From PRIMITIVE MARRIAGE: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1865.
by:
JOHN F. McLENNAN
Chapter 4: On the Prevalence of the Practice of Capturing Wives, de facto
The tribes amongst which prevails or has prevailed, the practice of getting wives by theft or force, are both numerous and widely distributed. We shall find them in America, in Australia, in New Zealand, in many of the islands of the Pacific, and in various parts of Asia and Europe.
It is among the tribes of American Indians that the practice to be found in the greatest perfection. In particular, we find it fully displayed on the Orinoco, on the Amazons, everywhere in fact, from the Carribbean Sea to Cape Horn. The abject Fuegians, as we have seen, have the practice in a modified or symbolized form in the marriages of men and women belonging to groups at peace with one another. But they have the reality as well as the fiction. Between many of their tribes there is a chronice state of war. “Strangers,” reported Jemmy Button to Captain Fitzroy on one occasion, “had been there, with whom he and his people had ‘very much jaw;’ they fought, threw ‘great many stone,’ and stole two women (in exchange for whom Jemmy’s party stole one), but where obliged to retreat.” The Horse Indians of Patagonia also, tribe against tribe, are commonly at war with one another, or with the Canoe Indians, the issues of victory in every case, being the capture of women and the slaughter of men. But the Oens or Coin men would appear to be the most systematic of these savage marauders, for every year at the time of the “red leaf” they are said to make excursions from the mountains in the north to plunder the Fuegians of their women, dogs, and arms. Father north still than the Oens men, we come successively on the tribes of the Amazons and of the Orinoco, all of which , excepting those reduced into missions, are continually at feud with one another and in turns rich in women or impoverished; feelings of mutual hate and desire for means of subsistence being concurring causes of war. Of the tribes on the Amazons that accounts are not very distinct; but the habits of the Manaos in the Rio Negro district- which, as reported by Mr. Bates, are similar to those of the Coin-men- may be assumed not to be exceptional. There is no doubt, however, that the primitive habits of most of the Indian tribes have been much changed by the slave-hunting expeditions, at one time fostered by the Dutch and Portuguese. On slave-hunting being introduced in America, as in Africa, a market was found for captives of both sexes, and men as well as women became spoils of victory. No argument is needed to show that when women are systematically captured as in the above cited cases, they are captured with a view to the raising of children-in fact, with a view to their performing the part of wives. The fullness of the idea of a wife, according to our conceptions, is not, we need scarcely say, to be looked for amongst savages. That idea can nowhere be fully realized till the circumstances of a people enable men and women to enjoy, or at least to look forward with confidence to a permanent consortship.
Of the tribes of the great Caribbean nation we have happily a pretty full account from the pen of Alexander Von Humboldt. The Caribbees fall into small tribes or family groups, often not numbering more than from 40 to 50 persons; Humboldt, indeed, takes frequent occasion to say that an Indian tribe is no more than a family. Where groups break up into sections, as they tend to do, and live apart from one another, the sections are found, though of one blood, and originally of one language, soon to speak dialects so different that they cannot understand one another. Become strangers, they are enemies except when forced to unite to make common cause against some powerful tribe which has proved a scourage to them all; enemies, and being at least at the time when
Humboldt wrote, cannibals, not only disposed to slay but to eat one another. In their wars, we may imagine, that while their male captives furnished means of subsistence, the women were preserved to be wives of luxury. To such an extent, indeed, did all the tribes of the Caribbean nation practice the capture of women- depend in aggression for their wives- that the women of any tribe were found to belong to different tribes, and to tribes of other nations, and that to such an extent, that nowhere were the men and women of the Caribbean race found to speak in one tongue.
Going northwards- to the wild Indians everywhere, as far as we follow them, the same account is applicable in varying degrees. It would indeed be misleading to omit to notice that in both North and South America tribes are to be found occupying much more elevated platforms of civility than those to which, for obvious reasons, we have given our attention. As among friendly groups of the Fuegians we find marriages of consent and of purchase (by labour commonly), so also among friendly Patagonians; so also with the nations of the Huron tongue and the Attakapas, among whom the position of the women is exceedingly good. Indeed, all the processes have been going on through which every species of marriage would in time be developed. Even the red of America are far from being primitive. A really primitive people in fact exists nowhere. For many thousands of years now, the various races of men have been in the school of experiences, all making progress therein, though under different masters and in different forms. Hereafter we shall see how the old law of the red men, and of the natives of Australia, which counts blood relationship through females only, operates as an agent of civilization, and tends to supersede the barbarous practices of early savagery, and especially to obviate the necessity of capturing wives.
