We do not notice any systematic equalization between members of the tribal communities of the treys. In fact, both differences in the ownership of cattle and differences of tribal standing, established by complex reckonings of pedigree and of social rank, led to marked inequalities. But there was also the notion of birthright, and we find in the laws that every free tribesman con sidered himself entitled to claim from his kindred grazing facilities and five erws for tillage. Such a claim could be made uncondition ally only at a time when there was a superabundance of land to dispose of. In the 14th century, to which our typical descriptions refer, this state of things had ceased to be universal. Although great tracts of Welsh land were undoubtedly still in a state of wilderness, the soil in more conveniently situated regions was beginning to be scarce, and considerable pressure of population was already felt, with a consequent transition from pastoral pur suits to agriculture.
Although there are no rearrangements or redivision within the tribe as a whole, inside every gavell, representing more narrow circles of kinsmen, usually the descendants of one great-grand father, i.e., second cousins, the shares are shifted and readjusted according to one of two systems. In one case, that of the trev cyvriv or joint-account village, every man receives "as much as another yet not of equal value"—which means, of course, that the members of such communities were provided with equal allot ments, but left to make the best of them, each according to chance and ability. This practice of reallotment was, however, restricted in the 14th century to taeog treys, to villages occupied by half f ree settlers. The free tribesmen, the priodarii of Wales, held by daddenhud, were reallotted shares within the trey on the coming of each new generation or, conversely, on the going out, the dying out, of each older generation. In other words: at the demise of the last of the grandfathers in a gavell, all the fathers took equal rank and claimed equal shares, although formerly some of the portions had been distributed equally only between the grand fathers or their offspring (stirps). The right to claim redivision held good only within the circle of second cousins.
Another fact which is brought out with complete evidence by the Welsh Surveys is that the tenure is ascribed to communi ties of kinsmen and not to chiefs or headmen. The latter certainly existed and had exerted a powerful influence on the disposal of common land as well as on government and justice. But in the view of the 14th-century surveys each township is owned not by this or the other elder, but by numerous bodies of coparceners. In this way there is a clear attribution of rights of communal owner ship, and not merely of rights of maintenance.
Let us now compare this description of Celtic tribal tenure with Slavonic institutions. The most striking modern examples of tribal communities settled on a territorial basis are presented by the history of the Southern Slays in the Balkan Peninsula and in Austria, of Slovenes, Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians, but it is easy to trace customs of the same kind in the memories of Western Slays conquered by Germans, of the Poles and of the different subdivisions of the Russians. A good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb which says that a man by himself is bound to be a martyr. The Slays of the mountainous regions of the Balkans and of the Alps in their stubborn struggle with nature and with human enemies have clustered and still cluster to some extent in closely united and widely spreading brother hoods (bratstva) and tribes (plemena). Some of these brother
hoods derive their names from a real or supposed common ancestor, and are composed of relatives as well as of affiliated strangers. They number sometimes hundreds of members, of guns, as the fighting males are characteristically called. Such are the VuktiCi, Kovacevia,—as one might say in Old English the Vuko tings or Kovachevings,—of Montenegro. The dwellings, fields, and pasturages of these brotherhoods or kindreds are scattered over the country. But there was the closest union in war, revenge, funeral rites, marriage arrangements, provision for the poor and for those who stood in need of special help, as in case of fires, inundations and the like. And corresponding to this union there existed a strong feeling of unity in regard to property, especially property in land. Although ownership was divided among the different families, a kind of superior or eminent domain stretched over the whole of the bratstvo, and was expressed in the partici pation in common in pasture and wood, in the right to control alienations of land and to exercise pre-emption.
As the Welsh kindreds were subdivided into gavells formed of extended family communities, even so the Bosnian, Montenegrin, Serbian and Slovene tribes fell into house communities, Kueas, Zadrugas, which were built up on the principle of keeping blood relatives and their property together as long as possible. They consisted generally of some i s to 20 grown-up persons, some six or seven first and second cousins with their wives and children, living in a hamlet around the central house of the domaein, the house leader. In some instances the number of coparceners in creased to so or even to 7o. The members of the united house community, which in fact is a small village or hamlet, joined in meals and work. Their rights in the undivided household of the hamlet were apportioned according to the pedigree, i.e., this apportionment took account first of the stirpes or extant de scendants of former scions of the family, so that, say, the offspring of each of two grandfathers who had been brothers were con sidered as equal sharers although the stirps, the stock, of one was represented only by one person, while the stirps of the other had grown to consist of two uncles and of three nephews all alive. There was no resettlement of shares, as in the case of Wales, but the life of the house community while it existed unbroken led to work in common, the contributions to which were regulated by common consent and supervised by the leader. Grounds, houses, implements of agriculture (ploughs, oxen, carts) and of viniculture—casks, cauldrons for the making of brandy, etc.- were considered to be common capital and ought not to be sold un less by common consent. Divisions were not prohibited. Naturally a family had to divide sooner or later, and the shares had to be made real, to be converted into fields and vineyards. But this was an event which marked, as it were, the close of the regular existence of one union and the birth of similar unions derived from it. As a rule, the kuea kept together as long as it could, be cause co-operation was needed and isolation dangerous—for eco nomic considerations as well as for the sake of defence.