47

their nearest neighbours; the Sasuchan band that frequented Bear lake and the Finlay River basin imitated the Carrier of Babine lake and the Gitksan whom they met at Fort Connolly. Thus certain divergencies in organization between the Carrier and Gitksan became reflected in the Sekani also, so that the system adopted at McLeod lake was not identical with that of their kinsmen on Finlay river.

Actually the McLeod Lake Indians remember very little about the phratries they adopted, because in the general decline of native customs that followed the advent of the fur trade and the subsequent colonization they abandoned the system before it had time to establish itself. They say that the Carrier of Stuart lake had five phratries: tsayu, “ beaver ”’; ttsamashu, yisilyu, kwanpahotenne, and eske, the last four names being untranslatable.1 The Sekani of McLeod lake tried to arrange themselves into similar phratries under chiefs whom they called Daiyz (probably the Chinook word taiyi: chief), and they even held one or two potlatches to establish the system; but they quickly abandoned the attempt when they discovered that it did not help them under the new conditions of life, and merely provoked the scorn of Europeans. Yet if a McLeod Lake native today visits Stuart lake to take part in any ceremony, the Stuart Lake Carrier consider him to belong to the Tsayu phratry, and would forbid his marriage to a woman of that phratry if their own system had not also broken down during the last fifty years.

The Finlay River Sekani, on the other hand, seem to have been intriguing with the phratric system for nearly a century. They call a phratry tsinadjinni, and bestow the title of teneza’ (a Carrier word for the chief of a phratry, or the chief of a clan within the phratry) on any man who gives a potlatch. Daiyi they consider an old word that has no reference to the phratric system but means the leader of a band. They first attempted to establish phratries about 1850, apparently, for an elderly man whom the Hudson’s Bay Company now (1924) dignify with the title of “ Chief of Fort Grahame” heard from his mother that sixty or seventy years ago some Gitksan Indians from the village of Kispiox visited Bear lake and asked the Sasuchan Sekani to join them in holding a potlatch. At that time the Sekani recognized no phratries, but each man assigned himself for the occasion to the phratry of a Gitksan relative or friend. They then retained these affiliations for a period, but lost them as soon as the Hudson’s Bay Company removed its post from Bear lake to Fort Grahame.

1 This list corresponds closely with that given by Morice except that he omits the fifth phratry eske, and trans- lates kwanpahotenne as “inhabitants of the fire-side.’’ (Morice, A. G.: Notes on the Western Dénés; Trans. Can. Inst., vol. IV, 1892-3, pp. 203f.) He seems to be mistaken, however, when he states that four phratries (or, as he calls them, gentes) obtained among the Carrier. There were five in several districts, and in one, apparently, only two. The following list covers those Carrier groups from which I have specific information: : ‘

Hwittsowittenne group (around Bulkley river): tsayu, lachsamshu, lakselyu, gitamtanyu, and gilserhyu.

Uanwittenne group (Babine lake): tsayu, lachsamshu, kwanpe’ hwotenne, gitamtanyu, and gilserhyu.

Nattlewittenne group (at the east end of Fraser lake): tsayu, ltsamashu, laksilyu, tamtanyu, and gilserhyu.

Nu'tsenni group (main part of Fraser lake): tsayu, ltsamashu, yiselyu, tamtanyu, and tsoyeztottenne.

Tattcatotenne group (around Cheslatta lake): tsayu, ltsamashu, yisilyu, tamtanyu, tsuyezhottenne.

Yuta’ hwotenne group (Stony Creek Indians, just south of Vanderhoof): yisilyu and gilserhyu only.