FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[105]SeeWestermarck,op. cit., pp. 54-56.[106]Starcke’sPrimitive Family, pp. 85-88. Letourneau,Evolution of Marriage, pp. 80-81, 311-312. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, pp. 269, 288.[107]Alice Werner, “Our Subject Races”,National Reformer, Aug. 1897, p. 169.[108]Travels, p. 109.[109]Lippert,Kulturgeschichte, etc., Vol. II, p. 57. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, pp. 274, 286.[110]Letourneau, pp. 306-307; citing Laing,Travels in Western Africa.[111]Giraud-Teulon,Les origines du mariage et de la famille, pp. 215et seq.[112]Hodgson,Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1855, Vol. XVIII, p. 707, cited by Starcke,op. cit., pp. 79, 285.[113]Hartland,op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 155-157.[114]This custom prevails, for instance, among the Kharwârs and Parahiya tribes, and is common among the Ghasiyas, and is also practised among the Tipperah of Bengal.[115]Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia.See also Barton,Semitic Origins.[116]Academy, March 27, 1886.[117]Spencer,Descriptive Sociology, Vol. V, p. 8, citing Petherick,Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa, pp. 140-141.[118]Thomas,Sex and Society, pp. 73-74, quoting Waitz-Gerland.[119]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory, p. 235.[120]Marsden,History of Sumatra, pp. 225-227.[121]Forbes,Eleven Years in Ceylon, Vol. I, p. 333.[122]Macdonald,Africana, Vol I, p. 136.[123]Livingstone,Travels, p. 622.[124]Riedel, p. 205; cited by McLennan,Patriarchal Theory, p. 326.[125]Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. IX, p. 603.[126]Bancroft, Vol. I, p. 549.[127]Journal African Society, VIII, 15et seq.[128]Torday and Joyce,J. A. I., XXXV, 410.[129]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory, pp. 324-325, 240.[130]Dennett,Jour. Afr. Soc., I, 266.[131]Jour. Afr. Soc., I, 412.[132]Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, pp. 275et seq.[133]Old New Zealand, p. 110.[134]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory.[135]Survey of Canada, Report for 1878-79, 134B. Cited by Frazer,Totemism, p. 76.[136]Turner,Samoa, p. 78.[137]Das Mutterrecht, p. 20, quoted by Starcke,op. cit., pp. 126-127.[138]Wilken,Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern, p. 26.[139]Wilken,op. cit., p. 26.[140]Wade,Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, p. 196.[141]SeeTruth about Woman, pp. 160-161, for account of Madagascar.[142]Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. IX, p. 603.[143]This passage is quoted fromThe Truth about Woman, p. 171. I give it here, because its importance seems to me to be very great.

[105]SeeWestermarck,op. cit., pp. 54-56.

[106]Starcke’sPrimitive Family, pp. 85-88. Letourneau,Evolution of Marriage, pp. 80-81, 311-312. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, pp. 269, 288.

[107]Alice Werner, “Our Subject Races”,National Reformer, Aug. 1897, p. 169.

[108]Travels, p. 109.

[109]Lippert,Kulturgeschichte, etc., Vol. II, p. 57. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, pp. 274, 286.

[110]Letourneau, pp. 306-307; citing Laing,Travels in Western Africa.

[111]Giraud-Teulon,Les origines du mariage et de la famille, pp. 215et seq.

[112]Hodgson,Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1855, Vol. XVIII, p. 707, cited by Starcke,op. cit., pp. 79, 285.

[113]Hartland,op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 155-157.

[114]This custom prevails, for instance, among the Kharwârs and Parahiya tribes, and is common among the Ghasiyas, and is also practised among the Tipperah of Bengal.

[115]Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia.See also Barton,Semitic Origins.

[116]Academy, March 27, 1886.

[117]Spencer,Descriptive Sociology, Vol. V, p. 8, citing Petherick,Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa, pp. 140-141.

[118]Thomas,Sex and Society, pp. 73-74, quoting Waitz-Gerland.

[119]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory, p. 235.

[120]Marsden,History of Sumatra, pp. 225-227.

[121]Forbes,Eleven Years in Ceylon, Vol. I, p. 333.

[122]Macdonald,Africana, Vol I, p. 136.

