied
the growing intelligence of the Greek mind. Archaic usages would
be modified in the direction of later conceptions. The domestic
animals were a possession of greater value than all kinds of property
previously known put together. They served for food, were exchangeable
for other commodities, were usable for redeeming captives, for paying
fines, and in sacrifices in the observance of their religious rites.
Moreover, as they were capable of indefinite multiplication in numbers,
their possession revealed to the human mind its first conception of
wealth. Following upon this, in course of time, was the systematical
cultivation of the earth, which tended to identify the family with
the soil, and render it a property-making organization. It soon found
expression, in the Latin, Grecian and Hebrew tribes, in the family
under paternal power, involving slaves and servants. Since the labor of
the father and his children became incorporated more and more with the
land, with the production of domestic animals, and with the creation
of merchandise, it would not only tend to individualize the family,
now monogamian, but also to suggest the superior claims of children to
the inheritance of the property they had assisted in creating. Before
lands were cultivated, flocks and herds would naturally fall under
the joint ownership of persons united in a group, on a basis of kin,
for subsistence. Agnatic inheritance would be apt to assert itself in
this condition of things. But when lands had become the subject of
property, and allotments to individuals had resulted in individual
ownership, the third great rule of inheritance, which gave the property
to the children of the deceased owner, was certain to supervene upon
agnatic inheritance. There is no direct evidence that strict agnatic
inheritance ever existed among the Latin, Grecian or Hebrew tribes,
excepting in the reversion, established alike in Roman, Grecian and
Hebrew law; but that an exclusive agnatic inheritance existed in the
early period may be inferred from the reversion.
When field agriculture had demonstrated that the whole surface of the
earth could be made the subject of property owned by individuals in
severalty, and it was found that the head of the family became the
natural center of accumulation, the new property career of mankind was
inaugurated. It was fully done before the close of the Later Period of
barbarism. A little reflection must convince any one of the powerful
influence property would now begin to exercise upon the human mind, and
of the great awakening of new elements of character it was calculated
to produce. Evidence appears, from many sources, that the feeble
impulse aroused in the savage mind had now become a tremendous passion
in the splendid barbarian of the heroic age. Neither archaic nor later
usages could maintain themselves in such an advanced condition. The
time had now arrived when monogamy, having assured the paternity of
children, would assert and maintain their exclusive right to inherit
the property of their deceased father.[518]
In the Hebrew tribes, of whose experience in barbarism very little is
known, individual ownership of lands existed before the commencement of
their civilization. The purchase from Ephron by Abraham of the cave of
Machpelah is an illustration.[519] They had undoubtedly passed through
a previous experience in all respects similar to that of the Aryan
tribes; and came out of barbarism, like them, in possession of the
domestic animals and of the cereals, together with a knowledge of iron
and brass, of gold and silver, of fictile wares and of textile fabrics.
But their knowledge of field agriculture was limited in the time of
Abraham. The reconstruction of Hebrew society, after the Exodus, on the
basis of consanguine tribes, to which on reaching Palestine territorial
areas were assigned, shows that civilization found them under gentile
institutions, and below a knowledge of political society. With respect
to the ownership and inheritance of property, their experience seems
to have been coincident with that of the Roman and Grecian tribes, as
can be made out, with some degree of clearness, from the legislation
of Moses. Inheritance was strictly within the phratry, and probably
within the gens, namely “the house of the father.” The archaic rule of
inheritance among the Hebrews is unknown, except as it is indicated
by the reversion, which was substantially the same as in the Roman
law of the Twelve Tables. We have this law of reversion, and also
an illustrative case, showing that after children had acquired an
exclusive inheritance, daughters succeeded in default of sons. Marriage
would then transfer their property from their own gens to that of
their husband’s, unless some restraint, in the case of heiresses, was
put on the right. Presumptively and naturally, marriage within the
gens was prohibited. This presented the last great question which
arose with respect to gentile inheritance. It came before Moses as
a question of Hebrew inheritance, and before Solon as a question of
Athenian inheritance, the gens claiming a paramount right to its
retention within its membership; and it was adjudicated by both, in
the same manner. It may be reasonably supposed that the same question
had arisen in the Roman gentes, and was in part met by the rule that
the marriage of a female worked a _deminutio capitis_, and with it a
forfeiture of agnatic rights. Another question was involved in this
issue; namely, whether marriage should be restricted by the rule
forbidding it within the gens, or become free; the degree, and not the
fact of kin, being the measure of the limitation. This last rule was to
be the final outcome of human experience with respect to marriage. With
these considerations in mind, the case to be cited sheds a strong light
upon the early institutions of the Hebrews, and shows their essential
similarity with those of the Greeks and Romans under gentilism.
Zelophehad died leaving daughters, but no sons, and the inheritance
was given to the former. Afterwards, these daughters being about to
marry out of the tribe of Joseph, to which they belonged, the members
of the tribe objecting to such a transfer of the property, brought
the question before Moses, saying: “If they be married to any of the
sons of the _other_ tribes of the children of Israel, then shall the
inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall
be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received:
so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance.”[520] Although
this language is but the statement of the results of a proposed act,
it implies a grievance; and that grievance was the transfer of the
property from the gens and tribe to which it was conceived as belonging
by hereditary right. The Hebrew lawgiver admits this right in the
language of his decision. “The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath spoken
well. This _is_ the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the
daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think
best: only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they
marry. So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove
from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall
keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every
daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children
of Israel shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her
father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance
of his fathers.”[521] They were required to marry into their own
phratry (_supra_, p. 368), but not necessarily into their own gens. The
daughters of Zelophehad were accordingly “married to their father’s
brother’s sons,”[522] who were not only members of their own phratry,
but also of their own gens. They were also their nearest agnates.
On a previous occasion, Moses had established the rule of inheritance
and of reversion in the following explicit language. “And thou shalt
speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die and have no
son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughters.
And if he have no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance unto
his brothers. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his
inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no
brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman, that is
next to him of his family, and he shall possess it.”[523]
Three classes of heirs are here named; first, the children of the
deceased owner; second, the agnates, in the order of their nearness;
and third, the gentiles, restricted to the members of the phratry of
the decedent. The first class of heirs were the children; but the
inference would be that the sons took the property, subject to the
obligation of maintaining the daughters. We find elsewhere that the
eldest son had a double portion. In default of sons, the daughters
received the inheritance. The second class were the agnates, divided
into two grades; first, the brethren of the decedent, in default of
children, received the inheritance; and second, in default of them, the
brethren of the father of the decedent. The third were the gentiles,
also in the order of their nearness, namely, “his kinsman that is next
to him of his family.” As the “family of the tribe” is the analogue of
the phratry (_supra_, p. 369), the property, in default of children
and of agnates, went to the nearest phrator of the deceased owner.
It excluded cognates from the inheritance, so that a phrator, more
distant than a father’s brother, would inherit in preference to the
children of a sister of the decedent. Descent is shown to have been in
the male line, and the property must remain hereditary in the gens.
It will be noticed that the father did not inherit from his son, nor
the grandfather from his grandson. In this respect and in nearly all
respects, the Mosaic law agrees with the law of the Twelve Tables. It
affords a striking illustration of the uniformity of human experience,
and of the growth of the same ideas in parallel lines in different
races.
At a later day, the Levitical law established marriage upon a new basis
independent of gentile law. It prohibited its occurrence within certain
prescribed degrees of consanguinity and affinity, and declared it
free beyond those degrees. This uprooted gentile usages in respect to
marriage among the Hebrews; and it has now become the rule of Christian
nations.
Turning to the laws of Solon concerning inheritances, we find them
substantially the same as those of Moses. From this coincidence, an
inference arises that the antecedent usages, customs and institutions
of the Athenians and Hebrews were much the same in relation to
property. In the time of Solon, the third great rule of inheritance
was fully established among the Athenians. The sons took the estate
of their deceased father equally; but charged with the obligation of
maintaining the daughters, and of apportioning them suitably on their
marriage. If there were no sons, the daughters inherited equally. This
created heiresses (ἐπίκληροι) by investing women with estates, who
like the daughters of Zelophehad, would transfer the property, by
their marriage, from their own gens to that of their husband. The
same question came before Solon that had been brought before Moses,
and was decided in the same way. To prevent the transfer of property
from gens to gens by marriage, Solon enacted that the heiress should
marry her nearest male agnate, although they belonged to the same gens,
and marriage between them had previously been prohibited by usage.
This became such a fixed rule of Athenian law, that M. De Coulanges,
in his original and suggestive work, expresses the opinion that the
inheritance passed to the agnate, subject to the obligation of marrying
the heiress.[524] Instances occurred where the nearest agnate, already
married, put away his wife in order to marry the heiress, and thus
gain the estate. Protomachus, in the Eubulides of Demosthenes, is an
example.[525] But it is hardly supposable that the law compelled the
agnate to divorce his wife and marry the heiress, or that he could
obtain the estate without becoming her husband. If there were no
children, the estate passed to the agnates, and in default of agnates,
to the gentiles of the deceased owner. Property was retained within the
gens as inflexibly among the Athenians as among the Hebrews and the
Romans. Solon turned into a law what, probably, had before become an
established usage.
