SOCIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS—conclusion.

3.—FAMILY LIFE.—Relations of the two sexes before marriage—Marriage and family—Theory of promiscuity—Group marriage—Exogamy and endogamy—Matriarchate—Degrees of relationship and filiation—Polyandry—Levirate—Polygamy and monogamy—Patriarchate—Rape and purchase of the bride—Duration of conjugal union—Children—Birth—Nurture—Name of the child and of adults—Initiation, circumcision, etc.—Old men and their fate—Funereal rites—Mourning.

4.—SOCIAL LIFE.—(a) Home life of a people—Economic organisation—The forms of property depend on production—Common property and family property—Village community—Individual property—Social organisation—Totemism—Clan rule—Family rule—Territorial rule—Caste and class rule—Democratic rule—Social morals—Right and justice—Taboo—Retaliation, vendetta, and ordeals—Secret societies—Extra legal judges—FormulÆ of politeness—(b) International life of peoples—Absence of sympathetic relations—Hostile relations—War—Arms of offence—Bow and arrows—Arms of defence—Neutral relations—Commerce—Money—Cowry—Transports and means of communication—Primitive vehicles—Navigation.

THE subjects about to be treated are so vast and complicated that it is almost impossible to give an idea of them in a few words and without going into details. So our account will of necessity be somewhat dogmatic, and will only touch on some salient facts of family and social life.

3.—FAMILY LIFE.

The relations of the two sexes are somewhat free among uncivilised and half-civilised peoples so long as there is no formal marriage or birth of a child. In the whole of Oceania, Malaysia, among the Samoyeds, Mongols, and certain Negroes, sexual intercourse between the young people of both sexes is by no means prohibited.[261] Sometimes even, as among the Bavenda for example, the young men and women give themselves up to obscene “games.”[262] Uncivilised peoples among whom the loss of virginity would be considered dishonouring to a girl are somewhat rare (Nias islanders, Igorrotes, Malays of Menangkabau). Most of them treat it with indifference, and among some of them defloration is obligatory before marriage; it is effected artificially or naturally by the parents (Bataks, Pelew islanders), by the matrons (Bissayas of the Philippines), by the priests (Cambodia), and even, it is said, by persons paid for this kind of work.[263] It would be possible to give instances of many other customs which shock our ideas about chastity and marriage. Thus in the Algerian Arab tribe of the Ouled-NaÏl, no young girl will find a husband if she has not previously acquired a dowry by regular prostitution. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the prostitution of girls before marriage was required by certain cults of antiquity (cult of Aphrodite at Abydos, Ephesus, etc., cult of Mylitta in Babylonia, etc.).

Marriage and Family.—But marriage once contracted, the woman, among almost all uncivilised and half-civilised peoples, is no longer free. From this moment either the husband, the family on the mother’s or father’s side, or the clan, see strictly to the observation of the marriage rules which are in vogue, and the laws, written or unwritten, punish every slip of the woman who was so free before marriage. It is the contrary to what one often sees in our civilised societies. In fine, marriage is above all a social convention, and the form which it takes in different ethnic groups is intimately connected with the social and economic constitution of these groups. The position of woman in society, ideas on conjugal obligations, etc., are entirely subordinated to the ideas which prevail about property and the social organism.

Theory of Promiscuity.—We often hear it said that marriage has sprung from a “state of promiscuity” in which mankind primitively lived; every man could then couple with every woman, “like the animals,” people sometimes add, forgetting that among animals the most akin to man this state of promiscuity is rather exceptional, and that the polygamous and even monogamous family exist among a great number of birds and mammals.[264]

The theory of promiscuity or “communal marriage,” so well summed up some time ago by Lubbock,[265] has few defenders at the present day. We know that actually there does not exist on the earth any population practising an “irregular promiscuity,” and the evidence of history is reduced to three or four texts of Herodotus, Strabo, and Solinus, the interpretation of which is far from easy.[266]

Group Marriage.—What has been often taken for promiscuity is only a form of marriage, different from our individual marriage, which, nevertheless, represents the first attempt to regulate sexual relations and to define ties of kinship in order to ensure the existence and bringing up of children. This form of marriage, admirably studied by Howitt and Fison[267] among the Australians, has received from them the name of “group marriage.” Its essential feature is that men and women, by the fact of belonging to such and such a group or clan are not marriageable one with another, and are obliged by the fact of their birth to contract unions with members of other groups of the tribe.