[123]Livingstone,Travels, p. 622.

[124]Riedel, p. 205; cited by McLennan,Patriarchal Theory, p. 326.

[125]Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. IX, p. 603.

[126]Bancroft, Vol. I, p. 549.

[127]Journal African Society, VIII, 15et seq.

[128]Torday and Joyce,J. A. I., XXXV, 410.

[129]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory, pp. 324-325, 240.

[130]Dennett,Jour. Afr. Soc., I, 266.

[131]Jour. Afr. Soc., I, 412.

[132]Hartland,Primitive Paternity, Vol. I, pp. 275et seq.

[133]Old New Zealand, p. 110.

[134]McLennan,The Patriarchal Theory.

[135]Survey of Canada, Report for 1878-79, 134B. Cited by Frazer,Totemism, p. 76.

[136]Turner,Samoa, p. 78.

[137]Das Mutterrecht, p. 20, quoted by Starcke,op. cit., pp. 126-127.

[138]Wilken,Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern, p. 26.

[139]Wilken,op. cit., p. 26.

[140]Wade,Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, p. 196.

[141]SeeTruth about Woman, pp. 160-161, for account of Madagascar.

[142]Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. IX, p. 603.

[143]This passage is quoted fromThe Truth about Woman, p. 171. I give it here, because its importance seems to me to be very great.

I havereferred in an earlier chapter to a letter from Mr. H. G. Wells, sent to me after the publication of my book,The Truth about Woman. Now, there is one sentence in this letter that I wish to quote here, because it brings home just what it is my purpose in this chapter to show—that the mother-age was a civilisation owing its institutions, and its early victories over nature, rather to the genius of woman than to that of man. Mr. Wells does not, indeed, say this. He rejects the mother-age, and in questioning my acceptance of it as a stage in the past histories of societies, he writes: “The primitive matriarchate never was anything more than mother at the washing-tub and father looking miserable.”

It seems to me that here, in his own inimitable way, Mr. Wells (though I think quite unconsciously) sums up the past labour-history of woman and man. His statement has very far-reaching considerations. It forces us to accept the active utility of primitive woman in the community—a utility more developed and practical than that of man. This was really the basis of women’s position of power.The constructive quality of the female mind, at a time when the male attention and energy were fixed chiefly on the destructive activities of warfare, was liberated for use and invention. Women were the seekers, slowly increasing their efficiency.

Very much the same account of the primitive sexual division in work was given by an Australian Kurnai to Messrs. Fison and Howitt, in a sentence that has been quoted very frequently: “A man hunts, spears fish, fights and sits about, all the rest is woman’s work.” This may be accepted as a fair statement of how work is divided between the two sexes among primitive peoples. Now, what I wish to make plain is that it was an arrangement in which the advantage was really on the side of the woman rather than on that of the man. I would refer the reader back to what has been said on this subject in Chapter III, where I summed up the conditions acting on the women in the hypothetical first stage of the primordial family. We saw that the males were chiefly concerned with the absorbing duties of sex and fighting rivals, and also hunting for game. The women’s interest, on the other hand, was bent on domestic activities—in caring for their children and developing the food supplies immediately around them. From the hearth-home, or shelter, as the start of settled life, and with their intelligence sharpened by the keen chisel of necessity, women carried on their work as the organisers and directors of industrial occupations. Very slowly did they make each far-reachingdiscovery; seeds cast into the ground sprouted and gave the first start of agriculture. The plant world gave women the best returns for the efforts they made, and they began to store up food. Contrivance followed contrivance, each one making it possible for women to do more. Certain animals, possibly brought back by the hunters from the forests, were kept and tamed. Presently the use of fire was discovered—we know not how—but women became the guardians of this source of life. And now, instead of caves or tree-shelters, there were huts and tents and houses, and of these, too, women were frequently the builders. The home from the first was of greater importance to the women; it was the place where the errant males rejoined their wives and children, and hence the women became the owners of the homes and the heads of households. For as yet the men were occupied in fighting. The clumsy and the stupid among them were killed soonest; the fine hand, the quick eye—these prevailed age by age. Tools and weapons were doubtless fashioned by these fighters, but for destruction; the male’s attention was directed mainly by his own desires. And may we not accept that among the most pressing activities of women was the need to tame man and make him social, so that he could endure the rights of others than himself?