The progressive growth of the idea of property is illustrated by the
appearance of testamentary dispositions established by Solon. This
right was certain of ultimate adoption; but it required time and
experience for its development. Plutarch remarks that Solon acquired
celebrity by his law in relation to testaments, which before that was
not allowed; but the property and homestead must remain in the gens
(γένει) of the decedent. When he permitted a person to devise his
own property to any one he pleased, in case he had no children, he
honored friendship more than kinship, and made property the rightful
possession of the owner.[526] This law recognized the absolute
individual ownership of property by the person while living, to which
was now superadded the power of disposing of it by will to whomsoever
he pleased, in case he had no children; but the gentile right to the
property remained paramount so long as children existed to represent
him in the gens. Thus at every point we meet the evidence that the
great principles, which now govern society, were elaborated step by
step, proceeding in sequences, and tending invariably in the same
upward direction. Although several of these illustrations are drawn
from the period of civilization, there is no reason for supposing that
the laws of Solon were new creations independent of antecedents. They
rather embodied in positive form those conceptions, in relation to
property, which had gradually developed through experience, to the full
measure of the laws themselves. Positive law was now substituted for
customary law.
The Roman law of the Twelve Tables (first promulgated 449 B. C.)[527]
contain the rules of inheritance as then established. The property
passed first to the children, equally with whom the wife of the
decedent was a co-heiress; in default of children and descendants in
the male line, it passed to the agnates in the order of their nearness;
and in default of agnates it passed to the gentiles.[528] Here we find
again, as the fundamental basis of the law, that the property must
remain in the gens. Whether the remote ancestors of the Latin, Grecian
and Hebrew tribes possessed, one after the other, the three great
rules of inheritance under consideration, we have no means of knowing,
excepting through the reversion. It seems a reasonable inference
that inheritance was acquired in the inverse order of the law as it
stands in the Twelve Tables; that inheritance by the gentiles preceded
inheritance by the agnates, and that inheritance by the agnates
preceded an exclusive inheritance by the children.
During the Later Period of barbarism a new element, that of
aristocracy, had a marked development. The individuality of persons,
and the increase of wealth now possessed by individuals in masses,
were laying the foundation of personal influence. Slavery, also, by
permanently degrading a portion of the people, tended to establish
contrasts of condition unknown in the previous ethnical periods. This,
with property and official position, gradually developed the sentiment
of aristocracy, which has so deeply penetrated modern society, and
antagonized the democratical principles created and fostered by the
gentes. It soon disturbed the balance of society by introducing unequal
privileges, and degrees of respect for individuals among people of the
same nationality, and thus became the source of discord and strife.
In the Upper Status of barbarism, the office of chief in its different
grades, originally hereditary in the gens and elective among its
members, passed, very likely, among the Grecian and Latin tribes, from
father to son, as a rule. That it passed by hereditary right cannot be
admitted upon existing evidence; but the possession of either of the
offices of _archon_, _phylo-basileus_, or _basileus_ among the Greeks,
and of _princeps_ and _rex_ among the Romans, tended to strengthen
in their families the sentiment of aristocracy. It did not, however,
become strong enough to change essentially the democratic constitution
of the early governments of these tribes, although it attained a
permanent existence. Property and office were the foundations upon
which aristocracy planted itself.
Whether this principle shall live or die has been one of the great
problems with which modern society has been engaged through the
intervening periods. As a question between equal rights and unequal
rights, between equal laws and unequal laws, between the rights of
wealth, of rank and of official position, and the power of justice
and intelligence, there can be little doubt of the ultimate result.
Although several thousand years have passed away without the overthrow
of privileged classes, excepting in the United States, their
burdensome character upon society has been demonstrated.
Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been
so immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its
management so intelligent in the interests of its owners, that it
has become, on the part of the people, an unmanageable power. The
human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation. The
time will come, nevertheless, when human intelligence will rise to
the mastery over property, and define the relations of the state to
the property it protects, as well as the obligations and the limits
of the rights of its owners. The interests of society are paramount
to individual interests, and the two must be brought into just and
harmonious relations. A mere property career is not the final destiny
of mankind, if progress is to be the law of the future as it has been
of the past. The time which has passed away since civilization began
is but a fragment of the past duration of man’s existence; and but a
fragment of the ages yet to come. The dissolution of society bids fair
to become the termination of a career of which property is the end and
aim; because such a career contains the elements of self-destruction.
Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and
privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane
of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily
tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form, of the liberty,
equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.
Some of the principles, and some of the results of the growth of the
idea of property in the human mind have now been presented. Although
the subject has been inadequately treated, its importance at least has
been shown.
With one principle of intelligence and one physical form, in virtue
of a common origin, the results of human experience have been
substantially the same in all times and areas in the same ethnical
status.
The principle of intelligence, although conditioned in its powers
within narrow limits of variation, seeks ideal standards invariably
the same. Its operations, consequently, have been uniform through all
the stages of human progress. No argument for the unity of origin
of mankind can be made, which, in its nature, is more satisfactory.
A common principle of intelligence meets us in the savage, in the
barbarian, and in civilized man. It was in virtue of this that mankind
were able to produce in similar conditions the same implements and
utensils, the same inventions, and to develop similar institutions
from the same original germs of thought. There is something grandly
impressive in a principle which has wrought out civilization by
assiduous application from small beginnings; from the arrow head, which
expresses the thought in the brain of a savage, to the smelting of
iron ore, which represents the higher intelligence of the barbarian,
and, finally, to the railway train in motion, which may be called the
triumph of civilization.
It must be regarded as a marvelous fact that a portion of mankind
five thousand years ago, less or more, attained to civilization. In
strictness but two families, the Semitic and the Aryan, accomplished
the work through unassisted self-development. The Aryan family
represents the central stream of human progress, because it produced
the highest type of mankind, and because it has proved its intrinsic
superiority by gradually assuming the control of the earth. And
yet civilization must be regarded as an accident of circumstances.
Its attainment at some time was certain; but that it should have
been accomplished when it was, is still an extraordinary fact. The
hindrances that held mankind in savagery were great, and surmounted
with difficulty. After reaching the Middle Status of barbarism,
civilization hung in the balance while barbarians were feeling their
way, by experiments with the native metals, toward the process of
smelting iron ore. Until iron and its uses were known, civilization
was impossible. If mankind had failed to the present hour to cross
this barrier, it would have afforded no just cause for surprise. When
we recognize the duration of man’s existence upon the earth, the wide
vicissitudes through which he has passed in savagery and in barbarism,
and the progress he was compelled to make, civilization might as
naturally have been delayed for several thousand years in the future,
as to have occurred when it did in the good providence of God. We are
forced to the conclusion that it was the result, as to the time of its
achievement, of a series of fortuitous circumstances. It may well serve
to remind us that we owe our present condition, with its multiplied
means of safety and of happiness, to the struggles, the sufferings,
the heroic exertions and the patient toil of our barbarous, and more
remotely, of our savage ancestors. Their labors, their trials and
their successes were a part of the plan of the Supreme Intelligence to
develop a barbarian out of a savage, and a civilized man out of this
barbarian.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Et pueros commendarunt muliebreque saeclum
Vocibus, et gestu, cum balbe significarent,
Imbecillorum esse aequm miserier omnium.
—_De Rerum Natura_, lib. v, 1020.
[2] Mr. Edwin B. Tylor observes that Goquet “first propounded, in the
last century, the notion that the way in which pottery came to be made,
was that people daubed such combustible vessels as these with clay to
protect them from fire, till they found that clay alone would answer
the purpose, and thus the art of pottery came into the world.”—_Early
History of Mankind_, p. 273. Goquet relates of Capt. Gonneville who
visited the southeast coast of South America in 1503, that he found
“their household utensils of wood, even their boiling pots, but
plastered with a kind of clay, a good finger thick, which prevented the
fire from burning them.”—_Ib._ 273.
[3] Pottery has been found in aboriginal mounds in Oregon within a few
years past.—Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races of the United States_, I, 152.
The first vessels of pottery among the Aborigines of the United States
seem to have been made in baskets of rushes or willows used as moulds
which were burned off after the vessel hardened.—Jones’s _Antiquities
of the Southern Indians_, p. 461. Prof. Rau’s article on _Pottery.
Smithsonian Report_, 1866, p. 352.
[4] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 181; _Pre-Historic Times_, pp. 437,
441, 462, 477, 533, 542.
[5] Lewis and Clarke (1805) found plank in use in houses among the
tribes of the Columbia River.—_Travels_, Longman’s Ed., 1814, p. 503.
Mr. John Keast Lord found “cedar plank chipped from the solid tree with
chisels and hatchets made of stone,” in Indian houses on Vancouver’s
Island.—_Naturalist in British Columbia_, I, 169.
[6] Tylor’s _Early History of Mankind_, p. 265, _et seq._
[7] _Geological Survey of Indiana_, 1873, p. 119. He gives the
following analysis: Ancient Pottery, “Bone Bank,” Posey Co., Indiana.
Moisture at 212° F., 1.00
Silica, 36.00
Carbonate of Lime, 25.50
Carbonate of Magnesia, 3.02
Alumina, 5.00
Peroxide of Iron, 5.50
Sulphuric Acid, .20
Organic Matter (alkalies
and loss), 23.60
———
100.00
[8] _History of the American Indians_, Lond. ed., 1775, p. 424. The
Iroquois affirm that in ancient times their forefathers cured their
pottery before a fire.
[9] Necdum res igni scibant tractare, nec uti
Pellibus, et spoliis corpus vestire ferarum:
Sed nemora, atque cavos montis, silvasque colebant,
Et frutices inter condebant squalida membra,
Verbera ventorum vitare imbrisque coacti.
—_Lucr. De Re. Nat._, lib. v, 951.
[10] As a combination of forces it is so abstruse that it not unlikely
owed its origin to accident. The elasticity and toughness of certain
kinds of wood, the tension of a cord of sinew or vegetable fibre by
means of a bent bow, and finally their combination to propel an arrow
by human muscle, are not very obvious suggestions to the mind of a
savage. As elsewhere noticed, the bow and arrow are unknown to the
Polynesians in general, and to the Australians. From this fact alone it
is shown that mankind were well advanced in the savage state when the
bow and arrow made their first appearance.
