understand how most authors have come to regard conditions in the two countries as essentially identical. Yet the divergence in the nomenclature of the tribal divisions points to significant differences. The fact is that the clan names of the Australians are entirely different from the totem names. The former have, as a rule, become unintelligible to the present-day native, and, since many of them recur among distinct tribes who now speak different dialects, they probably derive from an older age. Words such as Ipai, Kumbo, Murri, Kubbi, etc., may originally, perhaps, have possessed a local significance. At any rate, clan names but rarely consist of the names of animals. On the other hand, such words as emu, kangaroo, opossum, eagle-hawk, and others,are the regular designations of the clans composing the totem groups. The case is otherwise among the North American Indians. Here the clans all have animal names. Nor can we anywhere find alongside of the clans any particular totem groups which might be regarded as cult alliances. The schema shown on p. 141 exhibits these relations. The tribal halves are designated by I and II, the clans by A, B, C, etc, and the independent totem groups existing within the individual clans bym, n, o, p,etc.
Owing to the external similarity of the tribal organizations, it has generally been thought that the totem groups of the Australians are merely clans or subclans, such as are, doubtless, the social groups of the American Indians, designated by similar totem names. This interpretation, however, has unquestionably led to serious confusion, particularly in the description of the tribal organization of the Australians. A study of the detailed and very valuable contributions of Howitt and of other early investigators of the sociological conditions of Australia, inevitably leaves the impression that, particularly as regards the interpretation of the various group names, the scholars were labouring under misconceptions which caused the relations to appear more complex than they really are. Such misconceptions were all the more possible because the investigators in question were entirely ignorant of the languages of the natives, and were therefore practically dependent upon the statements of their interpreters. Under these circumstances we may doubtless be allowed a certain degree of scepticism as to the acceptance of these reports, especially when they also involve an interpretation of phenomena; and we may be permitted an attempt to discover whether a different conception of the significance of the various group names may not give us a clearer picture of the phenomena, and one that is also more adequate when the general condition of the inhabitants is taken into account. The conditions prevalent among the American Indians are in general much easier to understand than are those of the Australians, particularly where the oldtribal organization has been preserved with relative purity, as among the Iroquois. In this case, however, the totem names have obviously become pure clan designations without any cult significance. Now this has not occurred among the Australians; for them, the totem animal has rather the status of a cult object common to the members of a group. The fact that the Australians have separate names for the clans, as was remarked above, whereas the American Indians have come to designate clans by totem names, provides all the more justification for attributing essentially different meanings to the two groups that bear totem names. In attempting to reach a more satisfactory interpretation of totemic tribal organization, therefore, we shall consider those totem groups which are obviously in a relatively early stage of development—namely, the Australian groups—simply ascult associationswhich have found a place within the tribal divisions or clans, but whose original significance is of an absolutely different nature. In the above schema, therefore, A, B, C, D, etc., represent tribal divisions or clans,m, n, o, p,etc., cult groups. The latter are lacking in the part of the diagram which refers to the American Indians, since these have no cult associations that are independent of the tribal divisions; indeed, the old totem names have lost their former cult significance and have become mere clan names. Thus, the conception here advanced differs from the usual one in that it gives a different significance to the totem names on the two levels of development. In the case of the Australians, we regard them as the names ofcult groups; in America, where the totem cult proper has receded or has disappeared, we regard them asmere clan names. But the extension of totem names to the entire clan organization in the latter case is not, as it were, indicative of a more developed totemism, but rather ofa totemism in the state of decline. The totem animal, though here also at one time an object of cult, is such no longer, but has become a mere coat of arms. In support of this view of American totem names, we might doubtless also refer to the so-called totem poles. Such a pole consistsof a number of human heads representing the ancestors of the clan, and is crowned by the head of the totem animal. This is obviously symbolic of the idea that this succession of generations has as its symbol the totem animal that surmounts it—that is, the totem pole is an enlarged coat of arms.
Because of the great regularity of its occurrence, the dual form of tribal division must be regarded as everywhere due to the same cause. Concerning its origin there can scarcely be any doubt. Obviously it has no real connection with totemism itself. This explains why the tribal divisions originally derived their names, not from the totem, but from localities or from other external sources, as the conditions among the Australians would seem to indicate. A phenomenon which recurs in widely distant regions with such regularity as does dual division, is scarcely intelligible except by reference to the general conditions attendant upon the spread of peoples. A tribe leading the unsettled life of gatherers and hunters must of inner necessity separate as its numbers increase or as the food-supply begins to fail. It is but natural that the tribe should first separate into two divisions on the basis of the hunting-grounds which the members occupy; the same process may then repeat itself in the case of each division. The fact that when deviations from the principle of dual division are found, they are most likely to occur in the subordinate groups, is also in harmony with the view that the divisions are due to the natural conditions of dispersion. For, in the case of the subordinate groups, one of the smaller units might, of course, easily disintegrate or wander to a distance and lose its connection with the tribe.
[1]The survey presented in this and in the following section aims to give only a general outline of the relations between totemism and tribal organization, as based particularly on several tribes of Central Australia. For a more detailed account of the conditions and of their probable interpretation, I would refer to a paper on "Totemism and Tribal Organization in Australia," published, in 1914, inAnthropos, an international journal.
[1]The survey presented in this and in the following section aims to give only a general outline of the relations between totemism and tribal organization, as based particularly on several tribes of Central Australia. For a more detailed account of the conditions and of their probable interpretation, I would refer to a paper on "Totemism and Tribal Organization in Australia," published, in 1914, inAnthropos, an international journal.