So through the long generations the life of human societies continued. Those activities, due to female influence, developing and opening up new ways inall directions, until we have that early civilisation, which I have called the mother-age.

All the world over, even to this day, this separation in the labour activities of the two sexes can be traced. Destructive work, demanding a special development of strength, with corresponding periods of rest, falls to men; and contrasted with this violent and intermittent male force we find, with the same uniformity, that the work of women is domestic and constructive, being connected with the care of children and all the various industries which radiate from the home—work demanding a different kind of strength, more enduring, more continuous, but at a lower tension.

Bonwick’s account of the work of Tasmanian women may be taken as typical—

“In addition to the necessary duty of looking after the children, the women had to provide all the food for the household excepting that derived from the chase of the kangaroo. They climbed up hills for the opossum” (a very difficult task, requiring great strength and also skill), “delved in the ground for yams, native bread, and nutritious roots, groped about the rocks for shellfish, dived beneath the sea for oysters, and fished for the finny tribe. In addition to this, they carried, on their frequent tramps, the household stuffs in native baskets of their own manufacture.”[144]

Among the Indians of Guiana the men’s work is to hunt, and to cut down the trees when the cassava is to be planted. When the men have felled thetrees and cleaned the ground, the women plant the cassava and undertake all the subsequent operations; agriculture is entirely in their hands. They are little, if at all, weaker than the men, and they work all day while the men are often in their hammocks smoking; but there is no cruelty or oppression exercised by the men towards the women.[145]

In Africa we meet with much the same conditions of labour. “The work is done chiefly by the women, this is universal; they hoe the fields, sow the seed, and reap the harvest. To them, too, falls all the labour of house-building, grinding corn, brewing beer, cooking, washing, and caring for almost all the material interests of the community. The men tend the cattle, hunt, go to war; they also spend much time sitting in council over the conduct of affairs.”[146]

I may note the interesting account of Prof. Haddon[147]of the work of the Western Tribes of the Torres Straits—

“The men fished, fought, built houses, did a little gardening, made fish-lines, fish-hooks, spears, and other implements, constructed dance-masks and head-dresses, and all the paraphernalia for the various ceremonies and dances. They performed all the rites and dances, and in addition did a good deal of strutting up and down, loafing and ‘yarning.’ The women cooked and prepared the food, did mostof the gardening, collected shell-fish, and speared fish on the reefs, made petticoats, baskets and mats.”

Similar examples might be almost indefinitely multiplied. Among the Andamanese, while the men go into the jungle to hunt pigs, the women fetch drinking water and firewood, catch shell-fish, make fishing nets and baskets, spin thread, and cook the food ready for the return of the men.[148]The Moki women of America have fifty ways of preparing corn for food. They make all the preparations necessary for these varied dishes, involving the arts of the stonecutter, the carrier, the mason, the miller and the cook.[149]In New Caledonia “girls work in the plantations, boys learn to fight.”[150]

We should, however, fall into a popular error concerning the division of labour in savagery, if we consider that all women’s work is regarded as degrading to men and all men’s work is tabooed to women. The duties of war and the chase are the chief occupation of men, yet in all parts of the world women have fought at need, and sometimes habitually, both to assist their men and also against them. Thus Buckley, who lived for many years among the Australian tribes, relates that when the tribe he lived with was attacked by a hostile party, the men “raised a war-cry; on hearing this the women threw off their rugs and, each armed witha short club, flew to the assistance of their husbands and brothers.”[151]In Central Australia the men occasionally beat the women through jealousy, but on such occasions it is by no means rare for the women, single handed, to beat the men severely.[152]Again, men carry on, as a rule, the negotiations on tribal concerns, but in such matters exceptions are very numerous. Among the Australian Dieyerie, Curr states that the women act as ambassadors to arrange treaties, and invariably succeed in their mission.[153]The same conditions are found among the American Indians. Men are the hunters and fishers, but women also hunt and fish. Among the Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego fishing is left entirely to the women,[154]and this is not at all unusual. Mrs. Allison states of the Similkameen Indians of British Columbia that formerly “the women were nearly as good hunters as the men,” but being sensitive to the ridicule of the white settlers, they have given up hunting.[155]In hunting trips, the help of women is often not to be despised. Warburton Pike writes thus: “I saw what an advantage it is to take women on a hunting trip. If we killed anything, we had only to cut up andcachethe meat, and the women would carry it. On returning to camp we could throw ourselves down on a pileof caribou skins and smoke our pipes in comfort, but the women’s work was never finished.”[156]This account is very suggestive. The man undergoes the fatigue of hunting, and when he has thrown the game at the woman’s feet his part is done; it is her duty to carry it and to cook it, as well as to make the vessels in which the food is placed. The skins and the refuse are hers to utilise, and all the industries connected with clothing are chiefly in her hands.[157]Hearne, in his delightful old narrative, speaks of the assistance of women on hunting expeditions—