Marriage by groups is met with in its most pronounced form among the Australians and some tribes of India (Nairs, Todas). Among the Australians this custom co-exists with individual exogamous marriage (the “Noa” of the Dieri of Central Australia), and exhibits itself in its simplest form in the example of the Wotjoballuk Australians of the north-west of Victoria. This tribe is divided into two classes or clans, the Gamutch and the Krokitch. The men of the Gamutch clan are by right the husbands of all the women of the Krokitch tribe, and vice-versÂ. But it is only a virtual right. In practice, during the great festivals of initiation (see p. 241), the old men of the tribe, assembled in council, distribute among the bachelors of a clan the unappropriated girls of the other clan. This marriage, called “Pirauru” among the Dieri, and known under the name of “Paramour custom” by the colonials, gives the right to the man of the Gamutch clan, for example, to contract a marriage with the woman of the Krokitch clan thus allotted to him when the occasion shall present itself; he may also take with him one or more of these women and make her or them live with his wife of the individual marriage. However, as the same woman may be allotted in the successive festivals to several men, there are certain rules of precedence to observe in the fulfilment of the conjugal duties, if chance puts two men before their “common” wife: the elder brother takes precedence of the younger, the man up in years of the youth.[268]

Exogamy and Endogamy.—Group marriage is closely connected with what is called exogamy or exogeny, that is to say, marriage outside the clan, as opposed to endogamy or endogeny, marriage within the clan. It must be said, however, that exogamy is as often met in the individual form of marriage, and that sometimes endogamy, interdicted within the limits of a clan, is, on the contrary, practised within the limits of the tribe of which these clans are the components. There is in this case exogamy in relation to the clan and endogamy in relation to the tribe.

Matriarchate.—But how are matters of filiation and family to be decided with such a system of marriage, for it is impossible to settle the question of paternity in this case? To Bachofen and McLennan[269] we must attribute the honour of having discovered a complete system of filiation, in vogue among many uncivilised peoples, and the exact opposite to that which we are accustomed to in our societies: filiation by the mother, or matriarchate. Thus in our example of the Australians of Wotjoballuk (p. 232), the posterity of a man of the Gamutch clan married to a woman of the Krokitch clan will belong to the Krokitch clan; if, on the contrary, the father is a Krokitch and the mother a Gamutch, the children will belong to the Gamutch clan. This filiation establishes the uterine relationship and, united to exogamy, prevents marriage between nearest relatives. In fact, the son of the first couple being of the Krokitch clan, will not be able to marry his uterine sister, since she is of the same clan as he is, but only an alien woman, or a relative, according to our conventions, of the Gamutch clan, for example, the sister of his father. Theoretically, a father of the Gamutch clan would be able to marry his daughter, since she belongs to the Krokitch clan; but in practice these cases are forbidden by custom, for example among the Australian Dieri,[270] or they are avoided by the existence not of two, but of four or a greater number of classes in the tribe, with prohibitions against the marriage of people of certain of these classes.[271]

However, peoples who practise group marriage and exogamy have not to regard incest very seriously, for degrees of relationship are not fixed with them as with us. To fix relationship, they make use of a system called by Morgan, who discovered it (among the American Indians first), and described it admirably,[272] the “classificatory system.” In its simplest form, such as it is met with, for example, among the Micronesians and the Maoris, it may be thus summed up. All persons allied by consanguinity are divided into five groups. The first is formed of myself and my brothers, sisters, and cousins; we all bear the same name, which is that of the whole group. The second group is formed of my father and mother with their brothers and sisters, as well as their cousins, all likewise bearing the same name; the third group comprises my grandparents, with their brothers, sisters, etc.; the fourth, the cousins of my children, whom I consider as my sons and daughters; lastly, the fifth group is composed of the grandchildren of my brothers and sisters, whom I consider as my grandchildren. A similar system of nomenclature is very common among certain peoples of India, and sometimes causes much embarrassment to English judges newly landed. To give an example: A witness said that his father was at home at such and such an hour; then, a few minutes after, he affirmed that his father was in the fields. The judge is perplexed until, by a series of questions, he elicits the fact that the witness means his “little” father, equivalent to our term uncle.[273] Westermarck has tried to interpret the classificatory system differently; he sees in it only an artifice of speech, a way of addressing persons of different ages; but as Fison judiciously observes, if it be held that this system has no reference to degrees of relationship we should have to deny any idea whatever of this subject to certain peoples who have no other expressions to denote degrees of relationship.[274]

Polyandry, that is to say, marriage in which the woman possesses several husbands, is considered by the majority of authors as a form derived from group marriage. With the exception of two doubtful examples (Khasias and Saporogian Cossacks), polyandry always assumes the fraternal form; that is to say, the husbands of the woman are brothers. The classic country of polyandry is Thibet. There each of the brothers cohabits in turn with their common wife, a certain period being allotted. Among the ancient Arabs, according to Strabo, matters were arranged less systematically, and the first comer on his arrival at the woman’s house asserted his marital rights, after having taken care, however, to place his staff across the door, as is still done in the case of temporary marriages in Persia and among the Todas, who leave the cloak as well as the staff. Polyandry is practised by several peoples living on the borders of Thibet (Miris, Dophlas, Abors, Khasias, Ladakhis, etc.), but appears to be but rarely met with elsewhere, and almost never outside of India. It is explained by the scarcity of women in these countries (a statement not confirmed by statistics in regard to certain of them), and by the necessities of the pastoral life of these peoples.

