FOOTNOTES:

“Each household was made up on the principle of kin. The married women, usually sisters, own or collateral, were of the samegensor clan, the symbol ortotemof which was often painted upon the house, while their husbands and the wives of their sons belonged to several othergentes. The childrenwere of thegensof their mother. As a rule the sons brought home their wives, and in some cases the husbands of the daughters were admitted to the maternal household. Thus each household was composed of persons of differentgentes, but the predominating number in each household would be of the samegens, namely, that of the mother.”[44]

We see here, at once, the persistence and development of the conditions and later customs of the patriarchal family-group, now evolved into the clan. In the far-distant days the jealous spirit was still strong; now it has been curbed and regulated, and the female yoke binds the clan together. We have the mothers as the centre of the communal home; the sons bringing their wives to live in the circle, while the daughters’ husbands are received as permanent guests. Under such a system the mothers are related to each other, and belong to the same clan, and their children after them; the fathers are not bound together by the same ties and are of different clans. The limits within which marriage can take place are fixed, and we can trace the action of the ancient primal law in the bar that prohibits the husband from being of the same clan as his wife. Though the husband takes up his abode in the wife’s family, dwelling thereduring her life and his good behaviour,[45]he still belongs to his own family. The children of the marriage are of the kindred of themother, and never of his kindred: they are lost to his family. Thus there can be no extension of the clan through the males, it is the wife’s clan that is extended by marriage.[46]

The important point to note is that the conditions of the clan are still favourable to the social conduct of the women, who are attached much more closely to the home and to each other than can be the case with the men. The wife never leaves the home, because she is considered the mistress, or, at least, the heiress. In the house all the duties and the honour as the head of the household fall upon her. This position may be illustrated by the wife’s obligation to her husband and his family, which are curiously in contrast with what is usually expected from a woman. Thus a wife is not only bound to give food to her husband, to cook his provisions when he sets out on expeditions, but she has likewise to assist members of his family when they cultivate their fields, and to provide wood for an allotted period for the use of his family. In this work she is assisted by women of her clan. The women are also required in case of need to look after their parents.

There are many interesting customs in the domestic life of the Iroquois. I can notice a few only. The system of living, at the time Morgan visited the tribes, consisted of a plan at once novel and distinctive. Eachgensor clan lived in a long tenement house, large enough to accommodate theseparate families. These houses were erected on frames of poles, covered with bark, and were from fifty to a hundred feet in length. A passage way led down the centre, and rooms were portioned off on either side: the doors were at each end of the passage. An apartment was allotted to each family. There were several fireplaces, usually one for every four families, which were placed in the central passage: there were no chimneys. The Iroquois lived in these long houses,Ho-de-no-sau-nee, up toA.D.1700, and in occasional instances for a hundred years later. They were not peculiar to the Iroquois, but were used by many tribes. Unfortunately this wise plan of living has now almost entirely passed away.

I wish that I had space to give a fuller account of these families.[47]Each household practised communism in living, and made a common stock of the provisions acquired by fishing and hunting, and by the cultivation of maize and plants. The curse of individual accumulation would seem not to have existed. Ownership of land and all property was held in common. Each household was directed by the matron who supervised its domestic economy. After the daily meal was cooked at the several fires, the matron was summoned, and it was her duty to apportion the food from the kettle to the different families according to their respective needs. Whatfood remained was placed in the charge of another woman until it was required by the matron. In this connection Mr. Morgan says: “This plan of life shows that their domestic economy was not without method, and it displays the care and management of women, low down in barbarism, for husbanding their resources and for improving their conditions.”

In this statement, made by one who was intimately acquainted with the customs of this people there is surely confirmation of what I have claimed for women? The further we go in our inquiry the more we are driven to the conclusion that the favourable conditions uniting the women with one another exerted a powerful influence on their character. I think this is a view of the maternal family system that has never received its proper meed of attention.

It must be noted that the women did not eat with the men; but the fact that the apportioning of the food was in the women’s hands is sufficient proof that this separation of women and men, common among most primitive peoples, has no connection with the superiority of one sex over the other. It is interesting to find that only one prepared meal was served in each day. But the pots were always kept boiling over the fires, and any one who was hungry, either from the household or from any other part of the village, had a right to order it to be taken off and to eat as he or she pleased.

