CHAPTER XII
Marriage regulations—Monogamy—Wards and wives—Courtship—Qualifications for matrimony—Preparations for marriage—Child marriages—Exception to patrilocal custom—Marriage ceremonies—Choice of a mate—Divorce—Domestic quarrels—Widowhood.
At the beginning of my stay among the tribes, I thought, as many have asserted, that polygamy was common among the Indians. The reason for this belief is simply the fact that it is extremely hard to distinguish at first between wives, concubines, and attached women—women under the protection of a man, but not necessarily in intimate relation. Inquiries do not immediately assist any conclusion. If, for example, you question one of the attached women she would merely reply, “I am the chief’s woman,” which answer would have been equally correct in either case. But on better knowledge of their languages and customs the conviction was forced on me that monogamy and not polygamy is the rule, with the exception of the chiefs north of the Japura, who have, so far as I could make out, more than one wife. Koch-Grünberg affirms, and other tribes told me, that among the tribes on the Tikie a chief may have four wives. This is not the case south of that river, where chiefs, like ordinary members of the tribe, have only one.
But in addition to his wife or wives, all female prisoners and any unattached women belong by right to the chief. He is their father, mother, and husband, in so far that they receive his protection, though the wife would not permit any intimacy, unless it were when she was bearing or nursing a child. These women are not to be regarded, however, as what the Witoto call rinyo kachirete, that is tribal prostitutes, although other members of the tribe beside the chief are allowed to have access to them when his consent has been gained. The prisoners certainly would be used with his permission as women of convenience. So far as I could gather the chief respects the chastity of his wards, and it is therefore unlikely that he would claim any droit de seigneur where the other women of the tribe are concerned.[257] Letourneau is responsible for the statement that “in America from the land of the Esquimaux to Patagonia, the loan of a wife is not only lawful but praiseworthy.”[258] I have never heard any suggestion of jus utendi et abutendi, and consider it unlikely in view of the Indian’s character. He is not only a jealous husband but the rights of the wife are tacitly recognised, and I should conclude that such a custom would be entirely alien to Indian nature. The same argument holds good in the case of a daughter.
To distinguish between wards and wives is so great a difficulty that I even hesitated to accept without further confirmation the account given by Wallace of polygamous practices among the Isanna and Uaenambeu tribes,[259] careful as he was over all details of things about which he had personal knowledge. But I also was told by all tribes north of the Japura that it is permissible to have more than one wife, though the first must retain the position of “mistress of the house.”[260] It possibly resolves itself into the question of whether the women greatly out-number the men at a particular period or not.
Marriage with these Indians is not a matter of any great or prolonged ceremony or even of festival. A youth marries as a matter of course when he reaches man’s estate. Till he has taken to himself a wife he must remain in some degree dependent either on his parents or the chief; for he cannot plant his own manioc or tobacco, nor can he cook his own food. He has no one whose duty it is to see that there are no thorns or jiggers in his feet, to paint him for a dance, to prepare him store of drinks. Complete independence comes only when with his own woman he can, if he so pleases, go his own way, and live in solitude out in the forest or have his own fire in the shelter of the big maloka, just as it suits his whim. To secure this independence, to get his woman, he is required in the first place to show that he is a capable hunter and warrior, that is to say he must demonstrate the fact that he can feed and protect a wife and children.[261] But there is no scheme in any way approximating to the customs of those African peoples who rule that a man must have killed his man before he can be considered a proved warrior, and qualified for matrimony. It is sufficient if he be a hunter by repute in the generality of cases, though among the Uacarra and some other tribes, as noted by Wallace, an exhibition of skill is demanded.[262] A girl of these tribes will not marry a man who did not prove a good shot in an archery trial held for the purpose of testing his prowess, the reason alleged being that he cannot be sufficiently adept to maintain a family. This is the underlying idea in all the ceremony attached to the transaction of marriage among these Indians, of a piece with all their doings and sentiments. There is no use for the unfit. It is the philosophy of the forest in practical form.
Further, in view of his prospective position as husband and father, there are certain preparations, elementary enough, to be made by the bridegroom. From the surrounding forest a plot of land must be reclaimed, the trees felled and uprooted, the soil broken and roughly tilled, for the plantation. This is an absolute necessity, the agricultural is far more vital than any housing problem, for that is a point easy enough to settle, as the intending bridegroom need not build himself a house at all, if he can obtain a corner in the great house of assembly. There is nothing to prevent him from building one on his own account if he is not content with the quarters there allotted to him, though the usual arrangement is for a man to bring his wife to live with his family rather than to start a separate establishment.
Betrothals are often made in childhood by arrangement between the parents, and occasionally a small boy is married to a small girl. This is not common, but I have seen it done in the case of a chief more than once. On one occasion that I remember it was among the Andoke, another time it was in a Boro house. The ceremony is the same as for adults, but naturally only in form. Among some tribes of the Andoke such child marriage is allowed if the boy has made a plantation and successfully hunted an animal, and either his or, more rarely, the girl’s family will admit them to joint life, and one Witoto man told me that he had been married as quite a youngster. But the general disparity of age is from five to fifteen years, for a man will choose an undeveloped girl, perhaps only nine or ten years old, and hand her over to the women of his own family.[263] The Andoke usually marry girls much younger than themselves, and I have seen a man of twenty with a tiny girl-wife hurrying after him. Undoubtedly the idea is the same as that underlying infant marriage in India, the man seeks to gain affection by association. The girl lives with him and his people, they become to all intents and purposes her people; she is trained by custom to their habits of life, must naturally imbibe their ideas, and will bring no foreign notions of manners or morals to disturb the equanimity of the common household when, in due time, she attains pubescence, and is made a wife de facto as well as de jure.[264]
In the ordinary run of events the woman invariably comes to live with the man’s family, he never goes to hers. Only in rare cases have I heard anything approaching the matrilocal customs noted among the Indians of British Guiana.[265] These cases would be exclusively when a chief, who has no son, marries his daughter to some man with a view to obtaining an heir through her. The man might be selected from friendly neighbours, or, with the approval of the tribe, an adopted son of the chief might be chosen. If the former, the bridegroom would have to leave his own people and live with his father-in-law. How exceptional this is may be judged from the fact that it is the sole circumstance of which I am aware where disregard is permitted to the prevailing rules of patrilocal and exogamous customs. This is, however, hearsay only. I never met with a case in point, though the Indians told me of it.