Levirate, or compulsory marriage with a dead brother’s widow, a very widespread custom in India (where it is called niyoga), among the Iroquois and other American Indians, the Melanesians, the Negroes, as well as the ancient Egyptians and Jews, is considered as a survival of polyandry. However, Maine, Westermarck, and others see in it only a custom established with a view to securing the protection of orphan children.[275] With polyandry is also connected, on not very good grounds it seems to me, parental marriage. In this form of union the father or uncle or some other relative really cohabits with the nominal wife of his son or nephew during the minority of the latter. This custom, according to Shortt, prevails in India among the Reddies or Naickers, and according to Haxthausen among the peasantry in Russia, where a modification of this kind of relation, strongly reprehended, however, is still known at the present day under the name “Snokhachestvo.”[276]

Polygamy and Monogamy.—Individual marriage, which may, as we have seen in Australia, co-exist with group marriage, assumes two different forms—polygamy and monogamy. The latter does not necessarily proceed from the former. Many savage tribes, like the Veddahs and the Andamanese, are monogamous, as are also a certain number of mammals and birds. Among others (Fuegians, Bushmen) polygamy is exceptional. In reality it only takes root in societies a little more advanced, in which, especially, the idea of individual property is already more or less firmly planted. Woman is then considered very much as a slave, from whom pleasure and labour may be obtained; she is treated like any other property; the more wives a man has, the richer and more esteemed is he. Polygamy is widely diffused over the world, either in its pure form (Mahomedans, Australians, American Indians, Negroes, etc.) or in its modified forms: lawful concubinage (all over the East), or unlawful (Europe), and temporary marriage (Persia, Japan).

It is only with the development of society that monogamy, nominal or real, develops, and with it a little respect for woman. She enjoys more liberty, as do also the children who have passed a certain age. Thus is constituted the family of to-day, in which, however, the patriarchal spirit is still dominant.

Patriarchate.—Individual polygamous marriage is most frequently allied to a new form of affiliation, that of kinship through males, which, in its turn, is rooted in the constitution of property and the subordination of woman to man. In the matriarchate the natural protector of the child and the family is the mother’s brother; in the patriarchate his place is taken by the father, who extends the right of property not only to include the mother, but also the children; he may sell them, hire them out, etc. The patriarchate is the rÉgime under which live most half-civilised peoples and a great number of uncivilised.

Several matrimonial customs may be explained by the primitive forms of marriage. Thus the practice of showing hospitality to a stranger by lending him one’s wife, so common among savages and half-civilised nomads, may be explained as a relic of group marriage, in which, as we have seen, the exchange and the lending of women are practised.[277] Similarly, the custom, very prevalent, especially in Malaysia, which requires a husband to live in his wife’s family, is considered by most authors as a relic of the matriarchate. Another custom, nearly always allied to the first, but which is also met with as a survival in the cases where the woman goes to live with her husband’s family, is that prohibiting newly-married couples from speaking to their fathers and mothers-in-law (avoidance). The best known form, widely diffused from the Kafirs to the Mongols, is the forbidding of the husband not only to speak to, but even to see his mother-in-law; if by chance he should meet her, he is obliged to take to flight, or, at any rate, to turn aside out of the way. Among several peoples of the Caucasus and certain North American Indians this custom is observed only until the birth of the first child. This custom, in a general way, is considered as a relic either of exogamy (Tylor) or of anti-incest customs (Westermarck).[278]

Among the most widely diffused practices having a connection with marriage, we must mention the abduction of the wife, whether real (Arabs, Turco-Mongols, Caribs, Patagonians, Burmese, Australians, etc.) or simulated and symbolic, and often forming part of the marriage ceremonies (among a host of peoples). Ethnologists are not agreed as to the origin of this custom; some see in it the last vestiges of exogamy, others the relic of the slavery of women, etc.

Side by side with simulated abduction there is almost always the purchase of the wife from her parents (the “Kalym” of the Turco-Tatars, etc.), which proves that marriage by purchase took the place of marriage by capture in the exogamous relations between tribes, and contributed to their social cohesion, preventing quarrels and wars (Tylor). The marriage portion is only found in societies having a relatively high organisation. It is, as it were, a payment for the guardianship which the husband assumes over the wife and her children under the patriarchal system. The institution of the marriage portion is probably derived from the practice still in vogue among many peoples, according to which the parents offer presents in exchange for the money or the service given as the purchase-price of their daughter.

The duration of the conjugal union varies so much among different peoples that no general rule can be laid down regarding it. From unions of a night (under the rÉgime of group marriage, in temporary or trial marriages) to the indissolubility prescribed by the Christian religions, there is quite a scale of conjugal relations more or less durable. Most frequently the husband may discard the wife when she has ceased to please him; sometimes divorce is hedged round with certain formalities of established custom.

