Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines

Lewis Henry Morgan

Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines

Published by Good Press, 2022

[email protected]

EAN 4057664617798

Table of Contents

PREFACE.

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VIII.

CHAPTER IX.

CHAPTER X.

CHAPTER XI.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

CHAPTER I.

THE GENS.

THE PHRATRY.

THE TRIBE.

THE CONFEDERACY OF TRIBES

CHAPTER II.

THE LAW OF HOSPITALITY.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VIII.

CHAPTER IX.

CHAPTER X.

CHAPTER XI.

PREFACE.

Table of Contents

The following work substantially formed the Fifth Part of the original manuscript of Ancient Society, under the title Growth of the Idea of House Architecture. As the manuscript exceeded the limits of a single volume, this portion (Part V) was removed, and having then no intention to publish it separately, the greater part of it found its way into print in detached articles. A summary was given to Johnson's New Universal Cyclopedia in the article on the Architecture of the American Aborigines. The chapter on the Houses of the Aztecs formed the basis of the article entitled Montezuma's Dinner, published in the North American Review, in April, 1876. Another chapter, that on the Houses of the Mound Builders, was published in the same Review in July, 1876. Finally, the present year, at the request of the executive committee of the Archaeological Institute of America, at Cambridge, I prepared from the same materials an article entitled A Study of the Houses and House Life of the Indian Tribes, with a scheme for the exploration of the ruins in New Mexico, Arizona, the San Juan region, Yucatan, and Central America.

With some additions and reductions the facts are now presented in their original form, and as they will now have a wider distribution than the articles named have had, they will be new to most of my readers. The facts and suggestions made will also have the advantage of being presented in their proper connection. Thus additional strength is given to the argument as a whole. All the forms of this architecture sprang from a common mind, and exhibit, as a consequence, different stages of development of the same conceptions, operating upon similar necessities. They also represent these several conditions of Indian life with reasonable completeness. Their houses will be seen to form one system of works, from the Long House of the Iroquois to the Joint Tenement houses of adobe and of stone in New Mexico, Yucatan, Chiapas, and Guatemala, with such diversities as the different degrees of advancement of these several tribes would naturally produce. Studied as one system, springing from a common experience, and similar wants, and under institutions of the same general character, they are seen to indicate a plan of life at once novel, original, and distinctive.

The principal fact, which all these structures alike show, from the smallest to the greatest, is that the family through these stages of progress was too weak an organization to face alone the struggle of life, and sought a shelter for itself in large households composed of several families. The house for a single family was exceptional throughout aboriginal America, while the house large enough to accommodate several families was the rule. Moreover, they were occupied as joint tenement houses. There was also a tendency to form these households on the principle of gentile kin, the mothers with their children being of the same gens or clan.

If we enter upon the great problem of Indian life with a determination to make it intelligible, their house life and domestic institutions must furnish the key to its explanation. These pages are designed as a commencement of that work. It is a fruitful, and, at present, but partially explored field. We have been singularly inattentive to the plan of domestic life revealed by the houses of the aboriginal period. Time and the influences of civilization have told heavily upon their mode of life until it has become so far modified, and in many cases entirely overthrown, that it must be taken up as a new investigation upon the general facts which remain. At the epoch of European discovery it was in full vitality in North and South America; but the opportunities of studying its principles and its results were neglected. As a scheme of life under established institutions, it was a remarkable display of the condition of mankind in two well marked ethnical periods, namely, the Older Period and the Middle Period of barbarism, the first being represented by the Iroquois and the second by the Aztecs, or ancient Mexicans. In no part of the earth were these two conditions of human progress so well represented as by the American Indian tribes. A knowledge of the culture and of the state of the arts of life in these periods is indispensable to a definite conception of the stages of human progress. From the laws which govern this progress, from the uniformity of their operation, and from the necessary limitations of the principle of intelligence, we may conclude that our own remote ancestors passed through a similar experience and possessed very similar institutions. In studying the condition of the Indian tribes in these periods we may recover some portion of the lost history of our own race. This consideration lends incentive to the investigation.