[11] _Chips from a German Workshop_, Comp. Table, ii, p. 42.
[12] _History of Rome_, Scribner’s ed., 1871, I, p. 38.
[13] The early Spanish writers speak of a “dumb dog” found domesticated
in the West India Islands, and also in Mexico and Central America. (See
figures of the Aztec dog in pl. iii, vol. I, of Clavigero’s _History of
Mexico_). I have seen no identification of the animal. They also speak
of poultry as well as turkeys on the continent. The aborigines had
domesticated the turkey, and the Nahuatlac tribes some species of wild
fowl.
[14] We learn from the Iliad that the Greeks milked their sheep, as
well as their cows and goats:
ὥστ' ὄϊες πολυπάμονος ἀνδρὸς ἐν αὐλῇ
μυρίαι ἑστήκασιν ἀμελγόμεναι γάλα λευκὸν—_Iliad_, iv, 433
[15] Inque dies magis in montem succedere silvas
Cogebant, infraque locum concedere cultis;
Prata, lacus, rivas, segetes, vinetaque lacta
Collibus et campis ut haberent.—_Lucr. De Re. Nat._, v, 1369.
[16] The Egyptians may have invented the crane (See Herodotus, ii,
125). They also had the balance scale.
[17] The phonetic alphabet came, like other great inventions, at the
end of successive efforts. The slow Egyptian, advancing the hieroglyph
through its several forms, had reached a syllabus composed of phonetic
characters, and at this stage was resting upon his labors. He could
write in permanent characters upon stone. Then came in the inquisitive
Phœnician, the first navigator and trader on the sea, who, whether
previously versed in hieroglyphs or otherwise, seems to have entered
at a bound upon the labors of the Egyptian, and by an inspiration of
genius to have mastered the problem over which the latter was dreaming.
He produced that wondrous alphabet of sixteen letters which in time
gave to mankind a written language and the means for literary and
historical records.
[18] ἀρχηγέτην εἶναι τῆς γεωγραφικῆς ἐμπειρίας Ὅμηρον—_Strabo_, I, 2.
[19] Barley κριθὴ, white barley κρῖ λευκόν.—_Iliad_, v, 196; viii,
564: barley flour ἄλφιτον.—_Il._, xi, 631: barley meal, made of
barley and salt, and used as an oblation οὐλοχύται.—_Il._, i,
449: wheat πυρός.—_Il._, xi, 756: rye ὀλῦρα.—_Il._, v, 196, viii,
564: bread σῖτος.—_Il._, xxiv, 625: an inclosed 50 acres of land
πεντηκοντόγυος.—_Il._, ix, 579: a fence ἕρκος.—_Il._, v, 90: a field
for ἀλωά.—_Il._, v, 90: stones set for a field boundary.—_Il._, xxi,
405: plow ἄροτρον.—_Il._, x, 353; xiii, 703.
[20] The house or mansion δόμος.—_Il._, vi, 390:
odoriferous chambers of cedar, lofty roofed.—_Il._, vi, 390: house
of Priam, in which were fifty chambers of polished stones αὐτὰρ ἐν
αὐτῷ πεντήκοντ' ἔνεσαν θάλαμοι ξεστοῖο λίθοιο.—_Il._, vi, 243.
[21] Ship νηῦς.—_Il._, i, 485: white sail λευκὸν ἱστιόν.—_Il._, i, 480:
cable or hawser πρυμνήσιος.—_Il._, i, 476: oar ἐρετμός.—_Odyssey_, iv,
782: mast ἱστός.—_Od._, iv, 781: keel στείρη.—_Il._, i, 482: ship plank
δουρὸς.—_Il._, iii, 61: long plank μακρὰ δούρατα.—_Od._, v, 162: nail
ἧλος.—_Il._, xi, 633: golden nail χρύσειος ἧλος.—_Il._, xi, 633.
[22] Chariot or vehicle ὄχος.—_Il._, viii, 389, 565: four-wheeled wagon
τετράκυκλη ἀπήνη.—_Il._, xxiv, 324: chariot δίφρος.—_Il._, v, 727, 837;
viii, 403: the same ἅρμα.—_Il._, ii, 775; vii, 426.
[23] Helmet κόρυς.—_Il._, xviii, 611; xx, 398: cuirass or corselet
θώραξ.—_Il._, xvi, 133; xviii, 610: greaves κνημίς.—_Il._, xvi, 131.
[24] Spear ἔγχος.—_Il._, xv, 712; xvi, 140: shield of Achilles
σάκος.—_Il._, xviii, 478, 609: round shield ἀσπίς.—_Il._, xiii, 611.
[25] Sword ξίφος.—_Il._, vii, 303; xi, 29: silver-studded sword ξίφος
ἀργυρόηλον.—_Il._, vii, 303: the sword φάσγανον.—_Il._, xxiii, 807; xv,
713: a double-edged sword ἄμφηκες φάσγανον.—_Il._, x, 256.
[26] Wine οἶνος.—_Il._, viii, 506: sweet wine μελιηδέα οἶνον.—_Il._, x,
579.
[27] Potter’s wheel τροχός.—_Il._, xviii, 600:
hand-mill for grinding grain μύλος.—_Od._, vii, 104; xx,
106.
[28] Linen λῖς.—_Il._, xviii, 352; xxiii, 254: linen
corselet λινοθώρηξ.—_Il._, ii, 529: robe of
Minerva πεπλός.—_Il._, v, 734: tunic χιτῶν.—_Il._, x, 131: woolen cloak χλαῖνα.—_Il._, x,
133; xxiv, 280: rug or coverlet τάπης.—_Il._, xxiv, 280,
645: mat ῥῆγος.—_Il._, xxiv, 644: veil κρήδεμνον.—_Il._, xxii, 470.
[29] Axe πέλλεκυς.—_Il._, iii, 60; xxiii, 114, 875:
spade or mattock μάκελλον.—_Il._, xxi, 259.
[30] Hatchet or battle-axe ἀξίνη.—_Il._, xiii, 612;
xv, 711: knife μάχαιρα.—_Il._, xi, 844; xix, 252:
chip-axe or adz σκέπαρνον.—_Od._, v, 273.
[31] Hammer ῥαιστήρ.—_Il._, xviii, 477: anvil
ἄκμων.—_Il._, xviii, 476: tongs πυράγρα.—_Il._, xviii, 477.
[32] Bellows φῦσα.—_Il._, xviii, 372, 468: furnace, the
boshes χόανος.—_Il._, xviii, 470.
[33] Horse ἵππος.—_Il._, xi, 680: distinguished into breeds:
Thracian.—_Il._, x, 588; Trojan, v, 265: Erechthomus owned three
thousand mares τρισχίλιαι ἵπποι.—_Il._, xx, 221: collars, bridles and
reins.—_Il._, xix, 339: ass ὄνος.—_Il._, xi, 558: mule ἡμίονος.—_Il._,
x, 352; vii, 333: ox βοῦς.—_Il._, xi, 678; viii, 333: bull ταῦρος; cow
βοῦς.—_Od._, xx, 251: goat αἴξ.—_Il._, xi, 679: dog κύων.—v, 476; viii,
338; xxii, 509: sheep ὄïς.—_Il._, xi, 678: boar or sow σῦς.—_Il._,
xi, 679; viii, 338: milk γλάγος.—_Il._, xvi, 643: pails full of milk
περιγλαγέας πέλλας.—_Il._, xvi, 642.
[34] Homer mentions the native metals; but they were known long
before his time, and before iron. The use of charcoal and the
crucible in melting them prepared the way for smelting iron ore. Gold
χρυσός.—_Iliad_, ii, 229: silver ἄργυρος.—_Il._, xviii, 475: copper,
called brass χαλκός.—_Il._, iii, 229; xviii, 460: tin, possibly pewter,
κασσίτερος.—_Il._, xi, 25; xx, 271; xxi, 292: lead μόλιβος.—_Il._, ii, 237:
iron σίδηρος.—_Il._, vii, 473: iron axle-tree.—_Il._, v, 723: iron
club.—_Il._, vii, 141: iron wagon-tire.—_Il._, xxiii, 505.
[35] The researches of Beckmann have left a doubt upon the existence
of a true bronze earlier than a knowledge of iron among the Greeks
and Latins. He thinks _electrum_, mentioned in the _Iliad_, was a
mixture of gold and silver (_History of Inventions_, Bohn’s ed., ii,
212); and that the _stannum_ of the Romans, which consisted of silver
and lead, was the same as the _kassiteron_ of Homer (_Ib._, ii, 217).
This word has usually been interpreted as tin. In commenting upon the
composition called bronze, he remarks: “In my opinion the greater part
of these things were made of _stannum_, properly so called, which by
the admixture of the noble metals, and some difficulty of fusion,
was rendered fitter for use than pure copper.” (_Ib._, ii, 213).
These observations were limited to the nations of the Mediterranean,
within whose areas tin was not produced. Axes, knives, razors,
swords, daggers, and personal ornaments discovered in Switzerland,
Austria, Denmark, and other parts of Northern Europe, have been found,
on analysis, composed of copper and tin, and therefore fall under
the strict definition of bronze. They were also found in relations
indicating priority to iron.
[36] The origin of language has been investigated far enough to find
the grave difficulties in the way of any solution of the problem. It
seems to have been abandoned, by common consent, as an unprofitable
subject. It is more a question of the laws of human development and of
the necessary operations of the mental principle, than of the materials
of language. Lucretius remarks that with sounds and with gesture,
mankind in the primitive period intimated their thoughts stammeringly
to each other (Vocibus, et gestu, cum balbe significarent.—v, 1021).
