At the beginning of my stay among the tribes, I thought, as many have asserted, that polygamy was common among the Indians. The reason for this belief is simply the fact that it is extremely hard to distinguish at first between wives, concubines, and attached women—women under the protection of a man, but not necessarily in intimate relation. Inquiries do not immediately assist any conclusion. If, for example, you question one of the attached women she would merely reply, “I am the chief’s woman,” which answer would have been equally correct in either case. But on better knowledge of their languages and customs the conviction was forced on me that monogamy and not polygamy is the rule, with the exception of the chiefs north of the Japura, who have, so far as I could make out, more than one wife. Koch-GrÜnberg affirms, and other tribes told me, that among the tribes on the Tikie a chief may have four wives. This is not the case south of that river, where chiefs, like ordinary members of the tribe, have only one.

But in addition to his wife or wives, all female prisoners and any unattached women belong by right to the chief. He is their father, mother, and husband, in so far that they receive his protection, though the wife would not permit any intimacy, unless it were when she was bearing or nursing a child. These women are not to be regarded, however, as what the Witoto call rinyo kachirete, that is tribal prostitutes, although other members of the tribe beside the chief are allowed to have access to them when his consent has been gained. The prisoners certainly would be used with his permission as women of convenience. So far as I could gather the chief respects the chastity of his wards, and it is therefore unlikely that he would claim any droit de seigneur where the other women of the tribe are concerned.[257] Letourneau is responsible for the statement that “in America from the land of the Esquimaux to Patagonia, the loan of a wife is not only lawful but praiseworthy.”[258] I have never heard any suggestion of jus utendi et abutendi, and consider it unlikely in view of the Indian’s character. He is not only a jealous husband but the rights of the wife are tacitly recognised, and I should conclude that such a custom would be entirely alien to Indian nature. The same argument holds good in the case of a daughter.

To distinguish between wards and wives is so great a difficulty that I even hesitated to accept without further confirmation the account given by Wallace of polygamous practices among the Isanna and Uaenambeu tribes,[259] careful as he was over all details of things about which he had personal knowledge. But I also was told by all tribes north of the Japura that it is permissible to have more than one wife, though the first must retain the position of “mistress of the house.”[260] It possibly resolves itself into the question of whether the women greatly out-number the men at a particular period or not.

Marriage with these Indians is not a matter of any great or prolonged ceremony or even of festival. A youth marries as a matter of course when he reaches man’s estate. Till he has taken to himself a wife he must remain in some degree dependent either on his parents or the chief; for he cannot plant his own manioc or tobacco, nor can he cook his own food. He has no one whose duty it is to see that there are no thorns or jiggers in his feet, to paint him for a dance, to prepare him store of drinks. Complete independence comes only when with his own woman he can, if he so pleases, go his own way, and live in solitude out in the forest or have his own fire in the shelter of the big maloka, just as it suits his whim. To secure this independence, to get his woman, he is required in the first place to show that he is a capable hunter and warrior, that is to say he must demonstrate the fact that he can feed and protect a wife and children.[261] But there is no scheme in any way approximating to the customs of those African peoples who rule that a man must have killed his man before he can be considered a proved warrior, and qualified for matrimony. It is sufficient if he be a hunter by repute in the generality of cases, though among the Uacarra and some other tribes, as noted by Wallace, an exhibition of skill is demanded.[262] A girl of these tribes will not marry a man who did not prove a good shot in an archery trial held for the purpose of testing his prowess, the reason alleged being that he cannot be sufficiently adept to maintain a family. This is the underlying idea in all the ceremony attached to the transaction of marriage among these Indians, of a piece with all their doings and sentiments. There is no use for the unfit. It is the philosophy of the forest in practical form.

Further, in view of his prospective position as husband and father, there are certain preparations, elementary enough, to be made by the bridegroom. From the surrounding forest a plot of land must be reclaimed, the trees felled and uprooted, the soil broken and roughly tilled, for the plantation. This is an absolute necessity, the agricultural is far more vital than any housing problem, for that is a point easy enough to settle, as the intending bridegroom need not build himself a house at all, if he can obtain a corner in the great house of assembly. There is nothing to prevent him from building one on his own account if he is not content with the quarters there allotted to him, though the usual arrangement is for a man to bring his wife to live with his family rather than to start a separate establishment.

