2.—Family Forms.

The periods of savagery and barbarism were characterized by singular social and sex relations, that differ considerably from those of later times.

Backofen and Morgan have thoroughly investigated these relations. Backofen carried on his investigations by a profound study of ancient writings, with the purpose of gaining an understanding of various phenomena presented in mythology and ancient history, that impress us strangely and yet show similarity with facts and occurrences of later days, even down to the present time. Morgan carried on his investigations by spending decades of his life among the Iroquois Indians in the State of New York, whereby he made new and unexpected observations of the modes of family life and system of relationship prevailing among them, and these observations served as a basis to place similar observations, made elsewhere, in the proper light.

Backofen and Morgan discovered, independently from one another, that in primeval society the relations of the sexes differed vastly from those prevalent during historic times and among modern, civilized nations. Morgan discovered, furthermore, as a result of his long sojourn among the Iroquois of North America, and his comparative studies to which these observations led him, that all existing primitive peoples have family relations and systems of relationship that differ markedly from our own, but which must have prevailed generally among all peoples at a remote period of civilization.

At the time when Morgan lived among the Iroquois, he found that among them existed a monogamous marriage, easily dissolved by either side, termed by him the “pairing family.” But he also found that the terms of relationship as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, although there could be no doubt in our minds as to whom such terms should apply, were not used in their ordinary sense. The Iroquois addresses as sons and daughters not only his own children, but also those of all his brothers, and these—his brothers’ children—call him father. On the other hand, the Iroquois woman does not only call her own children sons and daughters, but also those of all her sisters, and again all her sisters’ children call her mother. But the children of her brothers she calls nephews and nieces, and these call her aunt. Children of brothers call one another brothers and sisters, and so do children of sisters. But the children of a woman and her brother call each other cousins. The curious fact then presents itself that the terms of relationship are not determined by the actual degrees of relationship, but the sex of the relative.

This system of kinship is not only fully accepted by all American Indians as well as by the aborigines of India, the Dravidian tribes of Deckan and the Gaura tribes of Hindostan, but similar systems must have existed everywhere primarily, as has been proven by investigations that were undertaken since those of Backofen. When these established facts shall be taken as a basis for further investigations among living savage or barbaric tribes, similar to the investigations made by Backofen among various peoples of the ancient world, by Morgan among the Iroquois and by Cunow among the Australian Negroes, it will be shown that social and sex relations constituted the foundation for the development of all nations of the world.

Morgan’s investigations have revealed still other interesting facts. While the “pairing family” of the Iroquois is in contradiction to the terms of relationship employed by them, it was shown that in the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) there existed up to the first half of the nineteenth century a family form which actually corresponded to that system of kinship that among the Iroquois existed only in name. But the Hawaiian system of kinship again did not agree with the family form prevailing there at the time, but pointed to another form of the family, still more remote, and no longer in existence. There all the children of brothers and sisters, without exception, were regarded as brothers and sisters, and were considered the common children, not only of their mother’s and her sisters’ or their father’s and his brothers’, but of all the brothers and sisters of both their parents.

The Hawaiian system of kinship then corresponded to a degree of development that was still lower than the prevailing family form. We are thus confronted by the peculiar fact, that in Hawaii as among the North American Indians, two different systems of kinship were employed that no longer corresponded to existing conditions, but had been superseded by a higher form. Morgan expresses himself on this phenomenon in the following manner: “The family is the active element; it is never stationary, but progresses from a lower to a higher form in the same measure in which society develops from a lower to a higher stage. But the systems of kinship are passive. Only in long intervals they register the progress made by the family in course of time, and only then are they radically changed when the family has done so.”

The prevalent conception that the present family form has existed since times immemorial and must continue to exist lest our entire civilization be endangered—a conception that is vehemently defended by the upholders of things as they are—has been proven faulty and untenable by the researches of these scientists. The study of primeval history leaves no doubt as to the entirely different relation of the sexes at an early period of human development from their present relation, and when viewed in the light of our present-day conceptions, they seem a monstrosity, a mire of immorality. But as each stage in social development has its own methods of production, thus each stage also has its own code of morals, which is only a reflection of its social conditions. Morals are determined by custom, and customs correspond to the innermost nature, that is, to the social necessities of any given period.