“For when all the men are heavy laden they can neither hunt nor travel to any considerable distance; and in case they meet with any success in hunting, who is to carry the produce of their labour?”

He adds with a charming frankness—

“Women were made for labour; one of them can carry or haul as much as two men can do. They also pitch our tents, make and mend our clothing, keep us warm at night, and, in fact, there is no such thing as travelling any considerable distance, or any length of time, in this country without their assistance.”[158]

Numerous other examples might be added which illustrate how women take part in the destructive work of men; conversely we find not a few cases ofthe co-operation of men in the women’s activities. The world over, women are usually the weavers and spinners; but with the Navajo and in some of the Pueblos the men are among the best weavers.[159]Among the Indians of Guiana the men are specially skilful in basket-weaving, and here also they as well as the women spin and weave.[160]More curious is the custom in East Africa where all the sewing for their own and the women’s garments is done by the men, and very well done. Sewing is here so entirely recognised as men’s work that a wife may obtain a divorce if she “can show a neglected rend in her petticoat.”[161]

It is a common mistake, arising from insufficient knowledge, to suppose that savage women are specially subject to oppression. Their life is hard as we look at it, but not as they look at it. We have still much to learn on these matters. An even greater error is the view that these women are a source of weakness to the male members of their families. The very reverse is the truth. Primitive women are strong in body and capable in work. Fison and Howitt, in discussing this question, state of the Australian women, “In times of peace, they are the hardest workers and the most useful members of the community.” And in times of war, “they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves at all times, and so far from being an encumbranceon the warriors, they will fight, if need be, as bravely as the men, and with even greater ferocity.”[162]This is no exceptional case. The strength of savage women is proved by reports from widely different races, of which all testify to their physical capability and aptness for labour. Schellong,[163]who has carefully studied the Papuans of the German protectorate of New Guinea, from the anthropological point of view, “considers that the women are more strongly built than the men.” Nor does heavy work appear to damage the health or beauty of the women, but the contrary. Thus among the Andombies on the Congo, to give one instance, the women, though working very hard as carriers, and as labourers in general, lead an entirely happy existence; they are often stronger than the men and more finely developed: some of them, we are told, have really splendid figures. And Parke, speaking of the Manyuema of the Arruwimi in the same region, says that “they are fine animals, and the women very handsome; they carry loads as heavy as those of the men and do it quite as well.”[164]Again, McGee[165]comments on the extraordinary capacity of quite aged women for heavy labour. He tells of “a withered crone, weighing apparently not more than 80 to 90 lb. who carried akiliocontaining a stone mortar 196 lb. in weight for more than half a mile on a sandy road without any perceptible exhaustion. The proportion of the active aged is much larger than among civilised people.”

