In Tasmania, a man was not permitted to marry a woman of his own tribe (clan?);[1776] and in Polynesia, marriages with blood-relations were everywhere avoided except in royal families.[1777] Thus in Samoa, according to Mr. Turner, so much care was taken to prevent incest that a list of what they deemed improper marriages would almost compare with the ‘Table of Kindred and Affinity.’ They say that, of old, custom and the gods frowned upon the union of those in whom consanguinity could be closely traced.[1778]
Speaking of the aborigines of the Melanesian islands, Dr. Codrington observes, “In the native view of mankind, almost everywhere in the islands which are here under consideration, nothing seems more fundamental than the division of the people into two or more classes, which are exogamous, and in which descent is counted through the mother.” Yet “the blood connection with the father and the father’s near relations is never out of sight. Consequently the marriage of those who are near in blood, though they are not ‘sogoi’ (i.e., kindred), and may lawfully marry, is discountenanced.”[1779] In New Britain, if a man were accused of adultery or fornication with a woman, he would at once be acquitted by the public voice if he could say, “She is one of us,” i.e., she belongs to my totem, which in itself precludes the possibility of any sexual intercourse between us.[1780] In Efate, of the New Hebrides, it would be a crime punishable with death for a man or woman to marry a person belonging to his or her mother’s clan, “though they may have no recent relation of consanguinity to each other, and though neither they nor their parents may have even seen each other before.”[1781] In Lifu, as I am informed by Mr. Radfield, who is a resident of this island, marriages are forbidden between first, but not second cousins, both on the mother’s and father’s side, as well as between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews. Matrimonial alliances between first cousins are also prohibited in the Caroline Islands;[1782] whilst, in the Pelew Group, intermarriage between any relations on the mother’s side is unlawful.[1783]
Among the Sea Dyaks, it is contrary to custom for a man to wed a first cousin, who is looked upon as a sister, and no marriage is allowed with aunt or niece. The Land Dyaks permit marriage between second cousins only after the payment of a fine of two jars, one being given by the woman to the relations of her lover, the other by the lover to her relation.[1784] In other tribes of the Malay Archipelago, according to Mr. Crawfurd, the union of near relatives is prohibited by the native laws, and, when such a marriage does take place, the parties are fined if within the third degree of consanguinity collaterally. In the ascending and descending line marriage is strictly forbidden.[1785] Among the Minahassers of Celebes, marriage was not permitted between ascendants and descendants, brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, and cousins, or between kinsfolk connected by combinations of these relationships.[1786] The Malays of the uplands of Padang are forbidden to marry within the mother’s tribe; the Bataks of Sumatra, Alfura of Ceram and Buru, Niasians, and Timorese, within the father’s.[1787] Among the Italones of the Philippines, marriage between blood-relations is not allowed.[1788] The Bugis[1789] and Watubela Islanders[1790] prohibit the intermarriage of cousins, paternal and maternal; whilst, among the Orang-Banûwa of Malacca,[1791] the Macassars,[1792] and the natives of Aru, near New Guinea,[1793] children of brothers cannot intermarry, though children of sisters, or of brothers and sisters, can. Again, among the Lettis of the Serwatty Islands, marriage may take place between brothers’ children, and between brothers’ and sisters’ children, but not between children of two sisters;[1794] and, among the Bataks, Rejangs, and natives of Amboina, a sister’s son is allowed to marry a brother’s daughter, whereas a brother’s son must not marry a sister’s daughter.[1795] The penalty inflicted on incest is generally very severe in the Archipelago. Submersion is a common punishment;[1796] and, among the Bataka, the parties were killed and eaten.[1797]
With reference to the Karens of Burma, Dr. Bunker informs me that, though they never marry outside their own tribe, they avoid marrying with near relations, their prohibited degrees being nearly the same as those of the ancient Hebrews. Among the Kukis, according to Lieutenant Stewart, “the most strict rules exist forbidding too close intermarriage in families; cousins cannot be so allied.”[1798] The Nagas never permit marriage within the same family;[1799] and, among the Chukmas, if near relatives, within certain prohibited degrees, fall in love with each other, it is usual for both of them to pay a fine of fifty rupees, corporal punishment being also administered.[1800] Among the Kandhs, “intermarriage between persons of the same tribe, however large or scattered, is considered incestuous and punishable with death.”[1801] The Santals make it a rule not to intermarry into the same tribe;[1802] and, among the Sakais, a man goes to a considerable distance for a wife, generally to a tribe speaking quite a different dialect.[1803] The Juángs, Hos, Mundas, and other peoples in India are divided into clans, and a man is not allowed to marry a girl of his own clan.[1804] Among the Garos, no one may take to wife a woman of the same “mahári,” or motherhood.[1805]