Betrothals are often made in childhood by arrangement between the parents, and occasionally a small boy is married to a small girl. This is not common, but I have seen it done in the case of a chief more than once. On one occasion that I remember it was among the Andoke, another time it was in a Boro house. The ceremony is the same as for adults, but naturally only in form. Among some tribes of the Andoke such child marriage is allowed if the boy has made a plantation and successfully hunted an animal, and either his or, more rarely, the girl’s family will admit them to joint life, and one Witoto man told me that he had been married as quite a youngster. But the general disparity of age is from five to fifteen years, for a man will choose an undeveloped girl, perhaps only nine or ten years old, and hand her over to the women of his own family.[263] The Andoke usually marry girls much younger than themselves, and I have seen a man of twenty with a tiny girl-wife hurrying after him. Undoubtedly the idea is the same as that underlying infant marriage in India, the man seeks to gain affection by association. The girl lives with him and his people, they become to all intents and purposes her people; she is trained by custom to their habits of life, must naturally imbibe their ideas, and will bring no foreign notions of manners or morals to disturb the equanimity of the common household when, in due time, she attains pubescence, and is made a wife de facto as well as de jure.[264]

In the ordinary run of events the woman invariably comes to live with the man’s family, he never goes to hers. Only in rare cases have I heard anything approaching the matrilocal customs noted among the Indians of British Guiana.[265] These cases would be exclusively when a chief, who has no son, marries his daughter to some man with a view to obtaining an heir through her. The man might be selected from friendly neighbours, or, with the approval of the tribe, an adopted son of the chief might be chosen. If the former, the bridegroom would have to leave his own people and live with his father-in-law. How exceptional this is may be judged from the fact that it is the sole circumstance of which I am aware where disregard is permitted to the prevailing rules of patrilocal and exogamous customs. This is, however, hearsay only. I never met with a case in point, though the Indians told me of it.

Individual preliminaries settled, it remains for sanction to be obtained from the chief of the girl’s household—to whom, it must be remembered, all unattached women belong—with which end in view the would-be bridegroom presents him with a pot of tobacco and one of coca.[266] He need ask no one’s consent of his own account, as in marriage the man has an absolutely free hand, unless he goes against tribal law by marrying a girl of any hostile tribe who might prove to be a danger to the community. As proof that he is a man of substance and owns a house, or has a recognised right to quarters in one, he will bring a piece of palm shingle that has been left over after the thatching, to the father of the selected damsel. He also brings a small tree cut through, to show that he has cleared and made a plantation. In both cases the form would appear to be accepted without the actuality. The father then produces some coca and tobacco. North of the Japura they will chew pataca,[267] and they will lick tobacco ceremonially together. There is no further ceremony, and a fortnight later the marriage is consummated, the girl remaining with her own people during the interval.[268]

Robuchon and Hardenburg, in dealing with this formality of presenting wood, have taken the action to be that the suitor wishes to provide his future parents-in-law with a supply of firewood. Though in other details of marriage ceremonial they are exactly correct, both these authorities seem to have mixed the idea of firewood—a matter it is never the son-in-law’s business to prepare—with this symbolic offering, which is intended to signify that his patch of ground for cultivation is prepared and only waiting for the woman to plant and cultivate it.

If the information given me about tribes north of the Japura is correct, a more primitive marriage custom still maintains among their neighbours. The suitor, accompanied by his father and other relatives, visits the father of the chosen lady. Notice of the arrival having duly been sent, the object of such a formal visit is understood, though not definitely stated beforehand. If the suggestion meets with favour the visitors are welcomed with a feast. Two or three days later, in the middle of the festivities, the bridegroom’s party suddenly kidnap the bride, without any show of opposition on the part of her friends and family. She is carried off to the visitors’ canoes, and the pair thenceforward may consider themselves to be man and wife without further ceremony.[269] Though I never met with this custom in the districts near the middle Issa and Japura rivers, all the tribes told me of it, and among the Kuretu, so I was informed, the ceremony is even more suggestive of marriage by capture, as it is a point of honour for the bride to scream and protest while the groom carries her off with mock assistance from his friends.[270]

