An institution is something that endures and a social institution is an enduring way in which society is organized. Another way of saying this would be to say that a social institution is a form of human social relations that persists through time. Perhaps an institution could exist and not be observed or recognized by the people who participate in it, but this is improbable. Generally speaking, people are well aware of their social institutions and, indeed, they devote considerable attention to maintaining them.
A village is an obvious example of a social institution. A village is a definite pattern of human relationships; indeed, instead of living homogeneously distributed throughout the physical environment, a certain number of individual humans decide to live closely together in what we call a village. And this cohabitation produces a wide variety of additional relationships and responsibilities and interests. A village may endure through numerous generations.
In certain respects, a tribe is also a social institution. It is, in fact, an ethnic nation which is unified by possession of a common history, language, and culture. A tribe may be politically unified and capable of collective activity, though this was very rarely the case in the Great Basin. A tribe's ethnic identity was preserved, implicitly, by prohibitions against inter-tribal marriages or territorial encroachments.
While it is common to believe that indigenous people identified with tribes as their chief social and political institutions, that was rarely the case in the West, and was still less common in the Great Basin. A far more common institution of social organization was the tribelet, which was a small, subordinate part of an ethnic nation. A tribelet habitually occupies a specific territorial region, possesses certain unique historical features, speaks a distinct dialect of the language, and expresses greater political unity and achieves more effective collective activity. Even the Washoe, who were a small tribal entity already, were somewhat divided into tribelet groups --- welmelti?, pa.wa?lu?, hanalelti?, tanlelti?, and pewlelti?all of which were defined (though rarely precisely) by geographical areas of habitual occupancy.
In the Great Basin, village structure rarely reached the size, coherence, or duration that villages often did elsewhere in the West. The archaic lifeway simply worked against it. Among the Washoe, for instance, the village was informally called a "bunch" and was, in effect, a number of people living closely together. The core of these people was usually an extended family of several generations, though it was by no means considered necessary that all members of a family remain together. There were also always "visitors" who might be related or not but who might remain in residence for some time. The site of the village was the same as the winter quarters for the people; and while most of the people moved about widely during the period from late spring through early fall, the village was never entirely deserted, being occupied by the aged as well as those too young to travel extensively. (D'Azevedo, HNAI, 11, 483-485)
The Washoe village had significance beyond family relationships. It was a collection of people that was large enough to serve certain interests that could not be served merely by a single extended family. While in the summer season hunting, fishing, and gathering were easy enough for individuals to do very well, relying upon their own skills, getting through a winter in the lowlands was a different matter. This required collective hunting drives of antelopes, rabbits, and waterfowl; hence, there had to be a sufficient number of people of appropriate age and qualified specialists (e.g., the "rabbit boss") to organize successful hunts. Winter was also the period of highest social interaction, requiring among other talents good storytelling and shamanism.
Let us turn now to the nuclear family as the final and most basic form of social institution. In most societies, marriage, which is the formation of the nuclear family, is neither unrestricted nor spontaneous. That is, in most societies, only certain individuals are eligible for marriage and they can enter into marriage only indirectly, through negotiations. Negotiations are usually conducted through relatives; at issue are the acceptability of the suitor and the so-called "bride price" or payment of some form that the groom's family must offer to the bride's family. Restrictions virtually always require marriage to be "exogamous" with respect to the immediate family; that is, the incest taboo is common in human societies. But most indigenous people required exogamy with respect to more than just immediate family.
While marriage might be inspired by a romantic attachment between a young man and young woman (or even girl), it was, in the long term, a very practical working partnership. Perhaps this is one reason why negotiations are required; both the young man and the young woman were scrutinized for their skills in performing appropriate tasks in the society's material culture. The husband must be able to hunt and fish and to manufacture a wide variety of family necessities. The wife must be able to gather plants, store staples, prepare food, and manufacture the utilitarian objects required for these tasks.