Chapter 7: Exogamy: Its Origin- Comparative Archaism of Exogamy and Endogamy
At the outset of our argument it was seen that if it could be shown that exogamous tribes existed, and that the usual relations of savage tribes to each other were those of hostility, we should have found a social condition in which it was inevitable that wives should systematically be procured by capture. It also appeared that if the existence of exogamous tribes either actually capturing their wives, or observing the symbol of capture in their marriage ceremonies, should be established in a reasonable number of cases, it would be legitimate inference that exogamy has prevailed wherever we find a system of capture, or the form of capture, existing. We now confidently submit that the conditions requisite for this inference have been amply established in the three preceding chapters; so that we may conclude that wherever capture, or the form of capture, prevails, or has prevailed, exogamy. Conversely, we may say that, wherever exogamy can be found, we may confidently expect to find, after due investigation, at least traces of a system, of capture. We have traced the law and the corresponding practice among tribes scattered over a large portion of the globe. What farther knowledge of rude tribes now existing may show to us it would be idle to conjecture; but it might be plausibly maintained, upon the facts already known to us, that the principle of exogamy has in fact prevailed, and the system of capturing wives in fact been practiced at a certain stage among every race of mankind.
Perhaps there is no question leading deeper into the foundations of civil society than that which regards the origin of exogamy, unless it be the cognate question of the origin of caste, which admits, however, more readily of ingenious surmises, and what mathematicians call singular solutions. We believe this restriction on marriage to be connected with the practice in early times of female infanticide, which, rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without. Female infanticide- common among savages everywhere- prevails as a system, and has been customary from time immemorial amongst many of the races that exhibit the symbol of capture. With some of the exogamous races it appears to be the rule to kill all female children, except the first-born when a female. To tribes surrounded by enemies, and, unaided by art, contending with the difficulties of subsistence, sons were a source of strength, both for defence and in the quest for food, daughters a source of weakness. Hence the cruel custom which, leaving the primitive human hordes with very few young women of their own- occasionally with none- and, in any case, seriously disturbing the balance of the sexes within the hordes, forced them to prey upon one another for wives. Usage, induced by necessity would in time establish a prejudice among the tribes observing it- a prejudice strong as a principle of religion, as every prejudice relatinf to marriage is apt to be –against marrying women of their own stock. A survey of facts of primitive life, and the breakdown of exogamy in advancing communities, exclude the notion that the law originated in any innate or primary feeling against marriage with kinfolk. Indeed, we shall hereafter see that it is probable that necessity may have been established the prejudice against marrying women of the group even before the facts of blood relationship had made any deep impression on the human mind. At present it may be observed that the existence of infanticide, so wide spread in itself, indicates how slight the strength of blood ties was in primitive times. To form an adequate notion, on the other hand, of the extent to which tribes might, by means of infanticide, deprive themselves of their women, we have only to bear in mind the multitude of facts which testify to the thoughtlessness and improvidence of men during the childish stage of the human mind.
To show that the analysis by which the true solution of the questions respecting endogamy and exogamy is to be obtained, is the analysis of a series of phenomena which appears to form a progression, we notice the following as the divisions into which the less advanced portions of mankind fall when ranked according to their rules as to connubiums:-
EXOGAMY PURE. -1. Tribal (or family) system. –Tribes separarate. All the members of each tribe of the same blood, or feigning themselves to be so. Marriage prohibited between the members of the tribe.
2. Tribal system.- Tribe a congeries of family groups, falling into divisions, clans, thums, etc. No connubium between members of same division; connubium between all the divisions.
3. Tribal system.- Tribe a congeries of family groups embracing several village communities or nomadic hordes: members of families (or primitive stock groups) somewhat interfused. No connubium between persons whose family name points them out as being of the same stock.
4. Tribal system.- Tribe in divisions. No connubium between members of the same divisions: connubium between some divisions; only oartial connubium between others –e.g., a man of one marry a woman of another, but a woman of the former may not marry a man of the latter. Approach to caste.
5. Tribal system.- Tribe in divisions. No connubium between persons of the same stock; connubium between each division and some other. No connubium between each division and some other. No connubium between some of the divisions. Caste.
