Many peoples have a rule of exogamy that does not depend on kinship at all. Piedrahita relates of the Panches of Bogota that the men and women of one town did not intermarry, as they held themselves to be brothers and sisters, and the impediment of kinship was sacred to them; but such was their ignorance that, if a sister were born in a different town from her brother, he was not prevented from marrying her.[1909] The Yaméos, on the river Amazons, will not suffer an intermarriage between members of the same community, “as being friends in blood, though no real affinity between them can be proved.”[1910] The Uaupés, according to Mr. Wallace, “do not often marry with relations, or even neighbours, preferring those from a distance, or even from other tribes.”[1911] The Australian tribe, as Mr. Howitt points out, is organized in two ways. On the one hand, it is divided socially into phratries and clans; and, on the other hand, it is divided geographically into hordes. The two organizations are co-existent, but the divisions of the one do not correspond with those of the other. For while all the people who belong to any given local group are found in one locality alone, those who belong to any given social group are to be found distributed among many, if not among all, of the local groups. Now, in many tribes, local proximity by birth is quite an insuperable obstacle to marriage, a man being absolutely forbidden to marry, or have sexual intercourse with, a woman of the same horde or sub-horde. “However eligible she may be in other respects,” says Mr. Howitt, “the fact that both parties belong to the same locality is held by certain tribes, the Kurnai, for example, to make them ‘too near each other.’” It is chiefly in tribes where the clan-system has been weakened, or has become almost extinct, that the local organization has assumed such overwhelming preponderance, but even in some of the tribes which have a vigorous clan-system, local restraints upon marriage are strictly enforced.[1912] In Sumatra, according to Mr. Forbes, the country was originally divided into native districts called “margas,” each marga, as a rule, having its several villages. Each of these village communities is a collection of families, either related or not to each other by the ties of blood;[1913] and we know that, at least among certain tribes, marriage between members of the same village or village cluster, and in some districts even between those of the same marga, is prohibited.[1914] The Kotars of the Neilgherries,[1915] Galela,[1916] Fijians,[1917] Zulus,[1918] Wakamba,[1919] and Kamchadales[1920] avoid, as a rule, marriage with members of the same village. So also do the Nogai, who consider it most honest for a man to marry a woman whom he has never seen before.[1921] In various of the smaller islands belonging to the Indian Archipelago, according to Riedel, women prefer marriage with strangers.[1922] The Assamese have a national festival named the “Baisakh Bihu,” which is as gay as a carnival, the women, and especially the maidens, enjoying unusual liberty as long as it lasts. “For many days before the actual festival,” says Colonel Dalton, “the young people in the villages may be seen moving about in groups gaily dressed or forming circles, in the midst of which the prettiest girls dance with their long hair loose on their shoulders.” But on these occasions the girls “do not like to dance before the men of their own village.”[1923] Professor Kovalevsky observes that, in some parts of Russia, the bride is always taken from another village than the bridegroom’s; and, even in provinces in which no similar custom is known to exist, “the bridegroom is constantly spoken of as a foreigner (‘choujoy,’ ‘choujaninin’), and his friends and attendants are represented as coming with him from a distant country, in order to take away the future spouse.”[1924] Sir Richard Burton says, “As a general rule Somali women prefer amourettes with strangers, following the well-known Arab proverb, ‘The new comer filleth the eye.’”[1925]
We have seen how variously defined the prohibited degrees are in the laws of nations. Facts show that the extent to which relatives are not allowed to intermarry is nearly connected with their close living together. Generally speaking, the prohibited degrees are extended much farther among savage and barbarous peoples than in civilized societies. As a rule, the former, if they have not remained in the most primitive social condition of man, live, not in separate families, but in large households or communities, all the members of which dwell in very close contact with each other.
