8} In his later years, as we have said, he
developed a very subtle and ingenious theory of the origin of exogamy,
still connecting it with scarcity of women, but making use of various
supposed stages and processes in the development of the law. That
speculation remains unpublished. To myself, the suggestion given in
'Studies in Ancient History' seems inadequate. I find it difficult to
conceive that the frequent habit of stealing women should indispose men
to marry the native women they had at hand. That this indisposition
should grow into a positive law, and the infringement of the law be
regarded as a capital offence, seems still more inconceivable. My own
impression is, that exogamy may be connected with some early superstition
or idea of which we have lost the touch, and which we can no longer
explain.

Thus far, the consideration of exogamy has thrown no clear light on the
main question--the question whether the customs of civilised races
contain relics of female kinship. On Sir Henry Maine's theory of
exogamy, that Aryan custom is unconnected with female kinship, polyandry,
and scarcity of women. On Mr. M'Lennan's theory, exogamy is the result
of scarcity of women, and implies polyandry and female kinship. But
neither theory has seemed satisfactory. Yet we need not despair of
extracting some evidence from exogamy, and that evidence, on the whole,
is in favour of Mr. M'Lennan's general hypothesis. (1.) The exogamous
prohibition must have first come into force _when kinship was only
reckoned on one side of the family_. This is obvious, whether we suppose
it to have arisen in a society which reckoned by male or by female
kinship. In the former case, the law only prohibits marriage with
persons of the father's, in the second case with persons of the mother's,
family name, and these only it recognises as kindred. (2.) Our second
point is much more important. The exogamous prohibition must first have
come into force _when kinship was so little understood that it could best
be denoted by the family name_. This would be self-evident, if we could
suppose the prohibition to be intended to prevent marriages of relations.
Had the authors of the prohibition been acquainted with the nature of
near kinships, they would simply (as we do) have forbidden marriage
between persons in those degrees. The very nature of the prohibition, on
the other hand, shows that kinship was understood in a manner all unlike
our moder