ENDOGAMY PURE.-6. Tribal (or family system.-Tribes separate. All the members of each tribe of the same blood, or feigning themselves to be so. Connubium between members of the tribe: marriage without the tribe forbidden and punished.
7. Tribal system indistinct.- Members of primitive (stock) groups interfused. (1.) Marriage forbidden except between persons whose family name points them out as being of the same stock. (2.) Marriage forbidden except between the members of particular families. Persons having connubium marked as a caste, old tribal divisions being lost sight of.
Although these tribal systems may be arranged as above so as to seem to form a progression, of which the extremes are pure exogamy on the one hand, and endogamy –transmuted into caste of the Mantchu and Hindu types- on the other, we have at present no right to say that these systems were developed in anything like this order in tribal history. They may represent a progression from exogamy to endogamy, or from endogamy to exogamy ; or the middle terms, so to speak, may have been produced by the combination of groups severally organized on the one and the other of these principles/ The two types f organization may be equally archaic. Men must originally have been free of any prejudice against marriage between relations- not necessarily endogamous, i.e., forbidding marriage except between kindred, but still more given to such unions than to unions with strangers. From this primitive indifference they may have advanced, some to endogamy, some to exogamy.
The separate endogamous tribes are nearly as numerous, and they are in some respects as ride, as the separate exogamous tribes. It may be noted, however, that endogamy appears in populations formed by the fusion of many tribes, as the almost uniform characteristic of the dominant race. Hereafter we shall see how a tribe organized on the principle of endogamy might be developed from one organized on the principle of exogamy, in perfect consistency with the law against the intermarriage of relations. And while the existence of tribes like thouse of the Mantchu Tartars, who prohibit marriages between persons whose family names are different, is of great weight in favour of endogamy as a primitive type of organization; on the other hand, castes like those of India, embracing members of several different families, and with a marriage law like that of Menu, strongly suggest that many endogamous tribes have been developed from tribes organized on the opposite principle. Since, moreover, the reconversion of a caste or of an endogamous tribe into an exogamous tribe is inconceivable- we have no experience of caste disappearing except in advanced communities, and then only on a revolution of sentiment being produced by political influences- the choice seems to be between regarding the two classes of tribes as organized ab initio on distinct principles, or holding the exogamous to be the more archaic.
We may notice as strange, that frequently tribes thus oppositely organized are found inhabiting the same area. On the sub- Himalayan ranges, for example, are the Sodhas, who intermarry with the Rajputs, not with each other; the Magars, who prohibit marriages between members of the same thum; and, again, the Kocch, Bodo, Ho, and Dhumal, who are forbidden to marry except to members of their own tribes or kiels. And, in some districts- as in the hills on the north-eastern frontiers of India, in the Caucasus, and the hill ranges of Syria- we find a variety of tribes, proved, by physical characteristics and the affinities of language, of one and the same original stock, yet in this particular differing toto coelo from one another- some forbidding marriage within the tribe, and some proscribing marriage without it.
What has been said is enough to show that the question of the comparative archaism of exogamy and endogamy is as difficult as it is interesting, We shall in the next chapter lead up to a fuller discussion of that question, while investigating more minutely than we have hitherto done the conditions of the form of capture being evolved. We shall there endeavour to establish the following propositions:-1. That the most ancient system in which the idea of blood-relationship was embodied, was the system of kinship through females only. 2. That the primitive groups were, or were assumed to be, homogenous. 3. That the system of kinship through females only tended to render the exogamous groups heterogeneous, and thus to supersede the system of capturing wives. 4. That in the advance from savagery 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. 5. That the system of kinship through males tended to rear up homogeneous groups, and thus to restore the original condition of affairs- where the exogamous prejudice survived- as regards both the practice of capturing wives and the evolution of the form of capture. 6. That a local tribe, under the combined influence of exogamy and the system of female kinship, might attain a balance of persons of different sexes regarded as being of different descent, and that thus its members might be able to intermarry with the principle of exogamy. 7. That a local tribe, having reached this stage and grown proud through success in war, might decline intermarriage with other local tribes and become a caste. That on kinship becoming agnatic, the members of such a tribe might yield to the universal tendency of rude races to eponomy, and feign themselves to be all derived from a common ancestor, and so become endogamous. And 9. That there is a reason to think that some endogamous tribes became endogamous in this manner.
