87

6

CHAPTER V

OTHER BARS TO MARRIAGES

THE prohibitions on marriage, with which we have hitherto been concerned, are based on what savages regard-while we do not- -as relations of kindred. Men and women of the same phratry' or 'primary division' may not intermarry (where such divisions exist), nor may men and women of the same totem name. Civilised society, at least in Europe, now recognises no such things as the 'phratry' or the totem kin. When Mr. George Osborne, in Vanity Fair, was asked whether he was akin to the ducal House of Leeds, he replied that he bore the same arms-these having been conferred on his father by a coach-builder. In savage society, Captain Osborne's answer would have been satisfactory. He would really have reckoned as a kinsman of all other Emus, if his totem and badge (coat of arms) was an Emu. In Scotland the Campbell name used to be regarded as implying at least a chance that the bearer was of the blood of the Black Knight of Loch Awe, and had a right to the Campbell tartan, and badge, the gale, or bog-myrtle. But, of course, as a rule, in modern society, a common surname is no proof of kinship, and coats of arms are usually borne by the middle classes, and peers of recent creation, without much inquiry.

So far, then, the totemic rules which prohibit certain marriages, have no resemblance to our own definite forbidden degrees,' based on nearness of blood. The savage rules, as they stand, include our notions of kindred, but these notions, as far as they are recognised, are not conterminous with ours. But the 'phratry' prohibitions, and the totem

prohibitions, are not the only bars to marriage among such peoples as the Australians,

The other bars are lucidly described by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. There are still further restrictions to marringe... and it is here that we are brought into contact with the terms of relationship. We find that a womar mex belong to a totem kin (and phratry) into which & man: may lawfully marry, 'yet there is a further restrictio: prevening marting in this particular case. Thus a me i Izzo(tamoge the Urabunna) may marry & tema: Wate

phratry and totem are concern.

a woman of the Water He TOTE

father's sister (a Ch

child, or his brothe

she be on t

but he mʊ. mi?”

ehr bey are

and

1

ir mothers, and,

emeral side, Erpesas, being

a 2 but if not

and 4. if Catho

Ang is that a male

I

nades his younger maternal uncle's

wres "uncie," aunt." and The Crabunna, and

I such words. All

the same level in the cres and totem, are

regarded as the common children of these men,' or, perhaps we should rather say, are called by the same name, Biaka, as a man's own children are styled. A man knows very well which children he reckons his own, though, as will be seen, he has little ground for his confidence. In the same way a child, though he calls all men of his father's class, totem, and level in the generation, Nia (fathers), knows well enough which Nia feeds him, pets him, thrashes him for his good, and, generally, plays the paternal part. For example, a man informs you that this or that native, by personal name Oriaka, is his Okilia, and you cannot possibly tell without further inquiry whether he is the speaker's own or tribal brother, that is the son of his own father, or of some man belonging to the same particular group' (by 'phratry,' totem, and seniority) 'as his father.'1 But you can learn by further inquiry:' the actual relationship, in our sense of the word, is recognised.

6 GROUP MARRIAGE'

These facts necessarily lead to the question, are all men of one class, totem, and seniority, actual husbands of all women of the opposite class, different totem, and equivalent seniority? (Group Marriage). Or, if this is no longer the case, was it once the case? and are these sweeping uses of names which include our father," mother," brother," child,' survivals of such a stage, called 'Group Marriage'? This question is still undecided; good authorities take opposite views of the question, which has bred, in the past, much angry controversy.

MR. MORGAN AND THE CLASS SYSTEM

:

The arrangement by classes,'' the classificatory system,' was first brought into scientific prominence by the late Mr. Lewis Morgan, an American gentleman affiliated to the

Spencer and Gillen, p. 57.

IS HY DIT taties of the names for Are ani, and has been said, 1- Icicaman nu Jr. Watermares, against Jess and netcous, is arre and careful In what he called

ne zune tenung an neiudes all

བ་༡༢ མཐོ་=NDU&9%ESTTS Acutter name includes

DESS WIS, he cousins of

De generation of my

cer tus ce na thiri name; ATEL cer dusics, and the grandSEN TO ter midren, bear » Chiren. From the

eeran facts in Brows of the same

is tours, I communal eres mis

De se genericon.

were a Mr. A senson's Prima

QUAM VOOR U Touer and sister mon being the en Mr. Asinson's system, the

mus mite, musei, in Mr. Morgan's opinion, On the human family.

DIFFICULTIES OF MR. MORGAN'S THEORY

Mr. Morga's theory, it must be observed, landed him at e a the uacy of supposing that prohibitions of marriage Asik were originally the result of a reformatory move

We have seen that, granting, for the sake of arguMai W. Morgan's premise of an original ‘undivided commanes) Mr. Fison is also deposited in the same difficulty,

anonicy and Xfinity of the Human Family (1871); kad bwwm Nowcy (1877); earlier in The League of the Iroquois (1854). Mr. Po candidly states, and Mr. Morgan saw his work, and Kambaroi and Kurnai, p. 99. av en myAŽUOROZY ORSOLY

and was once even inclined to regard a theory of intervention 'by a higher power' (the Dieri myth) as not necessarily out of the question, if marriage was once communal. To reform such marriage relations, he says, 'would be a step in advance so difficult for men in that utter depth of savagery to take, that they would not be able to take it, unless they had help from without. This might be given by contact with a more advanced tribe; but if all the tribes started from the same level, that impulse would be impossible in the first instance, and must have been derived from a higher power.'1 Mr. Fison, as we saw, has since expressed the opinion that the origin of exogamy is probably indiscoverable, but I cite again his early remark to prove his sense of the insuperable difficulty of Mr. Morgan's theory.

How were men in his hypothetical condition to know that there was anything to reform? It needed a divine revelation!

Mr. Morgan was himself aware of this difficulty, and tried to get out of it, by using Darwinian phrases about 'natural selection-blessed words,' but here unavailing. He was in the posture of Mr. Spencer, between direct legislation to introduce exogamy, and gradual evolution of exogamy, as the slow result of the felt need of some organisation,'-its nature and purpose unknown. Thus Mr. Morgan, speaking of communal marriage, and its results, says that emancipation from them was slowly accomplished through movements which resulted in unconscious reformation.' These movements were, first, the 'class' system, then the 'gens' (totem system), 'worked out unconsciously through natural selection.' This means, if it means anything, that, by a freak or sport, some people did not marry in and in, that they unconsciously evolved the totem system, that they therefore throve, while others who married in and in, and did not evolve the totem system, perished, and so we have the results of natural selection.' But why did some people avoid the habit of marriages of near kin which was so general? The position is that of Dr. Westermarck, who Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 160–161. Ancient Society, pp. 49-50.