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.

[241] _Political Antiquities of the Greeks_, c. v, s. 100; and vide _Eubulides_ of Demosthenes, 24.

[242] _Historical Antiquities of the Greeks_, Woolrych’s Trans., Oxford ed., 1837, i, 451.

[243] _Political Antiquities_, _l. c._, cap. v, s. 100.

[244] _Charicles_, Metcalfe’s Trans., Lond. ed., 1866, p. 477; citing _Isaeus de Cir. her._ 217: _Demosthenes adv. Ebul._, 1304: _Plutarch_, _Themist._, 32: _Pausanias_, i, 7, 1: _Achill. Tat._, i, 3.

[245] Hermann, _l. c._, v, s. 100 and 101.

[246] _History of Greece_, iii, 55.

[247] “We find the Asklepiadæ in many parts of Greece—the Aleuadæ in Thessaly—the Midylidæ, Psalychidæ, Belpsiadæ, Euxenidæ, at Aegina—the Branchidæ at Miletus—the Nebridæ at Kôs—the Iamidæ and Klytiadæ at Olympia—the Akestoridæ at Argos—the Kinyradæ at Cyprus—the Penthilidæ at Mitylene—the Talthybiadæ at Sparta—not less than the Kodridæ, Eumolpidæ, Phytalidæ, Lykomêdæ, Butadæ, Euneidæ, Hesychidæ, Brytiadæ, etc., in Attica. To each of these corresponded a mythical ancestor more or less known, and passing for the first father as well as the eponymous hero of the gens—Kodrus, Eumolpus, Butes, Phytalus, Hesychus, etc.”—Grote’s _Hist. of Greece_, iii, 62.

[248] _History of Greece_, iii, 62, _et seq._

[249] _Hist. of Greece_, iii, 58, _et seq._

[250] _History of Greece_, iii, 58.

[251] Wachsmuth’s _Historical Antiquities of the Greeks, l. c._, i, 449, app. for text.

[252] _Iliad_, ii, 362.

[253] Tacitus, _Germania_, cap. vii.

[254] Grote’s _History of Greece_, iii, 55. The Court of Areopagus took jurisdiction over homicides.—_Ib._, iii, 79.

[255] Ποία δε χέρνιψ] φρατέρων προσδέξεται—_Eum._, 656.

[256] _The Ancient City_, Small’s Trans., p. 157. Boston, Lee & Shepard.

[257] Aristotle, Thucydides, and other writers, use the term basileia (βασιλεία) for the governments of the heroic period.

[258]

Ἑλληνικὸν δὲ ἄρα καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔθος ἦν. τοῖς γοῦν βασιλεῦσιν, ὅσοι τε πατρίους ἀρχὰς παραλάβοιεν καὶ ὅσους ἡ πληθὺς ἀυτὴ καταστήσαιτο ἡγεμόνας, βουλευτήριον ἦν ἐκ τῶν κρατίστων, ὡς Ὅμηρός τε καὶ οἱ παλαιότατοι τῶν ποιητῶν μαρτυροῦσι· καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνοις αὐθάδεις καὶ μονογνώμονες ἦσαν αἱ τῶν ἀρχαίων βασιλέων δυναστεῖαι.—_Dionysius_, 2, xii.

[259]

δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντ' ἀπαγγέλλειν με χρὴ δήμου προβούλοις τῆσδε Καδμείας πόλεως· Ἐτεοκλέα μὲν τόνδ' ἐπ' εὐνοίᾳ χθονὸς θάπτειν ἔδοξε γῆς φίλαις κατασκαφαῖς.

—Aeschylus, _The Seven against Thebes_, 1005.

[260] Euripides, _Orestes_, 884.

[261]

Πανδημίᾳ γὰρ χερσὶ δεξιωνύμοις ἔφριξεν αἰθὴρ τόνδε κραινόντων λόγον.

—Aeschylus, _The Suppliants_, 607.

[262] _History of Greece_, ii, 69.

[263] _History of Greece_, ii, 69, and _Iliad_, ii, 204.

[264] Mr. Gladstone, who presents to his readers the Grecian chiefs of the heroic age as kings and princes, with the superadded qualities of gentlemen, is forced to admit that “on the whole we seem to have the custom or law of primogeniture sufficiently, but not oversharply defined.”—_Juventus Mundi_, Little & Brown’s ed., p. 428.

[265]

Οὐ μέν πως πάντες βασιλεύσομεν ἐνθάδ' Ἀχαιοί. οὐκ for ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη· εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω, εἷς βασιλεύς, ᾧ ἔδωκε Κρόνου παῖςἀγκυλομήτεω. [σκῆπτρόν τ' ἠδὲ θέμιστας, ἵνα σφίσι βασιλεύῃ.]

—_Iliad_, ii, 203.

The words in brackets are not found in several MS., for example, in the commentary of Eustasius.

[266] Smith’s _Dic., Art. Rex_, p. 991.

[267] _Thucydides_, i, 13.

[268]

βασιλείας μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμὸν, μία μὲν ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωϊκοὺς χρόνους· αὕτη δ' ἦν ἑκόντων μέν, ἐπὶ τισὶ δ' ὡρισμένων· στρατηγὸς γὰρ ἦν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ τῶν πρὸς θεοὺς κύριος. Δευτέρα δὲ ἡ βαρβαρικὴ αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν ἐκ γένους ἀρχὴ δεσποτικὴ κατὰ νόμον. Τρίτη δὲ ἣν αἰσυμνητίαν προσαγορεύουσιν· αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς. Τετάρτη δ' ἡ Λακωνικὴ τούτων· αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν, ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁπλῶς, στρατηγία κατὰ γένος ἀΐδιος.—Aristotle, _Politics_, iii, c. x.

[269] _History of Greece_, ii, 61, and see 69.

[270] _Thucydides_, lib. i, 2-13.

[271] _Thucyd._, lib. ii, c. 15. Plutarch speaks nearly to the same effect: “He settled all the inhabitants of Attica in Athens, and made them one people in one city, who before were scattered up and down, and could with difficulty be assembled on any urgent occasion for the public welfare.... Dissolving therefore the associations, the councils, and the courts in each particular town, he built one common prytaneum and court hall, where it stands to this day. The citadel with its dependencies, and the city or the old and new town, he united under the common name of Athens.”—Plutarch, _Vit. Theseus_, cap. 24.

[272] “Of the nine archons, whose number continued unaltered from 683 B. C. to the end of the democracy, three bore special titles—the Archon Eponymus, from whose name the designation of the year was derived, and who was spoken of as _the Archon_, the Archon Basileus (King), or more frequently, the Basileus; and the Polemarch. The remaining six passed by the general name of Thesmothetæ.... The Archon Eponymus determined all disputes relative to the family, the gentile, and the phratric relations: he was the legal protector of orphans and widows. The Archon Basileus (or King Archon) enjoyed competence in complaints respecting offenses against the religious sentiment and respecting homicide. The Polemarch (speaking of times anterior to Kleisthenês) was the leader of military force, and judge in disputes between citizens and non-citizens.”—Grote’s _History of Greece, l. c._, iii, 74.

[273] _Public Economy of Athens_, Lamb’s Trans., Little & Brown’s ed., p. 353.

[274] _History of Greece_, iii, 65.

[275] _History of Greece_, iii, 133.

[276] The Latin _tribus_ = tribe, signified originally “a third part,” and was used to designate a third part of the people when composed of three tribes; but in course of time, after the Latin tribes were made local instead of consanguine, like the Athenian local tribes, the term tribe lost its numerical quality, and came, like the phylon of Cleisthenes to be a local designation.—_Vide_ Mommsen’s _Hist. of Rome, l. c._, i, 71.

[277] _Anglo Saxon Law_, by Henry Adams and others, pp. 20, 23.

[278] See particularly the Orations against Eubulides, and Marcatus.

[279] Hermann’s _Political Antiquities of Greece, l. c._, p. 187, s. 96.

[280] “The primitive Grecian government is essentially monarchical, reposing on personal feeling and divine right.”—_History of Greece_, ii, 69.

[281] Sparta retained the office of basileus in the period of civilization. It was a dual generalship, and hereditary in a particular family. The powers of government were co-ordinated between the Gerousia or council, the popular assembly, the five ephors, and two military commanders. The ephors were elected annually, with powers analogous to the Roman tribunes. Royalty at Sparta needs qualification. The basileis commanded the army, and in their capacity of chief priests offered the sacrifices to the gods.

