The American Indian/Chapter 10

by Clark Wissler

CHAPTER X

SOCIAL GROUPING

In the sixteenth century, there were at least three well-organized governments in the New World: the Nahua, Inca, and Chibcha. Though our data as to the details of these organizations are but fragmentary, it is clear that the social structure upon which they rested was communistic. The family group was the unit to which plots of land were assigned and upon which levies were made. Each family group had its head man who also held a place in the council for the next higher group. The government was vested in a single family group, one of whom was the chief or monarch. He qualified and was chosen by such means as this group elected, regardless of his parentage. These were the fundamental characteristics common to all the governments of the area of higher culture: they differed from each other not in these but in the ways in which the ruling family group built up its power and organized its political machinery. The thoroughness and efficiency of the Inca system was notorious, for it left practically nothing to the individual, an ideal toward which certain European states seem to be headed. The apparent ease of the Spanish conquest is often cited as proof to the contrary, but the conquerors succeeded by a bold dash at the ruling group and, once having laid hands upon the machinery, the thoroughly domesticated natives were easily handled. So it was rather by the very thoroughness of the system, than its weakness, that they succeeded. In fact, wherever there were still independent cities, the invaders met with the most heroic resistance, some communities perishing to the last man.^[1] Further, it was largely the ready-trained army of the native kingdoms, or such units of it as the usurpers could lay hands upon, that did the work against these refractory cities.

The political organization in Mexico was less thorough than that of the Inca, though far superior to that in Colombia. Mexico was ruled by the head family group in the City of Mexico, which Bandelier^[2] has shown rose from the determined head of a warlike people that the preceding government had failed to conquer. When once upon its feet, this ruling family conquered, one by one, the surrounding cities and forced them to pay tribute. The system was thus plainly a matter of military rule, arbitrary and absolute. Apparently, this power had not yet seized the entire social machinery of production as in Peru, but was in a fair way to do so when the Spaniards came.

The same form of growth by conquest of city after city is apparent in the Inca scheme, while in Colombia it was still in its incipient stage. These main characteristics will best enable us to comprehend this remarkable development.

It is probable that underlying governments so built up, there must necessarily have been originally a considerable diversity of language and social custom. As to the attitude of the several governments toward these subjected groups, we are left in doubt, but both in Mexico and in Peru the conquered were required to participate in the official religious practices, or perhaps we should say that because each military and other governmental act was accompanied by ritualistic observances, the conquered could not conform to one without the other. The Inca seem to have developed the method of dispersing refractory social groups over the empire as a means of decreasing resistance.

Outside of the Andean region, the family group appears to be the prevailing independent unit, but, as elsewhere, the tendency is for two or more of these to live together under some kind of a federation. So far as we know, no strong subjecting tendencies were developed by any of these federations. The Araucanians seem to have formed a very efficient organization for the common defense, since neither the Inca nor the Spaniard succeeded in subjecting them; yet they seem not to have developed the missionary idea of extending their culture by conquest.

In North America we find upon the frontier of the Mexican state a large number of pueblos, each village or group of villages, a government to itself, yet recognizing a common interest in times of peril. Their heroic struggle against the Spaniards in 1680 reveals the existence of basic elements for union, but at no time did any of these villages appear to be moved by the spirit of conquest and force its neighbors into a closer organization. On the other hand, they were not easily assimilated, preserving to this very day a great deal of their independence. It is quite probable that underneath their individualities these villages, with their family groups, closely coordinated ritualistic observances, their elected governors and war captains, present the fundamental characteristics of the towns from which the southern aboriginal empires were built up.

In the immediate vicinity of the Pueblo villages were the somewhat nomadic Apache, Ute, and Navajo, with simple tribal organizations in which each local group was a law unto itself. But to the east, through the Gulf States and up into Virginia, we find a tendency to close federation. Among the best-known examples are the Cherokee, Creek, and Powhatan organizations. Further north in New York, was the famous Iroquois League,^[3] with its finely balanced government, the aggressiveness of which created several small but weak neighboring unions. Farther west, we have the Pawnee group and the very loosely coordinated Dakota council of "Seven Fires." Beyond this, we have little more than informal alliances as the Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, and Sarsi; the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, and Comanche.