Though the dual organization of the tribe seems to admit of a comparatively simple and easy explanation, the totemic exogamy which is closely bound up with it offers great difficulties. As we have already seen, totemic exogamy is characterized by the fact that a member of one specific clan, or of a totem group belonging to the clan, may enter into marriageonly with a member of another clan or totem group. This restriction of the marriage relationship is generally known as 'exogamy,' a term first introduced by the Scottish ethnologist and historian, McLennan. In order to distinguish this custom from later regulations of marriage, such, for example, as exist in present law, in the prohibition of the union of relatives by blood or by marriage, we may call it more specifically 'totemic exogamy.' Totemic exogamy clearly represents the earliest form of marriage restriction found in custom or law. The phenomena bound up with it may be regarded as having arisen either contemporaneously with the first division of the tribe or, at any rate, soon thereafter, for some of the Australian and Melanesian tribes practise exogamy even though they have not advanced beyond a twofold division of the tribe. On the other hand, the primitive horde of the pretotemic age remains undivided, and, of course, shows no trace of exogamy. True, marriages between parents and children seem to have been avoided as early even as in pretotemic times. But this could hardly have been due to the existence of firmly established norms of custom. Such norms never developed except under the influence of totemic tribal organization, and they are closely related to its various stages of development.
Taking as the basis of consideration the above-mentioned conditions in Australia, where an approximate regularity in the successive stages of this development is most clearly in evidence, we may distinguish particularlythreemain forms of exogamy. The first is the simplest. If we designate the two divisions of the tribe between which exogamic relations obtain, by A and B, and the various subgroups of A byl, m, n, o,and of B byp, q, r, s,we have, as this simplest form,unlimited exogamy. It corresponds to the following schema:—
This means: A man belonging to Class A may take in marriage a woman from any of the subgroups of Class B, and conversely. Marriage is restricted to the extent that a man may not take a wife from his own class; it is unrestricted, however, in so far as he may select her from any of the subgroups of the other class. This form of exogamy does not appear to occur except where the divisions of the tribe are not more than two in number. The marriage classes, A and B, then represent the two divisions of the tribe; the subgroupsl, m, n, o, p,...are totem groups—that is to say, according to the view maintained above, cult groups. For the most part, marriage relationships between the specific cult groups meet with no further restrictions. A man of Class A may marry a woman belonging to any of the totem groupsp, q, r, s,of Class B—it is only union with a woman belonging to one of the totem groups of Class A that is denied him. Nevertheless, as we shall notice later, we even here occasionally find more restricted relations between particular totem groups, and it is these exceptions that constitute the transitional steps to limited exogamy. Such transitions to the succeeding form of exogamy are to be found, for example, among the Australian Dieri, some of whose totem groups intermarry, only with some one particular group of the other tribal division.
Thesecondform of exogamy occurs when a member of Class A is not allowed to take in marriage any woman he may choose from Class B, but only one from some specific sub-group of B. For example, a man of groupnis restricted to a woman of groupr.
Both forms of exogamy, the unlimited and the limited, observe the same law with respect to the group affiliation of children. If, as universally occurs in Australia, A and B are clans having exogamous relations, andl, m, n, o, p,...are totem groups within these clans, then, if maternal descent prevails, the children remain both in the clan and in the totem of the mother; in the case of paternal descent, they pass over to the clan and to the totem of the father. Of these modes of reckoning descent, the former is dominant, and was everywhere, probably, the original custom. One indication of this is the connection of paternal descent with other phenomena representing a change of conditions due to external influences—the occurrence of the same totem groups, for example, in the two clans, A and B, that enjoy exogamous relations. The latter phenomenon is not to be found under the usual conditions, represented by diagrams I and II. In the case of unlimited exogamy (I), no less than in that of limited exogamy, we find that if, for example, maternal descent prevails, and, the mother belongs to clan B and to totem groupr, the children likewise belong to this groupr. This condition is much simplified in the case of the American Indians. With them, totem group and clan coincide, the totem names having become the names of the clans themselves. The particular totem groups,l, m, n, o, p,...do not exist. Exogamous relations between clans A and B consist merely in the fact that a man of the one clan is restricted in marriage to women of the other clan. Wherever maternal descent prevails, as it does, for example, among the Iroquois, the children are counted to the clan of the mother; in the case of paternal descent, they belong to the clan of the father.
In the Australian system, however, which distinguishes clan and totem, and therefore, as we may suppose, still exemplifies, on the whole, an uninterrupted development, we find also athirdform of exogamous relationship. This last form of exogamy seems to be the one which is most common in Australia, whereas, of course, it has no place in the pure clan exogamy of the American Indians. The system indicated in diagram II, in which children belong directly to the clan of the mother in maternal descent and to that of the father in paternal descent, may be designated as limited exogamy with direct maternal or paternaldescent. There developed from this a third system, in which, while the children are counted to theclanof the parent who determines descent, they nevertheless become members of a different totem group. Thus arises a limited exogamy withindirectmaternal or paternal descent, as represented in diagram III.
A man of clan A and totem grouplmay marry only a woman of clan B and totem groupp; the children, however, do not belong to the totemp, but to another specifically defined totem group,q, of clan B.