[282] “During the period when the Indo-Germanic nations which are now separated still formed one stock speaking the same language, they attained a certain stage of culture, and they had a vocabulary corresponding to it. This vocabulary the several nations carried along with them, in its conventionally established use, as a common dowry and a foundation for further structures of their own.... In this way we possess evidence of the development of pastoral life at that remote epoch in the unalterably fixed names of domestic animals; the Sanskrit _gâus_ is the Latin _bos_, the Greek βοῦς; Sanskrit _avis_, is the Latin _ovis_, the Greek ὄϊς; Sanskrit _açvas_, Latin _equus_, Greek ἵππος; Sanskrit _hañsas_, Latin _anser_, Greek χήν; ... on the other hand, we have as yet no certain proofs of the existence of agriculture at this period. Language rather favors the negative view.”—Mommsen’s _History of Rome_, Dickson’s Trans., Scribner’s ed., 1871, i, 37. In a note he remarks that “barley, wheat, and spelt were found growing together in a wild state on the right bank of the Euphrates, northwest from Anah. The growth of barley and wheat in a wild state in Mesopotamia had already been mentioned by the Babylonian historian, Berosus.”

Fick remarks upon the same subject as follows: “While pasturage evidently formed the foundation of primitive social life we can find in it but very slight beginnings of agriculture. They were acquainted to be sure with a few of the grains, but the cultivation of these was carried on very incidentally in order to gain a supply of milk and flesh. The material existence of the people rested in no way upon agriculture. This becomes entirely clear from the small number of primitive words which have reference to agriculture. These words are _yava_, wild fruit, _varka_, hoe, or plow, _rava_, sickle, together with _pio_, _pinsere_ [to bake] and _mak_, Gk. μάσσω, which give indications of threshing out and grinding of grain.”—Fick’s _Primitive Unity of Indo-European Languages_, Göttingen, 1873, p. 280. See also _Chips From a German Workshop_, ii, 42.

With reference to the possession of agriculture by the Graeco-Italic people, see Mommsen, i, p. 47, _et seq._

[283] The use of the word Romulus, and of the names of his successors, does not involve the adoption of the ancient Roman traditions. These names personify the great movements which then took place with which we are chiefly concerned.

[284] _History of Rome, l. c._, i, 241, 245.

[285] Qui sint autem gentiles, primo commentario rettulimus; et cum illic admonuerimus, totum gentilicium jus in desuetudinem abisse, superuacuum est, hoc quoque loco de ea re curiosius tractare.—_Inst._, iii, 17.

[286] Gentiles sunt, qui inter se eodem nomine sunt. Non est satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. Ne id quidem satis est. Quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit. Abest etiam nunc. Qui capite non sunt deminuti. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim video Scaevolam, Pontificem, ad hanc definitionem addidisse.—_Cicero, Topica_ 6.

[287] Gentilis dicitur et ex eodem genere ortus, et is qui simili nomine appellatur.—Quoted in Smith’s _Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Article, Gens_.

[288] The following is the text extended: Ut in hominibus quaedam sunt agnationes ac gentilitates, sic in verbis; ut enim ab Aemilio homines orti Aemilii, ac gentiles; sic ab Aemilii nomine declinatae voces in gentilitate nominali; ab eo enim, quod est impositum recto casu Aemilius, Aemilium, Aemilios, Aemiliorum; et sic reliqua, ejusdem quae sunt stirpes.—Varro, _De Lingua Latina_, lib. viii, cap. 4.

[289] Quid enim in re est aliud, si plebeiam patricius duxerit, si patriciam plebeius? Quid juris tandem mutatur? nempe patrem sequuntur liberi.—_Livy_, lib. iv, cap. 4.

[290] “When there was only one daughter in a family, she used to be called from the name of the gens; thus, Tullia, the daughter of Cicero, Julia, the daughter of Caesar; Octavia, the sister of Augustus, etc.; and they retained the same name after they were married. When there were two daughters, the one was called Major and the other Minor. If there were more than two, they were distinguished by their number: thus, Prima, Secunda, Tertia, Quarta, Quinta, etc.; or more softly, Tertulla, Quartilla, Quintilla, etc.... During the flourishing state of the republic, the names of the gentes, and surnames of the familiæ, always remained fixed and certain. They were common to all the children of the family, and descended to their posterity. But after the subversion of liberty they were changed and confounded.”—Adams’s _Roman Antiquities_, Glasgow ed., 1825, p. 27.

[291] Suetonius, _Vit. Octavianus_, c. 3 and 4.

[292] Gaius, _Institutes_, lib. iii, 1 and 2. The wife was a co-heiress with the children.

[293] _Ib._, lib. iii, 9.

[294] Gaius, _Inst._, lib. iii, 17.

[295] A singular question arose between the Marcelli and Claudii, two families of the Claudian gens, with respect to the estate of the son of a freedman of the Marcelli; the former claiming by right of family, and the latter by right of gens. The law of the Twelve Tables gave the estate of a freedman to his former master, who by the act of manumission became his patron, provided he died intestate, and without _sui heredes_; but it did not reach the case of the son of a freedman. The fact that the Claudii were a patrician family, and the Marcelli were not, could not affect the question. The freedman did not acquire gentile rights in his master’s gens by his manumission, although he was allowed to adopt the gentile name of his patron; as Cicero’s freedman, Tyro, was called M. Tullius Tyro. It is not known how the case, which is mentioned by Cicero (_De Oratore_, i, 39), and commented upon by Long (Smith’s _Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Art. Gens_), and Niebuhr, was decided; but the latter suggests that it was probably against the Claudii (_Hist. of Rome_, i, 245, _note_). It is difficult to discover how any claim whatever could be urged by the Claudii; or any by the Marcelli, except through an extension of the patronal right by judicial construction. It is a noteworthy case, because it shows how strongly the mutual rights with respect to the inheritance of property were intrenched in the gens.

[296] _History of Rome_, i, 242

[297] Patricia gens Claudia ... agrum insuper trans Anienem clientibus locumque sibi ad sepulturam sub capitolio, publice accepit.—Suet., _Vit. Tiberius_, cap. 1.

[298] Vari corpus semiustum hostilis laceraverat feritas; caput ejus abscisum, latumque ad Maroboduum, et ab eo missum ad Caesarem, gentilitii tumuli sepultura honoratum est.—_Velleius Paterculus_, ii, 119.

[299] Iam tanta religio est sepulcrorum, ut extra sacra et gentem inferi fas negent esse; idque apud majores nostros A. Torquatus in gente Popilia judicavit.—_De Leg._, ii, 22.

[300] Cicero, _De Leg._, ii, 23.

[301] “There were certain sacred rites (_sacra gentilicia_) which belonged to a gens, to the observance of which all the members of a gens, as such, were bound, whether they were members by birth, adoption or adrogation. A person was freed from the observance of such _sacra_, and lost the privileges connected with his gentile rights when he lost his gens.”—Smith’s _Dic. Antiq., Gens_.

[302] Cicero, _Pro Domo_, c. 13.

[303] _History of Rome_, i, 241.

[304] Cicero, _De Leg._, ii, 23.

[305] _Dionysius_, ii, 22.

[306] _Ib._, ii, 21.

[307] Niebuhr’s _History of Rome_, i, 241.

[308] Bina jugera quod a Romulo primum diuisa [dicebantur] viritim, quae [quod] haeredem sequerentur, haeredium appellarunt.—Varro, _De Re Rustica_, lib. i, cap. 10.

[309] _History of Rome_, i, 62. He names the Camillii, Galerii, Lemonii, Pollii, Pupinii, Voltinii, Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Horatii, Menenii, Papirii, Romilii, Sergii, Veturii.—_Ib._, p. 63.

[310] _History of Rome_, i, 63.

[311] “A fixed local centre was quite as necessary in the case of such a canton as in that of a clanship; but as the members of the clan, or, in other words, the constituent elements of the canton, dwelt in villages, the centre of the canton cannot have been a town or place of joint settlement in the strict sense. It must, on the contrary, have been simply a place of common assembly, containing the seat of justice and the common sanctuary of the canton, where the members of the canton met every eighth day for purposes of intercourse and amusement, and where, in case of war, they obtained a safer shelter for themselves and their cattle than in the villages; in ordinary circumstances this place of meeting was not at all or but scantily inhabited.... These cantons accordingly, having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive political unities with which Italian history begins.... All of these cantons were in primitive times politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship based on community of descent and of language not only pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an important religious and political institution—the perpetual league of the collective Latin cantons.”—_Hist. of Rome_, i, 64-66. The statement that the canton or tribe was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the council, etc., is a reversal of the correct statement, and therefore misleading. We must suppose that the military commander held an elective office, and that he was deposable at the pleasure of the constituency who elected him. Further than this, there is no ground for assuming that he possessed any civil functions. It is a reasonable, if not a necessary conclusion, therefore, that the tribe was governed by a council composed of the chiefs of the gentes, and by an assembly of the warriors, with the co-operation of a general military commander, whose functions were exclusively military. It was a government of three powers, common in the Upper Status of barbarism, and identified with institutions essentially democratical.

[312] Ap. Claudio in vinculo ducto, C. Claudius inimicum Claudiamque omnem gentem sordidatum fuisse.—_Livy_, vi, 20.

