THE "nation" as AN ELEMENT IN ANTHROPOLOGY. 599 



are in the presence of a form of governnieiit still clinging" in these 

 respects to the i)rimitive theories of human society. The student of 

 ethnological jurisprudence will class it to this extent with the totemic 

 and gentile systems of the lower and earlier strata of liumau develop- 

 ment. 



Let me illustrate this by the relative position of woman in a tribe and 

 in an enliglitened State. I could not touch upon a weightier question 

 to the somatologist, for none other so intimately relates to physical 

 anthropology. 



In spite of the matriarchal system, woman in all lower conditions of 

 society is treated as inferior to man and is deprived of many rights 

 which he enjoys. The exceptions to this are extremely rare, if any 

 really exist. The cause of her inferiority is solely her less physical 

 powers; it has ever been because she is bodily th.e weaker. The forms 

 of marriage have made no difterence. Whether a nnin could legally 

 take to himself a multitude of wives, or whether, as in Thibet to-day, a 

 woman could legally take a multitude of husbands; whether she was 

 .bought openly in tlie nnitrimonial market, or whether, as in this coun- 

 try, she could pick and choose at will from all her admirers; whether 

 polygamy or monogamy prevails she has ever been treated as man's 

 inferior, disallowed equal rights, prevented from equal liberty. So it 

 remains to-day, though with some improvement. 



At first she was but a slave and a beast of burden; at present, so far 

 as the enjoyment of civic rights in modern states is concerned, she has 

 risen to be classed among idiots and children. Surely we may hope 

 that she has not yet attained the acme of her evolution. 



A peculiar interest is attached to the development of this iufiuiryby 

 the fact that it was originally an American contribution to our science. 

 The first who clearly pointed out the distinction between gentile and 

 political conditions of society, that is, between the tribe and the 

 state, was the late Mr. Lewis H. Morgan; and, although we have been 

 obliged materially to modify many of his opinions, to him belongs the 

 credit of being the earliest to present in scientific form this important 

 truth in anthropology. He did not perceive very clearly its bearings 

 on physical anthropology, to which I have referred above, but he was 

 fully awake to the potent agency of the state, as distinguished from 

 the tribe, on the psychical nature of man. The following sentence from 

 his chapter on the evolution of Greek culture Avill show this: 



"That remarkable development of genius and intelligence which 

 raised the Athenians to the highest eminence among the historical 

 nations of mankind occurred aftei' they had adopted democratic insti- 

 tutions, and these gave its inspiration." 



By "democratic institutions" Mr, Morgan meant the substitution of 

 a national for a tribal life. 



But it would be an error to consider the state as we now know it, 

 even in its best examples, as the final form which this element will 