The way in which these various forms of exogamy affect the marriage relations of the children that are born from such unions is fairly obvious. Turning first to form I—unlimited exogamy—it is clear that, in the case of maternal descent, which here appears to be the rule, none of the children of the mother may marry except into the clan of the father; in paternal descent, conversely, they may marry only into the clan of the mother. Marriage between brothers and sisters, thus, is made impossible. Nor may a son marry his mother where maternal descent prevails, or a daughter her father in the case of paternal descent. In the former case, however, the marriage of father and daughter would be permitted, as would that of mother and son in the latter. The marriage of a son or daughter with relatives of the mother who belong to the same clan is not allowed in the case of maternal descent. The son, for example, may not marry a sister of his mother, nor the daughter a brother of the mother, etc. Since it is maternal descent that is dominant in the case of unlimited exogamy, the most important result of the latter is doubtless its prevention of the marriage of brother and sister, in addition to that of a son with his mother. The system of paternaldescent, of course, involves a corresponding change in marriage restrictions.
What, now, are the results of form II—limited exogamy with direct maternal or paternal descent? It is at once clear that such exogamy prohibits all the various marriage connections proscribed by unlimited exogamy. Marriage between brothers and sisters is rendered impossible, as is also, in the case of maternal descent, that between a son and his mother or the relatives in her clan. Marriage between father and daughter, however, is permitted. Where paternal descent prevails, these latter conditions are reversed. Although forms I and II are to this extent in complete agreement, they nevertheless show a very important difference with respect to the prohibitions which they place on marriage. In unlimited exogamy, a man is at liberty to marry into any totem that belongs to the clan with which his own has exogamous relations; in limited exogamy, however, he may marry into onlyoneof the totems of such a clan. Thus, the circle within which he may select a wife is very materially reduced. Limited exogamy with direct maternal or paternal descent, accordingly, means areapproach to endogamy. The wife must be chosen from an essentially smaller group, narrowed down, in the case of maternal descent, to the more immediate relatives of the father, or, in paternal descent, to those of the mother. Such a condition is not at all a strict form of exogamy, as is maintained by some ethnologists, but is, on the contrary, something of a return to endogamy. This point is of decisive importance in determining the motives of the remarkable institution of exogamy.
What are the conditions, finally, which obtain in form III—limited exogamy withindirectmaternal or paternal descent? It is at once obvious that marriage between brother and sister is here also excluded. Furthermore, another union is prohibited which was permitted in form II. For son and daughter, in the case of maternal descent, no longer belong to the totem group of the mother,p, but pass over into another group, sayq. Not only,therefore, is a son prevented from marrying his mother because they both belong to the same clan, but a father is forbidden to marry his daughter because he may take only a woman of groupp, to which his wife belongs. No less true is this of the son, who now likewise belongs to groupq, and may therefore no longer marry a female relative of his father's, since the groupqinto which he has entered has exogamous connections with another totem group of the paternal clan, say withm. With this change a step to astricter exogamyis again taken; the earlier restrictions on marriage remain, and the possibilities of marriage between relations are further reduced by changing the totem of the children. Cousins may not marry each other. Thus, the limits of exogamy are here narrower than those, for example, which obtain in Germany. It is evident that such limitations might become a galling constraint, particularly where there is a scarcity of women, as is the case, for the most part, in Australia. This has led some of the Australian tribes to the remarkable expedient of declaring that a man is not to be regarded as the son of his father, but, in the case of maternal descent, as the son of his paternal grandfather—a step which practically amounts to transferring him into the totem of his father and allowing him to enter into marriage with his mother's relatives. This circumvention, reminding one of the well-known fictions of Roman law, may have its justification in the eyes of the Australians in the fact that they draw practically no distinction between the various generations of ancestors.
The three forms of exogamy, accordingly, agree in prohibiting the marriage of brothers and sisters and, in so far as maternal descent may be regarded as the prevailing system, the marriage of a son with his mother. Both these prohibitions, doubtless, and especially the latter, reflect a feeling which was experienced by mankind at an early age. The aversion to the marriage of a son with his mother is greater than that to the marriage of brother and sister or even that of father and daughter. Consider the tragedy of Å’dipus. It might, perhaps, be less horrible were itfather and daughter instead of son and mother who were involved in the incestuous relation. Marriages between brothers and sisters have, of course, sometimes occurred. Thus, as has already been remarked, the Peruvian Incas ordained by law that a king must marry his sister. In the realm of the Ptolemies, likewise, the marriage of brother and sister served the purpose of maintaining purity of blood, and even to-day such marriages occur in some of the smaller despotic negro states. The custom is probably always the result of the subjugation of a people by a foreign line of rulers. Indeed, even the Greeks permitted marriage between half-brothers and half-sisters.
Though these natural instincts were less potent in early times than in later culture, they may not have been entirely inoperative in the development from original endogamy to exogamy. Nevertheless, one would scarcely attempt to trace to the blind activity of such instincts those peculiar forms of exogamy that appear particularly among the Australian tribes. On the contrary, we would here also at once be inclined to maintain that the reverse is true, thus following a principle that has approved itself in so many other cases. The aversion to marriage with relatives has left its impress on our present-day legislation, not so much, indeed, in the positive form of exogamy, as in the negative form which forbids endogamy within certain limits.This aversion, however, is not the source so much as it is the effect—at least in great measure—of the exogamous institutions of early culture.All the more important is the question concerning the origin of these institutions. This question, in fact, has already received much attention on the part of ethnologists, particularly since the beginning of the present century, when it has become more and more possible to study the tribal organization of the Australians. Here, however, we must distinguish between the general theories that have been advanced concerning the causes of exogamy as such—theories which date back in part even to a fairly early period—and hypotheses concerning the origin of the various forms of exogamy.