Yet, outside of these few attempts at political consolidation, we must be prepared to meet a bewildering array of small independent tribal governments and, in some cases, nothing at all save the fundamental unit groups. Thus it happens that one of the most forbidding aspects of our subject to the layman, is the nomenclature by which we designate these numerous political groups. All these group names have historical origins and so represent neither systems of tribal relationship nor equal social values. When our colonial forefathers observed a new political group under a common head, they gave to it a tribal name derived from its own language or from some other circumstances. Such designations can have little classificatory value. It is true that a linguistic nomenclature has been provided which is essentially classificatory, but this again employs the conventional historic names for the several social groups. The list for these tribal names is further complicated by the occurrence of alternate equivalents and again by unexpected subdivisions into subordinate groups. Hence, when a tribe name is encountered, practically nothing except more or less political independence can be taken for granted; as to other relations, we must know the conditions in each case. What we have just seen to be the most fundamental social tendencies of the New World, will prepare us for a very formidable list of tribes. It is estimated that for North America alone, our literature contains more than two thousand tribal designations. To offer such a list here would avail little, but some of the most important tribal names will be given in the linguistic classification (p. 369).

No important problem seems to hinge upon this tribal nomenclature, since it is solely a matter of convenience. When, however, we come to consider the internal organization of these conventional tribal groups, we do come face to face with one of the most important problems in social science. That very distinguished American social philosopher, Lewis H. Morgan, took the data for his theory of marriage and social regulation from the Iroquois and other North American tribes and his field reports are still models of accuracy.^[4] Following his lead, Bandelier^[5] gave us an exhaustive discussion of the Mexican system. Morgan was, above all, an evolutionist, who considered all now inexplicable social usages to be survivals of a state of culture when they did have a real function. For example, the observed tendency to use the same relationship term for father and uncle, was considered as dating from a time when there was no ready means of knowing who was the true father. As time went on, new data began to present inconsistencies with Morgan's views, but the recent extended discussion of Rivers^[6] has sought to justify the earlier hypothesis on the ground that the very last culture traits to be lost or modified by a social group, are those that have to do with family relationships. This work, perhaps more than anything else, stimulated a number of American field-workers^[7] to re-examine the whole problem.

THE LOCAL GROUP

The comprehension of social organization is by no means easy because the phenomenon is very complex and lacks objective definition. In North America, where we know the subject best, we find among other forms a natural social group, or band, under the leadership of a competent individual. The nucleus of this group is frequently the immediate family of the leader, recruited by relatives and strangers who have attached themselves because of faith in his leadership. Thus, an energetic leader may soon have a large following. Such groups are usually found among hunting peoples who maintain their tribal solidarity by meeting once or twice a year en masse, at which time only, the tribal government is in function. After these brief intervals, they again scatter out in these same groups, or communities. In the United States and Canada, and in fact everywhere, the annual round of seasons gives human social life a kind of yearly cycle. This is very striking in the bison area, particularly among those tribes on the borders who raise a little maize or tobacco. Here the severe weather of January finds the small bands we have noted sheltered in little valleys some distance apart, each usually having its definite camping place. Here they stay until spring, when their fields are prepared. When the crop is in, a call is sent out by the tribal chief for all to meet at a certain place, where the bands are automatically confederated into an organized camp which now moves and kills bison as a body. After an interval, they return to harvest their crop and then once again set out for the autumn hunt, to scatter out, at last, to their homes in December. In such a political group, it is clear that the simple band is the fundamental unit and as such is little more than the voluntary association of individuals under an able leader. All are more or less dependent upon his bounty. Among these may be a shaman and also a priest, though the leader himself may be one of these.

Some authors designate such a band as a family group, but that is going a little too far, for when we have full data, these bands are found to contain many individuals not descended from the leader and not even his relatives. For these reasons, the term local group is preferable.^[8] There is, however, a native tendency to consider all members of such a band as relatives in a figurative sense, and to apply blood relationship terms to them, as men of similar age-grades will speak of themselves as brothers, etc. As these groups have more or less permanency, it is conceivable that in time they may come to be largely blood groups.

In such a society, an individual is known by his personal name, together with the band name, but, as among us, each must keep track of his blood relationship by specific memory. We see then that the true family group, as we conceive it, exists somewhat independent of the band. All the world over, the prime importance of keeping track of blood relationship is recognized, particularly in respect to marriage, or sexual life. These bands, on the other hand, seem to have no specific function in the regulation of marriage, but to be economic or political groups.

