FROM THE GROUP TO THE TRIBE
Resemblance of semi-brutal group, at this stage, to actual savage tribe.—Resemblance merely superficial.—In this hypothetical semi-brutal group paternal incest survives.—Causes of its decline and extinction.—The Sire's widows in the group.—Arrival of outside suitors for them.—Brothers of wives of the group.—New comers barred from marital rights over their daughters.—Jealousy of their wives intervenes.—Value of sisters to be bartered for sisters of another group discovered.—Consequent resistance to incest of group sire.—Natural selection favours groups where resistance is successful.—Cousinage recognised in practice.—Intermarrying sets of cousins become phratries.—Exceptional cases of permitted incest in chiefs and kings.—No known trace of avoidance between father and daughter.—Progress had rendered such law superfluous.
A superficial view of the group we have examined might, from its general resemblance in custom to others among actual lower types of man, lead to a hasty conception of perfect identity, from a social point of view, in nearly all other respects. We see that exogamy, hostile capture, group marriage,[1] and obedience to certain accepted rules of avoidance, are common to both, to the hypothetical semi-bestial and to the actual savage groups.
The impression, however, would be very erroneous.
In the former, the hypothetical archaic stage, still lurked as a festering canker, an archaic element in marital prerogative, which marks it as of an epoch in the life-history of our race when the brute still triumphed over the man, an epoch far removed from our own. It possessed a feature in connubial relations as between certain group members which placed a profound gulf between it and any existing form of these days—a trait which, whilst it endured, would tend to render all further social progress difficult, if not impossible. It barred the road to that next great gradation in sociological evolution which is implied in the friendly conjunction of groups in a tribe. The latter stage was a vast upward step, but still it was only one round in the ladder of ascent to man, and indeed derived its chief importance from this fact as such. The tribe was the real goal; there, only, could be found the vital quality of social stability to be conferred by peaceful connubium between united groups as opposed to hostile capture between isolated families. Each group must come to be in itself complete, and yet each must form the necessary complementary parts of the actual Tribe common to all lower races, with its typical divisional inter-marriageable group classes ['phratries']. The fatal bar to a higher platform was a heritage from the anthropoid ancestor, and, as such, eminently characteristic of an animal stage.
This odious inheritance was the habit of incest between father and daughter, which we have found to be common to all the mammalia as a dominant domestic feature. As a factor in evolution we have seen that it actually had as direct outcome the primal law itself, and thus, with a strange irony, it may be said to have so laid the foundation of an ultimate moral sense. In such or other action in the past it had, however, served its useful purpose. Its operation in the future could be but detrimental; so opposed to all advance does it become, that, as we shall find, it is to be finally swept aside so completely as to permit to some students doubts of its existence, though 'In Saturn's time such mixture was not held a crime.' Leaving no traces of action in actual usage save in such exceptions as prove the rule, it will not be difficult to show that, in giving birth to the primal law, it doomed its own existence, and this apart from any ethical connection. The continued progress of society led almost mechanically to developments eminently inimical to its continuance as a custom, whilst again it would be found even injurious to the order of things as constituted in the earliest group-plus-tribe stage. If we bear in mind the axiom that, other things being equal, the largest assemblage of individuals in amity would have the greatest chance of survival, as possessing more numerous units of strength, then father-and-daughter marriage would be pernicious by preventing an assembly from profiting to a full extent by the productive powers of all its members. For such incest implies sole marital rights by a senior generation of males over a junior generation of females. As the latter would always, from mere disparity of age, outlive the former, it follows that, on the death of a father the daughters would remain unproductive, the only other males in the family group being their own brothers, and as such barred to them by the primal law.
This situation, in itself an element of weakness, became doubly so, if, as is probable, these young widowed females seceded to other and hostile groups with whom union to them was free. Such groups would in consequence be by so much strengthened, at the expense of their original circle. If, on the other hand, these widows remained in their own circle, their presence as useless mouths would be embarrassing, and a possible source of danger as a temptation to outside suitors. Again, celibacy being quite an anomaly in such an era, complications might arise from possible infractions of the primal law itself within a group.
But it is in special relation to the further movement in advance implied in the friendly aggregation of groups into a tribe that the effects of paternal incest would be most fatally felt. For while it reigned as a custom and a father usurped sole marital right over the whole feminine element, the immigration into the group of outside suitors for their hands would be impossible, their possession by the latter would be only possible after capture, which, being hostile, would tend to keep asunder the different groups. And yet in the next and higher stage of social evolution, as presented in the amalgamation of groups into a tribe, the acceptation of these outside mates in peaceful connubium is precisely the most characteristic feature. In later days they will be found as the male members of a certain 'class' in one 'phratry,' and, de facto, eligible in group marriage with all and certain females of the corresponding category as regards birth in another phratry, within an all-embracing tribe. As indeed with actual Australians, where, by right of birth alone each 'class' contains the natural born husbands of the wives of another 'class.' Such connubium is evidently impossible while incest flourished as a custom, it could only arise after its decay.[2]
It thus becomes necessary to study by what possible conjunction of affairs so desirable a result was arrived at. We will find that, however fortuitous the event of the primary inclusion of an outside possible suitor within a group, however timid and hesitating his entry, his presence there would be the signal of the beginning of the end. Now it is evidently hopeless to look for any voluntary acceptance of his claims by the living father, to whom the temptation to so easy a procuring of an inmate of his harem as his own daughter would be irresistible. There would be also on his side all habit and tradition, and with no direct group interest in opposition, the brothers being unconcerned. The initiative in change must then arise irrespective of him, and without the obstacle of his presence. This could only be possible thus after his death.
Now it is important to observe that precisely the embarrassment we have seen arise after this event must be a means to the end of the conjunction we seek. We have noted the danger of the situation under such circumstances; ineligible in union by the primal law with the remaining male element, which is composed of their own brothers, temptations to its infraction would be as frequent as fatal, on the part of the early widowed sisters. On the other hand, the anomaly of a celibate existence in the animal stage would tend to the secession of widows, so to speak, to hostile hordes, or to constant attempts at hostile capture by the outside suitor. But with the friendly entry of the latter and his acceptance as a group member, all these disturbing influences would at once cease; further, the value of an extra unit of strength in his presence would soon make itself felt.
Let us then imagine a band of brothers willing to aid in the sustenance of their widowed sisters, strong enough to defy their capture by others, and determined to frustrate any attempt at escape on their part. The inevitable result would be the attraction within their own circle of suitors for their hands. Now it is worthy of note that the feasibility of the process of such attraction and inclusion becomes more obvious when we reflect that if, as is probable, they belonged to a neighbouring group, they would thus by no means find themselves quite strangers in their new home. For it is precisely from near neighbours that their wives would have been captured by the males of the assembly they have now joined. These wives, in fact, would be probably own sisters to the immigrants. As such, then, we can understand an easier tolerance of their presence by the resident males, their new brothers-in-law; as brothers and sisters the primal law created such a bar in division between their own wives and the new comers, as put aside any possible chance of friction in jealousy.
Now the significance of the entry of outside males would be vast, from many points of view. In a general sense we here find that further aggregation of numbers in unison which we considered important, as prophetic of the present social condition of to-day. Again, there arises a renewed distinction of that difference as between one female and another, so peculiar to mankind. For here we see that for the first time a sister no longer ranks in exactly the same line, from a marital point of view, as a mother. A daughter, in fact, may now evidently have as mate other than the husband-father. As the primitive mind habituated itself to this idea, the first serious blow was dealt at the old parental prerogative. Again, in other ways, in other minds than own brother and sister, will this change in the old order of things be thus brought home—to no one more clearly than to the outside suitor himself, when, later, he becomes a father; the trains of circumstances leading to it are very curious, but would arise in a perfectly natural manner. The result in this connection would make itself felt by him in the next generation, with the advent to the adult stage of his own female offspring.
Is it credible, indeed, that the original male members of a group who had solely accepted his entry as mate for those ineligible females, their sisters, would consent to his further participation in marital right with other female group members? Evidently not: for thus the sexual prerogatives of the strangers would be much greater than their own—for the resident males are barred by the primal law from the wives of the new comers, who yet, as resident females, form probably much the most numerous section of the feminine element in the horde. If the new comers further inherited the ordinary right of intercourse with their own daughters, who would be correspondingly numerous, then the extent of their rights would entirely outbalance that of their brothers-in-law. As original residents the latter would, however, be the law-makers, and we can have no doubt as to what form in such a case law would take.[3] Thus is struck a blow again, however indirect, to incest as a custom, a blow whose power would be the more effective, insomuch as here it is the living father himself, in the outside suitor, who would be in cause. But even admitting that it is possible to conceive a complacency in regard to such participation in sexual rights on the part of the brother, there would still be another much more formidable obstacle to incestuous license as regards his daughter confronting the male intruder in the person of the precedent sister, now his wife.
A psychological factor of enormous power was now for the first time in the history of the world to make itself felt. It would be the play of the natural feeling of sexual jealousy on the part of his resident female mate. The jealousy of a woman, in fact, is at length able to make its strength appear, to some purpose. As a wife who had not been captured, who, in fact, as an actual member of the group itself, was, so to speak, the capturer, her position in regard to her dependent husband would be profoundly modified in comparison with that of the ordinary captive female. Whereas such a captive, seized by the usual process of hostile capture, had been a mere chattel utterly without power; she, as a free agent in her own home, with her will backed by that of her brothers, could impose law on her subject spouse, and such law dictated by jealousy would undoubtedly ordain a bar to intercourse between him and her more youthful, and hence more attractive, daughter.
By these then, and other incidents, each of vast value, we may perceive how the primitive mind became gradually prepared for a change so imperatively necessary for all future progress, and how a habit even so deeply ingrafted as incest may primarily have been forced to slacken its hold. It is even possible to imagine how from such a point of departure, the custom might at once have entirely ceased among all, or at least a portion of, mankind. If we could conceive at this stage a secession from their original group of its resident component females, accompanied by their outside mates, with a continuance of the acceptance of the subordinate strange suitors in future generations of the new colony, then we could admit the probability of rapid evolution in approach to a well-known actual group formation. The persistent importation of the always dependent outsider would accentuate the movement already begun against incest—with two such associations in unison, cousinship would be recognised, and peaceful connubium in 'cross-cousin' marriage between groups would become a habit, and female descent the rule.[4] But at such a stage in social evolution, it is impossible to accept the dominance of the unsupported female or 'feme sole.' Gynæcocracy, if it has indeed ever existed, is evidently as yet incredible. Not thus was dealt the final fatal blow at this last great trait of archaism. We must rather seek it in the familiar economy of the type of group we have left, which is characterised, as with other animals, by the predominance of the male.
In our study of the various incidents in primitive social economy which would have had effect in a sense inimical to the custom of incest, we have only considered the matter from the point of view of the entry of the outside suitor after the death of the paternal tyrant. The incestuous rights of the living group-fathers are thereby in no way directly affected. In the absence of any direct personal interest in the matter on the part of the group-sons, the only other male components and law-makers might indeed continue to remain unopposed indefinitely. Thus a resolution of the problem of decay of incest would seem as far off as ever. Happily this is not in reality the case—the real significance of the entry of the outsider, even on such terms as we have examined, lay in the co-ordination of movement of these resultant primary checks, and the inevitable synchronous evolution of the most characteristic feature of the next and higher type of group, as in itself a mere component of a tribe. The outsider's admission, in fact, really contained the germ of progress in group formation which was to entail the total required decay [of incest].
Up to the present, although the entire male element in a group was divided into two classes, by generations whose interests had little in common, between them no antagonism had arisen which could not be appeased by the evolution of such a law in remedy as we have noted. The case would now be altered; an irreconcilable breach was about to divide them. It will be seen that the advent of the outsider had been a real portent. Where, for instance, and under the circumstances we have portrayed, he had become a more accustomed figure as an immigrant, he would form a valuable connecting link between groups. Each would certainly possess some females seized from the other by more or less forcible capture, but each now possessed a certain proportion of these males, brothers of those females, whose intrusion had been peaceably accepted. With less strained relations and greater intercourse, capture would become a little more rare, and a friendly interchange of women more common. There would be then discovered by the brother a hitherto undreamt-of virtue in the young female, his sister; in fact, her value as a negotiable article would appear.
As brothers and sisters, and thus barred in union by the primal law, their relative interest in each other had been of the feeblest in the past. The ultimate destiny of the sister might be a matter of the most perfect indifference to the brother. With the new order of things she had suddenly become more precious. As an object of barter for the sister of another man, she would show herself to be invaluable. In view of the difficulty and danger attending hostile capture, the temptation to such easy procuration of mates as sister-barter offered would be irresistible. Coming at first into practice when only the death of the father had left his widowed daughter free, its advantages to the sons would impose a gradual encroachment on the rights of possession by the living parent. In prejudice to incest were now opposed the two most powerful passions in human nature, sexual desire, and a love of material gain, and the successful barter of a sister for another man's sister satisfied both. For attempts at capture might be unsuccessful, and purchase might be more or less unsatisfactory. And these passions would be aroused in bosoms able to make their power felt. The sons, as also resident males, would be among the law-makers. However powerful the father in past authority and tradition, in the end the force of numbers would tell. However numerous the group of fathers, they would always be outnumbered by the group of brother sons, and victory would thus ultimately incline to these.[5] However long and doubtful the struggle, as the latter possessed the longer lease of life, the quantum of the exchange value of a sister would always finally be made to show itself, and the determination to profit thereby would be more strongly impressed on each generation.
Natural selection would again certainly come into play in favour of such groups, thus curtailing the monstrous prerogatives of the old-world fathers, by dint of numbers alone. The superiority which would ensue with each generation, would speedily ensure the triumph of that assembly which could definitely accept the presence of the outside suitor. He would come as a multiple unit of strength, a willing ally who would otherwise have been an active enemy—the generator of the productive power to females who would either have remained as sterile residents, or seceded to hostile hordes as breeders of new foes.
Thus, then, we may at length perceive how a custom even so deeply ingrained in nascent man as paternal incest, may finally have become extinct as a custom. In the action of such circumstances we can accept the idea of its ultimate decay and death. By the numerical preponderance of the individuals within a group interested in its disappearance, was alone such a result feasible. This necessary condition we here find fulfilled.
