The promiscuity of primitive man is not, however, generally considered to be perfectly indiscriminate, but limited to the individuals belonging to the same tribe. It may, therefore, perhaps be said to be a kind of marriage: polygyny combined with polyandry. Sir John Lubbock has also given it the name of “communal marriage,” indicating by this word, that all the men and women in a community were regarded as equally husbands and wives to one another. As I do not, in speaking of marriage, take into consideration unions of so indefinite a nature, this seems to be the proper place to discuss the hypothesis in question.
The evidence adduced in support of it flows from two sources. First, there are, in the books of ancient writers and modern travellers, notices of some savage nations said to live promiscuously; secondly, there are some remarkable customs which are assumed to be social survivals, pointing to an earlier stage of civilization, when marriage did not exist. Let us see whether this evidence will stand the test of a critical examination.
Herodotus and Strabo inform us that, among the Massagetæ every man had his own wife, but that all the other men of the tribe were allowed to have sexual intercourse with her.[250] The Auseans, a Libyan people, had, according to the former, their wives in common;[251] and Solinus reports the same of the Garamantians of Ethiopia.[252] Community of women is, further, alleged to have occurred among the Liburnes, Galactophagi,[253] and the ancient Bohemians.[254] And Garcilasso de la Vega asserts that, among the natives of Passau in Peru, before the time of the Incas, men had no separate wives.[255]
To these statements of ancient peoples Sir J. Lubbock adds a few others concerning modern savages.[256] “The Bushmen of South Africa,” he says, “are stated to be entirely without marriage.” Sir Edward Belcher tells us that, in the Andaman Islands, the custom is for the man and woman to remain together until the child is weaned, when they separate, and each seeks a new partner.[257] Speaking of the natives of Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Poole says that among them “the institution of marriage is altogether unknown,” and that the women “cohabit almost promiscuously with their own tribe, though rarely with other tribes.”[258] In the Californian Peninsula, according to Baegert, the sexes met without any formalities, and their vocabulary did not even contain the word “to marry.”[259] Mr. Hyde states that, in the Pacific Islands, there was an “utter absence of what we mean by the family, the household, and the husband; the only thing possible was to keep the line distinct through the mother, and enumerate the successive generations with the several putative fathers.”[260] Among the Nairs, as Buchanan tells us, no one knows his father, and every man looks on his sister’s children as his heirs; a man may marry several women, and a woman may be the wife of several men.[261] The Teehurs of Oude live together almost indiscriminately in large communities, and even when two people are regarded as married the tie is but nominal.[262] It is recorded that, among the Tôttiyars of India, “brothers, uncles, nephews, and other kindred, hold their wives in common.”[263] And among the Todas of the Neilgherry Hills, when a man marries a girl, she becomes the wife of all his brothers as they successively reach manhood, and they become the husbands of all her sisters when they are old enough to marry.[264]
