and gives the most sumptuous feast is held in the highest favor. If the recipient cannot return the compliment by giving a greater feast and repay the blankets with interest, he loses prestige in the eyes of the community. One can get the better of a rival by presenting him with more blankets than he can possibly return with interest, and the rival is vanquished. The system reminds one strongly of the attempts in modern society to gain prestige by the splendor of the entertainment.

Rivalry between chiefs and clans may show itself in the destruction of property. A chief will burn many blankets or a canoe in honor of a rival. If the latter cannot destroy an equivalent amount of property, his name is "broken" and his influence is diminished. If a man starts out to battle he will give away all his property, knowing well that, even if he does not return, his family will receive full value with interest from these gifts. It is a method of thrift and insurance, as well as a means of increasing one's standing in the tribe. This unique feature of acquiring rank has been described at length in order to show the presence of a kind of sophistication regarding property and social position, even among non-agricultural people.

Savage society seldom becomes stereotyped. The "glorious confusion" on the social side of primitive man simply shows his ability at adaptation to the varied conditions as he meets them. He has more rites, more customs, more secret societies, more religions, greater intensity of emotional states, greater feelings of blood and social solidarity, and perhaps more confidence in the future than has civilized man. On the other hand, the savage has fewer inventions and less property, fewer

wars and fewer diseases, fewer satisfactions and fewer wants. The savage is poorer in thoughts, but, at the same time, he is poorer in worries. We shall see in the next chapter that he is poorer in the complicated machinery of government and in government officials.

CHAPTER VI

GOVERNMENT, LAW, AND ETHICS

IN treating the social organization of early society a distinction was made in the character of social groups, between those with a loose and those with a firm type of structure. At the same time a contrast was indicated between societies composed of "all kinds of peoples flowing together" and those made up of one people, with the same language, the same customs, and the same religion. Where these common ties are augmented by the bonds of kinship there is the firmest possible type of association, physically, socially, and mentally homogeneous. Government, also, is bound to vary within wide extremes. Maine was the first to make clear the difference in governmental functions in societies based upon kinship and in those based upon territory. Even in a community where blood relationship has a prominent place, a form of control independent of any kinship bonds may be found.

The most common type of early government is a democracy, with the power held by the elders or by a council selected by the people. One-man rule is almost entirely absent in the most primitive communities. Morgan goes so far as to state that monarchy is incompatible with the clan grouping and that it is only to be associated with those people having phonetic writing and literary records. This is much too sweeping a state

ment, as monarchy is found among some uncivilized peoples. There is thus no definite and constant correlation between scale of culture and form of government.

There is the greatest contrast in this respect between aboriginal North America and Africa. In the former, with one or two prominent exceptions, the form of government is essentially democratic, whereas in Africa the trend is toward a monarchy. In Polynesia the government is distinctly despotic in form, with almost a feudal state built up around the rulers. Those in authority belong to a class so sacred and so well protected by tabu from all contact with the common people that it was impractical for them to lead war parties. We thus find in parts of New Guinea and in Polynesia a dual chieftainship, the highest chiefs, completely isolated from the common life of the people, and the war chiefs, whose duties consisted of leadership in war and carrying out the orders of those belonging to the other class of rulers. All this illustrates a point which has been made before, that patterns of culture often differ among peoples in the same general stage of development, and these patterns may or may not be conterminous with great continental areas.

The three departments of government-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial-are usually so bound together that it is often impossible to separate them. A tribal council may make and execute laws, as well as punish the violators of these laws. As Lowie remarks, "The legislative function in most primitive communities seems strangely curtailed when compared with that exercised in the more complex civilizations. All the exigencies of normal social intercourse are covered by customary law, and the business of such governmental machinery as

exists is rather to exact obedience to traditional usage than to create new precedents." This statement would not hold as true for Africa or Oceania as for other parts of the world.

THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY

The development of government along strictly democratic lines is best seen in the famous Confederation of the Iroquois.1 This was really a League of Nations, all members, however, speaking different dialects of the same language. The organization of the League was perhaps the best example of a representative form of democratic government ever evolved by primitive man. The Iroquois first became known to the white man in 1534. About 1675 their dominion reached over the greater parts of the present states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and portions of Canada, north of Lake Ontario. They formed an island in the midst of territory occupied by their enemies, the Algonkin peoples.

The Iroquois tribes were formerly independent bodies, but much of this unity was lost in the formation of the League. The tribal council was composed of a certain number of chiefs elected by the various clans. Each tribe was divided into two moieties which were at one time exogamous. These were in general ceremonial units, having to do with funerals. Each moiety was subdivided into four or more clans, with maternal descent, the property always remaining in the clan, and there were reciprocal obligations involving blood revenge. Each clan was named after an animal or bird, but there was no tabu attached to killing or eating these animals, and little or no reverence paid to them.

Each clan had a set of names to be used by its mem