Studies in ancient history: comprising a reprint of Primitive marriage ..

Front matter

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION. vii

barbarous and savage peoples has been much enlarged since 1865. There is nothing, however, he could have added to or varied in the facts which would have much affected the argument of the book ; and, for the peoples whose customs are most likely to be helpful in reasoning about early societies, the facts will be gone into pretty fully in the projected volume already spoken of.

Of misapprehensions as to his language there is one which should be noticed here. This is a misapprehension as to the words exogamy and endogamy. These terms were introduced on account of two particular things — two laws relating to marriage — for each of which a name seemed to be wanted. One of these laws, when at its widest, forbids marriage between all persons of the same blood-connection or kindred — whether such kindred forms a local tribe by itself ; or whether it is one of several different kindreds which together form a local tribe ; or whether (as often happens) it occurs, along with other kindreds, as an element in more than one local tribe. This law was, when Primitive Marriage was written, unnamed ; and the author termed it exogamy. It is not prohibition of marriage between persons of the same tribal community because of tribesmanship, or of anything that viii PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION:

is necessarily involved in tribesmanship. When at its widest, it is prohibition of marriage between all persons recognised as being of the same blood, because of their common blood — whether they form one community, or part only of a community, or parts of several communities ; and, accordingly, it may prevent marriage between persons who (though of the same blood) are of diflFerent local tribes, while it frequently happens that it leaves persons of the same local tribe (but who are not of the same blood) free to marry one another. Such is this law, and aU the author had to do was to find a name for it ; the sense of the term was not in his choice. That it was convenient the law should have a name will scarcely be disputed. Whether the term exogamy might have been applied with more propriety to something else is, no doubt, a different matter ; but that to which, whether by choice or through misconception, some later writers have applied it, does not seem to be much in need of any special name. The second marriage law for which a name was wanted, allows marriage only between persons who are recognised as being of the same blood-connection or kindred ; and if, where it occurs, it confines marriage to the tribe or community, it is because the tribe regards itself as comprising a kindred. This law the

PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION. ix

author termed endogamy ; and here again it is not his choice, but the nature of the law which had to be named, which makes the term as proposed by him inapplicable to local tribes in general. For the law occurs in those local tribes only which regard themselves as one blood, and restrict intermarriage to men and women of the tribe because of their blood ; and it need not be said what a multitude of tribes are known in which those two conditions are not combined. The tribes which do present them are numerous enough nevertheless, to make it inconvenient that their marriage law should have no name. No doubt there is again the question whether the term proposed might not have been applied with more propriety to something else ; but that to which some later writers have applied it might be left unnamed — even with advantage. For they have used endogamy to denote the mere fact that marriages occur between persons belonging to the same local tribe ; thereby combining under one name the results in working of the marriage law last spoken of, with certain of the results of the marriage law which had been named exogamy — things which, being of different origin and of entirely different significance, it seems best to study apart from one another. With the uses to which the two words, exogamy and

X PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION.

endogamy, have been turned, moreover, marriage laws have been forgotten altogether.

In so far as this has been the result of misconception, the author must have been in fault, no doubt. It seems, nevertheless, to be made perfectly clear in Primitive Marriage that it was two marriage laws he found in want of names, and that it was for them he proposed the terms exogamy and endogamy.

The notes written for this edition are distinguished from the author's notes by being inclosed in brackets — the notes on Mr. Morgan's system being also placed at the end of the Essay to which they refer.

D. McLennan.

San Remo, A'pril 1886.

Preface To The Oeiginal Edition

[Bated 20th January, 1876.]

I SHOULD have brought out a new edition, of Primitive Marriage long since had it not been my purpose to supersede it by a more comprehensive work, — a purpose defeated by circumstances, which have, for several years past, and till within the last few months, made literary work impossible for me. I now bring out a reprint, because the book, which has long been rare, is, for a work of its class, much in request ; and because, though I am again free to resume the studies necessary for its revision, it is uncertain whether I could soon revise it in a satisfactory manner — so that I am without an answer to representations made to me, that it is better it should be made accessible to students with its imperfections than that it should remain inaccessible to them. I have done this the more readUy that, on the whole, I still adhere to the conclusions I had arrived at more than eleven years ago, on the xii PEE FACE.

various matters which are discussed in Primitive

Marriage.

