GENTES IN OTHER TRIBES OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.
THE SCOTTISH CLAN.—THE IRISH SEPT.—GERMANIC TRIBES.—TRACES
OF A PRIOR GENTILE SYSTEM.—GENTES IN SOUTHERN ASIATIC
TRIBES.—IN NORTHERN.—IN URALIAN TRIBES.—HUNDRED FAMILIES OF
CHINESE.—HEBREW TRIBES.—COMPOSED OF GENTES AND PHRATRIES
APPARENTLY.—GENTES IN AFRICAN TRIBES.—IN AUSTRALIAN
TRIBES.—SUBDIVISIONS OF FEJEES AND PEWAS.—WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF
GENTILE ORGANIZATION.
Having considered the organization into gentes, phratries and tribes in
their archaic as well as later form, it remains to trace the extent of
its prevalence in the human family, and particularly with respect to
the gens, the basis of the system.
The Celtic branch of the Aryan family retained, in the Scottish clan
and Irish sept, the organization into gentes to a later period of
time than any other branch of the family, unless the Aryans of India
are an exception. The Scottish clan in particular was existing in
remarkable vitality in the Highlands of Scotland in the middle of the
last century. It was an excellent type of the gens in organization
and in spirit, and an extraordinary illustration of the power of the
gentile life over its members. The illustrious author of Waverley has
perpetuated a number of striking characters developed under clan life,
and stamped with its peculiarities. Evan Dhu, Torquil, Rob Roy and many
others rise before the mind as illustrations of the influence of the
gens in molding the character of individuals. If Sir Walter exaggerated
these characters in some respects to suit the emergencies of a tale,
they had a real foundation. The same clans, a few centuries earlier,
when clan life was stronger and external influences were weaker, would
probably have verified the pictures. We find in their feuds and blood
revenge, in their localization by gentes, in their use of lands in
common, in the fidelity of the clansman to his chief and of the members
of the clan to each other, the usual and persistent features of gentile
society. As portrayed by Scott, it was a more intense and chivalrous
gentile life than we are able to find in the gentes of the Greeks and
Romans, or, at the other extreme, in those of the American aborigines.
Whether the phratric organization existed among them does not appear;
but at some anterior period both the phratry and the tribe doubtless
did exist. It is well known that the British government were compelled
to break up the Highland clans, as organizations, in order to bring the
people under the authority of law and the usages of political society.
Descent was in the male line, the children of the males remaining
members of the clan, while the children of its female members belonged
to the clans of their respective fathers.
We shall pass over the Irish _sept_, the _phis_ or _phrara_ of the
Albanians, which embody the remains of a prior gentile organization,
and the traces of a similar organization in Dalmatia and Croatia; and
also the Sanskrit _ganas_, the existence of which term in the language
implies that this branch of the Aryan family formerly possessed the
same institution. The communities of Villeins on French estates in
former times, noticed by Sir Henry Maine in his recent work, may prove
to be, as he intimates, remains of ancient Celtic gentes. “Now that the
explanation has once been given,” he remarks, “there can be no doubt
that these associations were not really voluntary partnerships, but
groups of kinsmen; not, however, so often organized on the ordinary
type of the Village-Community as on that of the House-Community, which
has recently been examined in Dalmatia and Croatia. Each of them was
what the Hindus call a Joint-Undivided family, a collection of assumed
descendants from a common ancestor, preserving a common hearth and
common meals during several generations.”[405]
A brief reference should be made to the question whether any traces
of the gentile organization remained among the German tribes when
they first came under historical notice. That they inherited this
institution, with other Aryan tribes, from the common ancestors of the
Aryan family, is probable. When first known to the Romans, they were
in the Upper Status of barbarism. They could scarcely have developed
the idea of government further than the Grecian and Latin tribes, who
were in advance of them, when each respectively became known. While the
Germans may have acquired an imperfect conception of a state, founded
upon territory and upon property, it is not probable that they had any
knowledge of the second great plan of government which the Athenians
were first among Aryan tribes to establish. The condition and mode of
life of the German tribes, as described by Cæsar and Tacitus, tend to
the conclusion that their several societies were held together through
personal relations, and with but slight reference to territory; and
that their government was through these relations. Civil chiefs and
military commanders acquired and held office through the elective
principle, and constituted the council which was the chief instrument
of government. On lesser affairs, Tacitus remarks, the chiefs consult,
but on those of greater importance the whole community. While the final
decision of all important questions belonged to the people, they were
first maturely considered by the chiefs.[406] The close resemblance of
these to Grecian and Latin usages will be perceived. The government
consisted of three powers, the council of chiefs, the assembly of the
people, and the military commander.
Cæsar remarks that the Germans were not studious of agriculture, the
greater part of their food consisting of milk, cheese and meat; nor had
anyone a fixed quantity of land, or his own individual boundaries, but
the magistrates and chiefs each year assigned to the gentes and kinsmen
who had united in one body (_gentibus cognationibusque hominum,
qui una coerint_) as much land, and in such places as seemed best,
compelling them the next year to remove to another place.[407] To give
effect to the expression in parenthesis, it must be supposed that he
found among them groups of persons, larger than a family, united on
the basis of kin, to whom, as groups of persons, lands were allotted.
It excludes individuals, and even the family, both of whom were merged
in the group thus united for cultivation and subsistence. It seems
probable, from the form of the statement, that the German family at
this time was syndyasmian; and that several related families were
united in households and practiced communism in living.
Tacitus refers to a usage of the German tribes in the arrangement
of their forces in battle, by which kinsmen were placed side by
side. It would have no significance, if kinship were limited to near
consanguinei. And what is an especial incitement of their courage, he
remarks, neither chance nor a fortuitous gathering of the forces make
up the squadron of horse, or the infantry wedge; but they were formed
according to families and kinships (_familiæ et propinquitates_).[408]
This expression, and that previously quoted from Cæsar, seem to
indicate the remains at least of a prior gentile organization, which at
this time was giving place to the mark or local district as the basis
of a still imperfect political system.
The German tribes, for the purpose of military levies, had the mark
(_markgenossenschaft_), which also existed among the English Saxons,
and a larger group, the _gau_, to which Cæsar and Tacitus gave the
name of _pagus_.[409] It is doubtful whether the mark and the _gau_
were then strictly geographical districts, standing to each other in
the relations of township and county, each circumscribed by bounds,
with the people in each politically organized. It seems more probable
that the _gau_ was a group of settlements associated with reference
to military levies. As such, the mark and the _gau_ were the germs of
the future township and county, precisely as the Athenian naucrary and
trittys were the rudiments of the Cleisthenean deme and local tribe.
These organizations seemed transitional stages between a gentile
and a political system, the grouping of the people still resting on
consanguinity.[410]
We naturally turn to the Asiatic continent, where the types of mankind
are the most numerous, and where, consequently, the period of human
occupation has been longest, to find the earliest traces of the gentile
organization. But here the transformations of society have been the
most extended, and the influence of tribes and nations upon each
other the most constant. The early development of Chinese and Indian
civilization and the overmastering influence of modern civilization
have wrought such changes in the condition of Asiatic stocks that
their ancient institutions are not easily ascertainable. Nevertheless,
the whole experience of mankind from savagery to civilization was
worked out upon the Asiatic continent, and among its fragmentary tribes
the remains of their ancient institutions must now be sought.
Descent in the female line is still very common in the ruder Asiatic
tribes; but there are numerous tribes among whom it is traced in
the male line. It is the limitation of descent to one line or the
other, followed by the organization of the body of consanguinei, thus
separated under a common name which indicates a gens.
In the Magar tribe of Nepaul, Latham remarks, “there are twelve thums.
All individuals belonging to the same thum are supposed to be descended
from the same male ancestor; descent from the same mother being by no
means necessary. So husband and wife must belong to different thums.
Within one and the same there is no marriage. Do you wish for a wife?
If so, look to the thum of your neighbor; at any rate look beyond your
own. This is the first time I have found occasion to mention this
practice. It will not be the last; on the contrary, the principle it
suggests is so common as to be almost universal. We shall find it
in Australia; we shall find it in North and South America; we shall
find it in Africa; we shall find it in Europe; we shall suspect and
infer it in many places where the actual evidence of its existence is
incomplete.”[411] In this case we have in the _thum_ clear evidence of
the existence of a gens, with descent in the male line.
“The Munnieporees, and the following tribes inhabiting the hills round
Munniepore—the Koupooes, the Mows, the Murams, and the Murring—are
each and all divided into four families—Koomul, Looang, Angom, and
Ningthajà. A member of any of these families may marry a member of
any other, but the intermarriage of members of the same family is
strictly prohibited.”[412] In these families may be recognized four
gentes in each of these tribes. Bell, speaking of the _Telûsh_ of the
Circassians, remarks that “the tradition in regard to them is, that
the members of each and all sprang from the same stock or ancestry; and
thus they may be considered as so many septs or clans.... These cousins
german, or members of the same fraternity, are not only themselves
interdicted from intermarrying, but their serfs, too, must wed with
serfs of another fraternity.”[413] It is probable that the _telûsh_ is
a gens.
Among the Bengalese “the four castes are subdivided into many different
sects or classes, and each of these is again subdivided; for instance,
I am of Nundy tribe [gens?], and if I were a heathen I could not
marry a woman of the same tribe, although the caste must be the same.
The children are of the tribe of their father. Property descends to
the sons. In case the person has no sons, to his daughters; and if
he leaves neither, to his nearest relatives. Castes are subdivided,
such as _Shuro_, which is one of the first divisions; but it is again
subdivided, such as _Khayrl_, _Tilly_, _Tamally_, _Tanty_, _Chomor_,
_Kari_, etc. A man belonging to one of these last-named subdivisions
cannot marry a woman of the same.”[414] These smallest groups number
usually about a hundred persons, and still retain several of the
characteristics of a gens.
Mr. Tyler remarks, that “in India it is unlawful for a Brahman to
marry a wife whose clan-name or _ghotra_ (literally ‘cow-stall’) is
the same as his own, a prohibition which bars marriage among relatives
in the male line indefinitely. This law appears in the code of Manu
as applying to the first three castes, and connexions on the female
side are also forbidden to marry within certain wide limits.”[415] And
again: “Among the Kols of Chota-Nagpur, we find many of the Oraon and
Munda clans named after animals, as eel, hawk, crow, heron, and they
must not kill or eat what they are named after.”[416]
The Mongolians approach the American aborigines quite nearly in
physical characteristics. They are divided into numerous tribes. “The
connection,” says Latham, “between the members of a tribe is that of
blood, pedigree, or descent; the tribe being, in some cases, named
after a real or supposed patriarch. The tribe, by which we translate
the native name _aimauk_, or _aimâk_, is a large division falling into
so many _kokhums_, or banners.”[417] The statement is not full enough
to show the existence of gentes. Their neighbors, the Tungusians, are
composed of subdivisions named after animals, as the horse, the dog,
the reindeer, which imply the gentile organizations, but it cannot be
asserted without further particulars.
