te family circles, which friendly
connection would not be broken, when, later, the custom arose of the
husband leaving his group to take up his residence with his wife.

Such an arrangement must have been of immense advantage to the women.
Under the new order, a wife married to one of these young strangers
would hold a position of considerable power, that hitherto had been
impossible. We have seen that the home was made by the group-women,
and must have belonged to them; but so far, the continuance of a
daughter in the home had entailed the acceptance of her father as a
husband; the only way of escape being by capture, which--whether
forced or, as I hold, aided by the girl's desire--sent her out from
her own family as a stranger into a hostile group. Now this was
reversed, and the husband entered as the alien into her home and
family.

The following observation of Mr. Atkinson in this connection must be
quoted, as it is in strong agreement with my own view--

"As a wife who had not been captured, who, in fact, as an
actual member of the group itself, was, so to speak, the
capturer, _her position in regard to her dependent husband
would be profoundly modified_, in comparison with that of
the ordinary captive female, whereas such a captive, seized
by the usual process of hostile capture, had been a mere
chattel utterly without power; _she, as a free agent in her
own home, with her will backed by that of her brothers_"
[why not, I would ask, her sisters and her mother?] "_could
impose law on her subject spouse_."[39]

[39] _Primal Law_, p. 256.

In the foregoing sentences Mr. Atkinson affirms the fateful
significance to women of this new form of marriage. I am in
whole-hearted agreement with this opinion. I glean here and there from
the wealth of Mr. Atkinson's suggestions, statements which indicate
how nearly he came to seeing all that I am trying to establish. Yet, I
am compelled to disagree with his main argument; for always when he
touches the woman's side, he falls back at once to consider the
question in its relation to the males as the only important members in
the group. I do not, for instance, accept his view that the captive
wives were "mere chattels." They could not, under the conditions, have
been without some considerable power, even if it arose only from the
sexual dependence of their owners upon them. Much more significant,
however, is Mr. Atkinson