The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, Volume 1

73. The exogamous clan with male descent and the village

It has been seen that the exogamous clan with female descent contained no married couples, and therefore it was necessary either that outside men should live with it, or that the clans should continually meet each other, or that two or more should live in the same village. With the change to male descent and the transfer of women to their husbands’ clans, this unstable characteristic was removed. Henceforth the clan was self-contained, having its married couples, both members of it, whose children would also be born in and belong to it. Since the clan was originally a body of persons who wandered about and hunted together, its character would be maintained by living together, and there is reason to suppose that the Indian exogamous clan with male descent took its special character because its members usually lived in one or more villages. This fact would account for the large number and multiplication of clans in India as compared with other places. As already seen one of the names of a clan is khera, which also means a village, and a large number of the clan names are derived from, or the same, as those of villages. Among the Khonds all the members of one clan live in the same locality about some central village. Thus the Tupa clan are collected about the village of Teplagārh in Patna State, the Loa clan round Sindhekala, the Borga clan round Bangomunda and so on. The Nunias of Mīrzāpur, Mr. Crooke remarks,174 have a system of local subdivisions called dīh, each subdivision being named after the village which is supposed to be its home. The word dīh itself means a site or village. Those who have the same dīh do not intermarry. In the villages first settled by the Oraons, Father Dehon states,175 the population is divided into three khunts or branches, the founders of the three branches being held to have been sons of the first settler. Members of each branch belong to the same clan or got. Each khunt or branch has a share of the village lands. The Mochis or cobblers have forty exogamous sections or gotras, mostly named after Rājpūt clans, and they also have an equal number of kheras or groups named after villages. The limits of the two groups seem to be identical; and members of each group have an ancestral village from which they are supposed to have come. Marriage is now regulated by the Rājpūt sept-names, but the probability is that the kheras were the original divisions, and the Rājpūt gotras have been more recently adopted in support of the claims already noticed. The Parjas have totemistic exogamous clans and marriage is prohibited in theory between members of the same clan. But as the number of clans is rather small, the rule is not adhered to, and members of the same clan are permitted to marry so long as they do not come from the same village. The Mīnas of Rājputāna are divided into twelve exogamous pāls or clans; the original meaning of the word pāl was a defile or valley suitable for defence, where the members of the clan would live together as in a Scotch glen.

Thus among the cultivating castes apparently each exogamous clan consisted originally of the residents of one village, though they afterwards spread to a number of villages. The servile labouring castes may also have arranged their clans by villages as the primitive forest-tribes did. How the menial castes formed exogamous clans is not altogether clear, as the numbers in one village would be only small. But it may be supposed that as they gradually increased, clans came into existence either in one large village or a number of adjacent ones, and sometimes traced their descent from a single family or from an ancestor with a nickname. As a rule, the artisan castes do not appear to have formed villages of their own in India, as they did in Russia, though this may occasionally have happened. When among the cultivating castes the lands were divided, separate joint families would be constituted; the head only of each family would be its representative in the clan, as he would hold the share of the village land assigned to the family, which was their joint means of subsistence, and the family would live in one household. Thus perhaps the Hindu joint family came into existence as a subdivision of the exogamous clan with male descent, on which its constitution was modelled. In Chhattīsgarh families still live together in large enclosures with separate huts for the married couples. A human ancestor gradually took the place of the totem as the giver of life to the clan. The members thought themselves bound together by the tie of his blood which flowed through all their veins, and frequently, as in Athens, Rome and Scotland, every member of the clan bore his name. In this capacity, as the source of the clan’s life, the original ancestor was perhaps venerated, and on the development of the family system within the clan, the ancestors of the family were held in a similar regard, and the feeling extended to the living ancestor or father, who is treated with the greatest deference in the early patriarchal family. Even now Hindu boys, though they may be better educated and more intelligent than their father, will not as a rule address him at meals unless he speaks to them first, on account of their traditional respect for him. The regard for the father may be strengthened by his position as the stay and support of the family, but could scarcely have arisen solely from this cause.

