^^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
�� �
