the consanguine family points with logical directness to an anterior
condition of promiscuous intercourse. There seems to be no escape
from this conclusion, although questioned by so eminent a writer as
Mr. Darwin.[462] It is not probable that promiscuity in the primitive
period was long continued even in the horde; because the latter would
break up into smaller groups for subsistence, and fall into consanguine
families. The most that can safely be claimed upon this difficult
question is, that the consanguine family was the first organized
form of society, and that it was necessarily an improvement upon the
previous unorganized state, whatever that state may have been. It found
mankind at the bottom of the scale, from which, as a starting point,
and the lowest known, we may take up the history of human progress, and
trace it through the growth of domestic institutions, inventions, and
discoveries, from savagery to civilization. By no chain of events can
it be shown more conspicuously than in the growth of the idea of the
family through successive forms. With the existence of the consanguine
family established, of which the proofs adduced seem to be sufficient,
the remaining families are easily demonstrated.
_System of Relationship of the Hawaiians and Rotumans._
_Vowel Sounds._—a, as in ale; ă, as in at; ä, as in father; ǐ, as in
it; ŭ, as oo in food; kä′-na = male; wä-hee′-na = female.
_ms_ = Male speaking _fs_ = Female speaking
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————————————————+———————————————————————————————————————————————
│ By Hon. Thomas Miller. │ By Rev. John Osborne.
Description of Persons. │ Relationship in Hawaiian. Translation. │ Relationship in Translation.
│ │ Rotuman.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————————————————+———————————————————————————————————————————————
1 My great-grandfather │ kŭ-pŭ′-na My grandparent │ mä-pǐ-ga fä My grandparent, male
2 ” ” grandfather’s brother │ ” ” ” │ ” ” ” ” ”
3 ” ” ” sister │ ” ” ” │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
4 ” ” grandmother │ ” ” ” │ ” ” ” ” ”
5 ” ” grandmother’s sister │ ” ” ” │ ” ” ” ” ”
6 ” grandfather │ ” ” ” │ ” fä ” ” male
7 ” grandmother │ ” ” ” │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
8 ” father │ mä-kŭ′-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” father
9 ” mother │ mä-kŭ-ă wä-hee′-na ” parent, female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” mother
10 ” son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
11 ” daughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
12 ” grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kă′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
13 ” granddaughter │ moo-pŭ′-nă wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
14 ” great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
15 ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
16 ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
17 ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
18 ” older brother (_ms_) │ käi-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother, older
19 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-kŭ-nä′-na ” ” ” │ sag′-ve-ven′-ǐ ” ” ”
20 ” ” sister (_ms_) │ käi-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister, ”
21 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” ” ” │ sa-sǐ-gǐ ” ” ”
22 ” younger brother (_ms_) │ käi-ka-i′-na ” brother, younger │ sa-sǐ-gǐ ” brother, younger
23 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-kŭ-nä′-na ” ” ” │ sag′-ve-ven′-ǐ ” ” ”
24 ” ” sister (_ms_) │ käi-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister ”
25 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-ka-i′-na ” ” ” │ sa-sǐ-gǐ ” ” ”
26 ” brother’s son (_ms_) │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
27 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” son-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
28 ” ” daughter ” │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e-hon′-ǐ ” ” ”
29 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male
30 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
31 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
32 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
33 ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
34 ” sister’s son ” │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
35 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
36 ” ” daughter ” │ käi-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e-hon′-ǐ ” ” ”
37 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male
38 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
39 My sister’s granddaughter (_ms_) │ moo-pŭ′-nă wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ mä-pǐ-ga hon′-ǐ ” ” female
40 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
41 ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
42 ” brother’s son (_fs_) │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
43 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
44 ” ” daughter ” │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” ”
45 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male
46 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
47 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
48 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
49 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
50 ” sister’s son ” │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
51 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
52 ” ” daughter ” │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” ”
53 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-na ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male
54 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
55 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
56 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
57 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
58 ” father’s brother │ mä-kŭ′-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male
59 ” ” brother’s wife │ mä-kŭ′-a wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female
60 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
61 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i-na ” ” younger │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” ”
62 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
63 ” ” ” daughter, (_older, ms_) │ käi′-ku-wä-hee′-na ” sister │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” ”
64 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” ” │ ” ” ”
65 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ käi′-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
66 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
67 ” ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
68 ” ” ” daughter’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” ” male │ le′-e fä ” ” male
69 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
70 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
71 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
72 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
73 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
74 ” father’s sister │ mä-kŭ′-ă wä-hee′-na ” parent, female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” parent, female
75 ” ” sister’s husband │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ oi-fä ” ” male
76 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
77 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i-na ” ” younger │ ” ” ”
78 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
79 ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kŭ wä-hee′-na ” sister │ ” ” ”
80 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ kai-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
81 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
82 My father’s sister’s son’s daughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
83 ” ” ” daughter’s son │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
84 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
85 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
86 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
87 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
88 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
89 ” mother’s brother │ mä-kŭ-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male
90 ” ” brother’s wife │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female
91 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
92 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i′-na ” ” younger │ ” ” ”
93 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
94 ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister │ ” ” ”
95 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ käi′-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
96 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
97 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
98 ” ” ” daughter’s son │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
99 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
100 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
101 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
102 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
103 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
104 ” mother’s sister │ mä-kŭ-ă wä-hee′-na ” parent, female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” parent, female
105 ” ” sister’s husband │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ oi-fä ” ” male
106 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-ku-ä-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
107 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i-na ” ” younger │ ” ” ”
108 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
109 ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kŭ wä-hee′-na ” sister │ ” ” ”
110 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ käi′-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
111 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
112 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
113 ” ” ” daughters son │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
114 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
115 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
116 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
117 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male
118 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
119 ” father’s father’s brother │ kŭ-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandparent, male │ ” fä ” grandparent, male
120 ” ” ” brother’s son │ mä-kŭ′-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male
121 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female
122 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
123 ” ” ” ” granddaughter ( ” ) │ käi′-kŭ wä-hee′-na ” sister, elder │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
124 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
125 My father’s father’s brother’s great-granddaughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
126 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
127 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter│ ” wä-hee′na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
128 ” father’s father’s sister │ kŭ-pŭ′-nă wä-hee′-na ” grandparent female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” grandparent, female
129 ” ” ” sister’s son │ mä-kŭ-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male
130 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female
131 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
132 ” ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
133 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
134 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
135 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nä kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
136 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
137 ” mother’s mother’s brother │ kŭ-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandparent, male │ ” fä ” grandparent, male
138 ” ” ” brother’s son │ mä-kă-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male
139 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female
140 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older_) │ käi-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
141 ” ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
142 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
143 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e honi-ǐ ” ” female
144 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
145 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter│ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female
146 ” mother’s mother’s sister │ kŭ-pŭ-nă wä-hee-na ” grandparent, male │ ” hon′-ǐ ” grandparent, male
147 ” ” ” sister’s son │ mä-kŭ-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male
148 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female
149 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-ă-ä-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother
150 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister
151 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee-kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
152 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
153 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male
154 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ mä-pǐ-ga hon′-ǐ ” ” female
155 ” husband │ kä′-na ” husband │ ve-ven′-ǐ ” husband
156 ” wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ hoi-e-nä, and hen ” wife
157 ” husband’s father │ mä-kŭ′-ă-hŭ-nä-ai ” father-in-law │ oi-fä ” father
158 ” ” mother │ ” ” mother-in-law │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” mother
159 ” wife’s father │ ” ” father-in-law │ oi-fä ” father
160 ” ” mother │ ” ” mother-in-law │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” mother
161 ” son-in-law │ hŭ-no′-nă kä′-na ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” child, male
162 ” daughter-in-law │ ” wä-hee′-na ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
163 ” brother-in-law (_husband’s brother_) │ kä′-na ” husband │ hom-fu′-e ” brother-in-law
164 ” ” ” ” (_sister’s husband, fs_) │ ” ” ” │ me-i ” ” ” ”
165 ” ” ” ” (_wife’s sister’s husband_) │ pŭ-na-lŭ-ä ” intimate companion │
166 ” ” ” ” (_wife’s brother_) │ käi-ko-a′-kä ” brother-in-law │ me-i ” ” ” ”
167 ” sister-in-law (_wife’s sister_) │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ hom-fu′-e ” sister-in-law
168 My sister-in-law (_husband’s sister_) │ käi-ko-a′-kä ” sister-in-law │ me-i ” ” ” ”
169 ” ” ” ” (_brother’s wife_) │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ hom-fu′-e ” ” ” ”
170 ” ” ” ” ( ” ” _fs_) │ käi-ko-a′-kä ” sister-in-law │ ” ” ” ” ”
171 ” ” ” ” (_husband’s brother’s wife_) │ pŭ-na-lŭ-ä ” intimate companion │
172 ” ” ” ” (_wife’s brother’s wife_) │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │
173 ” step-father │ mä-kŭ′-a kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male
174 ” ” mother │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female
175 ” ” son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male
176 ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female
CHAPTER III.
THE PUNALUAN FAMILY.
THE PUNALUAN FAMILY SUPERVENED UPON THE
CONSANGUINE.—TRANSITION, HOW PRODUCED.—HAWAIIAN CUSTOM OF
PUNALUA.—ITS PROBABLE ANCIENT PREVALENCE OVER WIDE AREAS.—THE
GENTES ORIGINATED PROBABLY IN PUNALUAN GROUPS.—THE TURANIAN
SYSTEM OF CONSANGUINITY.—CREATED BY THE PUNALUAN FAMILY.—IT
PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THIS FAMILY WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS
FORMED.—DETAILS OF SYSTEM.—EXPLANATION OF ITS RELATIONSHIPS
IN THEIR ORIGIN.—TABLE OF TURANIAN AND GANOWÁNIAN SYSTEMS OF
CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY.
The Punaluan family has existed in Europe, Asia, and America within the
historical period, and in Polynesia within the present century. With a
wide prevalence in the tribes of mankind in the Status of Savagery, it
remained in some instances among tribes who had advanced into the Lower
Status of barbarism, and in one case, that of the Britons, among tribes
who had attained the Middle Status.
In the course of human progress it followed the consanguine family,
upon which it supervened, and of which it was a modification. The
transition from one into the other was produced by the gradual
exclusion of own brothers and sisters from the marriage relation, the
evils of which could not forever escape human observation. It may be
impossible to recover the events which led to deliverance; but we are
not without some evidence tending to show how it occurred. Although
the facts from which these conclusions are drawn are of a dreary and
forbidding character, they will not surrender the knowledge they
contain without a patient as well as careful examination.
Given the consanguine family, which involved own brothers and sisters
and also collateral brothers and sisters in the marriage relation, and
it was only necessary to exclude the former from the group, and retain
the latter, to change the consanguine into the punaluan family. To
effect the exclusion of the one class and the retention of the other
was a difficult process, because it involved a radical change in the
composition of the family, not to say in the ancient plan of domestic
life. It also required the surrender of a privilege which savages would
be slow to make. Commencing, it may be supposed, in isolated cases, and
with a slow recognition of its advantages, it remained an experiment
through immense expanses of time; introduced partially at first, then
becoming general, and finally universal among the advancing tribes,
still in savagery, among whom the movement originated. It affords
a good illustration of the operation of the principle of natural
selection.
The significance of the Australian class system presents itself anew
in this connection. It is evident from the manner in which the classes
were formed, and from the rule with respect to marriage and descents,
that their primary object was to exclude own brothers and sisters
from the marriage relation, while the collateral brothers and sisters
were retained in that relation. The former object is impressed upon
the classes by an external law; but the latter, which is not apparent
on the face of the organization, is made evident by tracing their
descents.[463] It is thus found that first, second, and more remote
cousins, who are collateral brothers and sisters under their system of
consanguinity, are brought perpetually back into the marriage relation,
while own brothers and sisters are excluded. The number of persons
in the Australian punaluan group is greater than in the Hawaiian,
and its composition is slightly different; but the remarkable fact
remains in both cases, that the brotherhood of the husbands formed the
basis of the marriage relation in one group, and the sisterhood of
the wives the basis in the other. This difference, however, existed
with respect to the Hawaiians, that it does not appear as yet that
there were any classes among them between whom marriages must occur.
Since the Australian classes gave birth to the punaluan group, which
contained the germ of the gens, it suggests the probability that this
organization into classes upon sex once prevailed among all the tribes
of mankind who afterwards fell under the gentile organization. It would
not be surprising if the Hawaiians, at some anterior period, were
organized in such classes.
Remarkable as it may seem, three of the most important and most
wide-spread institutions of mankind, namely, the punaluan family, the
organization into gentes, and the Turanian system of consanguinity,
root themselves in an anterior organization analogous to the punaluan
group, in which the germ of each is found. Some evidence of the truth
of this proposition will appear in the discussion of this family.