With a little trouble, I might make a paper on examples of the form of capture, which I published in the Argosy in 1866, take the place of Chapter II. But that would be to depart from the idea of a reprint ; and, besides, the paper I refer to has itself ceased to be complete, so many examples of the form have since been collected. The speculation is accordingly reissued with the rather meagre list of cases which originally prompted me to it.^ ^ With Primitive Marriage I reprint a paper on Kinship in Ancient Greece, which was published in April and May, 1866, in the Fortnightly Review. It is the result of a special research to test, in the case of the Greeks, the correctness of the scheme of the evolution of systems of kinship propounded in Primitive Marriage, and was undertaken on a challenge from Mr. Gladstone, who believed that the scheme was inconsistent with Homeric facts. The reader will judge how far the evidence supports my views. I think myself that the case is made out to such an

1 [The contents of the paper referred to in this paragraph have, in this edition, been included in the Appendix to PrimUive Marrioffe.]

PREFACE. xiii

order of probability as to demand an answer ; and that, having regard to this case alone, Sir Henry Maine, and others who agree with him, are no longer entitled to say, that the proposition that kinship through mothers only preceded kinship through fathers, rests upon the observation of scattered savage communities of other than Aryan race.

I hope yet to be able to throw some fresh light on the structure of the primitive human groups by an induction of the facts of Totemism, and exact analysis of the conditions under which Totemism arose. What I have already written on this subject of Totemism will be found in a brief article on Totemism in Chambers's Encyclopcedia, published in 1867 ; and in a series of articles on "The Worship of Animals and Plants," published in the Fortnightly Review in the numbers for October and November, 1869, and for February, 1870.' ^A proof of the isolation and independence of the original stock groups,

1 By a misprint, or slip of the pen, no doubt, Sir John Lubbock is made to state in the third edition of his Origin of Civilization (footnote, p. 252), that the articles above mentioned appeared " since the last," i.e. the second, edition of that book. The words should have been " before the first." The first edition of the Origin of Civilization was published in 1870, some time after the last of the series of articles referred to had appeared. The preface to the -first edition of the Origin of Civilization bears date February, 1870.

xiv PREFACE.

while as yet the idea of stock alone had appeared as the germ from which systems of kinship were destined to be evolved, will add fresh interest to the discussion of the influence of exogamy and female kinship on the progress of civilization.^ ;^ The Essays which follow Kinship in Ancient Greece are here published for the first time, and, taken together, are of the nature of a criticism of the principal works treating of early marriage law that have come to my knowledge, or been published, since Primitive Marriage appeared. These are — Professor B achofen'g . Das Mutterrecht, Mr. L, H. Morgan/s__work On the Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, and, lastly. Sir John Lu bbock's Origin of Civilization. The account I have to give of the origin of the classificatory system of relationships forms the most important portion of the new matter ; and next to this in interest will be found, I think, the explanation I offer of the fourfold division of the ancient Irish family, which Sir Henry Maine, in his recent work on Early Institutions, has, in my opinion, failed to account for. These Essays were originally intended to serve as an Introduction to the reprint of Primitive Marriage. Their scope and bulk making them unsuitable for that service, I issue them in their present

PREFACE. XV

form, and I have given the book a title suited to its varied contents. It will be perceived that I have not included Darwin's Descent of Man amongst the works I have noticed. "-'Having carefully studied all that this great thinker has had to say of the primitive state, I feel that I must postpone the consideration of his views tiU after tbe completion of fresh investigations, the chief of which, relating to Totemism, I have already referred to.v' The excellent work, Les Origines de la Famille, by Professor A. Giraud-Teulon, of the University of Geneva — welcome as a proof that the study of early history makes progress on the Continent — raises no questions which I have felt called on to discuss in the present volume. Of the series of remarkable articles recently published in the Nuova Antologia (Florence, 1875-7'6), which bring to bear on the primitive state of man facts respecting the various " family " systems existing throughout the animal world, it must suffice to say here that they will have to be well considered by any writer who shall hereafter treat of the origin of the Family among men.^

1 [Two paragraphs which followed, bearing upon the appearance of the form of capture in connection with endogamy — a matter fully discussed in Primitive Marriage — are omitted, as having served the purpose for which they were written.]

Preface

Extract from the Preface to the Original Edition

of " Primitive Marriage."

