Thirty years ago, in a work of prodigious learning,[506] the Swiss jurist, Dr. Bachofen, drew attention to the remarkable fact that a system of “kinship through mothers only” prevailed among several ancient peoples. Moreover, partly from actual statements of old writers, partly from traditions and myths, he came to the conclusion that such a system everywhere preceded the rise of “kinship through males.” A few years later, though quite independently of him, Mr. McLennan set forth exactly the same hypothesis, being led to it chiefly by extensive studies in modern ethnology. While, however, Bachofen explained the phenomenon as a consequence of the supremacy of women, Mr. McLennan regarded it as due to the uncertain paternity which resulted from early promiscuity. “It is inconceivable,” he says, “that anything but the want of certainty on that point could have long prevented the acknowledgment of kinship through males; and in such cases we shall be able to conclude that such certainty has formerly been wanting—that more or less promiscuous intercourse between the sexes has formerly prevailed. The connection between these two things—uncertain paternity and kinship through females only, seems so necessary—that of cause and effect—that we may confidently infer the one where we find the other.”[507]
It must be observed that the facts adduced as examples of what Mr. McLennan calls “kinship through females only” in most instances imply, chiefly, that children are named after their mothers, not after their fathers, and that property and rank succeed exclusively in the female line. If these customs were to be explained as relics of ancient promiscuity, we certainly should have to admit that such a state was formerly very prevalent in the human race. Yet we could not be sure that it prevailed universally. For, though the number of peoples among whom descent and inheritance follow the mother’s side only, is very considerable,[508] the number of those among whom the male line is recognized, is scarcely less—even apart from the civilized nations of Europe and Asia. At present, when anthropologists affirm with so much assurance that a system of exclusive “kinship through females” prevailed everywhere before the tie of blood between father and child had found a place in systems of relationships, it seems appropriate to give a list of peoples among whom such a system does not prevail—a list, however, which cannot pretend to completeness.
Starting, then, with North America, which is acknowledged to be, or to have been, one of the chief centres of “mother-right,” or metrocracy, we meet there with many aboriginal nations among whom a son, as a rule takes the father’s name and becomes his heir.[509] Thus Cranz states that, among the Eskimo of Greenland, “when a husband dies, his eldest son inherits his house, tent, and woman’s boat, and besides must maintain the mother and children, who share the furniture and clothes amongst themselves.”[510] Among the Indians bordering on the south-east coast of the river St. Lawrence, according to Heriot, the eldest son took the name of his father with the addition of one syllable.[511] The Californian tribes[512] and the Dacotahs[513] recognized chieftainship as hereditary in the male line; and, with reference to the latter, Mr. Prescott remarks that they cannot well forget relationships, as the names of father and mother are both recollected for three or four generations.[514] Among the Ahts, the eldest son takes all the property left by his father, and the head-chiefs rank is hereditary in the male line.[515] The paternal system prevails, moreover, in thirteen other tribes mentioned by Mr. Frazer in his essay on “Totemism.”[516]
In Mexico, Yucatan, San Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, succession ran from father to son; and in Vera Paz, according to Las Casas, kinship was so exclusively recognized in the male line, that the people there thought the most remote kin in their own lineage to be more closely related than the daughter of their mother, provided she was not of the same father. On the other hand, Piedrahita tells us that, among the Chibchas, the sons of sisters, and, in default of such, the brothers of the king, were the heirs to the crown of Bogota, but that the sons had a right to the personal property of their father; whilst, according to Herrera, the property was inherited by the brothers, and if there were none living, by the sons of those who were dead.[517]
Among the Caribs, kinship was reckoned in the female line, but the authority of the chiefs was hereditary in the male line only, the children of sisters being excluded from the succession.[518] Among the Macas Indians in Ecuador, property descends from father to son;[519] among the Guaycurûs, Abipones, and Araucanians, nobility, or chieftainship, was hereditary in the male line;[520] and the Brazilian aborigines, or at least some of them, laid particular stress upon kinship through fathers.[521] Again, with reference to the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego, Mr. Bridges writes, “A child belongs equally to the clan of its father and mother as regards duty of revenge, but is always reckoned a member of the father’s clan only. Children are generally named after their grandparents, paternal or maternal indifferently. They are quite as much attached to their mother’s relatives and these to them, as to their paternal relatives; the only difference is that they are integral parts of the father’s clan, not of the mother’s.” Speaking of the same people, M. Hyades remarks, “L’héritage se transmet à l’époux survivant, ou à défaut, au fils aîné.”[522] In short, the paternal system, so far as we know, predominates among the aborigines of South America.