As punaluan marriage gave the punaluan family, the latter would give
the Turanian system of consanguinity, as soon as the existing system
was reformed so as to express the relationships as they actually
existed in this family. But something more than the punaluan group was
needed to produce this result, namely, the organization into gentes,
which permanently excluded brothers and sisters from the marriage
relation by an organic law, who before that, must have been frequently
involved in that relation. When this exclusion was made complete it
would work a change in all these relationships which depended upon
these marriages; and when the system of consanguinity was made to
conform to the new state of these relationships, the Turanian system
would supervene upon the Malayan. The Hawaiians had the punaluan
family, but neither the organization into gentes nor the Turanian
system of consanguinity. Their retention of the old system of the
consanguine family leads to a suspicion, confirmed by the statements of
Mr. Bingham, that own brothers and sisters were frequently involved in
the punaluan group, thus rendering a reformation of the old system of
consanguinity impossible. Whether the punaluan group of the Hawaiian
type can claim an equal antiquity with the Australian classes is
questionable, since the latter is more archaic than any other known
constitution of society. But the existence of a punaluan group of one
or the other type was essential to the birth of the gentes, as the
latter were essential to the production of the Turanian system of
consanguinity. The three institutions will be considered separately.
I. _The Punaluan Family._
In rare instances a custom has been discovered in a concrete form
usable as a key to unlock some of the mysteries of ancient society,
and explain what before could only be understood imperfectly. Such a
custom is the _Pŭnalŭa_ of the Hawaiians. In 1860 Judge Lorin Andrews,
of Honolulu, in a letter accompanying a schedule of the Hawaiian
system of consanguinity, commented upon one of the Hawaiian terms of
relationship as follows: “The relationship of _pŭnalŭa_ is rather
amphibious. It arose from the fact that two or more brothers with their
wives, or two or more sisters with their husbands, were inclined to
possess each other in common; but the modern use of the word is that
of _dear friend_, or _intimate companion_.” That which Judge Andrews
says they were inclined to do, and which may then have been a declining
practice, their system of consanguinity proves to have been once
universal among them. The Rev. Artemus Bishop, lately deceased, one
of the oldest missionaries in these Islands, sent to the author the
same year, with a similar schedule, the following statement upon the
same subject: “This confusion of relationships is the result of the
ancient custom among relatives of the living together of husbands and
wives in common.” In a previous chapter the remark of Mr. Bingham was
quoted that the polygamy of which he was writing, “implied a plurality
of husbands and wives.” The same fact is reiterated by Dr. Bartlett:
“The natives had hardly more modesty or shame than so many animals.
Husbands had many wives, and wives many husbands, and exchanged with
each other at pleasure.”[464] The form of marriage which they found
created a punaluan group, in which the husbands and wives were jointly
intermarried in the group. Each of these groups, including the children
of the marriages, was a punaluan family; for one consisted of several
brothers and their wives, and the other of several sisters with their
husbands.
If we now turn to the Hawaiian system of consanguinity, in the Table,
it will be found that a man calls his wife’s sister his wife. All
the sisters of his wife, own as well as collateral, are also his
wives. But the husband of his wife’s sister he calls _pŭnalŭa_, i.
e., _his intimate companion_; and all the husbands of the several
sisters of his wife the same. They were jointly intermarried in the
group. These husbands were not, probably, brothers; if they were, the
blood relationship would naturally have prevailed over the affineal;
but their wives were sisters, own and collateral. In this case the
sisterhood of the wives was the basis upon which the group was
formed, and their husbands stood to each other in the relationship of
_pŭnalŭa_. In the other group, which rests upon the brotherhood of
the husbands, a woman calls her husband’s brother her husband. All
the brothers of her husband, own as well as collateral, were also her
husbands. But the wife of her husband’s brother she calls _pŭnalŭa_,
and the several wives of her husband’s brothers stand to her in the
relationship of _pŭnalŭa_. These wives were not, probably, sisters
of each other, for the reason stated in the other case, although
exceptions doubtless existed under both branches of the custom. All
these wives stood to each other in the relationship of _pŭnalŭa_.
It is evident that the punaluan family was formed out of the
consanguine. Brothers ceased to marry their own sisters; and after the
gentile organization had worked upon society its complete results,
their collateral sisters as well. But in the interval they shared their
remaining wives in common. In like manner, sisters ceased marrying
their own brothers, and after a long period of time, their collateral
brothers; but they shared their remaining husbands in common. The
advancement of society out of the consanguine into the punaluan family
was the inception of a great upward movement, preparing the way for
the gentile organization which gradually conducted to the syndyasmian
family, and ultimately to the monogamian.
Another remarkable fact with respect to the custom of punalua, is
the necessity which exists for its ancient prevalence among the
ancestors of the Turanian and Ganowánian families when their system
of consanguinity was formed. The reason is simple and conclusive.
Marriages in punaluan groups explain the relationships in the system.
Presumptively they are those which actually existed when this system
was formed. The existence of the system, therefore, requires the
antecedent prevalence of punaluan marriage, and of the punaluan family.
Advancing to the civilized nations, there seems to have been an equal
necessity for the ancient existence of punaluan groups among the remote
ancestors of all such as possessed the gentile organization—Greeks,
Romans, Germans, Celts, Hebrews—for it is reasonably certain that all
the families of mankind who rose under the gentile organization to the
practice of monogamy possessed, in prior times, the Turanian system of
consanguinity which sprang from the punaluan group. It will be found
that the great movement, which commenced in the formation of this
group, was, in the main, consummated through the organization into
gentes, and that the latter was generally accompanied, prior to the
rise of monogamy, by the Turanian system of consanguinity.
Traces of the punaluan custom remained, here and there, down to the
Middle Period of barbarism, in exceptional cases, in European, Asiatic,
and American tribes. The most remarkable illustration is given by Cæsar
in stating the marriage customs of the ancient Britons. He observes
that, “by tens and by twelves, husbands possessed their wives in
common; and especially brothers with brothers and parents with their
children.”[465]
This passage reveals a custom of intermarriage in the group which
_pŭnalŭa_ explains. Barbarian mothers would not be expected to show
ten and twelve sons, as a rule, or even in exceptional cases; but
under the Turanian system of consanguinity, which we are justified in
supposing the Britons to have possessed, large groups of brothers are
always found, because male cousins, near and remote, fall into this
category with _Ego_. Several brothers among the Britons, according to
Cæsar, possessed their wives in common. Here we find one branch of the
punaluan custom, pure and simple. The correlative group which this
presupposes, where several sisters shared their husbands in common,
is not suggested directly by Cæsar; but it probably existed as the
complement of the first. Something beyond the first he noticed, namely,
that parents, with their children, shared their wives in common. It
is not unlikely that these wives were sisters. Whether or not Cæsar
by this expression referred to the other group, it serves to mark
the extent to which plural marriages in the group existed among the
Britons; and which was the striking fact that arrested the attention
of this distinguished observer. Where several brothers were married to
each other’s wives, these wives were married to each other’s husbands.
Herodotus, speaking of the Massagetæ, who were in the Middle Status
of barbarism, remarks that every man had one wife, yet all the wives
were common.[466] It may be implied from this statement that the
syndyasmian family had begun to supervene upon the punaluan. Each
husband paired with one wife, who thus became his principal wife, but
within the limits of the group husbands and wives continued in common.
If Herodotus intended to intimate a state of promiscuity, it probably
did not exist. The Massagetæ, although ignorant of iron, possessed
flocks and herds, fought on horseback armed with battle-axes of copper
and with copper-pointed spears, and manufactured and used the wagon
(ἅμαξα). It is not supposable that a people living in promiscuity
could have attained such a degree of advancement. He also remarks
of the Agathyrsi, who were in the same status probably, that they
had their wives in common that they might all be brothers, and, as
members of a common family, neither envy nor hate one another.[467]
Punaluan marriage in the group affords a more rational and satisfactory
explanation of these, and similar usages in other tribes mentioned by
Herodotus, than polygamy or general promiscuity. His accounts are too
meager to illustrate the actual state of society among them.
Traces of the punaluan custom were noticed in some of the least
advanced tribes of the South American aborigines; but the particulars
are not fully given. Thus, the first navigators who visited the coast
tribes of Venezuela found a state of society which suggests for its
explanation punaluan groups. “They observe no law or rule in matrimony,
but took as many wives as they would, and they as many husbands,
quitting one another at pleasure, without reckoning any wrong done
on either part. There was no such thing as jealousy among them, all
living as best pleased them, without taking offence at one another....
The houses they dwelt in were common to all, and so spacious that they
contained one hundred and sixty persons, strongly built, though covered
with palm-tree leaves, and shaped like a bell.”[468] These tribes used
earthen vessels and were therefore in the Lower Status of barbarism;
but from this account were but slightly removed from savagery. In this
case, and in those mentioned by Herodotus, the observations upon which
the statements were made were superficial. It shows, at least, a low
condition of the family and of the marriage relation.
When North America was discovered in its several parts, the punaluan
family seems to have entirely disappeared. No tradition remained
among them, so far as I am aware, of the ancient prevalence of the
punaluan custom. The family generally had passed out of the punaluan
into the syndyasmian form; but it was environed with the remains of an
ancient conjugal system which points backward to punaluan groups. One
custom may be cited of unmistakable punaluan origin, which is still
recognized in at least forty North American Indian tribes. Where a man
married the eldest daughter of a family he became entitled by custom
to all her sisters as wives when they attained the marriageable age.
It was a right seldom enforced, from the difficulty, on the part of
the individual, of maintaining several families, although polygamy was
recognized universally as a privilege of the males. We find in this
the remains of the custom of punalua among their remote ancestors.
Undoubtedly there was a time among them when own sisters went into the
marriage relation on the basis of their sisterhood; the husband of one
being the husband of all, but not the only husband, for other males
were joint husbands with him in the group. After the punaluan family
become the husband of all her sisters if he chose to claim it. It may
with reason be regarded as a genuine survival of the ancient punaluan
custom.
Other traces of this family among the tribes of mankind might be cited
from historical works, tending to show not only its ancient existence,
but its wide prevalence as well. It is unnecessary, however, to extend
these citations, because the antecedent existence of the punaluan
family among the ancestors of all the tribes who possess, or did
possess, the Turanian system of consanguinity can be deduced from the
system itself.
II. _Origin of the Organisation into Gentes._
It has before been suggested that the time when this institution
originated, was the period of savagery, firstly, because it is found in
complete development in the Lower Status of barbarism; and secondly,
because it is found in partial development in the Status of savagery.
Moreover, the germ of the gens is found as plainly in the Australian
classes as in the Hawaiian punaluan group. The gentes are also found
among the Australians, based upon the classes, with the apparent manner
of their organization out of them. Such a remarkable institution as the
gens would not be expected to spring into existence complete, or to
grow out of nothing, that is, without a foundation previously formed
by natural growth. Its birth must be sought in pre-existing elements
of society, and its maturity would be expected to occur long after its
origination.
Two of the fundamental rules of the gens in its archaic form are found
in the Australian classes, namely, the prohibition of intermarriage
between brothers and sisters, and descent in the female line. The last
fact is made entirely evident when the gens appeared, for the children
are then found in the gens of their mothers. The natural adaptation
of the classes to give birth to the gens is sufficiently obvious to
suggest the probability that it actually so occurred. Moreover, this
probability is strengthened by the fact that the gens is here found in
connection with an antecedent and more archaic organization, which was
still the unit of a social system, a place belonging of right to the
gens.
Turning now to the Hawaiian punaluan group, the same elements are
found containing the germ of the gens. It is confined, however, to the
female branch of the custom, where several sisters, own and collateral,
shared their husbands in common. These sisters, with their children
and descendants through females, furnish the exact membership of a
gens of the archaic type. Descent would necessarily be traced through
females, because the paternity of children was not ascertainable with
certainty. As soon as this special form of marriage in the group
became an established institution, the foundation for a gens existed.
It then required an exercise of intelligence to turn this natural
punaluan group into an organization, restricted to these mothers,
their children, and descendants in the female line. The Hawaiians,
although this group existed among them, did not rise to the conception
of a gens. But to precisely such a group as this, resting upon the
sisterhood of the mothers, or to the similar Australian group, resting
upon the same principle of union, the origin of the gens must be
ascribed. It took this group as it found it, and organized certain of
its members, with certain of their posterity, into a gens on the basis
of kin.
To explain the exact manner in which the gens originated is, of course,
impossible. The facts and circumstances belong to a remote antiquity.