[313] _History of Rome_, i, 242.

[314] Responsum tulisse, se collecturos, quanti damnatus esset, absolvere eum non posse.—_Liv._, v, 32.

[315] _History of Rome_, i, 242: citing _Dionysius_, ii, 10: (ἔδει τοὺς πελάτας) τῶν ἀναλωμάτων ὡς τοὺς γένει προσήκοντας μετέχειν.

[316] _History of Rome_, i, 240.

[317] “Nevertheless, affinity in blood always appeared to the Romans to lie at the root of the connection between the members of the clan, and still more between those of a family; and the Roman community can only have interfered with these groups to a limited extent consistent with the retention of their fundamental character of affinity.”—Mommsen’s _History of Rome_, i, 103.

[318] It is a curious fact that Cleisthenes of Argos changed the names of the three Dorian tribes of Sicyon, one to Hyatæ, signifying in the singular _a boar_; another to Oneatæ, signifying _an ass_, and a third to Choereatæ, signifying _a little pig_. They were intended as an insult to the Sicyonians; but they remained during his life-time, and for sixty years afterwards. Did the idea of these animal names come down through tradition?—See Grote’s _History of Greece_, iii, 33, 36.

[319] Peregrinae conditionis homines vetuit usurpare Romana nomina, duntaxat gentilicia.—Sueton., _Vit. Claudius_, cap. 25.

[320] Cicero, _Pro Domo_, cap. 13.

[321] _Livy_, xxv, 5.

[322] Smith’s _Dic., Art. Pontifex_.

[323] _History of Rome_, i, 66.

[324] _Ib._, i, 258.

[325] _Livy_, ii, 48.

[326] _Ib._, ii, 49.

[327] Trecentos sex perisse satis convenit: unum prope pubescem aetate relictum stirpem gente Fabiae, dubiisque rebus populi Romani sepe domi bellique vel maximum futurum auxilium.—_Livy_, ii, 50; and see Ovid, _Fasti_, ii, 193.

[328] Itaque, quum populum in curias triginta divideret, nomina earum curiis imposuit.—_Livy_, i, 13.

[329] φράτρα δὲ καὶ λόχος ἡ κουρία.—Dionys., _Antiq. of Rome_, ii, 7.

[330]

διῄρηντο δὲ καὶ εἰς δεκάδας αἱ φρᾶτραι πρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡγεμὼν ἑκάστην ἐκόσμει δεκάδαρχος κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον γλῶτταν προσαγορευόμενος.—_Dionys._, ii, 7.

[331]

Ἑκάστη δὲ φυλὴ δέκα φρατρίας εἶχεν, ἃς ἔνιοι λέγουσιν ἐπωνύμους εἶναι ἐκείνων τῶν γυναικῶν.

—Plutarch, _Vit. Romulus_, cap. 20.

[332] Whether Niebuhr used the word “house” in the place of gens, or it is a conceit of the translators, I am unable to state. Thirlwall, one of the translators, applies this term frequently to the Grecian gens, which at best is objectionable.

[333] _History of Rome_, i, 244.

[334] Dionysius has given a definite and circumstantial analysis of the organization ascribed to Romulus, although a portion of it seems to belong to a later period. It is interesting from the parallel he runs between the gentile institutions of the Greeks, with which he was equally familiar, and those of the Romans. In the first place, he remarks, I will speak of the order of his polity which I consider the most sufficient of all political arrangements in peace, and also in time of war. It was as follows: After dividing the whole multitude into three divisions, he appointed the most prominent man as a leader over each of the divisions; in the next place dividing each of the three again into ten, he appointed the bravest men leaders, having equal rank; and he called the greater divisions tribes, and the less curiæ, as they are also still called according to usage. And these names interpreted in the Greek tongue would be the _tribus_, a third part, a phylê (φυλὴ); the _curia_, a phratry (φράτρα), and also a band (λόχος); and those men who exercised the leadership of the tribes were both phylarchs (φύλαρχοι) and trittyarchs (τριττύαρχοι), whom the Romans call tribunes; and those who had the command of the curiæ both phratriarchs (φρατρίαρχοι) and lochagoi (λοχαγοὶ), whom they call curiones. And the phratries were also divided into decades, and a leader called in common parlance a decadarch (δεκάδαρχος) had command of each. And when all had been arranged into tribes and phratries, he divided the land into thirty equal shares, and gave one full share to each phratry, selecting a sufficient portion for religious festivals and temples, and leaving a certain piece of ground for common use.—_Antiq. of Rome_, ii, 7.

[335] _Dionysius_, ii, 7.

[336] Smith’s _Dic., l. c., Art. Tribune_.

[337] _Dionysius_, ii, 7.

[338] The thirty curiones, as a body, were organized into a college of priests, one of their number holding the office of _curio maximus_. He was elected by the assembly of the gentes. Besides this was the college of augurs, consisting under the Ogulnian law (300 B. C.) of nine members, including their chief officer (_magister collegii_); and the college of pontiffs, composed under the same law of nine members, including the _pontifex maximus_.

[339] _Livy_, i, 8.

[340] Eo ex finitimis populis turba omnis sine discrimine, liber an servus esset, avida novarum rerum perfugit; idque primum ad coeptam magnitudinem roboris fuit.—_Livy_, i, 8.

[341] _Vit. Romulus_, cap. 20.

[342] _Antiq. of Rome_, ii, 15.

[343] _Livy_, i, 30.

[344] _Ib._, i, 33.

[345] _Livy_, i, 38.

[346] In the pueblo houses in New Mexico all the occupants of each house belonged to the same tribe, and in some cases a single joint-tenement house contained a tribe. In the pueblo of Mexico there were four principal quarters, as has been shown, each occupied by a lineage, probably a phratry; while the Tlatelulcos occupied a fifth district. At Tlascala there were also four quarters occupied by four lineages, probably phratries.

[347] _History of Rome_, i, 258.

[348] Centum creat senatores: sive quia is numerus satis erat; sive quia soli centum erant, qui creari Patres possent, Patres certe ab honore, patriciique progenies eorum appellati.—_Liv._, i, 8. And Cicero: Principes, qui appellati sunt propter caritatem, patres.—_De Rep._, ii, 8.

[349] _Dionysius_, ii, 47.

[350] Nec minus regni sui firmandi, quam augendae republicae, memor, centum in Patres legit; qui deinde minorum gentium sunt appellati: factio haud dubia regis, cuius beneficio in curiam venerant.—_Liv._, i, 35.

[351] Isque [Tarquinius] ut de suo imperio legem tulit, principio duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum; et antiquos patres maiorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat; a se adscitos, minorum.—Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 20.

[352] Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 20.

[353] This was substantially the opinion of Niebuhr. “We may go further and affirm without hesitation, that originally, when the number of houses [gentes] was complete, they were represented immediately by the senate, the number of which was proportionate to theirs. The three hundred senators answered to the three hundred houses, which was assumed above on good grounds to be the number of them; each gens sent its decurion, who was its alderman and the president of its meetings to represent it in the senate.... That the senate should be appointed by the kings at their discretion, can never have been the original institution. Even Dionysius supposes that there was an election: his notion of it, however, is quite untenable, and the deputies must have been chosen, at least originally, by the houses and not by the curiæ.”—_Hist. of Rome_, i, 258. An election by the curiæ is, in principle, most probable, if the office did not fall to the chief _ex officio_, because the gentes in a curia had a direct interest in the representation of each gens. It was for the same reason that a sachem elected by the members of an Iroquois gens must be accepted by the other gentes of the same tribe before his nomination was complete.

[354] _Livy_, i, 43. _Dionys_., ii, 14; iv, 20, 84.

[355] Numa Pompilius (Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 11; _Liv._, i, 17), Tullus Hostilius (Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 17), and Ancus Martius (Cic., _De Rep._, ii, 18; _Livy_, i, 32) were elected by the _comitia curiata_. In the case of Tarquinius Priscus, Livy observes that the people by a great majority elected him _rex_ (i, 35). It was necessarily by the _comitia curiata_. Servius Tullius assumed the office which was afterwards confirmed by the _comitia_ (Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 21). The right of election thus reserved to the people, shows that the office of _rex_ was a popular one, and that his powers were delegated.

[356] Mr. Leonhard Schmitz, one of the ablest defenders of the theory of kingly government among the Greeks and Romans, with great candor remarks: “It is very difficult to determine the extent of the king’s powers, as the ancient writers naturally judged of the kingly period by their own republican constitution, and frequently assigned to the king, the senate, and the _comitia_ of the _curia_ the respective powers and functions which were only true in reference to the consuls, the senate and the _comitia_ of their own time.”—Smith’s _Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Art. Rex._

[357] _Dionys._, ii, 12.

[358] _Dionysius_, iv, 1.

