MARRIAGE AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES.
The usual idea associated with the term “marriage” is the union in
domestic life of a single pair of individuals, and with few exceptions
this is the only marriage recognised by Christian peoples. We learn
from the Old Testament Scriptures that the Hebrews had different
ideas on that subject. They not only considered it allowable for a
man to have more than one wife, but apparently they thought he might
have as many wives as he chose. This system of marriage, to which the
term polygamy has been usually applied, is still prevalent in most
countries outside of the European area. The monogamous and polygamous
forms of marriage are, however, by no means the only possible ones.
Instead of a man and a woman living together, a number of individuals
may thus associate, and in lieu of a man having several wives a woman
may conceivably have more than one husband. Moreover, marriage may be
subject to varying regulations or restrictions, causing the same system
to present dissimilar features in different localities. That which is
_possible_ in social life may reasonably be expected to occur somewhere
or other on the earth’s surface; and, as a fact, all the types of
marriage referred to are to be found among peoples of the Eastern
Hemisphere.
It can hardly be doubted that the most civilised races, of which we
may call the modern world, have, with the exception of the Chinese,
belonged to the two great branches of the Caucasian stock, the
Aryan and the Semitic-speaking peoples. Those races, and especially
such of them as inhabit the Western part of the Old Continent, have
shown a preference for monogamy or polygamy, the former being almost
restricted to Europeans, the latter being nearly universal among the
Asiatic portion of the Caucasian stock. The inferior races, however,
possess the least advanced systems of marriage. The natives of the
Australian Continent are usually regarded as the most uncivilised of
mankind, and among them there has been developed a system which some
persons would probably consider not entitled to the name of marriage.
In it individuals give place theoretically to groups, between whom
the marriage relation is supposed to be formed, the individuals being
treated only as members of a group. The existence of this peculiar
system has been established by the inquiries of the Rev. Lorimer Fison,
who has shown, moreover, that Australian marriage “is something
more than the marriage of group to group, _within a tribe_. It is
an arrangement, extending across a Continent, which divides many
widely-scattered tribes into intermarrying classes, and gives a man
of one class marital rites over women of another class in a tribe a
thousand miles away, and speaking a language other than his own. It
seems to be strong evidence of the common origin of all the Australian
tribes among whom it prevails; and it is a striking illustration of how
custom remains fixed while language changes.”[238] An American writer,
Mr. Lewis Morgan, who was the first to point out the prevalence among
the less cultured races of mankind of relationship which he terms
“_classificatory_,” in opposition to the _descriptive_ relationships
of the superior races, states that, according to Australian marriage,
“a group of males distinguished by the same class name are the born
husbands of a group of females bearing another class name; and
whenever a male of this class meets a female of the other class, they
recognise each other as husband and wife, and their right to live in
this relation is regarded by the tribe to which they belong.” The
peculiarity of this system is, not that each individual is entitled
to take a wife or husband out of a particular group, but that, in
theory, every individual is from birth the husband or wife of all the
members of a special group. Mr. Fison remarks further that the idea
of marriage under that system is founded on the rights neither of the
woman nor of the man. It is based “on the rights of the tribe, or
rather of the classes into which the tribe is divided. Class marriage
is not a contract entered into by two parties. It is a natural state
into which both parties are born, and they have to be content with
that state whereunto they are called.” But what is the nature of the
social organisation to which the system of group marriage belongs? At
the present time nearly all the existing Australian tribes are divided
into four classes, into one of which every individual is born. The
members of each class are supposed to trace their descent to the same
common female ancestor, they are treated as of the same degrees of
kinship to each other, and they are not allowed to intermarry. There
is reason to believe that originally, perhaps when the ancestors of
all the existing tribes resided in the same neighbourhood, each tribe
consisted of only two classes. In this case, the law of group marriage,
under the regulations as to marriage and descent just mentioned, would
require that all the members of each class should be real or tribal
brothers and sisters of each other, and the husbands and wives of all
the members of the other class. The theoretical result would be, that
all the men of each class would have their wives in common, and all
the women of each class their husbands in common. Whether the number
of individuals in each group was large or small, the result would be
the same. In practice, the exercise of the extended marriage right
would be restricted to a few individuals, but that its existence is
generally understood is shown by the statement of a native servant,
who had travelled far and wide in Australia, that “he was furnished
with temporary wives by the various tribes with whom he sojourned in
his travels; that his right to those women was recognised as a matter
of course; and that he could always ascertain whether they belonged
to the division into which he could legally marry, though the places
were a thousand miles apart, and the languages quite different.” This
particular case might, perhaps, be explained as an extreme example of
the granting of sexual hospitality; but Mr. Fison refers to several
facts which prove the reality of the relationships arising out of
group marriage, and therefore of this system itself. He states that
an Australian “has the rights of a brother, and he acknowledges the
duties of a brother, towards every man of his own group; and he can
no more marry a woman of a group which is ‘sister’ to his own than we
can marry our own sister.” Among the Australians, as among some other
races who are supposed to have had at one time a similar marriage
system, a mother-in-law and a son-in-law mutually avoid each other.