But the gens may be traced back to a condition of ancient society
calculated to bring it into existence. This is all I have attempted
to do. It belongs in its origin to a low stage of human development,
and to a very ancient condition of society; though later in time than
the first appearance of the punaluan family. It is quite evident that
it sprang up in this family, which consisted of a group of persons
coincident substantially with the membership of a gens.
The influence of the gentile organization upon ancient society was
conservative and elevating. After it had become fully developed and
expanded over large areas, and after time enough had elapsed to work
its full influence upon society, wives became scarce in place of
their former abundance, because it tended to contract the size of the
punaluan group, and finally to overthrow it. The syndyasmian family was
gradually produced within the punaluan, after the gentile organization
became predominant over ancient society. The intermediate stages of
progress are not well ascertained; but, given the punaluan family in
the Status of savagery, and the syndyasmian family in the Lower Status
of barbarism, and the fact of progress from one into the other may
be deduced with reasonable certainty. It was after the latter family
began to appear, and punaluan groups to disappear, that wives came to
be sought by purchase and by capture. Without discussing the evidence
still accessible, it is a plain inference that the gentile organization
was the efficient cause of the final overthrow of the punaluan family,
and of the gradual reduction of the stupendous conjugal system of the
period of savagery. While it originated in the punaluan group, as we
must suppose, it nevertheless carried society beyond and above its
plane.
III. _The Turanian or Ganowánian System of Consanguinity._
This system and the gentile organization, when in its archaic form,
are usually found together. They are not mutually dependent; but they
probably appeared not far apart in the order of human progress. But
systems of consanguinity and the several forms of the family stand in
direct relations. The family represents an active principle. It is
never stationary, but advances from a lower to a higher form as society
advances from a lower to a higher condition, and finally passes out of
one form into another of higher grade. Systems of consanguinity, on the
contrary, are passive; recording the progress made by the family at
long intervals apart, and only changing radically when the family has
radically changed.
The Turanian system could not have been formed unless punaluan marriage
and the punaluan family had existed at the time. In a society wherein
by general usage several sisters were married in a group to each
other’s husbands, and several brothers in a group to each other’s
wives, the conditions were present for the creation of the Turanian
system. Any system formed to express the actual relationships as they
existed in such a family would, of necessity, be the Turanian; and
would, of itself, demonstrate the existence of such a family when it
was formed.
It is now proposed to take up this remarkable system as it still exists
in the Turanian and Ganowánian families, and offer it in evidence
to prove the existence of the punaluan family at the time it was
established. It has come down to the present time on two continents
after the marriage customs in which it originated had disappeared, and
after the family had passed out of the punaluan into the syndyasmian
form.
In order to appreciate the evidence it will be necessary to examine
the details of the system. That of the Seneca-Iroquois will be used as
typical on the part of the Ganowánian tribes of America, and that of
the Tamil people of South India on the part of the Turanian tribes of
Asia. These forms, which are substantially identical through upwards
of two hundred relationships of the same person, will be found in
a Table at the end of this chapter. In a previous work[469] I have
presented in full the system of consanguinity of some seventy American
Indian tribes; and among Asiatic tribes and nations that of the Tamil,
Telugu, and Canarese people of South India, among all of whom the
system, as given in the Table, is now in practical daily use. There are
diversities in the systems of the different tribes and nations, but the
radical features are constant. All alike salute by kin, but with this
difference, that among the Tamil people where the person addressed is
younger than the speaker, the term of relationship must be used; but
when older the option is given to salute by kin or by the personal
name. On the contrary, among the American aborigines, the address
must always be by the term of relationship. They use the system in
addresses because it is a system of consanguinity and affinity. It was
also the means by which each individual in the ancient gentes was able
to trace his connection with every member of his gens until monogamy
broke up the Turanian system. It will be found, in many cases, that the
relationship of the same person to _Ego_ is different as the sex of
_Ego_ is changed. For this reason it was found necessary to state the
question twice, once with a male speaking, and again with a female.
Notwithstanding the diversities it created, the system is logical
throughout. To exhibit its character, it will be necessary to pass
through the several lines as was done in the Malayan system. The
Seneca-Iroquois will be used.
The relationships of grandfather (_Hoc′-sote_), and grandmother
(_Oc′-sote_), and of grandson (_Ha-yä′-da_), and granddaughter
(_Ka-yä′-da_), are the most remote recognized either in the ascending
or descending series. Ancestors and descendants above and below these,
fall into the same categories respectively.
The relationships of brother and sister are conceived in the twofold
form of elder and younger, and not in the abstract; and there are
special terms for each, as follow:
Elder Brother, _Ha′-je_. Elder Sister, _Ah′-jē_.
Younger Brother, _Ha′-gă_. Younger Sister, _Ka′-gă_.
These terms are used by the males and females, and are applied to
all such brothers or sisters as are older or younger than the person
speaking. In Tamil there are two sets of terms for these relationships,
but they are now used indiscriminately by both sexes.
First Collateral Line. With myself a male, and speaking as a Seneca,
my brother’s son and daughter are my son and daughter (_Ha-ah′-wuk_,
and _Ka-ah′-wuk_), each of them calling me father (_Hä′-nih_). This
is the first indicative feature of the system. It places my brother’s
children in the same category with my own. They are my children as well
as his. My brother’s grandchildren are my grandsons and granddaughters
(_Ha-yä′-da_, and _Ka-yä′-da_, singular), each of them calling me
grandfather (_Hoc′-sote_). The relationships here given are those
recognized and applied; none others are known.
Certain relationships will be distinguished as indicative. They usually
control those that precede and follow. When they agree in the systems
of different tribes, and even of different families of mankind, as in
the Turanian and Ganowánian, they establish their fundamental identity.
In the female branch of this line, myself still a male, my sister’s
son and daughter are my nephew and niece (_Ha-yă′-wan-da_, and
_Ka-yă′-wan-da_), each of them calling me uncle (_Hoc-no′-seh_). This
is a second indicative feature. It restricts the relationships of
nephew and niece to the children of a man’s sisters, own or collateral.
The children of this nephew and niece are my grandchildren as before,
each of them applying to me the proper correlative.
With myself a female, a part of these relationships are reversed. My
brother’s son and daughter are my nephew and niece (_Ha-soh′-neh_, and
_Ka-soh′-neh_), each of them calling me aunt (_Ah-ga′-huc_). It will
be noticed that the terms for nephew and niece used by the males are
different from those used by the females. The children of these nephews
and nieces are my grandchildren. In the female branch, my sister’s son
and daughter are my son and daughter, each of them calling me mother
(_Noh-yeh′_), and their children are my grandchildren, each of them
calling me grandmother (_Oc′-sote_).
The wives of these sons and nephews are my daughters-in-law (_Ka′-sä_),
and the husbands of these daughters and nieces are my sons-in-law
(_Oc-na′-hose_, each term singular), and they apply to me the proper
correlative.
Second Collateral Line. In the male branch of this line, on the
father’s side, and irrespective of the sex of _Ego_, my father’s
brother is my father, and calls me his son or daughter as I am a male
or a female. Third indicative feature. All the brothers of a father are
placed in the relation of fathers. His son and daughter are my brother
and sister, elder or younger, and I apply to them the same terms I use
to designate own brothers and sisters. Fourth indicative feature. It
places the children of brothers in the relationship of brothers and
sisters. The children of these brothers, myself a male, are my sons
and daughters, and their children are my grandchildren; whilst the
children of these sisters are my nephews and nieces, and the children
of the latter are my grandchildren. But with myself a female the
children of these brothers are my nephews and nieces, the children of
these sisters are my sons and daughters, and their children, alike are
my grandchildren. It is thus seen that the classification in the first
collateral line is carried into the second, as it is into the third and
more remote as far as consanguinei can be traced.
My father’s sister is my aunt, and calls me her nephew if I am a male.
Fifth indicative feature. The relationship of aunt is restricted to
the sisters of my father, and to the sisters of such other persons
as stand to me in the relation of a father, to the exclusion of the
sisters of my mother. My father’s sister’s children are my cousins
(_Ah-gare′-seh_, singular), each of them calling me cousin. With myself
a male, the children of my male cousins are my sons and daughters,
and of my female cousins are my nephews and nieces; but with myself a
female these last relationships are reversed. All the children of the
latter are my grandchildren.
On the mother’s side, myself a male, my mother’s brother is my uncle,
and calls me his nephew. Sixth indicative feature. The relationship of
uncle is restricted to the brothers of my mother, own and collateral,
to the exclusion of my father’s brothers. His children are my cousins,
the children of my male cousins are my sons and daughters, of my female
cousins are my nephews and nieces; but with myself a female these
last relationships are reversed, the children of all alike are my
grandchildren.
In the female branch of the same line my mother’s sister is my mother.
Seventh indicative feature. All of several sisters, own and collateral,
are placed in the relation of a mother to the children of each other.
My mother’s sister’s children are my brothers and sisters, elder or
younger. Eighth indicative feature. It establishes the relationship of
brother and sister among the children of sisters. The children of these
brothers are my sons and daughters, of these sisters are my nephews
and nieces; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren. With
myself a female the same relationships are reversed as in previous
cases.
Each of the wives of these several brothers, and of these several male
cousins is my sister-in-law (_Ah-ge-ah′-ne-ah_), each of them calling
me brother-in-law (_Ha-yă′-o_). The precise meaning of the former
term is not known. Each of the husbands of these several sisters and
female cousins is my brother-in-law, and they all apply to me the
proper correlative. Traces of the punaluan custom remain here and
there in the marriage relationship of the American aborigines, namely,
between _Ego_ and the wives of several brothers and the husbands
of several sisters. In Mandan my brother’s wife is my wife, and in
Pawnee and Arickaree the same. In Crow my husband’s brother’s wife is
“my comrade” (_Bot-ze′-no-pä-che_), in Creek my “present occupant”
(_Chu-hu′-cho-wä_), and in Munsee “my friend” (_Nain-jose′_). In
Winnebago and Achaotinne she is “my sister.” My wife’s sister’s
husband, in some tribes is “my brother,” in others my “brother-in-law,”
and in Creek “my little separater” (_Un-kä-pu′-che_), whatever that may
mean.
Third Collateral Line. As the relationships in the several branches of
this line are the same as in the corresponding branches of the second,
with the exception of one additional ancestor, it will be sufficient
to present one branch out of the four. My father’s father’s brother is
my grandfather, and calls me his grandson. This is a ninth indicative
feature, and the last of the number. It places these brothers in the
relation of grandfathers, and thus prevents collateral ascendants
from passing beyond this relationship. The principle which merges the
collateral lines in the lineal line works upward as well as downward.
The son of this grandfather is my father; his children are my brothers
and sisters; the children of these brothers are my sons and daughters,
of these sisters are my nephews and nieces; and their children are my
grandchildren. With myself a female the same relationships are reversed
as in previous cases. Moreover, the correlative term is applied in
every instance.
Fourth Collateral Line. It will be sufficient, for the same reason,
to give but a single branch of this line. My grandfather’s father’s
brother is my grandfather; his son is also my grandfather; the son
of the latter is my father; his son and daughter are my brother and
sister, elder or younger; and their children and grandchildren follow
in the same relationships to _Ego_ as in other cases. In the fifth
collateral line the classification is the same in its several branches
as in the corresponding branches of the second, with the exception of
additional ancestors.
It follows, from the nature of the system, that a knowledge of
the numerical degrees of consanguinity is essential to a proper
classification of kindred. But to a native Indian accustomed to its
daily use the apparent maze of relationships presents no difficulty.
Among the remaining marriage relationships there are terms in
Seneca-Iroquois for father-in-law (_Oc-na′-hose_), for a wife’s father,
and (_Hä-gä′-sä_) for a husband’s father. The former term is also
used to designate a son-in-law, thus showing it to be reciprocal.
There are also terms for step-father and step-mother (_Hoc′-no-ese_)
and (_Oc′-no-ese_), and for step-son and step-daughter (_Ha′-no_
and _Ka′-no_). In a number of tribes two fathers-in-law and two
mothers-in-law are related, and there are terms to express the
connection. The opulence of the nomenclature, although made necessary
by the elaborate discriminations of the system, is nevertheless
remarkable. For full details of the Seneca-Iroquois and Tamil system
reference is made to the Table. Their identity is apparent on bare
inspection. It shows not only the prevalence of punaluan marriage
amongst their remote ancestors when the system was formed, but also
the powerful impression which this form of marriage made upon ancient
society. It is, at the same time, one of the most extraordinary
applications of the natural logic of the human mind to the facts of the
social system preserved in the experience of mankind.
That the Turanian and Ganowánian system was engrafted upon a previous
Malayan, or one like it in all essential respects, is now demonstrated.
