consideration of presents; he associates with him as many or as few as he wishes."1 Often the clans combined in order to form a tribal monopoly of certain lines of trade. Father Lalemant says, "The Arendaronons are one of the four nations which compose those whom we call the Hurons; it is the most Eastern Nation of all, and is the one which first encountered the French, and to which in consequence the trade belonged, according to the laws of the country. They could enjoy this alone; nevertheless, they find it good to share it with the other nations.'

The chief means employed to bring about the exchange of goods, was present-giving. According to savage custom, any gift outside of the clan involved another in return, and so the desired exchange was effected in the politest way. Thus embassies were often trading parties in disguise. The Jesuit Relation of 1672-3 says that the Iroquois give presents to all the inland natives who visit Lake Superior, " to confirm," they say, "the peace that Onontis made," but rather to get their peltries, with which the Iroquois are expecting these tribes to respond to their presents."3 Lafitau describes in detail the procedure of the regular merchants upon arriving among the people with whom they wish to trade. "The feasts and dances that the savages give in the course of their trading with other nations make their commerce an agreeable amusement. other as if they were on an embassy. to proceed by means of presents. the chief and to the body of the Nation with which commerce is being carried on. It responds with an equivalent, which is always accepted without too close inspection, since this sort of present is perhaps regarded as a sort of customs duty levied on the wares. Afterwards they traffic as individuals from one cabin to another. The thing which is for sale is sent to a cabin, whence in return something else is sent back, which is regarded as the

1Jes. Rel., X, 224–226.

2 Jes. Rel., XX, 19. Cf. XXI, 177.

They pass from one to an

This manner of trading is Some of them are made to

3 Jes. Rel., LVII, 22-23. Cf. Jes. Rel., LVII, 23-25; XXII, 291; XXXII, 187; XVI, 129; XLIII, 101; LXVII, 257. Cf. also Bücher, "Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft," pp. 71 sq.

price of the article received.

But if the trader is not satisfied,

he returns what he has received and takes back his own merchandise, unless something better or more acceptable is offered. The worth of a thing and the desire to have it alone regulate the price."1

66

This sort of commerce was, as Lafitau says, a pure barter of goods for goods," in which the difference between the marginal utilities of the same good in the eyes of different people caused one commodity to be exchanged for another until each indivdual got rid of his surplus in one line, and supplied his needs in another. No middleman was necessary; there was no market, nor any association of sellers against buyers. There was perceptible, however, the faint beginnings of the development of a circulating medium. That the Indians in their use of wampum made an approach to the money idea is attested by scores of passages from the writings of the early explorers and missionaries. Of the Mohawks, for instance, Cartier says, "The most precious thing they have in all the world they call Esurguy Of this they make beads, and use them even as we doe gold and silver, accounting it the preciousest thing in the world." Similar references in which the Iroquois are said to have used wampum as money occur in the accounts of many other writers.3 Undoubtedly, wampum possessed the necessary features qualifying it for the purpose. Its utility as a source of prestige had already made it to a certain extent a standard of value.4 This fundamental fact, together with those of the imperishability, divisibility and relatively small bulk of wampum, gave it the place of money in the economy of the Iroquois and of the American Indians in general. Hence, ransoms, fines and debts of any sort could be most acceptably paid through the means of these little shell beads, either counted and woven into strings and belts, or measured out in a 1Lafitau, II, 332-333.

2

Cartier (1535), cit. in Beauchamp, “Iroquois Trail,” pp. 114-116.

• Holmes, Art in Shell of Amer. Inds.," Eth. Rep., 1880-1881, pp. 234240; Beauchamp, N. Y. St. Mus. Bul., No. 41, pp. 351–356; Jes. Rel., XV, 37; LIII, 117.

Cf. Ante, Ch. IV, "Wealth"; Keasbey, "Prestige Value," Q. J. Ec., XVII, May, 1903.

wooden spoon.

The latter method was used for small payments. 1 As far back as the accounts go, they give abundant instances of the use of wampum for the purposes and in the manner described. A Mohawk, for instance, mentioned by the Jesuit Relation, came from his own country to that of the western Iroquois to get some beaver skins. He himself had only wampum to offer in exchange. It was, in fact, the common thing to make purchases with wampum, unless something else was specified. Thus among the Hurons, after a year of famine, the value of wampum rose considerably, as they had been obliged to part with most of it in order to buy food. Again, Father Bressani was twice sold as a slave among the Iroquois, and both times was paid for in wampum, the price being three thousand beads the first time, and considerably more the second time. And so instances might be multiplied showing the extent to which wampum money was used by the Iroquois. Undoubtedly in the natural state no concept of exchange value can become prominent, and hence no really important function can be performed by money; nevertheless, in the use of wampum among the Iroquois there can be observed the most primitive workings of principles which dominate the more advanced stages of civilization.

'La Potherie, III, 33.

2 Jes. Rel., XVII, 77.

Jes. Rel., LX, 42-43. Cf. X, 217; XXXIV, 209.

PART II.

CHAPTER I.

THE FAMILY.

From the study of the environment and the consequent productive and distributive systems of the Iroquois, a fairly satisfactory idea has been gained of their economic activities. It remains to examine into their domestic, political, and religious institutions, in order to discover what relation these bear to their economic organization. In the first place, then, what was the form of the Iroquois family?

A general survey of the institution of the family among all primitive peoples in North America shows it existing in two forms. Either the father was its head and the owner of his wife and children; or else the mother took the chief place and added her children to her own gentile group. In the former case the family may be said to have been paternal, in the latter case maternal in character: which of the two forms prevailed seems to have been a matter determined by the industrial organization of the tribe.

In the domestic and village economies there was everything to favor the existence of the small paternal family. The necessity of the preservation of the species allowed the existence of no smaller society, while the nature of the food supply and the consequent method of production encouraged no more extensive organization. For similar reasons the man, and not the woman, was the ruler of the group. True, husband and wife coöperated in obtaining the food supply and in caring for their young; nevertheless, since the woman took a less important part in the food quest, and since the whole up was entirely dependent upon the man for defense, it was in absolute subjection to his