Sir John Lubbock is likewise an adherent of the view that exogamy originates in wife-capture; but he connects his explanation with his peculiar theory of the communistic family, and it cannot therefore be accepted, if that theory is to be rejected.[361] He holds that originally all the men and women of a tribe lived in sexual communism and individual marriage was looked upon "as an infringement of communal right." But "if a man captured a woman belonging to another tribe he thereby acquired an individual and peculiar right to her, and she became his exclusively." In this way, the practice of capturing foreign wives led to individual marriage, and its evident advantages eventually produced the rule of exogamy. Accordingly, the "symbol of rape became such an important part of the wedding ceremonies, because it was the symbol of giving up the woman to become the exclusive possession of one man."[362] McLennan, however, criticises this view on the ground that "in almost all cases the form of capture is the symbol of a group act--of a siege, or a pitched battle, or an invasion of a house by an armed band." Seldom does it represent a capture by an individual. "On the one side are the kindred of the husband; on the other the kindred of the wife." Furthermore, if women were commonly captured by the men of a group or parties of them, as he justly observes, it is hard to see how an individual who had captured a woman could appropriate her more easily than he could appropriate any woman of his own group for whom he had a fancy.[363] Very different is the explanation offered by Tylor, who regards exogamy as the primitive mode of alliance and "political self-preservation." "Among tribes of low culture there is but one means known of keeping up permanent alliance, and that means is intermarriage." Often the alternative has been "marrying out" or "being killed out." Endogamy, on the other hand, "is a policy of isolation, cutting off a horde or village, even from the parent stock whence it separated."[364] That exogamy has often, perhaps generally, served the political purpose suggested by Tylor is not improbable, and his view is sustained by that of Post and Kohler;[365] but this will not account for its origin. [361] LUBBOCK, _op. cit._, 86, 98, 103, 104-43. _Cf._ the criticism of STARCKE, _op. cit._, 220, 221; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 316; MCLENNAN, _Studies_, I, 329-47. [362] STARCKE, _op. cit._, 220; LUBBOCK, _op. cit._, 109 ff. [363] MCLENNAN, _op. cit._, I, 344, 345, 329 ff. [364] _On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions_, 267, 268; _cf._ WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 316, 317. [365] KOHLER, "Indisches Ehe- und Familienrecht," _ZVR._, III, 360-62; POST, _Familienrecht_, 79, 83. TYLOR, _op. cit._, 365, 366, denies that capture and exogamy are related as cause and effect.