BULL. ;^01 



POPULAR FALLACIES 



283 



was reserved for a later period and more 

 complete study. The intricacies of In- 

 dian languages are even yet but partially 

 understood ; their proper study has hardly 

 begun, so vast is the field. 



Lidians not nomadic. — One of the com- 

 mon fallacies of early historians, by no 

 means yet entirely dissipated, was the 

 idea that the Indians were generally no- 

 madic, having no fixed place of abode, 

 but wandering hither and yon as fancy 

 or the necessities of existence demanded. 

 The term nomadic is not, in fact, proper- 

 ly applicable to any Indian tribe. Every 

 tribe and every congeries of tribes, with 

 exceptions to be noted, laid claim to and 

 dwelt within the limits of a certain tract 

 or region, the boundaries of which were 

 well understood, and were handed down 

 by tradition and not ordinarily relin- 

 quished save to a superior force. Between 

 many of the tril^es, indeed, were debata- 

 ble areas, owned by none but claimed by 

 all, which from timeinmiemorial formed 

 the cause of disputes and intertribal wars. 

 Most or all of the tribes e. of the Mississip- 

 pi except in the n. , and some w. of it, were 

 to a greater or less extent agricultural and 

 depended much for food on the products 

 of their tillage. During the hunting sea- 

 son such tribes or villages broke up into 

 small parties and dispersed over their 

 domains more or less widely in search of 

 game; or they visited the seashore for 

 fish and shellfish. Only in this restricted 

 sense may they be said to be nomadic. 

 The so-called "horse Indians" and the 

 Plains Indians, at least after the latter 

 acquired the horse, wandered very widely 

 in search of their chief dependence, the 

 buffalo. Though most of these had no 

 fixed and permanent villages, they yet 

 possessed some idea as to the extent of 

 their own territory as well as that of their 

 neighbors. The Athapascan and Algon- 

 quian tribes of the far N., where ab- 

 sence of agriculture, the wide expanses of 

 desolate territory, and the nature of the 

 game necessitated frequent changes of 

 abode and forbade anj^ form of fixed vil- 

 lage life, most nearlv approached nomadic 

 life. 



Indian ovmershrp of land. — The exact 

 nature of Indian ownership of land ap- 

 pears not to have been understood by 

 the early settlers, and the misunderstand- 

 ing was the fruitful source of trouble and 

 even bloodshed. Neither the individual 

 Indian nor the family jxjssessed vested 

 rights in land. The land belonged to the 

 tribe as a whole, but individual families 

 and clans might appropriate for their own 

 use and tillage any portion of the tribe's 

 unoccupied domain. Hence it was im- 

 possible for a chief, family, clan, or any 

 section of a tribe legally to sell or to give 

 away to aliens, white or red, any part of 

 the tribal domain, and the inevitable con- 



sequence of illegal sales or gifts was bad 

 feeling, followed often by repudiation of 

 the contract by the tribe as a whole. 

 Attempts by the whites to enforce these 

 supposed legal sales were followed by dis- 

 order and bloodshed, often by prolonged 

 wars. (See Land Tenure.) 



Ideas of royalty. — It is perhaps not 

 strange that the early emigrants to Amer- 

 ica, habituated to European ideas of royal 

 descent and kingly prerogative, should 

 describe the simple village and tribal 

 organizations of the Indians with high- 

 sounding phrases. Early treatises on the 

 Indians teem with the terms "king," 

 "queen," and "princess," and even with 

 ideas of hereditary privilege and rank. 

 It would be diflicuit to imagine states of 

 society more unlike than one implied by 

 such terms and the simple democracy of 

 most of the Indians. On the N. W. coast 

 and amongsome tribes of the s. Atlantic re- 

 gion ideas of caste had gained a foothold, 

 principally founded on a property basis, 

 but this was exceptional. Equality and 

 independence were the cardinal principles 

 of Indian society. In some tribes, as the 

 Iroquois, certain of the highest chieftain- 

 cies were confined to certain clans, and 

 these may be said in a modified sense to 

 have been hereditary, and there were 

 also hereditary chieftaincies among the 

 Apache, Chippewa, Sioux, and other 

 tribes. Practically, however, the offices 

 within the limits of the tribal government 

 were purely elective. The ability of the 

 candidates, their courage, eloquence, pre- 

 vious services, above all, their personal 

 popularity, formed the basis for election 

 to any and all offices. Except among 

 the Natchez and a few other tribes of the 

 lower Mississippi, no power in any wise 

 analogous to that of the despot, no rank 

 savoring of inheritance, as we understand 

 the term, existed among our Indians. 

 Even military service was not compul- 

 sory, l)ut he who would might organize a 

 war party, and the courage and known 

 prowess in war of the leader chiefly de- 

 termined the number of his followers. 

 So loose were the ties of authority on the 

 warpath that a bad dream or an unlucky 

 presage was enough to diminish the num- 

 ber of the war party at any time or even 

 to break it up entirely. 



The idea prevalent among the colonists 

 of a legal executive head over the Indians, 

 a so-called king, was acceptable on ac- 

 count of the aid it lent to the transaction 

 of business with the Indians, especially 

 to the enforcement of contracts. It en- 

 abled the colonists to treat directly and 

 effectively with one man, or at most with 

 a few, for the sale of land, instead of with 

 the tribe as a whole. The fact is that 

 social and political organization was of 

 the lowest kind; the very name of tribe, 

 with implication of a body bound together 



