V. Of the Rule against Marriage between Members of the Same Tribe; of the Coincidence of This Rule with the Practice of Capturing Wives, De Facto, and with the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies

We proceed to show the prevalence of the rule forbidding marriage within the tribe or group of kindred, and the concurrence of this ban with the fact or pretence of capturing wives.

Here, still more than in our former investigation, we are made to feel how imperfect and unconnected is the record from which our facts have to be drawn; and farther, how difficult it is to bring together such facts as have been observed, owing to the wide field over which they lie sparsely scattered. In many cases, the authorities are silent just on the points on which we are most eager for information; while on matters of no moment they enlarge ad nauseam. But, too often, they have nothing to tell. Skirting a coast-line the traveller sees natives at points here and there, and can describe their dress and personal appearance; of their habits he is as ignorant as a child of the free life of the beasts he sees in a caravan. Where the opportunities of observation are better, the observer often does not know what to look for. Of the jus connubii among the Kalmucks not one word is said by Clarke or Pallas or Strahlenberg! and but for some remarks of Bergman’s we should be entirely in the dark on the subject.

We begin with the Khonds. This people presents us with capture as a form. Major-General Campbell says that the Khonds marry women from remote places, the reason of which he takes to be, that they have to buy their wives, and can get them at lower prices at a distance. “They pretend, moreover,” he adds, “to regard it as degrading to bestow their daughters in marriage on men of their own tribe; and consider it more manly to seek their wives in a distant country.” Major M’Pherson—a more intelligent witness—gives us the distinct statement, that among the Khonds intermarriage between persons of the same tribe, however large or scattered, is considered incestuous, and punishable by death; a view more consistent with other known facts than that of General Campbell. “Marriage,” Major M’Pherson tells us, “can take place only betwixt members of different tribes, and not even with strangers who have been long adopted into or domesticated with a tribe, and a state of war or peace appears to make little difference as to the practice of intermarriage between tribes. The people of Bara Mootah and of Burra Des, in Goomsur, have been at war time out of mind, and annually engage in fierce conflicts, but they intermarry every day. The women of each tribe, after a fight, visit each other to condole on the loss of their nearest common relations.” No doubt these friendly intermarriages must in time alter the relations of the tribes to one another; no doubt also the time was when the marriages were not effected in friendly fashion.

Let us now examine the cases of the Kalmucks and Circassians. To understand that of the former, we must attend a little to their political system. The Kalmucks are divided into four great nations or tribes under hereditary chiefs or khans;—the Khoskots, the Dzungars, the Derbets, and the Torgots. Each of these, according to Pallas, is under the command of many little and nearly independent princes, called Noions. The horde commanded by a Noion is called an Oulouss, and is subdivided into several Aimaks, each of which again is commanded by a noble called Saissang. The Aimaks again are subdivided into many companies or khatoun, consisting of from ten to twelve tents, for convenience in pasturing; and each khatoun has its chief, but whether of the noble class we are not informed. It will thus be seen that there is among the Kalmucks a very large governing or princely class. Now, it appears that they have two systems of marriage law; one for the common people, and one for the nobles, or princely class. The common people, we are told by Bergman, enter into no unions in which the parties are not distant from one another by three or four degrees; but how the degrees are counted we are not informed. We are told that they have great abhorrence for the marriages of near relatives, and have a proverb—“The great folk and dogs know no relationship”—which Bergman says is due to members of the princely class sometimes marrying sisters-in-law. We find, however, that these sisters-in-law are uniformly women of an entirely different stock from their husbands—different, or what is taken for different. For no man of the princely class (and it is in the marriages of the Kalmucks of this class, according to De Hell, that the form of capture is chiefly observed), in any of the tribes, can marry a woman of his own tribe or nation. Not only must his wife be a noble, but she must be a noble of a different stock. For princely marriages, says Bergman, “the bride is chosen from another people’s stock—among the Derbets from the Torgot stock; and among the Torgots from the Derbet stock; and so on.” Here, then, we have the principle of exogamy in full force in regard to the marriages of the governing classes—a large body in each nation, as we have seen, and, which is most to our present purpose, the body in whose marriages the form of capture is said to be observed. Whether or not the commonalty, with whom the nobles have no intermarriage—the people of black birth, as they are called—were originally of an alien, inferior, and conquered race; and whether or not the governing classes were originally independent exogamous tribes, we have the prohibition against marriage within the stock here concurrent with the form of capture in the weddings of the nobility. How far the commonalty observe the form we have no information, but it is not unlikely that they mimic, after a fashion, the marriage ceremonies of their superiors.