Passing to the Pacific Islands, we find that, though rank and clan are commonly inherited there through the mother, property generally goes in the male line. In Tonga, the son succeeds his father in homage and title,[523] and here, as well as in Fiji, on the father’s death, his possessions descend to his children.[524] Ellis tells us that, in Tahiti, the child of a chief was invested, soon after its birth, with the name and office of its father,[525] and in the case of there being no children, the brother of the deceased assumed the government. In other families property always went to the eldest son.[526] Among the Hawaiians, the rank of the principal and inferior chiefs, the offices of the priests, as also other situations of honour and influence, descended from father to son,[527] although on the whole, the female line predominated.[528] In the Hervey Islands, children belonged either to the father’s or mother’s clan, according to arrangement; usually, however, the father had the preference.[529] In New Caledonia, kinship is reckoned in the male line,[530] and in Lifu, as Mr. Radfield informs me, children belong to the paternal clan. In the Caroline Group, landed property succeeds mostly from father to son, children are named after their father’s father or mother’s father, and, apparently, the rank of the father influences that of the son, at least if he be a chief.[531] Among the Rejangs[532] and Bataks[533] of Sumatra, as also in several other islands belonging to the Indian Archipelago,[534] and in New Guinea,[535] the male line prevails. In the Kingsmill Islands, “if a chief has several children by different wives, the son of the mother of the highest rank is the successor.”[536] And, in New Zealand, nobility was inherited both in the male and female line; but on the death of a man, his eldest son took the family name which his father had held before him.[537]
Australian children are generally named after their mother’s clan; but this is not the case in every tribe.[538] Among the Gournditch-mara, Turra, Moncalon, Torndirrup, and some other tribes, the male line prevails.[539] With reference to the Narrinyeri, the Rev. G. Taplin states that a man’s children belong to his tribe (i.e. clan), and not to their mother’s; that property descends from father to son, and that, in case of a man dying without issue of his own, his possessions are always transmitted to the brother’s children.[540] Again, in the Dieyerie tribe of South Australia, the sons take the father’s clan, the daughters the mother’s.[541] Even where children are named after their mother, inheritance may go from father to son. Thus, among the West Australians, the hunting ground or landed property descends in the male line, though “children of either sex always take the family name of their mother.”[542]
Among the Todas, all children belong to the father’s family, and inheritance runs through males only.[543] The same is the case with most of the Indian Hill Tribes: either all the sons dividing their father’s property equally, as among the Gonds, Bodo, and Dhimáls; or the eldest son getting the largest share, as among the Kandhs, Karens, and Nagas; or the youngest born male being the only heir, as among the Hos; or the favourite son succeeding without reference to age, as among the Mishmis.[544] Among the Pahárias, too, sons inherit, and nephews by sisters get no share.[545] The law of succession among the Singphos gives to the eldest son all the landed property of the father, to the youngest all his personal property, while the rest inherit nothing.[546] Among the Santals, children belong to the father’s clan;[547] and the same is the case with the offspring of intermarriages of Lepchas and Limbus and Butias.[548] Touching the Karens, Dr. A. Bunker writes to me, “A child takes a name of its own, and of neither of the parents; but usually the father, being the stronger, takes the child in case of separation. It is regarded as belonging to both parents, so far as blood goes.” If we add to this that the male line prevails in Arabia,[549] Tibet,[550] throughout Russian Asia,[551] and among the Ainos,[552] it must be admitted that the system of “kinship through females only” is of very rare occurrence in Asia, being restricted, so far as I know, to a few parts of India, Ceylon, and the Malay Archipelago.[553]
It is much more prevalent among the African races. Yet, even among them, there are many instances where succession runs in the male line. A king or chief of the Somals[554] and Ba-kwileh[555] is succeeded by his son. Among the Fulah, this dignity is transmitted to the brother, while, in other instances, succession goes from father to son.[556] Among the Negroes of the Gold Coast, according to Bosman, the eldest son succeeded his father in office, though kinship was reckoned through the mother all along this coast, except at Accra.[557] Dr. A. Sims writes that, among the Bateke, “the child is considered as belonging to the father and mother equally,” and takes the grandfather’s or grandmother’s name. Among the Waguha, according to Mr. Swann, children are generally named after the father. In Lánda, the eldest son inherits all his father’s possessions, wives included.[558] Among the Damaras, whose divisions into clans are derived from the mother, the eldest son of the chief wife, nevertheless, is the successor of his father;[559] and the same rule prevails among the Bechuanas.[560] The Rev. A. Eyles states that all Zulu children belong to the father’s tribe, and are called by his name or by the name of some of his ancestors.[561] According to Mr. Cousins,[562] this is essentially true of various Kafir tribes, the first son, however, never being named after the grandfather, but always after the father. Warner, Brownlee, and E. v. Weber assert also that, among the people, inheritance passes from father to son.[563] Le Vaillant and Kolben state the same with reference to the Hottentots and Bushmans;[564] and Andersson affirms that, among the Namaquas, daughters take the father’s name, sons the mother’s.[565] Finally, in the part of Madagascar where Drury was, kinship does not seem to have been, in every case, reckoned through the female, though in that island children generally follow the condition of the mother.[566]