We may notice the influence of their communistic living in all the Indian customs. At all times thelaw of hospitality was strictly observed. Food was dispensed in every case to those who needed it; no excuse was ever made to avoid giving. If through misfortune one household fell into want, the needs were freely supplied from the stock laid by for future use in another household. Hunger and destitution could not exist in any part of an Indian village or encampment while plenty prevailed elsewhere. Such generosity at a time when food was often difficult to obtain, and its supply was the first concern of life, is a remarkable fact. Nor does this generosity seem, as might be thought, to have led to idleness and improvidence. He who begged, when he could work, was stigmatised with the disgraceful name of “poltroon” or “beggar”; but the miser who refused to assist his neighbour was branded as “a bad character.” Mr. Morgan, commenting on this phase of the Indian life says: “I much doubt if the civilised world would have in their institutions any system which can properly be called more humane and charitable.”

These reflections induce one to ask: What were the causes of this humane system of living among a people considered as uncivilised? Now, I do not wish to claim overmuch for women. We have seen, however, that the control and distribution of the supply of food was placed in the hands of the matrons, thus their association with the giving of food must be accepted. Is not this fact sufficient to indicate the reason that made possible this communism? To me it is plain that these remarkableinstitutions were connected with the maternal family, in which the collective interests were more considered than is possible in a patriarchal society, based upon individual inclination and proprietary interests.

A brief notice must now be given to the system of government. An Indian tribe was composed of severalgentesor clans, united in what is known as aphratryor brotherhood. The tribe was an assemblage of thegentes. Thephratryamong the Iroquois was organised partly for social and partly for religious objects. Eachgenswas ruled by chiefs of two grades, distinguished by Morgan as thesachemand common chiefs. Thesachemwas the official head of thegens, and was elected by its adult members, male and female. Thesachemsand chiefs claimed no superiority and were never more than the exponents of the popular will of the people. Unanimity among thesachemswas required on all public questions. This was the fundamental law of the brotherhood; if all efforts failed to gain agreement the matter in question was dropped. Under such a system individual rule or the power of onegensover the other became impossible. All the members of the differentgenteswere personally free; equal in privileges, and in position, and in rights. “Liberty, equality, and fraternity,” though never formulated, were the cardinal principles of thegens.[48]Mr. Morgan holds the opinion that “this serves to explain thatsense of independence and personal dignity universally attributed to the Indian character.”

Regarding the part taken by the women in the government, we have very remarkable testimony. Schoolcraft,[49]in his elaborate study of the customs of the Indian tribes, states that the women had “a conservative power in the political deliberations. The matrons had their representatives in the public councils, and they exercised a negative, or what we call a veto, power, in the important question of the declaration of war.” They had also the right to interpose in bringing about a peace. Heriot also affirms: “In the women is vested the foundation of all real authority. They give efficiency to the councils and are the arbiters of war and peace.... It is also to their disposal that the captured slaves are committed.” And again: “Although by custom the leaders are chosen from among the men, and the affairs which concern the tribe are settled by a council of ancients, it would yet seem that they only represented the women, and assisted in the discussion of subjects which principally related to that sex.”[50]

These remarkable social and domestic conditions were common to the American Indians under the maternal system. The direct influence of women, as directors through the men, is a circumstance ofmuch interest. Among the Senecas, an Iroquoian tribe with the complete maternal family, the authority was very certainly in the hands of the women. Morgan quotes an account of their family system, given by the Rev. Ashur Wright for many years a resident among the Senecas, and familiar with their language and customs.

“As to their family system, it is probable that one clan predominated (in the houses), the women taking in husbands, however, from other clans, and sometimes for 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 pack 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 warrior. The original nomination of the chief also always rested with them.”

Mr. Morgan affirms his acceptance of the Indian women’s authority, and says, after quoting thispassage: “The mother-right and gynæcocracy among the Iroquois here plainly indicated is not over-drawn. The mothers and their children, as we have seen, were of the samegens, and to them the household belonged. The position of the mother was eminently favourable to her influence in the household, and tended to strengthen the maternal bond.”[51]