Such bands, as we have just outlined, are characteristic of the great hunting areas (the caribou area, the bison area, and the guanaco area, though our data here are vague), and the interior of the salmon area. They may also prevail in the manioc area, but we lack good data. In these various areas, we have a great range of tribal organization, but the fundamental units are the loose bands, or local groups, we have just characterized.

CLANS AND GENTES

Now when we come to the centers of more intense culture, we find what is called a clan or gens, as the case may be. If we should take one of the preceding groups and make it permanent in the sense that everyone born in it is forever a member, we would have a somewhat different affair. The group name would now be firmly fixed to the individual and define his descent, for by it he could know, in theory, at least, that he was a blood relative of every other person with that group name. If the group is small, many individuals will be of too near kin to marry and must bring in wives or husbands as the case may be. Since the parents are now of different groups, their child must inherit one or the other group name. There are but two alternatives. When he takes the mother's group name, we use the term clan, when the father's, gens. We do not intend to imply that the clan necessarily came about in this manner, but give the statement this form for the sake of clearness in distinction.

Now, it frequently happens that certain social regulations are defined by the clan or gentile name. In many cases, the universal prohibition against marriage between nearest kin is formalized into a rule that persons with the same clan or gentile names cannot marry. This gives what is spoken of as an exogamous relation. In the New World, at least, this rule does not negate the world-wide prohibition against the marriage of parents and children and other near relatives, but is an additional social regulation. On reflection, it will be apparent that as a clan or gens expands, it will become more and more easy for one to find within it a mate not ineligible by blood. In fact, we have the example of the Pawnee clan organization on the endogamous principle; i.e., one is expected to marry a member of his own clan, but, of course, not a near relative.

This peculiar association of membership in a social group with marriage restrictions has received a great deal of attention from students of society, many of whom have looked upon it as the key, not only to the marriage system, but to society as a whole. Yet, in the light of concrete data for the New World, this seems unwarranted. Also, the tendency has been to consider clans and gentes as fundamentally different, but a close look at them shows that they rest upon the same idea and differ only in the method by which the child is assigned membership.

Turning now to the question of geographical distribution, it appears that so far as known, the clan and gentile area will comprise the whole of the area of intense culture, the greater

click on image to edit for enlarge or make smaller

Fig. 66. Distribution of Clans and Gentes

part of the eastern maize area, the coast tribes of the salmon area, and a portion of the manioc area. It is thus clear that it tends to appear in the regions of more intense culture and particularly wherever there is an appearance of political solidarity. If we consider only the gentile form, we find it somewhat in the majority, dominating among the Siouan peoples of the bison area, the Algonkin of the Great Lakes, the Nahua, Maya, and Inca peoples, with outlying localizations in both continents. Yet, the clan also has a respectable distribution, comprising a large part of the coast tribes in the salmon area, the eastern and southern parts of the eastern maize area, the Pueblo tribes, the Antilles, the Arawak of South America, and the Chibcha of Colombia and Central America. There is thus no great disparity, but considering them as merely two forms of the same grouping, we see that the clan-gentile system does prevail and is in general a correlate of political solidarity.

However, the clan or gens is not necessarily the ultimate social unit, but may by expansion come to have unexpected relations to the tribal group. Kroeber's^[9] investigations of the Pueblo peoples of southwestern United States show that many clans have members in each village, a condition somewhat similar to that of the Iroquois as analyzed by Morgan^[10] many years ago. In these cases, we see that the clan organization simply cross-sections the community or tribal grouping, the one being, as it were, vertical and the other horizontal. In the Iroquoian system, we find a close federation between the tribal groups which stopped little short of a compact political state. Unfortunately, we do not know just how the clans were distributed in the confederated tribes of southeastern United States, nor the gens in the ancient states of the Aztec, Maya, and Inca, but we find the two systems together—compact government and the clan-gens organization. It is, therefore, fair to raise the question as to whether the real basic unity that made possible these aboriginal political states did not rest with their clan and gentile relations, since in these they had a definite bond. A study of the Arawak would be interesting in this connection, for though they are scattered far and wide, they seem to have preserved a definite clan system throughout.

