The Position of Woman in Primitive Society Part 6

[48] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 62. Also _Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines_.

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 a.s.sisted in the discussion of subjects which princ.i.p.ally related to that s.e.x."[50]

[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 also _Notes on the Iroquois_ and _The Indian in his Wigwam_.

[50] Heriot, _op. cit._, pp. 321-322.

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 circ.u.mstance of much 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 this pa.s.sage: "The mother-right and gynaecocracy among the Iroquois here plainly indicated is not over-drawn. The mothers and their children, as we have seen, were of the same _gens_, 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]

[51] _Houses and House-Life of American Aborigines_, pp.

65-66.

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 s.e.xual regulation; nor would plurality of wives be possible in a society in which all the members of both s.e.xes 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 presents to 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 one another mutually happy, when it costs so little, and does n.o.body 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.

[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.

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 own _gentes_, though they lived in the _gentes_ of 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]

[55] Powell, _Rep. Bur. Ethn._, I, 63.

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 rea.s.sertion of the patriarchal authority of the father. This is ill.u.s.trated 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 him of 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 p.u.b.erty feast are counted to the father's clan.[56]

[56] Owen: _Musquakie Indians_, p. 72.

The male authority was felt chiefly in periods of war. This may be ill.u.s.trated by the Wyandots, who have an elaborate system of government. In each _gens_ there is a small council composed of four women, called _yu-wai-yu-wa-na_; chosen by the heads of the household.

These women select a chief of the _gens_ from its male members, that is, from their brothers and sons. He is the head of the _gentile_ council. The council of the tribe is composed of the aggregated _gentile_ councils; and is thus made up of four-fifths of women and one-fifth of men. The _sachem_ of the tribes, or tribal-chief, is chosen by the chiefs of the _gentes_. All the civil government of the _gens_ and 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 the _gens_ and 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 military chief 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.

[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.

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 part.i.tion the clan lands among the households. The part.i.tion 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 word _pueblo_, 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 a.s.sist 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 make _adobes_, or sun-dried bricks, by mixing ashes and earth with water."[58] Cushing, who visited and lived with the Zuni 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 a hundred or more families, according to the number of apartments.

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

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 cl.u.s.ters of from four to eight together; and each cl.u.s.ter forming a _gens_ or 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 a.s.sociated 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 social life. 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.

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

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. .h.i.therto connected the maternal system with unregulated s.e.xual relationships. This is a fact I am again and again compelled to point out, risking the fear of wearying the reader.

[60] Bancroft, _op. cit._, pp. 546, 547.

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.

[61] Heriot, _op. cit._, p. 340.

How simple and really beautiful are the conditions of life among these people may be seen from the idyllic record of the Zuni Indians given by Mr. Cushing.[62] He describes how the Zuni girl, when taking a fancy to a young man, conveys a present of thin _hewe_-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 Zunis, 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 her permanent 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 Zuni, and mother-right seems to have begun its inevitable decay."[63]

[62] Cushing, "My Visit to the Zuni Indians," _Century Magazine_, 1883. Prof. Tylor gives these pa.s.sages in his account of the Zuni Indians, "The Patriarchal Family System,"

_Nineteenth Century_, 1896. I have quoted from him.

[63] Mrs. Stevenson, in the _Report Bureau Ethnological_, XXIII, pp. 290-293.

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 Zunis, the Hopis are monogamists. s.e.xual 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 b.a.s.t.a.r.d 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 with her 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]

[64] Voth, _Traditions of the Hopi_, pp. 67, 96, 133. _Rep.

Bur. Ethn._, XIII, 340. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol.

II, pp. 74-76.

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 circ.u.mstances 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 a blanket, 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 const.i.tutes the ceremony. Tribal custom requires the bridegroom to reside with the wife's family.[65]

[65] _Rep. Bur. Ethn._ IX, p. 19. Hartland, _Ibid._, pp.

76-77.

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 apt.i.tude 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 an example 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 circ.u.mstances 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]

[66] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, p. 549.

[67] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. I, p. 277. Power's _Tribes of California_, pp. 22, 56.

[68] Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 685.

[69] _History of Human Marriage_, p. 500.

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]