It is important to note that among the Iroquois polygamy is not permitted, nor does it appear ever to be practised. Many instances are reported in the Seneca tribe of a woman having more than one husband, but an Iroquoian man is never allowed more than one wife.[52]This is the more remarkable when we consider the fact that the mothers nurse their children for a very long period, during which time they do not cohabit with their husbands. Such entire absence of polygamy is to be explained, in part, by the maternal marriage, a system which in its origin was closely connected with sexual regulation; nor would plurality of wives be possible in a society in which all the members of both sexes enjoyed equal privileges, and were in a position of absolute equality. Marriages usually take place at an early age. Under the maternal form, the husband living with the wife worked for her family, and commonly gained his footing only through his service. As suitor he was required to make presentsto the bride’s family. During the first year of marriage all the produce of his hunting expeditions belonged to the wife, and afterwards he shared his goods equally with her. The marriages were negotiated by the mothers: sometimes the father was consulted, but this was little more than a compliment, as his approbation or opposition was usually disregarded. Often it was customary for the bridegroom to seek private interviews at night with his betrothed; clearly a survival from a time when such secrecy in love was necessary. In some instances it was enough if the suitor went and sat by the girl’s side in her apartment; if she permitted this, and remained where she was, it was taken for consent, and the act would suffice for marriage. Girls were allowed the right of choice in the selection of their partners. There is abundant testimony as to the happiness of the marriage state. Divorce was, however, allowed by mutual consent, and was carried out without dispute, quarrel or contradiction.[53]If a husband and a wife could not agree, they parted amicably, or two unhappy pairs would exchange husbands and wives. An early French missionary remonstrated with a couple on such a transaction, and was told: “My wife and I could not agree; my neighbour was in the same case, so we exchanged wives and all four were content. What can be more reasonable than to render oneanother mutually happy, when it costs so little, and does nobody any harm.”[54]It would seem that these maternal peoples have solved many difficulties of domestic and social life better than we ourselves have done.

The Wyandots, another Iroquoian tribe, maintained the maternal household, though they seem to have reached a later stage of development than the Senecas. They camped in the form of a horse-shoe, every clan together in regular order. Marriage between members of the same clan was forbidden; the children belonged to the clan of the mother. The husbands retained all their rights and privileges in their owngentes, though they lived in thegentesof their wives. After marriage the pair resided, for a time, at least, with the wife’s mother, but afterwards they set up housekeeping for themselves.[55]

We may note in this change of residence the creeping in of changes which inevitably led in time to the decay of the maternal family and the reassertion of the patriarchal authority of the father. This is illustrated further by the Musquakies, also belonging to the Algonquian stock. Though still organised in clans, descent is no longer reckoned through the mother; the bridegroom, however, serves his wife’s family, and he lives in her home. This does not make himof her clan, but she belongs to his, till his death or divorce separates her from him. As for the children, the minors at the termination of the marriage belong to the mother’s clan, but those who had had the puberty feast are counted to the father’s clan.[56]

The male authority was felt chiefly in periods of war. This may be illustrated by the Wyandots, who have an elaborate system of government. In eachgensthere is a small council composed of four women, calledyu-waí-yu-wá-na; chosen by the heads of the household. These women select a chief of thegensfrom its male members, that is, from their brothers and sons. He is the head of thegentilecouncil. The council of the tribe is composed of the aggregatedgentilecouncils; and is thus made up of four-fifths of women and one-fifth of men. Thesachemof the tribes, or tribal-chief, is chosen by the chiefs of thegentes. All the civil government of thegensand of the tribe is carried on by these councils; and as the women so largely outnumbered the men, who are also—with the one exception of the tribal-chief—chosen by them, it is evident that the social government of thegensand tribe is largely controlled by them. On military affairs, however, the men have the direct authority, though, as has been stated, the women have a veto power and are “allowed to exercise a decision in favour of peace.” There is a military council of all the able-bodied men of the tribe, with a militarychief chosen by the council.[57]This seems a very wise adjustment of civic duties; the constructive social work and the maintaining of peace directed by the women; the destructive work of war in the hands of men.

Powell gives an interesting account of their communal life. Each clan owns its own lands which it cultivates; but within these lands each household has its own patch. It is the women councillors who partition the clan lands among the households. The partition takes place every two years. But while each household has its own patch of ground, the cultivation is communal; that is, all the able-bodied women of the clan take a share in cultivating every patch. Each clan has a right to the service of all its women in the cultivation of the soil. It would be difficult to find a more striking example than this of communism in labour. I claim it as proof of what I have stated in an earlier chapter of the conditions driving women into combination and social conduct.