I may pause to note some of the numerous industries of which women were the originators. First of all, woman is the food-giver; all the labours relating to the preparation of food, and to the utilisation of the side products of foodstuffs are usually found in the hands of women. Women are everywhere the primitive agriculturists. They beat out the seeds from plants; dig for roots and tubers, strain the poisonous juices from the cassava and make bread from the residue; and it was under their attention that a southern grass was first developed into what we know as Indian corn.[166]The removal of poisonous matter from tapioca by means of hot water is also the discovery of savage women.[167]All the evolution of primitive agriculture may be traced to women’s industry. Power tells of the Yokia women in Central California who employ neither plough nor hoe, but cultivate the ground by digging the earth deep and rubbing it fine with their hands, and by this means they get an excellent yield.[168]Women have everywhere been the first potters; vessels were needed for use in cooking, to carry and to hold water, and to storethe supplies of food. For the same reason baskets were woven. Women invented and exercised in common multifarious household occupations and industries. Curing food, tanning the hides of animals, spinning, weaving, dyeing—all are carried on by women. The domestication of animals is usually in women’s hands. They are also the primitive architects; the hut, in widely different parts of the world—among Kaffirs, Fuegians, Polynesians, Kamtschatdals—is built by women. We have seen that the communal houses of the American Indians are mainly erected by the women. Women were frequently, though not always, the primitive doctors. Among the Kurds, for instance, all the medical knowledge is in the hands of the women, who are the hereditaryhakims.[169]Women seem to have prepared the first intoxicating liquors. The Quissama women in Angola climb the gigantic palm trees to obtain palm-beer.[170]In the ancient legends of the North, women are clearly represented as the discoverers of ale.[171]

It would be easy to go on almost indefinitely multiplying examples of the industries of primitive women. There can be no doubt at all that their work is exacting and incessant; it is also inventive in its variety and its ready application to the practical needs of life. If a catalogue of the primitive forms of labour were made, each woman wouldbe found doing at least half-a-dozen things while a man did one. We may accept the statement of Prof. Mason that in the early history of mankind “women were the industrial, elaborative, conservative half of society. All the peaceful arts of to-day were once women’s peculiar province. Along the lines of industrialism she was pioneer, inventor, author, originator.”[172]

There is another matter that must be noted. The primitive division of labour between the sexes was not in any sense an arrangement dictated by men, nor did they impose the women’s tasks upon them. The view that the women are forced to work by the laziness of the men, and that their heavy and incessant labour is a proof of their degraded position is entirely out of focus. Quite the reverse is the truth. Evidence is not wanting of the great advantage arising to women from their close connection with labour. It was largely their control over the food supply and their position as actual producers which gave them so much influence, and even authority in the mother-age. In this connection I may quote the statement of Miss Werner about the African women as representing the true conditions—

“I cannot say that, so far as my own observations went, the women’s lot seemed to be a specially hard one. In fact, they are too important an element in the community not to be treated with consideration. The fact that they do most of the heavy field-work does not imply that they are a down-troddensex. On the contrary, it gives them a considerable pull, as a man will think twice before endangering his food supply.”[173]

Mr. Horatio Hale, a well-known American anthropologist likewise observes—

“The common opinion that women among savage tribes in general are treated with harshness, and regarded as slaves, or at least as inferiors, is, like many common opinions, based on error, originating in too large and indiscriminate deduction from narrow premises.... The wife of a Samoan landowner or Navajo shepherd has no occasion, so far as her position in her family or among her people, to envy the wife of a German peasant.”[174]

Certainly savage women do not count their work as any degradation. There is really an equal division of labour between the sexes, though the work of the men is accomplished more fitfully than that of the women. The militant activities of fighting and hunting are essential in primitive life. The women know this, and they do their share—the industrial share, willingly, without question, and without compulsion. It is entirely absurd in this work-connection to regard men as the oppressors of women. Rather the advantage is on the women’s side. For one thing, just because they are accustomed to hard labour all their lives, they are little, if any, weaker than men. Primitivewomen are strong in body, and capable in work. The powers they enjoy as well as their manifold activities are the result of their position as mothers, this function being to them a source of strength and not a plea of weakness.

“They who are accustomed to the ways of civilised women only,” remarks Mr. Fison, “can hardly believe what savage women are capable of, even when they may well be supposed to be at their weakest. For instance, an Australian tribe on the march scarcely take the trouble to halt for so slight a performance as childbirth. The newly born infant is wrapped in skins, the march is resumed, and the mother trudges on with the rest. Moreover, as is well known, among many tribes elsewhere it is the father who is put to bed, while the mother goes about her work as if nothing had happened.”[175]

