thing wrong, ," led him about camp and sang his praises. During the Sun dance the highly honorary office of tree-notcher was bestowed on a woman who had been taken to wife in the most honorable way, i.e., one who had not run away with her lover but had been decently married by purchase, and who had been uniformly faithful to her husband. Chastity was likewise a prerequisite for another office in the same ceremony. There can be no doubt that even theoretically there was a double standard of morality. No one thought any the worse of a man of prominence for having indulged in numerous love affairs: these were rather regarded as his rightful share of the good things of life. When a young man had assumed the especially dangerous office of a Crazy Dog, an old man would lead him through camp announcing that since he was going to die the girls of the tribe who wanted to become his sweethearts must hasten to make overtures to him. One of my youngest interpreters, who had recently been married, would speak quite freely of the possibility of amours with other women, but he became grave in considering the case of his wife being disloyal. "Do you know what I should do?" he asked me; "I should never look at her or have anything more to do with her." ་ That, however, a certain preferential respect was accorded to a man of virtue is shown by another Sun dance usage. An expedition for the purpose of bringing white clay was always led by a man who had never taken liberties with any woman but his own wife, even in the case of licensed privileges. ... ETIQUETTE When a visitor comes to a tipi, the host may say kahé by way of greeting, and this interjection is also used in addressing supernatural beings in prayer. If the inmates of the lodge happen to be outside they may say to the guest, bire'ri', "Enter." He is made to sit in the rear of the lodge, the place of honor. If a woman is visited by her husband's wife or an adopted child, she bids them sit in the rear; other female visitors sit anywhere. A man does not enter a lodge if his sister or brother-in-law or any of the wife's relatives comprised under the term usu'a is there alone. If he finds any woman alone in a lodge, he is not likely to enter unless she is a sister-in-law; and correspondingly a woman does not enter a lodge where she sees a man by himself unless he be a lover or a relative other than a brother. If a visitor comes with his wife, they take seats opposite to the host and his wife, but if that side is occupied they go to the rear. When they have no visitors, a couple usually occupies the place where the blankets are spread for sleeping, generally on the sides. . . No matter at what time of day a visitor arrives, food of some sort is at once offered to him or her. In the old days this consisted mainly of pounded meat or something of the sort. It was not obligatory to eat up everything; sometimes a visitor would take home what was left. This was considered perfectly proper: "It did not matter." Sometimes a guest would ask for a container in which to take the food home. The hosts do not have to eat at the same time with their visitors. In the old days the people ate when they were hungry. I have myself had occasion to observe again and again that guests do not usually eat in the immediate company of their hosts even if all partook of food at the same time. The usual arrangement is for each family to eat by themselves. Sometimes my interpreter and I ate separately from the other people; and almost always every man formed a distinct group with his wife and children, so that on some occasions there were as many as four groups. Once Bright-wing was seen to join Magpie and his wife, which Gray-bull explained by saying the former was Magpie's brother. When people meet outdoors, they do not use any expression corresponding to our passing the time of day but will probably ask, "Where do you come from?" or "What are you doing?" On my return to the Crow Reservation one summer, an Indian greeted me with the remark: "I am glad to see you" (literally, I see you, I am better). On a similar occasion a Crow said, "This dear man has come, it seems. "" Crow men do not kiss their wives or sweethearts publicly; only young children are kissed in the presence of other people. However, I have seen a newly married young man caressing his wife though without kissing her. In referring to a deceased person, particularly if related to one present, it is customary to use a euphemism, saying not "He is dead," but "He is not here." Thus, my interpreter designated Gray-bull's dead wife in speaking to her husband. A man often refers deprecatingly to his own achievements, but this is mock-modesty and he knows perfectly well that his audience is perfectly aware of the facts. Once Gray-bull, in spite of his excellent war record, adopted this tone, saying, "I have never done anything in war." Youngcrane, his son's mother-in-law, fearing that I might misunderstand, at once explained that Gray-bull was a very brave man indeed. 34. THE IROQUOIS GENS1 By LEWIS H. MORGAN The experience of mankind, as elsewhere remarked, has developed but two plans of government, using the word plan in its scientific sense. Both were definite and systematic organizations of society. The first and most ancient was a social organization, founded upon gentes, phratries and tribes. The second and latest in time was a political organization, founded upon territory and upon property. Under the first a gentile society was created, in which the government dealt with persons through their relations to a gens and tribe. These relations were purely personal. Under the second a political society was instituted, in which the government dealt with persons through their relations to territory, e.g.