Children.—In all societies, as in the animal world, the family is principally established for the bringing up of children. But it is far from true that the arrival of children is everywhere accepted with joy. The voluntary limitation of progeny is not an invention of advanced civilisation. Savages could teach us much on this point. The Australians with this object practise ovariotomy on women, the operation “mika” (artificial hypospadias) on men, or simply kill off the superfluous infants. Infanticide on a large scale was practised by the Polynesians before their “Europeanisation”; it exists still here and there in Thibet, so far as girls are concerned. Some would even see in this custom the origin of polyandry.

Birth.—But having once decided to let a child live, the uncivilised look well after it. One could write a volume, if one wished to enumerate all the hygienic and at the same time superstitious customs attendant on the pregnancy, parturition, and recovery of the woman among different peoples. The act of generation is considered by nearly all the uncivilised as something at once mysterious and impure. The pregnant woman is kept quiet and rubbed; she has to occupy a hut apart before, during, or after the birth of the child, according to the custom of the different countries. Rarely is the woman allowed to be confined alone; the examples quoted have reference for the most part to isolated cases, such as may happen even among the civilised. She is often assisted at the time of the confinement by one or more women, and sometimes by men.[279]

Among the customs which accompany birth, the most curious is that of the “couvade” practised by the Basques, the Indians of Brazil and Guiana, and other peoples. According to this custom, the husband, after the coming into the world of the child, behaves exactly as if it were he who had been confined; he betakes himself to bed, receives congratulations, sometimes looks after the baby. E. B. Tylor sees in this custom a survival of the matriarchate in a society with a patriarchal rÉgime. It would be the ransom paid by the husband for the right, which formerly belonged to the mother, to be called the head of the house.[280]

As to the child, from the moment of his entrance into the world, every effort is made to keep away from him the spirits which might harm him; the Laotians, in the vicinity of the house which shelters him, hang bells, rattles, and cloth-bands, so that, shaken by the wind, they may make a noise and keep away evil spirits (Harmand, Neis). The Malays and the Nias Islanders for this purpose prepare special fetiches (Modigliani).

The name which is given to a child is also the result of much care and forethought. Fetichers, shamans, sorcerers, and priests are consulted. The name chosen is sometimes determined by the locality or house of the birth. Thus the Kalmuks who were exhibited at Paris in 1882 gave the name of “Paris” to the child which one of their number brought into the world. The Negroes of Senegal, under similar circumstances in 1895, called one of their new-born “The Frenchman.” But most frequently the name given is of a plant or animal (Red Indians, Mongols, etc.). It must be said, however, that among many peoples the name given at birth is not borne throughout life. It may be changed more than once. The most frequent cause for doing this is the fear of spirits; the Dyaks and the Mongols change the name of sick persons to “deceive the spirit” who has caused the disease; among the Fuegians, the Indians of North America, the Polynesians, and the Malays, the name of a dead man is not allowed to be uttered, and all his namesakes are obliged to change their name. Often, too, the name is changed because their “trade” requires it; the Okanda healers bear another name when they practise their art; and among civilised peoples changes of name are bound up with certain social conditions (monks, actors, prostitutes, etc.).

Education of Children.—Suckling ordinarily lasts a very long time among uncivilised peoples, till the child is two, three, four, and five years old, sometimes even older.[281] Children are treated kindly by uncivilised peoples, and rarely are they chastised as they are in Europe, though a certain “discipline” appears among the half-civilised, with the necessity of making the child learn many more things. At the age of puberty, among most uncivilised peoples, the ceremony of initiation takes place. This is a sort of higher education with certain tests, followed by a ceremony, after which the individual is declared adult. It is met with among the Australians, as also among the American Indians, Negroes, etc., with the same essential features. The young men of the tribe are led into a place apart, where the sorcerers, the fetichers, or the “old men,” teach them during a varying period all that a “man” should know about social and sexual life. The candidates are then put tests, sometimes very cruel, to make sure of their power to resist thirst, hunger, and physical pain. Those who emerge victorious from these tests are brought back triumphantly into the villages, and feasted during several days.[282]

Among the operations to which young men are subjected during initiation, we must specially notice circumcision, generally practised all over Oceania, among the American Indians and other peoples, without taking into account the Israelite and Mussulman world, in which this custom has now but a religious symbolic signification. Moreover, several religions have kept the custom of initiation, giving to it very varied forms (shaving of the forelock among Buddhists, first communion among Catholics, etc.).

