As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison's statements have caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert that, among the Australian savages, groups of males are actually found united to groups of females. But after all, Mr. Fison does not seem really to mean to affirm the present existence of group-marriages. The chief argument advanced by him in support of his theory is grounded on the terms of relationship in use in the tribes. These terms belong to the "classificatory system" of Mr. Morgan; 2 but Mr. Fison admits that he is not aware of any tribe in which the actual practice is to its full extent what the terms of relationship imply. "Present usage," he says, “is everywhere in advance of the system so implied, and the terms are survivals of an ancient right, not precise indications of custom as it is." 3 The same is granted by Mr. Howitt. Yet it will be pointed. out further on to what absurd results we must be led, if, guided by such terms, we begin to speculate upon early marriage. Moreover, if a Kubi and an Ipātha address each other as spouse, this does not imply that in former times every Kubi was married to every Ipātha indiscriminately. On the contrary, the application of such a familiar term might be explained from the fact that the women who may be a man's wives, and those who cannot possibly be so, stand in a widely different relation to him.5 It seems also as if a communism in wives among the Port Lincoln aborigines had

1 Lubbock, loc. cit. pp. 104, et seq. Morgan in his 'Introduction' to Fison and Howitt's 'Kamilaroi and Kurnai,' p. 10. Kohler, 'Ueber das Recht der Australneger,' in 'Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.,' vol. vii. p. 344. Kovalevsky, Tableau des origines de la famille,' pp. 13, et seq.

2 Fison and Howitt, p. 60.

3 Ibid., pp. 159, et seq.

4 Howitt, 'Australian Group Relations,' in 'Smith. Rep.,' 1883, p. 817. 5 As regards the Melanesians, Dr. Codrington remarks (loc. cit. pp. 22, et seq.): 'Speaking generally, it may be said that to a Melanesian man all women, of his own generation at least, are either sisters or wives, to the Melanesian woman all men are either brothers or husbands. . . . It must not be understood that a Melanesian regards all women who are not of his own division as, in fact, his wives, or conceives himself to have rights which he may exercise in regard to those women of them who are unmarried; but the women who may be his wives by marriage and those who cannot possibly be so, stand in a widely different relation to him.'

"It

been inferred by Mr. Schürmann chiefly from the nomenclature. Indeed, Mr. Curr, who has procured more information regarding the Australian aborigines than any other investigator, so far as I know, states that, in Australia, men and women have never been found living in a state of promiscuous intercourse, but the reverse is a matter of notoriety.1 seems to me," he says, "after a careful examination of the subject, that there is not within our knowledge a single fact, or linguistic expression which requires us to have recourse to the theory of group-marriage to explain it, but that there are several . . . directly at variance with that theory." The Rev. John Mathew asserts also, in his recent paper on The Australian Aborigines,' that he fails to see that group-marriage "has been proven to exist in the past, and it certainly does not occur in Australia now."3 At any rate, it may be asserted that such group-marriages are different from the promiscuity which is presumed to have prevailed in primitive society. And this may with even more reason be said of the marriages of the Tôttiyars, Nairs and Todas, of which at least those of the Todas have originated, I believe, in true polyandry.

Many of the assertions made as to peoples living together promiscuously are evidenly erroneous. Travellers are often apt to misapprehend the manners and customs of the peoples they visit, and we should therefore, if possible, compare the statements of different writers, especially when so delicate and private a matter as the relation between the sexes is concerned. Sir Edward Belcher's statement about the Andamanese has been disproved by Mr. Man, who, after a very careful investigation of this people, says not only that they are strictly monogamous, but that divorce is unknown, and conjugal fidelity till death not the exception but the rule among them.1 As regards the Bushmans, Sir John Lubbock does not indicate the source from which he has taken the statement that they are "entirely without marriage ;" all the authorities I have consulted, unanimously assert the reverse. Burchell was told 2 Ibid., vol. i. p. 142.

1 Curr, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 126.

3 Mathew, in 'Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales,' vol. xxiii. p. 404. 4 Man, in ‘Jour. Anthr. Inst.,' vol. xii. p. 135.

that even a second wife is never taken until the first has become old, and that the old wives remain with the husband on the same terms as before.1 Barrow tells us almost the same.2 Indeed, as we have already seen, the family is the chief social institution of this people.

With reference to the Fuegians, Mr. Bridges, who has lived amongst them for thirty years, writes to me, "Admiral Fitzroy's supposition concerning parties among the natives who lived promiscuously is false, and adultery and lewdness are condemned as evil, though through the strength of animal passions very generally indulged, but never with the consent of husbands or wives, or of parents." From the description of Captain Jacobsen's recent voyage to the North-Western Coast of North America, it appears that marriage exists among the Queen Charlotte Islanders also, although the husbands often prostitute their wives. As for Professor Wilken's statements about promiscuity among some peoples belonging to the Malay race, Professor Ratzel calls their accuracy in question. At least, among the Lubus, as Herr Van Ophuijsen assures us, a man has to buy his wife, just as among the other Malay peoples; and Dr. Schwaner expressly says that all that we know about the Olo Ot depends on hearsay only. according to him, they are not without marriage. Some of Professor Bastian's assertions are most astonishing. Any one who takes the trouble to read Richardson's, Kirby's, or Bancroft's account of the Kutchin, will find that polygyny, but not promiscuity, is prevalent among them, the husbands being very jealous of their wives. The same is stated by v. Martius about the Arawaks, whose blood-feuds are generally

6

But,

1 Burchell, 'Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa,' vol. ii. p. 60. 2 Barrow, 'Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa,' vol. i. p. 276. 3 Woldt, 'Capitain Jacobsen's Reise an der Nordwestküste Amerikas, pp. 20, 21, 28, et seq. 4 Ratzel, 'Völkerkunde,' vol. ii. p. 430.