In about one-half of all the relationships named, the two are
identical. If those are examined, in which the Seneca and Tamil differ
from the Hawaiian, it will be found that the difference is upon those
relationships which depended on the intermarriage or non-intermarriage
of brothers and sisters. In the former two, for example, my sister’s
son is my nephew, but in the latter he is my son. The two relationships
express the difference between the consanguine and punaluan families.
The change of relationships which resulted from substituting punaluan
in the place of consanguine marriages turns the Malayan into the
Turanian system. But it may be asked why the Hawaiians, who had the
punaluan family, did not reform their system of consanguinity in
accordance therewith? The answer has elsewhere been given, but it may
be repeated. The form of the family keeps in advance of the system.
In Polynesia it was punaluan while the system remained Malayan; in
America it was syndyasmian while the system remained Turanian; and in
Europe and Western Asia it became monogamian while the system seems to
have remained Turanian for a time, but it then fell into decadence,
and was succeeded by the Aryan. Furthermore, although the family has
passed through five forms, but three distinct systems of consanguinity
were created, so far as is now known. It required an organic change
in society attaining unusual dimensions to change essentially an
established system of consanguinity. I think it will be found that the
organization into gentes was sufficiently influential and sufficiently
universal to change the Malayan system into the Turanian; and that
monogamy, when fully established in the more advanced branches of
the human family, was sufficient, with the influence of property, to
overthrow the Turanian system and substitute the Aryan.
It remains to explain the origin of such Turanian relationships
as differ from the Malayan. Punaluan marriages and the gentile
organizations form the basis of the explanation.
I. All the children of my several brothers, own and collateral, myself
a male, are my sons and daughters.
Reasons: Speaking as a Seneca, all the wives of my several brothers
are mine as well as theirs. We are now speaking of the time when the
system was formed. It is the same in the Malayan, where the reasons are
assigned.
II. All the children of my several sisters, own and collateral, myself
a male, are my nephews and nieces.
Reasons: Under the gentile organization these females, by a law of the
gens, cannot be my wives. Their children, therefore, can no longer be
my children, but stand to me in a more remote relationship; whence the
new relationships of nephew and niece. This differs from the Malayan.
III. With myself a female, the children of my several brothers, own and
collateral, are my nephews and nieces.
Reasons, as in II. This also differs from the Malayan.
IV. With myself a female, the children of my several sisters, own and
collateral, and of my several female cousins, are my sons and daughters.
Reasons: All their husbands are my husbands as well. In strictness
these children are my step-children, and are so described in Ojibwa
and several other Algonkin tribes; but in the Seneca-Iroquois, and in
Tamil, following the ancient classification, they are placed in the
category of my sons and daughters, for reasons given in the Malayan.
V. All the children of these sons and daughters are my grandchildren.
Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.
VI. All the children of these nephews and nieces are my grandchildren.
Reason: These were the relationships of the same persons under the
Malayan system, which presumptively preceded the Turanian. No new one
having been invented, the old would remain.
VII. All the brothers of my father, own and collateral, are my fathers.
Reason: They are the husbands of my mother. It is the same in Malayan.
VIII. All the sisters of my father, own and collateral, are my aunts.
Reason: Under the gentile organization neither can be the wife of my
father; wherefore the previous relationship of mother is inadmissible.
A new relationship, therefore, was required: whence that of aunt.
IX. All the brothers of my mother, own and collateral, are my uncles.
Reasons: They are no longer the husbands of my mother, and must stand
to me in a more remote relationship than that of father: whence the new
relationship of uncle.
X. All the sisters of my mother, own and collateral, are my mothers.
Reasons, as in IV.
XI. All the children of my father’s brothers, and all the children of
my mother’s sisters, own and collateral, are my brothers and sisters.
Reasons: It is the same in Malayan, and for reasons there given.
XII. All the children of my several uncles and all the children of my
several aunts, own and collateral, are my male and female cousins.
Reasons: Under the gentile organization all these uncles and aunts
are excluded from the marriage relation with my father and mother;
wherefore their children cannot stand to me in the relation of brothers
and sisters, as in the Malayan, but must be placed in one more remote:
whence the new relationship of cousin.
XIII. In Tamil all the children of my male cousins, myself a male, are
my nephews and nieces, and all the children of my female cousins are
my sons and daughters. This is the exact reverse of the rule among the
Seneca-Iroquois. It tends to show that among the Tamil people, when the
Turanian system came in, all my female cousins were my wives, whilst
the wives of my male cousins were not. It is a singular fact that the
deviation on these relationships is the only one of any importance
between the two systems in the relationships to _Ego_ of some two
hundred persons.
XIV. All the brothers and sisters of my grandfather and of my
grandmother are my grandfathers and grandmothers.
Reason: It is the same in Malayan, and for the reasons there given.
It is now made additionally plain that both the Turanian and Ganowánian
systems, which are identical, supervened upon an original Malayan
system; and that the latter must have prevailed generally in Asia
before the Malayan migration to the Islands of the Pacific. Moreover,
there are good grounds for believing that the system was transmitted
in the Malayan form to the ancestors of the three families, with the
streams of the blood, from a common Asiatic source, and afterward,
modified into its present form by the remote ancestors of the Turanian
and Ganowánian families.
The principal relationships of the Turanian system have now been
explained in their origin, and are found to be those which would
actually exist in the punaluan family as near as the parentage of
children could be known. The system explains itself as an organic
growth, and since it could not have originated without an adequate
cause, the inference becomes legitimate as well as necessary that it
was created by punaluan families. It will be noticed, however, that
several of the marriage relationships have been changed.
The system treats all brothers as the husbands of each other’s
wives, and all sisters as the wives of each other’s husbands, and as
intermarried in a group. At the time the system was formed, wherever
a man found a brother, own or collateral, and those in that relation
were numerous, in the wife of that brother he found an additional wife.
In like manner, wherever a woman found a sister, own or collateral,
and those in that relation were equally numerous, in the husband of
that sister she found an additional husband. The brotherhood of the
husbands and the sisterhood of the wives formed the basis of the
relation. It is fully expressed by the Hawaiian custom of _pŭnalŭa_.
Theoretically, the family of the period was coextensive with the
group united in the marriage relation; but, practically, it must
have subdivided into a number of smaller families for convenience of
habitation and subsistence. The brothers, by tens and twelves, of the
Britons, married to each other’s wives, would indicate the size of an
ordinary subdivision of a punaluan group. Communism in living seems
to have originated in the necessities of the consanguine family, to
have been continued in the punaluan, and to have been transmitted to
the syndyasmian among the American aborigines, with whom it remained
a practice down to the epoch of their discovery. Punaluan marriage is
now unknown among them, but the system of consanguinity it created has
survived the customs in which it originated. The plan of family life
and of habitation among savage tribes has been imperfectly studied.
A knowledge of their usages in these respects and of their mode of
subsistence would throw a strong light upon the questions under
consideration.
Two forms of the family have now been explained in their origin by two
parallel systems of consanguinity. The proofs seem to be conclusive.
It gives the starting point of human society after mankind had
emerged from a still lower condition and entered the organism of the
consanguine family. From this first form to the second the transition
was natural; a development from a lower into a higher social condition
through observation and experience. It was a result of the improvable
mental and moral qualities which belong to the human species. The
consanguine and punaluan families represent the substance of human
progress through the greater part of the period of savagery. Although
the second was a great improvement upon the first, it was still
very distant from the monogamian. An impression may be formed by a
comparison of the several forms of the family, of the slow rate of
progress in savagery, where the means of advancement were slight,
and the obstacles were formidable. Ages upon ages of substantially
stationary life, with advance and decline, undoubtedly marked the
course of events; but the general movement of society was from a
lower to a higher condition, otherwise mankind would have remained in
savagery. It is something to find an assured initial point from which
mankind started on their great and marvelous career of progress, even
though so near the bottom of the scale, and though limited to a form of
the family so peculiar as the consanguine.
_Comparative Table of the System of Relationship of the Seneca-Iroquois
Indians of New York, and of the People of South-India speaking the
Tamil Dialect of the Drâvidian Language._ _En = my._
_otm_ = Older than myself _ytm_ = Younger than myself
_ms_ = Male speaking _fs_ = Female speaking
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————————————
│Relationship in │
Description of Persons. │Seneca-Iroquois. Translation. │ Relationship in Tamil. Translation.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————————————
1 My great-grandfather’s father │ hoc´-sote My grandfather │ En muppáddan My 3d grandfather
2 ” ” ” mother │ oc´-sote ” grandmother │ ” muppáddi ” ” grandmother
3 ” great-grandfather │ hoc´-sote ” grandfather │ ” páddan ” 2d grandfather
4 ” ” grandmother │ oc´-sote ” grandmother │ ” páddi ” ” grandmother
5 ” grandfather │ hoc´-sote ” grandfather │ ” páddan ” grandfather
6 ” grandmother │ oc´-sote ” grandmother │ ” páddi ” grandmother
7 ” father │ hä´-nih ” father │ ” takkáppăn ” father
8 ” mother │ no-yeh´ ” mother │ ” táy ” mother
9 ” son │ há-ah´-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
10 ” daughter │ ka-ah´-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
11 ” grandson │ ha-yä´-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
12 ” granddaughter │ ka-yä´-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
13 ” great-grandson │ ha-yä´-da ” grandson │ ” irandám pêrăn ” 2d grandson
14 ” great-granddaughter │ ka-yä´-da ” granddaughter │ ” ” pêrtti ” ” granddaughter
15 ” great-grandson’s son │ ha-yä´-da ” grandson │ ” mŭndam pêrăn ” 3d grandson
16 ” ” ” daughter │ ka-yä´-da ” granddaughter │ ” ” pêrtti ” ” granddaughter
17 ” elder brother │ hä´-je ” elder brother │ ” tamaiyăn, b annăn ” elder brother
18 ” ” sister │ ah´-je ” ” sister │ ” akkàrl, b tămăkay ” ” sister
19 ” younger brother │ ha´-gă ” younger brother │ ” tambi ” younger brother
20 ” ” sister │ ka´-gă ” ” sister │ ” tangaichchi, b tangay ” ” sister
21 ” brothers │ da-yä-guä-dan´-no-dä ” brothers │ ” săkothăree ” brothers (_Sanskrit_)
22 ” sisters │ ” ” sisters │ ” săkothărekăl ” sisters ”
23 ” brother’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah´-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
24 ” ” son’s wife ” │ ka´-säh´ ” daughter-in-law │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” dau’ter-in-law & niece
25 ” ” daughter ” │ ka-ah´-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
26 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ oc-na´-hosc ” son-in-law │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” son-in-law & nephew
27 ” ” grandson ” │ ha-yä´-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
28 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ka-yä´-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
29 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ha-yä´-da ” grandson │ ” irandám pêrăn ” 2d grandson
30 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ka-yä´-da ” granddaughter │ ” ” pêrtti ” ” granddaughter
31 ” sister’s son ” │ ha-yă-´-wan-da ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
32 ” ” son’s wife ” │ ka´-sä ” daughter-in-law │ ” măkăl ” daughter
33 ” ” daughter ” │ ka-yă´-wan-da ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
34 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ oc-na´-hosc ” son-in-law │ ” măkăn ” son
35 ” ” grandson ” │ ha-yä´-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
36 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ka-yä´-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
37 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ha-yä´-da ” grandson │ ” irandám pêrăn ” 2d grandson
38 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ka-yä´-da ” granddaughter │ ” irandám pertti ” 2d granddaughter