The lot of the old men is not an enviable one in primitive societies. They are not cared for, and often when they become infirm they are left to die of hunger. The voluntary suicide of the old men, which is committed amid great pomp among the Chukchi[283] and some other peoples, may be explained as much by the miseries of existence as by the belief in a better life beyond the tomb, which is the basis of funereal rites.[284] Among nearly all peoples it is customary to put into the grave objects which the dead had used in their ordinary occupations, but only such as constituted private property: weapons by the side of a warrior, pottery near to a woman, etc.[285] These objects are usually broken to signify that they also are dead, and that their “soul” goes to accompany their owner into the other life. It is also with this idea that a warrior’s favourite horse is sacrificed on his grave (Red Indians, Altaians), or a symbolic ceremony suffices, the animal being led in the funeral procession, a custom still practised all over Europe at the interments of superior officers. In India women are sacrificed, slaves in Dahomey and among the Dyaks, etc., in order that the dead may not be deprived of anything in the other world.[286]

Funeral ceremonies and the practice of going into mourning give place to feasts of diverse character. Among the Dualas of the Cameroons (Western Africa), the “feast of the dead” lasts nine days, the time required for his soul to make the journey to Bela, the place of eternal rest. Among the Battas of Sumatra, we find these funeral feasts accompanied by dances and a special kind of game, the Topingha. The exhumation of the bones of the dead person at the end of a certain time, practised by several Indonesian, Melanesian, and American tribes, is the occasion of orgies; I may also mention the habit of visiting the cemetery at stated periods, and taking food either on the grave or by the side of it, which is very general in Europe.

Among the feasts organised in honour of the dead let us mention the Bung of the Japanese, at the end of which miniature skiffs in straw are thrown into the sea, supposed to transport the souls of the dead who have been present at the feast back to their dwelling-place.

The modes of sepulture, although very varied,—interment, incineration, exposure to the air (natural mummification), embalming, pure and simple abandonment on the earth or to the waves,—have not a great importance from the ethnical point of view; often two or three modes may co-exist among the same people (examples, Mongols, Papuans).

Mourning.—Outward manifestations of grief caused by the death of a near relative exist among all peoples of the world, even the most uncivilised. These are, first, cries, lamentations, and tears (Bushmen, Bechuana, ancient Egyptians, Caribs of Guiana, Italians, Russians). Then succeed material signs displayed on the body, some of which are the consequence of cruel practices which seem to suggest the idea of sacrifice for the purpose of removing the anger of “the dead man’s soul,” which wanders about the survivors. We need only mention the cutting off of the finger-joints among the Bushmen, of the toes among the Fijians, the drawing out of teeth in Eastern Polynesia, the laceration of the skin among the Australians, the burnings among the New Caledonians. Under a milder form the same idea of sacrifice manifests itself in the custom of plucking out the hair of the beard (Australians, Fijians), of cutting or shaving off a part or the whole of the hair (Jews and Egyptians in ancient times, Huns, Albanians, Hovas, Malays, American Indians, Basutos, Gallas). Certain signs of mourning on the body seem to be caused by the desire not to be recognised by the “spirit” of the dead person; such is the custom of daubing the face or the whole body, practised by the Negroes of Central Africa, the Australians, the Polynesians, etc. Among peoples who are more clothed, the mode of dress is altered. General negligence in dress is a sign of grief among the Bechuana and the Malays; tearing of the garments is practised among the American Indians; the Manganya of Southern Africa wrap the body in palm-leaves, which they wear until they fall withered to the ground. The conventional colour of the clothes, white among the Chinese, black among Europeans, is a sign of the same kind.

4.—SOCIAL LIFE.

Social life may be studied both as limited to a given people (inner life) and in the relations of one people with another (international life).

The inner life of a given ethnical group comprises economic or property organisation, and social organisation properly so called (administration and politics). Ideas of morals, right, and justice depend much on the forms which these organisations have taken, as well as on usages and customs; and the latter in their turn are derived principally from family organisation and religious ideas.

The international life of peoples manifests itself in three different ways: either in hostile relations (war), in pacific neutral relations (commerce), or in sympathetic relations (exchange of ideas and feelings, feasts, congresses, etc.).

Inner Life of a People—Economic Organisation.—The system by which property is held depends on the mode of production, for the distribution and consumption of wealth are in intimate relation with the mode of procuring it. Among savage hunters it is often necessary for several to combine to catch big game; thus Australians hunt the kangaroo in bands of several dozen individuals; the Eskimo gather quite a flotilla of kayaks for whale-fishing. The captured kangaroos, the whale brought to shore, are considered common property; each eats of the spoil according to his hunger. The territory of each tribe among the Australians and Red Indians is considered collective property; every one hunts on it in his own way, on condition that he does not encroach on the territory of neighbouring tribes. But in the midst of this common property certain objects used solely by the individual, his garments, his weapons, etc., are considered personal property, while the tent with its furniture, etc., belongs to the family; as the canoe which is used for whale fishing, holding five or six persons, belongs to these persons in common.

Thus in the same society three sorts of property, collective, family, and individual, may exist simultaneously side by side. What decides its category is the character of the labour expended, the mode of production. I have made a flint implement with my own hands, it is mine; with the assistance of my wife and children I have built the hut, it belongs to the family; I have hunted with the people of my tribe, the beasts slain belong to us all in common. The animals which I have killed by myself on the territory of the tribe are mine, and if by chance the animal wounded by me escapes and is killed by another, it belongs to both of us and the skin is his who gave the finishing stroke. For this reason each arrow bears the mark of its owner.