In the course of some inquiries which I had been making into the early history of civil society, the meaning and origin of the form of capture in marriage ceremonies fell to be investigated. The subject being in itself curious, as well as obscure, and one which has never hitherto, so far as I am aware, been handled, I venture to lay the result of my investigation before the public, hoping that it may to some extent interest by its novelty. To the philosophic reader I humbly submit my little book as an exercise in scientific history. ^ If I am right in my conclusions as to the origin of the symbol of capture, my essay must be accepted as throwing new light on the primitive state. ^For it will be seen that the symbol is not peculiar to any of the families of mankind. The frequency of its occurrence is such as strongly to suggest — what I incline to believe — that the phase of society in which it originated existed, at some time or other, almost everywhere. Indeed, so far as my inquiries into early social phenomena have extended, I have found such similarity, so

PREFACE. xvii

many correspondences, so nmcli sameness in the forms of life prevailing among the races usually considered distinct, that I have come to regard the ethnological differences of the several families of mankind as of little or no weight compared with what they have in common. The most that can be attributed to those differences is, that they have affected the rate of development of the families, and the character of the development itself, in some of its secondary aspects.^

Apart from the interest attaching to the form of capture as pointing out what most probably was the primitive form of human association, it will be found to have an important bearing on several social problems which have hitherto remained unsolved. I think that the most_important portions of my work are Chapters VIII. and IX., in which the solution of some of these problejiLS is attempted. These chapters, it will be seen, are strictly pertinent to the main subject of inquiry. ■^ In order to explain the appearance of the form of capture among endogamous peoples, it was necessary that I should examine the systems of kinship which anciently prevailed, and their influence on the structure of the primitive groups, so as to obtain a true view of the rise of caste and of endogamy. /.

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PEIMITIVE MAERIAGE.

CHAPTER I. Legal Symbolism and Primitive Life

Method of the inquiry set forth and justified. — Study of races in their primitive condition and study of legal symbols the chief sources of information as to early history of society. — Failure here of usual methods of historical inquiry. — Connection between facts from savage life and legal symbolism. — How the two may be used in combination for classification of social phenomena in order of growth. — Value for general historical purposes of legal symbolism. — Illustrated from history of Roman law, pp. 1 — 8.

CHAPTER n.

The Form of Capture in Makbiage Ceremonies.

Extent to which this symbol has been overlooked. — Two cases in which it has been noticed. — Explanation by Festus of its observance among the Romans. — MUUer's explanation of its

h 2

XK ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

observance among the Spartans. — Cause shown for rejection of Muller's view.^ — Nature of the symbol set forth. — Instances of its occurrence. — Inference that may be made as to the extent of its former prevalence, pp. 9 — 21.

Ohapter iil

The Origin of the Fobm of Captuee.

This symbol must imply something more than the mere lawlessness of savages. — It does imply that wives were at one tiine systematically obtained by theft or force. — ^That women of foreign tribes could be got for wives only by theft or by force cannot, by itself, explain occurrence of symbolism. — ^That the symbol could not have originated among endogamous tribes. — When symbol of capture used by an endogamous tribe, inference that tribe had at one time not been endogamous. — If exogamous tribes existed, and a state of war usually prevailed between neighbouring tribes, each tribe could get wives only by theft or force. — How this, supposing it fact, would originate the symbol of capture, pp. 22 — 30.

CHAPTER lY.

On the Pee valence of the Peaotice op Capturing "Wives, de facto.

Its prevalence among Indians of South America. — And of North America also. — In the Deccan and in Afghanistan. — In old times, in Muscovy, Lithuania, and Livonia, and other parts of Northern Europe. — Among Kalmucks, Kirghis, Nogais, Circassians, and other tribes who observe the form of capture. Among the Australasians. — Constantly referred to in legends

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxi

of New Zealanders. — Conjoined, it seems, in New Zealand, Feejee, and other Pacific islands with cannibalism. — Capture among modes of constituting marriage enumerated in Institutes of Menu. — This the prototype of the Roman and Spartan forms. —Inference as to origin of symbol. — Marriage of captured Gentile women allowed by the Mosaic code. — Additional evidence of capture supplied by observance of the form of capture. • — How far evidence of it is also supplied by Greek traditions. — By the rape of the Sabines.^ — ^The Irish traditions. — ^The Scriptural account of carrying off of the daughters of ShUoh. — Summing up of evidence, pp. 31 — 49.

CHAPTEE V.

Of the Rule against Maeeiage between Membees of the same Tbibe. — Of the Coincidence of this Rule with the Peactice OF Captueinu "Wives de facto, and with the Foem of Captuee in Maeeiage Ceeemonjes.

Exogamy and the form of capture coincident among the Khonds, among the Kalmucks, among the Circassians. — Exogamy among the Yurak Samoyeds of Siberia, the Kafirs, the Sodhas, and other tribes. — Among the Warali. — The Magar tribes. — Dr. Latham on prevalence of exogamy. — Provision of Institutes of Menu, — Theory of its origin. — Social state of tribes of Munniepore, and tribes of Australia, America, and Pacific Islands examined with reference to that theory. — Exogamy in New Zealand and among the Feejees. — Exogamy and capture of women among the Picts. Conclusion, that exogamy has been a widely-prevailing principle, and usually coincident with capture of wives, or the form of capture, pp. 50 — 71.

