[Spencer’s theory of exogamy.] 7. Conscious of these and other difficulties which surrounded Mr. McLennan’s explanation, Mr. Herbert Spencer suggested another theory. According to him [39] exogamy is the result of the constant inter-tribal war which prevailed in early societies. Women, like all other livestock, would be captured. A captured woman, besides her intrinsic value, has an extrinsic value: “like a native wife she serves as a slave; but, unlike a native wife, she also serves as a trophy.” Hence to marry a strange woman would be a test of valour, and non-possession of a foreign wife a sign of cowardice. The ambition, thus stimulated, would lead to the discontinuance of marriage within the tribe. This theory is, as has been shown by Mr. Starcke [40] and Dr. Westermarck, [41] open to much the same objections as that of Mr. McLennan. As before, even if it became customary to appropriate foreign women by force, we are a long way from the absolute prohibition against marrying women of the tribe. The desire of the savage for polygamy would impel him to marriage with any woman whether of the tribe or not. The women of a tribe habitually victorious in war would be condemned to enforced celibacy: a usage based on victory in war could not have extended to the vanquished: the powerful feeling against marriage with near relations could not have arisen merely from the vain desire to possess a woman as a trophy: and lastly, we have no examples of a tribe which did or does marry only captive women, or, indeed, in which such marriages are preferred. [Lubbock’s theory of exogamy.] 8. Sir John Lubbock’s [42] theory again depends on his theory of what he calls communal marriage, by which all the women of the group were at the general disposal of all the males. This, however, he thinks, would not be the case with women seized from a different tribe. This theory, so far as it is concerned with communal marriage and polyandry, is discussed elsewhere. It is enough here to say that the evidence for the existence of either among the primitive races of this part of India appears entirely insufficient, and it is difficult to understand, even if communal marriage prevailed, how women captured, as must have been the case, by the general act of members of the group, could have been protected from that form of outrage which would naturally have been their lot.