the marriage customs of the blacks result in very ill-assorted
unions as regards age; for it is usual to see old men with
mere girls as wives, and men in the prime of life married to
old widows. As a rule wives are not obtained by the men
until they are at least thirty years of age. Women have very
frequently two husbands during their lifetime, the first older
and the second younger than themselves. Of course, as polygamy
is the rule and the men of the tribe exceed the females in
number besides, there are always many bachelors in every
tribe; but I never heard of a female over sixteen years of age
who, prior to the breakdown of aboriginal customs after the
coming of the whites, had not a husband.[218]
And Bonwick says:
The old men, who get the best food and hold the franchise of
the tribe in their hands, manage to secure an extra supply of
the prettiest girls.[219]
A further evidence of the keen sexual interest of the male is
furnished by the fact that even when the difficulties in the way of
getting a wife are regularly overcome by the youth, the other men of
the group, especially the older ones, reserve a temporary but prior
claim on her.[220]
In addition to a lively sexual interest in the women of their own
group, we find that even the lowest races have a well-developed
appreciation of the property value of women. In the earliest times
women were the sole creators of certain economic values, and since the
women contributed as much or more to the support of the men as the
men contributed to the support of the women, the men naturally got and
kept as many women as possible.[221] The condition prevailing in this
regard in central Australia is stated by Howitt:
It is an advantage to a man to have as many _Piraurus_ as
possible. He has then less work to do in hunting as his
_Piraurus_ when present supply him with a share of the food
which they procure, their own _Noas_ being absent. He also
obtains great influence in the tribe by lending his _Piraurus_
occasionally and receiving presents from young men to whom
_Piraurus_ have not yet been allotted, or who may not have
_Piraurus_ with them in the camp where they are. This is at
all times carried on, and such a man accumulates a lot of
property, weapons of all kinds, trinkets, etc., which he in
turn gives away to prominent men, heads of totems, and such,
and thus adds to his own influence. This is regarded by the
Dieri as in no way anything but quite right and proper.[222]
The following passages also from Spencer and Gillen's description of
the marriage customs of these aborigines show both the nature of the
sexual system of these tribes in general and the well-developed nature
of both their sexual and their property interest in their women:
The word _Nupa_ is without any exception applied
indiscriminately by men of a particular group to women of
another group, and _vice versa_, and simply implies a member
of a group of possible wives or husbands, as the case may be.
While this is so it must be remembered that in actual practice
each individual man has one or perhaps two of these _Nupa_
women who are especially attached to himself, and live with
him in his own camp. In addition to them, however, each
man has certain _Nupa_ women beyond the limited number
just referred to, with whom he stands in the relation of
_Piraungaru_. To women who are the _Piraungaru_ of a man (the
term is a reciprocal one) the latter has access under certain
conditions, so that they may be considered as accessory wives.
The result is that in the Urabunna tribe every woman is the
especial _Nupa_ of one particular man, but at the same time
he has no exclusive right to her as she is the _Piraungaru_
of certain other men who also have the right of access to her.
Looked at from the point of view of the man his _Piraungaru_
are a limited number of the women who stand in the relation
of _Nupa_ to him. There is no such thing as one man having the
exclusive right to one woman; the elder brothers, or _Nuthie_,
of the latter, in whose hands the matter lies, will give one
man a preferential right, but at the same time they will
give other men of the same group a secondary right to her.
