But forces were now operating within the Punaluan family which were destined to transform it. "From the necessities of the social state," there was more or less pairing from the first, "each man having a principal wife among a number of wives, and each woman a principal husband among a number of husbands." Moreover, the fuller development of the gentile organism, with its rule of exogamy, tended to foster a sentiment hostile to the intermarriage of near kindred and, in other ways, to produce a scarcity of women available for marriage within the Punaluan groups, thus leading to wife-capture and wife-purchase. Under these influences arose the Syndiasmian, or third general type of the family, based upon the marriage of single pairs, often temporary and without exclusive cohabitation. It is found among the Senaca-Iroquois and many other American tribes, among the Tamils of South India, and some other races of Asia.[200] This family did not produce a distinct system of consanguinity, the peoples having it still retaining the Turanian system.[201] The next, or Patriarchal, family, like the Syndiasmian, is "intermediate," not being "sufficiently influential upon human affairs to create a new, or modify essentially the then existing system of consanguinity."[202] It is found particularly among the Semites and Romans, and is characterized by the "organization of a number of persons, bond and free, into a family under paternal power, for the purpose of holding lands, and for the care of flocks and herds." The Syndiasmian, and in a less degree the Patriarchal, constitute the transitional stage in the development of the Monogamic family. Its rise was especially fostered by the influence of property and the increase of the paternal power, leading to the change from the female to the male line of descent. It produced the system of consanguinity prevailing among the Uralian, Semitic, and Aryan peoples.[203]
Such, sketched in hasty outline, is the symmetrical structure which the author of the Ancient Society has erected. But it has not been able wholly to withstand the shock of adverse criticism. The argument rests on too narrow a basis of investigation, and it is sometimes contradictory in its details. Its real foundation is the assumption that the nomenclatures of the classificatory systems of relationship must necessarily denote actual relationships. The truth of this assumption, however, is not self-evident. Other explanations of their meaning, some of them simpler and far more probable, have been offered. In the first place, it is evident that Morgan was misled by Fison's account of the Kamilaroi class-marriages.[204] Only in Australia was he able to find in existence, as he believed, a social organization upon the basis of sex. Yet it is by no means established that communal or even group-marriage has ever prevailed among the Australian aborigines. The criticism of Mr. Curr has raised doubt as to the trustworthiness of Fison's theory, although it may not have entirely shattered it.[205] According to Curr, the class-system is an ingenious arrangement to prevent close intermarriages. Even first cousins may not marry.[206] The Australian is very jealous of his wife, who may be betrothed to him in childhood. Wife-lending occurs, but it is not sanctioned by custom. The use of a single word for different relationships, as for father and father's brother, is not an evidence of former group-marriage, but of "poverty of language."[207] Nevertheless the Australian nomenclature is richer in terms of relationship than has been assumed by Mr. Fison. "There is hardly an Australian vocabulary in print" in which distinct translation of terms for "uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, sister-in-law, and son-in-law" do not occur.[208]
Mucke, as we have already seen, explains the classificatory system as being a survival of the primitive "space-relationships" of the primitive horde.[209] By Kautsky also its origin is traced to the horde in which "hetairistic monogamy" prevailed, and in which blood-relationship with the parents was not regarded. The classes, therefore, have nothing to do with descent, but each embraces all the individuals of a single generation under a common name.[210]
On the other hand, McLennan, in his well-known controversy with Morgan,[211] insists that the system of nomenclature is merely a "system of mutual salutations," urging the fact that most of the peoples having it possess also "some well-defined system of blood-ties."[212] Yet he believes that the Malayan nomenclature, which lies at the basis of Morgan's classificatory system, "had its origin in some early marriage-law."[213] Starcke criticises this inconsistency,[214] and comes to the conclusion, after examination of the whole question, that the "nomenclature was in every respect the faithful reflection of the juridical relations which arose between the nearest kinsfolk of each tribe. Individuals who were, according to the legal point of view, on the same level with the speaker, received the same designation."[215] In substantial harmony with this opinion are the results of Westermarck's researches.[216] According to his view the classificatory nomenclatures are merely terms of address, used to denote the sex, relative age, or the "external, or social relationship in which the speaker stands to the person whom he addresses."[217]
These criticisms have not gone unchallenged. More recent and more detailed examination of the classificatory nomenclatures has thrown new light on their meaning; although their origin in promiscuity or "group-marriage" has not been conclusively established. Thus Cunow, who in general accepts the former existence of group-marriage among various peoples, and even finds traces of it in Australia,[218] denies that the Australian class-nomenclatures are derived from original group-relations;[219] nor are they, as Westermarck believes, ever employed as mere empty terms of polite or respectful address.[220] The class-systems arose in a very early recognition of three generations or stages of seniority, in order to hinder sexual relations between relatives in the ascending and descending line.[221] For this reason, and because of the existence among some backward tribes of significant terms of kinship, individual marriage must as a general rule