Recently it has become the fashion among certain rationalist 
ethnographers to deny the existence of group marriage. Hence, 
the following report, which I have translated from Russkija 
Vjedomosti (Russian Gazette) *, Moscow, October 14, 1892, Old Style, 
will be of interest. Not only is group marriage, e.g., the right of 
sexual intercourse between a number of men and a number of 
women, expressly stated to be in full practice, but it is shown to 
bear a form closely approximating the punaluan marriage of the 
Hawaiians, that is, the most developed and most classical phase of 
group marriage. Whereas the typical punaluan family consisted of 
a number of brothers (natural and collateral) married to a number 
of natural and collateral sisters, on the Island of Sakhalin we find 
that a man is married to all his brothers’ wives and to all his wife’s 
sisters, which, from the female viewpoint, means that his wife has 
the right to free sexual intercourse with her husband’s brothers 
and her sisters’ husbands. Thus, the only difference between this 
and the typical form of punaluan marriage is that the husband’s 
brothers and the sisters’ husbands are not necessarily the same 
persons. 

It is to be observed, further, that the report also confirms what I 
stated in The Origin of the Family, 4th edition, pp. 98-99": that 
group marriage by no means looks like what it is fancied to be by 
the philistine in his brothel-tainted imagination; that the people 
married in groups do not lead openly anything like the life of 
depravity that the philistine leads in secret; and that this form of 

marriage, at least in those examples of it that still exist today, 
differs in practice from the loose pairing marriage, or from 
polygamy, only in that custom allows a number of cases of sexual 
intercourse which under other circumstances would be severely 
punished. The fact that the exercise of this right is gradually 
dying out only proves that this form of marriage is doomed to 
extinction, which is confirmed by the rarity of the cases met with 
now. 

For the rest, the whole description is interesting for the reason 
that it shows once again how similar, and in fundamentals 
identical, are the social institutions of these primitive people who 
are in about the same stage of development. Most of what is 
related about these Mongoloids of Sakhalin applies to the 
Dravidian tribes of India, to the South Sea Islanders at the time of 
their discovery, and to the American Indians. The report states: 

“At a meeting of the Anthropological Section of the Friends of Natural History 
Society, held in Moscow on October 10” (October 22, New Style), “N. A. Yanchuk 
reported on an interesting communication made by Mr. Sternberg on the Sakhalin 
Giliaki, a tribe that has been little investigated, and living on the cultural level of 
savages. The Giliaki know neither agriculture nor the art of pottery; they obtain 
their means of subsistence mainly by hunting and fishing; they heat water in a 
wooden trough by dropping red-hot stones into it, etc. Particularly interesting are 
their family and gens institutions. A Giliak calls not only his natural father, but all 
the latter’s brothers father; the wives of these brothers, as well as his mother’s 
sisters, he calls his mothers; and the children of all these ‘fathers’ and ‘mothers’¢ he 
calls his brothers and sisters. As is well known, a similar way of naming prevails 
among the Iroquois and other Indian tribes in North America, as well as among 
some tribes in India. Among these, however, it has long ceased to correspond to 
existing conditions, whereas among the Giliaki it serves to designate conditions that 
exist to this day. Even today every Giliak has conjugal rights to the wives of his brothers and the 
sisters of his wtfe; (at all events, the exercise of these rights is not regarded as 
a transgression ). These survivals of group marriage based on gentile organisation & 
are reminiscent of the celebrated punaluan family, which still existed in the 
Sandwich Islands in the first half of the present century. This form of family 
and gens relationship serves as the basis of the Giliaki’s social and gentile 
organisation. 

