Page:Science vol. 5.djvu/27

 ^^m^AKT 3, ISas.)

��altogether the evidence lo the correctness of his view§ bus steadily acciimulBted. until it is now almost ovei'Trhelming.

Mr. Wilken takes up this subject for the ptirfMse of showiug that mother- right once existed utnong the Semitic nations, especinlly among the ancient Ambs. The evidence adduced seems to fully warrnnt the conclusion. In connection with the main purpose of his pa]>er. two subsidiary qnestions ore discusaed. The first relates to commnnal marriage ; the secotKl, Ui fxognmy nnd endt^amj*.

With respect to communal marriage, the author is not clear in his conception of the nature of the institution. It is the marriage of a group of men (brothers) to a group of women (sistera). Someliinos the group of men U small ; and u man may have no brothers, and atHl be entitled to a group of women for his wife. This is sometimes denominated 'hetarism,' and must be distinguished from polygamy, which is altogether a later institution. Some- times the group of women may be small; in fact, a woman may have no sisters; in which case a number of men would have^ but one common wife. This is onlled ' polyandry.' Our author endeavors to find evidence, among the Arabs and other Semitic )>coplcs, of com- munal marriage ; but most of the evidence which he brings forward is not pertinent to the ar^iment. The ' surviviil ' of institutions analogous to ■ atavism ' in biology is a principle of great value to the student of early society. but it must be used with great care, ^^'ilkeu describes the institution of mot'a. which is marriage for a limited and prescribed lime, and other sexual practices among the nomadic tribes, and cites them as survivals of communal marriage from prehistoric times; but such practic«s. though they may be partiallj' regu- lated aixl ameliorated by law, give no evi- dence of a more ancient institution, but rather nhow that in all times men have disregarded institu linns, and broken lan-s, and have thus lapsed iulo immorality. Robbery still exists in the highest stages of civilised society, but fUmishes no evidence that stealing was origi- nally established by law. so as to constitute a prehistoric institution. . Murder is still com- mitted, but this does not permit us to infer that primitive mankind practised murder as a legalizeil institution. The various forms of liet&rism practised in historic times among all {)Cople9, like robbery, murder, and other crimes, testify to the fact that the passions of men are but imperfecth controlled by the reg- ulations of societv.

The author brings forw.ird many instances

��and divers reasons for believing Unit exogamy formerly- existctl among the Arabs, and iliat it was finally changed into endc^amy. On this subject the author seems to think that the evi- dence is contradictory, and he tries to draw an a\'erage conclusion therefrom. The con- tradictions, however, are not in the facts them- selves, but in the author's misconceptioii of the facts upon which theories of exogamy and endi^atn}' have been based. Mis first great error is iu using the term 'iribe' in dilferent senses, us does ^IcLenuan and oilier writers of that school. They seem to think that the tribe is a group of people held together by the authority of some one ]>erBon, — by a chief. Now, IB fact, no tribe has yet been discovered organized on a plan so simple. All tribes are composed of two or more groups, each of which has an organization, and constitutes an inte- gral part of the tribe. In many cases there are tribes with three, four, five, or eveu six units of organiiiation of different orders. Sometimes the term ' tribe ' is used to desig- nate the unit of the highest order, — the whole l>ody of the people ; sometimes it is used to designate a clan or gens within the tribe : and again it is used to denote a sub-gens, oj- eveu a smaller gionp. The use of the term ■ tribe,' or its synonyme in otiier languages, in this manner, has led to many errors, and apparently conflicting statements, in relation to the orga- nization of early society. In all such tribes throughout the world, there is invariably some group of persons within which a man may not many, and in respect to which he may be said to be exogamoiis ; and yet he always has a light to marry somewhere within the lai^er group here denominated ' tribe : ' hence, iu re- lation to the tribe, he is endogRmous, Every man, in all sLiges of society, is cxc^amous in relation to some group ; that is, it is incest lo marry within such group. In like manner, he is endogamous to some other or all other groups. Thus it is that every man, througli- out savi^ery, barbarism, and civilisation, is both esogamous and endogamous.

The author has the unfortunate practice of using the lerra ■ matriarchy ' {matriarckat) for the term ' uterine descent.' and ' patriarchy ' {patriarchal) as a name for agnatic descent. The term ' patriarchy ' has long been used for another purpose ; that is, for the name of the organization of the social unit in which the fither IS the chief or ruler of his sons and sons" fimilies, — a graup of descendants, ^ and is m impoitant particulars the owner of the common pioperty. This palriarchal society IS well described iu the |>ost-Noachian history

�� �