CHAPTER V

A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY

(_Continued_)

The ‘classificatory system of relationship,’ pp. 82-84.—‘Marriage in a group’ and the ‘consanguine family,’ pp. 84, _et seq._—Mr. Morgan’s assumption that the ‘classificatory system’ is a system of blood ties, p. 85.—Terms for relationships borrowed from the children’s lips, pp. 85-87.—Other terms, pp. 87-89.—Mr. Morgan’s assumption not consistent with the facts he has himself stated, p. 89.—The terms for relationships originally terms of address, _ibid._—The names given chiefly with reference to sex and age, as also to the external, or social, relationship in which the speaker stands to the person whom he addresses, pp. 90-95.—No inference regarding early marriage customs to be drawn from the terms for relationships, pp. 95, _et seq._—The system of ‘kinship through females only,’ p. 96.—Supposed to be due to uncertain paternity, pp. 96, _et seq._—A list of peoples among whom this system does not prevail, pp. 98-104.—The inference that ‘kinship through females only’ everywhere preceded the rise of ‘kinship through males’ inadmissible from Mr. McLennan’s point of view, p. 105.—The maternal system does not presuppose former uncertainty as to fathers, _ibid._—The father’s participation in parentage not discovered as soon as the mother’s, though now universally recognized, pp. 105-107.—Once discovered, it was often exaggerated, p. 106.—The denomination of children and the rules of succession, in the first place, not dependent on ideas of consanguinity, p. 107.—Several reasons for naming children after the mother rather than after the father, apart from any consideration of relationship, _ibid._—The tie between a mother and child much stronger than that which binds a child to the father, pp. 107, _et seq._—Polygyny, p. 108.—Husband living with the wife’s family, pp. 109, _et seq._—The rules of succession influenced by local connections and by the family name, pp. 110-112.—No general coincidence of what we consider moral and immoral habits with the prevalence of the male and female line among existing savages, p. 112.—Occasional coincidence of the paternal system with uncertainty as to fathers, _ibid._—Avowed recognition of kinship in the female line only does not show an unconsciousness of male kinship, pp. 112, _et seq._—The prevalence of the female line would not presuppose general promiscuity, even if, in some cases, it were dependent on uncertain paternity, p. 113.—The groups of social phenomena adduced as evidence for the hypothesis of promiscuity no evidence, _ibid._