He assumes that thought preceded speech, and that gesture language
preceded articulate language. Gesture or sign language seems to have
been primitive, the elder sister of articulate speech. It is still
the universal language of barbarians, if not of savages, in their
mutual intercourse when their dialects are not the same. The American
aborigines have developed such a language, thus showing that one may
be formed adequate for general intercourse. As used by them it is
both graceful and expressive, and affords pleasure in its use. It is
a language of natural symbols, and therefore possesses the elements
of a universal language. A sign language is easier to invent than
one of sounds; and, since it is mastered with greater facility, a
presumption arises that it preceded articulate speech. The sounds of
the voice would first come in, on this hypothesis, in aid of gesture;
and as they gradually assumed a conventional signification, they
would supersede, to that extent, the language of signs, or become
incorporated in it. It would also tend to develop the capacity of the
vocal organs. No proposition can be plainer than that gesture has
attended articulate language from its birth. It is still inseparable
from it; and may embody the remains, by survival, of an ancient
mental habit. If language were perfect, a gesture to lengthen out or
emphasize its meaning would be a fault. As we descend through the
gradations of language into its ruder forms, the gesture element
increases in the quantity and variety of its forms until we find
language so dependent upon gestures that without them they would be
substantially unintelligible. Growing up and flourishing side by side
through savagery, and far into the period of barbarism, they remain, in
modified forms, indissolubly united. Those who are curious to solve the
problem of the origin of language would do well to look to the possible
suggestions from gesture language.
[37] The Egyptians are supposed to affiliate remotely with the Semitic
family.
[38] Whitney’s _Oriental and Linguistic Studies_, p. 341.
[39] M. Quiquerez, a Swiss engineer, discovered in the canton of Berne
the remains of a number of side-hill furnaces for smelting iron ore;
together with tools, fragments of iron and charcoal. To construct
one, an excavation was made in the side of a hill in which a bosh was
formed of clay, with a chimney in the form of a dome above it to create
a draft. No evidence was found of the use of the bellows. The boshes
seem to have been charged with alternate layers of pulverized ore and
charcoal, combustion being sustained by fanning the flames. The result
was a spongy mass of partly fused ore which was afterwards welded into
a compact mass by hammering. A deposit of charcoal was found beneath
a bed of peat twenty feet in thickness. It is not probable that these
furnaces were coeval with the knowledge of smelting iron ore; but
they were, not unlikely, close copies of the original furnace.—Vide
Figuier’s _Primitive Man_, Putnam’s ed., p. 301.
[40] Palace of Priam.—_Il._, vi, 242.
[41] House of Ulysses.—_Od._, xvi, 448.
[42] _Od._, vii, 115.
[43] In addition to the articles enumerated in the previous notes
the following may be added from the _Iliad_ as further illustrations
of the progress then made: The shuttle κερκίς.—xxii, 448: the loom
ἱστός.—xxii, 440: a woven fillet πλεκτὴ ἀναδέσμηê.—xxii, 469: silver
basin ἀργύρεος κρητήρ.—xxiii, 741: goblet, or drinking cup δέπας.—xxiv,
285: golden goblet χρύσεον δέπας.—xxiv, 285: basket, made of reeds,
κάνεον.—xxiv, 626: ten talents in gold χρυσοῦ δέκα πάντα τάλαντα.—xix,
247: a harp φόρμιγξ.—ix, 186, and κίθαρα.—xiii, 731: a shepherd’s
pipe σύριγξ.—xviii, 526: sickle, or pruning knife, δρεπάνη.—xviii,
551: fowler’s net πάναγρον.—v, 487: mesh of a net ἀψίς.—v, 487: a
bridge γέφυρα.—v, 89: also a dike.—xxi, 245: rivets δέσμοι.—xviii,
379: the bean κύαμος.—xiii, 589: the pea ἐρέβινθος.—xiii, 589: the
onion κρόμνον.—xi, 630: the grape σταφυλή.—xviii, 561: a vineyard
ἀλωή.—xviii, 561: wine οἶνος.—viii, 506; x, 579: the tripod
τρίπους.—ix, 122: a copper boiler or caldron λέβης.—ix, 123: a brooch
ἐνετή.—xiv, 180: ear-ring τρίγληνος.—xiv, 183: a sandal or buskin
πέδιλον.—xiv, 186: leather ῥινός.—xvi, 636: a gate πύλη.—xxi, 537:
bolt for fastening gate ὀχεύς.—xxi, 537. And in the Odyssey: a silver
basin ἀργύρεος λέβης.—i, 137: a table τράπεζα.—i, 138: golden cups
χρύσεια κύπελλα.—Od., i, 142: rye or spelt ζειά.—iv, 41: a bathing
tub ἀσάμινθος.—iv, 48: cheese τυρός: milk γάλα.—iv, 88: distaff or
spindle ἠλακάτη.—iv, 131; vii, 105; xvii, 97: silver basket ἀργύρεος
τάλαρος.—iv, 125: bread σῖτος.—iv, 623: xiv, 456: tables loaded with
bread, meat and wine ἐΰξεστοι δὲ τράπεζαι σίτου καὶ κρειῶν ἠδ' οἴνου
βεβρίθασιν.—xv, 333: shuttle κερκίς.—v, 62: bed λέκτρον.—viii, 337:
brazier plunging an axe or adz in cold water for the purpose of
tempering it
ὡς δ' ὅτ' ἀνὴρ χαλκεὺς πέλεκυν μέγαν ἠὲ σκέπαρνον
εἰν ὕδατι ψυχρῷ βάπτῃ μεγάλα ἰάχοντα
φαρμάσσων· τὸ γὰρ αὖτε σιδήρου γε κράτος ἐστιν.—ix, 391:
salt ἅλς.—xi, 123; xxiii, 270: bow τόξον.—xxi, 31, 53: quiver
γωρυτός.—xxi, 54: sickle δρεπάνη.—xviii, 368.
[44] The Romans made a distinction between _connubium_, which related
to marriage considered as a civil institution, and _conjugium_, which
was a mere physical union.
[45] For the detailed facts of the Australian system I am indebted
to the Rev. Lorimer Fison, an English missionary in Australia, who
received a portion of them from the Rev. W. Ridley, and another
portion from T. E. Lance, Esq., both of whom had spent many years
among the Australian aborigines, and enjoyed excellent opportunities
for observation. The facts were sent by Mr. Fison with a critical
analysis and discussion of the system, which, with observations of the
writer, were published in the _Proceedings of the Am. Acad. of Arts
and Sciences for 1872_. See vol. viii, p. 412. A brief notice of the
Kamilaroi classes is given in McLennan’s _Primitive Marriage_, p. 118;
and in Tylor’s _Early History of Mankind_, p. 288.
[46] Padymelon: a species of kangaroo.
[47] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family_,
(_Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_), vol. xvii, p. 420, _et seq._
[48] If a diagram of descents is made, for example, of Ippai and
Kapota, and carried to the fourth generation, giving to each
intermediate pair two children, a male and a female, the following
results will appear. The children of Ippai and Kapota are Murri and
Mata. As brothers and sisters the latter cannot marry. At the second
degree, the children of Murri, married to Buta, are Ippai and Ippata,
and of Mata married to Kumbo, are Kubbi and Kapota. Of these, Ippai
marries his cousin Kapota, and Kubbi marries his cousin Ippata. It
will be noticed that the eight classes are reproduced from two in the
second and third generations, with the exception of Kumbo and Buta.
At the next or third degree, there are two Murris, two Matas, two
Kumbos, and two Butas; of whom the Murris marry the Butas, their second
cousins, and the Kubbis the Matas, their second cousins. At the fourth
generation there are four each of Ippais, Kapotas, Kubbis and Ippatas,
who are third cousins. Of these, the Ippais marry the Kapotas, and the
Kubbis the Ippatas; and thus it runs from generation to generation. A
similar chart of the remaining marriageable classes will produce like
results. These details are tedious, but they make the fact apparent
that in this condition of ancient society they not only intermarry
constantly, but are compelled to do so through this organization upon
sex. Cohabitation would not follow this invariable course because
an entire male and female class were married in a group; but its
occurrence must have been constant under the system. One of the primary
objects secured by the gens, when fully matured, was thus defeated:
namely, the segregation of a moiety of the descendants of a supposed
common ancestor under a prohibition of intermarriage, followed by a
right of marrying into any other gens.
[49] _Proc. Am. Acad. Arts and Sciences_, viii, 436.
[50] In _Letters on the Iroquois by Skenandoah_, published in the
_American Review_ in 1847; in the _League of the Iroquois_, published
in 1851; and in _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human
Family_, published in 1871. (_Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_,
vol. xvii.) I have used _tribe_ as the equivalent of _gens_, and in its
place; but with an exact definition of the group.
[51] These loaves or cakes were about six inches in diameter and an
inch thick.
[52] _North American Review_, April No., 1873, p. 370 Note.
[53] The sons of several sisters are brothers to each other, instead
of cousins. The latter are here distinguished as collateral brothers.
So a man’s brother’s son is his son instead of his nephew; while his
collateral sister’s son is his nephew, as well as his own sister’s son.
The former is distinguished as a collateral nephew.
[54] Pronounced _gen'-ti-les_, it may be remarked to those unfamiliar
with Latin.
[55] _History of America_, Lond. ed., 1725, Stevens’ Trans., iv, 171.
[56] _Ib._, iv, 34.
[57] _History of America_, iii, 298.