In opposition to the father we now see arrayed not only the wife-mother jealous of her mate, not only the daughter inclined instinctively to youth and the unknown, but, most important of all, the son, now egged on by most powerful personal feelings and interests. And for these latter ones, as we have seen, time itself would fight; to youth each hour and day is a gain in strength, to old age each moment means a loss of power. With the decay of the custom we see that the way lies clear to progress in group formation. Sooner or later the presence of the offspring of the outside suitors in the formerly purely consanguine circle will be recognised, their recognition as cousins to the younger resident members will be made, and the old type of horde by a process of cleavage divides itself into two intermarriageable clans, (phratries?), and the savage tribe is created.[6]
Thus did the custom of paternal incest disappear, and so completely as not to leave a trace of its passage in recognised usage among actual peoples. But as an unauthorised habit it long existed, nay, it still lurks, and as such it is probably much more common among the lowest classes of even most civilised peoples than is generally imagined. The continual domiciliary propinquity of such close relatives makes the crime easy[7] and detection difficult. Amidst the savage races, although rare, it is by no means unknown. It is not a crime by the laws of totem kinship with female descent, the daughter in such a case being always of the same totem as her mother, and thus theoretically eligible. The only bar is the classificatory system which, based on sequence in birth, forbids all connection between those of different generations. Thus this form of incest, when it does occur, in no way creates the utter horror which we find universal at any union between brother and sister. An old native chief whom I questioned on the matter certainly spat with disgust at the idea, but again, to my own knowledge, a case occurred where a girl bore a child to her own father, and when the fact was mentioned among the people, it only caused coarse laughter. It is true that in this case the culprit was a great chief—it is possible that there would have been more adverse comment if he had been a commoner. It is certain that the betrayal of the vested interests of the future husband (for in New Caledonia all children are betrothed at a very early age) would have been more resented in the latter case. But license in sexual intercourse within forbidden relationships seems everywhere the privilege of irresponsible rank, if we may judge by the Kalmuck proverb, 'Great folk and the beasts marry where they please.'
However, its occurrence in such cases may be traced to sources which show that here the exception proves the rule. Indeed, the fact of its occurring almost solely among the higher classes [as among the Incas], points clearly to a probable connection with an idea of pride of race, or a question of inheritance. Now we may note that with descent in the female line the right of direct succession to the paternal name, or place of power, or property, is not in the gift of a father. The only legal conveyers of the blood right within him are females in whose veins is to be found that same blood, i.e. his mother and sisters. However regal a personage his child by a foreign woman, it is cut off from that heritage, nor in connection with this offspring can pride of race find a place. Thus, then, we may understand how union, although illegal, with a sister was so frequent in, and even enjoined on, the royal race amidst certain peoples. The purity of the royal blood thus alone remained intact, and from a king was born a king. For it is a remarkable fact which must be more than a coincidence that amongst these very peoples, such as the ancient Egyptians, Persians, and Peruvians, whose rulers were addicted to the habit, female descent was the custom [?]. At least I am not personally acquainted with any exception to the rule. In consonance with this descent through females only and where any approach has been made to gynæcocracy, we shall expect to find that there would be only one legal wife. Such was indeed the case also in Ancient Egypt, there is no instance of two consorts given in any of the inscriptions. This fact, taken in connection with that which conduced to incestuous union under this form of descent, invites us to make a digression in a curious reflection, not however entirely foreign to our general theme. For the same effect as regards inheritance on the offspring which would be produced by union with a sister, would also occur in marriage with a daughter whose parents had been themselves brother and sister. Thus we may guess the lineage of the unknown mother of the great royal wife Nefer-ari, daughter and consort of the Pharaoh of the oppressive Rameses the Great. This daughter had, in fact, been probably chosen among others for wife precisely because her mother had herself been both his sister and his wife.[8]
We may now renew our affirmation that paternal incest as a custom, is no longer generally recognised anywhere. The primitive unquestioned marital right in incest is quite unknown. It has disappeared, and so completely have even traces of its past general occurrence faded, that doubts of the reality of the fact may be pardonably entertained. The question is of importance in connection with our thesis, for as may be seen the whole theory of the primal law is based on the idea of its primitive universal prevalence. We hope, however, to have shown the inherent possibility of the fact as being a habit common to all the mammalia—and it has seemed against reason to suppose that man's ancestor, whilst in the animal stage, would be an exception to so general a rule. Our further argument has adduced circumstances in favour of a final decay so complete that oblivion could not but follow.
Perhaps not the least remarkable fact to the anthropologist in connection with its life and death, is that only as between a father and a daughter, of all blood relationships, do we find no trace among actual peoples of any law in Avoidance. The fact is significant, as we may thus surmise that the process of decay was very long delayed, in fact to a time when such inchoate form of law as Avoidance had become an archaism, or until general progress had rendered any law unnecessary.
[1] As to group marriage the editor cannot follow Mr. Atkinson.
[2] I have here slightly altered Mr. Atkinson's terminology. As the passage stands in his manuscript he confuses totem kins with the Australian intermarrying 'classes.' In his manuscript the passage runs thus: 'In later days they' (the outside mates) 'will be found as the male members of a certain class generation in one group' (by which he means a 'class,' say Ippai, in a 'phratry,' say Dilbi) 'and, de facto, eligible in group marriage with all and certain females of the same category as regards birth in another group.' Here he obviously should have written 'eligible in marriage with all females of the corresponding category in the other "phratry" of an all-embracing tribe.' 'As indeed with actual Australians where, by right of birth alone, each totem group contains the natural born husbands and wives of another totem group.' This is not the case: men of one totem kin are not compelled to take wives from one other totem kin; but men of one 'class' must take wives of one other 'class,' and men of one 'phratry' must take wives out of the other 'phratry.'. To avoid confusion I have, in the text, inserted the correct terminology.—A. L.
[3] All the younger generation of females would be reserved for themselves, and thus not only their own daughters, but the daughters of their brothers-in-law, who, as of the same generation, were all classed together as sisters.
[4] These groups would be phratries, or the germs of phratries.—A. L.
[5] The breach between father and sons could only be healed by the submission of the fathers. Then prerogative in incest would gradually decay, for strange to say no vestige of law in avoidance can be traced.
[6] It will be observed that Mr. Atkinson, when he writes of 'the cleavage of the old type of horde into two intermarriageable clans, creating the tribe,' differs from the opinions already expressed by his editor. By 'clans' Mr. Atkinson here means 'phratries,' and we have shown that phratries, even now, often bear totemic names, and probably were, in origin, local totem groups; each containing members (by female descent) of several other totem groups. Mr. Atkinson, as far as his MS. goes, appears to have given no attention to the origin and evolution of totem names, totem groups, and totem kins. Thus he writes, 'the presence of the offspring of the outside suitor in the formerly purely consanguine circle will be recognised.' But if the heterogeneity in the circle was only recognised as marked by female descent, and by the totem name of the female mate from without, male parentage of 'the children of the outside suitor' would not come into the purview of customary laws, would not cause the 'cleavage into two intermarriageable clans,' or 'phratries.' There was no such 'cleavage,' as we have argued, and the permission of cross-cousin marriage is due (I suspect), not to such early legal recognition of male descent, but simply to the natural working of the totemic exogamy, plus female descent.
Mr. Atkinson's theory of 'cleavage,' it will be remarked, does not involve the idea that the members of an 'undivided commune,' being pricked in conscience, bisected it for reformatory purposes. He merely suggests that his clients found, in their group, persons marriageable according to their existing rules of the game, and married them. But these persons are, according to him, recognised as the offspring of 'outside suitors' male, and are also recognised as cousins, on the female side, though even now no name for cousins exists in Australian society. This involves counting both on the male and female sides, which, in practice, may have occurred. But the theory of Mr. Atkinson avoids all the problems of the different totemic names given both to the born members of his original group, and to other members thereof, consisting of the offspring of the outside suitors. If totemic group names already existed, these suitors must have been of many totem group names. Whence, then, came the two different and distinct totemic group names of the two sets of cross-cousins—now phratries on Mr. Atkinson's theory?
Give his original group a name, say Emu. With Totemism it will contain captive wives of various groups, say Bat, Cat, Rat. It will also contain outside suitors, probably of the same names. These men are allowed to marry women of the group, and, by Mr. Atkinson's theory, the offspring of these unions, or 'cross-cousins,' are allowed to marry the children of their aunts within the group. There are thus, within the group, two intermarrying 'sides of the house,' veve, as in Melanesia. But why or how do these sides of the house, practically phratries, now receive totemic names, say Yungaru and Wutaru, or Wolf and Raven? Perhaps Mr. Atkinson would have replied, 'by a mere extension of the habit of adopting totemic names,' which, of course, involves the pre-existence of that habit.—A. L.
[7] But not tempting, according to Dr. Westermarck!—A. L.
[8] It will be interesting to see if research will bring to light the fact that even with so irresponsible and imperious a dynasty as the Ramesids some form of lustration was not considered necessary in the event of such unions. This is the case with the people of Madagascar under similar circumstances.
[CHAPTER VII]
TRACES OF PERIOD OF TRANSITION—AVOIDANCES
Survivals in custom testify to a long period of transition from group to tribe.—Stealthy meetings of husband and wife.—Examples.—Evidence to a past of jealousy of incestuous group sire.—Evidence from Teknonymy.—Husband named as father of his child.—Formal capture as a symbol of legal marriage.—Avoidance between father-in-law and son-in-law.—Arose in stage of transition.—Causes of mother-in-law and son-in-law avoidance.—Influence of jealousy.—Examples.—Mr. Tylor's statistics.—Resentment of capture not primal cause of this avoidance. —Note on avoidance.
With a custom so deeply ingrained as incest would be in the nature of man's ancestor, still doubtless vastly animal, we may indeed surmise that the process of its decay was long and tedious. The temptation, as we have said, to such easy procuration of a mate in comparison with the danger and comparatively scanty results of capture, was very great, whilst the continual propinquity of father and daughter would tend to constant recrudescence, especially in default of any trace of law against it. There must, then, evidently have been a transition era of vast durance, between the type of the isolated consanguine group whose only resource in matrimony was exogamic hostile capture, as the outcome of the incestuous lust of its solitary male head, and the all-embracing tribe composed of an aggregation of several groups, and possessing thus ipso facto all the necessary elements of an endogamic connubium quite incompatible with such incest. In such a tribe, a group of women in many cases formed the pivotal centre, and capture was often found only as a form in survival. Is it possible to retrace the main features of an epoch of such evident importance in social evolution? In view of the fact that, in the past course of our argument, such law as would seemingly have been necessarily evolved in regulation of each step in primitive progress has been found identical in form with some actual savage custom, may not a deeper investigation of savage custom disclose further co-ordination, and prove equally fertile in interpretation of the past? Whilst, again, many obscure observances in actual lower life, in consonance with such archaic genesis, may take a rational form, though the origin seems apparently lost for ever.
Such research will, I think, clearly show that many social features in modern savage habit afford internal evidence that, as a fact, they could only have arisen in such a transition era. They also bear marks of a very lengthened evolutionary process, and thus confirm the natural idea of a halt of portentous length at the threshold of the present haven of comparative social rest. We shall doubtless find that the door left ajar by the entrance of the outside suitor was not to yield further with ease to the pressure of new needs, half-hearted as men would be, from the conservative force of old ideas, of incest and entire masculine dominance.
There is, for instance, one curious trait in actual savage custom which evidently dates from a very early stage of this epoch. It is that of the strange forms of 'stealthy' intercourse, being the indispensable preliminary symbols of the legality of an after marriage between the resident female of a group and an outside male. These forms are well known to anthropologists as occurring among many lower peoples. Here we find that the visits of the male suitor are supposed to be distinctly clandestine, taking place only by night, although in reality the fact is perfectly in the cognisance of the whole group. Now such fugitive and secret meetings are exactly what would have taken place when a group had arrived at a stage in which, although filial incest was decaying as a custom, there were still recognised certain marital rights over his daughter by the living father; when, in fact, tolerance of the presence of the outsider was yet in a tentative stage—and he was still regarded with suspicion, if not disfavour.[1]
In consonance with the view we have advanced of the circumstances attending the entry of an immigrant suitor, it has seemed to ensue that his position would have been quite dependent, and himself considered as a foreign element. That such was actually the case seems again proved by another trait in modern custom, whose genesis, however, was of very much later date, and when speech had made some progress. In our own day clandestine intercourse, as above described, may continue to pregnancy. On the birth of the child alone does the father become recognised as part of the group. But even so his nomenclatory power as regards his offspring is absolutely nil. Far from giving a name to the child, his own is taken from his offspring. Till now, in fact, he has been nameless; in future he will be known as the father of so-and-so, of Telemachus, in the case of Odysseus. To this point we will, however, have to return when we arrive at the question of the evolution of personal descent from that of descent recognised by locality, which we consider to have been the most primitive form. [Mr. Atkinson probably means descent from a local group, say Crow, not descent denoted by a place name, as 'de Rutherford.']
There is another trait in actual custom which also could only have acquired its most remarkable features in this era of change, and that is hostile capture itself, in its legacy of those 'forms' of capture which we find connected with more peaceful connubium all over the world. Such 'forms' have rightly been considered as mere survivals, and thus in agreement with our own theory capture is generally accepted as the earliest form of outside marriage.[2] But in some minds the brutality necessarily attending real capture, and its occurrence solely among very low races with whom any idea of sexual restraint is expected to be quite unfamiliar, has simply connected the process with the general lawlessness which, amongst such peoples, is supposed to characterise the relations between the sexes. Its occurrence in form of survival among higher races has been considered a meaningless ceremony, and its evident symbolism in legality dismissed as incredible. Students are, however, aware how much in error is the idea of utter lawlessness in connection with the marriage relationships of any savage race. On the contrary, as is well known, the list of prohibited kindred is not only much wider than our own, but no stage in the marital arrangements is without irksome and minute legislative restraints, strictly limiting and defining the rights of each individual, male and female.
To other minds the fact that a 'hostile capture,' presenting as its most characteristic feature an utter violence, should ever have been constituted into a symbol of legality in marriage, has given rise to much perplexity. Mr. McLennan in fact remarks—'It is impossible to believe that the mere lawlessness of savages should be consecrated into a legal symbol'—an assertion which we may accept, however little we are prepared to accept his general views on early society. It is evident that the whole difficulty has arisen from the apparent complete incompatibility of a seeming method in violence with a virtual act in law. The hypothesis we have presented of the 'primal law,' and its exogamous sequel, would seem however to throw a new light on the matter. All unions within the group being by the action of primal law, as we have shown, considered incestuous and illicit, marriage could only take place with an outside mate. The presence of a captured female within the camp would thus, as we see, actually constitute in itself a proof, and the only one possible at the epoch, of the legal consummation of marriage as ordained by the primal law. It is thus easy to see how a form of capture should be retained as a symbol of legality in later connubium. Its continued vitality results from the intense conservatism of lower peoples, and from the fact of the halo of prowess that surrounds it.