39 ” brother’s son (_fs_) │ ha-soh′-neh My nephew │ En mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
40 ” ” son’s wife ” │ ka′-sä ” daughter-in-law │ ” măkăl ” daughter
41 ” ” daughter ” │ ka-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
42 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ oc-na′-hose ” son-in-law │ ” măkan ” son
43 ” ” grandson ” │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
44 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
45 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” irandám pêrăn ” 2d grandson
46 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” ” pêrtti ” ” granddaughter
47 ” sister’s son ” │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
48 ” ” son’s wife ” │ ka′-sä ” daughter-in-law │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” dau’ter-in-law & niece
49 ” ” daughter ” │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
50 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ oc-na′-hose ” son-in-law │ ” măkăn ” son
51 ” ” grandson ” │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
52 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
53 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” irandám pêrăn ” 2d grandson
54 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” ” pêrtti ” ” granddaughter
55 ” father’s brother │ hä′-nih ” father │ ” periya tăkkăppăn ” great-father (_if older_)
│ │ ” seríya ” little-father (_if younger_)
56 ” ” brother’s wife │ uc-no′-ese ” step-mother │ ” táy ” mother (_th’n my fath’r_)
57 ” ” ” son (_otm_) │ hä′-je ” elder brother │ ” tămaiyăn ” elder brother
58 ” ” ” ” (_ytm_) │ ha′-gă ” younger brother │ ” tambi ” younger brother
59 ” ” ” son’s wife │ ah-ge-ah′-ne-ah ” sister-in-law │ ” maittumi (o.) a[n:][n:]i (y.) ” cousin & sister-in-law
60 ” ” ” daughter (_otm_) │ ah′-je ” elder sister │ ” akkarl b, tamakay ” elder sister
61 ” ” ” ” (_ytm_) │ ka′-gă ” younger sister │ ” tangaichchi b, tangay ” younger sister
62 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ ha-yă′-o ” brother-in-law │ ” măittŭnăn ” broth’r-in-law & cousin
63 ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
64 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-soh′-neh ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
65 ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
66 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
67 ” ” ” daughter’s son (_ms_) │ ha-yă′-wän-da ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
68 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
69 ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-yă′-wän-da ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
70 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
71 ” ” ” great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
72 ” ” ” great-granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
73 ” father’s sister │ ah-ga′-huc ” aunt │ ” attai ” aunt
74 ” ” sister’s husband │ hoc-no′-ese ” step-father │ ” máman ” uncle
75 ” ” ” son (_ms_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” attàn b, măittŭnăn ” cousin
76 ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măchchăn ” ”
77 ” ” ” son’s wife │ ah-ge-ah′-ne-ah ” sister-in-law │ ” tangay ” younger sister
78 ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măittuni ” cousin
79 ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măchchi b, măchchărl ” ”
80 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ ha-yă-o′ ” brother-in-law │ ” a[n:][n:]an (o.) tambi (y.) ” elder or younger bro’r
81 ” father’s sister’s son’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah′-wuk My son │ En mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
82 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-soh′-neh ” nephew │ ” măkăn ” son
83 ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
84 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” măkăl ” daughter
85 ” ” ” daughter’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ya′-wän-da ” nephew │ ” măkăn ” son
86 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
87 ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-ya′-wän-da ” niece │ ” măkăl ” daughter
88 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
89 ” ” ” great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
90 ” ” ” great-granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
91 ” mother’s brother │ hoc-no′-seh ” uncle │ ” mămăn ” uncle
92 ” ” brother’s wife │ ah-ga-na-ah ” aunt-mother │ ” măme ” aunt
93 ” ” ” son (_ms_) │ ah-gare′-seh ” cousin │ ” măittŭnăn ” cousin
94 ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ah-gare′-seh ” cousin │ ” măchchăn ” ”
95 ” ” ” son’s wife │ ah-ge-ah′-ne-ah ” sister-in-law │ ” tăngay ” younger sister
96 ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măittŭni ” cousin
97 ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măchchärl ” ”
98 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ ha-yă′-o ” brother-in-law │ ” a[n:][n:]an (o.) tambi (y.) ” elder or younger bro’r
99 ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
100 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-soh′-neh ” nephew │ ” măkăn ” son
101 ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
102 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” măkăl ” daughter
103 ” ” ” daughter’s son (_ms_) │ ha-yă′-wän-da ” nephew │ ” măkăn ” son
104 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
105 ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-yă′-wän-da ” niece │ ” măkăl ” daughter
106 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
107 ” ” ” great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
108 ” ” ” great-granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
109 ” mother’s sister │ no-yeh′ ” mother │ ” pêriyă tăy (_if older than_,) ” mother, great or little
│ │ ” sĕriyă ” (_if y’r myself_)
110 ” ” sister’s husband │ hoc-no′-ese ” step-father │ ” takkăppăn (P. or S.) ” father, ” ”
111 ” ” ” son (_otm_) │ hä′-je ” elder brother │ ” tămăiyăn, b, a[n:][n:]an ” elder brother
112 ” ” ” ” (_ytm_) │ ha′-gă ” younger brother │ ” tambi ” younger brother
113 ” ” ” son’s wife │ ah-ge-ah′-ne-ah ” sister-in-law │ ” măittŭni ” sister-in-law & cousin
114 ” ” ” daughter (_otm_) │ ah′-je ” elder sister │ ” akkàrl b, tămăkay ” elder sister
115 ” ” ” ” (_ytm_) │ ka′-gă ” younger sister │ ” tăngăichchi, b, tangay ” younger sister
116 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ ha-yă′-o ” brother-in-law │ ” măittŭnăn ” bro’r-in-law & cousin
117 ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
118 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-soh′-neh ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
119 ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
120 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
121 ” ” ” daughter’s son (_ms_) │ ha-yă′-wän-da ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
122 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
123 ” mother’s sister’s daughter’s daughter (_ms_) │ ka-yā′-wän-da ” niece │ En mărŭmăkăl ” niece
124 ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
125 ” ” ” great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
126 ” ” ” great-granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
127 ” father’s father’s brother │ hoc′-sote ” grandfather │ ” păddăn (P. and S.) ” grandfather, g’t or lit.
128 ” ” ” brother’s son │ hä′-nih ” father │ ” takkăppăn (P. and S.) ” father, great or little
129 ” ” ” ” son’s son (_otm_) │ hä′-je ” elder brother │ ” a[n:][n:]an, b, tămăiyăn ” elder brother
130 ” ” ” ” ” ” (_ytm_) │ ha′-gă ” younger brother │ ” tambi ” younger brother
131 ” ” ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
132 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-soh′-neh ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
133 ” ” ” ” ” ” dau’ter (_ms_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
134 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
135 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
136 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
137 ” father’s father’s sister │ oc′-sote ” grandmother │ ” păddi (P. and S.) ” grandmother, g’t or lit.
138 ” ” ” sister’s daughter │ ah-ga′-huc ” aunt │ ” táy (P. and S.) ” mother, great or little
139 ” ” ” ” daughter’s daughter (_ms_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” tămăkăy (o.) tăngăy (y.) ” elder or younger sister
140 ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” tămăkăy (o.) tăngăy (y.) ” ” ” ”
141 ” ” ” ” dau’ter’s dau’ter’s son (_ms_) │ ha-yă′-wän-da ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn? ” nephew
142 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-ah′wuk ” son │ ” măkăn? ” son
143 ” ” ” ” ” ” dau’ter (_ms_) │ ka-yă′-wän-da ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl? ” niece
144 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl? ” daughter
145 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
146 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
147 ” mother’s mother’s brother │ hoc′-sote ” grandfather │ ” păddăn (P. and S.) ” grandfather, g’t or lit.
148 ” ” ” brother’s son │ hoc-no-seh ” uncle │ ” mămăn ” uncle
149 ” ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măittŭnăn ” cousin
150 ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măchchăn ” ”
151 ” ” ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
152 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-soh′-neh ” nephew │ ” măkăn ” son
153 ” ” ” ” ” ” dau’ter (_ms_) │ ka-ah′-wuk ” daughter │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
154 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” măkăl ” daughter
155 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
156 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
157 ” mother’s mother’s sister │ oc′-sote ” grandmother │ ” păddi (P. and S.) ” grandmother, g’t or lit.
158 ” ” ” sister’s daughter │ no-yeh′ ” mother │ ” táy (P. and S.) ” mother, great or little
159 ” ” ” ” dau’ter’s dau’ter (_otm_) │ ah′-je ” elder sister │ ” tămăkăy ” elder sister
160 ” ” ” ” ” ” (_ytm_) │ ka′-ga ” younger sister │ ” tăngăy ” younger sister
161 ” ” ” ” ” daughter’s son (_ms_) │ ha-yă′-wän-da ” nephew │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
162 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
163 ” ” ” ” ” ” daughter (_ms_) │ ka-yă′-wän-da ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
164 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” (_fs_) │ ka-an′-wuk ” daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
165 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
166 ” mother’s mother’s sister’s great-great-granddaughter │ ka-yä′-da My granddaughter │ En pêrtti ” granddaughter
167 ” father’s father’s father’s brother │ hoc′-sote ” grandfather │ ” irandám păddăn ” 2d grandfather
168 ” ” ” ” brother’s son │ hoc′-sote ” grandfather │ ” păddăn (P.and S.) ” grandfather, g’t or lit.
169 ” ” ” ” ” son’s son (_otm_) │ hä′-nih ” father │ ” tăkăppăn (P. and S.) ” father, great or little
170 ” ” ” ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” măkăn ” son
171 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” son’s son │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandson
172 ” ” ” ” ” │ oc′-sote ” grandmother │ ” irandám păddi ” 2d grandmother
173 ” father’s father’s father’s sister’s daughter │ oc′-sote ” grandmother │ ” păddi (P. and S.) ” grandmother, g’t or lit.
174 ” ” ” ” ” d’s daughter │ no-yeh′ ” mother │ ” táy (P. and S.) ” mother, great or little
175 ” ” ” ” ” ” d’s dau’ter (_ms_) │ ah′-je ” elder sister │ ” tămăkăy b, tăngăy? ” sister, elder or younger
176 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” d’s daughter │ ha-soh′-neh ” niece │ ” mărŭmăkăl ” niece
177 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” d’s dau'ter │ ha-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
178 ” mother’s mother’s mother’s brother │ hoc′-sote ” grandfather │ ” irandám păddăn ” 2d grandfather
179 ” ” ” ” brother’s son │ hoc′-sote ” grandfather │ ” păddăn (P. or S.) ” grandfather, g’t or lit.
180 ” ” ” ” ” son’s son │ hoc-no′-seh ” uncle │ ” mămăn ” uncle
181 ” ” ” ” ” ” son’s son (_ms_) │ ah-găre′-seh ” cousin │ ” măitŭnăn ” cousin
182 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” son’s son (_fs_) │ ha-ah′-wuk ” son │ ” mărŭmăkăn ” nephew
183 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” son’s son │ ha-yä′-da ” grandson │ ” pêrăn ” grandchild
184 ” mother’s mother’s mother’s sister │ oc′-sote ” grandmother │ ” irandám păddi ” 2d grandmother
185 ” ” ” ” sister’s daughter │ oc′-sote ” grandmother │ ” păddi (P. or S.) ” grandmother, g’t or lit.
186 ” ” ” ” ” daughter’s daughter │ no-yeh′ ” mother │ ” táy (P. or S.) ” mother, great or little
187 ” ” ” ” ” ” dau’ter’s dau’ter (_otm_) │ ah′-je ” elder sister │ ” akkárl ” elder sister
188 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” dau’ter’s dau’ter (_fs_) │ ka-yā′-wän-da ” niece │ ” măkăl ” daughter
189 ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” daughter’s daughter │ ka-yä′-da ” granddaughter │ ” pêrtti ” granddaughter
190 ” husband │ da-yake′-ne ” husband │ ” kănavăn, b, purnshan ” husband
191 ” wife │ da-yake′-ne ” wife │ ” măinavi, b, pernchátti ” wife
192 ” husband’s father │ hä-ga′-sä ” father-in-law │ ” mámăn, b, mámanär ” uncle & father-in-law
193 ” ” mother │ ong-ga′-sä ” mother-in-law │ ” mámi, b, mánnai ” aunt & mother-in-law
194 ” wife’s father │ oc-na′-hose ” father-in-law │ ” mămăn ” uncle & father
195 ” ” mother │ oc-na′-hose ” mother-in-law │ ” mámi ” aunt
196 ” son-in-law │ oc-na′-hose ” son-in-law │ ” mápillai, b, mărŭmăkăn ” son-in-law & nephew
197 ” daughter-in-law │ ka′-sä ” daughter-in-law │ ” marŭmăkal ” dau’ter-in-law & niece
198 ” step-father │ hoc-no′-ese ” step-father │ (Widows cannot marry.)
