If we now turn to the Hawaiian system of consanguinity, in the Table, it will be found that a man calls his wife’s sister his wife. All the sisters of his wife, own as well as collateral, are also his wives. But the husband of his wife’s sister he calls pŭnalŭa, i. e., his intimate companion; and all the husbands of the several sisters of his wife the same. They were jointly intermarried in the group. These husbands were not, probably, brothers; if they were, the blood relationship would naturally have prevailed over the affineal; but their wives were sisters, own and collateral. In this case the sisterhood of the wives was the basis upon which the group was formed, and their husbands stood to each other in the relationship of pŭnalŭa. In the other group, which rests upon the brotherhood of the husbands, a woman calls her husband’s brother her husband. All the brothers of her husband, own as well as collateral, were also her husbands. But the wife of her husband’s brother she calls pŭnalŭa, and the several wives of her husband’s brothers stand to her in the relationship of pŭnalŭa. These wives were not, probably, sisters of each other, for the reason stated in the other case, although exceptions doubtless existed under both branches of the custom. All these wives stood to each other in the relationship of pŭnalŭa.
It is evident that the punaluan family was formed out of the consanguine. Brothers ceased to marry their own sisters; and after the gentile organization had worked upon society its complete results, their collateral sisters as well. But in the interval they shared their remaining wives in common. In like manner, sisters ceased marrying their own brothers, and after a long period of time, their collateral brothers; but they shared their remaining husbands in common. The advancement of society out of the consanguine into the punaluan family was the inception of a great upward movement, preparing the way for the gentile organization which gradually conducted to the syndyasmian family, and ultimately to the monogamian.
Another remarkable fact with respect to the custom of punalua, is the necessity which exists for its ancient prevalence among the ancestors of the Turanian and Ganowánian families when their system of consanguinity was formed. The reason is simple and conclusive. Marriages in punaluan groups explain the relationships in the system. Presumptively they are those which actually existed when this system was formed. The existence of the system, therefore, requires the antecedent prevalence of punaluan marriage, and of the punaluan family. Advancing to the civilized nations, there seems to have been an equal necessity for the ancient existence of punaluan groups among the remote ancestors of all such as possessed the gentile organization—Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, Hebrews—for it is reasonably certain that all the families of mankind who rose under the gentile organization to the practice of monogamy possessed, in prior times, the Turanian system of consanguinity which sprang from the punaluan group. It will be found that the great movement, which commenced in the formation of this group, was, in the main, consummated through the organization into gentes, and that the latter was generally accompanied, prior to the rise of monogamy, by the Turanian system of consanguinity.
Traces of the punaluan custom remained, here and there, down to the Middle Period of barbarism, in exceptional cases, in European, Asiatic, and American tribes. The most remarkable illustration is given by Cæsar in stating the marriage customs of the ancient Britons. He observes that, “by tens and by twelves, husbands possessed their wives in common; and especially brothers with brothers and parents with their children.”[465]
This passage reveals a custom of intermarriage in the group which pŭnalŭa explains. Barbarian mothers would not be expected to show ten and twelve sons, as a rule, or even in exceptional cases; but under the Turanian system of consanguinity, which we are justified in supposing the Britons to have possessed, large groups of brothers are always found, because male cousins, near and remote, fall into this category with Ego. Several brothers among the Britons, according to Cæsar, possessed their wives in common. Here we find one branch of the punaluan custom, pure and simple. The correlative group which this presupposes, where several sisters shared their husbands in common, is not suggested directly by Cæsar; but it probably existed as the complement of the first. Something beyond the first he noticed, namely, that parents, with their children, shared their wives in common. It is not unlikely that these wives were sisters. Whether or not Cæsar by this expression referred to the other group, it serves to mark the extent to which plural marriages in the group existed among the Britons; and which was the striking fact that arrested the attention of this distinguished observer. Where several brothers were married to each other’s wives, these wives were married to each other’s husbands.
Herodotus, speaking of the Massagetæ, who were in the Middle Status of barbarism, remarks that every man had one wife, yet all the wives were common.[466] It may be implied from this statement that the syndyasmian family had begun to supervene upon the punaluan. Each husband paired with one wife, who thus became his principal wife, but within the limits of the group husbands and wives continued in common. If Herodotus intended to intimate a state of promiscuity, it probably did not exist. The Massagetæ, although ignorant of iron, possessed flocks and herds, fought on horseback armed with battle-axes of copper and with copper-pointed spears, and manufactured and used the wagon (ἅμαξα). It is not supposable that a people living in promiscuity could have attained such a degree of advancement. He also remarks of the Agathyrsi, who were in the same status probably, that they had their wives in common that they might all be brothers, and, as members of a common family, neither envy nor hate one another.[467] Punaluan marriage in the group affords a more rational and satisfactory explanation of these, and similar usages in other tribes mentioned by Herodotus, than polygamy or general promiscuity. His accounts are too meager to illustrate the actual state of society among them.
Traces of the punaluan custom were noticed in some of the least advanced tribes of the South American aborigines; but the particulars are not fully given. Thus, the first navigators who visited the coast tribes of Venezuela found a state of society which suggests for its explanation punaluan groups. “They observe no law or rule in matrimony, but took as many wives as they would, and they as many husbands, quitting one another at pleasure, without reckoning any wrong done on either part. There was no such thing as jealousy among them, all living as best pleased them, without taking offence at one another.... The houses they dwelt in were common to all, and so spacious that they contained one hundred and sixty persons, strongly built, though covered with palm-tree leaves, and shaped like a bell.”[468] These tribes used earthen vessels and were therefore in the Lower Status of barbarism; but from this account were but slightly removed from savagery. In this case, and in those mentioned by Herodotus, the observations upon which the statements were made were superficial. It shows, at least, a low condition of the family and of the marriage relation.
When North America was discovered in its several parts, the punaluan family seems to have entirely disappeared. No tradition remained among them, so far as I am aware, of the ancient prevalence of the punaluan custom. The family generally had passed out of the punaluan into the syndyasmian form; but it was environed with the remains of an ancient conjugal system which points backward to punaluan groups. One custom may be cited of unmistakable punaluan origin, which is still recognized in at least forty North American Indian tribes. Where a man married the eldest daughter of a family he became entitled by custom to all her sisters as wives when they attained the marriageable age. It was a right seldom enforced, from the difficulty, on the part of the individual, of maintaining several families, although polygamy was recognized universally as a privilege of the males. We find in this the remains of the custom of punalua among their remote ancestors. Undoubtedly there was a time among them when own sisters went into the marriage relation on the basis of their sisterhood; the husband of one being the husband of all, but not the only husband, for other males were joint husbands with him in the group. After the punaluan family fell out, the right remained with the husband of the eldest sister to become the husband of all her sisters if he chose to claim it. It may with reason be regarded as a genuine survival of the ancient punaluan custom.
Other traces of this family among the tribes of mankind might be cited from historical works, tending to show not only its ancient existence, but its wide prevalence as well. It is unnecessary, however, to extend these citations, because the antecedent existence of the punaluan family among the ancestors of all the tribes who possess, or did possess, the Turanian system of consanguinity can be deduced from the system itself.
II. Origin of the Organisation into Gentes.