Its evolution as a symbol only arose, however, when, during the transition era, by the conjunction of groups into a tribe, friendly unions were possible. It would not have occurred with the earliest forms of horde, for these were isolated and hostile, and real capture itself was the sole form of marriage; nor would it have occurred with that later type, in which, with matriarchal descent, the relative positions of males and females were reversed, as far at least as suit in union is concerned.[3] It took its rise with that other great type of group characterised by patriarchal descent, which in all the after history of the world (for, as we shall see, their evolution was coincident and had for cause the same factor) was to dispute supremacy with that which accepted uterine descent. Here, as in the original type, the male continued to preserve his predominance and continued its traditions of capture.[4]
There remain other actual traits whose connection with this era is equally evident. For instance, avoidance between father-in-law and son-in-law could not have had its genesis in the very earliest type of assembly. Whilst parental incest ruled as the custom, each group must have been isolated from and hostile to every other. These two could never have been in habitual presence one of the other. But, again, the habit could not have arisen in the later form, as represented by a tribal horde with uterine descent, as primitively composed of only two intermarrying groups, each of which formed a clan distinguished by a different totem emblem.[5] The relative clan-relationship of each member of the horde would, by the aid of this distinctive totem, be distinctly defined, and, with female descent, the father-in-law and son-in-law would find themselves members of the same clan [phratry]. As thus being both males and of the same 'phratry,' there could not possibly be avoidance or enmity, real or simulated, between them.[6] By all the sacred ties of blood [phratry] they were conjoined in offence and in defence. Further, where descent is uterine we find that the disposal of a daughter is in the hands of the mother or maternal uncle alone—the father has no voice whatever in the question, nor any part in her value as an object of barter or sale. Thus he is perfectly disinterested in the matter of his children. So far from being in disunion with his son-in-law, his sympathies, in case of a tribal quarrel, would be certainly with him. But the younger man, in internal quarrels, might be found fighting to the death with his own real father, not (as I have seen it stated in mention of just such an incident)[7] because he has become part of his wife's clan,[8] which could never be, but because, with descent through the female, his father would be a member of the different group and of other blood to himself, and to his father-in-law also.
The genesis of this particular avoidance (father-in-law and son-in-law) took place during that stage of the transition era, when, incest still lingering, the immigrant suitor was so far acknowledged that his entry into a group was not always delayed till the death of his proposed father-in-law. As they were thus possible rivals there was a chance of friction, only to be averted by the law in question. Avoidance would arise at the same time between mother-in-law and son-in-law, but this time as a measure of protection for the marital rights of the husband of the former.[9] It could not have arisen in the early Cyclopean era. The son-in-law as such, could evidently not have had existence when the mother's daughter was the father's wife, nor, later, when, with the general recognition of the classifactory system, there arose a strict interdiction of sexual union between members of different generations. There would in such circumstances be no further risk of danger from the jealousy of a father as regards his wife, and the husband of his daughter. It had its origin in the fact that when the outside suitor had originally been granted entry, it would only have been after the death of the patriarch sire, and as a mate for his widowed females. But as these would include both mother and daughter, there would thereby be created a precedent, so to speak, which required regulation, when later, with the decay of incest, the living father remained in presence. In fact, avoidance between mothers-in-law and sons-in-law defined fathers-in-law's rights.
We may here again note another step in advance to purely human attributes in the fresh distinction between female and female, which has now again arisen as between a mother and her daughter as regards the immigrant suitor. But whereas with these, as indeed with most of the cases of avoidance we have studied, sexual jealousy has been the primary cause, we may now trace the action of quite another factor, which would certainly tend to a conservation of the habit, and in a manner intensify it. This would be association of idea with hostile capture.
As regards the father-in-law, however, the custom, as far as capture is concerned, would not occur with female descent, for the reasons we have already given of clan kinship in such a case. It might, however, be found as a factor to a certain extent with male kinship, for here it is the father-in-law who is of the same clan as his daughter, and thus interested in her negotiable value. Thus it is possible to imagine enmity between him and her possible captor, who is also of a different clan from himself. As regards avoidance of mother-in-law it has again, perhaps, been accentuated by forcible capture. The effect, however, in relation to descent would be exactly the reverse of that with the father. With early male descent in the primitive tribe as composed of only two clan groups [phratries], it is she who would be of the same stock as her daughter's husband, and the habit would not arise, the captor is, in fact, a member of the tribe from which she herself has been stolen; although later, when more than two clans were conjoined,[10] it might happen that her son-in-law belonged to another, and here there might arise feelings of animosity. With uterine descent the case is certainly altered. As a mother, and as member of a clan different from that of the male suitor, the figure of the son-in-law might be dreaded as a possible captor of her daughter and other young female members. But here again a difficulty arises, for when the capture becomes an accomplished fact, the mother-in-law and son-in-law would probably not meet again, at least in primitive times: he belonging to the group having patriarchal descent, with capture as the rule; she, to the matriarchal, where the female is normally immobile, between which two forms of group no friendly intercourse could occur. The fact of avoidance in any form presumes contiguity or the habitual presence of the individuals concerned, and this in such a case could not arise. So as in Tylor's figures we find that in W to H, as the latter is completely cut off from his family, there is not one single case of avoidance between the wife and the husband's relatives. It is evident that the same rarity of contiguity must have arisen also with the father in male descent; there is here certainly cause of disagreement in the rape, but if the parties see each other no more there would be no necessity of evolution of avoidance to mark the fact. Indeed, I cannot help thinking that the importance of association with hostile capture has been much exaggerated as a factor in the evolution of Avoidance. The question of 'residence' and 'descent' has not been held sufficiently in account by those who insist on the capture as the sole cause of avoidance. Despite the eminence of the authors favouring this view, I would venture to submit that the balance of proof would much favour sexual jealousy, which we have heretofore found the sole motive power in all changes.
Those who would uphold anger roused by capture as the cause of avoidance with the wife's relatives, for instance, must be prepared to show that it would be strongest with the one who was most deeply interested in the wife, one whose voice in her destiny was of greater power than her own mother's, and that was her maternal uncle, the head of her clan. Now I have failed as yet to find a single trace of such a case as avoidance between the latter and his sister's daughter's husband.
Again, jealousy, or a desire for regulations in matters of sexual union, will explain certain details in the accounts we have received of individual cases which seem otherwise obscure or irrelevant. These have been overlooked, as they are minute, but from my point of view are full of significance when closely examined. Mr. Lubbock says,[11] quoting Franklin as to American Indians: 'It is extremely improper for a mother-in-law to speak or even look at him, i.e. her son-in-law.' Quoting Baegert: 'The son-in-law was not allowed for some time to look into the face of his mother-in-law.' Further, 'among the Mongols a woman must not speak to her father-in-law, nor sit down in his presence. Among the Ostiaks, Une fille mariée évite autant qu'il lui est possible la présence du père de son mari tant qu'elle n'a pas d'enfant, et le mari pendant ce temps n'ose pas paraître devant la mère de sa femme' (Pallas). In China the father-in-law after the wedding-day never sees the face of his daughter-in-law again, he never visits her, and if they chance to meet he hides himself. Among the Kaffirs a married woman is required to hlonipa[12] her father-in-law, and all her husband's male relations in the ascending line, i.e. to be cut off from all intercourse with them.
Again, in Australia, it is compulsory on the mothers-in-law to avoid the sight of their sons-in-law, by-making the former take a very circuitous route on all occasions, to avoid being seen, and they hide the face or figure with the rug which the female carries with her. So strict is the rule, that if married men are jealous of any one, they sometimes promise to give him a daughter in marriage. This places the married man's wife, according to custom, in the position of mother-in-law, and renders any communication between her and her future son-in-law a capital crime.[13] Also among the Sioux or Dacotas, Mr. Philander Prescott remarks on the fear of uttering certain names. The father and mother-in-law must not call their son-in-law by name, and vice versa, and there are other relationships to which the prohibition applies. He has known an infringement of this rule punished by cutting the offender's clothes off his back and throwing them away. Harmon says 'that among the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains it is indecent for the father or mother-in-law to look at or speak to the son or daughter-in-law.' Among the Yakuts, Adolf Erman noticed a more peculiar custom. As in other northern regions the custom of wearing but little clothing in the hot stifling interior of the huts is common there, and the women often go about their domestic work stripped to the waist, nor do they object to this disarray in the presence of strangers; but there are two persons before whom a Yakut woman must not appear in this guise, her father-in-law and her husband's elder brother. Again, quoting J. G. Wood, he says the native term for these customs of avoidance is, 'being ashamed of the mother-in-law.' The Basuto custom forbids a wife to look in the face of her father-in-law till the birth of her first child—and among the Banyai a man must sit with his knees bent in presence of his mother-in-law, and must not put out his feet towards her.
Now an important circumstance to be remarked in nearly all cases of Avoidance is, that it principally exists between people of different sexes,—thus an a priori inference may be drawn that the primary cause lay in some relation to the sexual question. It is significant that a woman's avoidance of her husband's relations is with those in the ascending line, i.e. with his seniors. Against his juniors he can defend himself, against his seniors he needs the protection of law. In the cases we have cited, it is significant that, besides the father-in-law, hlonipaed among the Kaffirs, the woman must hlonipa all her husband's male relations in the ascending line. Among the Yakuts she must not appear unclothed before her husband's elder brother.
Among the Veddahs of Ceylon a father will not see his daughter, nor a mother her son, after they have come to years of maturity.[14]
If we examine the words italicised in the quotations above, they seem to convey more nearly an idea of impropriety in any approach to intimacy than that of 'cutting' from enmity, as Dr. Tylor has suggested. Indeed, we observe here just the same horror that a too familiar attitude between forbidden kindred, as uncle and niece, would excite amongst ourselves, arising from the same idea of repugnance.
We see that various observers use the terms 'improper' (Franklin), 'the fear of' (P. Prescott), 'indecent' (Harmon), 'cut off from all intercourse with them,' and no doubt they have[15] each expressed the impression made on themselves in observation. We note again that the only case where the native term in designation of the custom is given that it means 'being ashamed.' The limit in time for the avoidance is again significant. 'For some time,' Baegart says; 'tant qu'elle n'a pas d'enfant' (Pallas). 'Till the birth of the first child.' These limitations in time would not exist if enmity because of capture was the cause, whereas we can quite understand them if, the circumstances now proving the consummation of marriage, jealousy might then be supposed to cease. The reserve as to a too familiar attitude that this idea of indecency would imply, is shown where a Mongol daughter-in-law 'cannot sit down in the presence of the father-in-law,' and where the Banyai man 'must not put out his feet towards his mother-in-law, but sit with his knees bent in her presence.' In China it is the father-in-law who hides himself, and this surely would hardly be the act of a captor, nor can we imagine a man having his clothes cut off his back simply because he had not 'cut' some one sufficiently.
However, in connection with our argument we have Adolf Erman's account of the custom among the Yakuts, and where we find the husbands elder brother joined with the father-in-law in an avoidance, there a distinct feeling of impropriety in connection with these relations in law of the wife is indicated. The diffidence cited is exactly what would occur if union was undesirable and yet not impossible, between the persons in avoidance, and hence temptation was to be avoided. It is very important to note that no idea of enmity from capture can be associated with the husbands elder brother. Again, the custom of avoidance with an elder brother, where its connection with jealousy is evident, is very widespread, and very strict in observance; as we have already noted, it occurs in Orissa and among the Kyonthas in India, whilst I have also observed it in practice in New Caledonia, where it is most undoubtedly a means to an end, to protect the younger brother's marital rights. As to the significance of the fact mentioned in the case of the natives of Australia, where, as regards their wives, they are jealous of a man— and give him a daughter to place him in avoidance with her mother, comment is unnecessary.
These facts seem to me to be conclusive; but the question of the exact origin of avoidance is so important to my general argument, that I am glad to be able to find what I fancy is added proof from another source. If this furnishes the requisite evidence that sexual jealousy was the real factor, and not hostile capture, our hypothesis of the primal law acquires valuable inferential evidence in its favour. Such added proof we hope to be able to show in Dr. Tylor's figures.[16]
| -- | Theory as | practice | -- |
|---|---|---|---|
| In Residence, H to W: 65 | |||
| Avoidance H to W relations | (a) 9 cases | (b) 14 cases | (A) |
| Avoidance W to H relations | 3 " | 0 " | (B) |
| In Residence, W to H: | |||
| Avoidance W to H relations | 5 " | 8 " | (C) |
| Avoidance H to W relations | 18 " | 9 " | (D) |
These figures, which are extracted from Dr. Tylor's work, would seem to be eloquent against hostile capture being the sole cause of Avoidance. They are derived from a comparison of Avoidance as occurring, (a) quite independent of residence, and (b) as actually resulting where coincidence of Avoidance and residence is found.
Now as regards the question of jealousy as cause of Avoidance, residence and propinquity will evidently have a powerful effect.
(A) As we have seen, any Avoidance under these circumstances would be remarkable without a prior stage in quite other conditions than those found generally with H to W residence. We note that whereas we might expect under even the above conditions to find only 9, there are 14. Here sexual jealousy has been an important cause.
The Avoidance of the Mother-in-law (for, of course, there was none here with father-in-law, who was a nonentity in such a family circle, and of the same clan as the son-in-law) arose as a matter of protection for the marital rights of the daughter as against her mother, both inhabiting the same large house common to matriarchal descent.
(B) Here, again, we expect to find 3, and see there are actually none, from which it would seem to result that W capture had nothing whatever to do with the origin of A, H to W, for, admitting the almost entire separation of the W from H family, which would make the case rarer, a tradition of capture would exist which would have effect when they were later grouped together. Whereas the non-Avoidance is explained by lack of jealousy, from absence of male relations of H.
(C) Here it is again quite impossible to accept any idea of W capture as the motive cause. Avoidance arose between W and father-in-law to protect rights of son-in-law and mother-in-law. It was evolved, as we have seen, as a measure of protection for that generation of males who were the actual captors, each generation by the classificatory system having individual rights. That the necessity for such legislation was urgent we see in the proportion of the figures 5 to 8.