199 ” ” mother │ oc-no′-ese ” step-mother │ ” sĕriya táy ” little mother
200 ” ” son │ ha′-no ” step-son │ ” măkăn ” son
201 ” ” daughter │ ka′-no ” step-daughter │ ” măkăl ” daughter
202 ” ” brother │ │ ” a[n:][n:]an (o.) tambi (y.) ” bro’r, older or younger
203 ” ” sister │ │ ” akkárl (o.) tăngăy (y.) ” sister ” ”
204 ” brother-in-law (_husband’s brother_) │ ha-yă′-o ” brother-in-law │ ” măittŭnăn ” bro’r-in-law & cousin
205 ” ” ” (_sister’s husband, ms_) │ ah-ge-ah′-ne-o ” ” ” │ ” măittŭnăn ” ” ” ”
206 ” ” ” ( ” ” fs ) │ ha-yă′-o ” ” ” │ ” attan (o.) maichchăn ” ” ” ”
207 ” ” ” (_wife’s brother_) │ ah-ge′-ah′-ne-o ” ” ” │ ” măittŭnăn ” ” ” ”
208 ” ” ” (_wife’s sister’s husband_) │ no relation │ ” sakălăn ” ” ” ”
209 ” brother-in-law (_husband’s sister’s husband_) │ no relation │ En sakotaran ” bro’r-in-law & cousin
210 ” sister-in-law (_wife’s sister_) │ ka-yă′-o My sister-in-law │ ” korlunti (o.) măittŭini ” sister-in-law & cousin
211 ” ” ” (_husband’s sister_) │ ah-ge-ah′-ne-o ” ” ” │ ” năttănae ” ” ” ”
212 ” ” ” (_brother’s wife, ms_) │ ka-yă′-o ” ” ” │ ” a[n:][n:]i (o.) măittŭni (y.) ” ” ” ”
213 ” ” ” (_brother’s wife, fems_) │ ah-ge-ah′-ne-o ” ” ” │ ” a[n:][n:]i (o.) māittūni (y.) ” ” ” ”
214 ” ” ” (_husband’s brother’s wife_) │ no relation │ ” orakatti ” ” ” ”
215 ” ” ” (_wife’s brother’s wife_) │ no relation │ ” tămăkăy (o.) tāngăy (y.) ” ” ” ”
216 ” widow │ go-no-kw′-yes′-hä′-ah widow │ ” kiempun widow
217 ” widower │ ho-no-kw′-yes′-hä′-ah widower │
218 ” twins │ tas-geek′-hă twins │ Dithambathie twins (Sanskrit)
CHAPTER IV.
THE SYNDYASMIAN AND THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILIES.
THE SYNDYASMIAN FAMILY.—HOW CONSTITUTED.—ITS
CHARACTERISTICS.—INFLUENCE UPON IT OF THE GENTILE
ORGANIZATION.—PROPENSITY TO PAIR A LATE DEVELOPMENT.—ANCIENT
SOCIETY SHOULD BE STUDIED WHERE THE HIGHEST EXEMPLIFICATIONS
ARE FOUND.—THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY.—PATERNAL POWER ITS
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC.—POLYGAMY SUBORDINATE.—THE ROMAN
FAMILY SIMILAR.—PATERNAL POWER UNKNOWN IN PREVIOUS FAMILIES.
When the American aborigines were discovered, that portion of them who
were in the Lower Status of barbarism, had attained to the syndyasmian
or pairing family. The large groups in the marriage relation, which
must have existed in the previous period, had disappeared; and in their
places were married pairs, forming clearly marked, though but partially
individualized families. In this family, may be recognized the germ
of the monogamian, but it was below the latter in several essential
particulars.
The syndyasmian family was special and peculiar. Several of them were
usually found in one house, forming a communal household, in which
the principle of communism in living was practiced. The fact of the
conjunction of several such families in a common household is of itself
an admission that the family was too feeble an organization to face
alone the hardships of life. Nevertheless it was founded upon marriage
between single pairs, and possessed some of the characteristics of the
monogamian family. The woman was now something more than the principal
wife of her husband; she was his companion, the preparer of his food,
and the mother of children whom he now began with some assurance to
regard as his own. The birth of children, for whom they jointly cared,
tended to cement the union and render it permanent.
But the marriage institution was as peculiar as the family. Men did not
seek wives as they are sought in civilized society, from affection, for
the passion of love, which required a higher development than they had
attained, was unknown among them. Marriage, therefore, was not founded
upon sentiment but upon convenience and necessity. It was left to the
mothers, in effect, to arrange the marriages of their children, and
they were negotiated generally without the knowledge of the parties to
be married, and without asking their previous consent. It sometimes
happened that entire strangers were thus brought into the marriage
relation. At the proper time they were notified when the simple nuptial
ceremony would be performed. Such were the usages of the Iroquois and
many other Indian tribes. Acquiescence in these maternal contracts
was a duty which the parties seldom refused. Prior to the marriage,
presents to the gentile relatives of the bride, nearest in degree,
partaking of the nature of purchasing gifts, became a feature in these
matrimonial transactions. The relation, however, continued during the
pleasure of the parties, and no longer. It is for this reason that it
is properly distinguished as the pairing family. The husband could put
away his wife at pleasure and take another without offence, and the
woman enjoyed the equal right of leaving her husband and accepting
another, in which the usages of her tribe and gens were not infringed.
But a public sentiment gradually formed and grew into strength against
such separations. When alienation arose between a married pair, and
their separation became imminent, the gentile kindred of each attempted
a reconciliation of the parties, in which they were often successful;
but if they were unable to remove the difficulty their separation was
approved. The wife then left the home of her husband, taking with
her their children, who were regarded as exclusively her own, and
her personal effects, upon which her husband had no claim; or where
the wife’s kindred predominated in the communal household, which was
usually the case, the husband left the home of his wife.[470] Thus the
continuance of the marriage relation remained at the option of the
parties.
There was another feature of the relation which shows that the American
aborigines in the Lower Status of barbarism had not attained the
moral development implied by monogamy. Among the Iroquois, who were
barbarians of high mental grade, and among the equally advanced Indian
tribes generally, chastity had come to be required of the wife under
severe penalties which the husband might inflict; but he did not admit
the reciprocal obligation. The one cannot be permanently realized
without the other. Moreover, polygamy was universally recognized as the
right of the males, although the practice was limited from inability
to support the indulgence. There were other usages, that need not
be mentioned, tending still further to show that they were below a
conception of monogamy, as that great institution is properly defined.
Exceptional cases very likely existed. It will be found equally true,
as I believe, of barbarous tribes in general. The principal feature
which distinguished the syndyasmian from the monogamian family,
although liable to numerous exceptions, was the absence of an exclusive
cohabitation. The old conjugal system, a record of which is still
preserved in their system of consanguinity, undoubtedly remained, but
under reduced and restricted forms.
Among the Village Indians in the Middle Status of barbarism the facts
were not essentially different, so far as they can be said to be known.
A comparison of the usages of the American aborigines, with respect
to marriage and divorce, shows an existing similarity sufficiently
strong to imply original identity of usages. A few only can be noticed.
Clavigero remarks that among the Aztecs “the parents were the persons
who settled all marriages, and none were ever executed without their
consent.”[471] “A priest tied a point of the _huepilli_, or gown of the
bride, with the _tilmatli_, or mantle of the bridegroom, and in this
ceremony the matrimonial contract chiefly consisted.”[472] Herrera,
after speaking of the same ceremony, observes that “all that the bride
brought was kept in memory, that in case they should be unmarried
again, as was usual among them, the goods might be parted; the man
taking the daughters, and the wife the sons, with liberty to marry
again.”[473]
It will be noticed that the Aztec Indian did not seek his wife
personally any more than the Iroquois. Among both it was less an
individual than a public or gentile affair, and therefore still
remained under parental control exclusively. There was very little
social intercourse between unmarried persons of the two sexes in Indian
life; and as attachments were not contracted, none were traversed by
these marriages, in which personal wishes were unconsidered, and in
fact unimportant. It appears further, that the personal effects of the
wife were kept distinct among the Aztecs as among the Iroquois, that
in case of separation, which was a common occurrence as this writer
states, she might retain them in accordance with general Indian usage.
Finally, while among the Iroquois in the case of divorce the wife took
all the children, the Aztec husband was entitled to the daughters, and
the wife to the sons; a modification of the ancient usage which implies
a prior time when the Iroquois Indian rule existed among the ancestors
of the Aztecs.
Speaking of the people of Yucatan generally Herrera further remarks
that “formerly they were wont to marry at twenty years of age, and
afterwards came to twelve or fourteen, and having no affection for
their wives were divorced for every trifle.”[474] The Mayas of Yucatan
were superior to the Aztecs in culture and development; but where
marriages were regulated on the principle of necessity, and not through
personal choice, it is not surprising that the relation was unstable,
and that separation was at the option of either party. Moreover,
polygamy was a recognized right of the males among the Village Indians,
and seems to have been more generally practiced than among the less
advanced tribes. These glimpses at institutions purely Indian as well
as barbarian reveal in a forcible manner the actual condition of the
aborigines in relative advancement. In a matter so personal as the
marriage relation, the wishes or preferences of the parties were not
consulted. No better evidence is needed of the barbarism of the people.
We are next to notice some of the influences which developed this
family from the punaluan. In the latter there was more or less
of pairing from the necessities of the social state, each man
having a principal wife among a number of wives, and each woman a
principal husband among a number of husbands; so that the tendency
in the punaluan family, from the first, was in the direction of the
syndyasmian.
The organization into gentes was the principal instrumentality that
accomplished this result; but through long and gradual processes.
Firstly. It did not at once break up intermarriage in the group, which
it found established by custom; but the prohibition of intermarriage
in the gens excluded own brothers and sisters, and also the children
of own sisters, since all of these were of the same gens. Own
brothers could still share their wives in common, and own sisters
their husbands; consequently the gens did not interfere directly
with punaluan marriage, except to narrow its range. But it withheld
permanently from that relation all the descendants in the female line
of each ancestor within the gens, which was a great innovation upon
the previous punaluan group. When the gens subdivided, the prohibition
followed its branches, for long periods of time, as has been shown was
the case among the Iroquois. Secondly. The structure and principles
of the organization tended to create a prejudice against the marriage
of consanguinei, as the advantages of marriages between unrelated
persons were gradually discovered through the practice of marrying out
of the gens. This seems to have grown apace until a public sentiment
was finally arrayed against it which had become very general among
the American aborigines when discovered.[475] For example, among
the Iroquois none of the blood relatives enumerated in the Table of
Consanguinity were marriageable. Since it became necessary to seek
wives from other gentes they began to be acquired by negotiation and
by purchase. The gentile organization must have led, step by step, as
its influence became general, to a scarcity of wives in place of their
previous abundance; and as a consequence, have gradually contracted
the numbers in the punaluan group. This conclusion is reasonable,
because there are sufficient grounds for assuming the existence of
such groups when the Turanian system of consanguinity was formed. They
have now disappeared although the system remains. These groups must
have gradually declined, and finally disappeared with the general
establishment of the syndyasmian family. Fourthly. In seeking wives,
they did not confine themselves to their own, nor even to friendly
tribes, but captured them by force from hostile tribes. It furnishes a
reason for the Indian usage of sparing the lives of female captives,
while the males were put to death. When wives came to be acquired by
purchase and by capture, and more and more by effort and sacrifice,
they would not be as readily shared with others. It would tend, at
least, to cut off that portion of the theoretical group not immediately
associated for subsistence; and thus reduce still more the size of the
family and the range of the conjugal system. Practically, the group
would tend to limit itself, from the first, to own brothers who shared
their wives in common, and to own sisters who shared their husbands
in common. Lastly. The gentes created a higher organic structure of
society than had before been known, with processes of development as
a social system adequate to the wants of mankind until civilization
supervened. With the progress of society under the gentes, the way was
prepared for the appearance of the syndyasmian family.
The influence of the new practice, which brought unrelated persons
into the marriage relation, must have given a remarkable impulse to
society. It tended to create a more vigorous stock physically and
mentally. There is a gain by accretion in the coalescence of diverse
stocks which has exercised great influence upon human development.
When two advancing tribes, with strong mental and physical characters,
are brought together and blended into one people by the accidents of
barbarous life, the new skull and brain would widen and lengthen to the
sum of the capabilities of both. Such a stock would be an improvement
upon both, and this superiority would assert itself in an increase of
intelligence and of numbers.
It follows that the propensity to pair, now so powerfully developed
in the civilized races, had remained unformed in the human mind until
the punaluan custom began to disappear. Exceptional cases undoubtedly
occurred where usages would permit the privilege; but it failed to
become general until the syndyasmian family appeared. This propensity,
therefore, cannot be called normal to mankind, but is, rather, a growth
through experience, like all the great passions and powers of the mind.
Another influence may be adverted to which tended to retard the growth
of this family. Warfare among barbarians is more destructive of life
than among savages, from improved weapons and stronger incentives.
The males, in all periods and conditions of society, have assumed the
trade of fighting, which tended to change the balance of the sexes, and
leave the females in excess. This would manifestly tend to strengthen
the conjugal system created by marriages in the group. It would,
also, retard the advancement of the syndyasmian family by maintaining
sentiments of low grade with respect to the relations of the sexes, and
the character and dignity of woman.