Dr. Westermarck’s view that the origin of exogamy lay in the feeling against the marriage of persons who lived together, receives support from the fact that a feeling of kinship still subsists between Hindus living in the same village, even though they may belong to different castes and clans. It is commonly found that all the households of a village believe themselves in a manner related. A man will address all the men of the generation above his own as uncle, though they may be of different castes, and the children of the generation below his own as niece and nephew. When a girl is married, all the old men of the village call her husband ‘son-in-law.’ This extends even to the impure castes who cannot be touched. Yet owing to the fact that they live together they are considered by fiction to be related. The Gowāri caste do not employ Brāhmans for their weddings, but the ceremony is performed by the bhānja or sister’s son either of the girl’s father or the boy’s father. If he is not available, any one whom either the girl’s father or the boy’s father addresses as bhānja or nephew in the village, even though he may be no relation and may belong to another caste, may perform the ceremony as a substitute. Among the Oraons and other tribes prenuptial intercourse between boys and girls of the same village is regularly allowed. It is not considered right, however, that these unions should end in marriage, for which partners should be sought from other villages.176 In the Marātha country the villagers have a communal feast on the occasion of the Dasahra festival, the Kunbis or cultivators eating first and the members of the menial and labouring castes afterwards.

74. The large exogamous clans of the Brāhmans and Rājpūts. The Sapindas, the gens and the γένος

The Brāhmans and Rājpūts, however, and one or two other military castes, as the Marāthas and Lodhis, do not have the small exogamous clans (which probably, as has been seen, represented the persons who lived together in a village), but large ones. Thus the Rājpūts were divided into thirty-six royal races, and theoretically all these should have been exogamous, marrying with each other. Each great clan was afterwards, as a rule, split into a number of branches, and it is probable that these became exogamous; while in cases where a community of Rājpūts have settled on the land and become ordinary cultivators, they have developed into an endogamous subcaste containing small clans of the ordinary type. It seems likely that the Rājpūt clan originally consisted of those who followed the chief to battle and fought together, and hence considered themselves to be related. This was, as a matter of fact, the case. Colonel Tod states that the great Rāthor clan, who said that they could muster a hundred thousand swords, spoke of themselves as the sons of one father. The members of the Scotch clans considered themselves related in the same manner, and they were probably of similar character to the Rājpūt clans.177 I do not know, however, that there is any definite evidence as to the exogamy of the Scotch clans, which would have disappeared with their conversion to Christianity. The original Rājpūt clan may perhaps have lived round the chiefs castle or headquarters and been supported by the produce of his private fief or demesne. The regular Brāhman gotras are also few in number, possibly because they were limited by the paucity of eponymous saints of the first rank. The word gotra means a stall or cow-pen, and would thus originally signify those who lived together in one place like a herd of cattle. But the gotras are now exceedingly large, the same ones being found in most or all of the Brāhman subcastes, and it is believed that they do not regulate marriage as a rule. Sometimes ordinary surnames have taken the place of clan names, and persons with the same surname consider themselves related and do not marry. But usually Brāhmans prohibit marriage between Sapindas or persons related to each other within seven degrees from a common ancestor. The word Sapinda signifies those who partake together of the pindas or funeral cakes offered to the dead. The Sapindas are also a man’s heirs in the absence of closer relations; the group of the Sapindas is thus an exact replica within the gotra of the primitive totem clan which was exogamous and constituted by the tie of living and eating together. Similarly marriage at Rome was prohibited to seven degrees of relationship through males within the gens,178 and this exogamous group of kinsmen appear to have been the body of agnatic kinsmen within the gens who are referred to by Sir H. Maine as a man’s ultimate heirs.179 At Athens, when a contest arose upon a question of inheritance, the proper legal evidence to establish kinship was the proof that the alleged ancestor and the alleged heir observed a common worship and shared in the same repast in honour of the dead.180 The distant heirs were thus a group within the Athenian γένος corresponding to the Sapindas and bound by the same tie of eating together. Professor Hearn states that there is no certain evidence that the Roman gens and Greek γένος were originally exogamous, but we find that of the Roman matrons whose names are known to us none married a husband with her own Gentile name; and further, that Plutarch, in writing of the Romans, says that in former days men did not marry women of their own blood or, as in the preceding sentence he calls them, kinswomen συγγενίδας, just as in his own day they did not marry their aunts or sisters; and he adds that it was long before they consented to wed with cousins.181 Professor Hearn’s opinion was that the Hindu gotra, the Roman gens and the Greek γένος were originally the same institution, the exogamous clan with male descent, and all the evidence available, as well as the close correspondence in other respects of early Hindu institutions with those of the Greek and Latin cities would tend to support this view.