The communism in the family life of the exogamous Indians of North America has been exhaustively illustrated by Mr. Morgan in his work on ‘Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines.’ “The household of the Mandans,” he says, “consisting of from twenty to forty persons, the households of the Columbian tribes of about the same number, the Soshonee household of seven families, the households of the Sauks, of the Iroquois, and of the Creeks, each composed of several families, are fair types of the households of the Northern Indians at the epoch of their discovery. The fact is also established that these tribes constructed, as a rule, large joint tenement houses, each of which was occupied by a large household composed of several families, among whom provisions were in common, and who practised communism in living in the household.”[1926] Among the Iroquois, each household was made up on the principle of kinship through females, so that the married women, usually sisters, own or collateral, being of the same gens or clan, together with their children made a family circle, within which, as we have seen, intermarriage was entirely prohibited.[1927] The Senel in California live sometimes from twenty to thirty together in the same immense dome-shaped or oblong lodge of willow-poles, including all who are blood relations.[1928] According to Egede, the Greenlanders, who prohibit marriage between cousins, continue after marriage to live in their parents’ house together with other kindred; and what they get they all enjoy in common.[1929] The Chippewas, who consider cousins german in the same light as brothers and sisters, but do not recognize relationship beyond this degree, are divided into small bands consisting of but few families each.[1930] Among the exogamous Uaupés, the houses are the abode of numerous families, and sometimes of a whole horde.[1931] Among the Yahgans, who regard marriage between first and second cousins as incestuous, “occasionally as many as five families are to be found living in a wigwam, but generally two families.”[1932]
The Australian aborigines live mostly in small hordes, often consisting of from thirty to fifty men, women, and children. Such a horde, according to Mr. Brough Smyth, “is in fact but an enlargement of a family circle, and none within it can intermarry.”[1933] Among the Efatese, in whose clan-system the prohibition of incest is a fundamental law, each clan is regarded as one family. “A child of a,” says Mr. Macdonald, “calls her own mother mother, and all her mother’s tribe (clan) sisters mother; and calls by the name of father not only her own father but all his tribe (clan) brothers; and they all call the child their child.”[1934] The Malays, according to Professor Wilken, live, as a rule, in large houses containing a great number of differently related persons.[1935] “In Nanusa,” Dr. Hickson remarks, “I understood that marriage was not permitted between members of the same household. The enormous households of the Nanusa archipelago are probably the remnants of a much more complete system of intra-tribal clanships, which has become almost obliterated in the more highly developed races of Sangir and Siauw.”[1936] Among the Nairs, a household, the members of which are strictly prohibited from sexual relation with each other, includes, as a rule, many allied men, women, and children, who not only live together in large common houses, but possess everything in common.[1937] Among the Kafirs, the dimensions of a kraal are determined by the number of a man’s family and dependants, the family consisting of the father together with his children, including married sons.[1938]
The South Slavonians live in house-communities, each consisting of a body of from fifteen to sixty members or even more, who are blood-relations to the second or third degree, of course only on the male side.[1939] These related families associate in a common dwelling or group of dwellings, governed by a common chief. “At the present moment,” Sir Henry Maine remarks, “the common residence of so many persons of both sexes in the same household may be said to be only possible through their belief that any union of kinsmen and kinswomen would be incestuous. The South Slavonian table of prohibited degrees is extremely wide.”[1940] Again, Professor Kohler points out the connection between the extensive prohibitions of the Hindus and their large households.[1941] In Wales there existed, as a national institution, a joint-family called “trev,” consisting of four generations. Marriage, says Mr. Lewis, was to be “outside the trev, or kindred who lived together within one enclosure.”[1942]
Montesquieu, indeed, observed long ago that marriage between cousins was prohibited by peoples among whom brothers and their children used to live in the same house. “Chez ces peuples,” he says, “le mariage entre cousins germains doit être regardé comme contraire à la nature; chez les autres, non.” According to him, this prohibition has the same origin as the aversion to sexual relations between brothers and sisters, i.e., “les pères et les mères ayent voulu conserver les mœurs de leurs enfans et leurs maisons pures.”[1943] Holding a similar opinion, Dr. Bertillon maintains that, properly speaking, it was not consanguinity, but the purity of home, that the ancient legislators were thinking of when they forbade close intermarriage.[1944] It is scarcely necessary to say how far I am from thinking that these prohibitions are, in the first place, due to the providence of parents or legislators.