[58] _Royal Commentaries_, Lond. ed., 1688, Rycaut’s Trans., p. 107.
[59] Herrera, iv, 231.
[60] “Their hearts burn violently day and night without intermission
till they have shed blood for blood. They transmit from father to son
the memory of the loss of their relations, or one of their own tribe,
or family, though it was an old woman.”—Adair’s _Hist. Amer. Indians_,
Lond. ed., 1775, p. 150.
[61] Mommsen’s _History of Rome_, Scribner’s ed., Dickson’s Trans., i,
49.
[62] One of the twelve gentes of the Omahas is Lä′-tä-dä, the
Pigeon-Hawk, which has, among others, the following names:
_Boys’ Names._
Ah-hise′-na-da, “Long Wing.”
Gla-dan′-noh-che, “Hawk balancing itself in the air.”
Nes-tase′-kä, “White-Eyed Bird.”
_Girls’ Names._
Me-ta′-na, “Bird singing at daylight.”
Lä-tä-dä′-win, “One of the Birds.”
Wä-tä′ na, “Bird’s Egg.”
[63] When particular usages are named it will be understood they are
Iroquois unless the contrary is stated.
[64] After the people had assembled at the council house one of the
chiefs made an address giving some account of the person, the reason
for his adoption, the name and gens of the person adopting, and the
name bestowed upon the novitiate. Two chiefs taking the person by the
arms then marched with him through the council house and back, chanting
the song of adoption. To this the people responded in musical chorus
at the end of each verse. The march continued until the verses were
ended, which required three rounds. With this the ceremony concluded.
Americans are sometimes adopted as a compliment. It fell to my lot some
years ago to be thus adopted into the Hawk gens of the Senecas, when
this ceremony was repeated.
[65] Grote’s _Hist. of Greece_, i, 194.
[66] _League of the Iroquois_, p. 182.
[67] The “Keepers of the Faith” were about as numerous as the chiefs,
and were selected by the wise-men and matrons of each gens. After their
selection they were raised up by a council of the tribe with ceremonies
adapted to the occasion. Their names were taken away and new ones
belonging to this class bestowed in their place. Men and women in about
equal numbers were chosen. They were censors of the people, with power
to report the evil deeds of persons to the council. It was the duty
of individuals selected to accept the office; but after a reasonable
service each might relinquish it, which was done by dropping his name
as a Keeper of the Faith, and resuming his former name.
[68] _League of the Iroquois_, p. 182.
[69] _History of the American Indians_, p. 183.
[70] εἴη δ' ἂν Ἑλλάδι γλώττῃ τὰ ὀνόματα ταῦτα μεθερμηνευόμενα
φυλὴ μὲν καὶ τριττὺς ἡ τρίβους, φράτρα δὲ καὶ λόχος ἡ κουρία.
—_Dionysius_, lib. II, cap. vii; and vid. lib. II, c. xiii.
[71] That purification was performed by the phratry is intimated
by Æschylus: ποία δὲ χέρνιψ φρατέρων προσδέξεται.—_The Eumenides_, 656.
[72] _League of the Iroquois_, p. 294.
[73] It was a journey of ten days from earth to heaven for the departed
spirit, according to Iroquois belief. For ten days after the death of a
person, the mourners met nightly to lament the deceased, at which they
indulged in excessive grief. The dirge or wail was performed by women.
It was an ancient custom to make a fire on the grave each night for the
same period. On the eleventh day they held a feast; the spirit of the
departed having reached heaven, the place of rest, there was no further
cause for mourning. With the feast it terminated.
[74] _Iliad_, ii, 362.
[75] Bancroft’s _Native Races of the Pacific States_, I, 109.
[76] O-tä′-was.
[77] The Ojibwas manufactured earthen pipes, water jars, and vessels in
ancient times, as they now assert. Indian pottery has been dug up at
different times at the Sault St. Mary, which they recognize as the work
of their forefathers.
[78] The Potawattamie and the Cree have diverged about equally. It is
probable that the Ojibwas, Otawas and Crees were one people in dialect
after the Potawattamies became detached.
[79] As a mixture of forest and prairie it was an excellent game
country. A species of bread-root, the kamash, grew in abundance in the
prairies. In the summer there was a profusion of berries. But in these
respects it was not superior to other areas. That which signalized the
region was the inexhaustible supply of salmon in the Columbia, and
other rivers of the coast. They crowded these streams in millions, and
were taken in the season with facility, and in the greatest abundance.
After being split open and dried in the sun, they were packed and
removed to their villages, and formed their principal food during the
greater part of the year. Beside these were the shell fisheries of the
coast, which supplied a large amount of food during the winter months.
Superadded to these concentrated advantages, the climate was mild and
equable throughout the year—about that of Tennessee and Virginia. It
was the paradise of tribes without a knowledge of the cereals.
[80] It can be shown with a great degree of probability, that the
Valley of the Columbia was the seed land of the Ganowánian family, from
which issued, in past ages, successive streams of migrating bands,
until both divisions of the continent were occupied. And further, that
both divisions continued to be replenished with inhabitants from this
source down to the epoch of European discovery. These conclusions may
be deduced from physical causes, from the relative conditions, and
from the linguistic relations of the Indian tribes. The great expanse
of the central prairies, which spread continuously more than fifteen
hundred miles from north to south, and more than a thousand miles from
east to west, interposed a barrier to a free communication between the
Pacific and Atlantic sides of the continent in North America. It seems
probable, therefore, that an original family commencing its spread
from the Valley of the Columbia, and migrating under the influence of
physical causes, would reach Patagonia sooner than they would Florida.
The known facts point so strongly to this region as the original home
of the Indian family, that a moderate amount of additional evidence
will render the hypothesis conclusive.
The discovery and cultivation of maize did not change materially the
course of events, or suspend the operation of previous causes; though
it became an important factor in the progress of improvement. It is
not known where this American cereal was indigenous; but the tropical
region of Central America, where vegetation is intensely active, where
this plant is peculiarly fruitful, and where the oldest seats of the
Village Indians were found, has been assumed by common consent, as the
probable place of its nativity. If, then, cultivation commenced in
Central America, it would have propagated itself first over Mexico, and
from thence to New Mexico and the valley of the Mississippi, and thence
again eastward to the shores of the Atlantic; the volume of cultivation
diminishing from the starting-point to the extremities. It would
spread, independently of the Village Indians, from the desire of more
barbarous tribes to gain the new subsistence; but it never extended
beyond New Mexico to the Valley of the Columbia, though cultivation was
practiced by the Minnitarees and Mandans of the Upper Missouri, by the
Shyans on the Red River of the North, by the Hurons of Lake Simcoe in
Canada, and by the Abenakies of the Kennebec, as well as generally by
the tribes between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. Migrating bands
from the Valley of the Columbia, following upon the track of their
predecessors, would press upon the Village Indians of New Mexico and
Mexico, tending to force displaced and fragmentary tribes toward and
through the Isthmus into South America. Such expelled bands would
carry with them the first germs of progress developed by Village
Indian life. Repeated at intervals of time it would tend to bestow
upon South America a class of inhabitants far superior to the wild
bands previously supplied, and at the expense of the northern section
thus impoverished. In the final result, South America would attain the
advanced position in development, even in an inferior country, which
seems to have been the fact. The Peruvian legend of Manco Capac and
Mama Oello, children of the sun, brother and sister, husband and wife,
shows, if it can be said to show anything, that a band of Village
Indians migrating from a distance, though not necessarily from North
America direct, had gathered together and taught the rude tribes of the
Andes the higher arts of life, including the cultivation of maize and
plants. By a simple and quite natural process the legend has dropped
out the band, and retained only the leader and his wife.
[81] _Coll. Ternaux-Compans_, IX, pp. 181-183.
[82] Acosta. _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West
Indies_, Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s Trans., pp. 500-503.
[83] Near the close of the last century the Seneca-Iroquois, at one
of their villages on the Alleghany river, set up an idol of wood, and
performed dances and other religious ceremonies around it. My informer,
the late William Parker, saw this idol in the river into which it had
been cast. Whom it personated he did not learn.
[84] They were admitted into the Creek Confederacy after their
overthrow by the French.
[85] About 1651-5, 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.
[86] 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.
[87] My friend, Horatio Hale, the eminent philologist, came, as he
informed me, to this conclusion.
[88] These names signify as follows: 1. “Neutral,” or “the Shield.”
[89] “Man who Combs.”
[90] “Inexhaustible.”
[91] “Small Speech.”
[92] “At the Forks.”
[93] “At the Great River.”
[94] “Dragging his Horns.”
[95] “Even-Tempered.”
[96] “Hanging up Rattles.” The sachems in class one belonged to the
Turtle tribe, in class two to the Wolf tribe, and in class three to the
Bear tribe.
[97] “A Man bearing a Burden.”
[98] “A Man covered with Cat-tail Down.”
[99] “Opening through the Woods.”
[100] “A Long String.”
[101] “A Man with a Headache.”
[102] “Swallowing Himself.”
[103] “Place of the Echo.”
[104] “War-club on the Ground.”
[105] “A Man Steaming Himself.” The sachems in the first class belonged
to the Wolf tribe, in the second to the Turtle tribe, and in the third
to the Bear tribe.
[106] “Tangled,” Bear tribe.
[107] “On the Watch,” Bear tribe. This sachem and the one before him,
were hereditary councilors of the To-do-dä´-ho, who held the most
illustrious sachemship.
[108] “Bitter Body,” Snipe tribe.
[109] Turtle tribe.
[110] This sachem was hereditary keeper of the wampum; Wolf tribe.
[111] Deer tribe.
[112] Deer tribe.
[113] Turtle tribe.