-the township, the county, and the state. These relations were purely territorial. The two plans were fundamentally different. One belongs to ancient society, and the other to modern. The gentile organization opens to us one of the oldest and most widely prevalent institutions of mankind. It furnished the nearly universal plan of government of ancient society, Asiatic, European, African and Australian. It was the instrumentality by means of which society was organized and held together. Commencing in savagery, and continuing through the three sub-periods of barbarism, it remained until the establishment of political society, which did not occur until after civilization had commenced. The Grecian gens, phratry and tribe, the Roman gens, curia and tribe find their analogues in the gens, phratry and tribe of the American aborigines. In like manner, the Irish sept, the Scottish clan, the phrara of the Albanians, and the Sanskrit ganas, without extending the comparison further, are the same as the American Indian gens, which has usually been called a clan. As far as our knowledge extends, this organization runs through the entire ancient world upon all the continents, and it was brought down to the historical period by such tribes as attained to civilization. Nor is this all. Gentile society wherever found is the same in structural organization and in principles of action; but changing from lower to higher forms with the progressive advancement of the people. These changes give the history of development of the same original conceptions. 1 From Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society, part II, chapter 2. Gens, genos, and ganas in Latin, Greek and Sanskrit have alike the primary signification of kin. They contain the same element as gigno, gignomai, and ganamai, in the same languages, signifying to beget; thus implying in each an immediate common descent of the members of a gens. A gens, therefore, is a body of consanguinei descended from the same common ancestor, distinguished by a gentile name, and bound together by affinities of blood. It includes a moiety only of such descendants. Where descent is in the female line. . . . the gens is composed of a supposed female ancestor and her children, together with the children of her female descendants, through females, in perpetuity; and where descent is in the male line, of a supposed male ancestor and his children, together with the children of his male descendants, through males in perpetuity. . . . The gentile organization, originating in the period of savagery, finally gave way, among the more advanced tribes, when they attained civilization, the requirements of which it was unable to meet. Among the Greeks and Romans, political society supervened upon gentile society, but not until civilization had commenced. The township (and its equiv alent, the city ward), with its fixed property, and the inhabitants it contained, organized as a body politic, became the unit and the basis of a new and radically different system of government. After political society was instituted, this ancient and time-honored organization, with the phratry and tribe development from it, gradually yielded up their existence. . . . The plan of government of the American aborigines commenced with the gens and ended with the confederacy, the latter being the highest point to which their governmental institutions attained. It gave for the organic series: first, the gens, a body of consanguinei having a common gentile name; second, the phratry, an assemblage of related gentes united in a higher association for certain common objects; third, the tribe, an assemblage of gentes, usually organized in phratries, all the members of which spoke the same dialect; and fourth, a confederacy of tribes, the members of which respectively spoke dialects of the same stock language. It resulted in a gentile society (societas), as distinguished from a political society or state (civitas). The difference between the two is wide and fundamental. There was neither a political society, nor a citizen, nor a state, nor any civilization in America when it was discovered. . ... From lapse of time the Iroquois tribes have come to differ slightly in the number, and in the names of their respective gentes. The largest number being eight, as follows: Senecas.-1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Heron. 8. Hawk. Cayugas.-1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Eel. 8. Hawk. Onondagas.-1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Eel. 8. Ball. Oneidas.-1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. Mohawks.-1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. Tuscaroras.-1. Gray Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Great Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5. Yellow Wolf. 6. Snipe. 7. Eel. 8. Little Turtle. These changes show that certain gentes in some of the tribes have become extinct through the vicissitudes of time; and that others have been formed by the segmentation of over-full gentes. With a knowledge of the rights, privileges and obligations of the members of a gens, its capabilities as the unit of a social and governmental system will be more fully understood, as well as the manner in which it entered into the higher organizations of the phratry, tribe, and confederacy. The gens is individualized by the following rights, privileges, and obligations conferred and imposed upon its members, and which made up the jus gentilicium: I. The right of electing its sachem and chiefs. II. The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs. III. The obligation not to marry in the gens. IV. Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased members. VII. The right of adopting strangers into the gens. VIII. Common religious rites, query. IX. A common burial place. X. A council of the gens. These functions and attributes gave vitality as well as individuality to the organization, and protected the personal rights of its members. I. The right of electing the sachem and chiefs. Nearly all the American Indian tribes had two grades of chiefs, who may be distinguished as sachems and common chiefs. Of these two primary grades all other grades were varieties. They were elected in each gens from among its members. A son could not be chosen to succeed his father, where descent was in the female line, because he belonged to a different gens, and no gens would have a chief or sachem from any gens but its own. The office of sachem was hereditary in the gens, in the sense that it was filled as often as a vacancy occurred; while the office of chief was non-hereditary, because it was bestowed in reward of personal merit, and died with the individual. Moreover, the duties of a sachem were confined to the affairs of peace. He could not go out to war as a sachem. On the other hand, the chiefs who were raised to office for personal |