On the other hand, improvement in subsistence, which followed the
cultivation of maize and plants among the American aborigines,
must have favored the general advancement of the family. It led to
localization, to the use of additional arts, to an improved house
architecture, and to a more intelligent life. Industry and frugality,
though limited in degree, with increased protection of life, must have
accompanied the formation of families consisting of single pairs. The
more these advantages were realized, the more stable such a family
would become, and the more its individuality would increase. Having
taken refuge in a communal household, in which a group of such families
succeeded the punaluan group, it now drew its support from itself, from
the household, and from the gentes to which the husbands and wives
respectively belonged. The great advancement of society indicated
by the transition from savagery into the Lower Status of barbarism,
would carry with it a corresponding improvement in the condition of
the family, the course of development of which was steadily upward
to the monogamian. If the existence of the syndyasmian family were
unknown, given the punaluan toward one extreme, and the monogamian on
the other, the occurrence of such an intermediate form might have been
predicted. It has had a long duration in human experience. Springing
up on the confines of savagery and barbarism, it traversed the Middle
and the greater part of the Later Period of barbarism, when it was
superseded by a low form of the monogamian. Overshadowed by the
conjugal system of the times, it gained in recognition with the gradual
progress of society. The selfishness of mankind, as distinguished from
womankind, delayed the realization of strict monogamy until that great
fermentation of the human mind which ushered in civilization.
Two forms of the family had appeared before the syndyasmian and
created two great systems of consanguinity, or rather two distinct
forms of the same system; but this third family neither produced a new
system nor sensibly modified the old. Certain marriage relationships
appear to have been changed to accord with those in the new family;
but the essential features of the system remained unchanged. In
fact, the syndyasmian family continued for an unknown period of time
enveloped in a system of consanguinity, false in the main, to existing
relationships, and which it had no power to break. It was for the
sufficient reason that it fell short of monogamy, the coming power able
to dissolve the fabric. Although this family has no distinct system of
consanguinity to prove its existence, like its predecessors, it has
itself existed over large portions of the earth within the historical
period, and still exists in numerous barbarous tribes.
In speaking thus positively of the several forms of the family in their
relative order, there is danger of being misunderstood. I do not mean
to imply that one form rises complete in a certain status of society,
flourishes universally and exclusively wherever tribes of mankind are
found in the same status, and then disappears in another, which is the
next higher form. Exceptional cases of the punaluan family may have
appeared in the consanguine, and _vice versâ_; exceptional cases of
the syndyasmian may have appeared in the midst of the punaluan, and
_vice versâ_; and exceptional cases of the monogamian in the midst
of the syndyasmian, and _vice versâ_. Even exceptional cases of the
monogamian may have appeared as low down as the punaluan, and of the
syndyasmian as low down as the consanguine. Moreover, some tribes
attained to a particular form earlier than other tribes more advanced;
for example, the Iroquois had the syndyasmian family while in the
Lower Status of barbarism, but the Britons, who were in the Middle
Status, still had the punaluan. The high civilization on the shores of
the Mediterranean had propagated arts and inventions into Britain far
beyond the mental development of its Celtic inhabitants, and which they
had imperfectly appropriated. They seem to have been savages in their
brains, while wearing the art apparel of more advanced tribes. That
which I have endeavored to substantiate, and for which the proofs seem
to be adequate, is, that the family began in the consanguine, low down
in savagery, and grew, by progressive development, into the monogamian,
through two well-marked intermediate forms. Each was partial in its
introduction, then general, and finally universal over large areas;
after which it shaded off into the next succeeding form, which, in
turn, was at first partial, then general, and finally universal in
the same areas. In the evolution of these successive forms the main
direction of progress was from the consanguine to the monogamian. With
deviations from uniformity in the progress of mankind through these
several forms, it will generally be found that the consanguine and
punaluan families belong to the status of savagery—the former to its
lowest, and the latter to its highest condition—while the punaluan
continued into the Lower Status of barbarism; that the syndyasmian
belongs to the Lower and to the Middle Status of barbarism, and
continued into the Upper; and that the monogamian belongs to the Upper
Status of barbarism, and continued to the period of civilization.
It will not be necessary, even if space permitted, to trace the
syndyasmian family through barbarous tribes in general upon the
partial descriptions of travelers and observers. The tests given may
be applied by each reader to cases within his information. Among
the American aborigines in the Lower Status of barbarism it was the
prevailing form of the family at the epoch of their discovery. Among
the Village Indians in the Middle Status, it was undoubtedly the
prevailing form, although the information given by the Spanish writers
is vague and general. The communal character of their joint-tenement
houses is of itself strong evidence that the family had not passed
out of the syndyasmian form. It had neither the individuality nor the
exclusiveness which monogamy implies.
The foreign elements intermingled with the native culture in sections
of the Eastern hemisphere produced an abnormal condition of society,
where the arts of civilized life were remolded to the aptitudes and
wants of savages and barbarians.[476] Tribes strictly nomadic have also
social peculiarities, growing out of their exceptional mode of life,
which are not well understood. Through influences, derived from the
higher races, the indigenous culture of many tribes has been arrested,
and so far adulterated as to change the natural flow of their progress.
Their institutions and social state became modified in consequence.
It is essential to systematic progress in Ethnology that the condition
both of savage and of barbarous tribes should be studied in its
normal development in areas where the institutions of the people are
homogeneous. Polynesia and Australia, as elsewhere suggested, are the
best areas for the study of savage society. Nearly the whole theory of
savage life may be deduced from their institutions, usages and customs,
inventions and discoveries. North and South America, when discovered,
afforded the best opportunities for studying the condition of society
in the Lower and in the Middle Status of barbarism. The aborigines,
one stock in blood and lineage, with the exception of the Eskimos,
had gained possession of a great continent, more richly endowed for
human occupation than the Eastern continents, save in animals capable
of domestication. It afforded them an ample field for undisturbed
development. They came into its possession apparently in a savage
state; but the establishment of the organization into gentes put them
into possession of the principal germs of progress possessed by the
ancestors of the Greeks and Romans.[477] Cut off thus early, and losing
all further connection with the central stream of human progress, they
commenced their career upon a new continent with the humble mental and
moral endowments of savages. The independent evolution of the primary
ideas they brought with them commenced under conditions insuring a
career undisturbed by foreign influences. It holds true alike in the
growth of the idea of government, of the family, of household life,
of property, and of the arts of subsistence. Their institutions,
inventions and discoveries, from savagery, through the Lower and into
the Middle Status of barbarism, are homogeneous, and still reveal a
continuity of development of the same original conceptions.
In no part of the earth, in modern times, could a more perfect
exemplification of the Lower Status of barbarism be found than was
afforded by the Iroquois, and other tribes of the United States east
of the Mississippi. With their arts indigenous and unmixed, and with
their institutions pure and homogeneous, the culture of this period,
in its range, elements and possibilities, is illustrated by them in
the fullest manner. A systematic exposition of these several subjects
ought to be made, before the facts are allowed to disappear.
In a still higher degree all this was true with respect to the Middle
Status of barbarism, as exemplified by the Village Indians of New
Mexico, Mexico, Central America, Grenada, Ecuador, and Peru. In no
part of the earth was there to be found such a display of society in
this Status, in the sixteenth century, with its advanced arts and
inventions, its improved architecture, its nascent manufactures and its
incipient sciences. American scholars have a poor account to render of
work done in this fruitful field. It was in reality a lost condition of
ancient society which was suddenly unveiled to European observers with
the discovery of America; but they failed to comprehend its meaning, or
to ascertain its structure.
There is one other great condition of society, that of the Upper
Status of barbarism, not now exemplified by existing nations; but it
may be found in the history and traditions of the Grecian and Roman,
and later of the German tribes. It must be deduced, in the main, from
their institutions, inventions and discoveries, although there is a
large amount of information illustrative of the culture of this period,
especially in the Homeric poems.
When these several conditions of society have been studied in the
areas of their highest exemplification, and are thoroughly understood,
the course of human development from savagery, through barbarism to
civilization, will become intelligible as a connected whole. The course
of human experience will also be found as before suggested to have run
in nearly uniform channels.
The patriarchal family of the Semitic tribes requires but a brief
notice, for reasons elsewhere stated; and it will be limited to little
more than a definition. It belongs to the Later Period of barbarism,
and remained for a time after the commencement of civilization. The
chiefs, at least, lived in polygamy; but this was not the material
principle of the patriarchal institution. The organization of a number
of persons, bond and free, into a family, under paternal power, for
the purpose of holding lands, and for the care of flocks and herds, was
the essential characteristic of this family. Those held to servitude,
and those employed as servants, lived in the marriage relation, and,
with the patriarch as their chief, formed a patriarchal family.
Authority over its members and over its property was the material
fact. It was the incorporation of numbers in servile and dependent
relations, before that time unknown, rather than polygamy, that stamped
the patriarchal family with the attributes of an original institution.
In the great movement of Semitic society, which produced this family,
paternal power over the group was the object sought; and with it a
higher individuality of persons.
The same motive precisely originated the Roman family under paternal
power (_patria potestas_); with the power in the father of life and
death over his children and descendants, as well as over the slaves
and servants who formed its nucleus and furnished its name; and with
the absolute ownership of all the property they created. Without
polygamy, the _pater familias_ was a patriarch and the family under him
was patriarchal. In a less degree, the ancient family of the Grecian
tribes had the same characteristics. It marks that peculiar epoch in
human progress when the individuality of the person began to rise
above the gens, in which it had previously been merged, craving an
independent life, and a wider field of individual action. Its general
influence tended powerfully to the establishment of the monogamian
family, which was essential to the realization of the objects sought.
These striking features of the patriarchal families, so unlike any
form previously known, have given to it a commanding position; but the
Hebrew and Roman forms were exceptional in human experience. In the
consanguine and punaluan families, paternal authority was impossible as
well as unknown; under the syndyasmian it began to appear as a feeble
influence; but its growth steadily advanced as the family became more
and more individualized, and became fully established under monogamy,
which assured the paternity of children. In the patriarchal family of
the Roman type, paternal authority passed beyond the bounds of reason
into an excess of domination.
No new system of consanguinity was created by the Hebrew patriarchal
family. The Turanian system would harmonize with a part of its
relationships; but as this form of the family soon fell out, and the
monogamian became general, it was followed by the Semitic system of
consanguinity, as the Grecian and Roman were by the Aryan. Each of the
three great systems—the Malayan, the Turanian, and the Aryan—indicates
a completed organic movement of society, and each assured the presence,
with unerring certainty, of that form of the family whose relationships
it recorded.
CHAPTER V.
THE MONOGAMIAN FAMILY.
THIS FAMILY COMPARATIVELY MODERN.—THE TERM FAMILIA.—FAMILY
OF ANCIENT GERMANS.—OF HOMERIC GREEKS.—OF CIVILIZED
GREEKS.—SECLUSION OF WIVES.—OBLIGATIONS OF MONOGAMY NOT
RESPECTED BY THE MALES.—THE ROMAN FAMILY.—WIVES UNDER
POWER.—ARYAN SYSTEM OF CONSANGUINITY.—IT CAME IN UNDER
MONOGAMY.—PREVIOUS SYSTEM PROBABLY TURANIAN.—TRANSITION
FROM TURANIAN INTO ARYAN.—ROMAN AND ARABIC SYSTEMS OF
CONSANGUINITY.—DETAILS OF THE FORMER.—PRESENT MONOGAMIAN
FAMILY.—TABLE.
The origin of society has been so constantly traced to the monogamian
family that the comparatively modern date now assigned to this family
bears the semblance of novelty. Those writers who have investigated
the origin of society philosophically, found it difficult to conceive
of its existence apart from the family as its unit, or of the family
itself as other than monogamian. They also found it necessary to
regard the married pair as the nucleus of a group of persons, a part
of whom were servile, and all of whom were under power; thus arriving
at the conclusion that society began in the patriarchal family, when
it first became organized. Such, in fact, was the most ancient form of
the institution made known to us among the Latin, Grecian and Hebrew
tribes. Thus, by relation, the patriarchal family was made the typical
family of primitive society, conceived either in the Latin or Hebrew
form, paternal power being the essence of the organism.
The gens, as it appeared in the later period of barbarism, was well
understood, but it was erroneously supposed to be subsequent in point
of time to the monogamian family. A necessity for some knowledge
of the institutions of barbarous and even of savage tribes, is
becoming constantly more apparent as a means for explaining our own
institutions. With the assumption made that the monogamian family was
the unit of organization in the social system, the gens was treated
as an aggregation of families, the tribe as an aggregation of gentes,
and the nation as an aggregate of tribes. The error lies in the first
proposition. It has been shown that the gens entered entire in the
phratry, the phratry into the tribe, and the tribe into the nation; but
the family could not enter entire into the gens, because husband and
wife were necessarily of different gentes. The wife, down to the latest
period, counted herself of the gens of her father, and bore the name of
his gens among the Romans. As all the parts must enter into the whole,
the family could not become the unit of the gentile organization. That
place was held by the gens. Moreover, the patriarchal family, whether
of the Roman or of the Hebrew type, was entirely unknown throughout
the period of savagery, through the Older, and probably through the
Middle, and far into the Later Period of barbarism. After the gens had
appeared, ages upon ages, and even period upon period, rolled away
before the monogamian family came into existence. It was not until
after civilization commenced that it became permanently established.