Hindu bathing party

75. Comparison of Hindu society with that of Greece and Rome. The gens

In the admirable account of the early constitution of the city-states of Greece and Italy contained in the work of M. Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité Antique, a close resemblance may be traced with the main strata of Hindu society given earlier in this essay. The Roman state was composed of a number of gentes or clans, each gens tracing its descent from a common ancestor, whose name it usually bore. The termination of the Gentile name in ius signified descendant, as Claudius, Fabius, and so on. Similarly the names of the Athenian γένη or clans ended in ides or ades, as Butades, Phytalides, which had the same signification.182 The Gentile or clan name was the nomen or principal name, just as the personal names of the members of the totem-clans were at first connected with the totems. The members of the gens lived together on a section of the city land and cultivated it under the control of the head of the gens. The original ager Romanus is held to have been 115 square miles or about 74,000 acres,183 and this was divided up among the clans. The heads of clans originally lived on their estates and went in to Rome for the periodical feasts and other duties. The principal family or eldest branch of the gens in the descent from a common ancestor ranked above the others, and its head held the position of a petty king in the territory of the gens. In Greece he was called ἄναξ or βασιλεύς.184 Originally the Roman Senate consisted solely of the heads of gentes, and the consuls, flamens and augurs were also chosen exclusively from them; they were known as patres; after the expulsion of the kings, fresh senators were added from the junior branches of the gentes, of which there were at this period 160, and these were known as patres conscripti185. The distinction between the eldest and junior branches of the gentes may have corresponded to the distinction between the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, though as practically nothing is known of the constitution of the original Kshatriyas, this can only be hypothetical.

76. The clients

Within the gens, and living in the household or households of its members, there existed a body of slaves, and also another class of persons called clients.186 The client was a servant and dependant; he might be assigned a plot of land by his patron, but at first could not transmit it nor hold it against his patron. It is probable that originally he had no right of property of his own, but he gradually acquired it. First he obtained a right of occupancy in his land and of its devolution to his son if he had one. Finally he was given the power of making a will. But he was still obliged to contribute to such expenses of the patron as ransom in war, fines imposed by the courts, or the dowry of a daughter.187 The client was considered as a member of the family and bore its name.188 But he was not a proper member of the family or gens, because his pedigree never ascended to a pater or the head of a gens.189 It was incumbent on the patron to protect the client, and guard his interests both in peace and war. The client participated in the household and Gentile sacrifices and worshipped the gods of the gens.190 At first the people of Rome consisted of three classes, the patricians, the clients and the plebeians. In course of time, as the rights and privileges of the plebeians increased after the appointment of tribunes, their position, from having originally been much inferior, became superior to that of the clients, and the latter preferred to throw off the tie uniting them to their patrons and become merged in the plebeians. In this manner the intermediate class of clients at length entirely disappeared.191 These clients must not be confused with the subsequent class of the same name, who are found during the later period of the republic and the empire, and were the voluntary supporters or hangers-on of rich men. It would appear that these early clients corresponded very closely to the household servants of the Indian cultivators, from whom the village menial castes were developed. The Roman client was sometimes a freed slave, but this would not have made him a member of the family, even in a subordinate position. Apparently the class of clients may have to a great extent originated in mixed descent, as the Indian household and village menials probably did. This view would account satisfactorily for the client’s position as a member of the family but not a proper one. From the fact that they were considered one of the three principal divisions of the people it is clear that the clients must at one time have been numerous and important.

77. The plebeians

Below the clients came the plebeians, whose position, as M. Fustel de Coulanges himself points out, corresponded very closely to that of the Sūdras. The plebeians had no religion and no ancestors; they did not belong to a family or a gens.192 They were a despised and abject class, who lived like beasts outside the proper boundary of the city. The touch of the plebeian was impure.193 “When tribunes were created a special law was necessary to protect their life and liberty, and it was promulgated as follows: ‘It is forbidden to strike or kill a tribune, as if he was an ordinary plebeian.’ It would appear then that a patrician had the right to strike or kill an ordinary plebeian, or at least that he was amenable to no legal punishment for doing so.”194 Similarly in the ancient Greek cities the citizens were known as ἀγαθοί or good, and the plebeians as κακοί or bad. This latter class is described by the poet Theognis as having had aforetime neither tribunals nor laws; they were not allowed even to enter the town, but lived outside like wild beasts. They had no part in the religious feasts and could not intermarry with the proper citizens.195

This position corresponds exactly with that of the Sūdras and the existing impure castes, who have to live outside the village and cannot enter or even approach Hindu temples.

M. de Coulanges considers that the plebeians were to a large extent made up of conquered and subjected peoples. An asylum was also established at Rome for broken men and outlaws from other cities, with a view to increasing the population and strength of the state. Subsequently the class of clients became absorbed among the plebeians.