Sir John Lubbock remarks of the Kalmucks that according to De Hell,
they “are divided into hordes, and no man can marry a woman of the
same horde;” and of the Ostiaks, that they “regard it as a crime to
marry a woman of the same family or even of the same name;” and that
“when a Jakut (Siberia) wishes to marry, he must choose a girl from
another clan.”[418] We have in each of these cases evidence of the
existence of a gens, one of the rules of which, as has been shown, is
the prohibition of intermarriage among its members. The Yurak Samoyeds
are organized in gentes. Klaproth, quoted by Latham, remarks that “this
division of the kinsmanship is so rigidly observed that no Samoyed
takes a wife from the kinsmanship to which he himself belongs. On the
contrary, he seeks her in one of the other two.”[419]
A peculiar family system prevails among the Chinese which seems to
embody the remains of an ancient gentile organization. Mr. Robert
Hart, of Canton, in a letter to the author remarks, “that the Chinese
expression for the people is _Pih-sing_, which means _the Hundred
Family Names_; but whether this is mere word-painting, or had its
origin at a time when the Chinese general family consisted of one
hundred subfamilies or tribes [gentes?] I am unable to determine. At
the present day there are about four hundred family names in this
country, among which I find some that have reference to animals,
fruits, metals, natural objects, etc., and which may be translated as
Horse, Sheep, Ox, Fish, Bird, Phœnix, Plum, Flower, Leaf, Rice,
Forest, River, Hill, Water, Cloud, Gold, Hide, Bristles, etc., etc. In
some parts of the country large villages are met with, in each of which
there exists but one family name; thus in one district will be found,
say, three villages, each containing two or three thousand people, the
one of the Horse, the second of the Sheep, and the third of the Ox
family name.... Just as among the North American Indians husbands and
wives are of different tribes [gentes], so in China husband and wife
are always of different families, _i. e._, of different surnames. Custom
and law alike prohibit intermarriage on the part of people having the
same family surname. The children are of the father’s family, that is,
they take his family surname.... Where the father dies intestate the
property generally remains undivided, but under the control of the
oldest son during the life of the widow. On her death he divides the
property between himself and his brothers, the shares of the juniors
depending entirely upon the will of the elder brother.”
The family here described appears to be a gens, analogous to the Roman
in the time of Romulus; but whether it was reintegrated, with other
gentes of common descent, in a phratry does not appear. Moreover, the
gentiles are still located as an independent consanguine body in one
area, as the Roman gentes were localized in the early period, and the
names of the gentes are still of the archaic type. Their increase
to four hundred by segmentation might have been expected; but their
maintenance to the present time, after the period of barbarism has long
passed away, is the remarkable fact, and an additional proof of their
immobility as a people. It may be suspected also that the monogamian
family in these villages has not attained its full development, and
that communism in living, and in wives as well, may not be unknown
among them. Among the wild aboriginal tribes, who still inhabit the
mountain regions of China and who speak dialects different from the
Mandarin, the gens in its archaic form may yet be discovered. To these
isolated tribes, we should naturally look for the ancient institutions
of the Chinese.
In like manner the tribes of Afghanistan are said to be subdivided into
clans; but whether these clans are true gentes has not been ascertained.
Not to weary the reader with further details of a similar character, a
sufficient number of cases have been adduced to create a presumption
that the gentile organization prevailed very generally and widely among
the remote ancestors of the present Asiatic tribes and nations.
The twelve tribes of the Hebrews, as they appear in the Book of
Numbers, represent a reconstruction of Hebrew society by legislative
procurement. The condition of barbarism had then passed away, and that
of civilization had commenced. The principle on which the tribes were
organized, as bodies of consanguinei, presuppose an anterior gentile
system, which had remained in existence and was now systematized. At
this time they had no knowledge of any other plan of government than a
gentile society formed of consanguine groups united through personal
relations. Their subsequent localization in Palestine by consanguine
tribes, each district named after one of the twelve sons of Jacob,
with the exception of the tribe of Levi, is a practical recognition of
the fact that they were organized by lineages and not into a community
of citizens. The history of the most remarkable nation of the Semitic
family has been concentrated around the names of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, and the twelve sons of the latter.
Hebrew history commences essentially with Abraham, the account of whose
forefathers is limited to a pedigree barren of details. A few passages
will show the extent of the progress then made, and the status of
advancement in which Abraham appeared. He is described as “very rich
in cattle, in silver, and in gold.”[420] For the cave of Machpelah
“Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the
audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current
_money_ with the merchant.”[421] With respect to domestic life and
subsistence, the following passage may be cited: “And Abraham hastened
into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures
of fine meal; knead _it_, and make cakes upon the hearth.”[422] “And
he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it
before them.”[423] With respect to implements, raiment and ornaments:
“Abraham took the fire in his hand and a knife.”[424] “And the servant
brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and
gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her brother and to her mother
precious things.”[425] When she met Isaac, Rebekah “took a veil and
covered herself.”[426] In the same connection are mentioned the camel,
ass, ox, sheep and goat, together with flocks and herds; the grain
mill, the water pitcher, earrings, bracelets, tents, houses and cities.
The bow and arrow, the sword, corn and wine, and fields sown with
grain, are mentioned. They indicate the Upper Status of barbarism for
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Writing in this branch of the Semitic family
was probably then unknown. The degree of development shown corresponds
substantially with that of the Homeric Greeks.
Early Hebrew marriage customs indicate the presence of the gens, and
in its archaic form. Abraham, by his servant, seemingly purchased
Rebekah as a wife for Isaac; the “precious things” being given to the
brother, and to the mother of the bride, but not to the father. In
this case the presents went to the gentile kindred, provided a gens
existed, with descent in the female line. Again, Abraham married his
half-sister Sarah. “And yet indeed,” he says, “she _is_ my sister; she
is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother: and
she became my wife.”[427]
With an existing gens and descent in the female line Abraham and Sarah
would have belonged to different gentes, and although of _blood kin_
they were not of _gentile kin_, and could have married by gentile
usage. The case would have been reversed in both particulars with
descent in the male line. Nahor married his niece, the daughter of
his brother Haran;[428] and Amram, the father of Moses, married his
aunt, the sister of his father, who became the mother of the Hebrew
lawgiver.[429] In these cases, with descent in the female line,
the persons marrying would have belonged to different gentes; but
otherwise with descent in the male line. While these cases do not prove
absolutely the existence of gentes, the latter would afford such an
explanation of them as to raise a presumption of the existence of the
gentile organization in its archaic form.
When the Mosaic legislation was completed the Hebrews were a civilized
people, but not far enough advanced to institute political society.
The scripture account shows that they were organized in a series of
consanguine groups in an ascending scale, analogous to the gens,
phratry and tribe of the Greeks. In the muster and organization of
the Hebrews, both as a society and as an army, while in the Sinaitic
peninsula, repeated references are made to these consanguine groups in
an ascending series, the seeming equivalents of a gens, phratry and
tribe. Thus, the tribe of Levi consisted of eight gentes, organized in
three phratries, as follows:
_Tribe of Levi._
Sons { I. _Gershon._ 7,500 Males.
of { II. _Kohath._ 8,600 ”
Levi. { III. _Merari._ 6,200 ”
I. _Gershonite Phratry._
_Gentes._—1. _Libni._ 2. _Shimei._
II. _Kohathite Phratry._
_Gentes._—1. _Amram._ 2. _Izhar._ 3. _Hebron._ 4. _Uzziel._
III. _Merarite Phratry._
_Gentes._—1. _Mahli._ 2. _Mushi._
“Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by
their families.... And these were the sons of Levi by their names;
Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari. And these were the names of the sons
of Gershon by their families; Libni, and Shimei. And the sons of Kohath
by their families; Amram, and Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. And the sons
of Merari by their families; Mahli, and Mushi. These are the families
of the Levites by the house of their fathers.”[430]
The description of these groups sometimes commences with the upper
member of the series, and sometimes with the lower or the unit. Thus:
“Of the children of Simeon, by their generations, after their families,
by the house of their fathers.”[431] Here _the children of Simeon, with
their generations_, constitute the _tribe_; the _families_ are the
_phratries_; and _the house of the father_ is the _gens_. Again: “And
the chief of the house of the father of the families of the Kohathites
shall be Elizaphan the son of Uzziel.”[432] Here we find the gens
first, and then the phratry, and last the tribe. The person named was
the chief of the phratry. Each house of the father also had its ensign
or banner to distinguish it from others. “Every man of the children
of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their
father’s house.”[433] These terms describe actual organizations; and
they show that their military organization was by gentes, by phratries
and by tribes.
With respect to the first and smallest of these groups, “the house
of the father,” it must have numbered several hundred persons from
the figures given of the number in each phratry. The Hebrew term
_beth’ ab_, signifies _paternal house_, _house of the father_, and
_family house_. If the Hebrews possessed the gens, it was this group
of persons. The use of two terms to describe it would leave a doubt,
unless individual families under monogamy had then become so numerous
and so prominent that this circumlocution was necessary to cover the
kindred. We have literally, the house of Amram, of Izhar, of Hebron,
and of Uzziel; but as the Hebrews at that time could have had no
conception of a _house_ as now applied to a titled family, it probably
signified, as used, kindred or lineage.[434] Since each division
and subdivision is headed by a male, and since Hebrew descents are
traced through males exclusively, descent among them, at this time,
was undoubtedly in the male line. Next in the ascending scale is
the _family_, which seems to be a phratry. The Hebrew term for this
organization, _mishpacah_, signifies _union_, _clanship_. It was
composed of two or more houses of the father, derived by segmentation
from an original group, and distinguished by a phratric name. It
answers very closely to the phratry. The family or phratry had an
annual sacrificial feast.[435] Lastly, the _tribe_, called in Hebrew
_matteh_, which signifies a _branch_, _stem_ or _shoot_, is the
analogue of the Grecian tribe.
Very few particulars are given respecting the rights, privileges and
obligations of the members of these bodies of consanguinei. The idea of
kin which united each organization from the _house of the father_ to
the _tribe_, is carried out in a form much more marked and precise than
in the corresponding organizations of Grecian, Latin or American Indian
tribes. While the Athenian traditions claimed that the four tribes were
derived from the four sons of Ion, they did not pretend to explain the
origin of the gentes and phratries. On the contrary, the Hebrew account
not only derives the twelve tribes genealogically from the twelve
sons of Jacob, but also the gentes and phratries from the children
and descendants of each. Human experience furnishes no parallel of
the growth of gentes and phratries precisely in this way. The account
must be explained as a classification of existing consanguine groups,
according to the knowledge preserved by tradition, in doing which minor
obstacles were overcome by legislative constraint.
The Hebrews styled themselves the “People of Israel,” and also a
“Congregation.”[436] It is a direct recognition of the fact that their
organization was social, and not political.
In Africa we encounter a chaos of savagery and barbarism. Original arts
and inventions have largely disappeared, through fabrics and utensils
introduced from external sources; but savagery in its lowest forms,
cannibalism included, and barbarism in its lowest forms prevail over
the greater part of the continent. Among the interior tribes, there is
a nearer approach to an indigenous culture and to a normal condition;
but Africa, in the main, is a barren ethnological field.