If we turn now to the South American continent we shall find many interesting survivals of the complete maternal family, in particular among the Pueblo peoples of New Mexico and Arizona, so called from the Spanish wordpueblo, a town. The customs of the people have been carefully studied and recorded by Bancroft, Schoolcraft, Morgan,Tylor, McGee, the Spanish historian, Herrera, and other travellers. When first visited by European anthropologists the country was divided into provinces, and in many provinces the people lived in communities or little republics. The communal life was here more developed even than among the Northern Indians. The people lived together in joint tenement houses, much larger, and of more advanced architecture, than the long houses of the Iroquois. These houses are constructed of adobe, brick and stone, imbedded in mortar; one house will contain as many as 50, 100, 200, and in some cases, 500 apartments. Speaking of these houses, Bancroft states: “The houses are common property, and both women and men assist in building them; the men erect the wooden frames, and the women make the mortar and build the walls. In place of lime for mortar they mix ashes with earth and charcoal. They makeadobes, or sun-dried bricks, by mixing ashes and earth with water.”[58]Cushing, who visited and lived with the Zuñi Indians, records that among them the houses are entirely built by the women, the men supplying the material. These houses are erected in terrace form; within they are provided with windows, fireplaces and chimneys, and the entrance to the different apartments is gained by rude pole ladders. The pueblo, or village, consists of one or two, or sometimes a greater number of these houses, each containing ahundred or more families, according to the number of apartments.

Among the Creek Indians of Georgia, Morgan recounts a somewhat different mode of communal dwelling as formerly being practised. In 1790 they were living in small houses, placed in clusters of from four to eight together; and each cluster forming agensor clan, who ate and lived in common. The food was prepared in one hut, and each family sent for its portion. The smallest of these “garden cities” contained 10 to 40 groups of houses, the largest from 50 to 200.[59]These communistic dwelling-houses are so interesting and so important that I would add a few words. Here, we have among these maternal peoples a system of living which appears to be identical with the improved conditions of associated dwelling now beginning to be tried. How often we consider new things that really are very old! In the light of these examples, our co-operative dwelling-houses and garden cities can no longer be regarded as experiments. They were in use in the mother-age, when many of our new (!) ideas seem to have been common. Can this be because of the extended power held by women, who are more practical and careful of detail than men are? I believe that it is possible. This would explain, too, the revival of the same ideas to-day, when women are taking up their part again in sociallife. To those who are questioning the waste and discomfort of our solitary homes I would recommend a careful study of this primitive communism. I would point out the connection of the social ideal with the maternal family, while the home that is solitary and unsocial must be regarded as having arisen from the patriarchal customs. I have had occasion again and again to note that collective interests are more considered by women; and individual interests by men. This, at least, is how I see it; and a study of the Indian maternal families seems to give confirmation to such a conclusion.

But to return to the Pueblo peoples. The tribes are divided into exogamous totem clans. Kinship is reckoned through the women, and in several tribes we find the complete maternal family. Among such peoples the husband goes to live with the wife and becomes an inmate of her family. If the house is not large enough, additional rooms are built on to the communal home and connected with those already occupied. Hence a family with many daughters increases, while one consisting of sons dies out.

The marriage customs and relationships between the young men and the girls are instructive; they vary in the different tribes, but have some points in common. The Pueblos are monogamists, and polygamy is not allowed amongst them. Bancroft records a very curious custom. The morals of the young people are carefully guarded by a kind of secret police, whose duty it is to report all irregularities;and in the event of such taking place the young man and the girl are compelled to marry.[60]Now, whatever opinion may be held of such interference with the love-making of the young people, it affords strong proof of the error which has hitherto connected the maternal system with unregulated sexual relationships. This is a fact I am again and again compelled to point out, risking the fear of wearying the reader.

Among some tribes freedom is permitted to the women before marriage. Heriot states that the natives who allow this justify the custom, and say “that a young woman is mistress of her own person, and a free agent.”[61]The tie of marriage is, however, observed more strictly than among many civilised monogamous races. And this is so, although divorce is always easy and by mutual consent; a couple being able to separate at once if they are dissatisfied with each other. Here are facts that may well cause us to think. As for the courtship, the usual custom is reversed; when a girl is disposed to marry she does not wait for a young man to propose to her, but selects one to her liking, and then consults her family as to his suitability as a husband. The suitor has to serve the bride’s family before he can be accepted, and in some cases the conditions are binding and exceedingly curious.