Chapter 8: Ancient Systems of Kinship and Their Influence on the Structure of Primitive Groups
The earliest human groups can have had no idea of kinship. We do not mean to say that there ever was a time when men not bound together by a feeling of kindred. The filial and fraternal affections may be instinctive. They are obviously independent of any theory of kinships, its origin or consequences; they are distinct from the perception of the unity of blood upon which kinship depends; and they may have existed long before kinship became an object of thought. What we would say is, that ideas of kinship must be regarded as growths-must have grown like all other ideas related to matters primarily cognizable only by the senses; and that the fact of consanguinity must have long remained unperceived as other facts, quite obvious, have done. In other words, at the root of kinship is a physical fact, which could be discerned only through observation and reflection- a fact, therefore, which must for a time have been overlooked. No advocate of innate ideas, we should imagine, will maintain their existence on a subject so concrete as relationship by blood.
A group of kindred in that stage of ignorance is the rudest that can be imagined. Though they were chiefly held together by the feeling of kindred, the apparent bond of fellowship between the members of such a group would be that they and theirs had always been companions in war or the chase-joint tenants of the same cave or grove. To one another they would simply be as comrades. As distinguished from men of other groups, they would be of the group, and named after it,
Hence, most naturally, on the idea of blood-relationship arising, would be formed the conception of Stocks. Previously individuals had been affiliated not to persons, but to some group. The new idea of blood-relationship would more readily demonstrate the group to be composed of kindred than it would evolve a special system of blood ties between certain of the individuals in the group. The members of a group would now have become brethren. As distinguished from men of other groups, they would be of the group-stock, and named after the group.
The development of the idea of blood-relationship into a system of kinship, must have been a work of time- at least the establishment over any great area of any such system as an institution of customary law must have been slowly effected. It is most improbable that that idea, when first formed , was anywhere at once embodied in a well-defined system of kinship.
We shall endeavour to show-
I.-That the most ancient system in which the idea of blood-relationship was embodied, was a system of kinship through females only.
Once a man has perceived the fact of consanguinity in the simplest case- namely, that he has his mother’s blood in his veins, he may quickly see that he is of the same blood with her other children. A little more reflection will enable him to see that he is of one blood with the brothers and sisters of his mother. On further though he will perceive that he is of the same blood with the children of his mother’s sister. And, in process of time, following the ties of blood through females being obvious and indisputable, the idea of blood relationship, as soon as it was formed, must have begun to develop, however slowly, into a system embracing them. What further development this idea might have-whether it would simultaneously have a development in the direction of kinship through males-must have depended on the circumstances connected with paternity. If the paternity of a child were usually as indisputable as the maternity, we might expect to find kinship through males acknowledged soon after kinship through females. But however natural it might be that men should think of blood ties as possible to be propagated through fathers, blood-ties through fathers could not find a place in a system of kinshipm unless circumstances usually allowed of some degree of certainty as to who the father of the child was, or of certainty as to the father’s blood. A system of relationship through fathers could only be formed- as we have seen that a system of relationship through mother would be formed-after a good deal of reflection upon the fact of paternity. And fathers must usually be known before men will think of relationship through fathers-indeed, before the idea of a father can be formed. There could be no system of kinship through males if paternity was usually, or in a great proportion of cases, uncertain. The requisite degree of certainty can be had only when the mother is appropriated to a particular man as his wife, or to men of one blood as wife, and when women thus appropriated are usually found faithful to their lords.
Considering that the history of all the race of men, so far as we know it, is the history of a progress from the savage state; considering the social condition of rude tribes still upon the earth,- remembering that the races which can be traced in history had all a previous history, which remains unwritten, - it cannot seem a very strange proposition that there has been a stage in the development of human races when there was no such appropriation of women to particular men-when, in short, marriage, as it exits among civilized nations was not practiced. We believe we shall show, to a sufficient degree of probability, that there have been times when marriage, in this sense, was yet undreamt of. Wherever this has been the case the paternity of the child must have been uncertain; the conditions essential to a system of kinship through males being formed would therefore be wanting; no such system would be formed; there would be- there could be- kinship through females only.