Its modern appearance among the Latin tribes may be inferred from the
signification of the word _family_, derived from _familia_, which
contains the same element as _famulus_, = servant, supposed to be
derived from the Oscan _famel_, = _servus_, a slave.[478] In its
primary meaning the word _family_ had no relation to the married pair
or their children, but to the body of slaves and servants who labored
for its maintenance, and were under the power of the _pater familias_.
_Familia_ in some testamentary dispositions is used as equivalent
to _patrimonium_, the inheritance which passed to the heir.[479] It
was introduced in Latin society to define a new organism, the head
of which held wife and children, and a body of servile persons under
paternal power. Mommsen uses the phrase “body of servants” as the Latin
signification of _familia_.[480] This term, therefore, and the idea
it represents, are no older than the iron-clad family system of the
Latin tribes, which came in after field agriculture and after legalized
servitude, as well as after the separation of the Greeks and Latins. If
any name was given to the anterior family it is not now ascertainable.
In two forms of the family, the consanguine and punaluan, paternal
power was impossible. When the gens appeared in the midst of the
punaluan group it united the several sisters, with their children and
descendants in the female line, in perpetuity, in a gens, which became
the unit of organization in the social system it created. Out of this
state of things the syndyasmian family was gradually evolved, and with
it the germ of paternal power. The growth of this power, at first
feeble and fluctuating, then commenced, and it steadily increased, as
the new family more and more assumed monogamian characteristics, with
the upward progress of society. When property began to be created in
masses, and the desire for its transmission to children had changed
descent from the female line to the male, a real foundation for
paternal power was for the first time established. Among the Hebrew
and Latin tribes, when first known, the patriarchal family of the
Hebrew type existed among the former, and of the Roman type among the
latter; founded in both cases upon the limited or absolute servitude of
a number of persons with their families, all of whom, with the wives
and children of the patriarch in one case, and of the _pater familias_
in the other, were under paternal power. It was an exceptional, and,
in the Roman family, an excessive development of paternal authority,
which, so far from being universal, was restricted in the main to the
people named. Gaius declares that the power of the Roman father over
his children was peculiar to the Romans, and that in general no other
people had the same power.[481]
It will be sufficient to present a few illustrations of the early
monogamian family from classical writers to give an impression of its
character. Monogamy appears in a definite form in the Later Period of
barbarism. Long prior to this time some of its characteristics had
undoubtedly attached themselves to the previous syndyasmian family; but
the essential element of the former, an exclusive cohabitation, could
not be asserted of the latter.
One of the earliest and most interesting illustrations was found in the
family of the ancient Germans. Their institutions were homogeneous and
indigenous; and the people were advancing toward civilization. Tacitus,
in a few lines, states their usages with respect to marriage, without
giving the composition of the family or defining its attributes. After
stating that marriages were strict among them, and pronouncing it
commendable, he further remarks, that almost alone among barbarians
they contented themselves with a single wife—a very few excepted, who
were drawn into plural marriages, not from passion, but on account
of their rank. That the wife did not bring a dowry to her husband,
but the husband to his wife, ... a caparisoned horse, and a shield,
with a spear and sword. That by virtue of these gifts the wife was
espoused.[482] The presents, in the nature of purchasing gifts, which
probably in an earlier condition went to the gentile kindred of the
bride, were now presented to the bride.
Elsewhere he mentions the two material facts in which the substance of
monogamy is found:[483] firstly, that each man was contented with a
single wife (_singulis uxoribus contenti sunt_); and, secondly, that
the women lived fenced around with chastity (_septæ pudicitia agunt_).
It seems probable, from what is known of the condition of the family
in different ethnical periods, that this of the ancient Germans was
too weak an organization to face alone the hardships of life; and, as
a consequence, sheltered itself in a communal household composed of
related families. When slavery became an institution, these households
would gradually disappear. German society was not far enough advanced
at this time for the appearance of a high type of the monogamian family.
With respect to the Homeric Greeks, the family, although monogamian,
was low in type. Husbands required chastity in their wives, which
they sought to enforce by some degree of seclusion; but they did not
admit the reciprocal obligation by which alone it could be permanently
secured. Abundant evidence appears in the Homeric poems that woman had
few rights men were bound to respect. Such female captives as were
swept into their vessels by the Grecian chiefs, on their way to Troy,
were appropriated to their passions without compunction and without
restraint. It must be taken as a faithful picture of the times, whether
the incidents narrated in the poems were real or fictitious. Although
the persons were captives, it reflects the low estimate placed upon
woman. Her dignity was unrecognized, and her personal rights were
insecure. To appease the resentment of Achilles, Agamemnon proposed, in
a council of the Grecian chiefs, to give to him, among other things,
seven Lesbian women excelling in personal beauty, reserved for himself
from the spoil of that city, Briseis herself to go among the number;
and should Troy be taken, the further right to select twenty Trojan
women, the fairest of all next to Argive Helen.[484] “Beauty and
Booty” were the watchwords of the Heroic Age unblushingly avowed.
The treatment of their female captives reflects the culture of the
period with respect to women in general. Men having no regard for the
parental, marital or personal rights of their enemies, could not have
attained to any high conception of their own.
In describing the tent life of the unwedded Achilles, and of his
friend Patroclus, Homer deemed it befitting the character and dignity
of Achilles as a chief to show that he slept in the recess of his
well-constructed tent, and by his side lay a female, fair-cheeked
Diomede, whom he had brought from Lesbos. And that Patroclus on the
other side reclined, and by him also lay fair-waisted Iphis, whom noble
Achilles gave him, having captured her at Scyros.[485] Such usages
and customs on the part of unmarried as well as married men, cited
approvingly by the great poet of the period, and sustained by public
sentiment, tend to show that whatever of monogamy existed, was through
an enforced constraint upon wives, while their husbands were not
monogamists in the preponderating number of cases. Such a family has
quite as many syndyasmian as monogamian characteristics.
The condition of woman in the Heroic Age is supposed to have been more
favorable, and her position in the household more honorable than it
was at the commencement of civilization, and even afterwards under
their highest development. It may have been true in a far anterior
period before descent was changed to the male line, but there seems to
be little room for the conjecture at the time named. A great change
for the better occurred, so far as the means and mode of life were
concerned, but it served to render more conspicuous the real estimate
placed upon her through the Later Period of barbarism.
Elsewhere attention has been called to the fact that when descent
was changed from the female line to the male, it operated injuriously
upon the position and rights of the wife and mother. Her children were
transferred from her own gens to that of her husband, and she forfeited
her agnatic rights by her marriage without obtaining an equivalent.
Before the change, the members of her own gens, in all probability,
predominated in the household, which gave full force to the maternal
bond, and made the woman rather more than the man the center of the
family. After the change she stood alone in the household of her
husband, isolated from her gentile kindred. It must have weakened the
influence of the maternal bond, and have operated powerfully to lower
her position and arrest her progress in the social scale. Among the
prosperous classes, her condition of enforced seclusion, together with
the avowed primary object of marriage, to beget children in lawful
wedlock (παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως), lead to the inference that her
position was less favorable in the Heroic Age than in the subsequent
period, concerning which we are much better informed.
From first to last among the Greeks there was a principle of egotism
or studied selfishness at work among the males, tending to lessen
the appreciation of woman, scarcely found among savages. It reveals
itself in their plan of domestic life, which in the higher ranks
secluded the wife to enforce an exclusive cohabitation, without
admitting the reciprocal obligation on the part of her husband. It
implies the existence of an antecedent conjugal system of the Turanian
type, against which it was designed to guard. So powerfully had the
usages of centuries stamped upon the minds of Grecian women a sense
of their inferiority, that they did not recover from it to the latest
period of Grecian ascendency. It was, perhaps, one of the sacrifices
required of womankind to bring this portion of the human race out of
the syndyasmian into the monogamian family. It still remains an enigma
that a race, with endowments great enough to impress their mental life
upon the world, should have remained essentially barbarian in their
treatment of the female sex at the height of their civilization. Women
were not treated with cruelty, nor with discourtesy within the range
of the privileges allowed them; but their education was superficial,
intercourse with the opposite sex was denied them, and their
inferiority was inculcated as a principle, until it came to be accepted
as a fact by the women themselves. The wife was not the companion
and the equal of her husband, but stood to him in the relation of
a daughter; thus denying the fundamental principle of monogamy, as
the institution in its highest form must be understood. The wife is
necessarily the equal of her husband in dignity, in personal rights and
in social position. We may thus discover at what a price of experience
and endurance this great institution of modern society has been won.
Our information is quite ample and specific with respect to the
condition of Grecian women and the Grecian family during the historical
period. Becker, with the marvelous research for which his works are
distinguished, has collected the principal facts and presented them
with clearness and force.[486] His statements, while they do not
furnish a complete picture of the family of the historical period, are
quite sufficient to indicate the great difference between the Grecian
and the modern civilized family, and also to show the condition of the
monogamian family in the early stages of its development.
Among the facts stated by Becker, there are two that deserve further
notice: first, the declaration that the chief object of marriage
was the procreation of children in lawful wedlock; and second, the
seclusion of women to insure this result. The two are intimately
connected, and throw some reflected light upon the previous condition
from which they had emerged. In the first place, the passion of love
was unknown among the barbarians. They are below the sentiment, which
is the offspring of civilization and superadded refinement. The Greeks
in general, as their marriage customs show, had not attained to a
knowledge of this passion, although there were, of course, numerous
exceptions. Physical worth, in Grecian estimation, was the measure of
all the excellences of which the female sex were capable. Marriage,
therefore, was not grounded upon sentiment, but upon necessity and
duty. These considerations are those which governed the Iroquois and
the Aztecs; in fact they originated in barbarism, and reveal the
anterior barbarous condition of the ancestors of the Grecian tribes.
It seems strange that they were sufficient to answer the Greek ideal
of the family relation in the midst of Grecian civilization. The
growth of property and the desire for its transmission to children
was, in reality, the moving power which brought in monogamy to insure
legitimate heirs, and to limit their number to the actual progeny of
the married pair. A knowledge of the paternity of children had begun to
be realized under the syndyasmian family, from which the Grecian form
was evidently derived, but it had not attained the requisite degree
of certainty because of the survival of some portion of the ancient
_jura conjugialia_. It explains the new usage which made its appearance
in the Upper Status of barbarism; namely, the seclusion of wives.
An implication to this effect arises from the circumstance that a
necessity for the seclusion of the wife must have existed at the time,
and which seems to have been so formidable that the plan of domestic
life among the civilized Greeks was, in reality, a system of female
confinement and restraint. Although the particulars cited relate more
especially to the family among the prosperous classes, the spirit it
evinces was doubtless general.
Turning next to the Roman family, the condition of woman is more
favorable, but her subordination the same.
She was treated with respect in Rome as in Athens, but in the Roman
family her influence and authority were greater. As _mater familias_
she was mistress of the family. She went into the streets freely
without restraint on the part of her husband, and frequented with
the men the theaters and festive banquets. In the house she was not
confined to particular apartments, neither was she excluded from the
table of the men. The absence of the worst restrictions placed upon
Grecian females was favorable to the growth of a sense of personal
dignity and of independence among Roman women. Plutarch remarks that
after the peace with the Sabines, effected through the intervention of
the Sabine women, many honorable privileges were conferred upon them;
the men were to give them the way when they met on the street; they
were not to utter a vulgar word in the presence of females, nor appear
nude before them.[487] Marriage, however, placed the wife in the power
of her husband (_in manum viri_); the notion that she must remain
under power following, by an apparent necessity, her emancipation by
her marriage from paternal power. The husband treated his wife as
his daughter, and not as his equal. Moreover, he had the power of
correction, and of life and death in case of adultery; but the exercise
of this last power seems to have been subject to the concurrence of the
council of her gens.
Unlike other people, the Romans possessed three forms of marriage. All
alike placed the wife in the hand of her husband, and recognized as the
chief end of marriage the procreation of children in lawful wedlock
(_liberorum querendorum causa_).[488] These forms (_confarreatio_,
_coëmptio_, and _usus_) lasted through the Republic, but fell out
under the Empire, when a fourth form, the free marriage, was generally
adopted, because it did not place the wife in the power of her husband.
Divorce, from the earliest period, was at the option of the parties, a
characteristic of the syndyasmian family, and transmitted probably from
that source. They rarely occurred, however, until near the close of the
Republic.[489]