The first chapter is a condensation of four in Ancient Society, namely, those on the gens, phratry, tribe, and confederacy of tribes. As they formed a necessary part of that work, they become equally necessary to this. A knowledge of these organizations is indispensable to an understanding of the house life of the aborigines. These organizations form the basis of American ethnology. Although the discussion falls short of a complete explanation of their character and of their prevalence, it will give the reader a general idea of the organization of society among them.

We are too apt to look upon the condition of savage and of barbarous tribes as standing on the same plane with respect to advancement. They should be carefully distinguished as dissimilar conditions of progress. Moreover, savagery shows stages of culture and of progress, and the same is true of barbarism. It will greatly facilitate the study of the facts relating to these two conditions, through which mankind have passed in their progress to civilization, to discriminate between ethnical periods, or stages of culture both in savagery and in barbarism. The progress of mankind from their primitive condition to civilization has been marked and eventful. Each great stage of progress is connected, more or less directly, with some important invention or discovery which materially influenced human progress, and inaugurated an improved condition. For these reasons the period of savagery has been divided into three subperiods, and that of barbarism also into three, the latter of which are chiefly important in their relation to the condition of the Indian tribes. The Older Period of barbarism, which commences with the introduction of the art of pottery, and the Middle Period, which commences with the use of adobe brick in the construction of houses, and with the cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation, mark two very different and very dissimilar conditions of life. The larger portion of the Indian tribes fall within one or the other of these periods. A small portion were in the Older Period of savagery, and none had reached the Later Period of barbarism, which immediately precedes civilization. In treating of the condition of the several tribes they will be assigned to the particular period to which they severally belong under this classification.

I regret to add that I have not been able, from failing health, to give to this manuscript the continuous thought which a work of any kind should receive from its author. But I could not resist the invitation of my friend Major J. W. Powell, the Director of the Bureau of Ethnology, to put these chapters together as well as I might be able, that they might be published by that Bureau. As it will undoubtedly be my last work, I part with it under some solicitude for the reason named; but submit it cheerfully to the indulgence of my readers.

I am greatly indebted to my friend Mr. J. C. Pilling, of the same Bureau, for his friendly labor and care in correcting the proof sheets, and for supervising the illustrations. Such favors are very imperfectly repaid by an author's thanks.

The late William W. Ely, M. D., LL. D., was, for a period of more than twenty-five years, my cherished friend and literary adviser, and to him I am indebted for many valuable suggestions, and for constant encouragement in my labors. The dedication of this volume to his memory is but a partial expression of my admiration of his beautiful character, and of my appreciation of his friendship.

LEWIS H. MORGAN

ROCHESTER, N. Y., June, 1881

CHAPTER I.

Table of Contents

SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.

The Gens: organized upon kin; rights, privileges, and obligations of its members—The Phratry: its character and functions—The Tribe: its composition and attributes—The Confederacy of Tribes: its nature, character and functions.

CHAPTER II.

Table of Contents

THE LAW OF HOSPITALITY AND ITS GENERAL PRACTICE.

Indian tribes in three dissimilar conditions—Savage tribes— Partially horticultural tribes—Village Indians—Usages and customs affecting their house life—The law of hospitality practiced by the Iroquois; by the Algonkin tribes of lower Virginia; by the Delawares and Munsees; by the tribes of the Missouri, of the Valley of the Columbia; by the Dakota tribes of the Mississippi, by the Algonkin tribes of Wisconsin; by the Cherokees, Choctaws, and Creeks; by the Village Indians of New Mexico, of Mexico, of Central America; by the tribes of Venezuela; by the Peruvians—Universality of the usage—It implies communism in living in large households.

CHAPTER III.

Table of Contents

COMMUNISM IN LIVING.

A law of their condition—Large households among Indian tribes— Communism in living in the household—Long Houses of the Iroquois— Several families in a house—Communism in household—Long Houses of Virginia Indians—Clustered cabins of the Creeks—Communism in the cluster—Hunting bands on the plains—The capture a common stock— Fishing bands on the Columbia—The capture a common stock—Large households in tribes of the Colombia—Communism in the household— Mandan houses—Contained several families—Houses of the Sauks the same—Village Indians of New Mexico—Mayas of Yucatan—Their present communism in living—Large households of Indians of Cuba, of Venezuela, of Carthagena, of Peru.