[359] Niebuhr says: “The existence of the plebs as acknowledgedly a free and very numerous portion of the nation, may be traced back to the reign of Ancus; but before the time of Servius it was only an aggregate of unconnected parts, not a united regular whole.”—_History of Rome_, _l. c._, i, 315.

[360] _History of Rome_, i, 315.

[361] “That the clients were total strangers to the plebeian commonalty and did not coalesce with it until late, when the bond of servitude had been loosened, partly from the houses of their patrons dying off or sinking into decay, partly from the advance of the whole nation toward freedom, will be proved in the sequel of this history.”—_History of Rome_, i, 315.

[362] _Dionysius_, ii, 8.

[363] Plutarch, _Vit. Rom._, xiii, 16.

[364] _Vit. Tiberius_, cap. 1.

[365] _Hist. of Rome_, i, 256, 450.

[366] Smith’s _Dic., Articles Gens, Patricii, and Plebs _.

[367] _Dionysius_, ii, 8; Plutarch, _Vit. Rom._, xiii.

[368] _Ib._, ii, 8.

[369] Quum ille Romuli Senatus, qui constabat ex optimatibus, quibus ipse Rex tantum tribuisset, ut eos patres vellet nominari patriciosque eorum liberos, tentaret, etc.—_De Rep._, ii, 12.

[370] Patres certe ab honore, patriciique progenies eorum appellati.—_Liv._, i, 8.

[371] Hic centum homines electos, appellatosque Patres, instar habuit consilii publici. Hanc originem nomen Patriciorum habet.—_Velleius Paterculus_, i, 8.

[372] _Livy_, ii, 49.

[373] _History of Rome_, i, 246.

[374] _Ib._, i, 246.

[375] _Livy_, iv, 4.

[376] A plebe consensu populi consulibus negotium mandatur.—_Liv._, iv. 51.

[377]

Ἦν δὲ ἡ διανομὴ κατὰ τὰς τέχνας, αὐλητῶν, χρυσοχόων, τεκτόνων, βαφέων, σκυτοτόμων, σκυτοδεψῶν, χαλκέων, κεραμέων.—Plutarch, _Vit. Numa_, xvii, 20.

[378] The property qualification for the first class was 100,000 asses; for the second class, 75,000 asses; for the third, 50,000; for the fourth, 25,000; and for the fifth, 11,000 asses.—_Livy_, i, 43.

[379] _Dionysius_, iv, 20.

[380] _Ib._, iv, 16, 17, 18.

[381] _Livy_, i, 43.

[382] _De Rep._, ii, 20.

[383] _Dionysius_, iv, 16.

[384] _Livy_, i, 43.

[385] _Livy_, i, 43. But Dionysius places the equites in the first class, and remarks that this class was first called.—_Dionys._, iv, 20.

[386] _Livy_, i, 44; Dionysius states the number at 84,700.—iv, 22.

[387] Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 20.

[388] Censum enim instituit, rem saluberrimam tanto futuro imperio: ex quo belli pacisque munia non viritim, ut ante, sed pro habitu pecuniarum fierent.—_Livy_, i, 42.

[389] _Dionysius_, iv, 15.

[390] _Dionysius_, iv, 14.

[391] _History of Rome_, _l. c._, Scribner’s ed., i, 136.

[392] _Dionysius_, iv, 15; Niebuhr has furnished the names of sixteen country townships, as follows: Aemilian, Camilian, Cluentian, Cornelian, Fabian, Galerian, Horatian, Lemonian, Menenian, Paperian, Romilian, Sergian, Veturnian, Claudian.—_Hist. of Rome_, i, 320, _note_.

[393] Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, i, 173.

[394] If a Seneca-Iroquois man marries a foreign woman their children are aliens; but if a Seneca-Iroquois woman marries an alien, or an Onondaga, their children are Iroquois of the Seneca tribe; and of the gens and phratry of their mother. The woman confers her nationality and her gens upon her children, whoever may be their father.

[395] _Description of Ancient Italy_, i, 153; citing _Lanzi_, ii, 314.

[396] _History of Greece_, Scribner & Armstrong’s ed., Ward’s Trans., i, 94, _note_. The Etiocretes, of whom Minos was the hero, were doubtless Pelasgians. They occupied the east end of the Island of Crete. Sarpedon, a brother of Minos, led the emigrants to Lycia where they displaced the Solymi, a Semitic tribe probably; but the Lycians had become Hellenized, like many other Pelasgian tribes, before the time of Herodotus, a circumstance quite material in consequence of the derivation of the Grecian and Pelasgian tribes from a common original stock. In the time of Herodotus the Lycians were as far advanced in the arts of life as the European Greeks (Curtius, i, 93; Grote, i, 224). It seems probable that descent in the female line was derived from their Pelasgian ancestors.

[397] _Das Mutterrecht_, Stuttgart, 1861.

[398] Bachofen, speaking of the Cretan city of Lyktos, remarks that “this city was considered a Lacedaemonian colony, and as also related to the Athenians. It was in both cases only on the mother’s side, for only the mothers were Spartans; the Athenian relationship, however, goes back to those Athenian women whom the Pelasgian Tyrrhenians are said to have enticed away from the Brauron promontory.”—_Das Mutterrecht_, ch. 13, p. 31.

With descent in the male line the lineage of the women would have remained unnoticed; but with descent in the female line the colonists would have given their pedigrees through females only.

[399] _Das Mutterecht_, ch. 38, p. 73.

[400] _Polybius_, xii, extract the second, Hampton’s Trans., iii, 242.

[401] ἀδελφὴν γὰρ ὁ πάππος οὑμὸς ἔγημεν οὐχ ὁμομητρίαν.—_Demosthenes contra Ebulides_, 20.

[402] Demosth., _Eubul._, 24: In his time the registration was in the Deme; but it would show who were the phrators, blood relatives, fellow demots and gennetes of the person registered; as Euxitheus says, λέγω φράτερσι, συγγενέσι, δημόταις, γεννήταις; vide also Hermann’s _Polit. Antiq. of Greece_, §. 100.

[403] _Prometheus_, 853.

[404] ἀλλ' αὐτογενεῖ φυξανορίᾳ, γάμου Αἰγύπτου Παίδων ἀσεβῆ τ' ὀνοταζόμεναι.—Aeschylus, _Supp._, 9.

[405] _Early History of Institutions_, Holt’s ed., p. 7.

[406] _Germania_, c. ii.

[407] _De Bell. Gall._, vi, 22.

[408] _Germania_, cap. 7. The line of battle, this author remarks, is formed by wedges. _Acies per cuneos componitur._—_Ger._, c. 6. Kohlrausch observes that “the confederates of one mark or hundred, and of one race or sept, fought united.”—_History of Germany_, Appletons’ ed., trans. by J. D. Haas, p. 28.

[409] _De Bell. Gall._, iv, 1. _Germania_, cap. 6.

[410] Dr. Freeman, who has studied this subject specially, remarks: “The lowest unit in the political system is that which still exists under various names, as the _mark_, the _geminde_, the _commune_, or the _parish_. This, as we have seen, is one of many forms of the _gens_ or clan, that in which it is no longer a wandering or a mere predatory body, but when, on the other hand, it has not joined with others to form one component element of a city commonwealth. In this stage the gens takes the form of an agricultural body, holding its common lands—the germ of the _ager publicus_ of Rome, and of the _folkland_ of England. This is the _markgenossenschaft_, the village community of the West. This lowest political unit, this gathering of real or artificial kinsmen, is made up of families, each living under the rule, the _murd_ of its own father, that _patria potestas_ which survived at Rome to form so marked and lasting a feature of Roman law. As the union of families forms the _gens_, and as the _gens_ in its territorial aspect forms the _markgenossenschaft_, so the union of several such village communities and their _marks_ or common lands forms the next higher political union, the hundred, a name to be found in one shape or another in most lands into which the Teutonic race has spread itself.... Above the hundred comes the _pagus_, the _gau_, the Danish _syssel_, the English _shire_, that is, the tribe looked at as occupying a certain territory. And each of these divisions, greater and smaller, had its chiefs.... The hundred is made up of villages, marks, geminden, whatever we call the lowest unit; the _shire_, the _gau_, the _pagus_, is made up of hundreds.”—_Comparative Politics_, McMillan & Co.’s ed., p. 116.

[411] _Descriptive Ethnology_, i, 80.

[412] McLennan’s _Primitive Marriage_, p. 109.

[413] Quoted in _Primitive Marriage_, p. 101.

[414] _Letter to the Author_, by Rev. Gopenath Nundy, a Native Bengalese, India.

[415] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 282.

[416] _Primitive Culture_, Holt & Co.’s ed., ii, 235.

[417] _Descriptive Ethnology_, i, 290.

[418] _Origin of Civilization_, 96.

[419] _Descriptive Ethnology_, i, 475.

[420] _Genesis_, xiii, 2

[421] _Genesis_, xxiii, 16.