Exogamy as such has generally been approached from a rationalistic point of view. It has been regarded as an institution voluntarily created to obviate the marriage of relatives, and is supposed to have arisen contemporaneously with another institution of like purpose, namely, tribal division. This view is championed, among other scholars, by the able American sociologist, Lewes Morgan, in his book "Ancient Society" (1870), and even by Frazer in his comprehensive work "Totemism and Exogamy" (1910), which includes in its survey all parts of the earth. Frazer says explicitly: 'In the distant past, several wise old men must have agreed to obviate the evils of endogamy, and with this end in view they instituted a system that resulted in exogamous marriage.' Thus, the determinant motive is here supposed to have been aversion to the marriage of relatives. According to Morgan's hypothesis—an extreme example of rationalistic interpretation—the aversion was due to a gradually acquired knowledge that the marriage of relatives was injurious in its effects upon offspring. The entire institution, thus, is regarded as a eugenic provision. We are to suppose that the members of these tribes not only invented this whole complicated system of tribal division, but that they foresaw its results and for this reason instituted exogamous customs. Were people who possess no names for numbers greater than four capable of such foresight, it would indeed be an unparalleled miracle. Great social transformations, of which one of the greatest is unquestionably the transition from the primitive horde to totemic tribal organization, are never effected by the ordinances of individuals, but develop of themselves through a necessity immanent in the cultural conditions. Their effects are never foreseen, but are recognized in their full import only after they have taken place. Moreover, as regards the question of the injurious effects resulting from the marriage of relatives, authorities even to-day disagree as to where the danger begins and how great it really is. That the Australians should have formed definite convictions in prehistoric times with reference to these matters, is absolutely inconceivable. At most, theymight have felt a certain instinctive repugnance. Furthermore, if these institutions were established with the explicit purpose of avoiding marriage between relatives, the originators, though manifesting remarkable sagacity in their invention, made serious mistakes in their calculations. For, in the first place, the first two forms of exogamy only partially prevent a union which even endogamous custom avoids, namely, that between parents and children; in the second place, the transition from unlimited to limited exogamy with direct maternal or paternal descent does not involve an increased restriction of marriage between relations, but, as we have already seen, marks a retrogression, in the sense of a reapproach to endogamy.
The above view, therefore, was for the most part abandoned in favour of other, apparently more natural, explanations. Of these we would mention, as a second theory, the biological hypothesis of Andrew Lang. This author assumes that the younger brothers of a joint family were driven out by the stronger and older ones in order to ward off any want that might arise from the living together of a large number of brothers and sisters, and that these younger brothers were thus obliged to marry outside the group. Even this, however, is not an adequate theory of exogamy, since it does not explain how the custom has come to apply also to the older members of the family group. As a final hypothesis, we may mention one which may perhaps be described as specifically sociological. In its fundamental aspects it was proposed by MacLennan, the investigator who also gave us the word 'exogamy.' MacLennan does not regard exogamy as having originated in times of peace, nor even as representing voluntarily established norms of custom. He derives it from war, and in so doing he appeals to the testimony both of history and of legend. As is well known, even the Iliad, the greatest epic of the past, portrays as an essential part of its theme a marriage by capture. The dissension between Achilles and Agamemnon arose from the capture of Briseis, for whom the two leaders of theAchæans quarrelled with each other. According to MacLennan, the capture of a woman from a strange tribe represents the earliest exogamy. The rape of the Sabines is another incident suggesting the same conclusion. True, this is not an event of actual history. Nevertheless, legend reflects the customs and ideas of the past. Now, in the case under discussion, it is clear that marriage by capture involves a foreign and hostile tribe, for this is the relation which the Sabines originally sustained to the Romans. A significant indication of the connection between marriage by capture and war with hostile tribes occurs also in Deuteronomy (ch. xxi.), where the law commands the Israelites: 'If in war you see a beautiful woman and desire her in marriage, take her with you. Let her for several weeks bewail her relatives and her home, and then marry her. But if you do not wish to make her your wife, then let her go free; you shall not sell her into slavery.' This is a remarkable passage in that it forbids the keeping and the selling of female slaves, but, on the other hand, permits marriage with a woman of a strange tribe. A parallel is found in Judges (ch. xxi.), where it is related that the elders of Israel, being prevented by an oath to Jahve from giving their own daughters in marriage to the children of Benjamin, advised the latter to fall, from ambush, upon a Canaanitic tribe and to steal its maidens.
In spite of all these proofs, exogamy and the capture of women from strange tribes differ as regardsonefeature of paramount importance. In both legend and history the captured woman is universally of astrangetribe, whereas totemic exogamy never occurs except between clans of the same tribe. Added to this is a further consideration. The above-mentioned passage from Deuteronomy certainly presupposes that the Israelite who captures a wife in warfare with a strange tribe already possesses a wife from among his own tribe. This is his chief wife, in addition to whom he may take the strange woman as a secondary wife. We may refer to Hagar, the slave, and to Sarah, Abraham's rightful wife, whobelonged to his own tribe. The resemblance between exogamy and the capture of women in warfare is so far from being conclusive that exogamy is permitted only between clans of the same tribal group; hence, in cases where there are four or eight subgroups, it is not even allowed between members of the two tribal halves. Indeed, the essential characteristic of exogamous tribal organization, marriage betweenspecificsocial groups, is entirely lacking in the marriage by capture that results from war. Moreover, the woman married under exogamous conditions is either the only wife or, if she is the first, she is the chief wife; in the case of marriage by capture in war, the captured woman is the secondary wife.