How simple and really beautiful are the conditions of life among these people may be seen from theidyllic record of the Zuñi Indians given by Mr. Cushing.[62]He describes how the Zuñi girl, when taking a fancy to a young man, conveys a present of thinhewe-bread to him as a token, and becomes his affianced, or as they say “his-to-be.” He then sews clothes and moccasins for her, makes her a necklace of gay beads, and combs her hair out on the terrace in the sun. After his term of service is over, and all is settled, he takes up his residence with her; then the married life begins. “With the woman rests the security of the marriage tie, and, it must be said, in her high honour, that she rarely abuses the privilege; that is, never sends her husband ‘to the home of his fathers’ unless he richly deserves it.” Divorce is by mutual consent, and a husband and wife would “rather separate than live together unharmoniously.” This testimony is confirmed by Mrs. Stevenson, who visited the Zuñis, and writes with enthusiasm of the people. “Their domestic life might well serve as an example for the civilised world. They do not have large families. The husband and wife are deeply attached to one another and to their children.” “The keynote of this harmony is the supremacy of the wife in the home. The house with all that is in it is hers, descending to her through her mother from a long line of ancestresses; and the husband is merely herpermanent guest. The children—at least the female children—have their share in the common home; the father has none.” “Outside the house the husband has some property in the fields, although in earlier times he had no possessory rights and the land was held in common. Modern influences have reached the Zuñi, and mother-right seems to have begun its inevitable decay.”[63]

The Hopis, another Pueblo tribe, are more conservative, and with them the women own all the property except the horses and donkeys, which belong to the men. Among the Pueblos the women commonly have control over the granary, and they are very provident about the future. Ordinarily they try to have one year’s provisions on hand. It is only when two years of scarcity succeed each other that the community suffers hunger. Like the Zuñis, the Hopis are monogamists. Sexual freedom is, however, permitted to a girl before marriage. This in no way detracts from her good repute; even if she has given birth to a child “she will be sure to marry later on, unless she happens to be shockingly ugly.” Nor does the child suffer, for among these maternal peoples, the bastard takes an equal place with the child born in wedlock. The bride lives for the first few weeks with her husband’s family, during which time the marriage takes place, the ceremony being performed by the bridegroom’s mother, whose family also provides the bride withher wedding outfit. The couple then return to the home of the wife’s parents, where they remain, either permanently, or for some years, until they can obtain a separate dwelling. The husband is always a stranger, and is so treated by his wife’s kin. The dwelling of his mother remains his true home, in sickness he returns to her to be nursed, and stays with her until he is well again. Often his position in his wife’s home is so irksome that he severs his connection with her and her family, and returns to his old home. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for the wife, should her husband be absent, to place his goods outside the door: an intimation which he well understands, and does not intrude upon her again.[64]

Again, among the Pueblo peoples, we may consider the Sai. Like the other tribes they are divided into exogamous totem clans; descent is traced only through the mother. The tribe through various reasons has been greatly reduced in numbers, and whole clans have died out, and under these circumstances exogamy has ceased to be strictly enforced. This has led to other changes. The Sai are still normally monogamous. When a young man wishes to marry a girl he speaks first to her parents; if they are willing he addresses himself to her. On the day of the marriage he goes alone to her home, carrying his presents wrapped in ablanket, his mother and father having preceded him thither. When the young people are seated together the parents address them in turn, enjoining unity and forbearance. This constitutes the ceremony. Tribal custom requires the bridegroom to reside with the wife’s family.[65]

All the Pueblo peoples are more advanced than the greater number of the neighbouring tribes; their matrimonial customs are more refined, their domestic life much happier, and they have an appreciation of love, a rare thing in primitive peoples.[66]Among other tribes purchase of a wife is common, always a sure sign of the enslavement of women. Thus in Columbia what is most prized in a woman is her aptitude for labour, and the price paid for her (usually in horses) depends on her capacity as a beast of burden. Sometimes, as in California, a suitor obtains a wife on credit, but then the man is called “half married;” and until her price is paid he has to labour as a slave for her parents. Here, as elsewhere, morality is simply a custom of habit; Bancroft says that purchase of a wife has become accepted as honourable, so that among the Californian Redskins “the children of a wife who has cost nothing to her husband are looked down upon.”[67]Such customs are in sharp contrast to the liberty granted to the woman among the Pueblos. As anexample of women’s power carried to the limit of tyranny, we may note the Nicaraguans, of whom Bancroft states that “the husbands are said to have been so much under the control of their wives that they were obliged to do the housework, while the women attended to the trading.” Under these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising to find the women described as “great shrews, who would on the slightest provocation drive their offending husbands out of the house.”[68]This is a curious case of the despotic rule of women. Westermarck accounts for their position by the strict monogamy that is enforced, but I do not think this can be the true explanation.[69]