[422] _Ib._, xviii, 6.

[423] _Ib._, xviii, 8.

[424] _Ib._, xxii, 6.

[425] _Ib._, xxiv, 53.

[426] _Ib._, xxiv, 65.

[427] _Ib._, xx, 12.

[428] _Genesis_, xi, 29.

[429] _Exodus_, vi, 20.

[430] _Numbers_, iii, 15-20.

[431] _Ib._, i, 22.

[432] _Ib._, iii, 30.

[433] _Ib._, ii, 2.

[434] Kiel and Delitzschs, in their commentaries on Exodus vi, 14, remark, that “‘father’s house’ was a technical term applied to a collection of families called by the name of a common ancestor.” This is a fair definition of a gens.

[435] 1 _Samuel_, xx, 6, 29.

[436] _Numbers_, i, 2.

[437] _Descript. Eth._, ii, 184.

[438] _Ashango Land_, Appletons’ ed., p. 425, et seq.

[439] _Travels in South Africa_, Appletons’ ed., ch. 30, p. 660.—“When a young man takes a liking for a girl of another village, and the parents have no objection to the match, he is obliged to come and live at their village. He has to perform certain services for the mother-in-law.... If he becomes tired of living in this state of vassalage, and wishes to return to his own family, he is obliged to leave all his children behind—they belong to his wife.”—_Ib._, p. 667

[440] _Travels in South Africa_, p. 219.

[441] _Ib._, p. 471.

[442] _Ib._, p. 471.

[443] See also Taylor’s _Early History of Mankind_, p. 284.

[444] _Systems of Consanguinity_, etc., loc. cit., pp. 451, 482.

[445] _Missionary Herald_, 1853, p. 90.

[446] _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii.

[447] _Pandects_, lib. xxxviii, title x. De gradibus, et ad finibus et nominibus eorum: and _Institutes of Justinian_, lib. iii, title vi. De gradibus cognationem.

[448] Our term aunt is from _amita_, and uncle from _avunculus_. _Avus_, grandfather, gives _avunculus_ by adding the diminutive. It therefore signifies a ‘little grandfather.’ _Matertera_ is supposed to be derived from _mater_ and _altera_, = another mother.

[449] Herrera’s _Hist. of Amer._, i, 216, 218, 348.

[450] The Rotuman is herein for the first time published. It was worked out by the Rev. John Osborn, Wesleyan missionary at Rotuma, and procured and forwarded to the author by the Rev. Lorimer Fison, of Sydney, Australia.

[451] a as in ale; ä as a in father; ă as a in at; ǐ as i in it; ŭ as oo in food.

[452] _Systems of Consanguinity_, loc. cit., p. 445.

[453] _Ib._, pp. 525, 573.

[454] _Systems of Consanguinity_, etc., l. c., Table iii, pp. 542, 573.

[455] Among the Kafirs of South Africa, the wife of my father’s brother’s son, of my father’s sister’s son, of my mother’s brother’s son, and of my mother’s sister’s son, are all alike my wives, as well as theirs, as appears by their system of consanguinity.

[456] _Races of Man_, Appleton’s ed. 1876, p. 232.

[457] Bingham’s _Sandwich Islands_, Hartford ed., 1847, p. 21.

[458] _Ib._, p. 23.

[459] _Systems of Consanguinity_, etc., p. 415.

[460] _Ib._, p. 432, where the Chinese system is presented in full.

[461] _Timæus_, c. ii, Davis’s trans.

[462] _Descent of Man_, ii, 360.

[463] The Ippais and Kapotas are married in a group. Ippai begets Murri, and Murri in turn begets Ippai; in like manner Kapota begets Mata, and Mata in turn begets Kapota; so that the grandchildren of Ippai and Kapota are themselves Ippais and Kapotas, as well as collateral brothers and sisters; and as such are born husbands and wives.

[464] _Historical Sketch of the Missions, etc., in the Sandwich Islands_, etc., p. 5.

[465] Uxores habent deni duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum fratribus parentesque cum liberis.—_De Bell. Gall._, v, 14.

[466] γυναῖκα μὲν γαμέει ἕκαστος, ταύτῃσι δὲ ἐπίκοινα χρέωνται.

[467] ἐπίκοινον δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν τὴν μίξιν ποιεῦνται, κασίγνητοί τε ἀλλήλων ἔωσι καὶ οἰκήïοι ἐόντες πάντες μήτε φθόνῳ μήτ' ἔχθεï χρέωνται ἐς ἀλλήλους.—Lib. iv, c. 104.

[468] Herrera’s _History of America_, l. c., i, 216. Speaking of the coast tribes of Brazil, Herrera further remarks that “they live in bohios, or large thatched cottages, of which there are about eight in every village, full of people, with their nests or hammocks to lye in.... They live in a beastly manner, without any regard to justice or decency.”—_Ib._, iv, 94. Garcilasso de la Vega gives an equally unfavorable account of the marriage relation among some of the lowest tribes of Peru.—_Royal Com. of Peru_, l. c., pp. 10 and 106.

[469] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family_, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xvii.

[470] The late Rev. Ashur Wright, for many years a missionary among the Senecas, wrote the author in 1873 on this subject as follows: “As to their family system, when occupying the old long-houses, it is probable that some one clan predominated, the women taking in husbands, however, from the other clans; and sometimes, for a novelty, some of their sons bringing in their young wives until they felt brave enough to leave their mothers. Usually, the female portion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it. The stores were in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children, or whatever goods he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pick up his blanket and budge; and after such orders it would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey. The house would be too hot for him; and, unless saved by the intercession of some aunt or grandmother, he must retreat to his own clan; or, as was often done, go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other. The women were the great power among the clans, as everywhere else. They did not hesitate, when occasion required, ‘to knock off the horns,’ as it was technically called, from the head of a chief, and send him back to the ranks of the warriors. The original nomination of the chiefs also always rested with them.” These statements illustrate the gyneocracy discussed by Bachofen in “Das Mutterrecht.”

[471] _History of Mexico_, Phil. ed., 1817, Cullen’s trans., ii, 99.

[472] _Ib._, ii, 101.

[473] _History of America_, l. c., iii, 217.

[474] _History of America_., iv, 171.

[475] A case among the Shyans was mentioned to the author, by one of their chiefs, where first cousins had married against their usages. There was no penalty for the act; but they were ridiculed so constantly by their associates that they voluntarily separated rather than face the prejudice.

[476] Iron has been smelted from the ore by a number of African tribes, including the Hottentots, as far back as our knowledge of them extends. After producing the metal by rude processes acquired from foreign sources, they have succeeded in fabricating rude implements and weapons.

[477] The Asiatic origin of the American aborigines is assumed. But it follows as a consequence of the unity of origin of mankind—another assumption, but one toward which all the facts of anthropology tend. There is a mass of evidence sustaining both conclusions of the most convincing character. Their advent in America could not have resulted from a deliberate migration; but must have been due to the accidents of the sea, and to the great ocean currents from Asia to the North-west coast.

[478] Famuli origo ab Oscis dependet, apud quo servus Famul nominabuntur, unde _familia_ vocata.—_Festus_, p. 87.

[479] Amico familiam suam, id est patrimonium suum mancipio dabat.—Gaius, _Inst._, ii, 102.

[480] _History of Rome_, l. c., 1, 95.

[481] Item in potestate nostra sunt liberi nostri, quos justis nuptiis procreauimus, quod jus proprium ciuium Romanorum est: fere enim nulli alii sunt homines, qui talem in filios suos habent potestatem, qualem nos habemus.—_Inst._, 1, 55. Among other things they had the power of life and death—jus vitæ necisque.

[482] _Germania_, c. 18.

[483] _Ib._, c. 19.

[484] _Iliad_, ix, 128.

[485] _Il._, ix, 663.