[114] Bear tribe.
[115] “Having a Glimpse,” Deer tribe.
[116] “Large Mouth,” Turtle tribe.
[117] “Over the Creek,” Turtle tribe.
[118] “Man Frightened,” Deer tribe.
[119] Heron tribe.
[120] Bear tribe.
[121] Bear tribe.
[122] Turtle tribe.
[123] Not ascertained.
[124] “Very Cold,” Turtle tribe.
[125] Heron tribe.
[126] Snipe tribe.
[127] Snipe tribe.
[128] “Handsome Lake,” Turtle tribe.
[129] “Level Heavens,” Snipe tribe.
[130] Turtle tribe.
[131] “Great Forehead,” Hawk tribe.
[132] “Assistant,” Bear tribe.
[133] “Falling Day,” Snipe tribe.
[134] “Hair Burned Off,” Snipe tribe.
[135] “Open Door,” Wolf tribe.
[136] 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.
[137] A civil council, which might be called by either nation, was
usually summoned and opened in the following manner: If, for example,
the Onondagas made the call, they would send heralds to the Oneidas on
the east, and the Cayugas on the west of them, with belts containing an
invitation to meet at the Onondaga council-grove on such a day of such
a moon, for purposes which were also named. It would then become the
duty of the Cayugas to send the same notification to the Senecas, and
of the Oneidas to notify the Mohawks. If the council was to meet for
peaceful purposes, then each sachem was to bring with him a bundle of
fagots of white cedar, typical of peace; if for warlike objects then
the fagots were to be of red cedar, emblematical of war.
At the day appointed the sachems of the several nations, with their
followers, who usually arrived a day or two before and remained
encamped at a distance, were received in a formal manner by the
Onondaga sachems at the rising of the sun. They marched in separate
processions from their camps to the council-grove, each bearing his
skin robe and bundle of fagots, where the Onondaga sachems awaited them
with a concourse of people. The sachems then formed themselves into a
circle, an Onondaga sachem, who by appointment acted as master of the
ceremonies, occupying the side toward the rising sun. At a signal they
marched round the circle moving by the north. It may be here observed
that the rim of the circle toward the north is called the “cold side,”
(o-to′-wa-ga); that on the west “the side toward the setting sun,”
(ha-gă-kwăs′-gwä); that on the south “the side of the high sun,”
(en-de-ih′-kwä); and that on the east “the side of the rising sun,”
(t´-kă-gwit-kăs′-gwä). After marching three times around on the circle
single file, the head and-foot of the column being joined, the leader
stopped on the rising sun side, and deposited before him his bundle of
fagots. In this he was followed by the others, one at a time, following
by the north, thus forming an inner circle of fagots. After this each
sachem spread his skin robe in the same order, and sat down upon it,
cross-legged, behind his bundle of fagots, with his assistant sachem
standing behind him. The master of the ceremonies, after a moment’s
pause, arose, drew from his pouch two pieces of dry wood and a piece
of punk with which he proceeded to strike fire by friction. When
fire was thus obtained, he stepped within the circle and set fire to
his own bundle, and then to each of the others in the order in which
they were laid. When they were well ignited, and at a signal from
the master of the ceremonies, the sachems arose and marched three
times around the Burning Circle, going as before by the north. Each
turned from time to time as he walked, so as to expose all sides of
his person to the warming influence of the fires. This typified that
they warmed their affections for each other in order that they might
transact the business of the council in friendship and unity. They then
reseated themselves each upon his own robe. After this the master of
the ceremonies again rising to his feet, filled and lighted the pipe
of peace from his own fire. Drawing three whiffs, one after the other,
he blew the first toward the zenith, the second toward the ground, and
the third toward the sun. By the first act he returned thanks to the
Great Spirit for the preservation of his life during the past year, and
for being permitted to be present at this council. By the second, he
returned thanks to his Mother, the Earth, for her various productions
which had ministered to his sustenance. And by the third, he returned
thanks to the Sun for his never-failing light, ever shining upon all.
These words were not repeated, but such is the purport of the acts
themselves. He then passed the pipe to the first upon his right toward
the north, who repeated the same ceremonies, and then passed it to the
next, and so on around the burning circle. The ceremony of smoking the
calumet also signified that they pledged to each other their faith,
their friendship, and their honor.
These ceremonies completed the opening of the council, which was then
declared to be ready for the business upon which it had been convened.
[138] Tradition declares that the Onondagas deputed a wise-man to visit
the territories of the tribes and select and name the new sachems as
circumstances should prompt: which explains the unequal distribution of
the office among the several gentes.
[139] At the beginning of the American revolution the Iroquois were
unable to agree upon a declaration of war against our confederacy for
want of unanimity in council. A number of the Oneida sachems resisted
the proposition and finally refused their consent. As neutrality was
impossible with the Mohawks, and the Senecas were determined to fight,
it was resolved that each tribe might engage in the war upon its own
responsibility, or remain neutral. The war against the Eries, against
the Neutral Nation and Susquehannocks, and the several wars against the
French, were resolved upon in general council. Our colonial records are
largely filled with negotiations with the Iroquois Confederacy.
[140] δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντ' ἀπαγγέλλειν με χρὴ
δήμου προβούλοις τῆσδε καδμείας πόλεως.
—Æschylus, _The Seven against Thebes_, 1005.
[141] One of the Cayuga sachems.
[142] One of the Seneca sachems, and the founder of the New Religion of
the Iroquois.
[143] One of the Seneca sachems.
[144] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family._
(_Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii, 1871, p. 131.)
[145]
1. Wolf, Tor-yoh′-ne. 5. Deer, Nä-o′-geh.
2. Bear, Ne-e-ar-guy′-ee. 6. Snipe, Doo-eese-doo-we′.
3. Beaver, Non-gar-ne′-e-ar-goh. 7. Heron, Jo-äs′-seh.
4. Turtle, Gä-ne-e-ar-teh-go′-wä. 8. Hawk, Os-sweh-gä-dä-gä′-ah.
5. Deer, Nä-o′-geh.
[146]
1. Ah-na-rese′-kwä, Bone Gnawers. 5. Os-ken′-o-toh, Roaming.
2. Ah-nu-yeh′, Tree Liver. 6. Sine-gain′-see, Creeping.
3. Tso-tä′-ee, Shy Animal. 7. Ya-ra-hats′-see, Tall Tree.
4. Ge-ah′-wish, Fine Land. 8. Dä-soak′ Flying.
[147] Mr. Horatio Hale has recently proved the connection of the
Tutelos with the Iroquois.
[148] Mr. Francis Parkman, author of the brilliant series of works on
the colonization of America, was the first to establish the affiliation
of the Susquehannocks with the Iroquois.
[149] _Travels in North America_, Phila. ed., 1796, p. 164.
[150] _Travels in North America_, p. 165.
[151]
1. Wä-sä′-be. 2. De-a-glie′-ta. 3. Na-ko-poz′-na. 4. Moh-kuh′.
5. Wä-shä′-ba. 6. Wä-zhä′-zha. 7. Noli′-ga. 8. Wali′ga.
[152]
1. Wä′-zhese-ta. 2. Ink-ka′-sa-ba. 3. Lä′-tä-dä. 4. Kä′-ih.
5. Da-thun′-da. 6. Wä-sä′-ba. 7. Hun′-ga. 8. Kun′zä.
9. Tä′-pä. 10. In-grä′-zhe-da. 11. Ish-dä′-sun-da. 12. O-non-e′-kä-gä-lia′
[153]
1. Me-je′-rä-ja. 2. Too-num′-pe. 3. Ah′-ro-whä. 4. Ho′-dash.
5. Cheh′-he-tä. 6. Lu′-chih. 7. Wä-keeh′. 8. Mä′-kotch.
ḣ represents a deep sonant guttural. It is quite common in the
dialects of the Missouri tribes, and also in the Minnitaree and Crow.
[154]
1. Me-je′-rä-ja. 2. Moon′-cha. 3. Ah′-ro-whä. 4. Hoo′-ma.
5. Kḣa′-ă. 6. Lute′-ja. 7. Wä′-kä. 8. Mä′-kotch.
[155]
1. Tä-we-kä-she′-gä. 2. Sin′-ja-ye-ga. 3. Mo-e′-kwe-ah-hä.
4. Hu-e′-yă. 5. Hun-go-tin′-ga. 6. Me-hä-shun′-gă.
7. O′-pă. 8. Me-kä′. 9. Sho′-ma-koo-sa.
10. Do-ḣă-kel′-yă. 11. Mo-e′-ka-ne-kä′-she-gä. 12. Dä-sin′-ja-hă-gă.
13. Ic′-hä-she. 14. Lo-ne′-kä-she-gä.
[156]
1. Shonk-chun′-ga-dă. 2. Hone-cha′-dä. 3. Cha′-rä.
4. Wahk-cha′-he-dä. 5. Hoo-wun′-nä. 6. Chä′-rä.
7. Wä-kon′-nä. 8. Wa-kon′-cha-rä.
[157] _Travels, loc. cit._, p. 166.