The family is such an important unit in the practical economy of the that polygamy (either polygyny or polyandry) was occasionally practiced for the practical purpose of providing increased material capacity or improved skills. Polyandry, for instance, put two men out in the field to hunt and fish in a world that was not abundant with game. Polygyny provided for a more efficient distribution of food preparation and child care and was especially practical if the women were sisters, hence, already atuned to living together. Among the Northern Paiutes, a practice known as "sibling exchange" was occasionally practiced. In this situation, two brothers married two sisters; or a brother-and-sister married a sister-and-brother. This doubly cemented family relationships, led to long-term cooperation of the two new nuclear families, and paved the way for a practical polygamy if one of the siblings should die. (Fowler and Liljeblad, 446-451)
The residence place of a man and woman, recently married, is occasionally regulated by social customs. Residence, if "patrilocal," is in the husband's village; thus, the basic structure of the village is a continuous line of fathers and sons. In the Great Basin, as in so many other aspects of social life, the custom was "ambilocal," meaning that the couple selects where to live based on practical considerations, usually ease of material survival.
Divorce might come about through various dissatisfactions and failures --- emotional, sexual, and materially practical. An estranged woman would usually return to her birth family. Societies tended to be practical minded about divorce. If estrangement had occured, there was little to do but accept the facts. Depending upon the circumstances, there could be a demand to pay back the "bride price" if the bride had caused the estrangement.
Kinship was very important to indigenous people for several reasons. As a consequence, most indigenous languages had specific terms for even remote kin. We use the term uncle, for instance, as any man who is brother to either our mother or our father. In indigenous societies, however, there would usually be separate terms for the brother of a father and the brother of a mother. In addition, there would likely be different terms for men of the same generation who were less directly related.
One reason for possessing such a thoroughly articulate language was simply its importance for retaining a complete family tree easily within an oral tradition. That is, it is easier to remember how people are related to one another when we refer to them with different descriptive words. And this was essential in identifying those who are related and, hence, ineligible for marriage. Commonly marriage had to be exogamous with respect to the first three generations backward. Thus, not only could one not marry one's first cousins (children of uncles and aunts) but one could not marry cousins further removed, i.e., the children of the first cousins of the uncles or aunts.
A second reason for maintaining the importance of kinship was economic. Kinfolk were attended with gifts in all ceremonial situations; and in some societies, ceremonial gatherings were arranged periodically for the implicit purpose of making sure that resources were shared widely by gift-giving. In addition, even without ceremonial gatherings, kinfolk awaited news of each other, even at great distances, and were ready to bring aid when it was needed. Kinship, in other words, was a central element within a cooperative society.
One should not overlook the fact that basic rules of marriage played a crucial role in organizing indigenous societies and for guaranteeing survival at a very practical level. Suppose, for instance, that a society is patrilocal and exogamous with respect to three generations. Since the village is probably close to an extended family built on the line of fathers and sons, there will be few (if any) young woman in the village who are not related. For all practical purposes, marriage must be village-exogamous. But older female relatives will have married outward into other villages so there will be many relatives in other villages, especially close lying ones. A young man will have to work hard and, perhaps, go far in order to find an appropriate wife. But this woman, even after she moves into the young man's village will retain kinship relations with her own extended family. Hence, indigenous society was woven tightly together by a complex of kinship relations that were essential to survival because of the fundamental obligations and sharing and of care.
In some societies moiety relations were compounded on top of kinship relations. The whole tribe was divided into moieties (usually two) which were usually given animal names (totemism). The totem animal was usually paid ceremonial and, perhaps, practical duties. In a patrilineal village, while the mother continues to carry the moiety of her birth, the children acquire the moiety of the father. Endogamous sexual relations within the moiety group are taboo, thus barring multiple possibilities of incest. In a society organized around moieties both moiety and kinship have to be avoided in locating a marriage partner so the search is even more difficult. Moiety also plays a variety of important social roles in raising children and, especially, bringing them to maturity since it creates new bonds within a village complex that are close yet outside of kinship itself. For the most part, indigenous people of the Great Basin did not organize according to moieties; though some divisions of Washoe groups seem to come close.
Beyond kinship and moiety, certain indigenous people developed societies that might be based on hunting skills, artistic expression, or spiritual representation. Young people might be invited into a society, quite outside of kinship or other relations. Once inducted into a society, a person felt bonds of loyalty that were parallel to and as powerful as the bonds with family. Thus, while societies provided needed cultural services to the tribe, they also provided a widening of relationships through which cooperation and care were expressed.
