derings would be fixed by
the existence of other groups; for such groups would almost certainly
be mutually hostile to each other, watchfully resenting any intrusion
on their own feeding ground. A further, and more powerful, cause of
hostility would arise from the sexual antagonism of the males. Around
each group would be the band of exiled sons, haunting their former
hearth-homes, and forming a constant element of danger to the solitary
paternal tyrant. This I take to be important as we shall presently
see. For, the most urgent necessity of these young men, after the need
for food, must have been to obtain wives. This could be done only by
capturing women from one or other of the groups. The difficulties
attending such captures must have been great. It is, therefore,
probable the young men at first kept together, sharing their wives in
polyandrous union. But this condition would not continue, the group
thus formed would inevitably break up at the adult stage under the
influence of jealousy; the captured wives would be fought for and
carried off by the strongest males to form fresh groups.

In this matter I have given the opinion of Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Lang.
They hold that no permanent peaceful union could have been maintained
among the groups of young men and their captive wives. Mr. Atkinson
gives the reason--

"Their unity could only endure as long as the youthfulness
of the members necessitated union for protection, and their
immaturity prevented the full play of sexual passion." And
again: "The necessary Primal Law which alone could determine
peace within a family circle by recognising a _distinction
between female and male_ (the indispensable antecedent to a
definition of marital rights) could never have arisen in
such a body. It follows if such a law was ever evoked, it
must have been from _within the only other assembly in
existence_, viz. that headed by the solitary polygamous
patriarch."[32]

[32] _Social Origins and Primal Law_, p. 230. Mr. Atkinson
writes this to show that there can be no connection between
these groups of young males and the polyandrous marriages of
Mr. McLennan's theory. The first italics in the passage are
his own; the second are mine. Why I wish to emphasise this
point will soon be seen. I have already mentioned how I was
recommended to read _Social Origins_ to convince me of my
mistake in accept