Among the Guanas the women make their own stipulations with their lovers before marriage, arranging what they are to do in the household. They are also said to decide the conditions of the marriage, whether it is to be monogamous, or if polygamy or polyandry is to be allowed.[70]The Zapotecs and other tribes inhabiting the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, are remarkable for “the gentleness, affection, and frugality that characterises the marital relations. Polygamy is not permitted, which is very remarkable as the women greatly outnumber the men.”[71]

Lastly, I wish to bring forward a very strikingexample of the complete maternal family among the Seri Indians, on the south-west coast of North America, now reduced to a single tribe. Their curious and interesting marriage customs have been described by McGee, who visited the people to report on their customs for the American Government. The Seri are probably the most primitive tribe in the American continent. At the time of Mr. McGee’s visit they preserved the maternal system in its early form, and are therefore an instructive example by which to estimate the position of the women.[72]

“The tribe is divided into exogamous totem clans. Marriage is arranged exclusively by the women. The elder woman of the suitor’s family carries the proposal to the girl’s clan mother. If this is entertained, the question of marriage is discussed at length by the matrons of the two clans. The girl herself is consulted; ajacalis erected for her, and after many deliberations, the bridegroom is provisionally received into the wife’s clan for a year under conditions of the most exacting character. He is expected to prove his worthiness of a permanent relationship by demonstrating his ability as a provider, and by showing himself an implacable foe to aliens. He is compelled to support all the female relatives of his bride’s family by the products of his skill and industry in hunting and fishing for one year. There is also another provision of a very curious nature. The lover is permitted to share thejacal, or sleeping-robe, provided for the prospectivematron by her kinswomen, not as a privileged spouse, but merely as a protective companion; and throughout this probationary time he is compelled to maintain continence—he must display the most indubitable proof of his moral force.”

This test of the Seri lover must not mistakenly be thought to be connected, as might appear, with the modern idea of continence. As is pointed out by McGee, it arose out of the primitive sexual taboos, and is imposed on the young man as a test of his strength to abstain from any sexual relationships outside the proscribed limits. Such a moral test may once have been common, but seems to have been lost except among the Seri; though a curious vestige appears in the anti-nuptial treatment of the bridegroom, in the Salish tribe. The material test is common among many peoples, and must not be confused with the later custom of payment for the wife by presents given to her family. Still this Seri marriage is one of the most curious I know among any primitive peoples. And the continence demanded from the bridegroom appears more extraordinary if we compare it with the freedom granted to the bride. “During this period the always dignified position occupied by the daughters of the house culminates.” Among other privileges she is allowed to receive the “most intimate attentions from the clan-fellows of the group.” “She is the receiver of the supplies furnished by her lover, measuring his competence as would-be husband. Through his energy she is enabled to dispenselargess with a lavish hand, and thus to dignify her clan and honour her spouse in the most effective way known to primitive life; and at the same time she enjoys the immeasurable moral stimulus of realising she is the arbiter of the fate of a man who becomes a warrior or an outcast at her bidding, and through him of the future of two clans—she is raised to a responsibility in both personal and tribal affairs which, albeit temporary, is hardly lower than that of the warrior chief.” At the close of the year, if all goes well, the probation ends in a feast provided by the lover, who now becomes the husband, and finally enters his wife’sjacalas “consort-guest.” His position is wholly subordinate, and without any authority whatever, either over his children or over the property. In his mother’s hut he has rights, which seem to continue after his marriage, but in his wife’s hut he has none.

I have now collected together, with as much exactitude as I could, what is known of the maternal family in the American continents. There are many tribes in which descent is reckoned through the father, and it would be bold to assert that these have all passed through the maternal stage. An examination of their customs shows, in some cases, survivals, which point to such conclusion; among other tribes it seems probable that the maternal clan has not developed. As illustrations of mother-power, I claim the examples given speak for themselves. It may, of course, be urged that these complete maternal families are exceptions, andthus to dismiss them as unimportant. But this is surely an unscientific way of settling the question. One has to accept these cases, or to prove that they are untrue. Moreover, I have by no means exhausted the evidence; and to these complete maternal families might be added examples from other tribes which would furnish similar proofs, but there is such consistency of custom among them all that further accounts may be dispensed with.