5 Schwaner, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 231, note: 'De Koeteinezen verhalen, dat hunne Ot geene huwelijken sluiten, geen woningen hebben, en als de dieren des wouds door hen gejaagd worden.'

6 Ibid., vol. i. p. 230.

7 Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition,' vol. i. p. 383. Kirby, Journey to the Youcan,' in 'Smith. Rep.,' 1864, p. 419. Bancroft, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 131.

3

owing to jealousy and a desire to avenge violations of conjugal rights. The occurrence of marriage among them has also been ascertained by Schomburgk and the Rev. W. H. Brett.2 The Guaycurus are said by Lozano to be monogamous, and so, according to Captain Lewin, are as a rule the Chittagong Hill tribes, as we shall find later on. Touching the Keriahs, Colonel Dalton affirms only that they have no word for marriage in their own language, but he does not deny that marriage itself occurs among them; on the contrary, it appears that they buy their wives. The Kurumbas are stated to be without the marriage ceremony, but not without marriage. And Dapper's assertion that certain negro tribes have their women in common, has never, so far as I know, been confirmed by more recent writers. Dr. Post has found no people in Africa living in a state of promiscuity; and Mr. Ingham informs me, speaking of the Bakongo, that "they would be horrified at the idea of promiscuous intercourse."

6

The peoples who may possibly live in a state of promiscuity have thus been reduced to a very small number. Considering the erroneousness of so many of the statements on the subject, it is difficult to believe in the accuracy of the others.7 Ethnography was not seriously studied by the ancients, and their knowledge of the African tribes was no doubt very deficient. Pliny, in the same chapter where he states that, among the Garamantians, men and women lived in promiscuous inter

1 v. Martius, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 693.

2 Schomburgk, loc. cit. vol. ii. pp. 459, et seq. Brett, 'The Indian Tribes of Guiana,' p. 98.

3 Waitz, loc. cit. vol. iii. p. 472.

* Dalton, 'The "Kols" of Chota Nagpore,' in 'Trans. Ethn. Soc.' N. S. vol. vi. p. 25. 5 Lubbock, loc. cit. p. 81.

6 Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz,' vol. i. p. 304.

7 With reference to the Tahitians, Forster says ('Voyage round the World,' vol. ii. p. 132), ' We have been told a wanton tale of promiscuous embraces, where every woman is common to every man but when we inquired for a confirmation of this story from the natives, we were soon convinced that it must, like many others, be considered as a groundless invention of a traveller's gay fancy.' Regarding the Peruvian natives alleged to live in a state of promiscuity, Garcilasso de la Vega assures us (loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 443) that he saw them with his own eyes when on his way to Spain, for the ship stopped on their coast for three days.

course, reports of another African tribe, the Blemmyans, that they had no head, and that the mouth and eyes were in the breast.1 Besides, marriage is an ambiguous word. The looseness of the marital tie, the frequency of adultery and divorce, and the absence of the marriage ceremony may entitle us to say that, among many savage peoples, marriage in the European sense of the term does not exist. But this is very different from promiscuity.

Even if some of the statements are right, and the intercourse between the sexes among a few peoples really is, or has been, promiscuous, it would be a mistake to infer that these utterly exceptional cases represent a stage of human development which mankind, as a whole, has gone through. Further, nothing would entitle us to consider this promiscuity as a survival of the primitive life of man, or even as a mark of a very rude state of society. It is by no means among the lowest peoples that sexual relations most nearly approach to promiscuity. Mr. Rowney, for instance, states that, among the Butias, the marriage tie is so loose that chastity is quite unknown, that the husbands are indifferent to the honour of their wives, that "the intercourse of the sexes is, in fact, promiscuous." But the Butias are followers of Buddha, and "can hardly be counted among the wild tribes of India, for they are, for the most part, in good circumstances, and have a certain amount of civilization among them."2 On the other hand, among the lowest races on earth, as the Veddahs, Fuegians, and Australians, the relation of the sexes are of a much more definite character. The Veddahs are a truly monogamous people, and have a saying that "death alone separates husband and wife.”3 And with reference to the Australians, Mr. Brough Smyth, states that "though the marriages of Aboriginals are not solemnized by any rites, . . . it must not be supposed that, as a rule, there is anything like promiscuous intercourse. When a man obtains a good wife, he keeps her as a precious possession,

1 Pliny, 'Historia Naturalis,' book v. ch. 8: 'Garamantes, matrimoniorum exsortes, passim cum foeminis degunt. . . . Blemmyis traduntur capita abesse, ore et oculis pectori affixis.'

2 Rowney, loc. cit. pp. 140, 142, 143.

3 Bailey, in 'Trans. Ethn. Soc.,' N. S. vol. ii. p. 293.