Though the theory that exogamy originated in the capture of women in warfare is clearly untenable, it has without doubt seized upononeelement of truth. Marriage by capture may also occur within one and the same tribe, and under relatively savage conditions this happens very frequently. Indeed, it is precisely in the case of the Australians, to judge from reports, that such marriage is probably as old as the institution of exogamy itself, if not older. Early accounts, in particular, give abundant testimony to this effect. That later writings give less prominence to the phenomenon does not imply its disappearance. The decreased emphasis is due rather to the fact that in more recent years the attention of investigators has been directed almost exclusively to the newly discovered conditions of tribal organization. Even on a more advanced and semi-cultural stage we find struggles for the possession of a wife. The struggle, however, is regularly carried on, not between members of different groups, much less between entirely strange peoples of widely differing language and culture, but between members of one and the same tribe. Two or more members of a tribe fall into a quarrel for the possession of a woman who, thoughnot belonging to their own clan, is nevertheless a member of a neighbouring clan of the same tribe. Such conditions are doubtless to be traced back to earliest times. The victor wins the woman for himself. The custom of marriage by capture has left its traces even down to the present, in practices that have for the most part assumed a playful character. Originally, however, these practices were without doubt of a serious nature, as were all such forms of play that originated in earlier customs. Just as ancient exogamous restrictions are still operative in the prohibitions which the statutes of all cultural peoples place on the marriage of relatives, so the influence of marriage by capture is reflected in some of the usages attending the consummation of marriage, as well as in various customs, such as the purchase of wives and its converse, the dowry, which succeeded marriage by capture. Moreover, the fact that marriage by capture occasionally occurs even in primitive pretotemic culture and that it is practised beyond that circle of tribal organization whose totemic character can be positively proved, indicates that it is presumably older than an exogamy regulated by strict norms of custom. It is just in Australia, that region of the earth where, to a certain extent, the various stages of development of exogamy still exist side by side, that we find other cultural conditions which make it practically impossible to hold that marriage by capture originated in warfare between tribes. Though the woman who is here most likely to become an object of dissension between brothers or other kinsmen may not belong to the same clan and the same totem as the latter, she is nevertheless a member of one of the totems belonging to one of the most closely related clans. A woman of their own clan is too close to the men of the group to be desired as a wife; a woman of a strange tribe, too remote. In the ordinary course of events, moreover, there is no opportunity for meeting women of other tribes. The slave who is captured in war and carried away as a concubine appears only at a far later stage of culture. The original struggle for the possession of a woman, therefore, was not carried onwith members of a strange tribe, as though it were to this that the woman belonged. Doubtless also it was only to a slight degree a struggle with the captured woman herself—this perhaps represents a later transference that already paves the way for the phenomena of mere mock-struggles. The real struggle took place between fellow-tribesmen, between men of the same clan, both of whom desired the woman. There is a possibility, of course, that the kinsmen of the woman might oppose her capture. This aspect of the struggle, however, like the opposition of the woman herself, was probably unknown prior to the cultural stage, when the female members of the clan came to be valued, as they are among agricultural and nomadic peoples, because of the services which they render to the family. The theory just outlined, moreover, readily explains the further development of the conditions that precede the consummation of marriage, whereas the theory that marriage by capture originated in warfare is in this respect a complete failure. Valuable information concerning the later stages in the development of the marriage by capture which originates during a state of tribal peace, is again furnished by Australian ethnology. Among these peoples, the original capture has in many instances passed over into an exchange in which the suitor offers his own sister to the brother of the woman whom he desires for himself. If this proposal for exchange is accepted and he has thereby won the kinsmen of the woman to his side, his fellow-contestants may as well give up the struggle. Thus, exogamous marriage by capture here gives way toexogamous marriage by barter, an arrangement in entire harmony with the development of trade in general, which always begins with barter. At the same time, the form of this barter is the simplest conceivable: a woman is exchanged for a woman; the objects of exchange are the same and there is no necessity for estimating the values in order to equalize them.
There may be some, however, who do not possess sisters whom they may offer in exchange to the men of other clans. What then occurs? In this case also it is inAustralia that we find the beginnings of a new arrangement. In place of offering his sister in exchange, the suitor presents agiftto the parents of the bride, at first to the mother. Gift takes the place of barter. Since there is no woman who may be bartered in exchange, a present is given as her equivalent. Thus we haveexogamous marriage by gift, and, as the custom becomes more general and the gift is fixed by agreement, this becomesexogamous marriage by purchase. The latter, however, probably occurs only at a later stage of culture. The man buys the woman from her parents. Sometimes, as we know from the Biblical example of Jacob and from numerous ethnological parallels, he enters into service in order to secure her—he labours for a time in the house of her parents. In an age unfamiliar with money, one who has possessions purchases the woman with part of his herd or of the produce of his fields. Whoever owns no such property, as, for instance, the poor man or the dependent son, purchases the woman with his labour.