[486] The following condensed statement, taken from Charicles (_Excursus_, xii, Longman’s ed., Metcalfe’s trans.), contains the material facts illustrative of the subject. After expressing the opinion that the women of Homer occupied a more honorable position in the household than the women of the historical period, he makes the following statements with respect to the condition of women, particularly at Athens and Sparta, during the high period of Grecian culture. He observes that the only excellence of which a woman was thought capable differed but little from that of a faithful slave (p. 464); that her utter want of independence led to her being considered a minor all her life long; that there were neither educational institutions for girls, nor any private teachers at home, their whole instruction being left to the mothers, and to nurses, and limited to spinning and weaving and other female avocations (p. 465); that they were almost entirely deprived of that most essential promoter of female culture, the society of the other sex; strangers as well as their nearest relatives being entirely excluded; even their fathers and husbands saw them but little, the men being more abroad than at home, and when at home inhabiting their own apartments; that the gynæconitis, though not exactly a prison, nor yet a locked harem, was still the confined abode allotted for life to the female portion of the household; that it was particularly the case with the maidens, who lived in the greatest seclusion until their marriage, and, so to speak, regularly under lock and key (p. 465); that it was unbecoming for a young wife to leave the house without her husband’s knowledge, and in fact she seldom quitted it; she was thus restricted to the society of her female slaves; and her husband, if he chose to exercise it, had the power of keeping her in confinement (p. 466); that at those festivals, from which men were excluded, the women had an opportunity of seeing something of each other, which they enjoyed all the more from their ordinary seclusion; that women found it difficult to go out of their houses from these special restrictions; that no respectable lady thought of going without the attendance of a female slave assigned to her for that purpose by her husband (p. 469); that this method of treatment had the effect of rendering the girls excessively bashful and even prudish, and that even a married woman shrunk back and blushed if she chanced to be seen at the window by a man (p. 471); that marriage in reference to the procreation of children was considered by the Greeks a necessity, enforced by their duty to the gods, to the state and to their ancestors; that until a very late period, at least, no higher consideration attached to matrimony, nor was strong attachment a frequent cause of marriage (p. 473); that whatever attachment existed sprang from the soil of sensuality, and none other than sensual love was acknowledged between man and wife (p. 473); that at Athens, and probably in the other Grecian states as well, the generation of children was considered the chief end of marriage, the choice of the bride seldom depending on previous, or at least intimate acquaintance; and more attention was paid to the position of the damsel’s family, and the amount of her dowry, than to her personal qualities; that such marriages were unfavorable to the existence of real affection, wherefore coldness, indifference, and discontent frequently prevailed (p. 477); that the husband and wife took their meals together, provided no other men were dining with the master of the house, for no woman who did not wish to be accounted a courtesan, would think even in her own house of participating in the symposia of the men, or of being present when her husband accidentally brought home a friend to dinner (p. 490); that the province of the wife was the management of the entire household, and the nurture of the children—of the boys until they were placed under a master, of the girls until their marriage; that the infidelity of the wife was judged most harshly; and while it might be supposed that the woman, from her strict seclusion, was generally precluded from transgressing, they very frequently found means of deceiving their husbands; that the law imposed the duty of continence in a very unequal manner, for while the husband required from the wife the strictest fidelity, and visited with severity any dereliction on her part, he allowed himself to have intercourse with hetæræ, which conduct, though not exactly approved, did not meet with any marked censure, and much less was it considered any violation of matrimonial rights (p. 494).

[487] _Vit. Rom._, c. 20.

[488] Quinctilian.

[489] With respect to the conjugal fidelity of Roman women, Becker remarks “that in the earlier times excesses on either side seldom occurred,” which must be set down as a mere conjecture; but “when morals began to deteriorate, we first meet with great lapses from this fidelity, and men and women outbid each other in wanton indulgence. The original modesty of the women became gradually more rare, while luxury and extravagance waxed stronger, and of many women it could be said, as Clitipho complained of his Bacchis (Ter., _Heaut._, ii, 1, 15), _Mea est petax, procax, magnifica, sumptuosa, nobilis._ Many Roman ladies, to compensate for the neglect of their husbands, had a lover of their own, who, under the pretense of being the procurator of the lady, accompanied her at all times. As a natural consequence of this, celibacy continually increased amongst the men, and there was the greatest levity respecting divorces”—Gallus, _Excursus_, i, p. 155, Longman’s ed., Metcalfe’s trans.

[490] _Systems of Consanguinity_, Table I, p. 79.

[491] _Systems of Consanguinity_, etc., p. 40.

[492] _Pandects_, lib. xxviii, tit. x, and _Institutes_ of Justinian, lib. iii, tit. vi.

[493] Item fratres patrueles, sorores patrueles, id est qui quæ-ve ex duobus fratribus progenerantur; item consobrini consobrinæ, id est qui quæ-ve ex duobus sororibus nascuntur (quasi consorini); item amitini amitinæ, id est qui quæ-ve ex fratre ex sorore propagantur; sed fere vulgos istos omnes communi appellatione consobrinus vocat.—_Pand._, lib. xxxviii, tit. x.

[494] It is a revision of the sequence presented in _Systems of Consanguinity_, etc., p. 480.

[495]

μῖξιν δὲ ἐπίκοινον τῶν γυναικῶν ποιέονται, οὔτε συνοικέοντες κτηνηδόν τε μισγόμενοι.—Lib. iv, c. 180.

[496] Garamantes matrimonium exsortes passim cum femines degunt.—_Nat. Hist._, lib. v, c. 8.

[497]—καὶ φανερῶς μίσγεσθαι ταῖς τε ἄλλαις γυναιξὶ καὶ μητράσι καὶ ἀδελφαὶς.—Lib. iv. c. 5, § 4.

[498] Lib. xvi. c. 4, § 25.

[499] “The _Tables_, however, are the _main results_ of this investigation. In their importance and value they reach beyond any present use of their contents the writer may be able to indicate.”—_Systems of Consanguinity_, _etc._, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xvii, p. 8.

[500] _Descriptive Ethnology_, Lond. ed., 1859, i, 475.

[501] _Ib._, i, 80.

[502] _League of the Iroquois_, p. 364.

[503] For example, the Ojibwas used the lance or spear, She-mä′-gun, pointed with flint or bone.

[504] The Creeks made earthen vessels holding from two to ten gallons (Adair’s _History of American Indians_, p. 424); and the Iroquois ornamented their jars and pipes with miniature human faces attached as buttons. This discovery was recently made by Mr. F. A. Cushing, of the Smithsonian Institution.

[505] Herrera, l. c., iv, 16.

[506] _Ib._, iii, 13; iv, 16, 137. Clavigero, ii, 165.

[507] Clavigero, ii, 238. Herrera, ii, 145; iv, 133.

[508] _Hakluyt’s Coll. of Voyages_, l. c., iii, 377.

[509] The Rev. Samuel Gorman, a missionary among the Laguna Pueblo Indians, remarks in an address before the Historical Society of New Mexico (p. 12), that “the right of property belongs to the female part of the family, and descends in that line from mother to daughter. Their land is held in common, as the property of the community, but after a person cultivates a lot he has personal claim to it, _which he can sell to one of the community_.... Their women, generally, have control of the granary, and they are more provident than their Spanish neighbors about the future. Ordinarily they try to have a year’s provisions on hand. It is only when two years of scarcity succeed each other, that Pueblos, as a community, suffer hunger.”

[510]

Σεμνύνεται γὰρ Σόλων ἐν τούτοις, ὅτι τῆς τε προϋποκείμενης γῆς Ὅρους ἀνεῖλε πολλαχῆ πεπηγότας· πρόσθεν δὲ δουλεύουσα, νῦν ἐλευθέρα.

—Plutarch, _in Solon_, c. xv.

[511] _Iliad_, v, 90.

[512] _Ib._, ix, 577.

[513] _Ib._, xiv, 121.

[514] _Ib._, v, 265.

[515] _Ib._, iv, 433, Buckley’s trans.

[516] _Ib._, vii, 472, Buckley’s trans.

[517] _Iliad_, xii, 274.

[518] The German tribes when first known historically were in the Upper Status of barbarism. They used iron, but in limited quantities, possessed flocks and herds, cultivated the cereals, and manufactured coarse textile fabrics of linen and woolen; but they had not then attained to the idea of individual ownership in lands. According to the account of Cæsar, elsewhere cited, the arable lands were allotted annually by the chiefs, while the pasture lands were held in common. It would seem, therefore, that the idea of individual property in lands was unknown in Asia and Europe in the Middle Period of barbarism, but came in during the Later Period.

[519] _Genesis_, xxiii, 13.

[520] _Numbers_, xxxvi, 4.

[521] _Numbers_, xxxvi, 5-9.

[522] _Ib._, xxxvi, 11.

[523] _Ib._, xxvii, 8-11.

[524] _The Ancient City_, Lee & Shepard’s ed., Small’s trans., p. 99.

[525] _Demosthenes against Eubul._, 41.

[526] Εὐδοκίμησε δὲ κἀν τῷ περὶ διαθηκῶν for νόμῳ· πρότερον γὰρ οὐκ ἐξῆν, ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ γένει τοῦ τεθνηκότος ἔδει τὰ χρήματα καὶ τὸν οἶκον καταμένειν, ὁ δ' ᾧ βούλεταί τις ἐπιτρέψας, εἰ μὴ παῖδες εἶεν αὐτῷ, δοῦναι τὰ αὑτοῦ, φιλίαν τε συγγενείας ἐτίμησε μᾶλλον καὶ χάριν ἀνάγκης, καὶ τὰ χρήματα κτήματα τῶν ἐχόντων ἐποίησεν.—Plutarch, _Vita Solon_, c, 21.

[527] Livy, iii, 54, 57.