The case of the Circassians is simple, and quickly told:—“The Circassian word for their societies or fraternities,” says Bell, “is ‘tleûsh,’ which signifies also ‘seeds.’ The tradition with regard to them is, that the members of each all sprang from the same stock or ancestry; and thus they may be considered as so many septs or clans, with this peculiarity, that, like seeds, all are considered equal. These cousins-german, or members of the same fraternity, are not only themselves interdicted from intermarrying, but their serfs, too, must wed with the serfs of another fraternity; and where, as is generally the case, many fraternities enter into one general bond, this law in regard to marriage must be observed by all. The confidential dependant, or steward, of our host here is a tokao who fled to his protection from Notwhatsh, because, having fallen in love with and married a woman of his own fraternity, he had become liable to punishment for this infraction of Circassian law. Yet his fraternity contained perhaps several thousand members. Formerly, such a marriage was looked upon as incest, and punished by drowning; now a fine of two hundred oxen, and the restitution of the wife to her parents, only are exacted.” Elsewhere, Bell observes that these fraternities sometimes embrace thousands of persons, between whom marriage is by this ancient law totally prohibited. Here, too, as in Khondistan, and among the Kalmucks, we find the form of capture as well as the principle of exogamy.

Our next case is that of the Yurak Samoyeds (Siberia) among whom no man can take a wife from the tribe to which he belongs. These Samoyeds hold kinsmanship to be coextensive with the tribe. All the members of the tribe, however large or small, consider themselves relations, even where the common ancestor is unknown, and the evidence of consanguinity is wholly wanting. They fall into three divisions; the members of any of which may take wives from either of the other two, but not from their own; and as these divisions occupy sites far removed from one another, the Samoyeds have to go great distances for their wives.

We find the same state of things among the Kafirs, the Sodhas of northern India, the Beduanda Kallung (Singapore), and many others, including the Kirghiz and the Nogais.

The Warali (India) tribes fall into divisions, and no man may marry a woman of his own division; he must go for a wife to one of the others. The Magar tribes fall into thums, all the members of each of which are supposed to be descended from a common ancestor: the Magar husband and wife must belong to different thums; within one and the same thum there is no marriage. Latham, in noticing the Magars, says—“This is the first time I have found occasion to mention this practice. It will not be the last; on the contrary, the principle it suggests is so common as to be almost universal. We find it in Australia, in North and South America, in Africa, in Europe; we shall suspect and infer it in many places where the actual evidence of its existence is incomplete.” This is a sweeping statement; but before we conclude we hope to show that it may fairly be accepted as correct.

In the institutes of Menu it is laid down that a twice-born man might elect for nuptials “a woman not descended from his paternal or maternal ancestors within the sixth degree, and who is not known by her family name to be of the same primitive stock with his father.” This passage might be taken as a text for the discussion of the whole question of prohibited marriages, and we must dwell upon it somewhat, as it has an important bearing on the present investigation. The object of the rule is to prevent marriages between members of the same primitive stock; and it points out the family name as the test whether persons are of the same stock or not. It is as if a Fraser might not marry a Fraser, nor a M’Intosh a M’Intosh. By comparing the former state of the Highlands of Scotland with their present condition, especially with the condition of the town populations, we may clear our ideas regarding the origin, meaning, and effect of this institution. Of old each clan inhabited its particular strath or glen, and had its own well-defined hill ranges. In the Aird district there were none but Frasers; about Moy were none but M’Intoshes. The members of the clans are now interfused even in the country districts, and in towns like Inverness or Dingwall may be found members of all the clans. Now, suppose that originally a man was not allowed to marry a woman of his own clan, and that, subsequent to the interfusion of the clans, that ancient prejudice remained; the rule for enforcing it—the question of degrees of affinity apart—would just be the rule of Menu. So, in considering the origin of that rule, are we not remanded from the social state in which it was fixed in a code, to an earlier state, in which the population consisted of distinct clans or tribes organised on the principle of exogamy, and living apart from one another, as all tribes do in early times, until they are brought, by conquest or otherwise, under a common government? We have already had examples of tribes with this rule, so that, in this conception of the early state of the Indian population, we are making no improbable supposition. On the contrary, it is not only probable in itself, but it is the only supposition that will explain the fact; and if we accept it as indicating the origin of the rule of Menu, it gives us such an idea of the prevalence of this law of incest as we could never reach by the contemplation of the individual tribes among which it is the law. It will be recollected that the form of capture is found among the Hindus.