Marriage by purchase, however, does not represent the terminus of the development. On the contrary, it prepares the way formarriage by contract, an important advance that was already, to a certain extent, made by the Greeks, and later particularly by the Romans. Not purchase, but a contract between him who concludes the marriage and the parents of the woman—this is an arrangement which still finds acceptance with us to-day. Now, the marriage contract determines the conditions for both bride and groom, and eventually also the marriage portion which the man brings to the union, as well as the dowry of the wife. As soon, therefore, as property considerations come to be dominant within the field of marriage, marriage by contract opens the way for a twofold marriage by purchase. The man may either buy the woman, as was done in the case of the earlier marriage by purchase, or the woman may buy the man with the dowry that she brings. At first, in the days of marriage by capture, the struggle with fellow-clansmen or with strangers was of decisive importance;at a later time, however, differences in property, rank, and occupation came to be the determining factors in the case of marriage. Thus, if we regard marriage by gift as a mode of marriage by purchase, though, in part, more primitive, and, in part, more spontaneous, our summary reveals three main stages:marriage by capture, marriage by purchase, andmarriage by contract. Between these modes of marriage, of course, there are transitional forms, which enable us to regard the course of development as constant. The fact, however, that the entire development bears the character of a more or less thorough-going exogamy, is due to theoldestof these modes of marriage—a mode which, as we may assume, was prevalent at the beginning of the totemic age. This is a form of marriage by capture in which the woman belonged, not to a strange tribe, but to a neighbouring clan of the same tribe, or to one with which there were other lines of intercourse. When capture disappeared, the exogamy to which it gave rise remained. The old customs connected with the former passed over, though more and more in the form of play, into the now peaceful mode of marriage by purchase; their survivals continued here and there even in the last form of marriage, that by contract.
How does this general development of the modes of marriage account for those peculiar laws of exogamy which are universally characteristic of totemic culture, representing strict norms of custom that forbid all marriage except that between specific clans of a tribe, or even only between pairs of totem groups of different clans? Were these marriage ordinances, which have evidently arisen in various places independently of one another, intentionally invented? Or are they the natural outcome of totemic tribal organization, resulting from its inherent conditions, just as did the laws of dual tribal division from the natural growth and partition of the tribes?
Now, the forms of totemic exogamy unmistakably constitute a developmental series. In the simplest arrangement, there are no restrictions whatever upon marriage between members of one clan and those of another with which marriage relations exist. Such exogamy, however, is relatively rare in Australia, the land in which the developmental forms of exogamy are chiefly to be found. It seems to be limited to tribes that have merely a dual organization, in which event the clan coincides with one-half the tribe. Even in such cases we find transitions to the next form of exogamy. In this second system, exogamy is restricted to particular totems of the two clans of one and the same tribal division; and, just as in the first case, the children are, as a rule, born directly into the totem group of the mother, or, less commonly, into that of the father. Following this exogamy with direct maternal or paternal descent and undeniably proceeding out of it, we finally have, as the third main form, exogamy with indirect maternal or paternal descent. In this form of exogamy, as in the preceding ones, the children belong to the totem of the mother or to that of the father so far as birth is concerned; as respects their exogamous totem relation, however, they pass over into another totem of the same clan. Thus, birth-totem and marriage-totem are here distinct, and every member of a group belongs to two totems that differ in significance. Now, in the case of a marriage by capture in which the individuals belong to different clans, the question of the totem does not enter. When, therefore, this mode of marriage remains undisturbed by further conditions, we have exogamy of the first form. When a suitor seeks to win the favour of the clan by means of a gift presented to the parents or the kin, marriage by capture passes over directly and without further change into the simple marriage by purchase. The two more exclusive forms of exogamy, on the other hand, are obviously connected with the rise of totemism; they are the result both of the clan divisions which follow from tribal partition and of the accompanying separationinto totem groups. The question, therefore, concerning the development of these forms of exogamy, dependent as they are both upon clan divisions and upon totem groups, is essentially bound up with the question concerning the temporal relation of the two important phenomena last mentioned. An unambiguous answer to the latter question, however, may be gathered precisely by a study of Australian conditions, at least so far as the development in these regions is concerned. If we recall our previous schema (p. 141), representing the tribal organization of the Kamilaroi, and here, as there, designate the totemic groups (emu, kangaroo, opossum, etc.) comprised within the clan bym n o p...,it is apparent that the totems must be at least as old as the division into the two tribal halves. Unless this were the case, we could not explain the fact that, with very minor exceptions, precisely the same totems exist in the two tribal divisions. The condition might be represented thus:—
It is also evident, however, that the totems could not have influenced this first division, otherwise their members would not have separated and passed over into the two tribal divisions, as they did in almost every case. Remembering that the totemic groups are also cult associations, we might express the matter thus: At the time of the first tribal division, the cult groups were not yet strong enough to offer resistance to the separation of the tribal divisions, or to determine the mode of division; therefore, members of totemm, for example, went here or there according as other external conditions determined. Conditions were quite different at the time of the second division, when the tribal half I separated into clans A and B, and II into C and D, according to the schema:—
These clans, as we see, separated strictly according to totems. The bond of cult association had now become so strong that all members of a particular totem regularly affiliated themselves with the same clan, though the grouping of the totem divisions within the clans of the two tribal halves proceeded along absolutely independent lines, as may be concluded from the fact that the totems composing the clans within the two tribal divisions are grouped differently. The formation of such cult or totem groups, thus, may already have begun in the primitive horde. At that time, however, these cult groups were probably loosely knit, so that when the horde split up, its members separated, each of the two tribal divisions, generally speaking, including individuals of all the various tribes. Not so in the case of those divisions of the tribe which originated later, after mankind had advanced further beyond the condition of the horde. By this time the totem unions must have become stronger, so that the members of a cult group no longer separated but, together with other similar groups, formed a clan. When the growth of the tribe, together with the conditions of food supply and the density of population, led to a separation of the tribe, certain totem groups invariably joined one division and others, the other, but the more firmly organized groups remained intact.
