﻿Vol.2] 
  THE 
  ARAUCANIANS 
  — 
  COOPER 
  727 
  

  

  Nonpolitical 
  social 
  grouping. 
  — 
  The 
  modern 
  Mapuche-Huilliche 
  are 
  

   divided 
  into 
  three 
  loosely 
  separated 
  classes: 
  the 
  wealthy, 
  the 
  unattach- 
  

   ed 
  commoners, 
  and 
  the 
  poorer 
  people 
  working 
  as 
  peons 
  on 
  estates. 
  

   Earlier, 
  too, 
  there 
  was 
  a 
  similar 
  loose 
  triple 
  division 
  into: 
  wealthy 
  

   and 
  caciques, 
  commoners, 
  and 
  "slaves" 
  and 
  captives. 
  

  

  Personal 
  rank 
  and 
  prestige 
  was 
  derived 
  chiefly 
  from 
  martial 
  prowess 
  

   and 
  from 
  wealth; 
  generous 
  hospitality, 
  and 
  eloquence 
  in 
  speech 
  were 
  

   other 
  well-recognized 
  avenues 
  to 
  status. 
  

  

  There 
  were 
  no 
  secret 
  or 
  other 
  societies, 
  and 
  no 
  formal 
  organization 
  

   of 
  age 
  classes. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  tangible 
  evidence 
  of 
  moieties; 
  the 
  term 
  

   Uaucahuin, 
  "la 
  mitad 
  de 
  una 
  regua," 
  given 
  by 
  Luis 
  de 
  Valdivia 
  (1887, 
  

   s.v.) 
  in 
  his 
  vocabulary, 
  hardly 
  constitutes 
  such 
  evidence, 
  problematic 
  

   though 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  the 
  term 
  be. 
  There 
  existed 
  a 
  type 
  of 
  "blood- 
  

   brotherhood" 
  (koncho), 
  entered 
  into 
  by 
  two 
  men 
  with 
  a 
  ceremonial 
  

   giving 
  and/or 
  killing 
  of 
  a 
  lamb 
  or 
  other 
  animal 
  (Felix 
  Jose, 
  1916, 
  1:93, 
  

   s.v. 
  koncho; 
  Moesbach, 
  1936, 
  pp. 
  389-91). 
  Other 
  kinds 
  of 
  "brother- 
  

   hood" 
  were 
  entered 
  into 
  between 
  two 
  men, 
  two 
  women, 
  or 
  a 
  man 
  and 
  

   woman 
  by 
  drinking 
  or 
  eating 
  together 
  or 
  by 
  exchanging 
  presents, 
  

   and 
  between 
  two 
  families 
  or 
  tribes 
  by 
  the 
  more 
  solemn 
  ritual 
  killing 
  

   of 
  a 
  lamb 
  and 
  eating 
  it 
  together 
  and 
  by 
  offering 
  prayers. 
  (Housse, 
  

   1939, 
  p. 
  208-10; 
  cf. 
  Guevara 
  Silva, 
  1908, 
  p. 
  66; 
  Havestadt, 
  1883, 
  

   2:691; 
  Smith, 
  1855, 
  pp. 
  260-62.) 
  

  

  ECONOMIC 
  LIFE 
  

  

  Ownership. 
  — 
  Our 
  earliest 
  specific, 
  albeit 
  meager, 
  information 
  on 
  

   land 
  tenure 
  is 
  from 
  the 
  second 
  half 
  of 
  the 
  18th 
  century 
  (Molina, 
  

   1901, 
  pp. 
  122, 
  149; 
  G6mez 
  de 
  Vidaurre, 
  1889, 
  14:341); 
  later 
  writers 
  

   have 
  added 
  a 
  little 
  but 
  not 
  much. 
  (Smith, 
  1855, 
  pp. 
  240-41; 
  Ruiz 
  

   Aldea, 
  1902, 
  pp. 
  15, 
  30; 
  Guevara 
  Silva, 
  1904, 
  pp. 
  38-39; 
  Bullock, 
  1911, 
  

   p. 
  3; 
  Latcham, 
  1922 
  b, 
  pp. 
  412-13; 
  Moesbach, 
  1936, 
  p. 
  192; 
  McBride, 
  

   1936, 
  pp. 
  308-09.) 
  If 
  we 
  piece 
  together 
  the 
  scanty 
  and 
  incomplete 
  

   data 
  available, 
  the 
  following 
  outlines 
  emerge, 
  though 
  none 
  too 
  clearly: 
  

   Each 
  family 
  or 
  close-kinship 
  group 
  claimed 
  a 
  given 
  territory 
  which 
  

   had 
  been 
  passed 
  on 
  to 
  it 
  from 
  its 
  ancestors, 
  this 
  territory 
  being 
  held 
  

   jointly 
  or 
  communally 
  by 
  the 
  family 
  or 
  group. 
  Land 
  not 
  under 
  

   actual 
  cultivation 
  or 
  lying 
  temporarily 
  fallow 
  was 
  communally 
  held. 
  

   Each 
  individual 
  — 
  or 
  family 
  — 
  had 
  exclusive 
  rights 
  of 
  use 
  to 
  the 
  land 
  

   claimed 
  as 
  fallow 
  or 
  under 
  cultivation 
  by 
  him, 
  and 
  to 
  its 
  products, 
  

   and 
  could 
  transmit 
  such 
  land 
  to 
  his 
  heir 
  or 
  heirs. 
  According 
  to 
  Smith 
  

   (1855, 
  p. 
  241), 
  only 
  the 
  headman 
  could 
  dispose 
  by 
  sale 
  or 
  otherwise 
  of 
  

   clan 
  land 
  to 
  Indians 
  who 
  were 
  not 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  community, 
  but 
  

   all 
  selling 
  of 
  land 
  to 
  Whites 
  was 
  a 
  capital 
  crime. 
  Each 
  wife 
  in 
  polyg- 
  

   ynous 
  households 
  received 
  her 
  own 
  garden 
  plot 
  from 
  the 
  husband 
  

   (Ruiz 
  Aldea, 
  1902, 
  p. 
  30; 
  cf. 
  Moesbach, 
  1936, 
  p. 
  192), 
  and 
  kept 
  sepa- 
  

   rately 
  the 
  products 
  thereof; 
  in 
  addition, 
  she 
  owned 
  her 
  own 
  chickens 
  

  

  