It is thus that matters are arranged among the Tunguses and North American Indians. Among the latter, rules have been strictly laid down in regard to bison-hunting from the point of view of individual property.[287]

But since the introduction of fire-arms, the balls bearing no distinctive marks, the slain bisons are divided equally; they are considered as common property. This example shows plainly how closely are related production and the system by which property is held. Common and private property do not lead among savages to monopoly, for the products of the chase cannot be kept for long without getting spoilt; so after having taken what he wants for himself, the hunter gives the remainder to his relatives, his family, or the tribe. It is this which partly explains the carelessness of savages and the absence among them of the spirit of thrift and thought for the future.

Family Property.—With the introduction of agriculture, most of the objects of personal property become family property; the transformation frequently coincides with the appearance of the patriarchal form of family life; the land still remains for some time common property, but soon it likewise becomes family property. The members of the same family group enjoy in common the products of the soil, which common labour has fertilised. This mode of property existed in Russia before the sixteenth century, that is to say, before the establishment of the communal ownership of the soil still in vogue to-day. It is found in England from the thirteenth to the fourteenth century (Seebohm), and in certain parts of France (in the Nivernais, according to the statement of Guy Coquille) in the form of “porÇonneries” having “pot and fire” in common, working in the same fields and accumulating their savings in the same box.[288] With the growth of population, this family joint-ownership developed into an agricultural commune, the true “village community” of English authors, with the alienation of holdings and the admission of strangers into its midst, with periodic distributions of the various strips of land. The best type of this kind of community is the Russian “mir.” In India it is met with side by side with the family commune among the Dravidian and Aryan peoples, and in Western Europe numerous traces of it are found.[289] But these are only traces and survivals, for communal property has been destroyed here as in the Mussulman world, often by means of force, with the establishment of the feudal system, which gave birth to the different modes of land tenure which we find to-day. In Russia and in India the dissolution of the communal system is still taking place under our eyes, but from intrinsically different causes, especially the rapid increase of population and diminution of the size of holdings.

Social Organisation.—The constitution of society is modelled on that of property. In the simplest cases the family organisation is at the same time the social organisation. Under the rÉgime of group marriage, and even after its partial replacement by individual marriage, tribes are divided into a certain number of clans, each of which, with the majority of peoples, has its totem. The totem is a class of material objects (never an isolated object, thus differing from the fetish) for which uncivilised man professes a superstitious veneration, believing in a sort of mysterious connection between himself and each representative of the class of objects. Most frequently the totem is some species of animal or vegetable which the members of the clan regard as their ancestor, and also as the patron and protector of the whole clan. The Iroquoian legends relate circumstantially how the tortoise, their totem and ancestor, got rid of its shell and gradually developed into man. The totem is represented on different objects belonging to the clan. Our blazons and armorial bearings are derived from the totem, as well as marks of ownership. The totemistic divisions are independent of the territorial divisions of the tribe; the connection is, rather, a moral one. The inhabitants of a territorial district may belong to several clans, and, on the other hand, the members of one and the same “totem” may inhabit places distant from each other.

Nearly always the totem is subject to taboo[290] (page 252). The social organisation of clans and “phratries” (groups of clans of which the members are intermarriable) joined to totemism is widespread among North American Indians, Australians, Melanesians of the Solomon Islands, the Tshi-speaking tribes of the Gold Coast, etc. It exists side by side with other social organisations among the Kirghis, the Kevsurs of the Caucasus (Kovalewsky), the Mandingoes (Binger), etc. Under this primitive rÉgime there are no permanent chiefs, but intermittent councils, formed of the “old men” in each clan. If several clans are united into a tribe, an elective chief sometimes appears, but always invested with only a temporary and very limited power.

Family Organisation.—With the change from the hunting to the agricultural mode of life, with the establishment of affiliation by blood and the patriarchal family, with the constitution of family ownership, the social organisation is also transformed. All the members of the family gathered under the same roof (often in the literal sense of the word; for example, among the Indonesians and the Pueblo Indians) constitute the social unit. Such is the origin of the commune in China and Japan, of the “fine” in Ireland, etc. The chief of the race, the living “ancestor,” becomes the chief of the society, and his power tends to become hereditary.[291]

Territorial Organisation.—When family ownership is replaced by communal ownership, the social organisation takes the territorial form. All the people inhabiting a given territory, whether related by blood or not, form the social unit. The Russian “Volost,” the Annamese commune, the Japanese “Mura,” the “Calpulli” of the ancient Toltecs, are examples of this kind of grouping.[292] Sometimes these territorial organisations form by themselves independent states, governed by an elected chief, assisted by the delegates of each commune (Moqui in North America, Krumen and Vakamba in Africa, Samoans in Oceania), or controlled by popular assemblies (New Hebrideans, most of the peoples of Western Africa and the Congo basin). Sometimes also they form part of vaster confederations at the head of which is an elected chief, a council, etc. (Rejangs of Sumatra with their “Pangherans,” or princes, Afghans with their “Khans,” etc.).