Perhaps one final note should be mentioned about population control. Indigenous people were well aware of the necessity of a natural population-resource balance. This balance was preserved by a naturally regulated rate of death and socially controlled rate of birth. Disasters in the natural production of food supplies lead to stress which weakened older or less healthy members of tribes. Birth control was regulated chemically with certain herbal concoctions and through abortions. Abstinence was widely and systematically practiced through a complex of sexual taboos relating to hunting, fishing, and other male activities, keeping males unavailable for procreation, as well as by the woman's own monthly withdrawal to some form of isolation (often in special living quarters) during menstruation. Occasionally, infanticide might be practiced.
Political Institutions
We should begin by asking how political institutions differ from simply social institutions. Obviously, they both belong to the social relations among people; both are enduring; and both are consciously maintained. Political institutions differ in the fact that they deal with power and collective activity. Thus, while a village is a social institution, the regular existence of a chief in the village is a political institution. Also, while the annual ceremony for the dead, practiced in some societies, is a social institution because of its reinforcement of life cycle and kinship relationships; the periodic ceremonies such as "first fruits" are more nearly political in nature because they have the purpose of drawing people together for collective activity and enforcing conformity and cooperation.
In most indigenous societies village politics centered around a chief. The word "chief" is ours, of course, and each culture possessed its own word. There were variations in meaning from one culture to another; thus, "chief" is not always the best translation. In some societies "boss" or "captain" would be better. In the Great Basin most assemblages of people in late spring to early fall were too small or too temporary to warrant political leadership as such. In the fall and winter, assembled in much larger groups at the sacred pinyon forests or in the winter residences, leadership took on more importance; however, its spirit was more practically engaged with tasks at hand. Thus, a leader was needed to organize the "first fruit" celebrations for pinyon harvest; and a "rabbit boss" was needed to organize the collective hunt for rabbits. As in so many other cases, in the Great Basin, political relations were strongly oriented by very practical issues.
In societies where a chief was recognized, the chief was usually chosen by inheritance and was usually the eldest son of the deceased chief. In most societies, the hereditary passage could be broken, however, and the succession was definitely a matter for village scrutiny and acceptance. A village might install another individual or even allow for more than one person to serve.
It is important to understand that the chief, in indigenous political societies, was rarely in authority in the way(s) that the president, or governor, is in authority in American political institutions. In particular, the chief could not command obedience and collective activity was at the discretion of the people themselves. The chief was more nearly a "cultural icon", the personified expression of the village's collective self. The chief was an exemplary person, always expressing the tribe's moral, social, and practical customs --- a paradigm to the villagers and an ambassador to the outside world.
The roles of the Chief included organization of cooperative activities, being host to visitors, handling trade, and negotiation as well as adjudication. Typically, the chief determined the timing of cooperative activities such as "first fruit" ceremonies and organized the rituals that preceded harvests. This was an important role since it provided a deterrent to selfishness and a protection to the collective welfare.
The chief was the principal host for the village and organized other ritual celebrations. Since, as a generous host, the chirf had to dispose of large amounts of food and other goods, the chief was systematically given much of the village's wealth throughout the year. (From a practical point of view, the chief served something like the role of a savings bank.)
The chief was usually the first to trade, either sending a trading party outbound to secure needed resources or meeting inbound traders from other areas. From a practical point of view, the chief possessed more resources for trading; but as the person who was best informed on individual problems and needs in the community, the chief was also best disposed to redistribute trade items appropriately.
While indigenous people respected the experience and wisdom of all older people, men and women, and always consult with elders on troublesome issues, the chief was especially involved in difficult controversies. These might have been issues or disputes within the village, but they were most commonly issues between villages. The issues themselves might be hunting or harvesting rights to a specific territory, a slight or insult between families or individuals, a loss or injury at the hands of some person, or a death. If the dispute was inside the village, the chief worked out a settlement in consultation with the elders. If it was between two villages, the chiefs from the two villages would work out a settlement. If a dispute was between tribelets, then chiefs from several villages would negotiate and decide collectively. Law, like everything else, was maintained by oral tradition and was fairly simple. Injuries were usually blamable just because they had happened and did not involve subtle distinctions of motive. Even a death was usually paid back in work, resources, or estrangement; capital punishment, while not unknown, was not common.