Not to assume that the progress of various races of men from savagery has been a uniform process, that all the stages which any of them has gone through have been passed in their order by all, we shall be justified in believing that more or less of promiscuity in the connection of the sexes, and a system of kinship through females only have subsisted among races of men among which no traces of the remain, when we have shown their existence in a considerable number of cases- if in these there appear nothing exceptional. After what has been said above, it must be plain that kinship through females only, if it exists at all, must be a more archaic system of relationship than kinship through males- the product of an earlier and ruder stage in human development than the latter- somewhat more than a step farther back in the direction of savagery. To prove its existence on such a scale as to entitle it to rank among the normal phenomena of human development, is, we may now say, to prove it the most ancient system of kinship. As customs tend to perpetuate themselves and die hard, it will not in any degree make against our explanation of the origin of kinship through female only , that it should be found in some cases along with marriage relations which allow of certainty as to fathers. It is inconceivable that anything but the want of certainty on that point could have long prevented the acknowledgement of kinship through males; and in such cases we shall be able to conclude that such certainity has formerly been wanting – that more or less promiscuous intercourse between the sexes have formerly prevailed. The connection between these two things- uncertain paternity and kinship through females only, seems so necessary- that of cause and effect- that we may confidently infer the one where we find the other.
Let us see, then, what can be said for the proposition that there has been a stage in the progress of men in which a woman was not usually appropriated to a particular man as his wife.
All the evidence we have goes to show that men were form the beginning gregarious. The geological record distinctly exhibits them in groups- naked hunters or feeders upon shell fish leading a precarious life of squalid misery. This testimony is confirmed by all history. We hear nothing in the most ancient times of individual except as being members of groups. The history of property is the history of the development of proprietary rights inside groups, which were at first the only owners, and of all other personal rights- even including the right in offspring- it may be said that their history is that of the gradal assertion of the claims of individuals against the traditional rights of groups.
We, of course, know nothing about the co-ordination of the sexes in the earliest groups. The reader knows already what must be our conjecture as to what it was. We can trace the line of human progress far back towards brutishness; finding as we go back the noble faculties peculiar to man weaker and weaker in their manifestations, producing less and less effect,-at last scarcely any effect at all- upon his position and habits. As we go back, we find more and more in men the traits of gregarious animals; slighter and slighter indications of operative intellect. As among other gregarious animals, the unions of the sexes were probably in the earliest times, loose, transitory, and in some way promiscuous.
Before the invention of the arts, and the formation of provident habits, the struggle for existence must often have become very serious. The instincts of self preservation, therefore, must have frequently predominated and shaped the features of society freely, as if the unselfish affections had no place in human nature. None of the races of mankind can have been spared the cruel experience of this initiatory stage; or can have escaped the effects of that experience on its character and customs. Even those most favourably situated must have had long periods of trial, and have suffered from the incessant hostility of neighbors. So, without supposing the course of human events to have been uniform, we must conceive of early human society as having been throughout affected by influences of the same general, unfriendly, character, and as having been determined, though perhaps by unequal pressures, towards one uniform type in all its parts.
Foremost among the results of this early struggle for food and security , must have been an effect upon the balance of the sexes. As braves and hunters were required and valued, it would be the interest of every horde to rear, when possible, its healthy male children. It would be less its interest to rear females, as they would be less capable of self-support, and of contributing, by their exertions, to the common good. In this lies the only explanation which can be accepted of the origin of those systems of female infanticide still existing, the discovery of which from time to time, in out of the way places, so shocks our humanity. It is of no consequence by what theories the races who practice infanticide now defend the practice. There can be no doubt that its origin is everywhere referable to that early time of struggle and necessity which we have been contemplating.
What is now true in varying degrees of all the rudest races may be assumed to have been true of all the earliest groups. We may predicate of the primitive groups that they were all or nearly all marked by a want of balance between the sexes- the males being in the majority. The reader will have little difficulty in granting that we may do so when he reflects on the prevalence of exogamy, the origin of which must be referred to that want of balance. And we think he will be still more ready to make the concession when we shall have surveyed the facts connected with polyandry- the origin of which must be referred to the same cause.
When diminished the number of the female sex would increase the importance of women. The first result of the balance of the sexes against the females, must have been to give every woman more than one, it might be several wooers. Apart from any disproportion of the sexes, we might expect the more engaging females of a horde to be surrounded by suitors. Savages are unrestrained by any sense of delicacy from a copartnery in sexual enjoyment; and, indeed, in the civilised state, the sin of great cities shows that there are no natural restraints sufficient to hold men back from grosser copartneries. But within a horde possessing few women, such copartneries would be a necessity. And as savages assert for themselves a high degree of independence , it is obvious that grave difficulties must have surrounded the constitution and regulation of such copartneries. And to the consideration of these difficulties we are led, the instant we conceive of the primitive groups as containing fewer women than men.