Individual marriage does not exist either in name or in
practice in the Urabunna tribe. The initiation in regard to
establishing the relationship of _Piraungaru_ between a man
and a woman must be taken by the elder brothers, but the
arrangement must receive the sanction of the old men of
the group before it can take effect. As a matter of actual
practice this relationship is usually established at times
when considerable numbers of the tribe are gathered together
to perform important ceremonies, and when these and other
important matters which require the consideration of the
old men are discussed and settled. The number of a man's
_Piraungaru_ depends entirely upon the measure of his power
and popularity; if he be what is called "urku," a word which
implies much the same as our word "influential," he will have
a considerable number; if he be insignificant or unpopular,
then he will meet with scanty treatment. A woman may be
_Piraungaru_ to a number of men, and as a general rule the
women and men who are _Piraungaru_ to one another are to be
found living grouped together. A man may always lend his wife,
that is, the woman to whom he has the first right, to
another man, provided always he be her _Nupa_, without the
relationship of _Piraungaru_ existing between the two, but
unless this relationship exists no man has any right of access
to a woman. Occasionally, but rarely, it happens that a man
attempts to prevent his wife's _Piraungaru_ from having access
to her, but this leads to a fight, and the husband is looked
upon as churlish.[223]
The evidence up to this point is presented with a view to establishing
the fact that the men in early society had the strongest interest,
both on sexual and on property grounds, in retaining a hold on the
women of their group; and as an extreme expression of this interest I
wish to consider the system of elopement in early society. While there
is no system of government by chiefs among the Australian tribes
which we have been considering, the influence of the old men is very
powerful in all matters. The initiatory ceremonies, covering periods
of months and occurring at intervals during a period of years, and
involving great hardship to the young men, are calculated to inspire
them with great respect for the old men and for the traditional
practices of the tribe. One of the practical workings of this
influence of the older men is to throw restraints about the young
men and obstruct their activities. This obstruction is seen quite
as clearly on the food side as on the side of sex, in the fact that
the old men make certain foods which are not abundant (notably the
kangaroo and the opossum) taboo to the young men and the women, and
thus reserve these delicacies for themselves. We have already seen,
however, that the tribe usually makes some kind of a tardy sexual
provision for its male members, and we shall presently examine this
question more in detail; but the fact remains that the desires of the
young men are not adequately or promptly provided for. They may never
get a wife in the usual course of things, or they may have to delay
marriage for a period of twenty years beyond the point of maturity.
Under these conditions it is to be expected that the young men should
sometimes attempt to obtain women in spite of existing obstructions;
and this is the real significance of elopement. It is, of course, true
that married men sometimes eloped with married women, as with us;
but in some of the Australian tribes the difficulties in the way of
marriage were so great that elopement was recognized as the only way
out:
The young Kurnai could, as a rule, acquire a wife in one way
only. He must run away with her. Native marriage might
be brought about in various ways. If the young man was so
fortunate as to have an unmarried sister and to have a friend
who also had an unmarried sister they might arrange with the
girls to run off together or he might make his arrangements
with some eligible girl whom he fancied and who fancied him;
or a girl, if she fancied some young man might send him a
secret message asking, "Will you find me some food?" and this
was understood to be a proposal. But in every case it was
essential for success that the parents of the bride should be
utterly ignorant of what was about to transpire.[224]
Fison[225] is of the opinion that elopement in this case is caused
by the monopoly of women in the tribe by the older men. Even when the
assent of the parents has been secured, or when the match has been
arranged by the parents of the young people, it is in some cases
necessary to elope because of the reluctance of the men in general to
have a young woman appropriated:
If the woman was caught her female relatives gave her a good
beating. Fights took place over these cases between the girl's
relatives--both male and female--and those of the man. The
women were generally the most excited; they would stir up
the men and then assist with their yamsticks. If the girl
was first caught by other than her own relatives, she would
be abused by all the men; but this never occurred when her
parents or brothers were present to protect her.[226]
When we consider the difficulties in the way of young men in getting
wives at home, we should expect that they would make a practice of
capturing women from other tribes; and, indeed, it is well known that
marriage by capture has been assumed to be at the base of exogamy by
both Lubbock and Spencer. But the importance which has been attached
to this form of marriage in the literature of sociology is due to
the fact that these eminent writers have constructed theories on the
assumption that marriage by capture was widespread and important,
more than to anything else. For, to say nothing of the fact that the
theories of both these writers are too weak to stand even if capture
were found to be very prevalent, the evidence from Australia shows
that capture was comparatively little practiced there, although that
country affords most of the examples referred to by writers on this
subject. Spencer and Gillen say in this connection:
The method of capture which has so frequently been described
as characteristic of Australian tribes, is the very rarest way
in which the Central Australian secures a wife. It does not
often happen that a man forcibly takes a woman from someone
else within his own group, but it does sometimes happen, and
especially when the man from whom the woman is taken has
not shown his respect for his actual or tribal _Ikuntera_
(father-in-law) by cutting himself on the occasion of the
death of one or the other of the latter's relations. In this
case the aggressor will be aided by the members of his local
group, but in other cases of capture he will have to fight
for himself. At times, however, a woman may be captured from
another group, though this again is of rare occurrence, and is
usually associated with an avenging party, the women captured
by which, who are almost sure to be the wives of men killed,
are allotted to certain members of the avenging party.[227]
Curr reports to the same effect:
On rare occasions a wife is captured from a neighboring tribe
and carried off.... At present, as the stealing of a woman
from a neighboring tribe would involve the whole tribe in war
for his sole benefit, and as the possession of the woman would
lead to constant attacks, tribes set themselves generally
against the practice.[228]
It is, of course, not to be denied that the sexual impulse of the male
was sometimes strong enough to lead him to seize a woman wherever
he found her, if he could not get a wife otherwise, but there is no
evidence that capture ever formed a regular or important means of
getting wives.[229]
On the contrary, the evidence points to the view that as soon as for
any reason men ceased to marry with the women of their own blood and
went outside of their immediate families for women, they ordinarily
secured them in a social, not a hostile, way, and from a different
branch of their own group, not, as a rule, from a strange group. In
fact, the regular means of securing a wife other than a woman of one's
own family seems to have been to exchange a woman of one's family for
a woman of a different family.