CHAPTER VI.

On the State of Hostility, pp. 72', 73.

ANALYTIGAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VIL

ExoGAMTc: Its Obigin. — Compabative Archaism of Exogamy and

Endogamy.

That connection between exogamy and both the systematic capture of women for -wives and the form of capture has been established. — Origin of exogamy to be referred to female infanticide. It cannot be referred to a feeling against marriage with kinsfolk. — Grouping of the less advanced races of men according to their rules as to marriage, which shows a series, with exogamy and endogamy as extremes. — Facts which suggest that endogamous tribes have been exogamous. Conversion of an endogamous into an exogamous tribe inconceivable. — Either, then, exogamy is more archaic than endogamy, or the principles are both original and independent of each other. — ■ Propositions to be maintained, in which it is involved that exogamy preceded endogamy in order of appearance, pp. 74—82,

CHAPTER VIII.

Ancient Systems op Kinship and their Influence on the Structure op Primitive Groups.

Growth of systems of kinship. — The fact of consanguinity a fact of observation, and, therefore, it must at one time have been unobserved.— The social state while it was unobserved. — The first effect of it being perceived would be the conception of stock, or the common kindred of the members of a group. — That the most ancient system in which the idea of blood-relationship was embodied, was a system of kinship through females only, — How the idea of blood-relationship must have originated a system of kinship through females. — Uncertainty of fatherhood would prevent acknowledgment of kinship

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxiii

through males. — And nothing else could have that effect. — Appropriation of a woman to a particular man, or to men of one blood, as wife, the condition of the requisite certainty of fatherhood. — How it is probable that such appropriation of women to particidar men cannot have existed in the earliest times. — Effect of conditions of subsistence on balance of the sexes.- — Males must have been in a majority. — Promiscuous or polyandrous arrangements therefore a necessity. — How the rise of a system of kinship would simplify the formation of them. — That systems of polyandry have existed, and still exist. - — Polyandry a form of promiscuity, and seemingly an advance from a grosser pfomiscnity. — Its connection with kinship through females only, and that the latter may be inferred from it.— Two types of polyandry. — The prevalence of polyandry. — The Nair type of polyandry, which leaves paternity uncertain, described. — The Deega and Beena marriages of Ceylon. — Incidents of Nair polyandry remaining amongst the Kocch. — Progress seems to have been from the lower, or Nair, to the higher, or Tibetan, polyandry. — Tibetan type of polyandry described. — It admitted of kinship through males. — Tibetan polyandry in a state of decadence in Ladak.— A test of the former prevalence of polyandry obtained in the Levirate. — Inference as to former prevalence of polyandry from existence of the Levirate. — Evidence of existence of kinship through females only, and inference therefrom, where the two are not found together, as to former prevalence of polyandry. — Philo's report as to marriage law of Sparta considered. — Evidence that kinship through females only the first system of kinship summed up.— It must, at any rate, have prevailed wherever exogamy prevailed.— Sir H. S. Maine's views of ancient kinship. — That the primitive groups were, or were assumed to be, homogeneous.— That the system of kinship through females only tended to render the exogamous groups heterogeneous, and thus to supersede the system pf capturing wives,— That the system of kinship through females only was succeeded by a system which acknowledged kinship through males also, and which, in most cases, passed into a system which acknowledged kinship through males only.— Attempt to sketch the history of xxiy ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

this revolution. — That the system of kinship through males tended to rear up homogeneous groups, and thus to restore the original condition of affairs among exogamous races, as regards both the practice of capturing wives and the evolution of the form of capture. — That under the combined influence of exogamy and female kinship, there might be, -within a tribe, a balance of men and women regarded as of different descent, and, therefore, free to marry each other, consistently with exogamy.— That, this stage reached, a tribe grown proud through successes in war might become a caste. — That caste may appear while a people is still polyandrous. — That, on kinship becoming agnatic, the members of a caste might feign themselves to be descended from a common ancestor, and so become endogamous.^ — Inference from observance of form of capture by an endogamous race. Effects on early society of the law of blood-feud, pp. 83 — 146.

CHAPTER IX.

The Decay op Exogamy in Advancing Communities.