Another important advantage arising to women, through their identification with the early industrial process, was their position as the first property owners. They were almost the sole creators of ownership in land, and held in this respect a position of great power. This explains the fact that in the transactions of the North American tribes with the Colonial Government many deeds of assignment bear female signatures.[176]A form of divorce used by a husband in ancient Arabia was: “Begone, for I will no longer drive thy flocks to pasture.”[177]Inalmost all cases the household goods belonged to the woman. The stores of roots and berries laid up for a time of scarcity were the property of the wife, and the husband would not touch them without her permission. In many cases such property was very extensive. Among the Menomini Indians, for instance, a woman of good circumstances would own as many as 1200 to 1500 birch-bark vessels.[178]In the New Mexico Pueblos what comes from the outside of the house as soon as it is inside is put under the immediate control of the women. Bandelier, in his report of his tour in Mexico, tells us that “his host at Cochiti, New Mexico, could not sell an ear of corn or a string of chili without the consent of his fourteen-year-old daughter, Ignacia, who kept house for her widowed father.”[179]

I must now bring this brief chapter to a close. But first I would give one further example. It is an account of the Pelew matrons’ work in the taro fields. Here the richest and most influential women count it their privilege to labour, and it will be remembered that these women are called “mothers of the land.” They are politically and socially superior to the men; and their position is dependent largely on their close connection with the staple industry of the island.

“The richest woman in the village looks with pride on her taro patch, and although she has female followers enough to allow her merely to superintend the work without taking part in it, she nevertheless prefers to lay aside her fine apron, and to betake herself to the field, merely clad in a small apron that barely hides her nakedness, with a little mat on her back to protect her from the burning heat of the sun, and with a shade of banana leaves for her eyes. There, dripping with sweat in the burning sun, and coated with mud to the hips and over the elbows, she toils to set the younger women a good example. Moreover, as in every other occupation, theKalitho, the gods must be invoked, and who could be better fitted for the discharge of so important a duty than ‘the Mother of the House.’”

Here is a picture of labour that may well make women pause to think.

FOOTNOTES:[144]Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians, p. 55.[145]Everard im Thurn,Among the Indians of Guiana.[146]Macdonald, “East Central African Customs,”Journal Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1890, p. 342.[147]Journal Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1890, p. 342.[148]Owen,Transactions of the Ethnological Society, New Series, Vol. II, p. 36.[149]Mason,Woman’s Share in Primitive Culture, p. 143.[150]Turner,Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 424.[151]Life and Adventures of William Buckley, p. 43.[152]Journal Anthropological Institute, Aug. 1890, p. 61.[153]Australian Races, cited by Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 9note.[154]Haydes et Deniker,Mission Scientifique de Cape Horn, tome vii, 1891.[155]Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1892, p. 307.[156]Warburton Pike,Barren Grounds, p. 75.[157]Havelock Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 5.[158]A Journey from Prince of Wales’s Fort to the Northern Ocean, p. 55.[159]Mason,op. cit., p. 10.[160]Im Thurn,Among the Indians of British Guiana.[161]Macdonald,Journal Anthropological Institute, Aug. 1892.[162]Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 133, 147.[163]Cited by Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 4.[164]H. H. Johnston,The Kilimanjaro Expedition; Parke,Experiences in Equatorial Africa. These examples are cited by Ellis.[165]“The Beginnings of Agriculture,”American Anthropologist, Oct. 1895, p. 37.[166]Thomas,Sex and Society, p. 136.[167]Mason,op. cit.p. 24.[168]Cont. North American Ethnology, Vol. III, p. 167.[169]Mrs. Bishop,Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan, cited by H. Ellis,op. cit., p. 6.[170]Jour. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. I, p. 190.[171]“Magic Songs of the Finns,”Folk-lore, Mar. 1892.[172]American Antiquarian, Jan. 1899.[173]“Our Subject Races,”The Reformer, April 1897, p. 43.[174]Journal Anthropological Institute, May 1892, p. 427, cited by H. Ellis.[175]Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 358.[176]Ratzel,History of Mankind, Vol. II, p. 130.[177]Robertson Smith,Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 65.[178]Hoffman, “The Menomini Indians,”Fourteenth Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, p. 288.[179]Papers of theArchæological Institute of America, Vol. II, p. 138.

[144]Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians, p. 55.

[145]Everard im Thurn,Among the Indians of Guiana.

[146]Macdonald, “East Central African Customs,”Journal Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1890, p. 342.

[147]Journal Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1890, p. 342.

[148]Owen,Transactions of the Ethnological Society, New Series, Vol. II, p. 36.

[149]Mason,Woman’s Share in Primitive Culture, p. 143.