Other socio-political positions in indigenous societies included ceremonialists (or "priests") and shamans. Ceremonialists were almost always male, almost always wealthy, and almost always within the chief's extended family. A shaman was a person who stood in possession of exceptional spiritual power. There were two types of shaman, the naturalist and the healer. The former was usually male and expressed his spiritual power for the collective good by manipulating natural events. The latter was usually female and expressed her spiritual power for an individual's good by curing the person of various ailments. I shall discuss shamans more thoroughout in the section on spiritualism.
Ceremonilaists were essential for the maintenance of cultural life and oral history. Both cultural norms and tribal history were maintained in oral narratives. These narratives had to be preserved and passed on to the next generation; also, they had to be performed regularly so that the people's understanding was prompted and continued. Ceremonialists selected and trained youth to maintain these narratives.
While narratives were recited informally all of the time, especially important historical and culturally informative narratives were usually reserved for ritual occasions. Ceremonialists organized, performed, and helped to finance these essential occasions. The initiation of youth was of special importance. The passage into maturity was taken very seriously, especially for boys. For girls it marked a new phase in relation to the mother and a phase when the girl was potentially a mother and homemaker herself. For boys it marked separation from the mother and acceptance into the male world, literally becoming a man for the rest of his life. Both boys and girls learned a great deal about their culture's expectations of men and women; but this was also the serious beginning of a spiritual path that marked the beginning of adult life. Initiation was a very important part of the ceremonialist's role in village life.
What I have said, up to now, is generally understood about indigenous societies. But what, in particular, was true of the Great Basin? Two features (that we have seen before) dominated the cultural circumstances of indigenous politics in the Great Basin. First, because of the sparce resources available, population density was small and most villages were little more than one or two extended families. Second, because subsistence was always precarious, social and political organization was always based strongly on economic pragmatism. For the most part, in the Basin, leadership was divided up according to the immediate need. Thus, the appropriate leader for a collective hunt of rabbits was selected on the basis of his expertise in rabbit hunting. A chief, so called, was selected for his general expertise in tribal culture, his breadth of knowledge, his judgment, and his abilities as a communicator. The chief was usually selected by the community; in the Great Basin, the position was not typically inherited. Owens Valley stands out differently --- more like its California neighbors --- with chiefs descending along male lineage and who exercised more nearly pervasive authorities in managing economic enterprises as well as in general cultural interpretations. (Liljeblad and Fowler, 427-429)
Among the Northern Paiutes, the chief was known as the poinabi and he was selected because of his skills in arbitration and communication. He spoke to the group's long-term interests and values. When he heard disputes, his role was to host the discussion and summarize the points made within the cultural context. While he was not neutral in his beliefs about an issue, his opinion was not decisive and did not itself bear authority. After a chief died, a new person was selected; but continuity of the position within a family was not a factor. (Fowler and Liljeblad, 446-451) Among the Washoe, the chief was known as the detumu which literally meant "the one in front". Again, the selection was made on the basis of perceived skills and wisdom; perhaps the individual was one who had traveled widely and was respected for his extensive knowledge of other peoples. (d'Azevedo, HNAI, 488-489)
Among the Owens Valley Paiutes, not only was the chieftainship established by heredity but the chief's roles were more nearly pervasive. As in other parts of California, the chief, who was known as the poginabi (after pogi- meaning "to announce"), was responsible for organizing all collective activities, such as cooperative hunts and annual irrigation. The chief built and maintained an assembly lodge; he collected and communicated information about the ripening of pine nuts and other food resources; and he was responsible for organizing annual ceremonies. One of these ceremonies was the annual mourning ritual, called the "cry", which released those who mourned a dead person from their obligations. (Liljeblad and Fowler, 427-429)
People of the Great Basin did not tend to be rich in ceremonialism nor did they tend to have well established and rigidly held socio-political traditions. Life in the Great Basin was a highly practical matter that required people to remain dispersed and on the move. The strongest bonds, thus, were those within immediate families. Others were included within the subsistence-complex because of their special skills.