[158]
1. Ilo-ra-ta′-mŭ-make. 2. Mä-to′-no-mäke. 3. See-poosh′-kä.
4. Tä-na-tsŭ′-kä. 5. Ki-tä′-ne-mäke. 6. E-stä-pa′.
7. Me-te-ah′-ke.
[159]
1. Mit-che-ro′-ka. 2. Min-ne-pä′-ta. 3. Bä-ho-ḣä′-ta.
4. Seech-ka-be-ruh-pä′-ka. 5. E-tish-sho′-ka.
6. Aḣ-naḣ-ha-nä′-me-te. 7. E-ku′-pä-be-ka.
[160]
1. A-che-pä-be′-cha. 2. E-sach′-ka-buk . 3. Ho-ka-rut′-cha.
4. Ash-bot-chee-ah. 5. Ah-shin′-nä-de′-ah. 6. Ese-kep-kä′-buk.
7. Oo-sä-bot′-see. 8. Ah-hä-chick. 9. Ship-tet′-zä.
10. Ash-kane′-na. 11. Boo-a-dă′-sha. 12. O-hot-dŭ′-sha.
13. Pet-chale-ruḣ-pä′-ka.
[161] This practice as an act of mourning is very common among the
Crows, and also as a religious offering when they hold a “Medicine
Lodge,” a great religious ceremonial. In a basket hung up in a Medicine
Lodge for their reception as offerings, fifty, and sometimes a hundred
finger joints, I have been told, are sometimes thus collected. At a
Crow encampment on the Upper Missouri I noticed a number of women and
men with their hands mutilated by this practice.
[162]
1. Yä′-hä. 2. No-kuse′. 3. Ku′-mu. 4. Kal-pŭt′-lŭ.
5. E′-cho. 6. Tus′-wă. 7. Kat′-chŭ. 8. Ho-tor′-lee.
9. So-päk′-tŭ. 10. Tŭk′-ko. 11. Chŭ′-lä. 12. Wo′-tko.
13. Hŭ′-hlo. 14. Ŭ′-che. 15. Ah′-ah. 16. O-che′.
17. Ok-chŭn′-wä. 18. Kŭ-wä′-ku-che. 19. Tä-mul′-kee. 20. Ak-tŭ-yä-chul′-kee.
21. Is-fä-nŭl′-ke. 22. Wä-hläk-kŭl′-kee.
[163] Sig’n = signification.
[164]
_First._ Ku-shap′. Ok′-lä.
1. Kush-ik′-sä. 2. Law-ok′-lä. 3. Lu-lak Ik′sä. 4. Lin-ok-lŭ′-sha.
_Second._ Wă-tăk-i-Hŭ-lä′-tä.
1. Chu-fan-ik′-sä. 2. Is-kŭ-la′-ni. 3. Chi′-to. 4. Shak-chuk′-la.
[165]
I. Koi.
1. Ko-in-chush. 2. Hä-täk-fu-shi. 3. Nun-ni. 4. Is-si.
II. Ish-pän-ee.
1. Shä-u-ee. 2. Ish-pän-ee. 3. Ming-ko. 4. Hush-ko-ni.
5. Tun-ni. 6. Ho-chon-chab-ba. 7. Nä-sho-lă. 8. Chuh-hlä.
[166]
1. Ah-ne-whǐ′-yä. 2. Ah-ne-who′-teh. 3. Ah-ne-ga-tä-ga′-nih.
4. Dsŭ-nǐ-li′-a-nä. 5. U-ni-sdä′-sdi. 6. Ah-nee-kä′-wih.
7. Ah-nee-sä-hok′-nih. 8. Ah-nŭ-ka-lo′-high. _ah-nee_ signifies the plural.
[167] 1. From the Ojibwa, _gǐ-tchi′_, great, and _gä′me_, lake, the
aboriginal name of Lake Superior, and other great lakes.
[168]
1. My-een′-gun. 2. Mä-kwä′. 3. Ah-mik′. 4. Me-she′-kă.
5. Mik-o-noh′. 6. Me-skwä-da′-re. 7. Ah-dik′. 8. Chu-e-skwe′-ske-wă.
9. O-jee-jok′. 10. Ka-kake′. 11. O-me-gee-ze′. 12. Mong.
13. Ah-ah′-weh. 14. She-shebe′. 15. Ke-na′-big. 16. Wa-zhush′.
17. Wa-be-zhaze′. 18. Moosh-kä-oo-ze′. 19. Ah-wah-sis′-sa. 20. Nä-ma′-bin.
21. —— 22. Nă-ma′. 23. Ke-no′-zhe
[169] An Ojibwa sachem, _Ke-we′-kons_, who died about 1840, at the
age of ninety years, when asked by my informant why he did not retire
from office and give place to his son, replied, that his son could
not succeed him; that the right of succession belonged to his nephew,
_E-kwä′-ka-mik_, who must have the office. This nephew was a son of one
of his sisters. From this statement it follows that descent, anciently,
and within a recent period, was in the female line. It does not follow
from the form of the statement that the nephew would take by hereditary
right, but that he was in the line of succession, and his election was
substantially assured.
[170]
1. Mo-ăh′. 2. M′-ko′. 3. Muk. 4. Mis-shă′-wă.
5. Maak. 6. K′-nou′. 7. N′-mă′. 8. N′-mă-pe-nă′.
9. M′-ge-ze′-wä. 10. Che′-kwa. 11. Wä-bo′-zo. 12. Kä-käg′-she.
13. Wake-shǐ′. 14. Pen′-nă. 15. M′-ke-tash′-she-kă-kah′.
16. O-tä′-wa.
[171] Pronounced O-tä′-wa.
[172]
1. Mo-wha′-wä. 2. Mon-gwä′. 3. Ken-da-wă′. 4. Ah-pă′-kose-e-ă.
5. Ka-no-zä′-wa. 6. Pǐ-la-wä′. 7. Ah-se-pon′-nä. 8. Mon-nă′-to.
9. Kul-swä′. 10. (Not obtained).
[173]
1. M′-wa-′. 2. Ma-gwä′. 3. M′-kwä′. 4. We-wä′-see.
5. M′-se′-pa-se. 6. M′-ath-wa′. 7. Pa-la-wä′. 8. Psake-the′.
9. Sha-pä-tă′. 10. Na-ma-thä′. 11. Ma-na-to′. 12. Pe-sa-wä′.
13. Pä-täke-e-no-the′.
[174] In every tribe the name indicated the gens. Thus, among the Sauks
and Foxes _Long Horn_ is a name belonging to the Deer gens; _Black
Wolf_, to the wolf. In the Eagle gens the following are specimen names:
_Ka′-po-nä_, “Eagle drawing his nest;” _Ja-ka-kwä-pe_, “Eagle sitting
with his head up;” _Pe-ă-tä-na-kä-hok_, “Eagle flying over a limb.”
[175]
1. Mo-whă-wis′-so-uk. 2. Ma-kwis′-so-jik. 3. Pă-sha′-ga-sa-wis-so-uk.
4. Mă-shă-wă-uk′. 5. Kă-kă-kwis′-so-uk. 6. Pă-mis′-so-uk.
7. Nă-mă-sis′-so-uk. 8. Na-nus-sus′-so-uk. 9. Nă-nă-ma′-kew-uk.
10. Ah-kuh′-ne-näk. 11. Wä-ko-a-wis′-so-jik. 12. Kă-che-kone-a-we′-so-uk.
13. Nă-mă-we′-so-uk. 14. Mă-she′-mă-täk.
[176]
1. Ki′-no. 2. Mä-me-o′-ya. 3. Ah-pe-ki′. 4. A-ne′-po.
5. Po-no-kix′.
[177]
1. Ah-ah′-pi-tä-pe. 2. Ah-pe-ki′-e. 3. Ih-po′-se-mä.
4. Ka-ka′-po-ya. 5. Mo-tă′-to-sis. 6. Kä-ti′-ya-ye-mix.
7. Kä-ta′-ge-mă-ne. 8. E-ko′-to-pis-taxe.
[178]
I. Wolf. Took′-seat.
1. Mä-an′-greet, Big Feet. 7. Pun-ar′-you, Dog standing by Fireside.
2. Wee-sow-het′-ko, Yellow Tree. 8. Kwin-eek′-cha, Long Body.
3. Pä-sa-kun-ă′-mon, Pulling Corn. 9. Moon-har-tar′-ne, Digging.
4. We-yar-nih′-kä-to, Care Enterer. 10. Non-har′-min, Pulling up Stream.
5. Toosh-war-ka′-ma, Across the River. 11. Long-ush-har-kar′-to, Brush Log.
6. O-lum′-a-ne, Vermilion. 12. Maw-soo-toh′, Bringing Along.
II. Turtle. Poke-koo-un′-go.
1. O-ka-ho′-ki, Ruler. 6. Toosh-ki-pa-kwis-i, Green Leaves.
2. Ta-ko-ong′-o-to, High Bank Shore. 7. Tung-ul-ung′-si, Smallest Turtle.
3. See-har-ong′-o-to, Drawing down Hill. 8. We-lun-ŭng-si, Little Turtle.
4. Ole-har-kar-me′-kar-to, Elector. 9. Lee-kwin-ă-i′, Snapping Turtle.
5. Mä-har-o-luk′-ti, Brave. 10. Kwis-aese-kees′-to, Deer.
The two remaining sub-gentes are extinct.
III. Turkey. Pul-la′-ook.
1. Mo-har-ä′-lä, Big Bird. 7. Tong-o-nä′-o-to, Drift Log.
2. Le-le-wa′-you, Bird’s Cry. 8. Nool-ă-mar-lar′-mo, Living in Water.
3. Moo-kwung-wa-ho′-ki, Eye Pain. 9. Muh-krent-har′-ne, Root Digger.
4. Moo-har-mo-wi-kar′-nu, Scratch the Path. 10. Muh-karm-huk-se, Red Face.
5. O-ping-ho′-ki, Opossum Ground. 11. Koo-wä-ho′-ke, Pine Region.
6. Muh-ho-we-kä′-ken, Old Shin. 12. Oo-chuk′-ham, Ground Scratcher.
[179]
I. Took-se-tuk′.
1. Ne-ḣ′-jä-o. 2. Mä′-kwä. 3. N-de-yä′-o. 4. Wä-pa-kwe′.
II. Tone-ba′-o.
1. Gak-po-mute′. 2. ——. 3. Tone-bä′-o. 4. We-saw-mä′-un.
III. Turkey.
1. Nä-ah-mä′-o. 2. Gä-ḣ′-ko. 3. ——.
[180] In _Systems of Consanguinity_, the aboriginal names of the
principal Indian tribes, with their significations, may be found.