CHAPTER IV.

Table of Contents

USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LAND AND FOOD.

Tribal domain owned by the tribe in common—Possessory right in individuals and families to such land as they cultivated—Government compensation for Indian lands paid to tribe; for improvements to individuals—Apartments of a house and possessory rights to lands went to gentile heirs—Tenure of land among sedentary Village Indians at Taos, Jemex, and Zunyi—Among Aztecs or Ancient Mexicans, as presented by Mr. Bandelier; in Peru—The usage of having but one prepared meal each day, a dinner—Rule among Northern tribes—A breakfast as well as a dinner claimed for the Mexicans—Separation at meals, the men eating first, and by themselves, and the women and children afterwards.

CHAPTER V.

Table of Contents

HOUSES OF INDIAN TRIBES NORTH OF NEW MEXICO.

Houses of Indian tribes must be considered as parts of a common system of construction—A common principle runs through all its forms; that of adaptation to communism in living within the household—It explains this architecture—Communal houses of tribes in savagery; in California; in the valley of the Yukon; in the valley of the Columbia—Communal house of tribes in the lower status of barbarism— Ojibwa lodge—Dakota skin tent—Long houses of Virginia Indians; of Nyach tribe on Long Island; of Seneca-Iroquois; of Onondaga-Iroquois— Dirt Lodge of Mandans and Minnetarees—Thatched houses of Maricopas and Mohaves of the Colorado; of the Pimas of the Gila—What a comparison shows.

CHAPTER VI.

Table of Contents

HOUSES OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO.

Improved character of houses—The defensive principle incorporated in their plan of the Houses—Their joint tenement character—Two or more stories high—Improved apparel, pottery, and fabrics—Pueblo of Santo Domingo; of adobe bricks—Built in terraced town—Ground story closed—Terraces reached by ladders—Rooms entered through trap-doors in ceilings—Pueblo of Zunyi—Ceiling—Water-jars and hand mill—Moki pueblo—Room in same—Ceiling like that at Zunyi— Pueblo of Taos—Estufas for holding councils—Size of adobes—Of doorways—Window-openings and trap-doorways—Present governmental organization—Room in pueblo—Fire-places and chimneys of modern introduction—Present ownership and inheritance of property—Village Indians have declined since their discovery—Sun worship—The Montezuma religion—Seclusion from religious motives.

CHAPTER VII.

Table of Contents

HOUSES IN RUINS OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF THE SAN JUAN RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.

Pueblos in stone—The best structures in New Mexico—Ruins in the valley of the Chaco—Exploration of Lieut. J. H. Simpson in 1849; of William H. Jackson in 1877—Map of valley—Ground plans—Pueblo Pintado and Weje-gi—Constructed of tabular pieces of sandstone— Estufas and their uses—Pueblos Una Vida and Hungo Pavie—Restoration of Hungo Pavie—Pueblo of Chettro-Kettle—Room in same—Form of ceiling—Pueblo Bonito—Room in same—Restoration of Pueblo—Pueblo del Arroyo—Pueblo Penyasca Blanca—Seven large pueblos and two smaller ones—Pueblo Alto without the valley on table land on the north side—Probably the Seven Cities of Cibola of Coronado's Expedition—Reasons for supposition—The pueblos constructed gradually—Remarkable appearance of the valley when inhabited.

CHAPTER VIII.

Table of Contents

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

AND ITS TRIBUTARIES—(Continued.)