Here, again, the fallacy of capture as primal cause of Avoidance is clearly evident. If this was the case, we might expect it to be almost universal, whereas in reality, instead of the 18 cases which the average should give us, we find only 9. It really had its origin in the reason we have already given, of sexual jealousy as a primary cause, and was later augmented as serving to impress on many the classificatory distinction between M and D, who otherwise, as far as totems went, were eligible to the same person. Where both father-in-law and mother-in-law are in avoidance, we may surmise a change in descent from the F to the M in the tribe, the converse change of M to F of course never occurring. The question of change of descent will explain problems in the nomenclature of Morgan's tables as regards nephews and sons, which have been overlooked.[17]
NOTE TO CHAPTER VII
Mr. Crawley reckons three interpretations of the origin of the avoidance of mother-in-law and son-in-law. 1. Fison (Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 103), 'It is that the rule is due to a fear of intercourse which is unlawful, though theoretically allowed on some classificatory systems.' Mr. Crawley remarks, 'this explanation is the one most likely to occur to explorers who have personal knowledge of savages,' which was Mr. Atkinson's case. Mr. Crawley objects the antecedent improbability of any man, 'not to mention a savage, ever falling in love with a woman old enough to be his mother or mother-in-law, and the improbability of so many peoples being afraid of this.' Now 'in love' is one thing, and an access of lust is another. Moreover, the mother-in-law, in prospective, not infrequently is her daughter's rival, even in modern life. She has to be guarded against, even if the son-in-law is less dangerous. And he is very apt to be 'a general lover.' 'Theoretically the mother-in-law is marriageable in many systems,' says Mr. Crawley, 'and so there would be no incest....' But Mr. Atkinson is not contemplating the danger of incest as the cause of mother-in-law avoidance; his theory postulates jealousy—that of the mother-in-law's husband, and, for what it is worth, that of the mother-in-law's daughter. Mr. Crawley's objection, I think, does not invalidate Mr. Atkinson's theory; especially as he does not reflect that the possible mother-in-law may have a caprice for her son-in-law, while the would-be son-in-law, less frequently, may follow the course of Colonel Henry Esmond.
2. Sir John Lubbock's (Lord Avebury's) theory, of enmity caused by capture, Mr. Atkinson has dealt with; it is rejected by Mr. Crawley.
3. Mr. Tylor's theory (Journal Anthrop. Institute, xviii. 247), is that of 'cutting' 'an outsider,' not one of the family, not recognised till his first child is born. For various reasons, Mr. Crawley rejects this explanation, rightly, I venture to think. Mr. Crawley holds that the mother-in-law avoidance 'seems to be causally connected with a man's avoidance of his own wife,' which he regards as only one aspect of the tabu between the two sexes, superstitiously regarded as dangerous to each other. But, like Mr. Atkinson, I much doubt whether the 'avoidance,' as far as it goes, of husband and wife is, in the main, the result of this superstition, though it plays its part on special occasions, as before the women sow the crops, and before the men go forth to war. Mr. Crawley's suggestion that, as husband and wife are perpetually breaking the alleged sexual tabu, the mother-in-law becomes 'a substitute to receive the onus of tabu,' 'a good instance of savage make-believe' does not carry conviction. Mr. Atkinson's theory seems 'as good as a better' (Mystic Rose, pp. 400-414).—A. L.
[1] Well-known instances of this marital shyness are the Spartan and Red Indian usage of only entering the wife's bower, or wigwam, under cover of darkness. There are also Fijian and New Caledonian cases (Crawley, pp. 39-40). Mr. Crawley would regard these as cases of 'sexual tabu,' but various other cases may be readily conjectured.—A. L.
[2] See Note at the end of chap. V.
[3] With the consequent accession of power to the resident female thus accruing, capture would have become more rare. In any case it would certainly become connected in the minds of the more advanced and powerful tribes with the rape of women, other than their own, and probably inferior in type, mentally and physically; the comparison of this degraded captive in their midst with their own free females would not be at all likely to have led in connection with her to any spontaneous idea of symbolic consecration in marriage, or aught else.
[4] When two groups, despite the isolating tendency of the habit of capture, did at length form a union sufficiently close to permit of marriage by consent between the respective group members, then, with capture as regards outsiders still rife amongst them, we can understand how the symbol would come to be attached to the peaceful connubium.
[5] 'Phratries' are here meant, where the word 'clan' is used, or local totem groups.—A. L. Cf. Note, p. 260.
[6] The exact relation of each to the females being defined by the classificatory system by generations.
[7] As mentioned by Tylor.
[8] Here I really do not know what 'clan' is meant to denote—'phratry,' I think.—A. L.
[9] See Mr. Crawley's 'Sexual tabu' theory of this avoidance, Mystic Rose, pp. 399-414.—A. L.
[10] Apparently 'clans' here = totem kins, Mr. Atkinson seems to think that totem kins kept on being added to the two original 'phratries.'—A. L.
[11] Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, p. 13 et seq.
[12] Hlonipa, to avoid mention of his name, &c.
[13] Origin of Civilisation, p. 14. Lubbock quoting 'Report of Select Committee on Aborigines,' Vict. 1859, p. 73. Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 288.
[14] Among the Veddahs the fact that the avoidance begins after puberty, and in each case in relation to the opposite sex, is evidence that here the sexual feelings are concerned.
[15] Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 291.
[16] E. B. Tylor. On a method of investigating the development of institutions: applied to laws of marriage and descent. J. A. I. 1889, xviii. No. 3, 245-269.
[17] The matter here is highly technical, and must be compared, if it is to be understood, with Mr. Tylor's essay, cited in the previous note. W stands for Wife, H for Husband, D is Daughter, F is Female, M is Mother, and is also Male! A is Avoidance.—A. L.
[CHAPTER VIII]
THE CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM
The classificatory system.—The author's theory is the opposite of Mr. Morgan's, of original brother and sister marriage.—That theory is based on Malayan terms of relationship.—Nephew, niece, and cousin, all named 'sons and daughters.'—This fact of nomenclature used as an argument for promiscuity.—The author's theory.—The names for relationship given as regards the group, not the individual.—The names and rules evolved in the respective interests of three generations.—They apply to food as well as to marriage.—Each generation is a strictly defined class.—Terms for relationship indicate, not kinship, but relative seniority and rights in relation to the group.—The distinction of age in generations breaks down in practice.—Methods of bilking the letter of the law.—Communal marriage.—Outside suitors and cousinage. —The fact of cousinage unperceived and unnamed.—Cousins are still called brothers and sisters; thus, when a man styles his sister's son his son, the fact does not prove, as in Mr. Morgan's theory, that his sister is his wife.—Terms of address between brothers and sisters.—And between members of the same and of different phratries.—These corroborate the author's theory.—Distinction as to sexual rights yields the classificatory system.—Progress outran recognition and verbal expression.—Errors of Mr. Morgan and Mr. McLennan.—Conclusion.—Note.—' 'Group marriage.'
In the gradual evolution of the group into the tribe during the long period of transition, the modifications in the internal organisation, which took place as the necessary result in the march in progress, should have left traces which we may also be able to follow in living custom. The immigration of the outside suitor, in its synchronism with the decay of paternal incest, must have entailed continual complications demanding regulation, and the resolution of each problem would lead to an almost mechanical step in advance. When by force of circumstances of environment or others such a step became retrograde, then we may expect an aberrant form whose very anomalism should lead to a facile recognition, and prove equally fertile in interpretation. Indeed, a curious vestige of the effect in action of the habit of incest, when brought into inevitable contact with progressive social evolution, is to be discerned in the nomenclature of that earliest phase of the classificatory system which Mr. L. H. Morgan has called the Malayan. From the general prevalence among lower races of a division into classes by generations of the members of group, and the deduction we see drawn in Ancient Society from the Hawaiian terms of relationship therein detailed, as to a previous state of general promiscuity, it will be desirable thoroughly to examine the whole question of the so-called classificatory system. It is doubly imperative in view of our own hypothesis, which, as regards the primary origin of society, may be said to be exactly the reverse of that of Mr. Morgan, in as far as the sexual inter-relations of brother and sister are concerned.
We have tried to portray the imperative evolution of a primal law as the sole possible condition of the first steps in social progress, a law which had so specially in view the bar to sexual intercourse between a brother and sister that it might, if a name for it were needed, be called the anadelphogamous law. [Mr. Atkinson wrote 'asororogamic,' which is really too impossible a word for even science to employ.] Mr. Morgan, on the contrary, says,[1] 'The primitive or consanguine family was founded upon the inter-marriage of brothers and sisters own and collateral in a group.' He adds,[2] 'The Malayan system defines the relationship that would exist in a consanguine family, and it demands the existence of such a family to account for its own existence.' And again,[3] 'It is impossible to explain the system as a natural growth, upon any other hypothesis than the one named, since this form of marriage alone can furnish a key to its interpretation.' He bases his argument on the fact that[4] 'under the Malayan system all consanguines, near and remote, fall within some one of the following relationships, viz. parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother and sister—no other blood relationships are recognised,' and says, speaking of promiscuity, that[5] 'a man calls his brother's son, his son, because his brother's wife is his wife as well as his brother's, and his sister's son is also his son because his sister is his wife.'
Now that a brother's son should be called a son is quite simple, as being a natural effect of the group marriage of brothers, the prevalence of which as a habit, and its effects, MM. Lorimer and Fison so well show among the Australians.[6] But that a sister's son should also be termed, by her brother, a 'son' is certainly a very different thing indeed, despite Mr. McLennan's and other arguments to the contrary. In this verbal detail lies the whole crux of the matter as regards Mr. Morgan. That it should have given rise to such diversity of opinion and suggested his theory of brother and sister marriage need hardly be matter of surprise. For it is at once, evident that a group holding such nomenclature ignored cousinship, even if it existed. To all later seeming my sister's son must be nephew to ego quite necessarily. That at any stage he should be unrecognised as such seems the more astonishing, as even in the very early times when totems first arose, and arose probably and precisely to distinguish cousins as such,[7] each cousin is of a different totem to the other, and thus not only eligible in marriage with another cousin, but in many lower races the born spouse each of the other. The whole question thus resolves itself into the exact value of the term we find used in the Hawaiian designation of the sister's son by her brother. Now it is important to note that two causes might have for effect the form of nomenclature in which a brother and sister each call the child a son, and thus ignore a possible cousinship. One cause is that some factor in self-interest or otherwise allowed such relationship to remain unrecognised, although existent, and another is that, as cousinship did not exist at all, there could be no recognition, or, as Mr. Morgan puts it, 'his sister's son is also his son because his sister is his wife.' To determine which is correct certainly seems difficult, and the whole thing has evidently been considered a most stubborn fact for the opponents of promiscuity.
That Mr. Morgan should have seized it in support of his theory, and that the theory should be so largely accepted, is not astonishing. Happily the great value of his ensuing argument as regards tribal development is in no way impaired if it can be shown, as we hope to do, that there is no necessity for an hypothesis of promiscuity to explain the terms in the Malayan table, which apparent need seems primarily to have led Mr. Morgan to evolve the idea of his primitive group. In fact, it becomes evident that, if we can furnish a clue as to how a sister's son came also to be a brother's son, without having recourse to the theory of an incestuous union of brothers and sisters, we at least discount the need of Mr. Morgan's 'consanguine family,' in which such incest is supposed to be a most characteristic and essential feature. We hope to prove that the terms which misled him are more apparent than real as proofs of any real affinity in blood, and that the original conception in causal connection was something quite apart.
Sir John Lubbock (Lord Avebury) has observed that the lower the milieu of a social status the less we see of the individual and the more of the group. In the case before us the individual as such does not exist at all, and there is only question of the group in its relation to its component classes. To confound one with the other led to Mr. Morgan's error.
There was much, in fact, in Mr. McLennan's shrewd remark in criticism of Mr. Morgan's theory that he did not seek the origin of the system of nomenclature in the origin of the classification of the connected persons, and that he courted failure in attempting to solve the problem by explaining the relationships comprised in the system in detail.'[8] But it seems to me that Mr. McLennan fell into the same error when he contented himself with the misleading analogies which a comparison with the Nair family system presented. These, however striking, are, as we shall find, simply the result of the fact that class or communal marriage was the common trait of the polyandrous and the Cyclopean family, nor can I see that Mr. McLennan followed his own excellent advice as regards the possible identity in origin of nomenclature and classification; if he had so done, his acute mind could not have failed in a resolution of the whole problem, whereas his final resume of the argument is in terms which I profess to be quite unable to grasp.
Before entering into the matter ourselves, we must keep in mind our affirmation as to the axiom which must, in my opinion, guide us in all research into the hidden causes of early social evolution. All innovations, as we have said, in the regulation of society, all novel legislative procedure so to speak, will be found to have relation to the sexual feelings in jealousy. This already is the genesis of the primal law, and, in each case of avoidance, we have found jealousy the leading factor. It is the same in the case before us. Bearing this in mind, let us then follow Mr. McLennan's advice as to seeking the origin of the classification of connected persons. Now what would be the family economy of the primitive group, and who are its component individuals, whose interests, in sexual matters, are likely to clash, and whose mutual relationship in this respect demanded distinction in furtherance of regulation of their respective rights?
The original primitive type of family, which we have called 'the Cyclopean,' has disappeared, giving place to a higher form, which, by the inclusion of male offspring, has permitted the existence of several generations in presence. The component individuals, speaking of one sex only, would be old males, males, and young males representing three generations. It is the interests of these generations, which, in sexual matters and in choice of food, &c. would be likely to clash, for we may be sure that the seniors, as with actual savages, would desire the lion's share. Distinction then being necessary, it would naturally, as with individuals, be based on relativity of age, seniority within certain limits confering priority. Thus gradually each generation, as indeed with actual lower races, would, qua generation, come to be a distinctly defined class with certain separate rights and obligations. In this simple necessity of a classification of the connected persons, we see the origin of the classificatory system itself, as an institution. Divers interests, as between seniors and juniors, demanded strict demarcation, and the limits of a generation furnished the required lines to mark them.
The very natural distinction by relativity of age was simply, as with individuals, utilised as the requisite machinery in regulation of mutual rights of the individual himself. His rights are a matter of concern simply within his generation, in which the relation is purely paternal and communal, with the sole reservation of rights conferred by seniority.