This conduct is based on the fact that the mother-in-law belongs to the
class of women over whom the son-in-law has a marital right, but as
she is _specially_ forbidden to him they must keep out of each other’s
way. Again, the incidents attendant on adoption are in accordance with
the reality of group relationships. A person who is adopted into a
gens or family “forthwith abandons all the relationships of his own
gens, and takes those of the gens into which he is adopted,” a result
which is due to the fact that relationship is conceived, not between
individual and individual, but between group and group. Extraordinary
as is the Australian system at the present time, when each class, or
intermarrying group, embraces so many individuals, it would not appear
so strange if, as was originally the case, each group consisted only of
the immediate descendants of the common female ancestor. In this case
all the males in any particular generation of each family group would
be the husbands of all the females in the same generation of the other
family; in other words, all the men of each group would have their
wives in common and all the women their husbands in common. Moreover,
the actual practice of the Australian tribes differs from the theory.
Every man and every woman is permanently married to an individual of
the opposite sex, and often this connection is formed at an early
age by arrangement between the parents of the persons concerned. In
addition, however, each of these persons may be allotted by the great
council of the tribe as an “accessory spouse,” or _pirauru_, to some
other individual. The Australian system, therefore, presents a mixture
of individual marriage and group marriage, the latter of which is
evidently closely connected with the right of sexual hospitality, which
is considered by the savage mind as natural and of great importance.
Australian marriage is thus based on what may be theoretically termed
the natural marriage between two groups of individuals whose wishes are
never consulted in the matter. The same arrangement might, of course,
be made among the individuals themselves, and, curiously enough, a form
of group marriage, much restricted in its operation, was at one time
fully recognised among the Polynesian Islands of the Pacific. This
system was known as _punalua_, and it consisted in two or more brothers
having their wives, or two or more sisters having their husbands, in
common. Here, brothers and sisters form one group, and the wives of
the one with the husbands of the other, themselves being brothers
and sisters (actual or tribal), form another group answering to the
intermarrying classes of the Australians. The Polynesian _punalua_
and the Australian group marriage are, therefore, fundamentally the
same.[239] The Australian system is much the more comprehensive,
however, as it affects all the members of a class, while the Polynesian
affects only the persons immediately concerned. Each punaluan group
appears to be formed independently, with the consent of all the
parties to the arrangement, and without conferring any sexual right on
the children belonging to it. This is totally unlike the Australian
practice, which recognises individuals only as members of particular
groups, standing to each other in a certain marital relation and
perpetuated by descent through their female members. The latter may be
described as _hereditary_ punalua, as distinguished from the Polynesian
system, which is purely personal.
Mr. Morgan points out that _punalua_ may be of two forms, one founded
on the brotherhood of the husbands, and the other on the sisterhood
of the wives, the men of each group being polygamous and the women
polyandrous. Both forms of that marriage arrangement are said to have
existed among the natives of America, although, when discovered by
Europeans, the family with them was founded on marriage between single
pairs, but without exclusive cohabitation. Thus, it was not uncommon
for a man who married an eldest daughter to claim all his wife’s
sisters, and he appears to have occasionally allowed his brothers
to participate in the matrimonial privileges. In other cases, a man
married the sister of his deceased wife as a matter of course, but
he did not take her in his wife’s lifetime. Similar customs exist in
some parts of Australia, where the old system of marriage has been
almost forgotten. The polyandrous form of punalua was known to the
Australians either as a feature of the group right, or in the course of
its decadence. Thus, every woman had accessory husbands or paramours
who associated with her temporarily, notwithstanding that she had a
recognised husband with whom she habitually cohabited. Mr. T. E. Lance
mentions a tribe in which most of the women are nominally the wives of
elderly men, who are, however, obliged to lend them on stated occasions
to the younger men of the allowed classes.