The men of a group must either have quarreled about their women and separated, splitting the horde into hostile sections; or, in the spirit of indifference, indulged in savage promiscuity. That quarrels and divisions were of frequent occurrence can’t be doubted. These were the first wars for women, and they went to form the habits which established exogamy. And whether quarrels arose or not, we are led to contemplate groups- the horde or its sections- indulging in a promiscuity more or less general. The quarrels must have been between sections of the hordes rather than between individuals. No individual at that stage could well carry off a woman, isolate himself, and found a family. However brave and strong, he could scarcely maintain his independence for any time against numerous assailants. Unless these quarrels went the length of completely disintegrating the groups- a result which the gregarious nature of men tended to prevent- we must arrive at last at groups within which harmony was maintained through indifference and promiscuity.
These groups would hold their women, like their other goods, in common. And the children, while attached to mothers, would belong to the horde. We find traces of the former existence of groups of this description; and its probable that before the rise of kinship, all the human groups were of that model. On the rise of kinship. The difficulty due to the scarcity of women would more easily be overcome. The first advance from a general promiscuity- assuming its existence- would naturally be to a promiscuity less general- to arrangements between small sets if men to attach themselves to a particular women. Previous to the establishment of a system of kinship- when men were bound to each other only by the tribal tie- it is obvious that there would constantly be difficulties in the way of their forming such combinations. When, however, the system of kinship through females only, had been firmly established, every group stood resolved into a number of small brotherese, each composed of sons of the same mother. And within these, the feeling of close kinship would simplify the constitution of the polyandrous arrangement.
Now, here, at length, we are upon the firm ground of fact. We have examples of general promiscuity; and examples of modified promiscuity, in which, with a pretence of marriage, the woman may bestow her favours upon any one, under certain restrictions as to rank and family. We have numerous examples of polyandry, and they are such as to show that polyandry must be regarded as a modification of and advance from promiscuity. We have examples of polyandry in which the wife has several husbands, who are not necessarily relatives; and very many examples of polyandry in which the husbands are all brothers. We often find these two forms of polyandry in the same district, in different sections of the population: here, the husbands as a rule, are no relations; there, the husbands as a rule, are brothers. Farther, where the husbands are not brothers, we find the system of relationship through females only; and, so enduring its custom, we very often find that system where marriage has long been regulated as to permit of kinship through males. In many cases we find traces of the system of kinship through females only, lingering about the laws of marriage and succession to estates and titles, even where male kinship has been longed established. Moreover, in nearly all the cases in which traces are found of kinship through females only, traces of polyandry also remain. Thus, what we find is just what was to be expected if the account we have offered of the origin of polyandry was correct.
Who is John F McLennan?
John Ferguson McLennan was born on October 14, 1827. Although his life centered on a legal career he always had the desire to enter the academic world. McLennan studied law in Edinburgh, Scotland. He practiced under the Scottish bar until 1870. However, he was not a successful advocate of this profession because instead of studying and supporting the law he chose to argue over its conventions. This is shown by the fact that in 1868, he became the secretary of the Scottish Society for the amendment of the Law (Rivière). Primitive Marriage was published in 1865 and according to J.B. Tylor was a type of law book that had “the natural and immediate effect of losing him half his briefs (Rivière)." McLennan’s dissatisfaction for his chosen profession prompted him to apply for a professorship at Cambridge. His interest did not stop there and McLennan continued to interacted with those in the science community. His house became an informal meeting place of the academic community that discussed literary and scientific findings. Interestingly enough McLennan was not apart of the Ethnological Society of London which included notable figures of the time including Sir John Lubbock and E.B. Tylor. The main objective of the society was to inquire “into the distinguishing characteristics, physical and moral, of the varieties of mankind which inhabit or have inhabited the Earth; and to ascertain the causes of such characteristics (Burrows, 122).”
McLennan’s feud with Lewis Henry Morgan became a topic of controversy in the 19th century. They meet in London in 1871 and initially became quite good friends. In fact Morgan knew of McLennan’s desire to enter the academic world and wrote to President of White of Cornell University encouraging him to give McLennan an academic appointment. Their relationship took a turn because of their disagreement over “the validity of their respective evolutionary frameworks, the nature of relationship terminologies, and the true meaning of exogamy and endogamy (Rivière).”
