swanton: institutional marriage 219 



ANTHROPOLOGY. — Institutional marriage. J. R. Swanton, 

 Bureau of Ethnology. 



Much of ethnological investigation consists in a study of 

 various manifestations of the conscious and the habitual, and 

 the determination of the relative influence exerted by them on 

 a certain people, a certain feature of their hfe, or a certain epoch 

 of their history. We have here to deal, however, not with indi- 

 vidual consciousness and individual habit, but with collective 

 consciousness and collective habit. A study of the manifesta- 

 tions of these two forces as exhibited in almost every depart- 

 ment- of primitive life, whether material, esthetic, social, or 

 reUgious, would be both interesting and instructive. Here it 

 is proposed merely to consider the part they play in the single, 

 albeit important, institution of marriage. 



At all periods of the world's history and in all parts of the 

 world known to us man has exhibited a preference for marrying 

 among certain races, classes, or groups, and an aversion against 

 marriage in certain others. Broadly speaking there are two 

 different forms which the aversion takes — aversion towards mar- 

 riage between persons closely related by blood or supposed to 

 be so, and aversion toward marriage between those of very 

 diverse races, tribes, social status, behefs, and mentaUty gen- 

 erally. The origin of the latter is in some measure comprehen- 

 sible, but the origin of the former not so clear and it has been 

 the subject of considerable discussion. Yet the fact is well 

 known and may, for our present purpose, be assumed. Under 

 both of these aversions it must be remembered that we include, 

 not so much the aversion of certain persons to marry, as the 

 aversion to have them marry on the part of the entire com- 

 munity, the social aversion so to speak. 



Aversion to marriage beyond certain hmits operated in primi- 

 tive society to prevent many marriages from taking place out- 

 side of the tribe, and at best such marriages were confined 

 within a relatively restricted area. As national units grew 

 larger and means of communication easier this area constantly 

 expanded; it was never larger than it is today, but is still in 

 evidence as applied to certain races, peoples and reHgious sects. 