We believe it may still be possible, in the case of some communities in which marriage between persons of the same family name is prohibited, to analyse the population into its constituent (stock) tribes, and to prove that the tribes had this law of incest. In one case, in particular, investigation seems to be courted. The Munnieporees, and the following tribes inhabiting the hills round Munniepore—the Koupooees, the Mows, the Murams, and the Murring—are each and all divided into four families—Koomul, Looang, Angom, and Ningthajà. A member of any of these families may marry a member of any other, but the intermarriage of members of the same family is strictly prohibited. In explanation, so far, of these family divisions, we have the fact, well authenticated in the history of Munniepore, that the Koomul and Looang formerly existed as distinct and powerful tribes, and that the Koomul, in particular, at one time preponderated in the valley. Presuming that these tribes held intermarriages of their members to be incestuous, the origin of two of the family divisions, and of the marriage law, is plain enough, at least so far as the hill tribes are concerned; and it is in the hills alone that the law is strictly enforced. Most of the members of the tribes would remain in the valley and mix with the Meithei, by whose prowess they were vanquished; but we can conceive that bands of the Koomul and Looang might escape to the hills, and mix with each other and with the tribes of the Angom and Ningthaja, whose existence in former times we must postulate, in explanation of the family divisions of the same names. Is it beyond hope that the farther examination of local traditions, or exploration of the wilds to the south and north-east of Munniepore, may yet furnish us with information regarding the Angom and Ningthaja, or with data from which their existence in former times may be legitimately inferred, apart from the present speculation?

The conclusion at which we have arrived as to the origin of the rule of Menu, will also explain the case of the native populations of Australia, North and South America, and the islands in the Pacific. In these quarters we obtain light regarding the causes which lead to the break up of the primitive exogamous groups, and to the intermixture in local tribes of people recognised as being of different bloods. Let us first attend to the Australians, whom we find divided into small tribes named after the districts which they inhabit; for though they are nomads, their wanderings, like those of the nomadic agriculturists of the Indian hills, are circumscribed within well-defined bounds. It appears that the tribe inhabiting a particular district regards itself as the owner thereof, and the intrusion of any other tribe upon that district as an invasion to be resented and punished; and that within the district individuals have portions of land appropriated to them. Thus the tribal system is in force, with an apparent perfect separation and independence of the tribes. But, on close examination, the tribes are found to be fused and welded together by blood-ties in the most extraordinary manner. According to credible accounts, the natives of different tribes extending over a great portion of the continent, are divided into a few families, and all the members of a family, in whatever local tribes they may be, bear the same name as a second or family name. These family names and divisions are perpetuated and spread throughout the country by the operation of two laws: first, that the children of either sex always take the name of the mother; and second, that a man cannot marry a woman of his own family name. The members of these families, though scattered over the country, are yet to some intents as much united as if they formed separate and independent tribes; in particular, the members of each family are bound to unite for the purposes of defence and vengeance, the consequence being that every quarrel which arises between the tribes is a signal for so many young men to leave the tribes in which they were born, and occupy new hunting grounds, or ally themselves with tribes in which the families of their mothers may happen to be strong, or which contain their own and their mother’s nearest relatives. This secession, if we may so call it, is not always possible, but it is of frequent occurrence notwithstanding; where it is impossible, the presence of so many of the enemy within the camp affords ready means of satisfying the call for vengeance; it being immaterial, according to the native code, by whose blood the blood-feud is satisfied, provided it be blood of the offender’s kindred. Thus, as the Australians are polygamists, and a man often has wives belonging to different families, it is not in quarrels uncommon to find children of the same father arranged against one another; or, indeed, against their father himself, for by their peculiar law the father can never be a relative of his children. Among the Kamilaroi, a numerous tribe residing to the north-west of Sidney, the rules in force are very complex and peculiar. These tribesmen fall into divisions resembling castes, and at the same time observe the rule against marriages between members of the same family.