Ruins of stone pueblo on Animas River—Ground plan—Each room faced with stone, showing natural faces—Constructed like those in Chaco— Adobe mortar—Its composition and efficiency—Lime unknown in New Mexico—Gypsum mortar probably used in New Mexico and Central America— Cedar poles used as lintels—Cedar beams used as joists—Estufas; neither fire-places nor chimneys—The House a fortress—Second stone pueblo—Six other pueblos in ruins near—The Montezuma Valley—Nine pueblos in ruins in a cluster—Diagram—Ruins of stone pueblos near Ute Mountain—Outline of plan—Round tower of stone with three concentric walls—Incorporated in pueblo—Another round tower—With two concentric walls—Stands isolated—Other ruins—San Juan district as an original centre of this Indian culture— Mound-Builders probable emigrants from this region—Historical tribes of Mexico emigrants from same—Indian migrations—Made under control of physical causes.

CHAPTER IX.

Table of Contents

HOUSES OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS.

Area of their occupation—Their condition that of Village Indians— Probably immigrants from New Mexico—Character of their earthworks— Embankments enclosing squares—Probable sites of their houses— Adapted, as elevated platforms, to Long Houses—High bank works— Capacity of embankments—Conjectural restoration of the pueblo— Other embankments—Their probable uses—Artificial clay beds under grave-mounds—Probably used for cremation of chiefs—Probable numbers of the Mound Builders—Failure of attempt to transplant this type of village life to the Ohio Valley—Their withdrawal probably voluntary.

CHAPTER X.

Table of Contents

HOUSES OF THE AZTECS OR ANCIENT MEXICANS.

First accounts of Pueblo of Mexico—Their extravagance—Later American exaggerations—Kings and emperors made out of sachems and war-chiefs—Ancient society awakens curiosity and wonder—Aztec government a confederacy of three Indian tribes—Pueblo of Mexico in an artificial lake—Joint-tenement houses—Several families in each house—Houses in Cuba and Central America—Aztec houses not fully explored—Similar to those in New Mexico—Communism in living probable—Cortez in Pueblo of Mexico—His quarters—Explanation of Diaz—Of Herrera—Of Bandolier—House occupied by Montezuma—A communal house—Montezuma's dinner—According to Diaz—to Cortez—to Herrera—To H. H. Bancroft—Excessive exaggerations—Dinner in common by a communal household—Bandelier's Social Organization and Mode of Government of the Ancient Mexicans.

CHAPTER XI.

Table of Contents

RUINS OF HOUSES OF THE SEDENTARY INDIANS OF YUCATAN AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

Pueblos in Yucatan and Central America—Their situation—Their house architecture—Highest type of aboriginal architecture—Pueblos were occupied when discovered—Uxmal houses erected on pyramidal elevations—Governor's house—Character of its architecture—House of the Nuns—Triangular ceiling of stone—Absence of chimneys—No cooking done within the house—Their communal plan evidently joint-tenement houses—Present communism of Mayas—Presumtively inherited from their ancestors—Ruins of Zayi—The closed house— Apartments constructed over a core of masonry—Palenque—Mr. Stephens' misconception of these ruins—Whether the post and lintel of stone were used as principles of construction—Plan of all these houses communal—Also fortresses—Palenque Indians flat-heads— American ethnography—General conclusions.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Table of Contents

FRONTISPIECE. Zunyi Water Carrier.

Fig. 1. Earth Lodges of the Sacramento Valley

Fig. 2. Gallinomero Thatched Lodge

Fig. 3. Matdu Lodge in the high Sierra

Fig. 4. Yukuta Tule Lodges

Fig. 5. Kutchin Lodge

Fig. 6. Ground-plan of Necrohokioo

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

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

Fig. 9. Village of Pomeiock

Fig. 10. Village of Secotan

Fig. 11. Interior of House of Virginia Indians

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

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

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

Long-House.

Fig. 15. Palisaded Onondaga Village

Fig. 16. Mandan Village Plot

Fig. 17. Ground-plan of Mandan House

Fig. 18. Cross-section of Mandan House

Fig. 19. Mandan House

Fig. 20. Mandan Drying-Scaffold

Fig. 21. Mandan Ladder

Fig. 22. Pueblo of Santo Domingo

Fig. 23. Pueblo of Zunyi

Fig. 24. Room in Zunyi House

Fig. 25. Pueblo of Wolpi

Fig. 26. Room in Moki House

Fig. 27. North Pueblo of Taos

Fig. 28. Room in Pueblo of Taos

Fig. 29. Map of a portion of Chaco Canyon

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

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

Fig. 32. Restoration of Pueblo Hungo Pavie

Fig. 33. Ground-plan of Pueblo Chettro Kettle

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

Fig. 35. Ground-plan of Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 36. Room in Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 37. Restoration of Pueblo Bonito