Although the home of the Negro race, it is well known that their
numbers are limited and their areas small. Latham significantly remarks
that “the negro is an exceptional African.”[437] The Ashiras, Aponos,
Ishogos and Ashangos, between the Congo and the Niger, visited by
Du Chaillu, are of the true negro type. “Each village,” he remarks,
“had its chief, and further in the interior the villages seemed to
be governed by elders, each elder with his people having a separate
portion of the village to themselves. There was in each clan the
ifoumou, fumou, or acknowledged head of the clan (ifoumou meaning the
_source_, the _father_). I have never been able to obtain from the
natives a knowledge concerning the splitting of their tribes into
clans; they seemed not to know how it happened, but the formation of
new clans does not take place now among them.... The house of a chief
or elder is not better than those of his neighbors. The despotic form
of government is unknown.... A council of the elders is necessary
before one is put to death.... Tribes and clans intermarry with each
other, and this brings about a friendly feeling among the people.
People of the same clan cannot intermarry with each other. The least
consanguinity is considered an abomination; nevertheless the nephew
has not the slightest objection to take his uncle’s wives, and, as
among the Balakai, the son takes his father’s wives, except his own
mother.... Polygamy and slavery exist everywhere among the tribes I
have visited.... The law of inheritance among the Western tribes is,
that the next brother inherits the wealth of the eldest (women, slaves,
etc.), but that if the youngest dies the eldest inherits his property,
and if there are no brothers that the nephew inherits it. The headship
of the clan or family is hereditary, following the same law as that of
the inheritance of property. In the case of all the brothers having
died, the eldest son of the eldest sister inherits, and it goes on
thus until the branch is extinguished, for all clans are considered as
descended from the female side.”[438]
All the elements of a true gens are embodied in the foregoing
particulars, namely, descent is limited to one line, in this case the
female, which gives the gens in its archaic form. Moreover, descent is
in the female line with respect to office and to property, as well as
the gentile name. The office of chief passes from brother to brother,
or from uncle to nephew, that nephew being the son of a sister, as
among the American aborigines; whilst the sons are excluded because
not members of the gens of the deceased chief. Marriage in the gens is
also forbidden. The only material omission in these precise statements
is the names of some of the gentes. The hereditary feature requires
further explanation.
Among the Banyai of the Zambezi river, who are a people of higher
grade than the negroes, Dr. Livingstone observed the following usages:
“The government of the Banyai is rather peculiar, being a sort of
feudal republicanism. The chief is elected, and they choose the son
of a deceased chief’s sister in preference to his own offspring. When
dissatisfied with one candidate, they even go to a distant tribe for a
successor, who is usually of the family of the late chief, a brother,
or a sister’s son, but never his own son or daughter.... All the
wives, goods, and children of his predecessor belong to him.”[439]
Dr. Livingstone does not give the particulars of their social
organization; but the descent of the office of chief from brother to
brother, or from uncle to nephew, implies the existence of the gens
with descent in the female line.
The numerous tribes occupying the country watered by the Zambezi, and
from thence southward to Cape Colony, are regarded by the natives
themselves, according to Dr. Livingstone, as one stock in three great
divisions, the Bechuanas, the Basutos, and the Kafirs.[440] With
respect to the former, he remarks that “the Bechuana tribes are named
after certain animals, showing probably that in ancient times they
were addicted to animal worship like the ancient Egyptians. The term
Bakatla means ‘they of the Monkey’; Bakuona, ‘they of the Alligator’;
Batlapi, ‘they of the Fish’; each tribe having a superstitious dread of
the animal after which it is called.... A tribe never eats the animal
which is its namesake.... We find traces of many ancient tribes in
individual members of those now extinct; as Bátau, ‘they of the Lion’;
Banoga, ‘they of the Serpent,’ though no such tribes now exist.”[441]
These animal names are suggestive of the gens rather than the tribe.
Moreover, the fact that single individuals are found, each of whom was
the last survivor of his tribe, would be more likely to have occurred
if gens were understood in the place of tribe. Among the Bangalas of
the Cassange Valley, in Argola, Livingstone remarks that “a chief’s
brother inherits in preference to his sons. The sons of a sister belong
to her brother; and he often sells his nephews to pay his debts.”[442]
Here again we have evidence of descent in the female line; but his
statements are too brief and general in these and other cases to show
definitely whether or not they possessed the gens.
Among the Australians the gentes of the Kamilaroi have already been
noticed. In ethnical position the aborigines of this great island
are near the bottom of the scale. When discovered they were not only
savages, but in a low condition of savagery. Some of the tribes were
cannibals. Upon this last question Mr. Fison, before mentioned, writes
as follows to the author: “Some, at least, of the tribes are cannibals.
The evidence of this is conclusive. The Wide Bay tribes eat not only
their enemies slain in battle, but their friends also who have been
killed, and even those who have died a natural death, provided they are
in good condition. Before eating they skin them, and preserve the skins
by rubbing them with mingled fat and charcoal. These skins they prize
very highly, believing them to have great medicinal value.”
Such pictures of human life enable us to understand the condition of
savagery, the grade of its usages, the degree of material development,
and the low level of the mental and moral life of the people.
Australian humanity, as seen in their cannibal customs, stands on
as low a plane as it has been known to touch on the earth. And yet
the Australians possessed an area of continental dimensions, rich in
minerals, not uncongenial in climate, and fairly supplied with the
means of subsistence. But after an occupation which must be measured
by thousands of years, they are still savages of the grade above
indicated. Left to themselves they would probably have remained for
thousands of years to come, not without any, but with such slight
improvement as scarcely to lighten the dark shade of their savage state.
Among the Australians, whose institutions are normal and homogeneous,
the organization into gentes is not confined to the Kamilaroi, but
seems to be universal. The Narrinyeri of South Australia, near Lacepede
Bay are organized in gentes named after animals and insects. Rev.
George Taplin, writing to my friend Mr. Fison, after stating that the
Narrinyeri do not marry into their own gens, and that the children
were of the gens of their father, continues as follows: “There
are no castes, nor are there any classes, similar to those of the
Kamilaroi-speaking tribes of New South Wales. But each tribe or family
(and a tribe is a family) has its totem, or _ngaitye_; and indeed some
individuals have this _ngaitye_. It is regarded as the man’s tutelary
genius. It is some animal, bird, or insect.... The natives are very
strict in their marriage arrangements. A tribe [gens] is considered a
family, and a man never marries into his own tribe.”
Mr. Fison also writes, “that among the tribes of the Maranoa district,
Queensland, whose dialect is called _Urghi_, according to information
communicated to me by Mr. A. S. P. Cameron, the same classification
exists as among the Kamilaroi-speaking tribes, both as to the class
names and the totems.” With respect to the Australians of the Darling
River, upon information communicated by Mr. Charles G. N. Lockwood,
he further remarks, that “they are subdivided into tribes [gentes],
mentioning the Emu, Wild Duck, and Kangaroo, but without saying whether
there are others, and that the children take both the class name and
totem of the mother.”[443]
From the existence of the gentile organization among the tribes named
its general prevalence among the Australian aborigines is rendered
probable; although the institution, as has elsewhere been pointed out,
is in the incipient stages of its development.
Our information with respect to the domestic institutions of the
inhabitants of Polynesia, Micronesia and the Papuan Islands is still
limited and imperfect. No traces of the gentile organization have been
discovered among the Hawaiians, Samoans, Marquesas Islanders or New
Zealanders. Their system of consanguinity is still primitive, showing
that their institutions have not advanced as far as this organization
presupposes.[444] In some of the Micronesian Islands the office of
chief is transmitted through females;[445] but this usage might exist
independently of the gens. The Fijians are subdivided into several
tribes speaking dialects of the same stock language. One of these, the
Rewas, consists of four subdivisions under distinctive names, and each
of these is again subdivided. It does not seem probable that the last
subdivisions are gentes, for the reason, among others, that its members
are allowed to intermarry. Descent is in the male line. In like manner
the Tongans are composed of divisions, which are again subdivided the
same as the Rewas.
Around the simple ideas relating to marriage and the family, to
subsistence and to government, the earliest social organizations were
formed; and with them an exposition of the structure and principle of
ancient society must commence. Adopting the theory of a progressive
development of mankind through the experience of the ages, the
insulation of the inhabitants of Oceanica, their limited local areas,
and their restricted means of subsistence predetermined a slow rate
of progress. They still represent a condition of mankind on the
continent of Asia in times immensely remote from the present; and while
peculiarities, incident to their insulation, undoubtedly exist, these
island societies represent one of the early phases of the great stream
of human progress. An exposition of their institutions, inventions and
discoveries, and mental and moral traits, would supply one of the great
needs of anthropological science.
This concludes the discussion of the organization into gentes, and
the range of its distribution. The organization has been found among
the Australians and African Negroes, with traces of the system in
other African tribes. It has been found generally prevalent among
that portion of the American aborigines who when discovered were
in the Lower Status of barbarism; and also among a portion of the
Village Indians who were in the Middle Status of barbarism. In like
manner it existed in full vitality among the Grecian and Latin tribes
in the Upper Status of barbarism; with traces of it in several of
the remaining branches of the Aryan family. The organization has
been found, or traces of its existence, in the Turanian, Uralian and
Mongolian families; in the Tungusian and Chinese stocks, and in the
Semitic family among the Hebrews. Facts sufficiently numerous and
commanding have been adduced to claim for it an ancient universality in
the human family, as well as a general prevalence through the latter
part of the period of savagery, and throughout the period of barbarism.
The investigation has also arrayed a sufficient body of facts to
demonstrate that this remarkable institution was the origin and
the basis of Ancient Society. It was the first organic principle,
developed through experience, which was able to organize society upon a
definite plan, and hold it in organic unity until it was sufficiently
advanced for the transition into political society. Its antiquity, its
substantial universality and its enduring vitality are sufficiently
shown by its perpetuation upon all the continents to the present time.
The wonderful adaptability of the gentile organization to the wants
of mankind in these several periods and conditions is sufficiently
attested by its prevalence and by its preservation. It has been
identified with the most eventful portion of the experience of mankind.
Whether the gens originates spontaneously in a given condition of
society, and would thus repeat itself in disconnected areas; or whether
it had a single origin, and was propagated from an original center,
through successive migrations, over the earth’s surface, are fair
questions for speculative consideration. The latter hypothesis, with
a simple modification, seems to be the better one, for the following
reasons: We find that two forms of marriage, and two forms of the
family preceded the institution of the gens. It required a peculiar
experience to attain to the second form of marriage and of the family,
and to supplement this experience by the invention of the gens. This
second form of the family was the final result, through natural
selection, of the reduction within narrower limits of a stupendous
conjugal system which enfolded savage man and held him with a powerful
grasp. His final deliverance was too remarkable and too improbable,
as it would seem, to be repeated many different times, and in widely
separated areas. Groups of consanguinei, united for protection and
subsistence, doubtless, existed from the infancy of the human family;
but the gens is a very different body of kindred. It takes a part
and excludes the remainder; it organized this part on the bond of
kin, under a common name, and with common rights and privileges.
Intermarriage in the gens was prohibited to secure the benefits of
marrying out with unrelated persons. This was a vital principle of the
organism as well as one most difficult of establishment. Instead of
a natural and obvious conception, the gens was essentially abstruse;
and, as such, a product of high intelligence for the times in which
it originated. It required long periods of time, after the idea was
developed into life, to bring it to maturity with its uses evolved.
