of relationship. ( Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences,
vol. vii. Feb. 1868, p. 475), concludes that polygamy and all forms of
marriage during primeval times were essentially unknown. It appears
also, from Sir J. Lubbock s work, that Bachofen likewise believes that
communal intercourse originally prevailed.), and whose judgment is
worth much more than mine, believe that communal marriage (this
expression being variously guarded) was the original and universal form
throughout the world, including therein the intermarriage of brothers
and sisters. The late Sir A. Smith, who had travelled widely in S.
Africa, and knew much about the habits of savages there and elsewhere,
expressed to me the strongest opinion that no race exists in which
woman is considered as the property of the community. I believe that
his judgment was largely determined by what is implied by the term
marriage. Throughout the following discussion I use the term in the
same sense as when naturalists speak of animals as monogamous, meaning
thereby that the male is accepted by or chooses a single female, and
lives with her either during the breeding-season or for the whole year,
keeping possession of her by the law of might; or, as when they speak
of a polygamous species, meaning that the male lives with several
females. This kind of marriage is all that concerns us here, as it
suffices for the work of sexual selection. But I know that some of the
writers above referred to imply by the term marriage a recognised right
protected by the tribe.
The indirect evidence in favour of the belief of the former prevalence
of communal marriages is strong, and rests chiefly on the terms of
relationship which are employed between the members of the same tribe,
implying a connection with the tribe, and not with either parent. But
the subject is too large and complex for even an abstract to be here
given, and I will confine myself to a few remarks. It is evident in the
case of such marriages, or where the marriage tie is very loose, that
the relationship of the child to its father cannot be known. But it
seems almost incredible that the relationship of the child to its
mother should ever be completely ignored, especially as the women in
most savage tribes nurse their infants for a long time. Accordingly, in
many cases the lines of descent are traced through the mother alone, to
the exclusion of the father. But in other cases the terms employed
express a connection with the tribe alone, to the exclusion even of the
mother. It seems possible that the connection between the related
members of the same barbarous tribe, exposed to all sorts of danger,
613