SECT. III.] SOUTHERN INDIANS EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI. 109 southern, and of which traces may be found amongst the northern nations, deserves particular consideration. Independent of political or geographical divisions, that into families, or clans has been established from time immemorial. At what time, and in what manner, the division was first made, is not known. At present, or till very lately, every nation was divided into a number of clans, varying in the several nations from three to eight or ten, the members of which respec- tively were dispersed indiscriminately throughout the whole nation. It has been fully ascertained, that the inviolable regu- lations, by which those clans were perpetuated amongst the southern nations, were, first, that no man could marry in his own clan ; secondly, that every child belongs to his or her mother's clan. Among the Choctaws, there are two great divisions, each of which is subdivided into four clans ; and no man can marry in any of the four clans belonging to his divis- ion. The restriction amongst the Cherokees, the Creeks, and the Natches, does not extend beyond the clan to which the man belongs. There are sufficient proofs that the same division into clans, commonly called tribes, exists amongst almost all the other Indian nations. But it is not so clear that they are subject to the same regulations which prevail amongst the southern Indians. According to Charlevoix, " most nations are divided into three families or tribes. One of them is considered as the first and has a kind of preeminence. Those tribes are mixed without being confounded. Each tribe has the name of an animal. Among the Hurons, the first tribe is that of the Bear ; the two others, of the Wolf and the Turtle. The Iroquois nation has the same divisions, only the Turtle family is divided into two, the Great and the Little."* The accounts are not so explicit with respect to the Lenape tribes. Mr. Heckewelder indeed says, that the Delawares were divided into three tribes ; but one of them, the Wolf or Minsi, principle may have had its origin in the primitive Patriarchal govern- ment. A chief is wanted in a state of society which is one of perpetual warfare with the adjacent tribes. Whatever cause may be assigned for the fact, the most ancient accounts and traditions agree in representing barbarous people, when first appearing as independent communities, under a kingly government. The heroic times of Greece, and the petty kings, cotemporary with Abraham, are familiar to all.
- Vol, III. p. 260.