Organisation of Castes and Classes.—We may find already in the territorial organisation of society the rudiments of the formation of classes, shown by the development of private property and wealth, and also by the authority of the chiefs and powerful persons who become the “protectors” of the weak. This differentiation of classes is also marked by the appearance of slavery, the result of wars and the right of private property (enslavement for debt). It takes definite form in the class organisation which presupposes the existence of two groups of citizens at least—the lords and nobles, the aristocracy or directing class, and the “people,” the plebeian or directed class. The relations between these classes may extend from the complete servitude of the one and the exercise of the right of life and death by the other, to an almost absolute equality of the two.

There is similarly a perfect gradation for non-free people, as opposed to citizens divided into two or more classes. At the foot of the ladder are “slaves,” in the strict sense of the word, not regarded even as men; while at the top are found those who by birth are not free, but who by fortune or otherwise may come to occupy a position almost equal to that of free citizens of the highest class.

What are the qualifications required in order to become chief in primitive social organisations? Most often, by election, those become chief who are bravest in war, strongest, most skilful in the chase (American Indians, Congolese), or the chiefs are the richest (Indians, Polynesians, Negroes), or simply they are the biggest, the best fed (Athapascans, according to Bancroft). But whatever may be the ground on which they are chosen, the power of these chiefs is often most precarious, and it may disappear with the cause of its origin (war, hunting expedition). Chiefs elected for a stated period are invested with more real power. Sometimes they are elected for life; this is a step towards hereditary power which may degenerate into the purest absolutism (ancient Dahomey). The outward ensigns of authority are of various sorts: clubs and commander’s staffs (Oceania and Europe), parasols (Asia, Africa),[293] etc. In the same way as the clan is responsible for the misdeeds of each of its members, so the absolute monarch, king, sultan, khan, prince, etc., is responsible for the acts committed by his subjects. The corollary of the conception that kings or other potentates represent the most skilful, influential, and bravest men is that of forfeiture of power when the holder becomes aged or infirm, or when he shows himself incapable of reigning (Quechuas, Masai); in certain absolute States the right of revolt against an incapable holder of royal power is expressly recognised (China), at least in theory.[294]

Feudal and Democratic Organisation.—It would be out of place here to dwell on the development of the feudal system and the theocracy which result from the rÉgime of classes. Let us merely say that almost all half-civilised peoples are still in the midst of the feudal rÉgime or are just emerging from it. The recognition of individual liberty forms the first step towards the organisations of modern European states, constitutional monarchies or republics, in which the aim is to reduce to a minimum governmental action and the differences of classes, especially before the law,—to establish, in a word, a democratic rÉgime.

Social morality, or the basis of conduct imposed on the members of society, is a convention recognised by the laws and by public opinion. This is to say that it changes from one people to another, according to the degree of culture, surrounding circumstances, etc. In the most uncivilised tribes life has a relative security, owing to certain rules of conduct to which each member submits from fear of punishment or the disapprobation of public opinion. The right of the strongest is not applied in all its brutal logic even among savages.

Their rules of morality are of course not always in accordance with ours. Among the uncivilised, it is not a question of absolute right, of absolute morality; everything is reduced to a very restricted altruism, not extending beyond kin and immediate neighbours. It is wrong to kill a man of one’s own clan, or to steal something from the collective property of the clan; but it is, on the contrary, very praiseworthy to strike down with a well-directed arrow a stranger to the clan, or to carry off something from a neighbouring clan. Gradually the moral sentiment extends to people of the same tribe, of the same class or caste, of the same religion, but such extension is slow. Among the civilised the moral code sometimes varies as it is applied on this or that side of political or social boundaries.

Besides, in a general way, a number of acts regarded as culpable by the codes of all civilised states, are yet tolerated, and even extolled, in certain particular circumstances; such as the taking of life, for example, in legitimate defence, in a duel, during war, or as capital punishment. Thus in recalling examples of this kind, we shall be less severe on a Dyak who cuts off a man’s head solely that he may carry this trophy to his bride; for if he did otherwise he would be repulsed by all, and would not be able to marry. Among the uncivilised, morality is purely utilitarian; it encourages acts of utility to the clan, to the tribe (hospitality, protection of children, respect for common property, etc.), it reprobates those which are not advantageous (support of the old people, compassion for slaves, etc.).

Right and Justice.—At the origin of societies morals and the action of justice are indistinguishable, public opinion constitutes “common law,” often respected even by the legislations of the civilised. I cannot undertake to speak here of morals based on religious ideas, nor of ethnical jurisprudence.[295] Let it suffice to give some examples of customs which bring into prominence some of the ideas of right and justice of uncivilised peoples.

Taboo is one of the customs which show in the clearest way the power of public opinion in primitive societies. This custom, common in Australia, Melanesia, and especially in Polynesia, may be briefly defined as an interdiction, by the authority of the council of old men, chiefs, priests, etc., to in any way use a certain object or living thing. Thus, young Australians are forbidden to eat the flesh of the emu before reaching the age when they undergo “initiation” (see p. 241); taboo in this case has a utilitarian purpose, as also in Polynesia, where chickens, bananas, and yams are tabooed when there is a scarcity. Sometimes taboo is only to be observed by women or children, etc. Whoever infringes this law runs the risk of punishment by death.