We have just noted how the clan-gens grouping seemed to be independent of the tribal grouping and was not necessarily a political scheme. We may, therefore, be prepared to learn that clans are sometimes grouped or linked in ways peculiar to themselves. Thus, among the Menomini of the eastern maize area, we have the several gentes in groups of three or more, in each of which one is regarded as the leading gens.^[11] A somewhat similar crude sort of linking is reported for the Arizona Apache, though in this case for clans. Evidence for certain kinds of linking occurs among the Pueblo villages and elsewhere. The phenomenon is of interest here only in that it is the vaguer and less definite of such associations, for when two or more of the clan-gens groups are subordinated to a complementary division of the tribal unit, they are considered a phratry. What we have noted as to the association between the clan-gens system and marriage restrictions, applies here also, for exogamous linked groups are likely to be mutually exogamous. The phratry also may become the controlling unit as, for example, among the Iroquois.

DUAL DIVISIONS

In addition to the social groups we have so far considered, we find another peculiar one. Thus, among certain Pueblo Indians of southwestern United States (the Tewa), the village is divided in two halves, or moieties, known as summer and winter people, since one has charge of certain functions in summer, the other in winter. A similar grouping is reported for the Caddoan^[12] and a part of the Siouan stock in the Mississippi Valley,^[13] the Miwok of California,^[14] and also among the Iroquois of the East.^[15] In such cases the clans or gentes are sometimes disregarded, but are usually treated as subdivisions of the moiety. For example, the Seneca division of the Iroquois had four clans in one moiety and an equal number in the other. Though in this case equally divided, we find the Hidatsa with four in one and three in the other, and the Pawnee with two in one and eleven in the other. As an example of a moiety that disregards the gens or clan, we have the Fox and Kickapoo tribes, each of which has gentile groups; but membership in the moieties is determined arbitrarily when the child is named, so that the members of a given gens will be divided between the two. In this dual grouping of tribes, we are dealing with a curious phenomenon which is not yet well understood. It is almost universal in the southern half of the eastern maize area, the eastern half of the bison area, and extends well down into the area of intense culture, if indeed not to its extreme borders. The data we have at hand seem to justify the conclusion that a moiety is not merely a larger division of clan or gentile groups,^[16] but a grouping of another kind. This is clearly the case among the Sauk and Fox where children at birth are assigned, regardless of their gens, to one of two moieties whose only function seems to be pleasurable social rivalry in certain games. Something like this is found in the southern part of the eastern maize area and has been reported from the Jicarilla Apache. The precise distribution of this custom cannot be stated, but something very much like it has been noted among the western Eskimo.^[17]

If these dual divisions were entirely for sport and ceremonies, their origin and function would be intelligible, but the problem is complicated by the presence of exogamous regulations. For example, among the Iroquois, the dual divisions, or moieties, are the phratries and were formerly exogamous, so that one must not only marry out of his clan, but out of his moiety. It is not clear, therefore, whether the mere fact of dual division is significant or just accidental. Until the whole subject is searchingly analyzed, we cannot deal with it in a work of this kind. The present tendency is to regard it as in the main accidental and to consider the exogamous character of moieties mere extensions of the system regulating marriage.

RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMS

In the older literature of our subject, special significance was given the fact that among certain peoples the term father or mother was extended to include uncles, and brother or sister to include cousins. It was assumed that if one called his mother's sister also mother, and his paternal uncle, father, this was a survival of a time when marriage was indefinite and the identity of the parent in doubt. Recently, a great deal of attention has been given the various tribal systems of relationship terms,^[18] an abstract and rather difficult subject. From the New World data now at hand, it appears that where such systems are used, there is no actual confusion between one's real parent, for instance, and the uncle or aunt to whom the name may also be applied. We have, therefore, merely a system of designation which may be presumed to have an historical origin.

A precise statement of the varieties of systems and their distribution cannot be made, for want of full data, but one common form is that designated by Morgan as classificatory, or that in which a single term is used for both father and father's brothers, mother and mother's sisters. Its best-known area is practically the whole of the United States east of the Mississippi, comprising almost the entire eastern clan and gens area as designated on our map (p. 156). Again, on the North Pacific Coast, we find a similar system associated with the clan and gens organizations. The next trace of it appears in the clan area of New Mexico. For the other clan and gens areas, we lack full data. These are also the regions in which exogamy prevails. On the other hand, for the great stretch of North America, which we have designated as the band area, the relationship nomenclature tends to resemble our own in that it differentiates the father from his brothers. Thus, in a general way, we find that wherever there are exogamous clans or gentes, one form of designating relatives prevails, while among tribes having simple family groups, there is a different form. This is not without exception, for example, the Pawnee have the system of these exogamous tribes but are endogamous.