Fig. 38. Ground-plan of Pueblo del Arroyo

Fig. 39. Ground-plan of Pueblo Peuasca Blanca

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

Fig. 41. Stone from Doorway

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

Fig. 42. Section of Cedar Lintel

Fig. 43. Outline of Stone Pueblo on Animas River

Fig. 44. Pueblos at commencement of McElmo Canyon

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

Fig. 46. Ground-plan of High Bank Pueblo

Fig. 47. Restoration of High Bank Pueblo

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

Fig. 49. Mound with artificial clay basin

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

Fig. 51. Governor's House at Uxmal

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

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

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

Fig. 55. Ground-plan of Zayi

Fig. 56. Cross-section through one apartment

HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I.

Table of Contents

SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.

In a previous work I have considered the organization of the American aborigines in gentes, phratries, and tribes, with the functions of each in their social system. From the importance of this organization to a right understanding of their social and governmental life, a recapitulation of the principal features of each member of the organic series is necessary in this connection. [Footnote: Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. Henry Holt & Co. 1877.]

The gentile organization opens to us one of the oldest and most widely-prevalent institutions of mankind. It furnished the nearly universal plan of government of ancient society, Asiatic, European, African, American, and Australian. It was the instrumentality by means of which society was organized and held together. Commencing in savagery, and continuing through the three subperiods of barbarism, it remained until the establishment of political society, which did not occur until after civilization had Commenced. The Grecian gens, phratry, and tribe, the Roman gens, curia, and tribe find their analogues in the gens, phratry, and tribe of the American aborigines. In like manner the Irish sept, the Scottish clan, the phratra of the Albanians, and the Sanskrit ganas, without extending the comparison further, are the same as the American Indian gens, which has usually been called a clan. As far as our knowledge extends, this organization runs through the entire ancient world upon all the continents, and it was brought down to the historical period by such tribes as attained to civilization. Nor is this all. Gentile society wherever found is the same in structural organization and in principles of action; but changing from lower to higher forms with the progressive advancement of the people. These changes give the history of development of the same original conceptions.

THE GENS.

Table of Contents

Gens, [Greek: genos], and gattas in Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit have alike the primary signification of kin. They contain the same element as gigno, [Greek: gignouas], and ganaman, in the same languages, signifying to beget; thus implying in each an immediate common descent of the members of a gens. A gens, therefore, is a body of consanguinei descended from the same common ancestor, distinguished by a gentile name, and bound together by affinities of blood. It includes a moiety only of such descendants. Where descent is in the female line, as it was universally in the archaic period, the gens is composed of a supposed female ancestor and her children, together with the children of her female descendants, through females, in perpetuity; and where descent is in the male line—into which it was changed after the appearance of property in masses—of a supposed male ancestor and his children, together with the children of his male descendants, through males, in perpetuity. The family name among ourselves is a survival of the gentile name, with descent in the male line, and passing in the same manner. The modern family, as expressed by its name, is an unorganized gens, with the bond of kin broken, and its members as widely dispersed as the family name is found.

Among the nations named, the gens indicated a social organization of a remarkable character, which had prevailed from an antiquity so remote that its origin was lost in the obscurity of far distant ages. It was also the unit of organization of a social and governmental system, the fundamental basis of ancient society. This organization was not confined to the Latin, Grecian, and Sanskrit speaking tribes, with whom it became such a conspicuous institution. It has been found in other branches of the Aryan family of nations, in the Semitic, Uralian and Turanian families, among the tribes of Africa and Australia, and of the American aborigines.