The Polynesians had this punaluan family, but failed of inventing the
gens; the Australians had the same form of the family and possessed
the gens. It originates in the punaluan family, and whatever tribes
had attained to it possessed the elements out of which the gens was
formed. This is the modification of the hypothesis suggested. In
the prior organization, on the basis of sex, the germ of the gens
existed. When the gens had become fully developed in its archaic form
it would propagate itself over immense areas through the superior
powers of an improved stock thus created. Its propagation is more
easily explained than its institution. These considerations tend to
show the improbability of its repeated reproduction in disconnected
areas. On the other hand, its beneficial effects in producing a stock
of savages superior to any then existing upon the earth must be
admitted. When migrations were flights under the law of savage life, or
movements in quest of better areas, such a stock would spread in wave
after wave until it covered the larger part of the earth’s surface.
A consideration of the principal facts now ascertained bearing upon
this question seems to favor the hypothesis of a single origin of the
organization into gentes, unless we go back of this to the Australian
classes, which gave the punaluan family out of which the gens
originated, and regard these classes as the original basis of ancient
society. In this event wherever the classes were established, the gens
existed potentially.
Assuming the unity of origin of mankind, the occupation of the earth
occurred through migrations from an original center. The Asiatic
continent must then be regarded as the cradle-land of the species,
from the greater number of original types of man it contains in
comparison with Europe, Africa and America. It would also follow that
the separation of the Negroes and Australians from the common stem
occurred when society was organized on the basis of sex, and when the
family was punaluan; that the Polynesian migration occurred later, but
with society similarly constituted; and finally, that the Ganowánian
migration to America occurred later still, and after the institution of
the gentes. These inferences are put forward simply as suggestions.
A knowledge of the gens and its attributes, and of the range of its
distribution, is absolutely necessary to a proper comprehension of
Ancient Society. This is the great subject now requiring special
and extended investigation. This society among the ancestors of
civilized nations attained its highest development in the last days
of barbarism. But there were phases of that same society far back
in the anterior ages, which must now be sought among barbarians and
savages in corresponding conditions. The idea of organized society
has been a growth through the entire existence of the human race; its
several phases are logically connected, the one giving birth to the
other in succession; and that form of it we have been contemplating
originated in the gens. No other institution of mankind has held such
an ancient and remarkable relation to the course of human progress.
The real history of mankind is contained in the history of the growth
and development of institutions, of which the gens is but one. It is,
however, the basis of those which have exercised the most material
influence upon human affairs.
PART III.
GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF THE FAMILY.
CHAPTER I.
THE ANCIENT FAMILY.
FIVE SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF THE FAMILY.—FIRST, THE CONSANGUINE
FAMILY.—IT CREATED THE MALAYAN SYSTEM OF CONSANGUINITY AND
AFFINITY.—SECOND, THE PUNALUAN.—IT CREATED THE TURANIAN
AND GANOWÁNIAN SYSTEM.—THIRD, THE MONOGAMIAN.—IT CREATED
THE ARYAN, SEMITIC, AND URALIAN SYSTEM.—THE SYNDYASMIAN
AND PATRIARCHAL FAMILIES INTERMEDIATE.—BOTH FAILED TO
CREATE A SYSTEM OF CONSANGUINITY.—THESE SYSTEMS NATURAL
GROWTHS.—TWO ULTIMATE FORMS.—ONE CLASSIFICATORY, THE OTHER
DESCRIPTIVE.—GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THESE SYSTEMS.—THEIR
PERSISTENT MAINTENANCE.
We have been accustomed to regard the monogamian family as the form
which has always existed; but interrupted in exceptional areas by the
patriarchal. Instead of this, the idea of the family has been a growth
through successive stages of development, the monogamian being the
last in its series of forms. It will be my object to show that it was
preceded by more ancient forms which prevailed universally throughout
the period of savagery, through the Older and into the Middle Period
of barbarism; and that neither the monogamian nor the patriarchal can
be traced back of the Later Period of barbarism. They were essentially
modern. Moreover, they were impossible in ancient society, until an
anterior experience under earlier forms in every race of mankind had
prepared the way for their introduction.
Five different and successive forms may now be distinguished, each
having an institution of marriage peculiar to itself. They are the
following:
I. _The Consanguine Family._
It was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and
collateral, in a group.
II. _The Punaluan Family._
It was founded upon the intermarriage of several sisters, own and
collateral, with each others’ husbands, in a group; the joint husbands
not being necessarily kinsmen of each other. Also, on the intermarriage
of several brothers, own and collateral, with each others’ wives, in a
group; these wives not being necessarily of kin to each other, although
often the case in both instances. In each case the group of men were
conjointly married to the group of women.
III. _The Syndyasmian or Pairing Family._
It was founded upon marriage between single pairs, but without an
exclusive cohabitation. The marriage continued during the pleasure of
the parties.
IV. _The Patriarchal Family._
It was founded upon the marriage of one man with several wives;
followed, in general, by the seclusion of the wives.
V. _The Monogamian Family._
It was founded upon marriage between single pairs, with an exclusive
cohabitation.
Three of these forms, namely, the first, second, and fifth, were
radical; because they were sufficiently general and influential to
create three distinct systems of consanguinity, all of which still
exist in living forms. Conversely, these systems are sufficient of
themselves to prove the antecedent existence of the forms of the
family and of marriage, with which they severally stand connected. The
remaining two, the syndyasmian and the patriarchal, were intermediate,
and not sufficiently influential upon human affairs to create a new,
or modify essentially the then existing system of consanguinity. It
will not be supposed that these types of the family are separated from
each other by sharply defined lines; on the contrary, the first passes
into the second, the second into the third, and the third into the
fifth by insensible gradations. The propositions to be elucidated and
established are, that they have sprung successively one from the other,
and that they represent collectively the growth of the idea of the
family.
In order to explain the rise of these several forms of the family
and of marriage, it will be necessary to present the substance of
the system of consanguinity and affinity which pertains to each.
These systems embody compendious and decisive evidence, free from all
suspicion of design, bearing directly upon the question. Moreover, they
speak with an authority and certainty which leave no room to doubt
the inferences therefrom. But a system of consanguinity is intricate
and perplexing until it is brought into familiarity. It will tax the
reader’s patience to look into the subject far enough to be able to
test the value and weight of the evidence it contains. Having treated
at length, in a previous work, the “Systems of Consanguinity and
Affinity of the Human Family,”[446] I shall confine the statements
herein to the material facts, reduced to the lowest number consistent
with intelligibility, making reference to the other work for fuller
details, and for the general Tables. The importance of the main
proposition as a part of the history of man, namely, that the family
has been a growth through several successive forms, is a commanding
reason for the presentation and study of these systems, if they can in
truth establish the fact. It will require this and the four succeeding
chapters to make a brief general exhibition of the proof.
The most primitive system of consanguinity yet discovered is found
among the Polynesians, of which the Hawaiian will be used as typical. I
have called it the Malayan system. Under it all consanguinei, near and
remote, fall within some one of the following relationships; namely,
parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, and sister. No other
blood relationships are recognized. Beside these are the marriage
relationships. This system of consanguinity came in with the first form
of the family, the consanguine, and contains the principal evidence of
its ancient existence. It may seem a narrow basis for so important an
inference: but if we are justified in assuming that each relationship
as recognized was the one which actually existed, the inference is
fully sustained. This system prevailed very generally in Polynesia,
although the family among them had passed out of the consanguine into
the punaluan. It remained unchanged because no motive sufficiently
strong, and no alteration of institutions sufficiently radical had
occurred to produce its modification. Intermarriage between brothers
and sisters had not entirely disappeared from the Sandwich Islands when
the American missions, about fifty years ago, were established among
them. Of the ancient general prevalence of this system of consanguinity
over Asia there can be no doubt, because it is the basis of the
Turanian system still prevalent in Asia. It also underlies the Chinese.
In course of time, a second great system of consanguinity, the
Turanian, supervened upon the first, and spread over a large part
of the earth’s surface. It was universal among the North American
aborigines, and has been traced sufficiently among those of South
America to render probable its equally universal prevalence among
them. Traces of it have been found in parts of Africa; but the system
of the African tribes in general approaches nearer the Malayan. It
still prevails in South India among the Hindus who speak dialects of
the Dravidian language, and also, in a modified form, in North India,
among the Hindus who speak dialects of the Gaura language. It also
prevails in Australia in a partially developed state, where it seems
to have originated either in the organization into classes, or in the
incipient organization into gentes, which led to the same result.
In the principal tribes of the Turanian and Ganowánian families, it
owes its origin to punaluan marriage in the group and to the gentile
organization, the latter of which tended to repress consanguine
marriages. It has been shown how this was accomplished by the
prohibition of intermarriage in the gens, which permanently excluded
own brothers and sisters from the marriage relation. When the Turanian
system of consanguinity came in, the form of the family was punaluan.
This is proven by the fact that punaluan marriage in the group explains
the principal relationships under the system; showing them to be those
which would actually exist in virtue of this form of marriage. Through
the logic of the facts we are enabled to show that the punaluan family
was once as wide-spread as the Turanian system of consanguinity. To
the organization into gentes and the punaluan family, the Turanian
system of consanguinity must be ascribed. It will be seen in the sequel
that this system was formed out of the Malayan, by changing those
relationships only which resulted from the previous intermarriage of
brothers and sisters, own and collateral, and which were, in fact,
changed by the gentes; thus proving the direct connection between them.
The powerful influence of the gentile organization upon society, and
particularly upon the punaluan group, is demonstrated by this change of
systems.
The Turanian system is simply stupendous. It recognizes all the
relationships known under the Aryan system, besides an additional
number unnoticed by the latter. Consanguinei, near and remote, are
classified into categories; and are traced, by means peculiar to
the system, far beyond the ordinary range of the Aryan system. In
familiar and in formal salutation, the people address each other by
the term of relationship, and never by the personal name, which tends
to spread abroad a knowledge of the system as well as to preserve, by
constant recognition, the relationship of the most distant kindred.
Where no relationship exists, the form of salutation is simply “my
friend.” No other system of consanguinity found among men approaches
it in elaborateness of discrimination or in the extent of special
characteristics.
When the American aborigines were discovered, the family among them
had passed out of the punaluan into the syndyasmian form; so that
the relationships recognized by the system of consanguinity were not
those, in a number of cases, which actually existed in the syndyasmian
family. It was an exact repetition of what had occurred under the
Malayan system, where the family had passed out of the consanguine
into the punaluan, the system of consanguinity remaining unchanged;
so that while the relationships given in the Malayan system were
those which actually existed in the consanguine family, they were
untrue to a part of those in the punaluan family. In like manner,
while the relationships given in the Turanian system are those which
actually existed in the punaluan family, they were untrue to a part
of those in the syndyasmian. The form of the family advances faster
of necessity than systems of consanguinity, which follow to record
the family relationships. As the establishment of the punaluan family
did not furnish adequate motives to reform the Malayan system, so
the growth of the syndyasmian family did not supply adequate motives
to reform the Turanian. It required an institution as great as the
gentile organization to change the Malayan system into the Turanian;
and it required an institution as great as property in the concrete,
with its rights of ownership and of inheritance, together with the
monogamian family which it created, to overthrow the Turanian system of
consanguinity and substitute the Aryan.
In further course of time a third great system of consanguinity came
in, which may be called, at pleasure, the Aryan, Semitic, or Uralian,
and probably superseded a prior Turanian system among the principal
nations, who afterwards attained civilization. It is the system which
defines the relationships in the monogamian family. This system was not
based upon the Turanian, as the latter was upon the Malayan; but it
superseded among civilized nations a previous Turanian system, as can
be shown by other proofs.