[528] Intestatorum hereditates lege xii tabularum primum ad suos heredes pertinent.—Gaius, _Inst._, iii, 1. Si nullus sit suorum heredum, tunc hereditas pertinet ex eadem lege xii tabularum ad adgnatos.—_Ib._, iii, 9. Si nullus agnatus sit, eadem lex xii tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem uocat.—_Ib._, iii, 17.

INDEX.

A

Abipones, 183.

Adair, James, 15, 77, note; 83, 530.

Adams, Prof. Henry, 273.

Adoption, ceremony of, among Iroquois, 81, note.

Age of Stone, of Bronze, and of Iron, 8.

Algonkin tribes, 165.

Alphabet, phonetic, 12. Its invention, 31, note.

Animals, their domestication, 11, 42.

Archon, office of, 261.

Arickarees, 165.

Aristocracy. Its rise, 260. Its future, 549.

Army organization in gentile society, by gentes, by phratries, and by tribes, 237. In Athenian political society by property classes, 265. In Roman by same, 334.

Arts of subsistence, 19. 1. Fruits and Roots, 20. 2. Fish, 21. 3. Farinaceous Food, 22. 4. Meat and Milk, 24. Field Agriculture, 26.

Arrawaks, 182.

Aryan, Family of, 39, 468. System of consanguinity and affinity, 484. Table, 493.

Assembly of the people, 119, 120. Agora of Athenians, 245. _Comitia Curiata_ of the Romans, 315, 340. _Comitia Centuriata_, 331, 333.

Ashangos, 371.

Athapasco-Apache Tribes, 175.

Australian organization on basis of sex, 50. Classes, 52. Descents, 57, note.

Aztec Confederacy, 186. Of three Nahuatlac tribes, 189. When established, 192. Extent of territorial domination, 193. Population of Valley of Mexico, 195. Of Pueblo, of Mexico, 196, note. Gentes and phratries, 197. Ownership of lands in common, 200. Council of Chiefs, 203. Office of Teuctli, or principal war-chief, 206. Aztec monarchy a fiction, 213.

B

Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, 349, 350, 573, note.

Bandelier, Ad. F., 200, 201, note; 203, note.

Bancroft, H. H., 176.

Barbarism, period of, 42. Inventions and discoveries in Later Period, 32. In Middle Period, 33. In Older Period, 35. Great achievements in this Period, 42.

Basileus, 246. Probably elective, 248. Office without civil functions, 252. Office of Roman Rex elective, 253. Each a general, with the additional functions of a priest and judge, 250. Aristotle’s definition, 251. Early Grecian governments military democracies, 252, 274. Romans under the _reges_, the same, 253. Office of basileus abolished by the Athenians, 260, 274. Of rex by the Romans, 319.

Basileia, 249. Aristotle’s definition, 256.

Becker, Prof. W. A. Family of ancient Greeks, 475, note. Of Romans, 478, note.

Blackfeet tribes, 171.

Blood revenge, 77, 238.

Bow and arrow; its invention created an epoch, 10. Difficult to invent, 21, note.

Burial place of gens. Usually common among Indian tribes, 83. Of Tuscaroras, 84.

Byington, Rev. Dr. Cyrus, 162.

C

Cameron, Mr. A. S. P., 375.

Categories of relatives: of Hawaiians, 405. Of Chinese, 416. In Timæus of Plato, 417.

Cayugas, gentes, 70. Phratries, 91.

Chief, office of, elective, 72, 145. Head-chief of tribe, 118. Described as a lord, 202. No analogy, ib. Chief of Grecian gens, 261.

Cherokees, 164.

Chickasas, gentes, 163. Phratries, ib.

Choctas, gentes, 161. Phratries, 99.

Civilization, Period of. Its contributions to knowledge, 30, 31.

Cleisthenes. Founder of second great plan of government, 216, 254. His legislation, 270. Institution of Athenian political Society, 270. The Deme, or Township, ib. Local tribe or county, 271. Commonwealth or State, 272. Inhabitants of each an organized self-governing body politic, 270-272.

Coalescence of tribes in a nation, 135, 259.

Confederacy of tribes, 122. Iroquois Confederacy, 126. Its organization and functions, 128. Common gentes, and dialects of a common language its basis, 123. Aztec Confederacy, 186.

Comanches, 177.

Columbia River, Valley of. Seed land of Ganowánian family, 108, note. Its salmon fisheries, bread roots, and game, 109, note.

_Comitia Curiata_, 315, 340. _Centuriata_, 331, 333. _Tributa_, 336.

Consanguine Family, 384, 401.

Consanguinity, Malayan system of, oldest, 385. Turanian and Ganowánian, the second great form, 386. Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian, third great form, 388. Systems natural growths, 393. Two ultimate forms: one classificatory, the other descriptive, 394. Nature of a system of consanguinity, 395. Its permanence, 402, 408. Details of Malayan system, 404. Relatives in categories, 407. Its origin, 410. Details of Ganowánian and Turanian, 435. Origin of system, 422. Aryan system, 485. Its origin, 490.

Communism in living, 446, 453.

Coulanges, M. De. His work, “The Ancient City,” 234, 240, 549.

Council of Chiefs, 119. Iroquois Council invested chiefs with office, 136, 141. Manner of convening, 137, note. Manner of transacting business, 139. Unanimity required, 140. Aztec Council, 203. Grecian Council, 243. Its universality, 244. Roman _Comitia_, 298. Senate, 307, 315. _Comitia Centuriata_, 331.

Cox, Prof. Edward F. Analysis of pottery of Mound Builders, 15.

Creeks, 160.

Crees, 167.

Crows, 159.

Curtius, Prof., 348.

Cushing, Mr. N. A., 530, note.

D

Dakota tribes, 154.

Dance. A form of worship among Indian tribes, 116.

Delawares, 101, 171.

Deme, or township of Athenians, 217.

Democracy. Universal in Ancient Society and inherited from the gentes, 73, 253. Liberty, equality, and fraternity cardinal principles of the gens, 85. Athenian Democracy, 253, 270.

Descent in female line when gens is in archaic form, 67. In American Indian tribes, 153-183. In male line, 155-157, 166-169, 171-182. How changed from female line to male, 344. Causes which produced the change in Grecian gentes, 345. In female line among Lycians, 347. Etruscans, 348. Views of Curtius, 348. Of Bachofen, 349. Among Athenians prior to Cecrops, 350. Required to explain certain marriages, 351. Legend of Danaidæ, 354. In female line among Ashiras, Aponos, and Ashangos of Africa, 371. Banyi, 372. Bangalas, 373.

Du Chaillu, 371.

E

Ethnical Periods, 8-13. Advantages of these subdivisions, 16. Their relative length, 38.

Ephoralty of the Spartans, 250.

Eries, 126, note; 149-153.

Etruscans, 279, 348.

F

Family, the, Five successive forms, 384.

The consanguine, 384, 401. The punaluan, 384, 424. The syndyasmian or pairing, 384, 453. The patriarchal, 384, 465. The monogamian, 384, 468. First, second, and fifth radical, creating three systems of consanguinity and affinity, 324. Consanguine family, origin of relationship in, 410. Punaluan family, origin of relationship in, 422. Syndyasmian, 453-461. Patriarchal, 465. Monogamian family of ancient Germans, 471; of Homeric Greeks, 472, 475, note; of Romans, 477. Origin of relationship in, 485-490. Sequence of institutions connected with the family, 498.

Freeman, Dr., on the organization of German tribes, 361, note.

Fison, Rev. Lorimer, 14, 51, note; 54, 374, 375, 403.

G

Ganowánian family, its name, 152.

Ganowánian system of consanguinity and affinity, 432, 435. Table, 447.

Gentile organization, 62, 185. Institutions democratical, 212.

Gens of Australian tribes, 51-56, of Iroquois, 62. Founded upon kin, 63. Definition of a gens, 67. Descent in female line, 68. Intermarriage in the gens prohibited, 69. Rights, privileges, and obligations of its members, 71-84. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, its cardinal principles, 85. Grecian gens, 215. Descent in male line, 216. Rights, privileges, and obligations of its members, 222. Unit of the social system, 226. Roman gens, 277. Definition of a gentilis, 283. Descent in male line, 284. Rights, privileges, and obligations of its members, 285. Number of persons in a Roman gens, 299. Gentes in other tribes of mankind, 357-379. Probable origin of the gens, 377.

Gibbs, George, 175, 176.

Government. First plan gentile and social, 6. Organic series, gens, phratry, tribe, and confederacy, with a final coalescence of tribes in a nation, 49, 66. First stage, a government of one power, the council of chiefs; second, of two powers, a council and a military commander; third, of three powers, a council, a general, and an assembly of the people, 119, 120, 257. Second plan territorial and political, 6. Property classes of Solon, 264. Attic Deme or township, 270. Registration in Deme, ib. Local tribe or county, 271. The state, 272. Athenian democracy, 273. No chief executive magistrate, 275. Roman political society, 322. Property classes of Servius Tullius, 331. The centuries, 333. _Comitia Centuriata_, 333. The census, 336. City wards, 337. Registration in ward of residence, 336. Municipality of Rome, 339. Transition from gentile into political society, 340.