Morgan arrives at the conclusion that in the lowest stage of savagery unrestricted sexual intercourse existed within the tribe, so that all the women belonged to all the men and all the men belonged to all the women; that is, a condition of promiscuity. All men practice polygamy, and all women practice polyandry; there is a common ownership of wives and husbands as also a common ownership of the children. Strabo relates (66 B. C.) that among the Arabs brothers have sexual intercourse with their sisters and sons with their mothers. Incest was originally a requirement to make it possible for human beings to multiply. This explanation must especially be resorted to if we accept the biblical story of the origin of man. The Bible contains a contradiction in regard to this delicate subject. It relates that Cain, having killed his brother Abel, fled from the presence of the Lord and lived in the land of Nod. There Cain knew his wife and she conceived and bore a son unto him.

But whence came his wife? Cain’s parents were the first man and woman. According to the Hebrew tradition, two sisters were born to Cain and Abel, with whom they begot children. The Christian translators of the Bible appear to have suppressed this unpleasant fact. That promiscuity prevailed in a prehistoric stage, that the primeval horde was characterized by unrestricted sexual intercourse, is also shown in the Indian myth that Brama wedded his own daughter Saravasti. The same myth is met with among the Egyptians and in the Norse “Edda.” The Egyptian god Ammon was the husband of his mother and boasted of the fact, and Odin, according to the “Edda” was the husband of his own daughter Frigga.[3] Dr. Adolf Bastian relates: “In Swaganwara the daughters of the Rajah enjoyed the privilege of freely choosing their husbands. Four brothers who settled in Kapilapur made Priya, the eldest of their five sisters, queen mother and married the others.”[4]

Morgan assumes that from the state of general promiscuity, a higher form of sexual relation gradually developed, the consanguine family. Here the marriage groups are arranged by generations; all the grandfathers and grandmothers within a certain family are mutually husbands and wives; their children constitute another cycle of husbands and wives, and again the children of these when they have attained the proper age. In differentiation then from the promiscuity prevailing at the lowest stage, we here find one generation excluded from sexual intercourse with another generation. But brothers and sisters and cousins of the first, second and more remote grades are all brothers and sisters and also husbands and wives. This family form corresponds to the system of kinship that during the first half of the last century still existed in Hawaii in name but no longer in fact. According to the American and Indian system of kinship, brother and sister can never be father and mother to the same child, but according to the Hawaiian system they may. The consanguine family also prevailed at the time of Herodotus among the Massagetes. Of these he wrote: “Every man marries a woman but all are permitted to have intercourse with her.”[5] Similar conditions Backofen proves to have existed among the Lycians, Etruscans, Cretans, Athenians, Lesbians and Egyptians.

According to Morgan, the consanguine family is succeeded by a third, higher form of family relations, which he calls the “Punaluan family”—“punaluan” meaning “dear companion.”

Morgan’s conception that the consanguine family, founded upon the formation of marriage classes according to generations, which preceded the Punaluan family, was the original form of family life, is opposed by Cunow in his book referred to above. Cunow does not consider the consanguine family the most primitive form of sexual intercourse discovered, but deems it an intermediary stage leading to the true gentile organization, in which stage the generic classification in strata of different ages belonging to the so-called consanguine family, runs parallel for a while with the gentile order.[6] Cunow says, furthermore: The class division—every man and every woman bearing the name of their class and their totem—does not prevent sexual intercourse among relations on collateral lines, but it does prevent it among relations of preceding and succeeding lines, parents and children, aunts and nephews, uncles and nieces. Terms as uncle, aunt, etc., denote entire groups.

Cunow furnishes proof in regard to the points in which he differs from Morgan. But though he differs from Morgan in many respects, he clearly defends him against the attacks of Westermarck and others. He says: “Although some of Morgan’s theories may be proven to be incorrect, and others partly so, to him still is due the credit of having been the first to discover the identity existing between the totem-groups of the North American Indians and the gentile organizations of the Romans. He, furthermore, was the first to show that our present family form and system of relationship is the outcome of a lengthy process of evolution. We, therefore, are indebted to him for having made further research possible, for having laid the foundation upon which we may continue to build.” In the introduction to his book he also states explicitly that his work is partly a supplement to Morgan’s book on ancient society.

Westermarck and Starcke, to whom Dr. Ziegler especially refers, will have to accept the fact that the origin and evolution of the family are not in keeping with their bourgeois prejudices. Cunow’s refutations should enlighten the most fanatical opponents of Morgan as to the value of their opposition.