The Australian male almost invariably obtains his wife or
wives either as the survivor of a married brother, or
in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life for his
daughters. Occasionally also an ancient widow, whom the
rightful heir does not claim, is taken possession of by
some bachelor but for the most part those who have no female
relatives to give in exchange have to go without wives. Girls
become wives at from eight to fourteen years. Males are free
to possess wives after ... attaining the status of young man,
which they do when about eighteen years of age. One often sees
a child of eight the wife of a man of fifty. Females until
married are the property of their father or his heir, and
afterwards of their husband, and have scarcely any rights.
When a man dies his widows devolve on his oldest surviving
brother of the same caste as himself--that is, full brother.
Should a man leave, say two widows, each of whom has a son who
has attained the rank of a young man, then I believe each of
the young men may dispose of his uterine sister and obtain a
wife in exchange for her. But should the deceased father of
the young men have already obtained wives on faith of giving
these daughters in marriage when of suitable age, then the
contract made must be kept. When the father is old and his
sons young men, it happens sometimes that he barters females
at his disposal for wives for them.[230]
Roth also reports[231] that exchange of sisters is one mode of
negotiating marriage; and Haddon says that in the region of Torres
Straits marriage is proposed by the woman, but the man must either pay
for her or furnish a woman in return. In Tud, after the young people
have come to an agreement,
they both go home and tell their respective relatives. "For
girl more big (i.e., of more consequence) than boy." If the
girl has a brother, he takes the man's sister, and then all
is settled. The fighting does not appear to be a very serious
business.[232]
Similarly in Maibung:
An exchange of presents and foods was made between the
contracting parties, but the bridegroom's friends had to give
the larger amount, and the bridegroom had to pay the parents
for his wife, the usual price being a canoe or dugong harpoon,
or shell armlet, or goods to equal value. The man might give
his sister in exchange for a wife, and thus save the purchase
price. A poor man who had no sister might perforce remain
unmarried, unless an uncle took pity on him and gave him a
cousin to exchange for a wife.[233]
Fison and Howitt[234] give other examples of marriage by exchange, and
I have already given a description of the custom of _Tualcha
mura_, the _regular_ method of obtaining a wife among the central
Australians, by means of which a man secures a wife for his son by
making an arrangement with some other man with regard to the latter's
daughter.
From the evidence given first of all I think we must conclude that
early man was inclined to appropriate whatever women came in his way.
In this regard we have a condition resembling that among the higher
animals, where the more vigorous males try to monopolize the females.
We may assume also that the women first appropriated were those
born in the group--that is, in the immediate family--as being more
proximate and not already possessed by others. In this regard also the
condition resembled that among the higher gregarious animals; and
in so far as the control of the women by the men of the group is
concerned the condition remains unchanged. But the men have ceased
to marry the women of their immediate families, and the problem of
exogamy is to determine why men living with women and controlling them
should cease to marry them.