Even when later denominative expression was given to the idea of a generation, terms almost identical of male, old male, and young male are used, as there is no desire to convey any idea of personal kinship, and there is merely in view reference to relativity of age of a class in relation to the group. Later, as Mr. McLennan says (p. 277): 'Whatever class names primitively signified, Kiki would come to mean child, Kina parent, Moopuna grandchild, Kapuna grandparent, but originally no such idea of kinship was in view.' The classificatory system evolved itself simply as the result of a desire to define certain rights, and the division by generations was the most natural and feasible for the purpose. But the very simplicity and paucity of the original terms show that it was applied to any simple group form. In fact, we are here dealing with that primitive form which bound people together, by the mere tie of residence and locality, and was purely exogamous in habit. Now when we consider that this fixed relativity of age by generation was originally evolved in view of the relations within such a family, we can imagine that complications might arise from such arbitrary definitions, when, later, this family expanded into the numerically large tribe composed of two intermarrying totem clan groups [phratries].
Primitively, doubtless, as between the classes, the genetic idea as regards sexual matters was (as still with savages in questions of food) to favour the seniors and defend their rights in defining each one's status. But actually, with the decay of incest, it would become what it is as among lower races, where nothing is more remarkable than the strict interdict upon any union between members of different generations.[9]
It is evident that hence complications might arise perplexing to the savage mind. For instance, we may expect to find cases where the niece is an adult, whilst the aunt is still an infant, and yet marriage between the former and the son of the latter is obligatory, as they are cousins of the same generation. Here, probably, we have a clue to one of the most bizarre facts in anthropology, where the universal rule as to sexual connection between generations seems to be wantonly disobeyed, although in reality the reverse may be seen to be the case on examination. It is recorded of the Keddies of Southern India that a very singular custom exists among them, a young woman of sixteen or twenty years of age may be married to a boy of five or six years. She, however, lives with some other adult male (perhaps a maternal uncle or cousin), but is also allowed to form a connection with the father's relatives, occasionally it may be the boy's father himself, i.e. the woman's father-in-law! Should there be children from these liaisons, they are fathered on the boy husband. When the boy grows, the wife is either old or past child-bearing, when he in turn takes some other boy's wife in a manner precisely similar to that in his own case and procreates children for the boy husband.
By the classificatory system, as each in fact is a member of the same generation, they are born husbands and wives. The enforced virginity of the wife, implied under such conditions, entailed a celibacy incompatible with all lower ideas. It is easy to imagine the compromise between his conscience and his desires which a savage would make in such a case when favoured (or forced) by circumstances of environment, for it is unknown elsewhere. The infant nephew goes through the ceremony of marriage, which, by a fiction, being thus legally consummated, the wife is left free to follow her desires. These, however, are by no means allowed to run riot. They are regulated in a fashion of which, although the peculiarity is noted by the authors of the extract, the full significance can only be appreciated in connection with our hypothesis. She formed indeed connections outside of her husband, but solely with those of the legally eligible totem. As I believe the Keddies have male descent, these would be sons of the father's sister, or sons of the mother's brother, or again with the latter himself, who was her father-in-law, whereas union with the sons of the father's brothers, or of the mother's sisters, as being of the same totem, would not take place—and this we find to be the actual fact, as evidence proves.
But still other complications will be found to arise as the effect of the original concept of the classificatory system when brought face to face with new and advanced social order, which will have closer relation to our present argument. The distinctive feature in the economy of the primitive group in its relation to all other groups was mutual hostility. The instinctive distrust of strangers would be accentuated by the habitual hostile capture of females, for such groups, except in the case of the incest between father and daughter, were yet purely exogamous. But such mutual hostility implies isolation of each community. Thus all law evolved, as we have said, would be purely with a view to regulation of the internal economy of a single consanguine group alone. Now in such a group, the division into generations of old male, male, and young male implied (although not as yet understood as between generations) the relationship of parents and children. Each generation is either child or parent to the other. As marriage is communal,[10] all the fathers in one generation are fathers to all the children in the next indiscriminately, and conversely these children recognise as fathers all the males of the senior generation. It follows that the relationship of all the members of a generation is purely fraternal, all are brothers and sisters to each other, and in this consanguine family they were really either actually so, or at least half brothers and half sisters.
Between these the primal law of celibacy between brother and sister as such embraced the whole generation. Now as long as the family was thus simply constituted, no friction would arise. The brothers, in common, captured and married in common some outside female,[11] and their children constituted solely the next generation. The sisters were either stolen or emigrated to other groups; but we have seen that a moment would come when this process ceased to be universal. The sister came to remain in her own group, and she was joined by some outside suitor; with the advent of their children, who are cousins to the others, would arise dire perplexities, in view of the old law.
We may now begin to see more distinctly, in the fact of the presence of the cousins, the resolution of the problem as to how a sister's son came to be also a brother's, and we will find that Mr. Morgan was not the first to be baffled by the problem. It was too intricate for primitive man at any rate. When first presented to him, we may surmise that he, in fact, refused to recognise it as a problem at all. Since the beginning of things in the group, as constituted by all tradition, the children of one generation were children of another simply, and nothing more. That as a result of the presence of the outside male, some intricate process of scission had occurred, and things were not as they seemed, was an idea far too abstract to be readily seized. All in a generation had been ever, to early man, brother and sister, and brother and sister they should continue.
We have seen in a past chapter that it was actually to the interest of senior male group-members, while incest reigned, that this condition of things should endure. It put at their sole disposal the daughters of their brothers-in-law, and in the primal law placed a ban on sexual intercourse between all the younger male and female members, as constituting them brothers and sisters. As a factor in this case, however, the effect of incest was more or less temporary. The real agent in the tardy or non-recognition of the cousinship thus created, was the conservative force of old habit and tradition. We must remember that, in so early a group, personal descent as such was in no way recognised. Mere local contiguity alone constituted the sense of relationship, exogamy for instance took the form of local exogamy, for as all within a locality were (locally) relations, so all outside were, as strangers, free in marriage. While then so strong a sense of the value of contiguity continued, and was in practice, the evolution of an idea of non-relationship of two individuals with a common habitat would be too complex. Again, a recognition in fact implies a vast modification of the whole organisation of the group, which thus contains in cousins the elements of marriage within itself. But this is the latest and highest type of group and constitutes the tribe. We can understand that such a step was not taken at once by early man. Even when recognised we know that definition lags behind the event.
Thus in such a case as cited, and at the stage we are studying, if we find two cousins in presence, who are yet unrecognised as cousins, then, if nomenclature has taken place, we should find exactly the terms employed in the Malayan table which misled Mr. Morgan. A sister's son would be termed the brother's son, simply because the individual was as yet ignored, although existent, as a cousin, as members of the same generation they were brother and sister. Classes by generations alone were recognised.
Now as regards the validity of our assumption that relativity in age served as a means to determine privilege as to wedlock, proof can be furnished by certain nomenclatory features, as between members of a class or generation, to be found in the Malayan table in Ancient Society and elsewhere. This will afford, incidentally, strong negative proof of our theory as to non-union between brother and sister. It will also incidentally furnish the strongest negative evidence that, so far from brother and sister living in incest, as Morgan holds, brother and sister were regarded as quite apart in the sense of any sexual relation between them. It will be seen that there is a profound distinction made in address between inter-marriageable people and those between whom celibacy is enjoined.
Both Mr. Morgan and Mr. McLennan have drawn attention to the peculiarities in the terms of address as between 'brothers' and as between 'sisters.' It is curious that the full significance of the phenomena therein presented escaped two such keen intellects. We find here that terms of address as between persons of the same sex and of the same generation, and ergo brothers or sisters, present the very remarkable features that
(1) 'The age of the person spoken to compared with that of the speaker plays a very important part in the matter of denomination.'
(2) 'Such names refer not to the absolute age of the person addressed.'
(3) 'The relationships of brother and sister are conceived in the twofold form of elder and younger, and not in the abstract, and there are special terms for each among the Seneca Iroquois.'
(4) 'There is no name for brother and sister (Malayan system). On the other hand, there are a variety of names for use in salutations between "brother" and "sister" according to the age and sex of the person speaking in relation to the age and sex of the person addressed.'
(5) Among the Eskimo the form of the terms of relationship appears to depend, in some cases, more on the sex of the speaker than on that of the person to whom the term refers.
(6) In Eastern Central Africa, if a man has a brother and a sister, he is called one thing by the brother, but quite a different thing by the sister.
We will now illustrate the idea more completely by an extract of terms from the table of Hawaiian relationships in Ancient Society. An older or a younger brother is to a sister simply addressed or mentioned by the general term Kaiku nana, but to her, in address or mention of an older or a younger sister, they are respectively Kaik a'ana and Kaika-i-na. Again, an older or a younger sister is to a brother collectively Kaikuwaheena, but to him an elder or a younger brother is respectively Kaiknana and Kaikaina.
Now in view of our argument as regards the origin of these diversities in some sexual feelings, it is a most significant feature in these details of the terms of address that the expression of the relativity of age between the speakers is confined solely to the intercourse between members of the same sex. That a brother is the senior or the junior of Ego is carefully noted, but a sister is simply and vaguely a sister. Why? simply because whereas, by virtue of the primal law, no possible question whatever of mutual interest in sexual matters could possibly arise between a brother and a sister, on the other hand friction might hourly occur between brothers or between sisters. In fact, if our theory is correct, then, as questions of sexual privilege or precedence could cause jealousy between members of the same sex, distinctions would be necessary by definition of seniority when address took place between these, and in these cases alone, and this indeed we find to be the fact. As conclusive evidence we would cite the further important fact that these very same distinctions of senior and junior are used, inter se, between all those of the same totem [phratry] as now existing, but are never employed for their tribal cousins of the other totem [phratry]. And the reason is the same. The latter naturally do not marry (in groups formed of only two classes) [phratries] into the same totem [phratry] as the former, and thus there is no cause for jealousy or necessity of definition, whereas individuals of the same totem [phratry] are ipso facto group [potential] husbands of the same group [potential] wives, or are at least eligible in marriage with the same totem groups [phratries], and hence necessity for the exact definition by age of each one's rights.
Thus, as with other laws or institutions we have traced, we find a desire for distinction as regards rights in sexual union to be the genetic cause of the classificatory system both as regards the generation and its component members.
In all periods of transition which a process in change in progress implies, we expect to find cases where the conservative force of tradition from the past has delayed recognition of the too novel present, and we discover that circumstances have moved too rapidly for the intelligence of the times. If we keep this fact in view, we have thus seemed to find a natural explanation of the knotty point which was the cause of dispute between Mr. Morgan and Mr. McLennan,[12] and we may thus venture to say that each was both wrong and right in his views of the classificatory system in general. Each has mistaken a part for a whole, and they were ignorant that they were upholding two sides of the same question. Mr. Morgan was in error in assuming the system's too intimate connection with a determination of affinities in blood, in relation to which primarily, as we hope to have shown, it had really neither purpose nor aim, as also in his too hasty assumption of a consanguine family founded on brother and sister incest, based on a mere conjectural solution of a verbal detail, an assumption which he himself acknowledges had no other foundation.
Mr. McLennan was in error in maintaining that the classificatory system concerned terms of address alone. To quote his own words: 'What duties or rights are affected by the "relationships" comprised in the classificatory system? Absolutely none; they are barren of consequences, except indeed as comprising a code of courtesies and ceremonial addresses in social intercourse.' On the other hand, as we have tried to show, the system had precisely both intention and effect in regulation, as regards sexual feeling, which is the strongest passion in nature. And yet each disputant again was right in a degree, for, in later times, the classificatory distinctions really served as terms of address as regards the clan [tribe?], whilst again the primitive terms, which simply describe generations of persons in their relation to the group, were afterwards, by philological transmutation, to come to have a more definite meaning expressing the sense of the personal parent.
NOTE TO CHAPTER VIII
Group Marriage
The idea that 'group marriage' exists among the dusky natives of Australia, and that 'the group is the social unit as regards marriage' (as explained in the earlier part of this book), was introduced by Messrs. Howitt and Fison in their Kamilaroi and Kurnai (1880). Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, in their Natives of Central Australia (1899), support the views of Messrs. Fison and Howitt. 'Under certain modifications group marriage still exists as an actual custom, regulated by fixed and well recognised rules, amongst various Australian tribes' (p. 56). 'Individual marriage does not exist either in name or practice in the Urabunna tribe' (p. 63). Mr. Crawley argues, on the other hand, that individual marriage does exist among the Urabunna, 'though slightly modified' (Mystic Rose, p. 482). For each 'slight modification,' the husband's consent must be obtained. The system is regarded by Mr. Crawley, not as a survival of promiscuity, more or less modified, but as an 'abnormal development.' He believes in individual marriage, as, from the earliest known times, 'the regular type of union of man and woman.' 'One is struck by the high morality of primitive man' (pp. 483-484).
What Mr. Atkinson meant by saying that 'marriage is communal,' I do not understand, as, on his theory, sexual jealousy must have prevented each man of a generation, in a group, from being equally the husband of each woman, not his sister. The young braves are supposed to bring in women captives from without, and to marry them 'communally,' Then what becomes of jealousy? They ought rather to have fought for their captive, on the principles of a golf tournament, the survivor and winner taking the bride. Mr. Atkinson never saw his work except in his manuscript, and might have made modifications on such points as this, where he seems to me to lose grasp of his idea, as in his theory of recognition of the children of 'the outside suitor,' he seems to bring male descent into action at a period when, as he asserts elsewhere, it was not yet recognised by customary law. On the Keddies (p. 287) I have no information, the author giving no reference. A. L.
[1] Ancient Society, p. 384, Lewis H. Morgan.
[2] Ibid. p. 402.
[3] Ibid. p. 409.
[4] Ibid. p. 385.
[5] Ancient Society, p. 391, Lewis H. Morgan.
[6] Kamilaroi and Kurnai, Lorimer and Fison. Cf. note at end of chapter. I have already stated my objections to the theory of 'group marriage.'—A. L.
[7] 'Totems arose to distinguish cousins as such.' This implies that the totem name was assigned to each group for a definite social purpose, the regulation of degrees of kin. But, on any feasible theory of the 'totem' it 'came otherwise,' and was only used as a mark of kinship after it had come, just as a place name might have been used, had it been equally convenient. On the system of descent of the totem on the female side, A (man), an Emu, marries B (woman), a Kangaroo. Their sons and daughters are Kangaroos. C, one of the sisters, marries D, a Witchetty Grub, her children are Kangaroos. E, C's brother, marries F, a Frog, his children are Frogs, and may, as far as the totem rule goes, marry their cousins, C's children, who are Kangaroos.—A. L.
[8] Studies in Ancient History, McLennan, p. 269 et seq.