78. The binding social tie in the city-states

Thus the gradation of society in the city-states of Greece and Italy, the account given above being typical of them all, is seen to correspond fairly closely with that of the Hindus, as exemplified in the Hindu classics and the microcosm of Hindu society, the village community. It is desirable, therefore, to inquire what was the tie which united the members of the gens, the curia or phratry, and the city, and which distinguished the patricians from the plebeians. On this point M. Fustel de Coulanges leaves us in no doubt at all. The bond of union among all these bodies was a common sacrifice or sacrificial meal, at which all the members had to be present. “The principal ceremony of the religion of the household was a meal, which was called a sacrifice. To eat a meal prepared on an altar was, according to all appearance, the first form of religious worship.”196 “The principal ceremony of the religion of the city was also a public feast; it had to be partaken of communally by all the citizens in honour of the tutelary deities. The custom of holding these public feasts was universal in Greece; and it was believed that the safety of the city depended on their accomplishment.”197 M. de Coulanges quotes from the Odyssey an account of one of these sacred feasts at which nine long tables were set out for the people of Pylos; five hundred citizens were seated and nine bulls were slaughtered for each table. When Orestes arrived at Athens after the murder of his mother, he found the people, assembled round their king, about to hold the sacred feast. Similar feasts were held and numerous victims were slaughtered in Xenophon’s time.198 At these meals the guests were crowned with garlands and the vessels were of a special form and material, such as copper or earthenware, no doubt dating from the antique past.199 As regards the importance and necessity of being present at the Gentile sacrificial feast, the same author states: “The Capitol was blockaded by the Gauls; but Fabius left it and passed through the hostile lines, clad in religious garb, and carrying in his hand the sacred objects; he was going to offer a sacrifice on the altar of his gens which was situated on the Quirinal. In the second Punic war another Fabius, he who was called the buckler of Rome, was holding Hannibal in check; it was assuredly of the greatest importance to the Republic that he should not leave his army; he left it, however, in the hands of the imprudent Minucius; it was because the anniversary day of the sacrifice of his gens had come and it was necessary that he should hasten to Rome to perform the sacred rite.” In Greece the members of the gens were known by the fact that they performed communal sacrifices together from a remote period.200 As already seen, a communal sacrifice meant the eating together of the sacred food, whether the flesh of a victim or grain.

79. The Suovetaurilia

The Roman city sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia, as described by M. de Coulanges, is of the greatest interest. The magistrate whose duty it was to accomplish it, that is in the first place the king, after him the consul, and after him the censor, had first to take the auspices and ascertain that the gods were favourable. Then he summoned the people through a herald by a consecrated form of words. On the appointed day all the citizens assembled outside the walls; and while they stood silent the magistrate proceeded three times round the assembly, driving before him three victims—a pig, a ram and a bull. The combination of these three victims constituted with the Greeks as well as the Romans an expiatory sacrifice. Priests and attendants followed the procession: when the third round had been accomplished, the magistrate pronounced a prayer and slaughtered the victims. From this moment all sins were expiated, and neglect of religious duties effaced, and the city was at peace with its gods.

There were two essential features of this ceremony: the first, that no stranger should be present at it; and the second, that no citizen should be absent from it. In the latter case the whole city might not have been freed from impurity. The Suovetaurilia was therefore preceded by a census, which was conducted with the greatest care both at Rome and Athens. The citizen who was not enrolled and was not present at the sacrifice could no longer be a member of the city. He could be beaten and sold as a slave, this rule being relaxed only in the last two centuries of the Republic. Only male citizens were present at the sacrifice, but they gave a list of their families and belongings to the censor, and these were considered to be purified through the head of the family.201

This sacrifice was called a lustratio or purification, and in the historical period was considered to be expiatory. But it does not seem probable that this was its original significance. For there would not in that case have been the paramount necessity for every citizen to be present. All females and children under power were purified through the list given to the censor, and there seems no reason why absent citizens could not have been purified in the same manner. But participation in this sacrifice was itself the very test and essence of citizenship. And it has been seen that a public meal was the principal religious rite of the city. The conclusion therefore seems reasonable that the Suovetaurilia was originally also a sacrificial meal of which each citizen partook, and that the eating of the deified domestic animals in common was the essence of the rite and the act which conferred the privilege of citizenship. The driving of the sacrificial animals round the citizens three times might well be a substitute for the previous communal meal, if for any reason, such as the large number of citizens, the practice of eating them had fallen into abeyance. The original ground for the taking of a census was to ensure that all the citizens were present at the communal sacrifice; and it was by the place which a man occupied on this day that his rank in the city was determined till the next sacrifice. If the censor counted him among the senators, he remained a senator; if among the equites, he remained a knight; if as a simple member of a tribe, he belonged henceforward to the tribe in which he was counted. If the censor refused to enumerate him, he was no longer a citizen.202 Such was the vital importance of the act of participation in the sacrifice.