It is evident that circumstances may favour the development of either
the polyandrous or the polygamous form of punalua to the exclusion
of the other. A scarcity of women would tend to the establishment of
the former system, as we see in the case of the Todas of Southern
India. This fine race of hillmen were inveterate practisers of
female infanticide down to a recent date, and it was almost the
universal practice for a family of near relations to live together
in one hut, having wife, children, and cattle in common.[240] The
continued formation of such alliances appears to have led to a result
much resembling the group marriage of the Australians. As Colonel
Marshall states, “the family come to be represented mainly by a knot
of brothers, half-brothers, and cousins, married to closely related
kinswomen in nearly equal numbers; the men being the common fathers
of all the progeny; each woman, however, the mother of her own
children only.”[241] The Todas have, under British influence, given
up the practice of infanticide, but they have fewer female than male
children, owing to a preponderance of male births, and polyandry is
still customary among them. A woman is at first married with her own
consent to one man, who pays the dowry. Afterwards, however, “if the
husband has brothers, or very near relatives, all living together, they
may each, if both she and he consent, participate in the right to be
considered her husband also, on making up a share of the dowry that
has been paid.”[242] Notwithstanding the example of the Todas, it must
not be thought that a scarcity of women is essential to the existence
of polyandry. In Tibet this system of marriage is universal, and it
has been so from time immemorial. Nevertheless, unmarried women are
numerous, and infanticide is not practised. Mr. Andrew Wilson defined
Tibetan polyandry as the marriage of one woman to two or more brothers,
and these are actual brothers, although at one time probably they may
also have been tribal. The choice of a wife is the right of the elder
brother, and Mr. Wilson states[243] that “among the Tibetan-speaking
people it universally prevails that the contract he makes is understood
to involve a marital contract with all the brothers, if they choose to
avail themselves of it.” Moreover, all the children of the marriage
belong to the eldest brother, as the head of the family group. In
Ladak,[244] however, the consent of the younger brothers is required
to the marital partnership, although on the death of the eldest brother
his authority, with his property and his widow, devolve upon his next
brother, whether or not there has been a polyandrous arrangement.
Mr. Wilson observes[245] that Tibetan polyandry had the effect “of
checking the increase of population in regions from which emigration
is difficult, and where it is also difficult to increase the means
of subsistence.” It is due to an artificial scarcity of _wives_,
rather than of women, in which it differs from the polyandry of the
Todas, which is the consequence of an actual scarcity of females,
caused originally by the practice of infanticide, and afterwards by a
preponderance of male births. Both the Tibetans and the Todas trace
descent through the male line—that is, take the family or gentile
name of the father; but some peoples of Southern India, who practice
polyandry, prefer the female line. This is not surprising, when we
find, as among the Nairs of Malabar, that not only has a woman several
husbands, but a man “may be one in several combinations of husbands.”
Such unions, which are governed by certain restrictions as to tribe and
caste, closely resemble the Australian group marriage. In Ceylon, where
polyandry is very prevalent among the Kandyans, marriage is of two
forms, one termed _deega_, in which the wife goes to live in the house
and village of her husband or husbands, the other, termed _beena_, in
which the husband or husbands come to reside with her in the house
of her birth. The Tibetan polyandry may be a form of the _deega_
marriage, and the Nair polyandry a form of the _beena_ marriage,
although it is possible that the latter may be a “mere freak,” if it
be true (as Mr. Wilson affirms) that the Nairs are nominally married
to girls of their own caste, but never have any intercourse with their
wives, who may have as many lovers as they please, provided they are
Brahmins or Nairs, other than the husband. These lovers answer to the
paramours of the Australian system, but, whereas the latter occupy
a secondary place, among the Nairs it is the husband who is in that
position. This custom may not improbably be explained by the remarks
of a Mohammedan writer, who says,[246] with regard to the marriages
of the Brahmins of Malabar, “when there are several brothers in one
family, the eldest of them alone enters into the conjugal state (except
in cases where it is evident that he will have no issue), the remainder
refraining from marriage, in order that heirs may not multiply to the
confusion of inheritance. The younger brothers, however, intermarry
with women of the Nair caste without entering into any compact with
them, thus following the custom of the Nairs, who have themselves no
conjugal contract. In the event of any children being born from these
connections, they are excluded from the inheritance; but should it
appear evident that the elder brother will not have issue, then another
brother, the next to him in age, will marry.” The irregular marriages
with the Nair women were, perhaps, introduced by the Brahmins to
provide wives for the brothers of their caste who were not allowed to
marry. The original Nair polyandry may have been similar to that of the
carpenters, ironsmiths, painters, and other Malabar castes, who (says
the same writer) “cohabit, two or more together, with one woman, but
not unless they are brothers, or in some way related, lest confusion
should ensue in the inheritance of property.”