[150]Turner,Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 424.

[151]Life and Adventures of William Buckley, p. 43.

[152]Journal Anthropological Institute, Aug. 1890, p. 61.

[153]Australian Races, cited by Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 9note.

[154]Haydes et Deniker,Mission Scientifique de Cape Horn, tome vii, 1891.

[155]Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1892, p. 307.

[156]Warburton Pike,Barren Grounds, p. 75.

[157]Havelock Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 5.

[158]A Journey from Prince of Wales’s Fort to the Northern Ocean, p. 55.

[159]Mason,op. cit., p. 10.

[160]Im Thurn,Among the Indians of British Guiana.

[161]Macdonald,Journal Anthropological Institute, Aug. 1892.

[162]Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 133, 147.

[163]Cited by Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 4.

[164]H. H. Johnston,The Kilimanjaro Expedition; Parke,Experiences in Equatorial Africa. These examples are cited by Ellis.

[165]“The Beginnings of Agriculture,”American Anthropologist, Oct. 1895, p. 37.

[166]Thomas,Sex and Society, p. 136.

[167]Mason,op. cit.p. 24.

[168]Cont. North American Ethnology, Vol. III, p. 167.

[169]Mrs. Bishop,Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan, cited by H. Ellis,op. cit., p. 6.

[170]Jour. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. I, p. 190.

[171]“Magic Songs of the Finns,”Folk-lore, Mar. 1892.

[172]American Antiquarian, Jan. 1899.

[173]“Our Subject Races,”The Reformer, April 1897, p. 43.

[174]Journal Anthropological Institute, May 1892, p. 427, cited by H. Ellis.

[175]Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 358.

[176]Ratzel,History of Mankind, Vol. II, p. 130.

[177]Robertson Smith,Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 65.

[178]Hoffman, “The Menomini Indians,”Fourteenth Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, p. 288.

[179]Papers of theArchæological Institute of America, Vol. II, p. 138.

I proposein this chapter to examine, as fully as I can, the traces that mother-right customs have left among some of the great races of antiquity, as also in the early records of western civilisations. It is the more necessary to do this because there is so marked a tendency to minimise the importance of the mother-age, and to regard the patriarchal family as primeval and universal. So much interesting material is available, and so wide a field of inquiry must be covered, that I shall be able to give a mere outline sketch, for the purpose of suggesting, rather than proving, the widespread prevalence of the communal clan and the maternal family.

As to whether this maternal-stage, with kinship and inheritance passing through the mother, has everywhere preceded the second patriarchal period, it is difficult to be at all certain. Dr. Westermarck, Mr. Crawley and others have argued against this view. But (as I have before had occasion to point out) their chief motive has been to discredit the theory of promiscuity, with which mother-descenthas been so commonly, and so mistakenly, connected. It does not seem to have been held as possible that the mother-age was a much later development, whose social customs were made for the regulation of the family relationships. A number of very primitive races exhibit no traces, that have yet been discovered, of such a system, and have descent in the male line. This has been thought to be a further proof against a maternal stage. But here again is an error; we are not entitled to regard mother-descent as necessarily the primitive custom. I believe and have tried to show, from the examples of the Australian tribes and elsewhere, that in many cases the stage of the maternal clan has not been reached. If I am right here, we have the way cleared from much confusion. I would suggest, as also possible, that there may among some people, have been retrogressions, customs and habits found out as beneficial, and perhaps for long practised, have by some tribes been forgotten. There can be no hard and fast rule of progress for any race. The whole subject is thorny and obscure, and the evidence on the question is often contradictory. Still I hold the claim I make is not without foundation. I have tried to show how the causes which led to the maternal system were perfectly simple and natural causes, arising out of needs that must have operated universally in the past history of mankind. And this indicates a maternal stage at some period for all branches of the human family. Again the widespread prevalence of mother-rightsurvivals among races where the patriarchal system has been for long firmly established lends support to such a view, which will be strengthened by the evidence now to be brought forward. It will be necessary to go step by step, from one race to another, and to many different countries, and I would ask my readers not to shrink from the trouble of following me.

Let us turn first to ancient Egypt, where women held a position more free and more honourable than they have in any country to-day.

Herodotus, who was a keen observer, records his astonishment at this freedom, and writes—

Back to Index Next