I do not, of course, deny that the tie which bound the children to the mother was much more intimate and more lasting than that which bound them to the father. But it seems to me that the only result to which a critical investigation of facts can lead us is, that in all probability there has been no stage of human development when marriage has not existed, and that the father has always been, as a rule, the protector of his family. Human marriage appears, then, to be an inheritance from some ape-like progenitor. CHAPTER IV A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY The inference drawn in the last chapter is opposed to the view held by most sociologists who have written upon early history. According to them, man lived originally in a state of promiscuity. This is the opinion of Bachofen, McLennan, Morgan, Lubbock, Bastian, Giraud-Teulon, Lippert, Kohler, Post, Wilken, and several other writers.[248] Although suggested at first only as a probable hypothesis, this presumption is now treated by many writers as a demonstrated truth.[249] The promiscuity of primitive man is not, however, generally considered to be perfectly indiscriminate, but limited to the individuals belonging to the same tribe. It may, therefore, perhaps be said to be a kind of marriage: polygyny combined with polyandry. Sir John Lubbock has also given it the name of “communal marriage,” indicating by this word, that all the men and women in a community were regarded as equally husbands and wives to one another. As I do not, in speaking of marriage, take into consideration unions of so indefinite a nature, this seems to be the proper place to discuss the hypothesis in question. The evidence adduced in support of it flows from two sources. First, there are, in the books of ancient writers and modern travellers, notices of some savage nations said to live promiscuously; secondly, there are some remarkable customs which are assumed to be social survivals, pointing to an earlier stage of civilization, when marriage did not exist. Let us see whether this evidence will stand the test of a critical examination. * * * * * Herodotus and Strabo inform us that, among the Massagetæ every man had his own wife, but that all the other men of the tribe were allowed to have sexual intercourse with her.[250] The Auseans, a Libyan people, had, according to the former, their wives in common;[251] and Solinus reports the same of the Garamantians of Ethiopia.[252] Community of women is, further, alleged to have occurred among the Liburnes, Galactophagi,[253] and the ancient Bohemians.[254] And Garcilasso de la Vega asserts that, among the natives of Passau in Peru, before the time of the Incas, men had no separate wives.[255]