[Sidenote: Morgan's Societas.]

Man in his larger activities, as opposed to his mere physiological or
psychological processes, cannot be studied apart from the land which he
inhabits. Whether we consider him singly or in a group--family, clan,
tribe or state--we must always consider him or his group in relation to
a piece of land. The ancient Irish sept, Highland clan, Russian mir,
Cherokee hill-town, Bedouin tribe, and the ancient Helvetian canton,
like the political state of history, have meant always a group of people
and a bit of land. The first presupposes the second. In all cases the
form and size of the social group, the nature of its activities, the
trend and limit of its development will be strongly influenced by the
size and nature of its habitat. The land basis is always present, in
spite of Morgan's artificial distinction between a theoretically
landless _societas_, held together only by the bond of common blood, and
the political _civitas_ based upon land.[82] Though primitive society
found its conscious bond in common blood, nevertheless the land bond was
always there, and it gradually asserted its fundamental character with
the evolution of society.

The savage and barbarous groups which in Morgan's classification would
fall under the head of _societas_ have nevertheless a clear conception
of their ownership of the tribal lands which they use in common. This
idea is probably of very primitive origin, arising from the association
of a group with its habitat, whose food supply they regard as a
monopoly.[83] This is true even of migratory hunting tribes. They claim a
certain area whose boundaries, however, are often ill-defined and
subject to fluctuations, because the lands are not held by permanent
occupancy and cultivation. An exceptional case is that of the Shoshone