A further phenomenon of great importance for the development of exogamous marriage laws must here be mentioned—one that occurs throughout the entire realm of totemic culture but is particularly prominent among the Australian totem groups. This phenomenon consists intotem friendships. Certain totem groups regard themselves as in particularly close relations with certain other groups. Friendships similar to these, in a general way, are to be found even in connection with the highest forms of political organization. For modern States themselves enter into political alliances or friendships, and these, as is well known, are subject to change. Such alliances occur from the beginnings of totemism on up to the advanced plane of modern international culture. Though these affiliations eventually cometo be determined primarily by the commercial relations of peoples, the determining factors at the outset were faith and cult. In both cases, however, the friendships are not of a personal nature, but are relations based on common interests. This common interest may consist, for example, in the fact that, as has been observed among some of the Australian totem alliances, the member of a totem may slay the totem animal in the hunt, but may not eat of it, though the member of the friendly totem may do so. Thus, the interest in cult becomes also a means for the satisfaction of wants, as well as a bond that unites more closely the particular totem groups.
These facts help to explain how the unlimited exogamy which first arises from marriage by capture comes to pass over into a 'limited exogamy,' as it does immediately upon the appearance of conditions that regulate the forceful capture and substitute for it the friendly exchange of women. These factors, however, always come into play whenever the intercourse between tribal members becomes closer, and particularly when the struggle with strange tribes keeps in check the strife between individuals of the same tribal association. In such cases, exchange, or, in later development, purchase, proves the means of putting an end to force. Thus, blood revenge, which persists into far later times, is displaced by thewergildwhich the murderer pays to the kin of his victim. This transition is precisely the same, in its own field, as that which occurs in the institution of marriage, for in the former case also the strife involves members of the same tribe. The passion, however, which causes the murder and which creates the demand for vengeance, sometimes prevented the introduction of peaceful means of settlement. In the case of marriage by capture, however, a marriage relationship, unrestricted and friendly in character, was doubtless first developed between the two clans, particularly wherever tribal division and clan were identical. And though marriage by capture was for a time still occasionally practised—since all changes of this sort are gradual—such marriages, nevertheless, more and more assumed a playful character. The actual capture everywhere finally gaveway to exchange and later to the gift. When, however, the totem groups, and with them the cult associations that established a bond between clan and clan, gained the ascendancy, the totem groups naturally displaced the clan in respect to marriage arrangements; those totems who maintained close cult relations with one another, entered also into a marriage relationship. Thus, exogamy became limited; the members of a totem of clan A married only into the friendly totem of clan B, and this usage became an established norm whose violation might result in the death of the guilty person, unless he escaped this fate by flight. This transition of exogamy from clan to totem group, and from the unlimited to the limited form, came only gradually. This is clearly shown by the conditions among the Dieri. Certain of their totems have already entered upon the stage of limited marriage relationship, whereas others have not advanced beyond unlimited exogamy.
But even after the development had reached its final form and limited totemic exogamy was completely established, further changes ensued. For the basis of such exogamy, we may conjecture, is the fact that certain totem groups of associated clans enjoy particularly close relations with one another. Even on these primitive levels, however, the friendships of such groups are not absolutely permanent any more than are the political friendships of modern civilized states, though their degree of permanence is probably greater than that of the latter. Migrations, changes in hunting-grounds, and other conditions, were doubtless operative also in totemic culture, loosening the bonds between friendly totems and cementing others in their stead. This led to changes in the exogamous relations of totem groups. Instead of groupsnandrof clans A and B,nandqmight then come to have exogamous connections (see diagram III on p. 148). But the severance of the old connection did not immediately obliterate the tradition of the former relationship. The influence of the latter would naturally continue to be felt, not in connection with acts of a transitory nature, such as wooing and marriage, but in matterspermanentincharacter and thus affecting the traditional organization of the tribe. Such a permanent relation, however, istotem affiliation. This explains how it happens that, even after the old totem connection gave way to the new, it nevertheless continued to exercise a claim on the totem membership of the children born under the new marriage conditions; hence also the recognition of the claim on the part of custom. Inonerespect, indeed, such recognition was impossible. More firmly established than any form of exogamy was the law that children belonged to the mother, or, in the case of paternal descent, to the father. This law could not be violated. Henceexogamousandparentaltribal membership became differentiated. The latter ordained that children in every case belong to the totem of the parent who determines descent; the tradition of the former decreed that children belong, not to the parental totem, but to some other totem of the same clan. Such a condition of dual totem membership might, of course, arise from a great variety of conditions, just as may the similarly overlapping social relations within our own modern culture—such, for example, as the military and the so-called civil station of a man. The customary designation of the first two forms of limited exogamy as exogamy with direct maternal descent, and of the third as exogamy with indirect maternal descent, is plainly inappropriate and may easily give rise to misunderstandings. For it may suggest that the maternal totem disposes of its rights in respect to marriage arrangements to another totem group, and that eventually this even occurs in accordance with a definite agreement. But this is certainly not the case. For maternal descent or, speaking more generally, the fact that children belong to the parents, obtains invariably. It would be preferable, therefore, simply to distinguish the parental totem connection from the traditional exogamous connection, or one system in which the exogamous and the parental connections coincide, from a second in which they differ.