The last four forms of the family have existed within the historical
period; but the first, the consanguine, has disappeared. Its ancient
existence, however, can be deduced from the Malayan system of
consanguinity. We have then three radical forms of the family, which
represent three great and essentially different conditions of life,
with three different and well-marked systems of consanguinity,
sufficient to prove the existence of these families, if they contained
the only proofs remaining. This affirmation will serve to draw
attention to the singular permanence and persistency of systems of
consanguinity, and to the value of the evidence they embody with
respect to the condition of ancient society.
Each of these families ran a long course in the tribes of mankind, with
a period of infancy, of maturity, and of decadence. The monogamian
family owes its origin to property, as the syndyasmian, which contained
its germ, owed its origin to the gens. When the Grecian tribes first
came under historical notice, the monogamian family existed; but it
did not become completely established until positive legislation
had determined its status and its rights. The growth of the idea of
property in the human mind, through its creation and enjoyment, and
especially through the settlement of legal rights with respect to
its inheritance, are intimately connected with the establishment of
this form of the family. Property became sufficiently powerful in its
influence to touch the organic structure of society. Certainty with
respect to the paternity of children would now have a significance
unknown in previous conditions. Marriage between single pairs had
existed from the Older Period of barbarism, under the form of pairing
during the pleasure of the parties. It had tended to grow more stable
as ancient society advanced, with the improvement of institutions, and
with the progress of inventions and discoveries into higher successive
conditions; but the essential element of the monogamian family, an
exclusive cohabitation, was still wanting. Man far back in barbarism
began to exact fidelity from the wife, under savage penalties, but
he claimed exemption for himself. The obligation is necessarily
reciprocal, and its performance correlative. Among the Homeric Greeks,
the condition of woman in the family relation was one of isolation and
marital domination, with imperfect rights and excessive inequality.
A comparison of the Grecian family, at successive epochs, from the
Homeric age to that of Pericles, shows a sensible improvement, with
its gradual settlement into a defined institution. The modern family
is an unquestionable improvement upon that of the Greeks and Romans;
because woman has gained immensely in social position. From standing
in the relation of a daughter to her husband, as among the Greeks
and Romans, she has drawn nearer to an equality in dignity and in
acknowledged personal rights. We have a record of the monogamian
family, running back nearly three thousand years, during which, it
may be claimed, there has been a gradual but continuous improvement
in its character. It is destined to progress still further, until the
equality of the sexes is acknowledged, and the equities of the marriage
relation are completely recognized. We have similar evidence, though
not so perfect, of the progressive improvement of the syndyasmian
family, which, commencing in a low type, ended in the monogamian. These
facts should be held in remembrance, because they are essential in this
discussion.
In previous chapters attention has been called to the stupendous
conjugal system which fastened itself upon mankind in the infancy of
their existence, and followed them down to civilization; although
steadily losing ground with the progressive improvement of society. The
ratio of human progress may be measured to some extent by the degree
of the reduction of this system through the moral elements of society
arrayed against it. Each successive form of the family and of marriage
is a significant registration of this reduction. After it was reduced
to zero, and not until then, was the monogamian family possible. This
family can be traced far back in the Later Period of barbarism, where
it disappears in the syndyasmian.
Some impression is thus gained of the ages which elapsed while these
two forms of the family were running their courses of growth and
development. But the creation of five successive forms of the family,
each differing from the other, and belonging to conditions of society
entirely dissimilar, augments our conception of the length of the
periods during which the idea of the family was developed from the
consanguine, through intermediate forms, into the still advancing
monogamian. No institution of mankind has had a more remarkable or
more eventful history, or embodies the results of a more prolonged
and diversified experience. It required the highest mental and moral
efforts through numberless ages of time to maintain its existence and
carry it through its several stages into its present form.
Marriage passed from the punaluan through the syndyasmian into the
monogamian form without any material change in the Turanian system of
consanguinity. This system, which records the relationships in punaluan
families, remained substantially unchanged until the establishment of
the monogamian family, when it became almost totally untrue to the
nature of descents, and even a scandal upon monogamy. To illustrate:
Under the Malayan system a man calls his brother’s son his son, because
his brother’s wife is his wife as well as his brother’s; and his
sister’s son is also his son because his sister is his wife. Under
the Turanian system his brother’s son is still his son, and for the
same reason, but his sister’s son is now his nephew, because under
the gentile organization his sister has ceased to be his wife. Among
the Iroquois, where the family is syndyasmian, a man still calls his
brother’s son his son, although his brother’s wife has ceased to be his
wife; and so with a large number of relationships equally inconsistent
with the existing form of marriage. The system has survived the usages
in which it originated, and still maintains itself among them, although
untrue in the main, to descents as they now exist. No motive adequate
to the overthrow of a great and ancient system of consanguinity had
arisen. Monogamy when it appeared furnished that motive to the Aryan
nations as they drew near to civilization. It assured the paternity of
children and the legitimacy of heirs. A reformation of the Turanian
system to accord with monogamian descents was impossible. It was
false to monogamy through and through. A remedy, however, existed, at
once simple and complete. The Turanian system was dropped, and the
descriptive method, which the Turanian tribes always employed when
they wished to make a given relationship specific, was substituted in
its place. They fell back upon the bare facts of consanguinity and
described the relationship of each person by a combination of the
primary terms. Thus, they said brother’s son, brother’s grandson;
father’s brother, and father’s brother’s son. Each phrase described a
person, leaving the relationship a matter of implication. Such was the
system of the Aryan nations, as we find it in its most ancient form
among the Grecian, Latin, Sanskritic, Germanic, and Celtic tribes;
and also in the Semitic, as witness the Hebrew Scripture genealogies.
Traces of the Turanian system, some of which have been referred to,
remained among the Aryan and Semitic nations down to the historical
period; but it was essentially uprooted, and the descriptive system
substituted in its place.
To illustrate and confirm these several propositions it will be
necessary to take up, in the order of their origination, these three
systems and the three radical forms of the family, which appeared in
connection with them respectively. They mutually interpret each other.
A system of consanguinity considered in itself is of but little
importance. Limited in the number of ideas it embodies, and resting
apparently upon simple suggestions, it would seem incapable of
affording useful information, and much less of throwing light upon
the early condition of mankind. Such, at least, would be the natural
conclusion when the relationships of a group of kindred are considered
in the abstract. But when the system of many tribes is compared, and
it is seen to rank as a domestic institution, and to have transmitted
itself through immensely protracted periods of time, it assumes a
very different aspect. Three such systems, one succeeding the other,
represent the entire growth of the family from the consanguine to the
monogamian. Since we have a right to suppose that each one expresses
the actual relationships which existed in the family at the time of its
establishment, it reveals, in turn, the form of marriage and of the
family which then prevailed, although both may have advanced into a
higher stage while the system of consanguinity remained unchanged.
It will be noticed, further, that these systems are natural growths
with the progress of society from a lower into a higher condition, the
change in each case being marked by the appearance of some institution
affecting deeply the constitution of society. The relationship of
mother and child, of brother and sister, and of grandmother and
grandchild have been ascertainable in all ages with entire certainty;
but those of father and child, and of grandfather and grandchild were
not ascertainable with certainty until monogamy contributed the highest
assurance attainable. A number of persons would stand in each of these
relations at the same time as equally probable when marriage was in the
group. In the rudest conditions of ancient society these relationships
would be perceived, both the actual and the probable, and terms would
be invented to express them. A system of consanguinity would result
in time from the continued application of these terms to persons thus
formed into a group of kindred. But the form of the system, as before
stated, would depend upon the form of marriage. Where marriages were
between brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in the group, the
family would be consanguine, and the system of consanguinity, Malayan.
Where marriages were between several sisters with each other’s husbands
in a group, and between several brothers with each other’s wives in a
group, the family would be punaluan, and the system of consanguinity
Turanian; and where marriage was between single pairs, with an
exclusive cohabitation, the family would be monogamian, and the system
of consanguinity would be Aryan. Consequently the three systems are
founded upon three forms of marriage; and they seek to express, as
near as the fact could be known, the actual relationship which existed
between persons under these forms of marriage respectively. It will be
seen, therefore, that they do not rest upon nature, but upon marriage;
not upon fictitious considerations, but upon fact; and that each in
its turn is a logical as well as truthful system. The evidence they
contain is of the highest value, as well as of the most suggestive
character. It reveals the condition of ancient society in the plainest
manner with unerring directness.
These systems resolve themselves into two ultimate forms, fundamentally
distinct. One of these is _classificatory_, and the other
_descriptive_. Under the first, consanguinei are never described, but
are classified into categories, irrespective of their nearness or
remoteness in degree to _Ego_; and the same term of relationship is
applied to all the persons in the same category. Thus my own brothers,
and the sons of my father’s brothers are all alike my brothers; my own
sisters, and the daughters of my mother’s sisters are all alike my
sisters; such is the classification under both the Malayan and Turanian
systems. In the second case consanguinei are described either by the
primary terms of relationship or a combination of these terms, thus
making the relationship of each person specific. Thus we say brother’s
son, father’s brother, and father’s brother’s son. Such was the system
of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, which came in with
monogamy. A small amount of classification was subsequently introduced
by the invention of common terms; but the earliest form of the system,
of which the Erse and Scandinavian are typical, was purely descriptive,
as illustrated by the above examples. The radical difference between
the two systems resulted from plural marriages in the group in one
case, and from single marriages between single pairs in the other.
While the descriptive system is the same in the Aryan, Semitic, and
Uralian families, the classificatory has two distinct forms. First, the
Malayan, which is the oldest in point of time; and second, the Turanian
and Ganowánian, which are essentially alike and were formed by the
modification of a previous Malayan system.
A brief reference to our own system of consanguinity will bring into
notice the principles which underlie all systems.
Relationships are of two kinds: First, by consanguinity or blood;
second, by affinity or marriage. Consanguinity is also of two kinds,
lineal and collateral. Lineal consanguinity is the connection which
subsists among persons of whom one is descended from the other.
Collateral consanguinity is the connection which exists between persons
who are descended from common ancestors, but not from each other.
Marriage relationships exist by custom.
Not to enter too specially into the subject, it may be stated generally
that in every system of consanguinity, where marriage between single
pairs exists, there must be a lineal and several collateral lines, the
latter diverging from the former. Each person is the centre of a group
of kindred, the _Ego_ from whom the degree of relationship of each
person is reckoned, and to whom the relationship returns. His position
is necessarily in the lineal line, and that line is vertical. Upon
it may be inscribed, above and below him, his several ancestors and
descendants in a direct series from father to son, and these persons
together will constitute his right lineal male line. Out of this trunk
line emerge the several collateral lines, male and female, which are
numbered outwardly. It will be sufficient for a perfect knowledge of
the system to recognize the main lineal line, and a single male and
female branch of the first five collateral lines, including those on
the father’s side, and on the mother’s side, and proceeding in each
case from the parent to one only of his or her children, although it
will include but a small portion of the kindred of _Ego_, either in the
ascending or descending series. An attempt to follow all the divisions
and branches of the several collateral lines, which increase in number
in the ascending series in a geometrical ratio, would not render the
system more intelligible.
The first collateral line, male, consists of my brother and his
descendants; and the first, female, of my sister and her descendants.