[9] The most distinctive feature to-day in the inter-relations of generations is a most strict ordinance to celibacy between members of different generations.
[10] How can marriage be communal, granting Mr. Atkinson's views about sexual jealousy?—A. L.
[11] Where is sexual jealousy?—A. L.
[12] Cf. Mr. Tylor, J. A. I. xviii. 3, 265, who expresses the same opinion.
[APPENDICES]
[APPENDIX A]
ORIGIN OF TOTEMISM
In the following village sobriquets from the south-western counties of England the people are styled 'eaters of' this or that.[1]
ENGLISH VILLAGE SOBRIQUETS
| Eaters | ||
| Ashreigney | — | Dog-eaters |
| Morchard | — | 'Burd'-eaters |
| Roseash | — | Whitpot-eaters |
| Sandford | — | Cheese-eaters |
| Moreton | — | Tatie-eaters |
| Paignton | — | Pudding-eaters |
| Churston | — | Liver-eaters |
Compare with these the following sobriquets of Siouan old totem kins, counting descent in the male line.
SIOUAN NAMES OF GENTES
Eaters
Eat the scrapings of hides
Eat dried venison
Eat dung
Eat raw food
Among the Sioux we have also noted the sobriquets
Non-Eaters of
Deer
Buffalos
Swans
Cranes
Blackbirds, etc.
These sobriquets of non-eaters are probably totemic: the Deer kin does not eat deer, nor does the Crane kin eat cranes, and so on. Totem kins are named from what they do not eat; many totem kins with male descent are nicknamed from what they do eat, or are alleged by their neighbours to eat.
GROUP SOBRIQUETS IN ORKNEY.
In the following letter, which I owe to the kindness of Mr. Duncan Robertson, we read that, in Orkney and Shetland, local sobriquets are derived from what the people are alleged to eat. The tradition is, Mr. Robertson informs me, that each group is named after the edible plant or animal which it brought when engaged in building the Cathedral of Kirkwall.
Crantit House, St. Ola, Orkney,
Jan. 29, 1903.Dear Mr. Lang,—My tyrannical doctor won't let me out yet, so that I have not been able to collect all the information I should like to get for you about the Orkney nicknames—or 'bye-names,' as they are called here.
Here follows the list as taken from Tudor's The Orkneys and Shetland, with alterations:
I. MAINLAND OR POMONA
| Kirkwall | Starlings | |
| St. Andrews | Skerry-scrapers | |
| Deemess | Skate-rumples | |
| Holm | Hobblers | |
| Orphir | Yearnings | |
| Firth | Oysters | |
| Stromness | Bloody-puddings | |
| Sandwick | Assie-pattles | |
| Harray | Crabs (of old, sheep) | |
| Birsay | Hoes = dog-fish | |
| Evie | Cauld kail | |
| Rendall | Sheep-thieves |
II. SOUTH ISLES
| Hoy | Hawks, Auks or Tammynories |
| Walls | Lyars (Manx Sheer-water) |
| Burray | Oily Bogies = the skin |
| buoys used for herring | |
| nets |
South Ronaldshay
| a. | Grimness | Gruties |
| b. | Hope | Scouties (Skuas) |
| c. | Widewall | Witches |
| d. | Herston | Hogs |
| e. | Sandwick | Birkies |
| f. | South Parish | Teeacks (Lapwings) |
III. NORTH ISLES
| Gairsay | Buckies |
| Wyre | Whelks |
| Egilsay | Burstin Lumps |
| Rousay | Mares |
| Shapansey | Sheep |
| Stronsay | Limpets |
| Sanday | Gruelly Belkies |
| North Ronaldshay | Selkies = Seals (also called 'Tangie Whessos') and 'Hides' |
| Eday | Scarfs = Shag or small Cormorant |
| Westray | Auks = the common Guillemot |
| Papa Westray | Doundies = spent Cod |
These are all the names I know or can hear of in Orkney. I wrote to Mr. Moodie Heddle of Cletts on the subject, as I knew him to take a great and intelligent interest in all such topics; and I have a most interesting letter from him, of which I shall give you the gist. He says he has no doubt that the origin of the names is that which you suggest, though some of the names do not at first sight appear to bear this out. Kirkwall 'Starlings' are easily accounted for, assuming that there have always been as many starlings about Kirkwall as there are now. They may well have been eaten by the townsfolk. I have tried them, and their breasts are not at all bad.
Skerry-scrapers.—The allusion here is to men who live off shell fish, 'dilse,' etc. off the skerries. There are—or were—excellent oysters on the St. Andrews skerries. Mr. Heddle tells me he has heard a woman insulting a man by saying she supposed he would soon leave no limpets in a certain bay, meaning that he was too lazy to work for his living.
Skate-rumple is, of course, the skate's tail. Deemess is the nearest land to a famous piece of water for skate, known as 'the skate-hole.'
Holm 'Hobblers' I do not understand, but shall make some further inquiries. I have an idea it is a reference to some bird; Mr. Heddle thinks it has something to do with seals, but neither of us knows.
Yearnings are, of course, the dried stomachs of calves used for making cheese.
Oysters.—The bay of Firth was famous for its oysters till the beds were overfished and destroyed some thirty years ago.
Stromness 'Bloody-puddings'—Mr. Heddle suggests that the people bled their cattle twice or thrice a year and made 'puddings' of the blood. This, of course, was done in the Highlands at one time.
Assie-pattles.—Either those who lay in the ashes or, Mr. Heddle suggests, who ate cakes baked in the ashes. Before iron girdles came much into use cakes were baked on flat stones; and there is a hill, known as 'Baking-stone Hill,' where the people used to come for stones that would not split in the fire. The peats used in Sandwick have a very red ash, which colours all persons and things near it.
Harray 'Crabs.'—Harray is the only parish in Orkney which does not touch the sea, and the name is given in irony. The old 'tee-name' is said to have been 'sheep.' The story is told that some fishermen passing through Harray dropped a live crab. The men of Harray could not make it out at all, and sent for the oldest inhabitant, who was brought in a wheel-barrow. After gazing at the monster for a few moments he exclaimed: 'Boys, hid's a fiery draygon; tak' me hame!'
I suspect there is some other tee-name than 'sheep-thieves' for the Rendall people, but will try to find out and let you know.
Hoy 'Hawks'—Mr. Heddle, who was formerly proprietor of Hoy, says he thinks 'auks' must have been the original word, as he believes 'tammy-nories' was the old name. 'Auk' is Orcadian for the common guillemot, and a 'tammy-norie' is a puffin. Both of these birds abound in Hoy.
Mr. Heddle also tells me that the old name of 'Lyars' for the people of Walls was to a great extent replaced by 'Cockles.' The 'lyars' were very common in Walls at one time, and were esteemed a great delicacy, but, Mr. Heddle tells me, were to a great extent killed out by the brown rat. He himself remembers men being bitten by rats when putting their hands into holes to look for young 'lyars.' Some three generations back enormous numbers of cockles were taken and eaten by the people of Walls, and they seem to have been called 'Cockles'—or, I presume, 'eaters of cockles'—in consequence.
Oily Bogies.—I hardly see how this can have been 'eaters of.' There might have been some old story to the effect that the Burray men stole and ate these buoys, but I never heard it.
South Ronaldshay has names for every district, which no other island but the Mainland has.
Gruties is, Mr. Heddle says, equivalent to 'Skerry-scrapers'—people who get their living from the 'grut' or refuse left in bights by the tide. ('Grut,' see Norse gröde = porridge or gruel.)
Scouties may be derived from the skua, though Mr. Heddle gives an unpresentable derivation. The word Birkies he did not know the meaning of, but asked two or three people, who all said the Sandwick people were so called 'because Sandwick was such a place for tangles coming ashore, and the people had such a habit of eating what they called "birken" tangles, i.e. the stout or lower ends of the large thick tangles.'
Burstin Lumps are a sort of preparation of oatmeal, once a very favourite dish in the Isles.
Rousay 'Mares'—There is an old tale of a Rousay man who, being a coward, killed his mare and hid inside her from his enemies. Mr. Heddle sends me an old rhyme on the subject:
As the Rousay man said to his mare:
'I wish I were in thee, for fear o' the war;
I wish I were in thee without any doubt,
Were it Martinmas Day before I cam' out.'The North Ronaldshay people did eat seals. Why Hides I do not know. Mr. Heddle here suggests it may have had to do with witchcraft, in which skins and especially seals' flippers were much used. Within the last ten years a man pulled down and rebuilt his byre because of some 'ongoings with a selkie flipper.'
The names are very old and must be of Scandinavian origin.
Yours sincerely,
DUNCAN J. ROBERTSON.
In addition to these names of 'eaters,' simple names of animals, we have shown in the text, are as commonly given to English villages as totemic names are given to the totem groups of savages.
ANCIENT HEBREW VILLAGE NAMES
In Robertson Smith's Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (p. 219) he says: 'I have argued that many place-names formed from the names of animals are also to be regarded as having been originally taken from the totem clans that inhabited them.' Now where totemism is a living institution I know no instance in which a locality is named from 'the totem clan that inhabits it.' The thing cannot be where female descent prevails, as many totems are then everywhere mixed in each local group. Where male descent prevails we do, indeed, get localities inhabited by groups mainly of the same totem name. But their tendency is to let the totem name merge in the territorial title, the name of the locality, as Messrs. Spencer and Gillen prove for the Arunta and Mr. Dorsey for the Sioux.
Having found no instance where a totemic group gives its totem name to the locality which it inhabits, I was struck by a remark of Dean Stanley in his Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church (p. 319, 1870). He there mentions the villages of Judah which were the scenes of some of Samson's adventures (Joshua xv. 32, 33; Judges i. 35). The villages of Lebaoth, Shaalbim, Zorah, respectively mean Lions, Jackals, and Hornets. Nobody eats any of these three animals, and they may be names of totem groups transferred to localities—though of this usage I know no example among savage totemists—or they may merely be old Hebrew village sobriquets, as in England and France.
On consulting the Encyclopædia Biblica, under 'Names' (vol. iii. 3308, 3316) we find that 'there can be no doubt that many place-names' in Palestine 'are identical with names of animals.' Those 'applied to towns' (we may read villages probably) are much more common in the south than in the north. We have Stags, Lions, Leopards, Gazelles, Wild Asses, Foxes, Hyænas, Cows, Lizards, Hornets, Scorpions, Serpents, and so on. These may have been derived from old totem kins, though I think that theory improbable, or from the frequency of hornets or scorpions in this or that place, or the villagers' sobriquet may have become the village name. The last hypothesis has hitherto been overlooked. The frequency of animal and plant names in the Roman gentes, Fabii (Beans), Asinii (Asses), Caninii (Dogs), is an instance that readily occurs. These may be survivals of totemism or of less archaic sobriquets, while the totem names themselves, as we have argued, may have had their origin in sobriquets.
[1] Western Antiquary, vol. ix., pt. ii., p. 37, August, 1899.
[APPENDIX B]
THE BA RONGA TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP
The hypothesis that the Australian terms of relationship, as they now exist, really denote status in customary law, may perhaps derive corroboration from the classificatory system as it appears among the Ba Ronga, near Delagoa Bay. Here the natives are rich, industrial, commercial, and polygamous to the full extent of their available capital. Polygamy, male kinship, and wife purchase, with elaborate laws of dowry and divorce, have modified and complicated the terms of relationship. They are described by an excellent authority, M. Henri Junod, a missionary.[1]
M. Junod has obviously never heard of the 'classificatory system' among other races, and his explanation of certain 'avoidances,' such as between the husband and his wife's brother, father, and mother, is probably incorrect (turning, as it does, on the laws of wife-price and divorce), though it appears now to be accepted by the Ba Ronga themselves. But what more concerns us is the nature of terms of relationship. These terms denote status in customary law, determined by sex and seniority. Among the Basuto, 'a man is otherwise related to his sister than to his brother; his children are related to their paternal otherwise than to their maternal uncles and aunts,' and to their cousins in the same style. Relative seniority, entailing relative social duties, is also expressed in the terms of relationship. The maternal aunt, senior to the mother, is 'grandmother.' The children of my father's brother and of my mother's sister, are my 'brothers' or 'sisters;' the children of my maternal uncle and paternal aunt are not my 'brothers' and 'sisters.' The children of a man's inferior wives call the chief wife 'grandmother,' and the other wives, not their mother, 'maternal aunts.'[2] The son of my wife's sister is my 'son,' because I may succeed to her husband on his death, and his father calls me 'brother.' The maternal uncle is the mere butt of his nephew, the uncle's wives are the nephew's potential wives: he is one of the heirs to them. This kind of uncle (maternal) is not one of the tribal 'fathers' of the nephew, but the paternal uncle is, and is treated with the utmost respect. In brief, each name for a 'relationship' is a name carrying certain social duties or privileges, dependent on sex and seniority.
We have no such customary laws, and need no such names—the names are the result and expression of the Basuto customary laws. Had we such ideas of duty and privilege, then they would be expressed in our terms of relationship, which would be numerous. My maternal uncle would have a name denoting the man with whose wife I may flirt. The wife of my brother-in-law is the woman whom I must treat with the most distant respect. If I am a woman, my father's sister's husband (my 'uncle by marriage') is a man whose wife I may become, and so forth endlessly. Consequently there is a wealth of terms of relationship, just because of the peculiarities of Ba Ronga customary law.
[1] Les Baronga, Attinger, Neufchâtel, 1898, pp. 82-87.
[2] Op. cit. pp. 487-489.