It is thought, from certain facts mentioned in the Mahá Bhárata, that
polyandry was a recognised institution among the early Hindus, and
that the eldest brother had the right, as now among the Tibetans,
to choose a wife for the family. Some writers have gone so far even
as to assert that all the peoples of the primitive Aryan stock, and
our own British ancestors amongst them, practised the same custom or
some form of group marriage. Mr. J. F. M’Lennan regarded the Hebrew
law of the Levirate, which required a younger son to take his elder
brother’s widow if he had died childless, as having been derived
from the practice of polyandry. Whether this was so, or whether it
was merely a regulation to prevent the elder branch of a stock from
becoming extinct, traces of polyandry have undoubtedly been met with
among peoples of the Semitic stock. It would seem, however, to have
been most prevalent among the tribes of Southern Arabia, and it was
probably due, chiefly to the poverty of the people,[247] as among the
Tibetans, who may have directly influenced the development of polyandry
in Arabia. The true marriage system of the Semitic peoples was punalua
of the polygamous form, in which several sisters had a husband in
common. We have an instance of it in the marriage of Jacob with the
sisters Leah and Rachel. At a later period, however, when blood or even
tribal relationship between the wives was not required, the practice
of polygamy became fully established. This system has attained its
chief development among the Semitic races and those African peoples who
are allied to them by blood. The most widely-spread forms of marriage
now existing are polygamy and monogamy, and while the former may be
traced to the polygamous phase of punalua or group marriage, it is not
improbable that the latter is traceable to the polyandrous phase. At
all events, monogamy has been established chiefly among those races
who are supposed, formerly, to have been polyandrous. The Australians,
among whom group marriage has reached so full a development, are said
to show a tendency to the introduction of individual marriage. Descent
through the female line, which was, at one time, universal among
them, is giving place to descent through males, where residence has
become fixed and property accumulated. The change is accompanied by a
weakening of the group right, and the gradual introduction of marriage
“by gifts, by exchange, by capture, and by elopement, one or other of
these predominating.” The rights of the individual are thus substituted
for those of the group, and individual marriage is recognised.
Strange as are the various marriage systems we have referred to, they
are based on the very simple principle that every individual has a
sexual right. The conditions under which this right may be exercised
vary among different peoples, their operation giving rise to the
peculiar married arrangements in question. Among the Australians,
almost the only restriction on sexual unions appears to be that arising
from consanguinity. Their marriage regulations have evidently been
formed with the intention of absolutely prohibiting unions between
persons near of kin. Although marriage with a sister of the half-blood
is often permitted, and for special reasons marriage with a full sister
may be allowed, the objection to consanguineous unions may be declared
to be universal among peoples of a low degree of culture. Their
marriage regulations, however, are generally intended to have certain
positive results. The chief result aimed at would seem to be the
prevention of over-population. This fact, combined with the recognition
of the sexual rights of man, accounts for the polyandry of the Tibetans
and the Hindus, and the attainment of it is in many cases aided by the
practice of infanticide. Polygamy, on the other hand, has no apparent
relation to the question of population. It is connected rather with the
rights of the gens or family to which the women belong, the man having,
in many cases, certain duties to perform before he can obtain his wife
or wives. The development of polygamy is, moreover, attended with an
invasion of the sexual rights of individuals; as the appropriation of
the women by the rich or powerful often renders the obtaining of wives
by the poor or weak difficult, if not impossible.
The objection entertained by peoples of a low degree of culture to
the marriage of persons near of kin is a strong ground of objection
to Mr. Morgan’s theory that consanguineous unions were the earliest
to be formed; in other words, that “promiscuous intermarriage between
brothers and sisters and others of the closest kin” was, at one time,
customary. Mr. Fison refers to various practices which he thinks
point to the former existence of such a state of things among the
Australians. In reality, however, they are merely incidents of the
group marriage which has been developed by that race, or at most, the
result of temporary suspension under special circumstances of the
restrictions which that system enforces. They are, indeed, cases of
licentiousness similar to what is often met with among many peoples
during religious and other festivals. The occurrence of a temporary
condition of lawlessness on various occasions, such as the death of a
chief or the celebration of an important event, is not unknown even to
civilised nations. Mr. Morgan’s opinion as to the former prevalence
of consanguineous marriages derives no real support from the fact
mentioned by Mr. Fison, and as I have elsewhere[248] shown, marriages
of that character are not required to account for the phenomena
exhibited in the classificatory system of relationship which exists
among the primitive races of mankind.
FOOTNOTES:
[238] “Kamilaroi and Kurnai,” p. 54.
[239] Mr. Fison alludes to the New Zealand practice of a woman’s
suitors wrestling for her, which is called _punarua_. This word, he
says, is the Hawaiian _punalua_, which denotes the common-right of
tribal brothers to certain women (_note_, p. 153).
[240] “A Phrenologist among the Todas,” by Col. William E. Marshall, p.
213.
[241] Ditto, p. 226.
[242] “A Phrenologist among the Todas,” by Col. William E. Marshall, p.
43.
[243] “The Abode of Snow,” p. 233.
[244] “Ancient Society,” by J. F. M’Lennan, p. 158.
[245] _Op. cit._, p. 234.
[246] “Tohful-ul-Mujahideen,” p. 63.
[247] “Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,” pp. 128, 235.
[248] “Journal of the Anthropological Institute,” vol. viii. (1879), p.
144, _et seq._