In every marriage the contracting parties are allowed complete freedom of choice. This is absolute on the part of the man, and, with the rare exception of young girls adopted into a family with a view to marriage, equally so on the part of the woman. The unmarried women are never objects of barter. The man neither pays for his wife, nor does he receive dowry with her. With marriage he assumes entire responsibility for wife and family. Girls rarely refuse an offer made to them. They occupy an inferior position in the family compared with that of the sons. By education and custom they are subservient to the wishes of the elders. As they grow older and have to take their share of the communal work they lose what independence they had as irresponsible children. By marriage alone can the native girl obtain a corner of her own in the maloka, a desirable sleeping-place beside the fire. A man is not forced upon her against her will. One bachelor is to all intents and purposes as eligible as any other. Personal appearance, where all who attain puberty are of necessity healthy and well formed, counts for little. The battle of Eugenics is fought at birth not at marriage. Whereas a boy becomes independent almost from the date of his first breech clout, the girl has her freedom curtailed with each succeeding year. Food tabus have schooled her appetite. She has suffered the restraints of the secret lodge. Marriage is her destiny, she neither knows nor desires an alternative. Such an upbringing does not make for capriciousness where choice of a husband is concerned. She can always run away if her husband prove displeasing, but in the majority of cases, unless subjected to very decided ill-usage, it never enters into the head of any wife so to behave. Peoples who will submit to the tyranny of a few blackguardly oppressors, and make hardly an effort in self-defence, do not rebel against the obvious in everyday life. Pia, “it is so,” makes as much for demoralising inertia as Kismet. In short, there is no coercion in an Indian girl’s wedding, and equally no opportunity for original selection.

This question of personal acquiescence rules throughout their matrimonial relations, for with these Indians the marriage contract is only binding so long as husband and wife desire to be bound. Divorce is simple. For good cause shown the husband can rid himself of his wife, and be free to try for better fortune with another. He has only to bring the matter up in tobacco palaver, and if he can make good his cause he need not trouble further: he is free.[271] Infidelity, bad temper, disease, laziness, disobedience, or childlessness, is deemed a sufficiently weighty objection in a wife to warrant such action. Tribal opinion is in every case the chief criterion in the business.

On the part of the wife the matter is simpler yet. She will run away. A woman is never blamed for deserting her husband, on the presumption that such unnatural procedure could alone be due to the fact that she had been not only ill-treated but grossly ill-treated by him. For an independent woman is unknown among the Indians: if she is not under the protection of some man she is left in the lurch, and if she does not speedily find a protector must very surely die. Moreover it is obvious that when a woman runs away she must leave her children, and only gross cruelty will drive her to that.

If, on the other hand, a man divorce his wife, that is to say if he drives her away from him and so forces her out of the household, he lays himself open to severe tribal censure should the consensus of opinion be that no good cause has been shown. If upon inquiry he fails to establish a satisfactory excuse, he promptly is held up to ridicule by his fellows; he is the butt of all the women; and he will certainly find it a most difficult thing to remarry, for no woman will ever consent to be his wife. In fact, tribal censure results in the practical banishment of the offender, for his life in the tribal family will be made unendurable till such time as his offence be forgotten. The end of this persecution, and his return to tribal rights and privileges, depends entirely on his ability to prove and persuade his fellows that after all he was not the one to be blamed.

When a woman quarrels with her man, or wishes to revenge any wrong she may have suffered at his hands, real or imaginary, she will dart at the loin-cloth of the offender in the presence of the tribe and attempt to tear it away so as to expose him to his fellows. No insult could be greater, for this is the worst disgrace that can happen to a man. Should this occur, the victim must run into the forest and hide himself; nor can he return until he has beaten out a new bark loin-cloth to replace the one that was torn, and so, once more decently attired, he may come back and apologise to the tribe. The pair will then go off together into the bush, and, according to circumstances, the wrong-doer undergoes, or perhaps they mutually undergo, a very painful penance. The wronged one takes one or more of the big black stinging ants, and places them on the most sensitive and private parts of the other’s body. The sting of the virulent insects not only gives intense pain, but results in fever within twenty-four hours, and there is much swelling of the parts affected.[272] This is the recognised mode of punishment after any conjugal infidelity, or any ordinary separation; and, repentance thus very practically expressed by submission to torture, forgiveness follows and good relations are again restored.

When a man dies the top ligatures of his widow are cut as a sign of mourning, and are only replaced if she marries again. There is no prohibition against remarriage, though this is not permitted till some months after the husband’s death. As a rule, on a man’s death his widow continues to live with his people, either under the protection of the chief, or under that of her dead husband’s brother. If her own people are not hostile to the tribe into which she married she may return to them, but the probability is that the tribes will have drifted apart, even if they have not become enemies. Very frequently widows become the tribal prostitutes, a custom that is not recognised, but is tolerated, and is never practised openly or immodestly.[273]