There is one other matter for which I would claim attention before closing this chapter on the American Indians, and that is the remarkable similarity to be noticed in many tribes between the faces of the men and the women. To me this is a point of deep interest, though I do not claim to understand it. My attention was first drawn to notice this likeness between the two sexes when I came to know some Iroquois natives who live in England. I was at once struck with the appearance of the men: though strong and powerfully built, they were strikingly like women. Since then I have examined many portraits of the North Indian tribes; I have found that the great majority of men approach much more nearly to the feminine than the male type. I might, however, hesitate to bring the matter forward, were it founded only on my own observation. But in my reading I have found an important reference to the question in a recent work, “The Indians of North America in Recent Times,” by Mr. Cyrus Thomas, Ph.D., Archæologist, in theBureau of American Ethnology. He writes as follows (p. 41)—

“Another curious fact, which has not hitherto received special notice, though apparently of considerable interest, is the prevailing feminine physiognomy of the males, at least of those of the northern section. If any one will take the trouble to study carefully a hundred or more good photographs of males of pure blood he will find that two thirds, if not a greater proportion, show feminine faces. The full significance of this fact is not apparent, but it seems to bear to some extent upon the question of the evolution of the race.”

What this fact suggests is a problem to which it is very difficult even to guess at an answer. Does this lack of differentiation in the physiognomy of the Indians point to something much deeper? Are the men really like the women? Such a conception opens up considerations of very great significance. So far as I understand the matter, it appears that, as well as the deep inherent differences between the two sexes, there are other differences due to divergence in function. It seems probable that changes in environment or in function (as when one sex, for some reason or other, performs the duties usually undertaken by the other sex), may alter or modify the differences which tend to thrust the sexes apart. I feel very sure that there can be changes in the secondary sexual characters of the male and female. This is sufficiently proved by many examples. Can we, then, accept the theory that an environment,which favours women’s forceful function, may modify the infinitely complicated characters of sex, which, as yet, we so imperfectly understand? I do not know with any certainty. Yet I can see no other interpretation; and, if I mistake not, it may be possible in this way to cast a light on one of the most difficult problems with which we are faced to-day.

FOOTNOTES:[40]The Mystic Rose, pp. 460-461.[41]This is the number given by Prof. Tylor. “The Matriarchal Family System,”Nineteenth Century, July 1896.[42]History of Human Marriage, pp. 97-104.[43]“The Position of Woman in Early Civilisations,”Sociological Papers, 1904.[44]Morgan,Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines, p. 64.[45]Tylor, “The Matriarchal Family System,”Nineteenth Century, July 1896.[46]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory, p. 208. Heriot,Travels through the Canadas, p. 323.[47]The reader is referred to Morgan’s interestingHouses and House-Life of the Aborigines. It is from this work that many of the facts I give have been taken.[48]Morgan,Ancient Society, p. 62. AlsoHouses and House-Life of the American Aborigines.[49]Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, 6 vols., Vol. III, p. 195. See alsoNotes on the IroquoisandThe Indian in his Wigwam.[50]Heriot,op. cit., pp. 321-322.[51]Houses and House-Life of American Aborigines, pp. 65-66.[52]Morgan,League of the Iroquois, p. 324. Heriot,op. cit., pp. 323, 329. Schoolcraft,op. cit., Vol. III, p. 191.[53]Heriot, pp. 231-237. See also Report of an Official of Indian Affairs on two of the Iroquoian tribes, cited by Hartland.Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, p. 298.[54]Charleroix, Vol. V, p. 48, quoted by Hartland,op. cit., Vol. II, p. 66.[55]Powell,Rep. Bur. Ethn., I, 63.[56]Owen:Musquakie Indians, p. 72.[57]I have summarised the account of the Wyandot government as given by Hartland, who quotes from Powell’s “Wyandot Government,”First Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1879-1880, pp. 61 ff.[58]The Native Races of the Pacific States of South America, 5 vols., Vol. I, p. 555. See also Morgan.[59]Schoolcraft,Indian Tribes, p. 262, gives an account of these houses. A similar plan of living is reported of the Maya Indians.[60]Bancroft,op. cit., pp. 546, 547.[61]Heriot,op. cit., p. 340.[62]Cushing, “My Visit to the Zuñi Indians,”Century Magazine, 1883. Prof. Tylor gives these passages in his account of the Zuñi Indians, “The Patriarchal Family System,”Nineteenth Century, 1896. I have quoted from him.[63]Mrs. Stevenson, in theReport Bureau Ethnological, XXIII, pp. 290-293.[64]Voth,Traditions of the Hopi, pp. 67, 96, 133.Rep. Bur. Ethn., XIII, 340. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. II, pp. 74-76.[65]Rep. Bur. Ethn.IX, p. 19. Hartland,Ibid., pp. 76-77.[66]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. I, p. 549.[67]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. I, p. 277. Power’sTribes of California, pp. 22, 56.[68]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. II, p. 685.[69]History of Human Marriage, p. 500.[70]Azara,Voyages dans l’Amérique Méridionale, Vol. II, p. 93.[71]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 661-662.[72]“The Beginning of Marriage,”American Anthropologist, Vol. IX, p. 376. AlsoRep. Bur. Ethn., XVII, 275.