INDEX
ABORIGINAL man, Mr. Darwin's view of, [209];
Mr. Atkinson on, [220]
Affinity, degrees of, prohibiting marriage, [188];
most stringently applied by least civilised races, [2];
differences of opinion among students of the question, [2];
existing laws not an indication of primitive rules, [2];
Australian anomaly, [88]
Age distinction and the classificatory system, Mr. Atkinson on, [290]
Altruism, possible germ of, in nascent man, [232]
American ethnological terms, [10]
Andrews, Judge, on Hawaiian marriage relationships, [98]
Animal guardians among savages, [131]
Annamese family relationships, Dr. Westermarck on, [240]
Anomaly, totem, among the Arunta, [85]
Anthropoid adult males unsocial, [220]
Aristotle and early human society, [7]
Arunta tribe of Central Australia, [2], [11];
descent reckoned in the male line, [15], [69];
supposed ignorance of procreation, [20];
a 'marriage ceremony,' [24];
reincarnation superstition, [31], [139];
totem marriage-prohibition now extinct, [41];
totem common to both phratries, [46], [56];
totem groups preceded phratries, [61];
Mr. Spencer on the introduction of exogamy, [61];
totem influence, [61];
traditions as to change of custom, [67];
Mr. Frazer's opinion of the tribe, [68];
intermarry with the Urabunna, [69];
theory of evolution, [70]; totemism, [70];
belief in reincarnation, [71]; totem eating, [71];
Dr. Durkheim's views, [72];
opinion of Spencer and Gillen, [73];
marital relationship, [74];
relations of totems and phratries, [74];
myths, [75]; Dr. Durkheim on, [75];
Messrs. Spencer and Gillen's opinions, [76], [77];
institution of marriage regulations, [78];
phratries and totems, [81];
Dr. Durkheim's views on the phratry, [82];
totemic divisions, [83];
origin of the anomalous marriage system, [85];
philosophy of souls, [86];
relationships prohibiting marriage, [88];
curiosities of affinity, [88];
terms of relationship, [93];
relationship customs, [96]; legislation, [108];
legend regarding marriage limits, [108];
class system with male descent, [120];
totems and magic, [196], [198]
Atkinson, Mr., his speculations on human origin, [3];
on primitive man's polygamy, [4];
his theories and the Biblical account, [7];
disbelief in early promiscuity, [9];
views on the effect of sexual jealousy, [9], [18], [30];
his opinion on exogamy and totemism, [17];
his exogamous marriage hypothesis, [18];
his 'primal law,' [19];
on the origin of the 'classificatory system,' [108];
on New Caledonian totems, [136];
and the custom of avoidance, [212], [264];
on the origin of exogamy, [212], [238];
aboriginal man polygamous, [220];
man's distinction in the primal law, [225];
prolonged infancy in nascent man, [230];
origin of maternal love, [231];
possible germ of altruism, [232];
earliest evolution of law, [236];
wives procured by capture, [244]; editor's note thereon, [248];
development from the group to the tribe, [250];
effect of female sexual jealousy, [256];
extinction of the patriarchal family, [261];
survivals of transition period, [264];
clan (phratry) relationship, [269];
editor's note on avoidances, [278];
the classificatory system, [280], [285];
on the original purpose of totems, [282];
on local contiguity constituting relationship, [289];
on age distinction and the classificatory system, [290];
on group marriage and the classificatory system, [292]
Attic plant names, [205]
Australia, marriage divisions in, [38];
consanguineous marriages forbidden, [40];
tribal variations of custom, [41]
Australian group marriage, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen on, [293]
Australian, native, society not primitive, [3];
complexity of social rules, [3], [4];
low state of culture, [4]; divinities, [5];
languages and customs, [6]; commerce, [6]
Australian tribal division, Mr. Fison on, [42];
the author's view, [43]
Australian sex protectors, [144]
Avebury, Lord, on racial customs, [12]; on totemism, [122];
on totem origin, [123]; on communal marriage, [124];
vague terminology, [126], [130]; on relationships, [128]
'Avoidance,' custom of, Mr. Atkinson on, [212]; origin of, [276]
Avoidance between father-in-law and son-in-law, [268]; its origin, [269]
Avoidance of mother-in-law, [270], [277]; Mr. Crawley on its origin, [278]
BACHOFEN'S views on maternal kin-names, [9]
Baiame, Australian divinity, [5], [29], [138], [184]
Banks Island, two class divisions in, [178]
Ba Ronga terms of relationship, [301]
Barter between Australian tribes, [6]
Basuto customary law, [301]
'Bisection' a misleading term, [36]
Bishop, Rev. A., on Hawaiian marriage relationships, [98]
Blood kinship implied by totem name, [193]
Breeding between sire and daughter, effect of, [223]
British Columbia clan totems, Mr. Hill Tout on, [152]
Brother-and-sister 'avoidance,' [213]; in Australia, [216]
Brother-and-sister 'avoidance,' Dr. Westermarck on, [240]
Brother-and-sister marriage, primitive, Mr. Morgan on, [281]
Bull-roarer, palæolithic, [5]; miniature, discovered in France, [5];
Mr. Frazer's bibliography of, [5] n
CALABAR 'bush-souls,' [143]
Camerons of Glen Nevis properly MacSorlies, [8].
Chattan, Clan, crest of the, [163]
Clan, definition of, [11]
Clan (phratry) relationship, Mr. Atkinson on, [269]
Clandestine intercourse preliminary to marriage, [265]
Class system, the, [35]; and Mr. Morgan, [89]
Class system with male descent among the Arunta, [120]
Class and generation correspond, [112]
Class names, Herr Cunow on, [113], [118]; Dr. Durkheim on, [118];
Mr. Mathews on, [119]
Classes, Mr. Morgan's view of their origin, [92]
Classificatory system, Mr. Atkinson on the, [108], [285];
division by generations the most natural one, [286];
age distinction, [290]; and group marriage, [292]
Classificatory terms, [100]
Codrington, Dr., and totem descent, [135];
on Melanesian ancestor-worship, [150];
on social systems in Melanesia, [177];
his totem theory controverted, [181]
Commerce, Australian inter-tribal, [6]
Communal marriage, Mr. Morgan's theory, [90]; Lord Avebury on, [124]
Consanguineous marriages forbidden among Australian tribes, [40]
Contiguity, local, constituting relationship, Mr. Atkinson on, [289]
Crawley, Mr., on promiscuous sexual relationship, [9];
on the origin of prohibited marriages, [18];
on jealousy in the family, [19];
on the matriarchal theory, [20];
his theory of exogamy, [23];
his view of marriage among savages, [24];
on the prevention of incest, [26];
on terms of relationship, [95];
on marriage by capture, [249];
on mother-in-law avoidance, [278]
Cult of the totem, [136]
Cunow's, Herr, opinion on 'class' and 'phratry,' [37], [112];
on class names, [113];
regards the 'horde' as the original stage of society, [114];
his theory of exogamy, [115];
on local totem groups, [116];
his class-name theory opposed by Dr. Durkheim, [118]
DARAMULUN, Australian divinity, [5]
Darwin, Mr., his theory of primitive polygamy, [4];
his views on sexual jealousy, [9];
opposed to theory of promiscuity, [99];
on primitive man, [209]
Dieri, the, [41]; myths, [65], [66], [91], [139], [159], [163];
piraura custom, [95], [105]
Diet, effect of, on sexual appetite, [227]
Distribution of totems in the 'phratries,' [55]
Divine intervention, savage and civilised ideas, [91]
Domesticated animals in palæolithic age, [4], [5]
Dorsey, Mr., his definition of clan, [11];
on totem descent, [135];
and North American Indian group names, [172]
Dual relationship, tribal and individual, [88]
Durkheim, Dr., on marriage relationship, [19] n;
on blood and totem superstition, [57] n;
on Arunta totemism, [72];
on Arunta 'phratries' and marriage, [73];
on the relation of totem and phratry, [74], [82];
on Arunta legends, [75];
on totemic divisions, [83];
on Arunta anomalous marriage system, [85];
opposes Herr Cunow's theory of class names, [118];
on totem descent, [135]
EARLY belief in mutual danger of mankind, [24]
Eguilles, Marquis d', and Kanaka relationship names, [137]
Egypt, royal intermarriage, [1], [262]
Egyptian totemic myths, [201]
Endogamy, meaning of, [12]
English village sobriquets, [173], [295]
Erman, Adolf, on Yakut avoidance, [275]
Euahlayi, the, [29]; Mrs. Langloh Parker on the, [186] n; myth, [66]
Evolution of primal law of avoidance, Mr. Atkinson on the, [210]
Exchange, commercial, among Australian tribes, [6]
Exogamy, meaning of the term, [10];
anterior to totems, opinions on, [17];
Mr. McLennan's theory, [21];
Mr. Crawley's theory, [23];
Dr. Westermarck's theory, [33];
Mr. Morgan's theory, [33];
the author's theory, [34];
the result of evolution, [53];
Mr. Frazer's earlier ideas on, [57];
objections to, [59]; his later theory, [62];
advantages of the system now proposed, [63];
ignored by theorists on group totemism, [160];
Mr. Atkinson on origin of, [212], [238];
earlier view quoted, [212]
Exogamy among the Arunta, [61]
Exogamy and totemism, Mr. Taylor's view, [17]
Exogamy, local, origin of, [31]
FAMILY, the, its antiquity, [1]; secured by dread of aberrations, [1];
laws and customs vary, [1]; uncivilised races and prohibited marriages, [2];
present-day institutions no guide to prehistoric customs, [2];
conjectures as to primitive state, [4]; patriarchal family the original
social unit, [7]; descent counted through the maternal line, [8], [21];
suggestions as to early promiscuity, [9];
promiscuity prevented by sexual jealousy, [9];
totemism, [14]; family group or 'fire circle,' [14], [17];
exogamous tendencies, [17]; Mr. Crawley on the effect of jealousy, [19];
matriarchal theory, [20]; Mr. McLennan's theory of family exogamy, [21];
Mr. Crawley's theory, [23]
Father—and—daughter avoidance, Veddah, [274]
Father-in-law and daughter-in-law, customs concerning, [272], [275]
Father-in-law avoidance, Mr. Atkinson on, [263], [277]
Female infanticide in first stages of society, [21]
Fijian 'totem gods,' [137]
Fison, Mr., on Kamilaroi marriage laws, [28];
and the class system in Australia, [37];
on Australian tribal division, [42];
controverted by the author, [43];
on the origin of totems, [45];
on the change of totems, [48];
on the origin of exogamy, [65], [97];
his suggestion of Divine intervention, [91];
on terms of relationship, [95];
quotes Mr. Lance on communal marriage, [106]
Fison and Howitt, Messrs., on totemism, [16];
their theories insufficient, [51];
hypothesis as to Greek totemism, [203]
Fletcher, Miss Alice, on totem origin, [151];
on Omaha magical societies, [198]
Folk-lore illustrative of totem group names, [169]
France, miniature palæolithic bull-roarers found in, [5]
Frazer, Mr., bibliography of the bull-roarer, [5];
regards the Arunta as primitive, [20], [68];
his early ideas of the exogamous phratry, [57];
objections to them, [59];
his later theory of exogamy, [62];
his view that totems did not influence marriage, [68];
on the arrangement of totems in phratries, [74];
on Arunta legends, [76];
names several varieties of totem, [132];
his theories as to totem origin, [143];
on the group totem, [144];
on the personal totem, [145]
Freeman, Mr., and the patriarchal family, [7]
GAIDOZ AND SÉBILLOT MM., on unfriendly sobriquets, [168]
Ganowanian gentes, [92]
Ghost-worship, Melanesian, [182]
Gillen, Mr., see Spencer
Gournditch Mara tribe, [195]
Greek totemic myths, [201]
Greek totemism, Messrs. Fison and Howitt's hypothesis, [203]
Grey, Sir George, on totems in Western Australia, [144]
Group marriage, [89]; supposed survivals of, [104]
Group marriage and the classificatory system, Mr. Atkinson on, [292];
editor's comments, [293]
Group marriage, Australian, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen on, [293]
Group names, theory as to, [166];
originated outside the group, [168], [171]
Group totem, the hereditary, [160]
Group totems, Mr. N. W. Thomas on, [148]
Guatemala Indian nagual, [144]
HADDON, Mr., on totem origin, [156]
Hawaiian marriage relationships, [98]
Hawaiian terms of relationship, [93]
Hebrew village names, ancient, [300]
Hesiod and early human society, [7]
Horde, the foundation of Herr Cunow's theory, [114];
its division, [115]
Hose and McDougall, Messrs., on Sarawak beliefs, [153]
Hottentot marriages, Dr. Westermarck on, [240]
Howitt, Mr., his ethnological nomenclature, [10] n;
and the class system in Australia, [37];
his opinion on Australian marriage customs, [41];
his views on the primary class divisions, [46];
considers totemism too old for theorising, [49];
regards the undivided commune as a probable hypothesis, [65];
see also Fison
Human origin, Mr. Atkinson's speculations on, [3];
Biblical account differs from Mr. Atkinson's,
not from Mr. Morgan's hypothesis, [7]
Human society, limit of historical research into origins of, [2];
progress of, [3]; obscurity of the subject, [3]
Hunter River totems, Mr. Rusden on, [148]
INCAS of Peru, royal intermarriage, [1]
Incest to marry within totem name, [16]
Incest, prevention of, Mr. Crawley's theory, [26]
Individual totems, Mr. N. W. Thomas on, [148]
Infancy prolonged in nascent man, Mr. Atkinson on, [230]
Infanticide, female, and exogamy, [21]
JEALOUSY the cause of exogamy, [19]
Jealousy, sexual, the motive power in social changes, [272]
Jevons, Mr., on totems, [134]; on the Attic social system, [206]
Junod, M. Henri, and the Baronga terms of relationship, [301]
KAMILAROI, the, [35] n
Kamilaroi group laws, Mr. Mathews on, [46]
Kamilaroi interphratry marriages, [56]
Kamilaroi marriage laws, Mr. Mathews on, [27];
Mr. Fison on, [28]
Keddies (Southern India), marriage custom among, [286]
Kennedys of Galloway, [7]
Kin name, maternal, [8]
Kingsley, Miss, on the Calabar 'bush-souls,' [143]
Kinship among the earliest human groups, [19]
Kurnai women and the sex totem, [146]
Kyontha social customs, Dr. Westermarck on, [246] n
Kyonthas, avoidance among the, [275]
LANCE, Mr., on communal marriage survival, [106]
Lang, Mr. G. S., quoted by Lord Avebury, [126]
Lifu terms of relationship, [94], [100]
Local exogamy, its origin, [13]
Long's, J., mention of 'totam,' [131] n