On the other hand, where the families live more separately such extensive prohibitions to close intermarrying do not generally exist. Among the Isánna Indians of Brazil, who prefer marriage with relations, cousins with cousins, uncles with nieces, and nephews with aunts, each family has a separate house.[1945] The endogamous Maoris, who frequently marry near relations, have their villages generally scattered over a large plot of ground, the personal rights of possession being held most sacred.[1946] “There is no national bond of union amongst them,” says Mr. Yate; “each one is jealous of the authority and power of his neighbour; the hand of each individual is against every man, and every man’s hand against him.”[1947] Among the Todas, who live in strict endogamy, families reside in permanent villages having each a certain tract of grazing ground around it, and containing from two to three huts. Most of these huts consist of only one room or cabin, and each room holds one entire subdivision of a family.[1948] The Bushmans, among whom no degree of consanguinity prevents a matrimonial connection, except between brothers and sisters, parents and children,[1949] live a solitary life in small family huts, not high enough to admit even of a Bushman standing upright within it.[1950] As regards the Wanyoro, whose table of prohibited degrees is unusually small, Emin Pasha states, “Brother, sister, brother-in-law, and son-in-law, are the recognized grades of relationship. I have never noticed any intimate connection between more distant relations.”[1951]
The Sinhalese, who frequently marry their cousins on the paternal side, have from time immemorial lived either in very small villages, consisting of a few houses, or in detached habitations, separated from each other. Each dwelling is a little establishment in itself, and each little village, so far as its wants are concerned, may be considered independent. “They seldom visit each other, except it be to beg or borrow something. Even near relations manifest no affection to each other in their visits, but sit with the gravity of strangers.”[1952]
It is easy to explain, says Ewald, why, among the Hebrews, marriage between brothers and sisters in the widest sense was forbidden, while that between cousins was permitted:—“The latter did not form one united household, and the more each house stood strictly by itself in the ancient fashion, the wider seemed the separation between cousins.”[1953] Tacitus states that the ancient Germans, whose prohibitions against incest seem to have included only the nearest relations, lived in scattered families at some distance from each other.[1954] And a comparison between the forbidden degrees of the Greeks and Romans clearly shows where we have to seek the real cause of the prohibitions. Among the former, even very close relationship was no hindrance to intermarriage, whereas, among the latter, it was not allowed between rather distantly related persons. This difference, as Rossbach justly points out, was due to the fact that the family feeling of the Greeks was much weaker than that of the Romans, among whom, in early times, a son used to remain in his father’s house even after marriage, so that cousins on the father’s side were brought up as brothers and sisters. Later on, the several families separated from the common household, and the prohibited degrees were considerably retrenched.[1955]
The reader may perhaps be disposed to reproach me for selecting only such instances as are in favour of my theory; but statistical data will show that such an imputation would be groundless. In speaking of the “classificatory system of relationship,” I pointed out that this system springs, to a great extent, from the close living together of considerable numbers of kinsfolk. Now it is most interesting to note that Dr. Tylor, by his method of adhesions, has found the two institutions, exogamy and classificatory relationship, to be in fact two sides of one institution. “In reckoning,” he says, “from the present schedules the number of peoples who use relationship names more or less corresponding to the classificatory systems here considered, they are found to be fifty-three, and the estimated number of these which might coincide accidentally with exogamy, were there no close connection between them, would be about twelve. But in fact the number of peoples who have both exogamy and classification is thirty-three, this strong coincidence being the measure of the close casual connection subsisting between the two institutions. The adherence is even stronger as to cross-cousin marriage (i.e., that the children of two brothers may not marry, nor the children of two sisters, though the child of the brother may marry the child of the sister), of which twenty-one cases appear in the schedules, no less than fifteen of the peoples practising it being also known as exogamous.”[1956] Among the Reddies, a father’s elder brother and a mother’s elder sister are called, respectively, “great-father” and “great mother,” and a father’s younger brother and a mother’s younger sister, respectively, “lesser-father” and “lesser mother”; whereas the father’s sisters and the mother’s brothers are denoted by quite different terms. Mr. Kearns remarks that they consider the difference as well as the distance of relationship between these two groups of relations to be so great that they think it unlawful and incestuous to marry the daughter of a father’s brother or of a mother’s sister, she being equal to a sister, whilst it is perfectly legal to marry the daughter of a father’s sister or of a mother’s brother.[1957]