McLennan’s dispute with Morgan masked the main adversary to his work, Sir Henry Maine. Maine’s Ancient Law promoted McLennan to place his own ideals in an evolutionary framework and at the same time disputed Maine’s patriarchal theory. Although Primitive Marriage is not an apparent attack on Maine’s theory, McLennan’s disagreement appears more strongly in his later works.
McLennan used the comparative method as well as the universal belief of human nature to try to answer the question of marriage by capture. This question is further explored in Studies in Ancient History- Second Series which was published posthumously in 1896 under his brother’s name (Burrow, 234). McLennan’s young death in 1881 put an end to his life’s work which is still considered a great contribution to the young science of anthropology.
What event in the history of science is this document related?
Primitive Marriage reflects the link between science and society that began to surface in the 19th century. McLennan interacted with various anthropologist and sociologist who applied these ideals such as Lewis Henry Morgan and E.B. Tylor. Evolutionary sociology describes the structural development of societies. It explains the progression of culture in a similar manner that Darwin used to describe the progression of species (Wikipede). However unlike Darwinian Theory, evolutionary sociologist believed that there were human behaviors that were exhibited because of social rather than biological factors. The main focus of this field at the end of the 19th century applied this social evolutionary thinking and defined stages of development in which societies passed through.
The roots of evolutionary sociology originated in the Scottish Enlightenment, a country in which McLennan spent a great part of his life. Many of his ideas reflect his education in the Scottish school of thinking, particularly his first article on “Law” written for the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1857. However, his writing style underwent a transition between his first published work and that of Primitive Marriage. The latter seemed to be influenced more by the contemporary scientific theories of his time opposed to the old Scottish school of thinking (Burrow, 233). The events in which shaped the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment was the transition of the country from an agricultural society to one that centered on commerce. The ensuing period of imperialism raised questions about the status of non-Europeans. These theories of social evolution served as a rationalization of European exerting domination over less evolved colonized people. The industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism also supported the belief of cultural progression and improvement.
McLennan was influenced by notable evolutionary theorists such as Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin whose theories on biological evolution served as a precursor to social evolution. McLennan performed similar research and had personal contact with EB Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan. Tylor and McLennan both used the idea of survival in their studies in social anthropology (Burrow). This idea correlated their beliefs that past civilizations can be studied through observations of present savagery. Spencer also used survival in the same manner as McLennan to support the theories of social evolution and validate the use of the evolutionary comparative method. Although Spencer and McLennan published their ideas of survival before Tylor, Tylor is attributed to the introduction of this concept because he made “survival- hunting” one of the main activities utilized in anthropology (Burrow, 241). However, many of their theories contradicted each other which caused professional disagreements. Morgan responded to the publication of Primitive Marriage by proposing “a conjectural solution” in his 1868 Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Tooker). McLennan later came under the assumption that Morgan used his theory and data without acknowledgement.
Besides Morgan, Lubbock is another notable figure that McLennan corresponded with. Lubbock was influenced by the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin. In fact, it was Darwin himself who introduced him into the scientific world. He had the privilege of learning about Darwin’s theories during the period in which Darwin was drafting The Origin of Species. Darwin’s esteem for Lubbock is demonstrated in 1869 when Darwin wrote to him “I settled some time ago that I should think more of Huxley’s and your opinion- than of that of any other man in England (Burrow, 228-29).” Unlike McLennan, Lubbock used the ideas of evolutionary biology and prehistoric archaeology to form his theories. Despite their different approaches to anthropology, they shared correspondences such as McLennan’s 1867’s letter to Lubbock regarding the development of human marriage. This letter describes McLennan’s progress on a paper in which he says, “I shd be most anxious to bring out through yr [the Ethnological Society of London])...I am aiming at the formation if a table with a classification of stages of progress in the Arts & Sciences, etc. that have been found concurring with each phase of development of social organization ( Stocking, 269).” McLennan’s letter attempts to define sociocultural factors within the context of progressive stages (Stocking, 269). This letter demonstrates the communication of ideas that existed within this scientific community.
What does it tell us about the event that occurred?
Primitive marriage is a work influence by the ideals of anthropology in the Victorian era. In the late 19th century progress and evolution were not just used as biological terms but used to describe cultural factors such as marriage laws and customs.