The conjecture, therefore, that a traditional marriage relation, differing from that based on parentage, grew upout of a previous totem friendship, is based primarily on the importance which totemiccultalliances in general possessed within the totemic tribal organization. Other causes, of course, may also have co-operated. Two further points must be noticed. In the first place, it is not at all likely that the transition from the parental exogamous relation to the traditional form occurred at the same time in all the totem groups. This is not only highly improbable in itself, but is also absolutely irreconcilable with the fact, shown by the example of the Dieri, that the earlier transition from unlimited to limited exogamy was gradual. Moreover, one must bear in mind that the transition from parental to traditional exogamy, represented by diagram III (p. 148), not only underwent several repeated transformations, but that, due to the power which tradition always exerts, a traditional exogamous union of two totems, after it once arose, may have persisted throughout several changing cult friendships. An existing marriage relation may not at all have corresponded to the cult friendship that immediately preceded it; it may have been based on any earlier friendship whatsoever that had been favoured by conditions and that had received a firm place in tradition. These facts show that the hypothetical 'wise ancestors' of the present-day Australians—sages who are said to have invented this complicated organization in the immemorial past for the purpose of avoiding endogamy—are just as superfluous as they are improbable. The phenomena arose in the course of a long period of time, out of conditions immanent in the life and in the cult of these tribes. The various forms of exogamy appearing in the course of this period were not the causes but the effects of the phenomena in question.
Unless external influences have changed his mode of life, primitive man, as we have seen, is both monogamous and endogamous, the latter term being used in a relative sense as denoting a condition in which marriages are permitted between blood relations as well as between non-relations.As a result of the external conditions of life, however, particularly the common habitation of the same protective cave and the use of adjacent hunting-grounds, unions within a wider joint family generally predominate. Following upon the rise of exogamy, polygamy also regularly appears. These two practices give to the marriage and family relations of totemic society an essentially different character from that which they possess under primitive conditions. Even in the totemic era, indeed, polygamy is not universal; monogamy continues to survive. Monogamy, however, ceases to be a norm of custom. It is everywhere set aside, to a greater or less extent, in favour of the two forms of polygamy—polygyny and polyandry.
Now it is apparent that precisely the same conditions that underlie the development of the various forms of exogamy also generatepolygynyandpolyandry. From the standpoint of the general human impulses determining the relations of the sexes, both sorts of polygamy are manifestly connected very closely with the origin of exogamy. Here, again, the fact that exogamy originated in marriage by capture from within the tribe is of decisive importance. It is precisely this friendly form of the capture of brides, as we may learn from the example of the Australians and of others, that is never carried out by the individual alone, whether the custom be still seriously practised or exists only in playful survivals. The companions of the captor aid him, and he, in turn, reciprocates in similar undertakings. Thereby the companion, according to a view that long continued to be held, gains a joint right to the captured woman. Hence the original form of polygamy was probably not polygyny—the only form, practically, that later occurs—butpolyandry. At first this polyandry, which originates in capture, was probably only temporary in character. Nevertheless it inevitably led to a loosening of the marriage bond, the result of which might easily be the introduction of polygyny. The man who has gained a wife for his permanent possession seeks to indemnify himself, so far as possible, for the partial loss which he suffers through his companions. Here, then, two motivesco-operate to introduce the so-called 'group-marriage'—the dearth of women, which may also act as a secondary motive in the claim of the companions to the captured woman, and the impulse for sexual satisfaction, which is, in turn, intensified by the lack of women. Similarly, the right to the possession of a woman, even though only temporarily, also has two sources. In the first place, the helper demands a reward for his assistance. This reward, according to the primitive views of barter and exchange, can consist only in a partial right to the spoils, which, in this case, means the temporary joint possession of the woman. In the second place, however, the individual is a member of the clan, and what he gains is therefore regarded as belonging also to the others. Thus the right of the closest companions may broaden into a right of the clan. Indeed, where strict monogamy does not prevent, phenomena similar to marriage by capture persist far beyond this period into a later civilization. Thus, in France and Scotland, down to the seventeenth century, the lord possessed the right ofjus primæ noctisin the case of all his newly married vassals. In place of the clan of an earlier period we here find the lord; to him has been transmitted the right of the clan. At the time when these phenomena were in their early beginnings, the temporary relation might very easily have become permanent. It is thus that group-marriage originates—an institution of an enduring character which not only survives the early marriage by capture but which is reinforced and probably first made permanent by its substitute, namely, marriage by purchase. In this instance again, Australian custom offers the clearest evidence. In the so-called 'Pirrauru marriage' of Australia, a man, M, possesses a chief wife, C1, called 'Tippamalku.' Another man, N, likewise has a chief wife, C2. This wife, C2, is, however, at the same time a secondary wife, S1, or 'Pirrauru' of M. In like manner the chief wife, C1, may, in turn, be a secondary wife, S2, of N. This is the simplest form of group-marriage. Two men have two wives, of whom one is the chief wife of M and the secondary wife of N, and theother is the chief wife of N and the secondary wife of M. Into such a group yet a third man, O, may occasionally enter with a chief wife, C3, whom he gives to M as a secondary wife, S3, and eventually to N as a secondary wife, S4, without himself participating further in the group. In this way there may well be innumerable different relations. But the marriage is a 'Pirrauru marriage' whenever a man possesses not only a chief wife but also one or more secondary wives who are at the same time the wives of other men. 'Pirrauru marriage' is a