The second collateral line, male, on the father’s side, consists of
my father’s brother and his descendants; and the second, female, of
my father’s sister and her descendants: the second, male, on the
mother’s side, is composed of my mother’s brother and his descendants;
and the second, female, of my mother’s sister and her descendants.
The third collateral line, male, on the father’s side, consists of my
grandfather’s brother and his descendants; and the third, female, of my
grandfather’s sister and her descendants: on the mother’s side the same
line, in its male and female branches, is composed of my grandmother’s
brother and sister and their descendants respectively. It will be
noticed, in the last case, that we have turned out of the lineal
line on the father’s side into that on the mother’s side. The fourth
collateral line, male and female, commences with great-grandfather’s
brother and sister, and great-grandmother’s brother and sister: and the
fifth collateral line, male and female, with great-great-grandfather’s
brother and sister; and with great-great-grandmother’s brother and
sister, and each line and branch is run out in the same manner as the
third. These five lines, with the lineal, embrace the great body of our
kindred, who are within the range of practical recognition.
An additional explanation of these several lines is required. If I have
several brothers and sisters, they, with their descendants, constitute
as many lines, each independent of the other, as I have brothers and
sisters; but altogether they form my first collateral line in two
branches, a male and a female. In like manner, the several brothers
and sisters of my father, and of my mother, with their respective
descendants, make up as many lines, each independent of the other, as
there are brothers and sisters; but they all unite to form the second
collateral line in two divisions, that on the father’s side, and that
on the mother’s side; and in four principal branches, two male, and two
female. If the third collateral line were run out fully, in its several
branches, it would give four general divisions of ancestors, and eight
principal branches; and the number of each would increase in the same
ratio in each successive collateral line.
With such a mass of divisions and branches, embracing such a multitude
of consanguinei, it will be seen at once that a method of arrangement
and of description which maintained each distinct and rendered the
whole intelligible would be no ordinary achievement. This task was
perfectly accomplished by the Roman civilians, whose method has been
adopted by the principal European nations, and is so entirely simple as
to elicit admiration.[447] The development of the nomenclature to the
requisite extent must have been so extremely difficult that it would
probably never have occurred except under the stimulus of an urgent
necessity, namely, the need of a code of descents to regulate the
inheritance of property.
To render the new form attainable, it was necessary to discriminate
the relationships of uncle and aunt on the father’s side and on the
mother’s side by concrete terms, an achievement made in a few only of
the languages of mankind. These terms finally appeared among the Romans
in _patruus_ and _amita_, for uncle and aunt on the father’s side,
and in _avunculus_ and _matertera_ for the same on the mother’s side.
After these were invented, the improved Roman method of describing
consanguinei became established.[448] It has been adopted, in its
essential features, by the several branches of the Aryan family, with
the exception of the Erse, the Scandinavian, and the Slavonic.
The Aryan system necessarily took the descriptive form when the
Turanian was abandoned, as in the Erse. Every relationship in the
lineal and first five collateral lines, to the number of one hundred
and more, stands independent, requiring as many descriptive phases, or
the gradual invention of common terms.
It will be noticed that the two radical forms—the classificatory and
the descriptive—yield nearly the exact line of demarkation between
the barbarous and civilized nations. Such a result might have been
predicted from the law of progress revealed by these several forms of
marriage and of the family.
Systems of consanguinity are neither adopted, modified, nor laid
aside at pleasure. They are identified in their origin with organic
movements of society which produced a great change of condition. When
a particular form had come into general use, with its nomenclature
invented and its methods settled, it would, from the nature of the
case, be very slow to change. Every human being is the centre of a
group of kindred, and therefore every person is compelled to use and
to understand the prevailing system. A change in any one of these
relationships would be extremely difficult. This tendency to permanence
is increased by the fact that these systems exist by custom rather
than legal enactment, as growths rather than artificial creations, and
therefore a motive to change must be as universal as the usage. While
every person is a party to the system, the channel of its transmission
is the blood. Powerful influences thus existed to perpetuate the system
long after the conditions under which each originated had been modified
or had altogether disappeared. This element of permanence gives
certainty to conclusions drawn from the facts, and has preserved and
brought forward a record of ancient society which otherwise would have
been entirely lost to human knowledge.
It will not be supposed that a system so elaborate as the Turanian
could be maintained in different nations and families of mankind in
absolute identicalness. Divergence in minor particulars is found,
but the radical features are, in the main, constant. The system of
consanguinity of the Tamil people, of South India, and that of the
Seneca-Iroquois, of New York, are still identical through two hundred
relationships; an application of natural logic to the facts of the
social condition without a parallel in the history of the human mind.
There is also a modified form of the system, which stands alone and
tells its own story. It is that of the Hindi, Bengali, Marâthi and
other people of North India, formed by a combination of the Aryan and
Turanian systems. A civilized people, the Brahmins, coalesced with a
barbarous stock, and lost their language in the new vernaculars named,
which retain the grammatical structure of the aboriginal speech, to
which the Sanskrit gave ninety per cent. of its vocables. It brought
their two systems of consanguinity into collision, one founded upon
monogamy or syndyasmy, and the other upon plural marriages in the
group, resulting in a mixed system. The aborigines, who preponderated
in number, impressed upon it a Turanian character, while the Sanskrit
element introduced such modifications as saved the monogamian family
from reproach. The Slavonic stock seems to have been derived from this
intermixture of races. A system of consanguinity which exhibits but two
phases through the periods of savagery and of barbarism and projects a
third but modified form far into the period of civilization, manifests
an element of permanence calculated to arrest attention.
It will not be necessary to consider the patriarchal family founded
upon polygamy. From its limited prevalence it made but little
impression upon human affairs.
The house life of savages and barbarians has not been studied with
the attention the subject deserves. Among the Indian tribes of North
America the family was syndyasmian; but they lived generally in
joint-tenement houses and practiced communism within the household. As
we descend the scale in the direction of the punaluan and consanguine
families, the household group becomes larger, with more persons crowded
together in the same apartment. The coast tribes in Venezuela, among
whom the family seems to have been punaluan, are represented by the
discoverers as living in bell-shaped houses, each containing a hundred
and sixty persons.[449] Husbands and wives lived together in a group in
the same house, and generally in the same apartment. The inference is
reasonable that this mode of house life was very general in savagery.
An explanation of the origin of these systems of consanguinity and
affinity will be offered in succeeding chapters. They will be grounded
upon the forms of marriage and of the family which produced them, the
existence of these forms being assumed. If a satisfactory explanation
of each system is thus obtained, the antecedent existence of each
form of marriage and of the family may be deduced from the system it
explains. In a final chapter an attempt will be made to articulate in
a sequence the principal institutions which have contributed to the
growth of the family through successive forms. Our knowledge of the
early condition of mankind is still so limited that we must take the
best indications attainable. The sequence to be presented is, in part,
hypothetical; but it is sustained by a sufficient body of evidence to
commend it to consideration. Its complete establishment must be left to
the results of future ethnological investigations.
CHAPTER II.
THE CONSANGUINE FAMILY.
FORMER EXISTENCE OF THIS FAMILY.—PROVED BY MALAYAN SYSTEM OF
CONSANGUINITY.—HAWAIIAN SYSTEM USED AS TYPICAL.—FIVE GRADES OF
RELATIONS.—DETAILS OF SYSTEM.—EXPLAINED BY THE INTERMARRIAGE
OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN A GROUP.—EARLY STATE OF SOCIETY
IN THE SANDWICH ISLANDS.—NINE GRADES OF RELATIONS OF THE
CHINESE.—IDENTICAL IN PRINCIPLE WITH THE HAWAIIAN.—FIVE GRADES
OF RELATIONS IN IDEAL REPUBLIC OF PLATO.—TABLE OF MALAYAN
SYSTEM OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY.
The existence of the Consanguine family must be proved by other
evidence than the production of the family itself. As the first and
most ancient form of the institution, it has ceased to exist even among
the lowest tribes of savages. It belongs to a condition of society out
of which the least advanced portion of the human race have emerged.
Single instances of the marriage of a brother and sister in barbarous
and even in civilized nations have occurred within the historical
period; but this is very different from the intermarriage of a number
of them in a group, in a state of society in which such marriages
predominated and formed the basis of a social system. There are tribes
of savages in the Polynesian and Papuan Islands, and in Australia,
seemingly not far removed from the primitive state; but they have
advanced beyond the condition the consanguine family implies. Where,
then, it may be asked, is the evidence that such a family ever existed
among mankind? Whatever proof is adduced must be conclusive, otherwise
the proposition is not established. It is found in a system of
consanguinity and affinity which has outlived for unnumbered centuries
the marriage customs in which it originated, and which remains to
attest the fact that such a family existed when the system was formed.
That system is the Malayan. It defines the relationships that would
exist in a consanguine family; and it demands the existence of such a
family to account for its own existence. Moreover, it proves with moral
certainty the existence of a consanguine family when the system was
formed.
This system, which is the most archaic yet discovered, will now be
taken up for the purpose of showing, from its relationships, the
principal facts stated. This family, also, is the most archaic form of
the institution of which any knowledge remains.
Such a remarkable record of the condition of ancient society would not
have been preserved to the present time but for the singular permanence
of systems of consanguinity. The Aryan system, for example, has stood
near three thousand years without radical change, and would endure a
hundred thousand years in the future, provided the monogamian family,
whose relationships it defines, should so long remain. It describes the
relationships which actually exist under monogamy, and is therefore
incapable of change, so long as the family remains as at present
constituted. If a new form of the family should appear among Aryan
nations, it would not affect the present system of consanguinity until
after it became universal; and while in that case it might modify the
system in some particulars, it would not overthrow it, unless the new
family were radically different from the monogamian. It was precisely
the same with its immediate predecessor, the Turanian system, and
before that with the Malayan, the predecessor of the Turanian in the
order of derivative growth. An antiquity of unknown duration may be
assigned to the Malayan system which came in with the consanguine
family, remained for an indefinite period after the punaluan family
appeared, and seems to have been displaced in other tribes by the
Turanian, with the establishment of the organization into gentes.
The inhabitants of Polynesia are included in the Malayan family.
Their system of consanguinity has been called the Malayan, although
the Malays proper have modified their own in some particulars. Among
the Hawaiians and other Polynesian tribes there still exists in
daily use a system of consanguinity which is given in the Table,
and may be pronounced the oldest known among mankind. The Hawaiian
and Rotuman[450] forms are used as typical of the system. It is the
simplest, and therefore the oldest form, of the classificatory system,
and reveals the primitive form on which the Turanian and Ganowánian
were afterwards engrafted.
It is evident that the Malayan could not have been derived from any
existing system, because there is none, of which any conception can be
formed, more elementary. The only blood relationships recognized are
the primary, which are five in number, without distinguishing sex. All
consanguinei, near and remote, are classified under these relationships
into five categories. Thus, myself, my brothers and sisters, and my
first, second, third, and more remote male and female cousins, are
the first grade or category. All these, without distinction, are my
brothers and sisters. The word _cousin_ is here used in our sense, the
relationship being unknown in Polynesia. My father and mother, together
with their brothers and sisters, and their first, second, and more
remote cousins, are the second grade. All these, without distinction,
are my parents. My grandfathers and grandmothers, on the father’s side
and on the mother’s side, with their brothers and sisters, and their
several cousins, are the third grade. All these are my grandparents.