In Primitive Marriage, McLennan focuses on the marriage practices and ideas of kinship of primitive people. He invented the terms endogamy and the exogamy to explain his theory. He defines endogamy as the ability of a tribe to marry within the same tribe. Exogamy is the prohibition of this practice. Therefore, the way in which the tribe attains wives is by capturing them from other tribes. This argument is centered on the perpetual state of hostility that existed amongst different tribes (Rivière). McLennan argues that marriage by capture existed in primitive societies and proof of this exists in the symbols of capture that exists within that culture. Chapter 4, 5, and 6 serve as McLennan’s “data” for this study. In this way he gives examples of tribes in different regions of the world to support his theory. This evidence proves that marriage capture does exist and that it exists amongst exogamous tribes (Rivière).
Chapter 7 discusses the origin of exogamy. McLennan argues that is exists because women born into a tribe are not seen as valuable because men of the tribe can not marry them. This results in female infanticide which leads to polyandry due to the fact that men are forced to find wives outside of their group. He also divides marriage up into 5 categories that range from pure endogamy to pure exogamy. He uses these classification to illustrate the progression of marriage.
Chapter 8 opens with one of McLennan’s most controversial statements which is that ancient societies had no idea of kinship. He lays out his theory of social evolution in which early societies did not recognize blood ties. As societies progressed there was recognition through the female line which led to the formation of families. He argues that this system also supports polyandry and women being held in common. He further classifies different states of polyandry as “ruder” and “less rude”. The ruder state is when the men are unrelated and the less rude state is when the husbands are brothers. He ties exogamy into this theory by stating that all exogamous races practiced the system of polygamy. The last stage of development that McLennan describes is the one in which kinship was recognized through the male line.
McLennan’s book ends with an attack on the Patriarchal theory that social evolution started with the family and developed into the state. Primitive Marriage reverses this theory describing the lowest level of progress as being the horde and the individual family as the highest level (Rivière).
Many of McLennan’s peers who were publishing cultural evolution ideas of their own disagreed with many of the theories expressed in Primitive Marriage. In Morgan’s “A Note on Mr. J.F. McLennan’s ‘Primitive Marriage’”. Morgan challenges McLennan’s definition of endogamy and exogamy, his 5 defined types of marriage, and his theory of the development of kinship. In order to support his own theories Morgan claimed that McLennan’s ideas on polyandry were erroneous as well. Spencer also disagreed with many of McLennan’s assertions notably his idea of female infanticide. Spencer argued that female infanticide would not lead to McLennan’s described system of polyandry because the higher death rates of men in primitive societies would balance out the shortage of women (Rivière). Not all reviews of Primitive Marriage were negative. Lubbock described it as an “excellent book” and Tylor applauded “the introduction of the scientific method of induction of observed facts (Rivière).” Tylor recognized McLennan’s meticulous gathering of data to support his theories instead of relaying on scientific assumptions.
Why is Primitive Marriage Important?
Although most of McLennan’s theories in Primitive Marriage have since been proven wrong, his creation of the terms of endogamy and exogamy are of lasting importance. The method in which he used to come to his conclusions also contributed to the founding of current anthropology. His work does not have political or philosophical undertones but it nevertheless challenges past beliefs and creates new opinions. It shows that the study of primitive studies can be used as evidence to reconstruct our own past (Burrow). The theories of social organization introduced influenced works of later anthropologists such as Robertson Smith. (Rivière).
One of the most startling points in Primitive Marriage is its objection to the patriarchal theory. The time period in which it was written was marked by the idea of female inferiority, the very fact that McLennan asserts that female lineage preceded male lineage was a revolutionary idea.
SOURCES:
Burrows, J.W. Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1966.
Morgan, Lewis. “A Note on Mr. J.F. McLennan’s ‘Primitive Marriage”. Ancient Society of Lewis Henry Morgan, 1877.
Rivière. Peter. “Editors Introduction to Primitive Marriage”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Stocking, George W. Jr., Delimiting Anthropology: Occasional Essays and Reflections.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001.
Tooker, Elisabeth. “Lewis H. Morgan and His Contemporaries”. American
Anthropologist. New Series, Vol.94,No.2. (357-375). June 1992.
Wikipedia, “Cultural Evolution” 3 November 2004.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_evolution>