KARSTHN] BLOOD REVENGE, WAR, AND VICTORY FEASTS 13 



tives, asks not so much which individual has committed the deed, 

 but rather reasons in the following way : "A member of that family 

 has murdered my relative ; consequently, in revenge, some member of 

 that family must die." 



When a murder committed by an own tribesman is to be avenged, 

 the social morals of the Jibaros require that the punishment shall 

 be meted out with justice, in so far that for one life which has been 

 taken only one life should be taken in retaliation. Thereupon, the 

 blood guilt is atoned {tumdshi akerkama) and the offended family 

 is satisfied. Consequently, if a Jibaro Indian wishes to revenge 

 a murder of his brother, it may Avell happen that he, in case the slayer 

 himself can not be caught and punished, will assassinate his brother 

 or father instead of him, but he does not take the life of more than 

 one member of the family, even if he has an opportunity of killing 

 more. If he, for instance, killed not only the murderer himself but 

 also some one of his brothers, this would awaken indignation in the 

 whole tribe, and it would be considered righteous that the family 

 thus offended in its turn should take revenge. The blood guilt in 

 such a case has passed to the original avenger. This principle, which 

 requires that there shall be justice in the retaliation so that life is 

 weighed against life, of course, in itself has a tendency to limit blood 

 revenge. It happens, however, in many cases, and especially with 

 regard to supposed witchery, that the person accused of the crime 

 does not admit the guilt but asserts that he and his family are inno- 

 cently persecuted by the relatives of the dead. If, then, he or a 

 member of his family is murdered, his relatives try, in their turn, to 

 take revenge, and so on, in which case the blood feud tends to become 

 prolonged indefinitely. 



If thus, as we have seen, among the Jibaros blood revenge takes 

 place even with regard to members of the same tribe, it fails when 

 such a crime is committed within the family. Among these Indians 

 it sometimes occurs that a man kills his brother, if the latter, for 

 instance, has seduced his wife or bewitched one of his children. But 

 in this case blood revenge generally fails, inasmuch as the natural 

 avengers — that is, the father and the remaining brothers — abstain 

 from carrying it out. " It is enough that one member of our family 

 has died," they say, " why should we deprive ourselves of one more ? " 

 The slayer is consequently pardoned. The failing of blood revenge 

 in a case like this is due to the natural sympathy which the avengers 

 feel for the slayer, as well as to the consideration that by killing 

 him they would only harm themselves bj^ weakening the power and 

 influence of the family. 



That the blood feuds which take place within the tribe have an 

 entirely different character from the wars of extermination waged 

 against foreign tribes also appears from the fact that only in the 