MACDONNELLS of Moidart and Glengarry, [7]
McGee, W. J., his ethnological terminology, [11] n;
his views on the evolution of society, [52]
McLennan, Mr. Daniel, on the origin of exogamy, [63];
on the phratries of Northern Victoria tribes, [64]
McLennan, Mr. Donald, on exogamy and totemism, [14], [16], [17]
McLennan, Mr. J. F., [3];
his views on maternal kin-names, [9];
his definition of exogamy, [10], [12];
his view of the most archaic marriage law, [13];
his opinion of kinship, [19], [20];
his theory of exogamy, [21];
the theory untenable, [22];
his views of 'primitive groups,' [31];
and exogamous phratries, [37];
considers totemism anterior to exogamy, [44];
on totem kins, [55];
on terms of relationship, [95];
on marriage by capture, [267];
his criticism of Mr. Morgan's classification theory, [284];
remarks thereon by Mr. Atkinson, [284]
MacSorlies part of Clan Cameron, [8]
McUlrigs (Kennedys) of Galloway, [7]
Magical societies, [197]
Maine, Sir Henry, his 'Ancient Law,' [7];
on the evolution of tribes and states, [7]
Malayan relationship system, Mr. Morgan on, [90], [281]
Mandeville, Sir John, referred to, [24]
Man's distinction from other creatures, Mr. Atkinson on, [225]
Marital relations among the Arunta [74]
Marriage among savages, Mr. Crawley's view of, [24]
Marriage by capture, Mr. Atkinson on, [244], [266];
editor's remarks on Mr. Atkinson's views, [248];
Mr. McLennan on, [267]
Marriage ceremony, Arunta, [24]
Marriage, communal, Mr. Morgan's theory, [90];
Lord Avebury on, [124]
Marriage custom of the Keddies of Southern India, [286]
Marriage divisions in Australia, [38]
Marriage, group, [89]; supposed survivals of, [104]
Marriage laws, totemic and civilised, [87]
Marriage regulations among the Arunta, [78]
Marriage within the totem name prohibited,
[16]
Maternal kinship, [8]
Maternal love, origin of, Mr. Atkinson on, [231]
Mathews, Mr. John, on aboriginal jealousy, [9] n
Mathews, Mr., on Australian inter-tribal barter, [6];
on prohibited marriages, [27];
on group marriages, [35] n;
on marriage divisions in Australia, [38];
on class names, [119]; on totem names, [120]
Matriarchal theory, [20]
Melanesian ghost-worship, [182];
sacrifices, [183]
Melanesian social system, [176]
Menomini myth, [66]
Mincopies (Andamanese), [9]
Modern theories of totem origin: Mr. A. H. Keane's theory, [140];
Mr. Max Müller's theory, [141];
Mr. Herbert Spencer's theory, [142];
Mr. Frazer's theories, [143];
Mr. N. W. Thomas's theory, [148];
Dr. Wilken's theory, [150]; Miss
Alice Fletcher's theory, [151];
Mr. Hill Tout's theory, [152];
Messrs. Hose and McDougall's theory, [153];
Mr. Haddon's theory, [156]:
an objection to these theories, [159];
the author's conjecture, [161]
Modification of sexual habit, Mr. Atkinson on, [227]
Morgan, Mr., on human origin, [7];
his criticism of Mr. McLennan's terms, [13] n;
his theory of exogamy, [33];
and exogamous phratries, [37];
his theory quoted by Mr. Fison, [65];
and the class system, [89];
his theory of communal marriage, [90];
the theory inexplicable, [91];
his views on the origin of classes and totems, [92];
on terms of relationship, [93];
on communal marriage in Hawaii, [98];
his theory opposed by Darwin, [98];
on primitive brother-and-sister marriage, [281]
Mother kin, [20]
Mother-and-son avoidance, Veddah, [274]
Mother-in-law, 'avoidance' of, [277];
Mr. Atkinson on, [213];
Mr. Crawley on its origin, [278]
Mother-in-law, customs concerning, [272], [273], [275]
Müller, Mr. Max, and totem origin, [141]
Mungun-ngaur, Australian divinity, [5]
Munro, Dr., on primitive man, [4]
Myth, savage, and scientific hypothesis, coincidence of, [76]
Myths, Arunta, [75];
Greek and Egyptian totemic, [201]
NAIRS of Malabar, [22]
Narrinyeri totem eaters, [179]
Nascent man a solitary polygamous male, [220];
younger males expelled from family, [220];
absence of a paring season, [226];
effect of diet on sexual function, [227];
prolonged infancy, [230];
maternal love, [231];
retention of adult son in family, [232];
distinction between females in the family circle, [236];
rule of 'avoidance,' [237];
primal law the parent of exogamy, [238];
the editor's view, [238];
sexual relations between sire and daughter, [251];
widows of the polygamous husband, [252];
introduction of outside males, [254];
effect of female sexual jealousy, [256];
recognition of cousinship, [257];
interchange of sisters, [258];
division of the group, [260]
Nature-worship, Lord Avebury's synonym of totemism, [122]
New Caledonia, separation of brother and sister, [214];
infanticide of twins, [215]; avoidance in, [275]
New Caledonia totems, [136]
New Caledonian totem belief, [143]
New Caledonian tribes, hostility between, [167]
New Hebrides, North, class divisions in, [178]
Nooreli, Australian divinity, [5], [138]
North American Indian group names, [172]
Northern Victoria, tribal tradition of, [64]
Nyarongs, Sarawak, [153]
OMAHA magical societies, [197]; Miss Alice Fletcher on, [198]
Omaha manitus, Miss Fletcher on, [152]
Omaha totem groups, [196]
Origin of avoidance, Mr. Atkinson on, [276]
Origin of classes and totems, Mr. Morgan's view, [92]
Origin of totemism, theories regarding the, [49], [50];
Lord Avebury on, [123]
Orissa, avoidance in [275]
Orkney, group sobriquets in, [296]
PALÆOLITHIC man, Dr. Munro on, [4], [5];
possessed religous belief, [5]
Palæolithic remains found in France, [5]
Parker, Mrs. Langloh, on the Euahlayi, [186] n.
Patriarchal family first social unit, [7];
Sir Henry Maine's opinion, [7];
Mr. Freeman's concurrence, [7];
absent from 'non-Aryan' races, [8]
Persian royal marriages, [262]
Peruvian Incas' marriages, [1], [262]
Pfeil, Count von, on inter-tribal hostility, [168]
Phratria, the Attic, [205]
Phratries, [35]; intended to produce exogamy, [53]
Phratries and totem groups, relative antiquity, [35]
Phratries and totems of the Arunta, [81]
Phratries and totems, relations of, [74]
Phratry, Herr Cunow on the development of, [116]
Phratry names usually totemic, [116]
Phratry, origin of the, Mr. McGee's view, [52];
Mr. Howitt's theory, [53];
Mr. Frazer's ideas, [57]
Piets, royal, counted descent through female line, [21]
Pinaru, Dieri headman's title, [105]
Piraungaru arrangement, [105]; among the Urabunna, [106]
Pirmaheal, Australian divinity, [5]
Plant names, Attic, [205]
Pollux on the Attic genos, [206]
Polyandry in Malabar, [22]
Polyandry supposed origin of maternal kin-name, [9]
Polygamy probable institution of primitive man, [4]
Polygyny and monogamy, Mr. Darwin's group basis, [64]
Powell's, Major, ethnological terminology, [10] n;
use of the word 'totem,' [132]
'Primary divisions' totemic and exogamous, [43];
Mr. Howitt's hypothesis, [46];
probably the result of amalgamation, [181]
Primitive brother-and-sister marriage, Mr. Morgan on, [281]
Primitive man, opinions on, [4]
Pristine groups necessarily small, [164];
governed by sexual jealousy, [165]
Prohibited marriages, Arunta, by affinity, [88]
Pundjel, Australian divinity, [5]
QAT, Melanesian object of prayer, [184]
RELATIONSHIP by generations, [90];
Mr. Morgan's theory, [93]
Relationship constituted by local contiguity, Mr. Atkinson on, [289]
Relationship terms, origin of, [102];
difference of meaning between savage and civilised, [102];
family and tribal significance, [103];
express status, [129]
Relationships, Lord Avebury on, [128]
Relationships, Arunta, which preclude marriage, [88];
curious distinctions, [88]
'Religion,' Mr. Crawley's definition of, [23]
Reverence for totems, nyarongs, and naguals, [186]
Ridley, Rev. W., and Australian exogamous phratries, [37]
Robertson, Mr. Duncan, on group sobriquets in Orkney, [296]
Roman traditions as to tribal origin, [8]
Roth, Dr., and Australian native customs, [6] n;
on the evolution of classes, [114]
Rusden, Mr., on the Hunter River totems, [148]
SACRED animals in savage society, [131]
Sacrifices, Melanesian, [183]
Samoan 'totem gods,' [137]
Sarawak, nyarongs in, [153]
'Second master,' Urabunna wife's, [104];
not a survival of communal marriage, [105]
Selwyn, Bishop, quoted as to Melanesian ghost-worship, [182]
Sex protector, Australian, [144]
Sex totem, killing a, [146]
Sexes mutually dangerous, savage beliefs, [19], [24]
Sexual family relations common to all animals, [224]
Sexual functions, modification of, Mr. Atkinson on, [227]
Sexual jealousy, Mr. Atkinson on, [220], [272], [276]
Sexual jealousy the pause of exogamous marriage, [18]
Siouan gentes, Mr. Dorsey on, [172]
Siouan gentes, names of, [295]; probably totemic, [175]
Siouan tribes, [11]
Smith, Mr. Robertson, and totemism, [17];
on prohibited marriages, [27]
Sobriquets, English village, [295];
Siouan, [295]; Orkney and Shetland, [296];
Ancient Jewish, [300]
Social changes the result of sexual jealousy, Mr. Atkinson on, [272]
Social rules, growth of, in the tribe, [107]
Social system of Melanesia, [176]
Solomon Islands, no division into kindreds, [178];
exogamous groups, [179]
Son-in-law, customs concerning, [272], [273], [275]
Spencer, Mr., on the origin of totemism, [60], [142];
on exogamous groups in the Arunta tribe, [61];
his reason for their introduction, [62];
inconclusive statements, [62];
his latest hypothesis regarding totemism, [68]
Spencer and Gillen on aboriginal jealousy, [9];
on totem groups, [15] n, [16];
on Urabunna descent, [20];
and the Arunta marriage ceremony, [24];
on the class system in Australia, [37];
on changes of tribal custom, [67];
and 'communal marriage,' [69];
on Arunta totem eating, [73];
on Arunta marital relations, [74];
on totems and phratries, [74];
on Arunta legends, [76], [77];
on marriage regulations, [78];
on tribal and individual relationships, [89];
on terms of relationship, [95];
on 'classificatory' terms, [100];
on Urabunna customs, [101];
on totem origin, [141];
on brother-and-sister 'avoidance,' [216];
on Australian group marriage, [293]
State, origin of the, Sir H. Maine on, [7]
Status implied by relationship terms, [101]
'Stealthy' intercourse preliminary to marriage, [265]
Supremacy of women, supposed period of, [9]
Sutherland crest, [163]
TANKERVILLE, LORD, on the Chillingham Park bulls, [222]
Terminology, the author's, [37] n; Mr. Fison's, [38] n
Terminology, confusing, [10], [44], [126], [130]
Terms of relationship, Mr. Morgan on, [93];
origin of, [102];
family and tribal significance, [103]
Thlinket ideas of totems, [139]
Thomas, Mr. N. W., on totemism, [148]
Totem, restricted meaning of the word, [133];
original word doubtful, [135];
cult, the, [136];
origin probably not religious, [137]
Totem alliance, Mr. Jevons on, [134]
Totem eating, Arunta, [71]
Totem group names, folk-lore illustrative of, [169],
Totem groups, local, [15];
heterogeneous, [30];
Mr. Morgan on the origin of, [92]
Totem groups and magic, Arunta, [196], [198]
Totem groups and phratries, relative antiquity, [35]
Totem influence among the Arunta, [61]
Totem kindreds, [10], [12]
Totem name a bar to marriage, [16];
liable to change, [48];
origin forgotten, [184];
implies blood kinship, [193]
Totem prohibition of tribal marriage, [35]
Totemic divisions of the Arunta, [83]
Totemic influence on the Keddies' marriage customs, [287]
Totemic myths, ancient Greek and Egyptian, [201]
Totemic rules differ from civilised marriage laws, [87]
Totemic system and exogamy, [80]
Totemism, Lord Avebury on, [122]
Totemism among the Arunta, [68]
Totemism and exogamy, [16]
Totemism dying in Melanesia, [184]
Totemism, group, exogamous, the author's conjecture, [161]
Totemism, origin of, [14], [131];
theories regarding, [49], [50];
Mr. Spencer on, [60]
Totems and phratries, relations of, [74]
Totems, classification of, by Mr. Frazer, [132]
Totems, distribution of, in the 'phratries,' [55]
Totems, Mr. Fison on the origin of, [45]
Totems, original purpose of, Mr. Atkinson on, [282]
Tout, Mr. Hill, on totem origin, [152]
Tribal and individual relationship, [88]
Tribal custom, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen on, [67]
Tribal divisions totemic in origin, [54]
Tribal heterogeneousness, [8]
Tribe, origin of the, Sir H. Maine on, [7];
definition of the word, [11];
an aggregation, not a division, [98];
not a primitive institution, [103];
growth of social rules in the, [107]
Turanian gentes, [92]
Tylor, Mr., on exogamy and totemism, [17];
considers descent through female line the more archaic, [21];
his researches into laws of marriage and descent, [109];
on the word 'totem,' [131] n;
on Fijian and Samoan totemism, [137];
supports Dr. Wilken's theory of totem origin, [150]
URABUNNA tribe of Central Australia, [1], [10]; tribal divisions, [11];
marriage restrictions, [12]; descent through the female line, [20], [69];
exogamous and totemic division, [54]; intermarry with the Arunta, [69];
communal marriage among, [69]; less developed than the Arunta, [75];
terms of relationship, [93]; status implied by relationship terms, [101];
Spencer and Gillen on customs, [101]; marriage laws, [104];
'second masters' of married women, [104]; Piraungaru custom, [105]
VEDDAHS, avoidance of father and daughter, [274]; of mother and son, [274]
Victoria, Northern, tribal tradition of, [64]
Village names, ancient Hebrew, [300]
Village sobriquets, English, [173], [295]
WESTERMARCK, DR., on promiscuous sexual relationship, [9];
on the matriarchal theory, [20];
on ape etiquette, [25];
his theory of exogamy, [33];
on terms of relationship, [95];
on brother-and-sister avoidance, [240];
on Annamese and Hottentot relationships, [240];
on marriage by Rapture, [248]
Western Australia totem, Sir George Grey on, [144]
Wilken's, Dr., theory of totemic origin, [150];
depends on the patriarchal theory, [151]
Witchetty Grub, Australian totem, [170]
Woeworung, the, [41]; myths, [66], [139], [159], [163]
Women, supremacy of, supposed period of, [9]
Women, dominion of, [20]
YAKUTS, avoidance among the, [275]
ZAPOTECS and their tona, [144]
Zulu superstition, [136], [143]