[181]
1. Mals′-sŭm. 2. Pis-suh′. 3. Ah-weḣ′-soos.
4. Skooke. 5. Ah-lunk′-soo. 6. Ta-mä′-kwa.
7. Mä-guḣ-le-loo′. 8. Kä-bäḣ′-seh. 9. Moos-kwă-suh′.
10. K′-che-gä-gong′-go. 11. Meḣ-ko-ă′. 12. Che-gwä′-lis.
13. Koos-koo′. 14. Mä-dä′-weh-soos.
[182] Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., ii, Intro., cxlix.
[183] _Alaska and its Resources_, p. 414.
[184] _Native Races of the Pacific States_, i, 109.
[185] The Shawnees formerly worshiped a Female Deity, called
Go-gome-tha-mä′, “Our Grand-Mother.”
[186] _Schoolcraft’s Hist., etc., of Indian Tribes_, iv, 86.
[187] _Address_, p. 12.
[188] _General History of America_, Lond. ed., 1726. Stevens’ Trans.,
iii, 299.
[189] _Ib._, iv, 171.
[190] _Ib._, iii, 203.
[191] _Ib._, iv, 33.
[192] _General History of America_, iv, 171.
[193] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 287.
[194] _Gen. Hist. of Amer._, iv, 231.
[195] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 287.
[196] _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 98; cited by Lubbock, _Origin of
Civilization_, p. 98.
[197] The histories of Spanish America may be trusted in whatever
relates to the acts of the Spaniards, and to the acts and personal
characteristics of the Indians; in whatever relates to their weapons,
implements and utensils, fabrics, food and raiment, and things of
a similar character. But in whatever relates to Indian society and
government, their social relations, and plan of life, they are nearly
worthless, because they learned nothing and knew nothing of either. We
are at full liberty to reject them in these respects and commence anew;
using any facts they may contain which harmonize with what is known of
Indian society.
[198] _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies_,
Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s Trans., pp. 497-504.
[199] _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies_, p.
499.
[200] _General History of America_, Lond. ed., 1725, Stevens’ Trans.,
iii, 188.
[201] _History of Mexico_, Philadelphia ed., 1817, Cullen’s Trans., i,
119.
[202] Herrera, _Hist. of Amer._, iii, 110.
[203] _History of Mexico, loc. cit._, i, 162.
[204] Clavigero, _Hist. of Mex._, i, 229: Herrera, iii, 312: Prescott,
_Conq. of Mex._, i, 18.
[205] The Aztecs, like the Northern Indians, neither exchanged or
released prisoners. Among the latter the stake was the doom of the
captive unless saved by adoption; but among the former, under the
teachings of the priesthood, the unfortunate captive was offered as
a sacrifice to the principal god they worshiped. To utilize the life
of the prisoner in the service of the gods, a life forfeited by the
immemorial usages of savages and barbarians, was the high conception
of the first hierarchy in the order of institutions. An organized
priesthood first appeared among the American aborigines in the Middle
Status of barbarism; and it stands connected with the invention
of idols and human sacrifices, as a means of acquiring authority
over mankind through the religious sentiments. It probably has a
similar history in the principal tribes of mankind. Three successive
usages with respect to captives appeared in the three sub-periods of
barbarism. In the first he was burned at the stake, in the second he
was sacrificed to the gods, and in the third he was made a slave. All
alike they proceeded upon the principle that the life of the prisoner
was forfeited to his captor. This principle became so deeply seated
in the human mind that civilization and Christianity combined were
required for its displacement.
[206] There is some difference in the estimates of the population of
Mexico found in the Spanish histories; but several of them concurred
in the number of houses, which, strange to say, is placed at _sixty
thousand_. Zuazo, who visited Mexico in 1521, wrote _sixty thousand
inhabitants_ (Prescott, _Conq. of Mex._, ii, 112, _note_); the
Anonymous Conqueror, who accompanied Cortes also wrote _sixty thousand
inhabitants_, “soixante mille habitans” (_H. Ternaux-Compans_, x,
92); but Gomora and Martyr wrote _sixty thousand houses_, and this
estimate has been adopted by Clavigero (_Hist. of Mex._, ii, 360), by
Herrera (_Hist. of Amer._, ii, 360), and by Prescott (_Conq. of Mex._,
ii, 112). Solis says _sixty thousand families_ (_Hist. Conq. of Mex.,
l. c._, i, 393). This estimate would give a population of 300,000,
although London at that time contained but 145,000 inhabitants (Black’s
_London_, p. 5). Finally, Torquemada, cited by Clavigero (ii, 360,
_note_), boldly writes one hundred and twenty thousand houses. There
can scarcely be a doubt that the houses in this pueblo were in general
large communal, or joint-tenement houses, like those in New Mexico of
the same period, large enough to accommodate from ten to fifty and a
hundred families in each. At either number the mistake is egregious.
Zuazo and the Anonymous Conqueror came the nearest to a respectable
estimate, because they did not much more than double the probable
number.
[207] _League of the Iroquois_, p. 78.
[208] Herrera, iii, 194, 209.
[209] Herrera, ii, 279, 304: Clavigero, i, 146.
[210] Clavigero, i, 147; The four war-chiefs were _ex officio_ members
of the Council. _Ib._, ii, 137.
[211] Herrera, ii, 310.
[212] Herrera, iii, 194.
[213] _Cronica Mexicana_, De Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc, ch. li, p.
83, Kingsborough, v, ix.
[214] _History of Mexico_, ii, 141.
[215] _History of America_, iii, 314. The above is a retranslation by
Mr. Bandelier from the Spanish text.
[216] _Popol Vuh_, Intro. p. 117, _note_ 2.
[217] _History of the Indies of New Spain and Islands of the Main
Land_, Mexico, 1867. Ed. by Jose F. Ramirez, p. 102. Published from the
original MS. Translated by Mr. Bandelier.
[218] _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies_,
Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s Trans., p. 485.
[219] _History of America_, iii, 224.
[220] _Cronica Mexicana_, cap. xcvii, Bandelier’s Trans.
[221] Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chichimeca_, Kingsborough, _Mex. Antiq._
ix, p. 243.
[222] _History of Mexico_, ii, 132.
[223] “The title of _Teuctli_ was added in the manner of a surname
to the proper name of the person advanced to this dignity, as
_Chichimeca-Teuctli_, _Pil-Teuctli_, and others. The _Teuctli_ took
precedency of all others in the senate, both in the order of sitting
and voting, and were permitted to have a servant behind them with a
seat, which was esteemed a privilege of the highest honor.”—Clavigero,
ii, 137. This is a re-appearance of the sub-sachem of the Iroquois
behind his principal.
[224] _Historia Chichimeca_, ch. xxxii, Kingsborough: _Mex. Antiq._,
ix, 219.
[225] _History of Mexico, l. c._, ii, 136.
[226] Clavigero, ii, 126.
[227] _Historia General_, ch. xviii.
[228] In the West India Islands the Spaniards discovered that when
they captured the cacique of a tribe and held him a prisoner, the
Indians became demoralized and refused to fight. Taking advantage of
this knowledge when they reached the main-land they made it a point to
entrap the principal chief, by force or fraud, and hold him a prisoner
until their object was gained. Cortes simply acted upon this experience
when he captured Montezuma and held him a prisoner in his quarters; and
Pizarro did the same when he seized Atahuallpa. Under Indian customs
the prisoner was put to death, and if a principal chief, the office
reverted to the tribe and was at once filled. But in these cases the
prisoner remained alive, and in possession of his office, so that it
could not be filled. The action of the people was paralyzed by novel
circumstances. Cortes put the Aztecs in this position.
[229] _History of Mexico_, iii, 66.
[230] _Ib._, iii, 67.
[231] Clavigero, ii, 406
[232] _Ib._, ii, 404.
[233] Herrera, iii, 393.
[234] The phratries were not common to the Dorian tribes.—Müller’s
_Dorians_, Tufnel and Law’s Trans., Oxford ed., ii, 82.
[235] Hermann mentions the confederacies of Ægina, Athens, Prasia,
Nauplia, etc.—_Political Antiquities of Greece_, Oxford Trans., ch. i,
s. 11.
[236] “In the ancient _Rhetra_ of Lycurgus, the tribes and obês are
directed to be maintained unaltered: but the statement of O. Müller and
Boeckh—that there were thirty obês in all, ten to each tribe,—rests
upon no higher evidence than a peculiar punctuation in this Rhetra,
which various other critics reject; and seemingly with good reason. We
are thus left without any information respecting the obê, though we
know that it was an old peculiar and lasting division among the Spartan
people.”—Grote’s _History of Greece_, Murray’s ed., ii, 362. But see
Müller’s _Dorians_, _l. c._, ii, 80.
[237]
καίτοι τίς ἔστιν ὅστις ἂν εἰς τὰ πατρῷα μνήματα τοὺς μηδὲν ἐν
γένει τιθέντας ἐάσαι.
—Demosthenes, _Eubulides_, 1307.
[238] _History of Greece_, iii, 53, _et seq._
[239] _History of Greece_, iii, 60.
[240] Diogenes Laertius, _Vit. Aristotle_, v, 1.