In other papers I have pointed out that the interest of man is not
held nor the emotions aroused when the objects of attention have
grown so familiar in consciousness that the problematical and elusive
elements disappear;[235] and I have also alluded to the laws of sexual
life, that an excited condition of the nervous system is a necessary
preparation to pairing.[236] And just here we must recognize the fact
that monogamy is a habit acquired by the race, not because it has
answered more completely to the organic interest of the individual,
but because it has more completely served social needs, particularly
by assuring to the woman and her children the undivided interest
and providence of the man. But in early times the law of natural
selection, not the law of choice, operated to preserve the groups in
which a monogamous or quasi-monogamous tendency showed itself (since
the children in these cases were better trained and nourished), and
in historical times and among ourselves all of the machinery of church
and state has been set in motion in favor of the system. In point
of fact, the members of civilized societies at the present time have
become so refined and have so far accepted ethical standards that
monogamy is the system actually favored on sentimental grounds as well
as on grounds of expediency by a large proportion of any civilized
population. On the other hand, speaking from the biological
standpoint, monogamy does not, as a rule, answer to the conditions of
highest stimulation, since here the problematical and elusive elements
disappear to some extent, and the object of attention has grown so
familiar in consciousnes that the emotional reactions are qualified.
This is the fundamental explanation of the fact that married men and
women frequently become interested in others than their partners in
matrimony. I may also just allude to the fact that the large body of
the literature of intrigue, represented by the tales of Boccaccio and
Margaret of Navarre, is based on the interest in unfamiliar women.
Familiarity with women within the group and unfamiliarity with
women without the group is the explanation of exogamy on the side of
interest; and the system of exogamy is a result of exchanging familiar
women for others. We have seen that capture was not an important
means of securing wives outside the group, and that exogamy was fully
developed before property and media of exchange were developed to any
extent, and consequently before the purchase of women had become a
system. We have seen also that the Australian who wants a woman at
the present time gets her by exchanging another woman for her. Social
groups were necessarily small in the beginning. Before invention and
co-operation have advanced far, the group must remain small in order
to pick up enough food to sustain life on a given area.
Starting out with a single pair, when the family increases in size a
separation is necessary; and clans are an outcome of the process of
division and redivision, the bond between the clans and their union
in a tribe resulting from their consciousness of kinship. Now, it is
a well-known condition of exogamy that, while a man must marry without
his clan, he must not marry without his tribe, and for the most part,
in fact, the clan into which he shall marry is designated. In other
words, allied clans gave their women in exchange mutually. This was
a natural arrangement, both because the two groups were neighbors and
because they were friendly, and at the same time the psychological
demand for newness was satisfied. When a family was divided into
two branches, Branch A had a property interest in its own women, but
preferred the women of Branch B because of their unfamiliarity. The
exchange took place at first occasionally and not systematically, and
the women parted with in each case were not, perhaps, in all cases the
youngest, and we may assume that they had in all cases been married
before they were given up. But gradually, and when the habit of
exchange had been established, men came to look forward to the
exchange and to desire to secure the girl at the earliest possible
moment, until finally young women were exchanged at puberty, and
virgins. When for any reason there is established in a group a
tendency toward a practice, then the tendency is likely to become
established as a habit, and regarded as right, binding, and
inevitable: it is moral and its contrary is immoral. When we consider
the binding nature of the food taboos, of the _couvade_, and of the
regulation that a man shall not speak to or look at his mother-in-law
or sister, we can understand how the habit of marrying out, introduced
through the charm of unfamiliarity, becomes a binding habit.
I think, therefore, we have every reason to conclude that exogamy is
one expression of the more restless and energetic habit of the
male. It is psychologically true that only the unfamiliar and
not-completely-controlled is interesting. This is the secret of the
interest of modern scientific pursuit and of games. States of high
emotional tension are due to the presentation of the unfamiliar--that
is, the unanalyzed, the uncontrolled--to the attention. And although
the intimate association and daily familiarity of family life produce
affection, they are not favorable to the genesis of romantic
love. Cognition is so complete that no place is left for emotional
appreciation. Our common expressions "falling in love" and "love at
sight" imply, in fact, unfamiliarity; and there can be no question
that men and women would prefer at present to get mates away from
home, even if there were no traditional prejudice against the marriage
of near kin.