The gens has passed through successive stages of development in its transition from its archaic to its final form with the progress of mankind. These changes were limited in the main to two, firstly, changing descent from the female line, which was the archaic rule, as among the Iroquois, to the male line, which was the final rule, as among the Grecian and Roman gentes; and, secondly, changing the inheritance of the property of a deceased member of the gens from his gentiles, who took it in the archaic period, first to his agnatic kindred, and finally to his children. These changes, slight as they may seem, indicate very great changes of condition as well as a large degree of progressive development.

The gentile organization, originating in the period of savagery, enduring through the three subperiods of barbarism, finally gave way, among the more advanced tribes, when they attained civilization—the requirements of which it was unable to meet. Among the Greeks and Romans political society supervened upon gentile society, but not until civilization had commenced. The township (and its equivalent, the city ward), with its fixed property, and the inhabitants it contained, organized as a body politic, became the unit and the basis of a new and radically different system of government. After political society was instituted this ancient and time-honored organization, with the phratry and tribe developed from it, gradually yielded up their existence. It was under gentile institutions that barbarism was won by some of the tribes of mankind while in savagery, and that civilization was won by the descendants of some of the same tribes while in barbarism. Gentile institutions carried a portion of mankind from savagery to civilization.

This organization may be successfully studied both in its living and in its historical forms in a large number of tribes and races. In such an investigation it is preferable to commence with the gens in its archaic form I shall commence, therefore, with the gens as it now exists among the American aborigines, where it is found in its archaic form, and among whom its theoretical constitution and practical workings can be investigated more successfully than in the historical gentes of the Greeks and Romans. In fact, to understand fully the gentes of the latter nations a knowledge of the functions and of the rights, privileges, and obligations of the members of the American Indian gens is imperatively necessary.

In American ethnography tribe and clan have been used in the place of gens as equivalent terms from not perceiving the universality of the latter. In previous works, and following my predecessors, I have so used them. A comparison of the Indian clan with the gens of the Greeks and Romans reveals at once their identity in structure and functions. It also extends to the phratry and tribe. If the identity of these several organizations can be shown, of which there can be no doubt, there is a manifest propriety in returning to the Latin and Grecian terminologies, which are full and precise as well as historical.

The plan of government of the American aborigines commenced with the gens and ended with the confederacy, the latter being the highest point to which their governmental institutions attained. It gave for the organic series: first, the gens, a body of consanguinei having a common gentile name; second, the phratry, an assemblage of related gentes united in a higher association for certain common objects; third, the tribe, an assemblage of gentes, usually organized in phratries, all the members of which spoke the same dialect; and fourth, a confederacy of tribes, the members of which respectively spoke dialects of the same stock language. It resulted in a gentile society (societas) as distinguished from a political society or state (civitas). The difference between the two is wide and fundamental. There was neither a political society, nor a citizen, nor a state, nor any civilization in America when it was discovered. One entire ethnical period intervened between the highest American Indian tribes and the beginning of civilization, as that term is properly understood.

The gens, though a very ancient social organization founded upon kin, does not include all the descendants of a common ancestor. It was for the reason that when the gens came in marriage between single pairs was unknown, and descent through males could not be traced with certainty. Kindred were linked together chiefly through the bond of their maternity In the ancient gens descent was limited to the female line. It embraced all such persons as traced their descent from a supposed common female ancestor, through females, the evidence of the fact being the possession of a common gentile name. It would include this ancestor and her children, the children of her daughters, and the children of her female descendants, through females, in perpetuity, while the children of her sons and the children of her male descendants, through males, would belong to other gentes, namely, those of their respective mothers. Such was the gens in its archaic form, when the paternity of children was not certainly ascertainable, and when their maternity afforded the only certain criterion of descents.

This state of descents which can be traced back to the Middle Status of savagery, as among the Australians, remained among the American aborigines through the Upper Status of savagery, and into and through the Lower Status of barbarism, with occasional exceptions. In the Middle Status of barbarism the Indian tribes began to change descent from the female line to the male, as die syndyasmian family of the period began to assume monogamian characteristics. In the Upper Status of barbarism descent had become changed to the male line among the Grecian tribes, with the exception of the Lycians, and among the Italian tribes, with the exception of the Etruscans. Between the two extremes, represented by the two rules of descent, three entire ethnical periods intervene, covering many thousands of years.