[40]The Mystic Rose, pp. 460-461.

[41]This is the number given by Prof. Tylor. “The Matriarchal Family System,”Nineteenth Century, July 1896.

[42]History of Human Marriage, pp. 97-104.

[43]“The Position of Woman in Early Civilisations,”Sociological Papers, 1904.

[44]Morgan,Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines, p. 64.

[45]Tylor, “The Matriarchal Family System,”Nineteenth Century, July 1896.

[46]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory, p. 208. Heriot,Travels through the Canadas, p. 323.

[47]The reader is referred to Morgan’s interestingHouses and House-Life of the Aborigines. It is from this work that many of the facts I give have been taken.

[48]Morgan,Ancient Society, p. 62. AlsoHouses and House-Life of the American Aborigines.

[49]Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, 6 vols., Vol. III, p. 195. See alsoNotes on the IroquoisandThe Indian in his Wigwam.

[50]Heriot,op. cit., pp. 321-322.

[51]Houses and House-Life of American Aborigines, pp. 65-66.

[52]Morgan,League of the Iroquois, p. 324. Heriot,op. cit., pp. 323, 329. Schoolcraft,op. cit., Vol. III, p. 191.

[53]Heriot, pp. 231-237. See also Report of an Official of Indian Affairs on two of the Iroquoian tribes, cited by Hartland.Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, p. 298.

[54]Charleroix, Vol. V, p. 48, quoted by Hartland,op. cit., Vol. II, p. 66.

[55]Powell,Rep. Bur. Ethn., I, 63.

[56]Owen:Musquakie Indians, p. 72.

[57]I have summarised the account of the Wyandot government as given by Hartland, who quotes from Powell’s “Wyandot Government,”First Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1879-1880, pp. 61 ff.

[58]The Native Races of the Pacific States of South America, 5 vols., Vol. I, p. 555. See also Morgan.

[59]Schoolcraft,Indian Tribes, p. 262, gives an account of these houses. A similar plan of living is reported of the Maya Indians.

[60]Bancroft,op. cit., pp. 546, 547.

[61]Heriot,op. cit., p. 340.

[62]Cushing, “My Visit to the Zuñi Indians,”Century Magazine, 1883. Prof. Tylor gives these passages in his account of the Zuñi Indians, “The Patriarchal Family System,”Nineteenth Century, 1896. I have quoted from him.

[63]Mrs. Stevenson, in theReport Bureau Ethnological, XXIII, pp. 290-293.

[64]Voth,Traditions of the Hopi, pp. 67, 96, 133.Rep. Bur. Ethn., XIII, 340. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. II, pp. 74-76.

[65]Rep. Bur. Ethn.IX, p. 19. Hartland,Ibid., pp. 76-77.

[66]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. I, p. 549.

[67]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. I, p. 277. Power’sTribes of California, pp. 22, 56.

[68]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. II, p. 685.

[69]History of Human Marriage, p. 500.

[70]Azara,Voyages dans l’Amérique Méridionale, Vol. II, p. 93.

[71]Bancroft,op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 661-662.

[72]“The Beginning of Marriage,”American Anthropologist, Vol. IX, p. 376. AlsoRep. Bur. Ethn., XVII, 275.

Thereare, perhaps, no people among whom the family in the full maternal form can be studied with more advantage than the Khasi Hill tribes, in the north-east of India. This race has a special interest as a people who, in modern times, have preserved their independence and their ancestral customs through many centuries. We find mother-descent strictly practised, combined with great and even extraordinary rights on the part of the women. The isolation of the Khasis may account for this conservatism, but, as will appear later, there are other causes to explain the freedom and power of the Khasi women. We are fortunate in having a fuller knowledge of the Khasi tribes, than is common of many primitive peoples. Their institutions and interesting domestic customs have been carefully noted by ethnologists and travellers, and in all accounts there is united testimony to the high status of the women. I will quote a statement of Sir Charles Lyell,[73]which affirms this fact very strongly—

Back to Index Next