There are, however, other points of difference in relationship systems as, for example, the use of reciprocal terms, or the method by which the same word is used by uncle and nephew, grandparent and grandchild, to express the relation of the one to the other. Such a system is found among the Kootenai, Ute, and most Shoshonean tribes of the highlands in western United States. By taking note of such distinctions as these, it seems possible to localize several geographical types of nomenclature whose investigation promises to hold an important place in the anthropology of the future.

TABOOS AND SOCIAL PRIVILEGES

This is a convenient place to note certain curious social phenomena pertaining to the relationship complex. In many parts of the world, a man is not permitted to speak to his mother-in-law and in some cases not even to look at her. These restrictions are designated as mother-in-law taboos.^[19] The actual New World distribution of this custom cannot be stated at present, but it is found among many tribes in the interior of North America. In a few cases, the restrictions seem to have applied to one's father-in-law also, particularly among the Plains-Cree of the bison area.^[20] On the other hand, the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law are less rigidly restricted, their attitude toward each other being much like that of father and daughter.

This subject deserves more careful investigation, first as to its distribution and ultimately as to its significance, since it seems to be the natural correlate of certain forms of marriage. The data so far available on their geographical distribution show it to be erratic rather than continuous, even one or two tribes speaking mutually intelligible languages differing in the keeping of this taboo. This is shown by the following data supplied by Dr. R. H. Lowie:—

The North American tribes, known to have the mother-in-law taboo, are: the Cree, Assiniboin, Blackfoot, Arapaho, Crow, Lemhi Shoshoni, Dakota, Hidatsa, Mandan, Omaha, Navajo, Apache, Tübatulabal (Kern River Shoshoni), the Western Mono (not the Eastern Mono), Haida, Creek, Alibamu, Kiowa, and Cheyenne. Those known not to observe it are: the Pawnee, Kwakiutl, Nootka, Paviotso, Comanche, Wind River Shoshoni, Hopi, Zuñi, Ute, Nez Percé, Tewa, Keresan, Beaver, and tribes in northwestern California. For South America the taboo has been reported for the Guaycuris and the Carib of the Antilles.

However, the apparent erratic distribution of this custom may be due to incomplete information.

There are other phenomena of this class, of which the joking-relationship is a type, so far reported for central North America only. In general, the custom is for individuals of certain specific relationships to have the privilege of almost unlimited personal ridicule, even in public, which must be cheerfully borne.

AGE GRADES AND SOCIETIES

As in other parts of the world, we find in the New World a tendency for a social group to recognize conventional age-classes, particularly for the males. Thus, for the purposes of administration, the Inca government divided the males into the following classes:—

1. Pun̄uc rucu (old man sleeping), sixty years and upwards.
2. Chaupi rucu ('half old'), fifty to sixty years. Doing light work.
3. Puric (able-bodied), twenty-five to fifty. Tribute payer and head of the family.
4. Yma huayna (almost a youth), twenty to twenty-five. Worker.
5. Coca palla (coca picker), sixteen to twenty. Worker.
6. Pucllac huamra, eight to eighteen. Light work.
7. Ttanta raquizic (bread receiver), six to eight.
8. Macta puric, under six.
9. Saya huamrac, able to stand.
10. Mosoc caparic, baby in arms.^[21]

A somewhat similar classification seems to have been recognized by the Aztec,^[22] and even out in the bison hunting area many tribes were regarded as composed of boys, young men, warriors, and old men, each class having certain privileges and duties.

It so happens that in several parts of the world where such age-grades are recognized, we find a series of men's societies organized from these different age-ranks, and in the aggregate presenting the example of a series of societies, membership in which is restricted to separate life periods. In such a system, one would begin by joining a boys' society and so gradually pass at the proper age to the next higher and so on through life.^[23] The attention given this subject by many writers elevates it to one of great theoretical importance, but so far the phenomenon of age-graded societies appears in the New World only in the bison area. Lowie,^[24] who is the most recent student of this subject, makes a good case for its independent origin in this small locality, suggesting that it is here at least merely the accidental outgrowth of the more fundamental tendency to segregate according to age.