As intermarriage in the gens was prohibited, it withdrew its members from the evils of consanguine marriages, and thus tended to increase the vigor of the stock. The gens came into being upon three principal conceptions, namely, the bond of kin, a pure lineage through descent in the female line, and non-intermarriage in the gens. When the idea of a gens was developed, it would naturally have taken the form of gentes in pairs, because the children of the males were excluded, and because it was equally necessary to organize both classes of descendants. With two gentes started into being simultaneously the whole result would have been attained, since the males and females of one gens would marry the females and males of the other, and the children, following the gentes of their respective mothers, would be divided between them. Resting on the bond of kin as its cohesive principal the gens afforded to each individual member that personal protection which no other existing power could give.

After enumerating the rights, privileges, and obligations of its members, it will be necessary to follow the gens in its organic relations to a phratry tribe and confederacy, in order to find the uses to which it was applied, the privileges which it conferred, and the principles which it fostered. The gentes of the Iroquois will be taken as the standard exemplification of this institution in the Ganowaman family. They had carried their scheme of government from the gens to the confederacy, making it complete in each of its parts, and an excellent illustration of the capabilities of the gentile organization in its archaic form.

When discovered the Iroquois were in the Lower Status of barbarism, and well advanced in the arts of life pertaining to this condition. They manufactured nets, twine, and rope from filaments of bark, wove belts and burden straps, with warp and woof from the same materials, they manufactured earthen vessels and pipes from clay mixed with silicious materials and hardened by fire, some of which were ornamented with rude medallions, they cultivated maize, beans, squashes, and tobacco in garden beds, and made unleavened bread from pounded maize, which they boiled in earthen vessels, [Footnote: These loaves or cakes were about six inches in diameter and an inch thick] they tanned skins into leather, with which they manufactured kilts leggins, and moccasins, they used the bow and arrow and war-club as their principal weapons, used flint-stone and bone implements, wore skin garments, and were expert hunters and fishermen They constructed long joint tenement houses large enough to accommodate five, ten, and twenty families, and each household practiced communism in living, but they were unacquainted with the use of stone or adobe brick in house architecture, and with the use of the native metals. In mental capacity and in general advancement they were the representative branch of the Indian family north of New Mexico General F A. Walker has sketched their military career in two paragraphs The career of the Iroquois was simply terrific. They were the scourge of God upon the continent. [Footnote: North American Review April No. 1873 p. 360 Note.] From lapse of time the Iroquois tribes have come to differ slightly in the number and in the names of their respective gentes, the largest number being eight, as follows:

Seneca Cayuga Onondaga Oneida Mohawks Tuscarora 1 Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Gray Wolf 2 Bear Bear Bear Bear Bear Bear 3 Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Great Turtle 4 Beaver Beaver Beaver Beaver 5 Deer Deer Deer Yellow Wolf 6 Snipe Snipe Snipe Snipe 7 Heron Eel Eel Eel 8 Hawk Hawk Ball Little Turtle

These changes show that certain gentes in some of the tribes have become extinct through the vicissitudes of time, and that others have been formed by the segmentation of over full gentes.

With a knowledge of the rights, privileges, and obligations of the members of a gens, its capabilities as the unit of a social and governmental system will be more fully understood, as well as the manner in which it entered into the higher organizations of the phratry tribe, and confederacy.

The gens is individualized by the following rights, privileges, and obligations conferred and imposed upon its members, and which made up the jus gentilicium:

I The right of electing its sachem and chiefs

II The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs

III The obligation not to marry in the gens

IV Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased

members

V Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of

injuries

VI The right of bestowing names upon its members

VII The right of adopting strangers into the gens

VIII Common religious rites

IX A common burial place.

X A council of the gens

These functions and attributes gave vitality as well as individuality to the organization and protected the personal rights of its members. Such were the rights, privileges, and obligations of the members of an Iroquois gens; and such were those of the members of the gentes of the Indian tribes generally, as far as the investigation has been carried.

For a detailed exposition of these characteristics the reader is referred to Ancient Society, pp. 72-85.

All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other's freedom; they