Grote, on Grecian gentes, phratries and tribes, 220-228, 230-232. His view of the early Grecian governments erroneous, 247. His illustration from the Iliad, 248.

H

Hale, Horatio, 127, note; 153, 175.

Hart, Robert. On the hundred families of the Chinese, 364.

Hebrew tribes, 366. Marriages in early period indicate gentes, with descent in the female line, 367. Gentes and phratries in the time of Moses, 368.

Hodenosaunian tribes, 153.

House life, and plan of living among savage and barbarous tribes deserve special study, 399, 446.

I

Iowas, 156, 166.

Inventions and discoveries, 29, 45.

Iron, 11. Process of smelting, 43. Ancient side hill furnaces in Switzerland, 43, note.

Iroquois, gentes, 63-70. Phratries, 90-97. Tribes, 102. Confederacy, 122. Sachems of the general council, 150.

J

Jones, C. C., 14, note.

K

Kaskaskias, 107.

Kaws, 106, 156.

Keepers of the faith in the Iroquois, 82.

Kennicott, Robert, 175.

Kikapoos, 170.

Kolushes, 175.

L

Lagunas, 180.

Lands owned in common among Indian tribes in Lower Status of barbarism, 151-174. With a possessory right in individuals to occupied lands, 530. In common by Aztec gentes probably, 200. By Roman gentes, 290, 292, note; 541. Some by phratries and tribes, 292.

Latham, R. G., 362, 364, 371.

Language, growth of, 5. Question of its origin, 36, note.

Lockwood, Charles G. N., 375.

Locrians, hundred families of, 350.

Lycians, descent in female line, 347, 348.

Lubbock, Sir John, 14, 183, 364.

M

Magars of Nepaul, 362.

Maine, Sir Henry, 227. On Celtic groups of kinsmen on French estates, 358. His original researches, 507.

Malayan system of consanguinity and affinity, its origin, 410.

McLennan, Mr J. F., 362, 409. Note concerning his work on “Primitive Marriage,” 509-521.

Mandans, 158.

Marriage, Australian scheme, 53, 57. Hebrew, 410. Consanguine, 401. Punaluan, 424. Syndyasmian, 453. Monogamian, 468.

Menominees, 170.

Metals, native, 44.

Minnitarees, 158.

Miamis, 107, 168.

Mississippi tribes, 168.

Missouri tribes, 155.

Mohegan gentes, 173. Phratries, 174.

Mohawks, 125.

Mommsen, Theodor, on domestication of animals, 23. Family names, 78. On introduction of agriculture, 277, note. Roman gens, 281. On gentile and tribal lands, 291.

Montezuma, principal war-chief of Aztec Confederacy, 206, 207. Tenure and functions of the office, note. His seizure of Cortes, 211, note. His deposition by the Aztecs, 211.

Monogamian Family, 384, 468.

Monarchy incompatible with gentilism, 124, 252.

Moqui Village Indians, 86, 179.

Müller, Max, 23.

Munsees, 173.

N

Names of members of a gens, 78. How bestowed, 79. The name conferred gentile rights, ib.

Nation formed by coalescence of tribes, 135, 242, 259.

Neutral nation, 149, 153.

Naucraries of Athenians, 262.

Niebuhr, on Roman and Grecian gentile questions, 23, 281, 287, 292, note; 295, 298, 305, 313, 315, 325.

O

Ojibwas, 106, 166.

Omahas, 106, 155.

Oneidas, 70.

Onondagas, gentes, 70. Phratries, 91.

Osages, 106.

Osborn, Rev. John, Rotuman system of consanguinity, 403, note; 419.

Otawas, 167. Otawa Confederacy, 106.

Otoes, 106, 156.

P

Parkman, Francis, 153, note.

Patriarchal Family, 384, 465, 480.

Patricians, Roman, 326, 330.

Pawnees, 164.

Peorias, 107.

Peschel, Oscar, 14, 413.

Phratry, its character, 89. Of Iroquois, 90. Its functions, 94-97. Phratric organization in American Indian tribes, 90 _et seq._ Of Athenians, 220. Obês of Spartans, 219. Definition of Dikæarchus, 236. Objects of phratry, 237. Uses in army organization, 287. Phratriarch, 240. Blood revenge, 238. Roman _curia_ a phratry, 303. Its composition and functions, 304, 305.

Piankeshaws, 107.

Plebeians, persons unconnected with any gens, 266. Unattached class, at Athens, 267. Made citizens by Solon, 268. Roman plebeians, 324, 325.

Potawattamies, 166, 167.

Property, growth of, 6. Its inheritance. First Rule: In American Indian tribes, 75, 153, 185, 528, 530; in Status of savagery, 526; in Lower Status of barbarism, 528. Second Rule, 531: Property in Middle Status, 540; in Upper Status, ib. Third Rule, 544: Hebrew inheritance, 545, 547; daughters of Zelophehad, 546; Athenian inheritance, 548; Roman, 550; property career of civilized nations, 522.

Polyandry, 409.

Polygyny, 404.

Political society, 218. Institution of Athenian, 256. Experiments of Theseus, 258, 259. Draco, 263. Legislation of Solon, 264. Property classes, ib. Organization of army, 265. Legislation of Cleisthenes, 270. Attic deme or township, ib. Inhabitants of each a body politic, with powers of local self-government, 271. Local tribe or county, ib. The Athenian Commonwealth or State, 272. Government founded upon territory and upon property, ib. Powers of gentes, phratries, and tribes transferred to the demes, counties, or state, 272, 274. No chief executive magistrate, 275. Institution of Roman political society, 323-342.

Pottery, 13, 15, 16.

Punaluan Family, 384, 424. Of Hawaiians, 427. Of Britons, 429. Other tribes, 430, 431.

Punkas, 106, 155.

Powell, Maj. J. W., 536, 537.

Q

Quappas, 106.

R

Ratio of human progress, 29. Geometrical, 38.

Raw, Prof. Charles, 14, note.

Religious ideas, growth of, 5. Religious rites, 81, 222, 289. Faith and worship of American Indian tribes, 115.

Roman tribe, 314. State, 319, 331.

Rome, founding of, 278, 309, 310, 312.

S

Sachem, 71. Elective tenure of the office, 72. Iroquois mode of electing and investing sachems, 141, 144. Aztec sachems, 202.

Salish, Sahaptin, and Kootenay tribes, 177.

Savagery, its contributions to knowledge, 36. Formative period of mankind, 41. American aborigines commenced their career in America in savagery, 40.

Sawks and Foxes, 170.

Schoolcraft, Henry R., on the word “totem,” 165.

Scottish Clan, 357.

Semitic family, 39.

Senecas, gentes, 70. Phratries, 90. Medicine Lodges, 97.

Sequence of institutions connected with the family, 498.

Shawnees, 168.

Shoshones, 177.

Society, gentile and political. See “Government,” and “Political Society.”

South American Indian tribes, 182.

Subsistence, Arts of, 19. Fish and game, 26. Farinaceous food, 22, 26. Meat and milk, 24. Made unlimited by field agriculture, 26.

Syndyasmian family, 384, 453.

T

Taplin, Rev. George, 374.

Thlinkeets, gentes, 101, 176. Phratries, 101.

Thums, or gentes of Magars of Nepaul, 362.

Totem. The symbol of a gens; thus, the figure of a wolf is the totem of the wolf gens, 165.

Tribe, Indian. Definition of, 103. Natural growth through segmentation, 104, 125. Attributes of an American Indian tribe, 112, 116. Athenian tribe, 241. Roman tribe, 302, 311.

Turanian system of consanguinity and affinity, 435. Its origin, 422, 445. Remains of system in Grecian and Roman tribes, 482.

Tuscaroras, gentes, 70. Phratries, 93. Burial-place, 84.

Tylor, Mr. Edward B., 13, 14, 182. On the clans of tribes in India, 364.

U

Upper Missouri tribes, 158.

V

Valley of Columbia, seed land of Ganowánian family, 109, and note.

Village Indians, 151, 178.

W

Wampum, belts of, their use, 139, 142.

War-chief, germ of the office of a chief executive Magistrate, King, Emperor, and President, 129, 146. Principal war-chiefs of Iroquois, 146. Office elective, ib. Of Aztecs, 207. Office of Teuctli elective, 210. Basileus of Grecian tribes, 246. Probably elective, ib. Rex of Roman tribes, 300. Nominated by the Senate, and elected by the _Comitia Curiata_, ib.

Weaws, 107.

Winnebagoes, 157.

Wright, Rev. Ashur, 83, 455.

Wyandotes, 153.

Z

Zuñi Village Indians, 178.