Our information is so imperfect that we do not know whether there exist anywhere in Australia tribes whose distinctive names are those of the families into which the population is divided. But we should not expect to find such tribes. The constant tendency of groups to fall to pieces, and of the parts to separation and independence of one another, and the practice of naming groups from their lands, would tend to obliterate the traces of the original stock-groups, except so far as they have been preserved in the names of families to keep the blood pure by avoidance of marriage between members of the same stock. But we cannot doubt that such stock-groups at one time existed, organised on the principle of exogamy, and were the germs of the native population. Whencesoever they were derived, it was inevitable, that the law which recognised blood relationship as existing only through females, conspiring with the primitive instinct of the race against marriage between members of the same stock, should tend in the process of time to transfuse the blood of each stock through all the tribal divisions. The men of the group A marrying women of the group B; and the men of the group B marrying women of the group A; and all the children of the women of B being counted of the stock of B; and all the children of the women of A being counted of the stock of A; we at once have so many B’s within A, and so many A’s within B. And so on, until in time A’s from the northmost point appear in the homes of Z at the southmost; and Z’s in the homes of A. Each local tribe would thus contain within itself members between whom there was connubium; the original tribal divisions would be lost sight of, and nothing would remain of the stock-groups but the family names to which they gave birth. Should the process of transfusion go far enough, the state of matters which would lead to the practice of capturing wives would be modified, but not extinct. The system of polygamy of itself, and any want of balance between the sexes of different families within a tribe, would long tend to maintain this practice; which, moreover, like every other practice connected with marriage or religion, must be credited with a special tenacity of existence. As we have seen, there prevails among the Australians a system of betrothals—always between persons of different stocks—along with an extensive practice of capturing wives. This is just what might be expected if our theory of the origin of capture be a sound one. Since the tribes of Australians, while exogamous in principle, contain persons who regard each other as of different descent and free to intermarry, marriage can be, and is, made the subject of bargain. Again, habits formed in previous times of necessity—and no doubt occasional necessity still existing—keep up the practice of capture.

We now take the case of the American Indians—North and South. They have political and district divisions; but besides these the nations among them have had from time immemorial divisions into families or clans. “At present, or till very lately”—we quote from the Archæologia Americana—“every nation was divided into a number of clans, varying in the several nations from three to eight or ten, the members of which respectively were dispersed indiscriminately throughout the whole nation. It has been fully ascertained that the inviolable regulations by which these clans were perpetuated amongst the southern nations were, first, that no man could marry in his own clan; secondly, that every child should belong to his or her mother’s clan. Among the Choctaws there are two great divisions, each of which is subdivided into four clans, and no man can marry in any of the four clans belonging to his division. The restriction among the Cherookees, the Creeks, and the Natches, does not extend beyond the clan to which the man belongs. There are sufficient proofs that the same division into clans, commonly called tribes, exists among almost all the other primitive nations. But it is not so clear that they are subject to the same regulations which prevail amongst the southern Indians.” At the root of these divisions and prohibitions we find here, as in Australia, the feeling that marriage between persons of the same blood is incestuous. “They profess to consider it highly criminal for a man to marry a woman whose totem (family name) is the same as his own, and they relate instances when young men, for a violation of this rule, have been put to death by their own relatives.” The Indian nations, they say, were divided into tribes just lest any one might, through temptation or accident, marry a near relation, which “at present is scarcely possible, for whoever intends to marry must take a person of a different tribe,” and the same feeling has been remarked by Dobuzhoffer in South America.