Below me, my sons and daughters, with their several cousins, as before,
are the fourth grade. All these, without distinction, are my children.
My grandsons and granddaughters, with their several cousins, are the
fifth grade. All these in like manner are my grand-children. Moreover,
all the individuals of the same grade are brothers and sisters to each
other. In this manner all the possible kindred of any given person
are brought into five categories; each person applying to every other
person in the same category with himself or herself the same term
of relationship. Particular attention is invited to the five grades
of relations in the Malayan system, because the same classification
appears in the “Nine Grades of Relations” of the Chinese, which are
extended so as to include two additional ancestors and two additional
descendants, as will elsewhere be shown. A fundamental connection
between the two systems is thus discovered.
There are terms in Hawaiian for grandparent, _Kupŭnă_; for parent,
_Mäkŭa_; for child, _Kaikee_; and for grandchild, _Moopŭnă_. Gender
is expressed by adding the terms _Käna_, for male, and _Wäheena_,
for female; thus, _Kupŭnă Käna_ = grandparent male, and _Kupŭnă
Wäheena_, grandparent female. They are equivalent to grandfather and
grandmother, and express these relationships in the concrete. Ancestors
and descendants, above and below those named, are distinguished
numerically, as first, second, third, when it is necessary to be
specific; but in common usage _Kupŭnă_ is applied to all persons
above grandparent, and _Moopŭnă_ is applied to all descendants below
grandchild.
The relationships of brother and sister are conceived in the twofold
form of elder and younger, and separate terms are applied to each; but
it is not carried out with entire completeness. Thus, in Hawaiian, from
which the illustrations will be taken, we have:
Elder Brother, Male Speaking, _Kaikŭaäna_. Female Speaking, _Kaikŭnäna_.
Younger Brother, ” ” _Kaikaina_. ” ” _Kaikŭnäna_.
Elder Sister, ” ” _Kaikŭwäheena_. ” ” _Kaikŭaäna_.
Younger Sister, ” ” _Kaikŭwäheena_. ” ” _Kaikaina_.[451]
It will be observed that a man calls his elder brother _Kaikŭaäna_,
and that a woman calls her elder sister the same; that a man calls
his younger brother _Kaikaina_, and a woman calls her younger sister
the same: hence these terms are in common gender, and suggest the
same idea found in the Karen system, namely, that of predecessor
and successor in birth.[452] A single term is used by the males for
elder and younger sister, and a single term by the females for elder
and younger brother. It thus appears that while a man’s brothers are
classified into elder and younger, his sisters are not; and, while a
woman’s sisters are classified into elder and younger, her brothers are
not. A double set of terms are thus developed, one of which is used by
the males and the other by the females, a peculiarity which reappears
in the system of a number of Polynesian tribes.[453] Among savage and
barbarous tribes the relationships of brother and sister are seldom
conceived in the abstract.
The substance of the system is contained in the five categories of
consanguinei; but there are special features to be noticed which will
require the presentation in detail of the first three collateral
lines. After these are shown the connection of the system with the
intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group,
will appear in the relationships themselves.
First collateral line. In the male branch, with myself a male, the
children of my brother, speaking as a Hawaiian, are my sons and
daughters, each of them calling me father; and the children of the
latter are my grandchildren, each of them calling me grandfather.
In the female branch my sister’s children are my sons and daughters,
each of them calling me father; and their children are my
grandchildren, each of them calling me grandfather. With myself a
female, the relationships of the persons above named are the same in
both branches, with corresponding changes for sex.
The husbands and wives of these several sons and daughters are my
sons-in-law and daughters-in-law; the terms being used in common
gender, and having the terms for male and female added to each
respectively.
Second collateral line. In the male branch on the father’s side my
father’s brother is my father, and calls me his son; his children are
my brothers and sisters, elder or younger; their children are my sons
and daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren,
each of them in the preceding and succeeding cases applying to me the
proper correlative. My father’s sister is my mother; her children are
my brothers and sisters, elder or younger; their children are my sons
and daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren.
In the same line on the mother’s side my mother’s brother is my father;
his children are my brothers and sisters; their children are my sons
and daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren. My
mother’s sister is my mother; her children are my brothers and sisters;
their children are my sons and daughters; and the children of the
latter are my grandchildren. The relationships of the persons named in
all the branches of this and the succeeding lines are the same with
myself a female.
The wives of these several brothers, own and collateral, are my wives
as well as theirs. When addressing either one of them, I call her
my wife, employing the usual term to express that connection. The
husbands of these several women, jointly such with myself, are my
brothers-in-law. With myself a female the husbands of my several
sisters, own and collateral, are my husbands as well as theirs. When
addressing either of them, I use the common term for husband. The wives
of these several husbands, who are jointly such with myself, are my
sisters-in-law.
Third collateral line. In the male branch of this line on the father’s
side, my grandfather’s brother is my grandfather; his children are my
father’s and mother’s; their children are my brothers and sisters,
elder or younger; the children of the latter are my sons and daughters;
and their children are my grandchildren. My grandfather’s sister is
my grandmother; and her children and descendants follow in the same
relationships as in the last case.
In the same line on the mother’s side, my grandmother’s brother is
my grandfather; his sister is my grandmother; and their respective
children and descendants fall into the same categories as those in the
first branch of this line.
The marriage relationships are the same in this as in the second
collateral line, thus increasing largely the number united in the bonds
of marriage.
As far as consanguinei can be traced in the more remote collateral
lines, the system, which is all-embracing, is the same in its
classifications. Thus, my great-grandfather in the fourth collateral
line is my grandfather; his son is my grandfather also; the son of the
latter is my father; his son is my brother, elder or younger; and his
son and grandson are my son and grandson.
It will be observed that the several collateral lines are brought into
and merged in the lineal line, ascending as well as descending; so that
the ancestors and descendants of my collateral brothers and sisters
become mine as well as theirs. This is one of the characteristics of
the classificatory system. None of the kindred are lost.
From the simplicity of the system it may be seen how readily the
relationships of consanguinei are known and recognized, and how a
knowledge of them is preserved from generation to generation. A single
rule furnishes an illustration: the children of brothers are themselves
brothers and sisters; the children of the latter are brothers and
sisters; and so downward indefinitely. It is the same with the children
and descendants of sisters, and of brothers and sisters.
All the members of each grade are reduced to the same level in their
relationships, without regard to nearness or remoteness in numerical
degrees; those in each grade standing to _Ego_ in an identical
relationship. It follows, also, that knowledge of the numerical
degrees formed an integral part of the Hawaiian system, without which
the proper grade of each person could not be known. The simple and
distinctive character of the system will arrest attention, pointing
with such directness as it does, to the intermarriage of brothers and
sisters, own and collateral, in a group, as the source from whence it
sprung.
Poverty of language or indifference to relationships exercised no
influence whatever upon the formation of the system, as will appear in
the sequel.
The system, as here detailed, is found in other Polynesian tribes
besides the Hawaiians and Rotumans, as among the Marquesas Islanders,
and the Maoris of New Zealand. It prevails, also, among the Samoans,
Kusaiens, and King’s Mill Islanders of Micronesia,[454] and without a
doubt in every inhabited island of the Pacific, except where it verges
upon the Turanian.
From this system the antecedent existence of the consanguine family,
with the kind of marriage appertaining thereto, is plainly deducible.
Presumptively it is a natural and real system, expressing the
relationships which actually existed when the system was formed, as
near as the parentage of children could be known. The usages with
respect to marriage which then prevailed may not prevail at the present
time. To sustain the deduction it is not necessary that they should.
Systems of consanguinity, as before stated, are found to remain
substantially unchanged and in full vigor long after the marriage
customs in which they originated have in part or wholly passed away.
The small number of independent systems of consanguinity created during
the extended period of human experience is sufficient proof of their
permanence. They are found not to change except in connection with
great epochs of progress. For the purpose of explaining the origin of
the Malayan system, from the nature of descents, we are at liberty to
assume the antecedent intermarriage of own and collateral brothers
and sisters in a group; and if it is then found that the principal
relationships recognized are those that would actually exist under this
form of marriage, then the system itself becomes evidence conclusive
of the existence of such marriages. It is plainly inferable that the
system originated in plural marriages of consanguinei, including own
brothers and sisters; in fact commenced with the intermarriage of the
latter, and gradually enfolded the collateral brothers and sisters as
the range of the conjugal system widened. In course of time the evils
of the first form of marriage came to be perceived, leading, if not to
its direct abolition, to a preference for wives beyond this degree.
Among the Australians it was permanently abolished by the organization
into classes, and more widely among the Turanian tribes by the
organization into gentes. It is impossible to explain the system as a
natural growth upon any other hypothesis than the one named, since this
form of marriage alone can furnish a key to its interpretation. In the
consanguine family, thus constituted, the husbands lived in polygyny,
and the wives in polyandry, which are seen to be as ancient as human
society. Such a family was neither unnatural nor remarkable. It would
be difficult to show any other possible beginning of the family in the
primitive period. Its long continuance in a partial form among the
tribes of mankind is the greater cause for surprise; for all traces
of it had not disappeared among the Hawaiians at the epoch of their
discovery.
The explanation of the origin of the Malayan system given in this
chapter, and of the Turanian and Ganowánian given in the next,
have been questioned and denied by Mr. John F. McLennan, author of
“Primitive Marriage.” I see no occasion, however, to modify the views
herein presented, which are the same substantially as those given in
“Systems of Consanguinity,” etc. But I ask the attention of the reader
to the interpretation here repeated, and to a note at the end of
Chapter VI, in which Mr. McLennan’s objections are considered.
If the recognized relationships in the Malayan system are now tested
by this form of marriage, it will be found that they rest upon the
intermarriage of own and collateral brothers and sisters in a group.
It should be remembered that the relationships which grow out of the
family organization are of two kinds: those of blood determined by
descents, and those of affinity determined by marriage. Since in the
consanguine family there are two distinct groups of persons, one of
fathers and one of mothers, the affiliation of the children to both
groups would be so strong that the distinction between relationships by
blood and by affinity would not be recognized in the system in every
case.
I. All the children of my several brothers, myself a male, are my sons
and daughters.
Reason: Speaking as a Hawaiian, all the wives of my several brothers
are my wives as well as theirs. As it would be impossible for me to
distinguish my own children from those of my brothers, if I call any
one my child, I must call them all my children. One is as likely to be
mine as another.
II. All the grandchildren of my several brothers are my grandchildren.
Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.
III. With myself a female the foregoing relationships are the same.
This is purely a question of relationship by marriage. My several
brothers being my husbands, their children by other wives would be my
step-children, which relationship being unrecognized, they naturally
fall into the category of my sons and daughters. Otherwise they would
pass without the system. Among ourselves a step-mother is called
mother, and a step-son a son.
IV. All the children of my several sisters, own and collateral, myself
a male, are my sons and daughters.
Reason: All my sisters are my wives, as well as the wives of my several
brothers.
V. All the grandchildren of my several sisters are my grandchildren.
Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.
VI. All the children of my several sisters, myself a female, are my
sons and daughters.
Reason: The husbands of my sisters are my husbands as well as theirs.
This difference, however, exists: I can distinguish my own children
from those of my sisters, to the latter of whom I am a step-mother.