“A Giliak’s gens consists of all his father’s brothers (near and collateral, actual 

and nominal), their fathers and mothers (?),2 his brothers’ children and his own 
children. Naturally, a gens constituted in this way may have a very large number of 
members. The life of the gens proceeds on the following principles. Marriage in 
the gens is absolutely prohibited. The wife of a deceased Giliak passes, on the 
decision of the gens, to one of his brothers (natural or nominal).b The gens 
maintains all its members who are unfit to work. “There are no beggars among us,’ 
said a Giliak to the reporter: ‘if anybody is poor, the khal (gens) feeds him.’ 
Furthermore, the members of the gens are united by common sacrifices and 
festivals, a common burial ground, etc. 

“The gens guarantees the life and safety of every one of its members from attack 
by members of another gens.¢ The punitive means for this is blood revenge,? which 
owing to the influence of the Russians, has greatly subsided of late. Women are 
entirely exempt from the operation of blood revenge.—In some cases, extremely 
rare, members of other gentes are adopted by the gens. As a general rule the 
property of a deceased member must not leave the gens. In this respect, the - 
well-known rule of the Twelve Tables: ‘Si suos heredes non habet, gentiles 
familiam habento-—‘If he has no heirs, then the members of the gens shall 
inherit’ 528—is in operation in the literal sense of the word among the Giliaki. Not a 
single important event in the Giliak’s life takes place without the participation of 
the gens. Until comparatively recently, one or two generations ago, the oldest 
member of the gens was the head, the ‘starost** of the gens. At the present time, 
however, the functions of the elder of the gens are confined almost entirely to 
superintending religious rites. Often the members of the gens are scattered over 
places very remote from each other; but even though separated, they remember 
each other, visit each other, help and protect each other, etc. Incidentally, the 
Giliak does not leave his fellow-gentiles or the graves of the gens unless absolute 
necessity compels him to do so. The life of the gens has a strong impact upon 
the Giliak’s mentality, character, ethics and institutions. The habit of discussing all 
matters collectively, the necessity of having constantly to act in the interests of his 
fellow-gentiles, mutual obligation in matters of blood revenge,f the necessity and 
custom of living in large yurtas together with scores of his fellows, of living 
constantly among the people, have all served to make the Giliak sociable and 
communicative. The Giliaki are extremely hospitable, they love to entertain guests 
and to go visiting themselves. The noble custom of hospitality manifests itself 
particularly in times of need. In hard years, when the Giliak lacks food for himself 
and his dogs, he does not beg for alms; he goes off visiting, certain of finding 
sustenance—and sometimes for a fairly long period. 

“Among the Sakhalin Giliaki one rarely meets with crime due to selfish motives. 
The Giliak keeps his valuables in a shed, which is never locked. He is so sensitive to 
shame that if he is found guilty of some shameful act he goes off into the taiga and 
hangs himself. Murder among the Giliaki is very rare, and in most cases is 
committed in fits of anger: at all events it is never committed for selfish motives. In 
his relations with others the Giliak displays truthfulness, loyalty to his word and 
conscientiousness. 

“Notwithstanding their long subjection to the China-ised Manchurians and the 
corrupting influence of the colonisation’ of the Amur Region, the Giliaki in their 
morals have retained many of the virtues peculiar to primitive tribes. But the fate 
of their social system is irrevocably sealed. Another generation or two, and the 
Giliaki on the mainland will have become completely Russified, and with the 
benefits of civilisation they will acquire all its vices. The Sakhalin Giliaki, being 
more or less removed from the centres of Russian settlement, have some chance of 
preserving themselves in their purity somewhat longer. But even on them the 
Russian population is beginning to exercise its influence. From all the villages they 
travel to Nikolayevsk to make purchases or to seek employment; and every Giliak 
who returns from such employment to his native village carries with him the same 
atmosphere that the town worker carries into the Russian village. Moreover, 
employment in town, with its vicissitudes of fortune, is more and more destroying 
the primitive equality which is the predominating feature of the simple economic 
life of people like the Giliaki. 

“Mr. Sternberg’s article also contains data on the religious views of the Giliaki, 
their rites, legal institutions,» etc. It will be published in Etnografitscheskoje Obozrenie 
(Ethnographical Review).” © 

December 4, 1892