The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1884-06-26
The Noble IrOuuOis.

lean Indian was the noblest race that
ever was, so superior to US all in the
attributes of manliness and honor and
fair-mindedness that, while he was
lecturing, we could but blush that we
were white and belonged to an inferior
race. Now the reason of this superior
ity was that the Indians were ruled by
their women. The notion that their
women are degraded in position, were
beasts of burden and of labor, and
| without authority, was based upon a
wrong conception of Indian society. In
the pamphlet containing the sixteenth
and seventeenth annual report of the
Peabody Museum of Cambridge, Vol
Ill, for 1884, those interested in ethnol-
ogy Will find very interesting paper
on the Social and Political Position OF
Woman among the Huron-Iroquois
tribes, by Mr.. Lucian Carr, assistant
curator of the museum. In this paper,
which is chiefly devoted to the habits
of the IroJuois, much of the testimony
is collected to support the oft-repeated
statement of the superior influence of
woman in all the tribes east of the Mis-
sissippi and south of the Cumberland.
The ultimate authority resided in the
women of the tribe. This was owing
to the division of the tribe into gentes
and the TRANSMISSION of inheritance and
descent through the female line. Upon
the death of chief whose Office was
hereditary, as with the Iroquois, he
was succeeded, not by his son, but by
the son of a sister, or aunt. or niece on
the maternal side; and such of his
property as was not buried with him,
but was hereditary in his gems, did not
90 to his child, because in the peculiar
laws of marriage. the child and father
must belong to different gentes. Owing
to this sort of descent we have the sin
gular phase of society in which woman.
by virtue of her functions as wife and
mother. exercised an influence little
short of deSpOtic, not only in the wig
wan but around the council fire. Even
with the fiercest of all warriors, the
Iroquois, her influence was absolutely
paramount; chiefs, warriors and coun-
els were obliged to yield to her de-
mands. The gems or clan was a
brotherhood of individuals bound to-
gether by blood, this bond of union
could only be preserved and perpet-
uated through the women, and the
women, therefore, carried all the gentes
and controlled all social and political
action.
1t was emphatically denied that the
woman was the overworked drudge she
has been representative cares and
labors were not so great as those de-
volving upon the women of our early
pioneers. She would not submit to an
unequal division of labor because she
possessed equally with her husband the
right of divorce, and she had the power
OF making divorce One-sided arrange
ment. A few details will make APP
parent the position of woman.
The Indians generally lived in bar
racks orlong- containing several
families, the women being usually of
one gems, or kin. The husbands and
the wives or sons would be of course of
different gentes, and never were
adopted. A matron ruled absolutely
the house. The man who married int
it was under her authority, and obliged
to bring his game to his mother-in-law.
If he was lazy, she made the house too
hot to hold him. If young couple
set up for themselves. his wife was alb
solute mistress of the cabin; she owned
the fields and the harvests also. In
deed, the women always claimed that
they were the owners of the land, and
it was never denied by the chiefs, and
instances are given where they inter-
fered and broke contracts made by
councils, on the undisputed ground
that the land was theirs. The women
owned all property except the clothes
worn by the men and their weapons,
and the children belonged to the mother
and acknowledged no authority but
hers. Sometimes in cases of divorce
the father took the sons. but the women
defeated this arrangement whenever
they chose.
In marriage the matrons took the
matter entirely into their own hands.
They made all the matches, and they
continued their supervision of the
couples after marriage. Polygamy was
not allowed, but sometimes the women
themselves Il plurality of hus-
bands. If divorce took place for the
fault, it was the man who had
to leave, for the cabin was hers, and he
could take only such property as she
gave him. If the divorce was for his
fault he was little better off, for if he
himself with another wife,
No. One might pounce down on to him
and take all the provisions she had.
Thus tied by memorable custom, the
man does not appear to have had any
right that woman was bound to re-
spect. From the cradle to the grave he
was subject to some woman who ruled
him by virtue of her position in the
or the gems. The rule of the
was one of the mostingeniously
deSpotisms that possibly
could have been devised.
There was nothing that the man
could do without woman's consent. He |
could not go upon the war path, but he |
could be sent to war or on any expedi-
ion, whenever she willei it. to secure
;aptiveS for slaves or for purposes of |
The war-making, however,
vas in her hands. She had the dis |
DoSal of the prisoners after successful |
aid. The political authority of woman |
vas not less real. OStensiby the power /
vas in a council of chiefs and elders. !
,ut these chiefs acted as attorneys for
he women. and commonly did their
bidding. The women chose the sue
,esSors of the chiefs. and they also had
he power of deposition. When the
councils met. the women deliberated
part, and then told the council what
. do. In short the writer shows that
+mong the Iroquois, and inferentially
.mong all the tribes east of the MiSSis-
ippi, there is nothing more real
han this superiority of the women;
hey posSessall actual authority; own
he land. and the fields and