Causes of break-down of exogamy, where it perished gradually and without endogamy succeeding it, to be inquired into, for example's sake, in the case of the Greeks and Eomans. — Reasons for holding that Greeks and Romans were exogamous. ■ — The composition and organisation of their tribes and commonwealths. — The old theory of the composition of States. — Reasons why it must be rejected. — New theory suggested by results of this inquiry. — If this theory be admitted, area in which exogamy prevailed may be greatly extended. — Breakdown of exogamy intimately connected with evolution of clans and families, and of clan and family estates, within the tribe. ■ — Effect of laws of succession in limiting the acknowledgment of relationship. — Exogamy died out, because relationship was thus narrowed. — Effect of the law of testaments.- — Motive for violation of rule of exogamy in the case of female heiresses, pp. 147—158.

ANALYTIC AL TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxv

CHAPTER X.

Conclusion, pp. 159 — 161.

Appendix to Primitive Marriage, pp. 165 — 191.

KINSHIP m ANCIENT GEEECE.

Purpose of the inquiry to test, in case of the ancient Greeks, scheme of development of systems of kinship propounded in Primitive Mwriage. — Scheme set forth, and, as explanatory of it, outline given of scheme of development of systems of marriage propounded in same work. — First, of Greek kinship as it appears in the Homeric poems. — Position of the wedded wife. — Blood-ties acknowledged through both father and mother. — Homeric pedigrees traced through fatfesrs. — Inference from shortness of those pedigrees. — Evidence tharsblood-ties through mother held more sacred in that period'thab thosAhrough father. — Secondly, of the post-Homeric history of kinship in Greece.. — Growtji-mr opinion unfavourable to idea of kinship through moth^ and close approach made to agnation. — Evidence of this. — Thirdly, of the traditions of the Greeks and the customs of their congeners. — (1) Incestuous connections among ancient Persians. — Xanthus' account of the Medes. — (2) Xenophon's account of the Lacedaemonians. — Polyandry prevailed among the Lacedaemonians according to Polybius. — Corroboration of this in legend of Lycurgus. — (3) Suggestions of the Levirate in legends of the house of Priam. ^ — (4) Evidence of female kinship, and therefore of some degree of promiscuity in the sister-marriages allowed at Athens, and in a provision of the laws of Solon. — (5) Indications in Greek legends of high position of women in ancient times, and of kinship through females only. — Facts i ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

indicative of ancient supremacy of women in families. — The system of kinship through females only traced through the custom of naming children after the mother. — Tradition that ancestors of Greeks emerged from the savage state, and had no marriage. — Facts relative to kinship among the Greeks, previously adduced, consistent with the tradition. — Inference made that polyandry preceded monandry, and that kinship through females only preceded kinship through males as well as through females, pp. 195—246.

THE CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM OF EELATIONSHIPS.

CHAPTER I.

Mr. Moegan's Conjectueal Solution of the Origin of the Classificatokt System of Relationship.

Mr. Morgan's first impression as to the Iroquois relationships. — Origin of his work on the Classificatory System of Relationships. — Its contents. — Objects of his inquiry. — His conjectural solution and series of stages in social development involved in it. — Conjectural solution ezamined in reference to the three most primitive forms of the classificatory system. — If these explained, origin of classificatory system is explained, and less primitive forms easy of explanation. — ^First, as to the origin of the Malayan system of relationships. — Main features of that system set forth. — Customs or "stages" assumed by Mr Morgan to explain it, viz., brother and sister-marriages, the communal family, and the Hawaian custom. — What Mr. Morgan claims to have shown about it. — That it is a system of blood-relationships assumed by him. — Brother and sister-marriages the only " stage " actually required for the solution. — Defects and oversights of Mr. Morgan's explanation. — Conjectural solution examined next, as to origin of the " Turanian " and " GanowAnian " systems of relationships. — Distinctive features

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxvU

of those systems set forth. — Mr. Morgan's explanations of them tested at two leading points. Were bis Reason at the first point well founded, the Hawaian custom would have given Turanian and Ganowdnian instead of corresponding Malayan relationships. — Supposing it failed to do this, exogamy supervening upon it, could not have had effects ascribed to it by Mr. Morgan. — ^The additional limitation on marriage that would have been imposed by exogamy superinduced on Hawaian custom. — Reason insufficient on Mr. Morgan's own ground, and inconsistent with Mr. Morgan's assumptions. — And insufficient whether we start from the "Communal Family" or from the " Hawaian custom." — Mr. Morgan's Reasons at second point. — Both rest on pure assumption. — ^What they assume, and a " slight variation " between assumptions made in them. — What involved in them. — They cannot be accepted. — Two radical mistakes which have vitiated Mr. Morgan's attempt at explanation. — Remarks on assumption that the classificatory system is a system of blood-ties.— Maintained, that it is a system of mutual salutations merely, and not a system of blood-ties. — Observations on the "stages" of the conjectural solution, pp. 249—276.