TOTEMIC FEATURES

There is one aspect of social grouping that deserves further notice, even in such a brief account as this. The terms totem and totemism have come to stand for a distinct body of literature and indicate a respectable complex of sociological theory. If, for example, we review the recognized names people give to their clans and gentes, most of them are seen to be derived from the names for animals. Thus Morgan,^[25] the great pioneer in this field, finds the Iroquois to have the following clans: Wolf, Bear, Beaver, Turtle, Deer, Snipe, Heron, Hawk.

Similar naming systems are found among nearly all the clan peoples of North America, but it is not so clear that this is equally true of those having gentes.

The significant point, however, is taken to be the meaning of this animal name. In almost every case it can be explained only by the mythical narrative accounting for the origin of the group in question, which deals with an animal-like being to whom the origin of the organization is ascribed, if indeed this being is not the true initial parent. The result is that if this being should be in some way associated with the black bear, for example, the people of the group would call themselves the black bear clan and would look upon all such bears as related to them. In short, the bear, or a bear, would come to be the totem of the group.^[26] As the discussion of this subject will require some data on religion and mythology, we may best postpone its further consideration.

Our previous citations of the associations between marriage restrictions and the clan-gens system may prepare us for further complications, for the conception of a clan-gens ancestor and the group animal name will bring the totem into prominence when marriage systems are considered. To this association, we shall revert in a succeeding chapter. One of the important problems for us, here, is the place and manner of origin for the New World totemic complex. This, like many others of its kind, must rest with the future. So far, analytic studies have shown that the various systems of totemic practices growing up around these ancestral and other concepts have different historical origins and so are not to be explained as instinctive or as diffused from a common center; yet, it cannot be denied that the sameness of the underlying concepts throughout the New World must be accounted for by one or the other of these hypotheses.^[27] From its distribution, we have a strong presumption that the New World clan or gens system is a correlate of higher political and industrial organization, since it is among the loosely organized tribes that it does not occur, but just where the totemic factor enters the complex is not clear.

In closing this brief glance at the social grouping of aboriginal man in the New World, we may be impressed with the tendency for each social feature to localize. Thus, whether it be merely a matter of terminology for uncles and aunts, methods of regulating marriage, or what not, we find it not scattered up and down the Americas at random, but gathered into more or less distinct geographical areas. It is this observed geographical distribution of the several social groupings we have noted in the New World that suggests their historical origin in opposition to an innate one. It is now clear that we may have an evolution of society that is determined by the conditions of the time and place and not by the inborn traits of the people producing it. This seems to be the most satisfactory interpretation of the data on social grouping, for more complete knowledge makes it impossible to believe that the bands, clans, gentes, etc., have a definite place in the mere organic evolution of peoples in the New World.

---

1. Joyce, 1912. I.
2. Bandelier, 1879. I.
3. Parker, 1916. I.
4. Morgan, 1870. I; 1878. I; 1904. I.
5. Bandelier, 1879. I.
6. Rivers, 1914. I.
7. Lowie, 1914. I; 1916. I; Goldenweiser, 1914. I; Swanton, 1905. I; 1906. I.
8. Goldenweiser, 1910. I.
9. Kroeber, 1917. I.
10. Morgan, 1904. I.
11. Skinner, 1913. I.
12. Murie, 1914. I.
13. Dorsey, J. O., 1897. I.
14. Gifford, 1916. I.
15. Morgan, 1904. I.
16. Lowie, 1914. I.
17. Stefánsson, 1914. I, p. 331.
18. Lowie, 1915. I, 1916. I; Rivers, 1914. I.
19. Tylor (no date).
20. Kane, 1859. I.
21. Markham, 1910. I; p. 161.
22. Bandelier, 1879. I.
23. Lowie, 1916. II; Rivers, 1914. I; Schurtz, 1902. I; Webster, 1908. I.
24. Lowie, 1916. II.
25. Morgan, 1904. I, p. 75.
26. Frazer, 1910. I.
27. Goldenweiser, 1910.