But since this relationship is not discriminated, they fall into the
category of my sons and daughters. Otherwise they would fall without
the system.
VII. All the children of several own brothers are brothers and sisters
to each other.
Reason: These brothers are the husbands of all the mothers of these
children. The children can distinguish their own mothers, but not their
fathers, wherefore, as to the former, a part are own brothers and
sisters, and step-brothers and step-sisters to the remainder; but as to
the latter, they are probable brothers and sisters. For these reasons
they naturally fall into this category.
VIII. The children of these brothers and sisters are also brothers and
sisters to each other; the children of the latter are brothers and
sisters again, and this relationship continues downward among their
descendants indefinitely. It is precisely the same with the children
and descendants of several own sisters, and of several brothers and
sisters. An infinite series is thus created, which is a fundamental
part of the system. To account for this series it must be further
assumed that the marriage relation extended wherever the relationship
of brother and sister was recognized to exist; each brother having as
many wives as he had sisters, own or collateral, and each sister having
as many husbands as she had brothers, own or collateral. Marriage and
the family seem to form in the grade or category, and to be coextensive
with it. Such apparently was the beginning of that stupendous conjugal
system which has before been a number of times adverted to.
IX. All the brothers of my father are my fathers; and all the sisters
of my mother are my mothers.
Reasons, as in I, III, and VI.
X. All the brothers of my mother are my fathers.
Reason: They are my mother’s husbands.
XI. All the sisters of my mother are my mothers.
Reasons, as in VI.
XII. All the children of my collateral brothers and sisters are,
without distinction, my sons and daughters.
Reasons, as in I, III, IV, VI.
XIII. All the children of the latter are my grandchildren.
Reasons, as in II.
XIV. All the brothers and sisters of my grandfather and grandmother,
on the father’s side and on the mother’s side, are my grandfathers and
grandmothers.
Reason: They are the fathers and mothers of my father and mother.
Every relationship recognized under the system is thus explained from
the nature of the consanguine family, founded upon the intermarriage
of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group. Relationships
on the father’s side are followed as near as the parentage of children
could be known, probable fathers being treated as actual fathers.
Relationships on the mother’s side are determined by the principle of
affinity, step-children being regarded as actual children.
Turning next to the marriage relationships, confirmatory results are
obtained, as the following table will show:
TONGAN. HAWAIIAN.
My Brother’s Wife, Male speaking. Unoho, My Wife. Waheena, My Wife.
” Wife’s Sister, ” ” Unoho, ” ” Waheena, ” Wife.
” Husband’s Brother, Female ” Unoho, ” Husband. Kane, ” Husband.
” Father’s Brother’s} Male ” Unoho, ” Wife. Waheena, ” Wife.
Son’s Wife }
” Mother’s Sister’s } ” ” Unoho, ” ” Waheena, ” ”
Son’s Wife }
” Father’s Brother’s} Female ” Unoho, ” Husband. Kaikoeka, ” Bro.-in-law.
Daughter’s Husb.}
” Mother’s Sister’s } ” ” Unoho, ” ” Kaikoeka, ” ”
Daughter’s Husb.}
Wherever the relationship of wife is found in the collateral line,
that of husband must be recognized in the lineal, and conversely.[455]
When this system of consanguinity and affinity first came into use
the relationships, which are still preserved, could have been none
other than those which actually existed, whatever may have afterwards
occurred in marriage usages.
From the evidence embodied in this system of consanguinity the
deduction is made that the consanguine family, as defined, existed
among the ancestors of the Polynesian tribes when the system
was formed. Such a form of the family is necessary to render an
interpretation of the system possible. Moreover, it furnishes an
interpretation of every relationship with reasonable exactness.
The following observation of Mr. Oscar Peschel is deserving of
attention: “That at any time and in any place the children of the same
mother have propagated themselves sexually, for any long period, has
been rendered especially incredible, since it has been established that
even in the case of organisms devoid of blood, such as the plants,
reciprocal fertilization of the descendants of the same parents is
to a great extent impossible.”[456] It must be remembered that the
consanguine group united in the marriage relation was not restricted
to own brothers and sisters; but it included collateral brothers
and sisters as well. The larger the group recognizing the marriage
relation, the less the evil of close interbreeding.
From general considerations the ancient existence of such a family
was probable. The natural and necessary relations of the consanguine
family to the punaluan, of the punaluan to the syndyasmian, and of the
syndyasmian to the monogamian, each presupposing its predecessor, lead
directly to this conclusion. They stand to each other in a logical
sequence, and together stretch across several ethnical periods from
savagery to civilization.
In like manner the three great systems of consanguinity, which
are connected with the three radical forms of the family, stand
to each other in a similarly connected series, running parallel
with the former, and indicating not less plainly a similar line of
human progress from savagery to civilization. There are reasons for
concluding that the remote ancestors of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian
families possessed a system identical with the Malayan when in the
savage state, which was finally modified into the Turanian after
the establishment of the gentile organization, and then overthrown
when the monogamian family appeared, introducing the Aryan system of
consanguinity.
Notwithstanding the high character of the evidence given, there is
still other evidence of the ancient existence of the consanguine family
among the Hawaiians which should not be overlooked.
Its antecedent existence is rendered probable by the condition of
society in the Sandwich Islands when it first became thoroughly known.
At the time the American missions were established upon these Islands
(1820), a state of society was found which appalled the missionaries.
The relations of the sexes and their marriage customs excited their
chief astonishment. They were suddenly introduced to a phase of
ancient society where the monogamian family was unknown, where the
syndyasmian family was unknown; but in the place of these, and without
understanding the organism, they found the punaluan family, with own
brothers and sisters not entirely excluded, in which the males were
living in polygyny, and the females in polyandry. It seemed to them
that they had discovered the lowest level of human degradation, not to
say of depravity. But the innocent Hawaiians, who had not been able to
advance themselves out of savagery, were living, no doubt respectably
and modestly for savages, under customs and usages which to them had
the force of laws. It is probable that they were living as virtuously
in their faithful observance, as these excellent missionaries were in
the performance of their own. The shock the latter experienced from
their discoveries expresses the profoundness of the expanse which
separates civilized from savage man. The high moral sense and refined
sensibilities, which had been a growth of the ages, were brought face
to face with the feeble moral sense and the coarse sensibilities of a
savage man of all these periods ago. As a contrast it was total and
complete. The Rev. Hiram Bingham, one of these veteran missionaries,
has given us an excellent history of the Sandwich Islands, founded upon
original investigations, in which he pictures the people as practicing
the sum of human abominations. “Polygamy, implying plurality of
husbands and wives,” he observes, “fornication, adultery, incest,
infant murder, desertion of husband and wives, parents and children;
sorcery, covetousness, and oppression extensively prevailed, and
seem hardly to have been forbidden by their religion.”[457] Punaluan
marriage and the punaluan family dispose of the principal charges in
this grave indictment, and leave the Hawaiians a chance at a moral
character. The existence of morality, even among savages, must be
recognized, although low in type; for there never could have been a
time in human experience when the principle of morality did not exist.
Wakea, the eponymous ancestor of the Hawaiians, according to Mr.
Bingham, is said to have married his eldest daughter. In the time of
these missionaries brothers and sisters married without reproach. “The
union of brother and sister in the highest ranks,” he further remarks,
“became fashionable, and continued until the revealed will of God was
made known to them.”[458] It is not singular that the intermarriage of
brothers and sisters should have survived from the consanguine family
into the punaluan in some cases, in the Sandwich Islands, because the
people had not attained to the gentile organization, and because the
punaluan family was a growth out of the consanguine not yet entirely
consummated. Although the family was substantially punaluan, the system
of consanguinity remained unchanged, as it came in with the consanguine
family, with the exception of certain marriage relationships.
It is not probable that the actual family, among the Hawaiians, was as
large as the group united in the marriage relation. Necessity would
compel its subdivision into smaller groups for the procurement of
subsistence, and for mutual protection; but each smaller family would
be a miniature of the group. It is not improbable that individuals
passed at pleasure from one of these subdivisions into another in the
punaluan as well as consanguine family, giving rise to that apparent
desertion by husbands and wives of each other, and by parents of their
children, mentioned by Mr. Bingham. Communism in living must, of
necessity, have prevailed both in the consanguine and in the punaluan
family, because it was a requirement of their condition. It still
prevails generally among savage and barbarous tribes.
A brief reference should be made to the “Nine Grades of Relations of
the Chinese.” An ancient Chinese author remarks as follows: “All men
born into the world have nine ranks of relations. My own generation
is one grade, my father’s is one, that of my grandfather’s is one,
that of my grandfather’s father is one, and that of my grandfather’s
grandfather is one; thus, above me are four grades: My son’s generation
is one, that of my grandson’s is one, that of my grandson’s son is
one, and that of my grandson’s grandson is one; thus, below me are
four grades; including myself in the estimate, there are, in all nine
grades. These are brethren, and although each grade belongs to a
different house or family, yet they are all my relations, and these are
the nine grades of relations.”
“The degrees of kindred in a family are like the streamlets of a
fountain, or the branches of a tree; although the streams differ in
being more or less remote, and the branches in being more or less near,
yet there is but one trunk and one fountain head.”[459]
The Hawaiian system of consanguinity realizes the nine grades of
relations (conceiving them reduced to five by striking off the two
upper and the two lower members) more perfectly than that of the
Chinese at the present time.[460] While the latter has changed through
the introduction of Turanian elements, and still more through special
additions to distinguish the several collateral lines, the former has
held, pure and simple, to the primary grades which presumptively were
all the Chinese possessed originally. It is evident that consanguinei,
in the Chinese as in the Hawaiian, are generalized into categories
by generations; all collaterals of the same grade being brothers and
sisters to each other. Moreover, marriage and the family are conceived
as forming within the grade, and confined, so far as husbands and
wives are concerned, within its limits. As explained by the Hawaiian
categories it is perfectly intelligible. At the same time it indicates
an anterior condition among the remote ancestors of the Chinese, of
which this fragment preserves a knowledge, precisely analogous to that
reflected by the Hawaiian. In other words, it indicated the presence
of the punaluan family when these grades were formed, of which the
consanguine was a necessary predecessor.
In the “Timæus” of Plato there is a suggestive recognition of the
same five primary grades of relations. All consanguinei in the Ideal
Republic were to fall into five categories, in which the women were
to be in common as wives, and the children in common as to parents.
“But how about the procreation of children?” Socrates says to Timæus.
“This, perhaps, you easily remember, on account of the novelty of the
proposal; for we ordered that marriage unions and children should be in
common to all persons whatsoever, special care being taken also that no
one should be able to distinguish his own children individually, but
all consider all their kindred; regarding those of an equal age, and in
the prime of life, as their brothers and sisters, those prior to them,
and yet further back as their parents and grandsires, and those below
them, as their children and grandchildren.”[461] Plato undoubtedly
was familiar with Hellenic and Pelasgian traditions not known to us,
which reached far back into the period of barbarism, and revealed
traces of a still earlier condition of the Grecian tribes. His ideal
family may have been derived from these delineations, a supposition
far more probable than that it was a philosophical deduction. It will
be noticed that his five grades of relations are precisely the same
as the Hawaiian; that the family was to form in each grade where the
relationship was that of brothers and sisters; and that husbands and
wives were to be in common in the group.