Another example of judicial and social custom is the vendetta. At the beginnings of socialisation, in groups organised in clans, every offensive act had to be personally “avenged” by the victim. The vengeance assumes then the form of a judicial combat (prototype of European duel). In the case of murder, it is the near relatives who take upon themselves the duty of avenging it, but as the search for the true culprit is sometimes difficult, the whole clan is held responsible for the act committed by one of its members, and it becomes lawful to kill any one belonging to this clan to avenge the murder. The law of retaliation also implies that the misdeed should be avenged in nearly the same form in which it was committed. Gradually, however, vengeance passes into the hands of the representatives of society (judges, magistrates), and the penal code is established.

Ordeals represent one of the most widespread methods of judicial procedure of non-civilised peoples. Most frequently the carrying out of these trials is entrusted to magicians believed to have the faculty of discovering the guilty person. Needless to say that the presents offered by interested parties had a considerable influence on the decision of these umpires.[296]

The taking of an oath is the last remnant of this mode of procedure; it is a moral test which, among many peoples, is associated with the obligation of swallowing certain special beverages (the rust of a sword in wine in Malaysia, blood among the Chinese, etc.).

Secret Societies—Extra-legal Judges.—In every social organisation which is imperfect or powerless to give satisfaction to the just claims of its members, secret societies are formed which undertake the redressing of wrongs and the re-establishment of justice. Such, for example, are the societies of the “Duk-Duk” of New Britain, usually formed of a confidant of the chief of the tribe, and of young men who have entered the “club” on payment of a somewhat large sum. Each Duk-Duk is on occasion a justiciary; clad in his particular dress and wearing a horrible mask, he runs howling through the village, and all those who are not in the secret run away terrified. He goes to the hut of the native against whom a complaint had been lodged or who is suspected of a crime, and inflicts punishment which may vary from a simple fine to death. No one dare resist him, for sooner or later a violent end would be the fate of him who had raised his hand against the Duk-Duk. The members of this secret society, who recognise each other by certain signs, meet together in places to which the profane are forbidden to approach under pain of death. They give themselves up in these places to songs, dances, and copious feasting, in which human flesh often forms the chief dish. They are also sorcerers and healers.[297]

Similar societies exist among the Yoruba Negroes of Guinea, and the traces of like institutions are found in Europe, as, for example, the famous “Oat-field procedure” (Haberfeld treiben), an ancient custom which is kept up in the region of upper Bavaria situated between the Inn and the Isar. It is a sort of trial by a secret tribunal of misdemeanours which are not reached by the ordinary penal law. The court of Munich had in 1896 to deal with one of these procedures, which have now become very rare.[298]

Rules of Politeness.—Departments of social life which depend on mutual sympathy or the feeling of solidarity are not numerous. We must include in this category associations formed for the chase or for agricultural work like harvest, assistance in the reconstruction of a house destroyed by fire, etc. This kind of labour in common is chiefly known in societies in which the commune is the basis of social life, among Southern Slavs and Russians. The custom of “exchanging blood,” or drinking in the same cup, widely spread among these Slavs, as among the Malays, the Indonesians, and the Negroes, is also one of the expressions of sincere mutual sympathy, while rules of politeness are the manifestations, frequently hypocritical, of feelings of sociability. They vary infinitely. Thus salutations present a great diversity, but the origin of them all is the desire to show inferiority to the person saluted, and to express sympathy and devotion. The expression of inferiority is a posture which puts you lower than the person saluted. This posture varies from prostration to the ground (Negroes, Cambodians) to simple inclination of the head (Europeans), passing through a series of intermediate forms: touching the ground with the forehead (Chinese), simple genuflexion, and the “curtsey” of our mothers. As to manifestations of sympathy, they are almost always expressed by an embrace or kiss. In the case of the most humble submission, the kiss is given to the soil trodden by the feet of the person saluted, while in that of friendship between equals it is bestowed on the cheek or lips; intermediate forms are not wanting here either, and the various habits of kissing the foot, the garments, the hand, etc., are universally known. To these two principal manifestations of politeness several others may be added. A person meeting a friend or even a casual acquaintance uncovers the whole or a part of the body, the breast (certain Negroes), the arm or head (Europeans); each rubs the other with oil or with earth, nose is brought into contact with nose, and each “sniffs” the other’s health (Lapps, Eskimo, Malays, Polynesians);[299] each shakes the other’s hands, places the hand on the forehead (Hindus) or on the breast (Mussulmans), or draws out the tongue while scratching at the same time the ear (Thibetans, etc.).[300]

FIG. 73.—Chipped flint dagger
of the Californian Indians, with
otter-skin wrapping for grip.
(From O. Mason.)