According to Lieutenant-Colonel Tod, no Rajput can marry in his own clan.[1806] “In all pure Hindu society,” Sir Alfred Lyall states, “the law which regulates the degrees within which marriage is interdicted, proceeds upon the theory that between agnatic relatives connubium is impossible.”[1807] Hence it is unlawful for a Brahman to wed a woman whose clan-name is the same as his own, a prohibition which bars marriage among relatives in the male line indefinitely. But besides this, connections on the female side are also forbidden to take place within certain wide limits.[1808] In the ‘Laws of Manu’ we read that a damsel “who is neither a Sapindâ[1809] on the mother’s side, nor belongs to the same family on the father’s side, is recommended to twice-born men for wedlock and conjugal union.”[1810] Yet in the older literature marriage with the daughters of the mother’s brother, and sons of the father’s sister, is permitted.[1811] This still holds good among the Reddies of Southern India, and, as it seems, among other tribes belonging to the Hindu stock; whereas children of fathers’ brothers and mothers’ sisters are considered equal to brothers and sisters, and marriage with them is looked upon as highly incestuous.[1812]
Speaking of the Andamanese, Mr. Man says that “their customs do not permit of the union of any who are known to be even distantly related; the fact of our allowing first cousins to marry seems to them highly objectionable and immoral.”[1813] The Sinhalese consider a marriage between the father’s sister’s son and the mother’s brother’s daughter the most proper that they can contract; but they would regard a marriage with the father’s brother’s daughter as incestuous, first cousins so related being considered sisters.[1814]
As regards the prohibited degrees of the Chinese Penal Code, a very minute account is given by Mr. Medhurst in his interesting paper on ‘Marriage, Affinity, and Inheritance in China.’[1815] Large bodies of persons in that country bear the same surname; among the entire Chinese population of the Empire, indeed, there are hardly more than 530 surnames. A penalty of sixty blows is inflicted on any one who marries a person with the same surname.[1816] The punishment attached to the intermarriage of nearer relations on the father’s side is much more severe. Thus, marriage or incestuous intercourse with a grand-uncle, a father’s first cousin, a brother, or a nephew, is punishable by death.[1817] Besides these prohibitions there are others applying within a narrower range to relatives on the female side. A man who marries his mother’s sister or his sister’s daughter is strangled. Less severe punishment is inflicted on a person who marries a uterine half-sister, and still less severe—eighty blows—on any one who marries his father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s brother’s daughter, or mother’s sister’s daughter. An after-clause abrogates this prohibition, and permits intermarriage between children of brothers and sisters, or of sisters, but intermarriage between those of brothers is of course inadmissible.[1818] The Chinese Code also interdicts occasional intercourse with any of those relatives with whom marriage is prohibited, the punishment in both cases being the same.[1819]
Among the Kalmucks, no man can marry a relation on the father’s side; and so deeply rooted is this custom among them, that a Kalmuck proverb says, “The great folk and dogs know no relationship,”—alluding to the fact that only a prince may marry a relative.[1820] The Yakuts,[1821] Samoyedes,[1822] Cheremises,[1823] &c., also avoid marriage within the paternal clan, and the ancient Finns did not marry kinsfolk.[1824] Among the Ostyaks[1825] and Ossetes,[1826] marriage with a person of one’s own family name, however distant the relationship, is entirely prohibited. And in Circassia, according to Bell, not only are cousins, or the members of the same fraternity restricted from intermarrying, but even their serfs must wed with the serfs of another fraternity.[1827]
Among the Bogos of Eastern Africa, persons related within the seventh degree may not intermarry, whether the relationship be on the paternal or maternal side.[1828] Some of the clans of the Somals, as we are informed by Sir R. F. Burton, refuse maidens of the same or even a consanguineous family.[1829] In Western Equatorial Africa and Uganda, marriages cannot take place within the clans, however remote the relationship may be.[1830] Among the Mpongwé, “every care is taken to avoid marriages of consanguinity.”[1831] With the Bateke, as Dr. Sims writes from Stanley Pool, marriages are prohibited between brothers and sisters of the same mother or father; between first cousins; between uncle and niece, or aunt and nephew. The Bakongo also, according to Mr. Ingham, hold all unions between near relatives, either on the father’s or mother’s side, in utter abomination.
Mr. Cousins, to whom I am indebted for a valuable paper on the Cis-Natalian Kafirs, writes that, among them, marriages often take place within the tribe and village. But this is avoided, if possible; like their chiefs they generally endeavour to marry out of their own tribe. Among this people, however, there is some kind of class (clan?) division, which Mr. Cousins is not fully acquainted with, and members of the same class (clan?) do not seem to intermarry. At any rate, near relations, paternal and maternal, avoid marriage with each other. No penalty is attached to such a marriage, but custom is so strong on the point that the general rule is seldom broken.[1832] According to Mr. Shooter[1833] and Mr. Dugmore,[1834] a marriage is considered incestuous if the man and woman are of any known or remembered degree of relationship by common descent; and, if a man were to take a wife within the degrees prohibited by custom, he would be denounced as an “evildoer.”[1835] According to Mr. Brownlee, intercourse in such cases is punished, whether it be by marriage or without marriage.[1836] Again, with regard to the Zulus, Mr. Eyles states that there is no intermarriage between the inhabitants of the village, the members of which are, as a rule, related. All intermarrying with relations is prohibited by custom, and such a thing is neither heard of nor thought of. Even if the relationship is only traditional, the custom holds good.