What we have said of the Australians may be assumed to have been true, at one time at least, of the New Zealanders. In “The Curse of Mania” and several other of the New Zealand legends we have evidence that the wife never belonged to the tribe of her husband, and that the children belonged to the family of their mother. So among the Feejees, who appear to count blood relationship through the mother only. In the system of vasu-ing, which determines the claims of children upon the tribe of their mother, we have evidence that the mother always belongs to a different tribe from the father, and that the children are held to be of the family or tribe of their mother. At any rate, vasu-ing is a relic of a stage in the development of the Feejees wherein that was the rule.

Curiously enough, there is reason for believing that exogamy prevailed among the Picts; in other words, according to the most approved doctrine, among the Gael or Highlanders; which fact bears at once on the rapes of the Cruithnians, the old Welsh and French customs, and the plebeian marriage-ceremonies of Rome, for the Celtic element was strong in Rome. That the Celts were anciently lax in their morals, and recognised relationship through mothers only, are facts well vouched; and of such facts it is the usual concomitant, that the children should be named after the mother. The facts brought out by the distinguished antiquary, Mr. Skene, from a study of the list of Pictish kings down to 731, when Bede says that the law of succession through females was still in force, may to some extent be explained by the sons taking the names of their mothers; but they point to something beyond this. By favour of Mr. Skene, we are at liberty to give here the results at which he has arrived, and which have not hitherto been published.

1st, That brothers always succeeded each other.

2d, That in no case does a son succeed a father; after the brothers have reigned a new family comes in.

3d, That the names of the fathers and of the sons are quite different. In no case does the name borne by any of the sons appear among the names of the fathers, nor conversely is there an instance of a father’s name appearing among the sons.

4th, The names of the sons consist of a few Pictish names borne by sons of different fathers. These are—6 Drusts, 5 Talorgs, 3 Nectans, 2 Galans, 6 Gartnaidhs, 4 Brudes. In no case does the name of a father occur twice in the list of fathers.

5th, In the list there are two cases of sons bearing Pictish names whose fathers are known to have been strangers, and these are the only fathers of whom we have any account. They are—1. Talorg Macainfrit. His father was undoubtedly Ainfrit, son of Aethelfrith, King of Northumbria, who took refuge among the Picts, and afterwards became King of Northumbria; 2. Brude Mac Bile. His father was a Welshman, King of the Strath-Clyde Britons. In an old poem Brude Mac Bile is called son of the King of Ailcluaide, i.e., Dumbarton; and when, by the battle of Drunichen, he became King of the Picts, another old poem says, “to-day Brude fights a battle about the land of his grandfather.”

The fact that the only fathers of whom we have any account are known to have been strangers—especially when taken along with the other facts which we possess about the Picts—raises a strong presumption that all the fathers were men of other tribes. At any rate there remains the fact, after every deduction has been made, that the fathers and mothers were in no case of the same family name.

We have now, by an irresistible array of instances, established the fact of exogamy being a most widely prevailing principle of marriage-law among primitive races. We have found the areas to be, for the chief part, conterminous within which exogamy and the practice of capturing wives de facto prevails. Farther, in all the modern instances in which the symbol of capture is most marked, we have found that marriage within the tribe is prohibited as incest, as among the Khonds, the Fuegeans, the Kalmucks, and Circassians; also that in several cases where traces of the symbol appear, as among the Nogais and the Kirghiz, exogamy is more or less perfectly observed. We have seen good reason for thinking that exogamy and the practice of capture de facto, co-existed among the old Celts; and that in that co-existence lies the explanation of the symbol among the French, the Welsh, and the plebeians of Rome. Of the jus connubii of the Muscovites and Livonians in former times we have no direct information. Magnus is silent on the subject. But it is implied in his narrative that husband and wife invariably belonged to different kinships and village communities. We have found exogamy and the symbol co-existing in ancient India. Not to dwell on the slighter and more doubtful instances, we think it must now be admitted that we have sufficiently proved both the existence of exogamous tribes, and that among such tribes there prevails, or has prevailed, a system of capturing women for wives.